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.
The Stars were pretty expensive machines, so, sure, they had a 19" screen, which was very expensive at the time, vs the Mac's too small version.
But, the Mac's GUI was still better than that of the star. And, I already gave some points to Vinea, so we can let that go. But, like it or not, the Mac was a big advance.
Parroting that line without understanding the comparison is also bad.
I agree that there are other valid analogies in other industries. Apple should do what they can to grow their market share, but they don't really need to address 100% of the market with their products.
Should McDonalds sell caviar? Should high end restaurants sell big macs and fries?
I think there's an argument to be made for apple addressing the demand for *quality* computers, and ignoring to some degree the consumer who will only buy the cheapest product with no regard to price. Apple is never going to be able to win that contest, and if they did there would be no profit in it. So why should they bother?
Especially if the mac keeps moving toward convergence of audio, video, and telecommunications, which need a certain minimum performance spec to run well. Crappy machines that don't perform just water down the selling points.
If your application is a general application that the whole market uses then that's true
Exactly. So, if the whole market uses the application, it's probably useful, yes? And it would be nice if there were a version for OS X that is fully featured, stable, swift and well supported. Higher market share for OS X helps to ensure this.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
hear hear.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
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.
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
I'm not saying that Apple aren't selling a lot of computers. Clearly they are. But they could sell a lot more, I'm sure of it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Archstudent
comparing the car industry to the computer industry is a bad comparison
Indeed. Please, let's not go down that road. (oops, bad pun)
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
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.
Your magazine was just one product. Apple has several products, and could have more, if they so decided.
I'm guessing your magazine was more an enthusiast thing? If you'd had the motivation/will, you could have released another Bike magazine with a different feel, to try and capture the rest of the market.
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Then buy a macbook pro or a desktop. have fun playing on 13.3"
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
The huge section is folks that spend $100 less on laptops?
Otherwise we're talking about the low end $500 laptops.
Other than the ultra portable market Apple isn't ignoring many folks on a capability basis. On a price basis yes, but they need the margin they make on HW because of their much larger R&D requirements.
Quote:
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
I'm not saying that Apple aren't selling a lot of computers. Clearly they are. But they could sell a lot more, I'm sure of it.
They could but they'd become a different business competing with folks already well established in that market segment.
Quote:
Indeed. Please, let's not go down that road. (oops, bad pun)
Regardless of analogy it is true that businesses address different market segments. High end manufacturers do not address the commodity market with product because they tend to suck at it.
Given the corporate culture Apple would really suck at trying to beat Dell on Dell's turf.
Pursuing margin vs share is a viable business model. Pursuing new markets vs the saturated PC market is also a viable model for growth.
The opportunity costs of pursuing PC market share at the expense of margin and increasing corporate emphasis on Macs (which is already very high) means less captial dollars and brain power allocated to emerging markets where rapid growth is more likely.
I like Dell as a consumer because they drive competition on price. