I'm not sure everyone sees 'Market Share' as important.
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets. Those markets being cheap low profit computers and office computers - also low profit.
As long as Apple keep expanding sales of Macs, I don't think market share is that important to them. It's more important to them that they have market share in specific markets than overall perhaps - eg. in Video or Design or the tech edge. When was the last time you came across a leading Web 2.0 developer that didn't have a Mac ?
Marketshare is important for some things, and not for others.
If you can plug into some standard device, then it doesn't matter. But when a company is deciding whether to come out with a program for Windows and Mac, it can be very important.
If development costs are about the same, then the 20 times larger Windows market becomes much more attractive.
Even if we do get the program, it may lack features, come out late, lack a good manual, etc.
Look at magazines. PC mags are much larger because there are far more advertisers. That's because there is a larger audiance. I just looked at a MacUser from Oct 1992, and it has 378 pages. The MacWorlds were similar.
And those were the days when the computer industry was much smaller, with far less machines sold.
What are you talking about? I NEVER said that Apple would come out with a $999 model!
Melgross, you're right, you said this:
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
All I'm saying now, is that I hope Apple doesn't have to raise the price above $999, because raising the price of the Mini has hurt sales. I don't think anyone here wants that to happen to the MacMook as well.
Which was wrong, raising the price of the mini HAS NOT hurt sales. You also went on in following posts "implying" and listing reasons why you thought the $999 price point would remain, but it's true, you never said $1099 won't happen. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing this:
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The people who are claiming that their predictions were correct in saying that it would start at $1099, were still wrong, in a sense.
This is going to impact the MBP. Not a good thing. That's why the market has reacted badly to this. $1099 is too high, and the 2GHz model will impact the sales of the 2GHz MBP.
I wasn't wrong, in any sense. In fact, I was right, IN EVERY SENSE! You were the one who was wrong on two counts:
1. For saying price increase hurt the mini.
2. For saying that I was wrong, because "no one expected a 1.83 ghz on the base model." And I also strongly dis-agree with your statement that a $1099 price point will impact the MBP.
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
Your "rememberances" about this are not 100% but 0% accurate but you seemed more than willing to category state them as fact anyway:
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen.
The "concept" you gave that prior to Apple no one did movable windows is completely absurd and incorrect. The Raskin article talks about none of your assertions. The most relevant section was that something he thought Apple invented had already been done at PARC and that selection via click and drag (bounding box) was invented by Apple.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.
The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest.
Clearly incorrect from looking at any Smalltalk, Alto or Star screen shot which you still refuse to look at. These aren't some vague generalities describing some "concept" that Apple made as many major contributions to the development of the modern UI as PARC (an arguably true statement) but specific assertions of things that are clearly untrue.
How hard is it for you admit that you were completely wrong about Apple inventing windowing layout as you asserted?
Which was wrong, raising the price of the mini HAS NOT hurt sales. You also went on in following posts "implying" and listing reasons why you thought the $999 price point would remain, but it's true, you never said $1099 won't happen. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing this:
I wasn't wrong, in any sense. In fact, I was right, IN EVERY SENSE! You were the one who was wrong on two counts:
1. For saying price increase hurt the mini.
2. For saying that I was wrong, because "no one expected a 1.83 ghz on the base model." And I also strongly dis-agree with your statement that a $1099 price point will impact the MBP.
You took the time to bother reading back. Thanks for that.
It's too bad that Apple no longer breaks out the sales numbers of individual lines, instead just giving laptop and desktop sales, so actual *known* numbers are almost impossible to get. Estimates we see, for whatever they are worth.
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
You might also remember all of the rancor here about that price rise. People were really angry, and upset over it.
I'm not angry about the MB's lowest price, but I am upset!
I think the machines they are offering are excellent, and worth every penny. I think they will sell very well. But, I do think that they need a machine in that psychologically important "under one thousand dollar" category as well.
Thinking nine hundred and ninety nine dollars, is different from thinking one thousand and ninety nine dollars. That's why companies don't sell one thousand dollar products.
I mentioned that I was concerned about sales to school districts. Apple must compete there with Dell. Apple wins some, and loses some. A big reason is price. Apple sometimes comes a few bucks below Dell. But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
Remember all of the excitement on the boards about the possibility of $799 and $8999 Intel Macs? I said that it probably wouldn't happen. I was yelled at for that as well.
I don't remember your saying that the bottom MB would be a dual core 1.83GHz model. But, ok, I missed that, and I'm sorry about it.
But, my argument still stands. Apple should have a $999 model. I read this last night, and I agree with what he says:
But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
If a district orders 10,000 machines they certainly don't pay the retail price.
It's too bad that Apple no longer breaks out the sales numbers of individual lines, instead just giving laptop and desktop sales, so actual *known* numbers are almost impossible to get. Estimates we see, for whatever they are worth.
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
You might also remember all of the rancor here about that price rise. People were really angry, and upset over it.
People are angry and upset every time apple releases *anything*. With this release, people whine about the price increase, even though specs went way up. When they drop prices, people whine that the specs are too low. Whining on message boards is evidence of nothing beyond the fact that people are annoying prats.
Not to mention that much of the whining comes from people who would never buy a particular model anyway. "Why doesn't apple have model XYZ? Of course, I wouldn't buy one...but that model should exist!!!"
None of us know if mini sales dropped. It's meaningless to argue that they have without any evidence. I'm sure the macbook detractors will insist that nobody is buying these either (especially the black!), even though there's no facts to back it up.
Your "rememberances" about this are not 100% but 0% accurate but you seemed more than willing to category state them as fact anyway:
The "concept" you gave that prior to Apple no one did movable windows is completely absurd and incorrect. The Raskin article talks about none of your assertions. The most relevant section was that something he thought Apple invented had already been done at PARC and that selection via click and drag (bounding box) was invented by Apple.
Clearly incorrect from looking at any Smalltalk, Alto or Star screen shot which you still refuse to look at. These aren't some vague generalities describing some "concept" that Apple made as many major contributions to the development of the modern UI as PARC (an arguably true statement) but specific assertions of things that are clearly untrue.
How hard is it for you admit that you were completely wrong about Apple inventing windowing layout as you asserted?
Look, I'm not interested in having a fight with you.
But, I did go back and look at the article. Actually I remember reading it when it was first published.
Ok, You are correct.
I forgot about the earlier work. The reason is that I had used the Star for a small bit of time, and forgot that they had actually removed features when they introduced it. They had one in Brooklyn College when I took computer courses there in the mid '80's. The Star was mostly the public face of the OS at the time. I even have some of the ads in magazines I've kept for historical reasons.
But Apple invented much more than drag and drop documents. The articles I posted show that. One of those things was the Finder, not something minor (though some wish it would go away )
People are angry and upset every time apple releases *anything*. With this release, people whine about the price increase, even though specs went way up. When they drop prices, people whine that the specs are too low. Whining on message boards is evidence of nothing beyond the fact that people are annoying prats.
Not to mention that much of the whining comes from people who would never buy a particular model anyway. "Why doesn't apple have model XYZ? Of course, I wouldn't buy one...but that model should exist!!!"
None of us know if mini sales dropped. It's meaningless to argue that they have without any evidence. I'm sure the macbook detractors will insist that nobody is buying these either (especially the black!), even though there's no facts to back it up.
It's not really fair to say that people "whine". Apple, like many companies, does some wonderful things, but they also make mistakes. slavishly adhering to the company line when they do something is certainly no better than "whining".
I suppose you thought the Cube, and its price was perfectly good as well, when it came out. Many of us thought that the price was too high, and that Apple should have come out with a G3 model instead. While we will never know what would have happened if the Cube was cheaper, we do know what did happen.
I'm certainly not saying that will happen here. But, Apple is cutting a portion of the market out by this move. Even though they will likely sell a good number of these, they probably could have sold even more if they had included a less expensive model as well.
I really don't see what the big deal is about those of us who have said this. It's an opinion, just like yours.
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
And the most recent survey showed stronger than expected sales of the mini. Therefore the argument that the $100 price increase of the mini hurting its sales no longer supports the position that the $1099 price will hurt MacBook sales because it has been shown to be false.
Quote:
I think the machines they are offering are excellent, and worth every penny. I think they will sell very well. But, I do think that they need a machine in that psychologically important "under one thousand dollar" category as well.
This is a nice change in position and one few folks will actively argue against.
Quote:
I mentioned that I was concerned about sales to school districts. Apple must compete there with Dell. Apple wins some, and loses some. A big reason is price. Apple sometimes comes a few bucks below Dell. But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
Don't be too concerned. MSRP has very little to do with bulk pricing. Nobody buying 10K units will have much difficulty negotiating $100. In any case for comparable machines the Apple is cheaper than Dell (with edu discount) and it is difficult to argue that Apple can compete with Dell with a $999 notebook vs $1099 notebook when Dell has $399 notebooks for those very very budget constrained (who aren't looking at Core duo machines anyway).
Don't be too concerned. MSRP has very little to do with bulk pricing. Nobody buying 10K units will have much difficulty negotiating $100. In any case for comparable machines the Apple is cheaper than Dell (with edu discount) and it is difficult to argue that Apple can compete with Dell with a $999 notebook vs $1099 notebook when Dell has $399 notebooks for those very very budget constrained (who aren't looking at Core duo machines anyway).
Vinea [/B]
We're just going to see what happens here. Hardware costs can be difficult to throw away. Part of the cost of the contract comes from service, software, etc. But, every $100 added to the cost of the machine has to be accounted for, unless Apple is willing to lower their margins.
[B]It's not really fair to say that people "whine". Apple, like many companies, does some wonderful things, but they also make mistakes. slavishly adhering to the company line when they do something is certainly no better than "whining".
I suppose you thought the Cube, and its price was perfectly good as well, when it came out. Many of us thought that the price was too high, and that Apple should have come out with a G3 model instead. While we will never know what would have happened if the Cube was cheaper, we do know what did happen.
I'm certainly not saying that will happen here. But, Apple is cutting a portion of the market out by this move. Even though they will likely sell a good number of these, they probably could have sold even more if they had included a less expensive model as well.
I believe there are legitimate complaints and there are whines. When someone complains about a machine they've never used (like the integrated graphics), that's a whine. When people complain about missing features like pc card slots and FW800 when they've never used them and never will, that's a whine. When people complain that apple should have a $399 machine, when they would never buy one, mac OR pc, that's a whine.
Apple certainly does make mistakes. The cube was certainly one of them. I agree that it was a good box, but at a price two or three times higher than what it should have been. I don't think the current MB remotely compares to the pricing situation of the cube. The MB isn't dirt cheap, but it's a very fair price for what you get, they just don't have a model stripped of performance and features.
Sure, apple is cutting out some of the market. But we don't know how big that portion is, and how small the profit margins are. Let's not forget that Dell's stock took a big hit because they cut their profit margins to the point where there wasn't much profit left.
The current model will probably sell as fast as they can build them in the short term. I think there's a good chance apple may introduce a cheaper model down the road when sales cool off a bit. For now, if demand is huge, doesn't it make sense for apple to offer the pricier configs to early adopters and take that profit in the short term?
Sure, it's an opinion. I just don't buy "look at all the complaining" as evidence that sales will suffer.
I believe there are legitimate complaints and there are whines. When someone complains about a machine they've never used (like the integrated graphics), that's a whine. When people complain about missing features like pc card slots and FW800 when they've never used them and never will, that's a whine. When people complain that apple should have a $399 machine, when they would never buy one, mac OR pc, that's a whine.
Apple certainly does make mistakes. The cube was certainly one of them. I agree that it was a good box, but at a price two or three times higher than what it should have been. I don't think the current MB remotely compares to the pricing situation of the cube. The MB isn't dirt cheap, but it's a very fair price for what you get, they just don't have a model stripped of performance and features.
Sure, apple is cutting out some of the market. But we don't know how big that portion is, and how small the profit margins are. Let's not forget that Dell's stock took a big hit because they cut their profit margins to the point where there wasn't much profit left.
The current model will probably sell as fast as they can build them in the short term. I think there's a good chance apple may introduce a cheaper model down the road when sales cool off a bit. For now, if demand is huge, doesn't it make sense for apple to offer the pricier configs to early adopters and take that profit in the short term?
Sure, it's an opinion. I just don't buy "look at all the complaining" as evidence that sales will suffer.
Let's just be careful about how we ascribe opinions, then. I have only towers. does that mean that I am whining because I see a reason as to why I think that Apple should do something particular to a line that I don't buy? I work with the schools here in NYC. does that mean that I should have an opinion, or does it still mean that I shouldn't, because I don't by laptops for myself?
I'm just saying, that it seems that with no lower machine, Apple is missing out.
It has yet to be seen how school systems will react to a built-in video camera. Right now, cell phones, mp3 players, and anything with cameras that are not required for a class are banned in the NYC school system. I'm very interested in how these cameras will be looked at. I suspect that when we have our next computer technology meeting later this month, it will be discussed.
It has yet to be seen how school systems will react to a built-in video camera. Right now, cell phones, mp3 players, and anything with cameras that are not required for a class are banned in the NYC school system. I'm very interested in how these cameras will be looked at. I suspect that when we have our next computer technology meeting later this month, it will be discussed. [/B]
For a bulk buyer, I assume Apple would be willing to find a solution, whether that's via hardware or software.
It also should be noted that apple still has the ibook available for educational buyers. (in addition to the fact that apple can negotiate whatever price they want on bulk orders)
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
Raskin's thesis is purely about graphical interfaces, not the windowing concepts that Xerox and Apple would later develop.
We had Xerox Stars in the company I worked at in the 80s and they were a lot more functional than the Macs, mostly because of the huge 19" portrait screens as opposed to the weeny Mac screens. All our manuals were produced on Stars up until about 1989 or so when we switched to Ventura on GEM and our own in-house text based word processor on DOS (which I co-wrote).
Claiming Apple invented menus and overlapping windows just isn't true.
Marketshare is important for some things, and not for others.
If you can plug into some standard device, then it doesn't matter. But when a company is deciding whether to come out with a program for Windows and Mac, it can be very important.
If development costs are about the same, then the 20 times larger Windows market becomes much more attractive.
It's not always 20 times larger though.
If your application is a general application that the whole market uses then that's true but there's niches where the Mac isn't up against a 20 times larger market and vice versa.
From a developers point of view, the Windows market may also be 20 times larger but there's also 100 times as many competitors too. All trying to beat you and all trying to grab the attention of the users above the din. Sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in an ocean.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Even if we do get the program, it may lack features, come out late, lack a good manual, etc.
Look at magazines. PC mags are much larger because there are far more advertisers. That's because there is a larger audiance. I just looked at a MacUser from Oct 1992, and it has 378 pages. The MacWorlds were similar.
That's also because their are more companies trying to shout over their competitors and so they HAVE to advertise. Plus, if you look at the adverts, it's mostly hardware companies trying to sell their beige boxes v someone elses beige boxes, or endless component build-your-own lists. That's something you just don't get in Mac mags.
Back in 2001 when I launched a bike magazine we made the aesthetic call of not including any mail order advertising. The mag ended up thinner (and so did I!) but it ended up a nice looking mag. The bike mags before us were a bit like PC mags. Ours was a Mac mag. We had crap market share, but that's not what we were after. We were after the quality end of the market, not the general market. Advertisers didn't get us at the start but slowly they came around.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And those were the days when the computer industry was much smaller, with far less machines sold.
I wish marketshare didn't matter.
It doesn't, if your product is right and your company is set up right. Ferrari has crap market share. I'm sure they aren't complaining though. Apple aren't Ferrari but a drive for overall market share would be misguided.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Which is what form ?
I just posted it above, but, I'll give it to you here.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gui_raskin2
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm not sure everyone sees 'Market Share' as important.
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets. Those markets being cheap low profit computers and office computers - also low profit.
As long as Apple keep expanding sales of Macs, I don't think market share is that important to them. It's more important to them that they have market share in specific markets than overall perhaps - eg. in Video or Design or the tech edge. When was the last time you came across a leading Web 2.0 developer that didn't have a Mac ?
Marketshare is important for some things, and not for others.
If you can plug into some standard device, then it doesn't matter. But when a company is deciding whether to come out with a program for Windows and Mac, it can be very important.
If development costs are about the same, then the 20 times larger Windows market becomes much more attractive.
Even if we do get the program, it may lack features, come out late, lack a good manual, etc.
Look at magazines. PC mags are much larger because there are far more advertisers. That's because there is a larger audiance. I just looked at a MacUser from Oct 1992, and it has 378 pages. The MacWorlds were similar.
And those were the days when the computer industry was much smaller, with far less machines sold.
I wish marketshare didn't matter.
Originally posted by Banjo
Yes...but it's STILL cheaper to buy a white MacBook and upgrade the HD, idiot!
But if you want a Black one, you might ruin the screen with that spray can
Originally posted by melgross
What are you talking about? I NEVER said that Apple would come out with a $999 model!
Melgross, you're right, you said this:
Originally posted by melgross
All I'm saying now, is that I hope Apple doesn't have to raise the price above $999, because raising the price of the Mini has hurt sales. I don't think anyone here wants that to happen to the MacMook as well.
Which was wrong, raising the price of the mini HAS NOT hurt sales. You also went on in following posts "implying" and listing reasons why you thought the $999 price point would remain, but it's true, you never said $1099 won't happen. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing this:
Originally posted by melgross
The people who are claiming that their predictions were correct in saying that it would start at $1099, were still wrong, in a sense.
This is going to impact the MBP. Not a good thing. That's why the market has reacted badly to this. $1099 is too high, and the 2GHz model will impact the sales of the 2GHz MBP.
I wasn't wrong, in any sense. In fact, I was right, IN EVERY SENSE! You were the one who was wrong on two counts:
1. For saying price increase hurt the mini.
2. For saying that I was wrong, because "no one expected a 1.83 ghz on the base model." And I also strongly dis-agree with your statement that a $1099 price point will impact the MBP.
Originally posted by melgross
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gui_raskin2 [/B]
Your "rememberances" about this are not 100% but 0% accurate but you seemed more than willing to category state them as fact anyway:
Originally posted by melgross
If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen.
The "concept" you gave that prior to Apple no one did movable windows is completely absurd and incorrect. The Raskin article talks about none of your assertions. The most relevant section was that something he thought Apple invented had already been done at PARC and that selection via click and drag (bounding box) was invented by Apple.
Originally posted by melgross
Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.
The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest.
Clearly incorrect from looking at any Smalltalk, Alto or Star screen shot which you still refuse to look at. These aren't some vague generalities describing some "concept" that Apple made as many major contributions to the development of the modern UI as PARC (an arguably true statement) but specific assertions of things that are clearly untrue.
How hard is it for you admit that you were completely wrong about Apple inventing windowing layout as you asserted?
Alto pics:
http://media.arstechnica.com/images/gui/7-AltoST.jpg
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3
Star pics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...tar_desktop.jpg
Apple pics:
http://www.pegasus3d.com/apple_screens.html
Originally posted by melgross
When someone points out something that is obviously correct, I will always admit my error.
Something also apparently incorrect that you've asserted recently.
Vinea
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2
Originally posted by solsun
Melgross, you're right, you said this:
Which was wrong, raising the price of the mini HAS NOT hurt sales. You also went on in following posts "implying" and listing reasons why you thought the $999 price point would remain, but it's true, you never said $1099 won't happen. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing this:
I wasn't wrong, in any sense. In fact, I was right, IN EVERY SENSE! You were the one who was wrong on two counts:
1. For saying price increase hurt the mini.
2. For saying that I was wrong, because "no one expected a 1.83 ghz on the base model." And I also strongly dis-agree with your statement that a $1099 price point will impact the MBP.
You took the time to bother reading back. Thanks for that.
It's too bad that Apple no longer breaks out the sales numbers of individual lines, instead just giving laptop and desktop sales, so actual *known* numbers are almost impossible to get. Estimates we see, for whatever they are worth.
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
You might also remember all of the rancor here about that price rise. People were really angry, and upset over it.
I'm not angry about the MB's lowest price, but I am upset!
I think the machines they are offering are excellent, and worth every penny. I think they will sell very well. But, I do think that they need a machine in that psychologically important "under one thousand dollar" category as well.
Thinking nine hundred and ninety nine dollars, is different from thinking one thousand and ninety nine dollars. That's why companies don't sell one thousand dollar products.
I mentioned that I was concerned about sales to school districts. Apple must compete there with Dell. Apple wins some, and loses some. A big reason is price. Apple sometimes comes a few bucks below Dell. But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
Remember all of the excitement on the boards about the possibility of $799 and $8999 Intel Macs? I said that it probably wouldn't happen. I was yelled at for that as well.
I don't remember your saying that the bottom MB would be a dual core 1.83GHz model. But, ok, I missed that, and I'm sorry about it.
But, my argument still stands. Apple should have a $999 model. I read this last night, and I agree with what he says:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...book/index.php
Originally posted by melgross
But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
If a district orders 10,000 machines they certainly don't pay the retail price.
Originally posted by melgross
It's too bad that Apple no longer breaks out the sales numbers of individual lines, instead just giving laptop and desktop sales, so actual *known* numbers are almost impossible to get. Estimates we see, for whatever they are worth.
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
You might also remember all of the rancor here about that price rise. People were really angry, and upset over it.
People are angry and upset every time apple releases *anything*. With this release, people whine about the price increase, even though specs went way up. When they drop prices, people whine that the specs are too low. Whining on message boards is evidence of nothing beyond the fact that people are annoying prats.
Not to mention that much of the whining comes from people who would never buy a particular model anyway. "Why doesn't apple have model XYZ? Of course, I wouldn't buy one...but that model should exist!!!"
None of us know if mini sales dropped. It's meaningless to argue that they have without any evidence. I'm sure the macbook detractors will insist that nobody is buying these either (especially the black!), even though there's no facts to back it up.
Originally posted by vinea
Your "rememberances" about this are not 100% but 0% accurate but you seemed more than willing to category state them as fact anyway:
The "concept" you gave that prior to Apple no one did movable windows is completely absurd and incorrect. The Raskin article talks about none of your assertions. The most relevant section was that something he thought Apple invented had already been done at PARC and that selection via click and drag (bounding box) was invented by Apple.
Clearly incorrect from looking at any Smalltalk, Alto or Star screen shot which you still refuse to look at. These aren't some vague generalities describing some "concept" that Apple made as many major contributions to the development of the modern UI as PARC (an arguably true statement) but specific assertions of things that are clearly untrue.
How hard is it for you admit that you were completely wrong about Apple inventing windowing layout as you asserted?
Alto pics:
http://media.arstechnica.com/images/gui/7-AltoST.jpg
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3
Star pics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...tar_desktop.jpg
Apple pics:
http://www.pegasus3d.com/apple_screens.html
Something also apparently incorrect that you've asserted recently.
Vinea
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2
Look, I'm not interested in having a fight with you.
But, I did go back and look at the article. Actually I remember reading it when it was first published.
Ok, You are correct.
I forgot about the earlier work. The reason is that I had used the Star for a small bit of time, and forgot that they had actually removed features when they introduced it. They had one in Brooklyn College when I took computer courses there in the mid '80's. The Star was mostly the public face of the OS at the time. I even have some of the ads in magazines I've kept for historical reasons.
But Apple invented much more than drag and drop documents. The articles I posted show that. One of those things was the Finder, not something minor (though some wish it would go away
Originally posted by minderbinder
People are angry and upset every time apple releases *anything*. With this release, people whine about the price increase, even though specs went way up. When they drop prices, people whine that the specs are too low. Whining on message boards is evidence of nothing beyond the fact that people are annoying prats.
Not to mention that much of the whining comes from people who would never buy a particular model anyway. "Why doesn't apple have model XYZ? Of course, I wouldn't buy one...but that model should exist!!!"
None of us know if mini sales dropped. It's meaningless to argue that they have without any evidence. I'm sure the macbook detractors will insist that nobody is buying these either (especially the black!), even though there's no facts to back it up.
It's not really fair to say that people "whine". Apple, like many companies, does some wonderful things, but they also make mistakes. slavishly adhering to the company line when they do something is certainly no better than "whining".
I suppose you thought the Cube, and its price was perfectly good as well, when it came out. Many of us thought that the price was too high, and that Apple should have come out with a G3 model instead. While we will never know what would have happened if the Cube was cheaper, we do know what did happen.
I'm certainly not saying that will happen here. But, Apple is cutting a portion of the market out by this move. Even though they will likely sell a good number of these, they probably could have sold even more if they had included a less expensive model as well.
I really don't see what the big deal is about those of us who have said this. It's an opinion, just like yours.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm just going by what I read about store surveys dome by those companies that get paid to do such things, and that Apple itself quotes, when the numbers suit it to do so, as Jobs did at MacWorld when he quoted NPD about the iPod numbers.
And the most recent survey showed stronger than expected sales of the mini. Therefore the argument that the $100 price increase of the mini hurting its sales no longer supports the position that the $1099 price will hurt MacBook sales because it has been shown to be false.
I think the machines they are offering are excellent, and worth every penny. I think they will sell very well. But, I do think that they need a machine in that psychologically important "under one thousand dollar" category as well.
This is a nice change in position and one few folks will actively argue against.
I mentioned that I was concerned about sales to school districts. Apple must compete there with Dell. Apple wins some, and loses some. A big reason is price. Apple sometimes comes a few bucks below Dell. But, if a district is going to order 10,000 machines, a fair average of those numbers, then that extra $100 comes out to $1,000,000. That's a lot of money for a school contract. That's why I'm concerned.
Don't be too concerned. MSRP has very little to do with bulk pricing. Nobody buying 10K units will have much difficulty negotiating $100. In any case for comparable machines the Apple is cheaper than Dell (with edu discount) and it is difficult to argue that Apple can compete with Dell with a $999 notebook vs $1099 notebook when Dell has $399 notebooks for those very very budget constrained (who aren't looking at Core duo machines anyway).
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Don't be too concerned. MSRP has very little to do with bulk pricing. Nobody buying 10K units will have much difficulty negotiating $100. In any case for comparable machines the Apple is cheaper than Dell (with edu discount) and it is difficult to argue that Apple can compete with Dell with a $999 notebook vs $1099 notebook when Dell has $399 notebooks for those very very budget constrained (who aren't looking at Core duo machines anyway).
Vinea [/B]
We're just going to see what happens here. Hardware costs can be difficult to throw away. Part of the cost of the contract comes from service, software, etc. But, every $100 added to the cost of the machine has to be accounted for, unless Apple is willing to lower their margins.
Originally posted by minderbinder
None of us know if mini sales dropped.
Well we don't have hard data, but the most recent anlayst checks indicate that mini demand is "stronger than expected."
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1727
Originally posted by melgross
[B]It's not really fair to say that people "whine". Apple, like many companies, does some wonderful things, but they also make mistakes. slavishly adhering to the company line when they do something is certainly no better than "whining".
I suppose you thought the Cube, and its price was perfectly good as well, when it came out. Many of us thought that the price was too high, and that Apple should have come out with a G3 model instead. While we will never know what would have happened if the Cube was cheaper, we do know what did happen.
I'm certainly not saying that will happen here. But, Apple is cutting a portion of the market out by this move. Even though they will likely sell a good number of these, they probably could have sold even more if they had included a less expensive model as well.
I believe there are legitimate complaints and there are whines. When someone complains about a machine they've never used (like the integrated graphics), that's a whine. When people complain about missing features like pc card slots and FW800 when they've never used them and never will, that's a whine. When people complain that apple should have a $399 machine, when they would never buy one, mac OR pc, that's a whine.
Apple certainly does make mistakes. The cube was certainly one of them. I agree that it was a good box, but at a price two or three times higher than what it should have been. I don't think the current MB remotely compares to the pricing situation of the cube. The MB isn't dirt cheap, but it's a very fair price for what you get, they just don't have a model stripped of performance and features.
Sure, apple is cutting out some of the market. But we don't know how big that portion is, and how small the profit margins are. Let's not forget that Dell's stock took a big hit because they cut their profit margins to the point where there wasn't much profit left.
The current model will probably sell as fast as they can build them in the short term. I think there's a good chance apple may introduce a cheaper model down the road when sales cool off a bit. For now, if demand is huge, doesn't it make sense for apple to offer the pricier configs to early adopters and take that profit in the short term?
Sure, it's an opinion. I just don't buy "look at all the complaining" as evidence that sales will suffer.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I believe there are legitimate complaints and there are whines. When someone complains about a machine they've never used (like the integrated graphics), that's a whine. When people complain about missing features like pc card slots and FW800 when they've never used them and never will, that's a whine. When people complain that apple should have a $399 machine, when they would never buy one, mac OR pc, that's a whine.
Apple certainly does make mistakes. The cube was certainly one of them. I agree that it was a good box, but at a price two or three times higher than what it should have been. I don't think the current MB remotely compares to the pricing situation of the cube. The MB isn't dirt cheap, but it's a very fair price for what you get, they just don't have a model stripped of performance and features.
Sure, apple is cutting out some of the market. But we don't know how big that portion is, and how small the profit margins are. Let's not forget that Dell's stock took a big hit because they cut their profit margins to the point where there wasn't much profit left.
The current model will probably sell as fast as they can build them in the short term. I think there's a good chance apple may introduce a cheaper model down the road when sales cool off a bit. For now, if demand is huge, doesn't it make sense for apple to offer the pricier configs to early adopters and take that profit in the short term?
Sure, it's an opinion. I just don't buy "look at all the complaining" as evidence that sales will suffer.
Let's just be careful about how we ascribe opinions, then. I have only towers. does that mean that I am whining because I see a reason as to why I think that Apple should do something particular to a line that I don't buy? I work with the schools here in NYC. does that mean that I should have an opinion, or does it still mean that I shouldn't, because I don't by laptops for myself?
I'm just saying, that it seems that with no lower machine, Apple is missing out.
It has yet to be seen how school systems will react to a built-in video camera. Right now, cell phones, mp3 players, and anything with cameras that are not required for a class are banned in the NYC school system. I'm very interested in how these cameras will be looked at. I suspect that when we have our next computer technology meeting later this month, it will be discussed.
Originally posted by melgross
It has yet to be seen how school systems will react to a built-in video camera. Right now, cell phones, mp3 players, and anything with cameras that are not required for a class are banned in the NYC school system. I'm very interested in how these cameras will be looked at. I suspect that when we have our next computer technology meeting later this month, it will be discussed. [/B]
For a bulk buyer, I assume Apple would be willing to find a solution, whether that's via hardware or software.
It also should be noted that apple still has the ibook available for educational buyers. (in addition to the fact that apple can negotiate whatever price they want on bulk orders)
Originally posted by melgross
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gui_raskin2
Raskin's thesis is purely about graphical interfaces, not the windowing concepts that Xerox and Apple would later develop.
We had Xerox Stars in the company I worked at in the 80s and they were a lot more functional than the Macs, mostly because of the huge 19" portrait screens as opposed to the weeny Mac screens. All our manuals were produced on Stars up until about 1989 or so when we switched to Ventura on GEM and our own in-house text based word processor on DOS (which I co-wrote).
Claiming Apple invented menus and overlapping windows just isn't true.
Originally posted by melgross
Marketshare is important for some things, and not for others.
If you can plug into some standard device, then it doesn't matter. But when a company is deciding whether to come out with a program for Windows and Mac, it can be very important.
If development costs are about the same, then the 20 times larger Windows market becomes much more attractive.
It's not always 20 times larger though.
If your application is a general application that the whole market uses then that's true but there's niches where the Mac isn't up against a 20 times larger market and vice versa.
From a developers point of view, the Windows market may also be 20 times larger but there's also 100 times as many competitors too. All trying to beat you and all trying to grab the attention of the users above the din. Sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in an ocean.
Originally posted by melgross
Even if we do get the program, it may lack features, come out late, lack a good manual, etc.
Look at magazines. PC mags are much larger because there are far more advertisers. That's because there is a larger audiance. I just looked at a MacUser from Oct 1992, and it has 378 pages. The MacWorlds were similar.
That's also because their are more companies trying to shout over their competitors and so they HAVE to advertise. Plus, if you look at the adverts, it's mostly hardware companies trying to sell their beige boxes v someone elses beige boxes, or endless component build-your-own lists. That's something you just don't get in Mac mags.
Back in 2001 when I launched a bike magazine we made the aesthetic call of not including any mail order advertising. The mag ended up thinner (and so did I!) but it ended up a nice looking mag. The bike mags before us were a bit like PC mags. Ours was a Mac mag. We had crap market share, but that's not what we were after. We were after the quality end of the market, not the general market. Advertisers didn't get us at the start but slowly they came around.
Originally posted by melgross
And those were the days when the computer industry was much smaller, with far less machines sold.
I wish marketshare didn't matter.
It doesn't, if your product is right and your company is set up right. Ferrari has crap market share. I'm sure they aren't complaining though. Apple aren't Ferrari but a drive for overall market share would be misguided.
Originally posted by Archstudent
comparing the car industry to the computer industry is a bad comparison
Parroting that line without understanding the comparison is also bad.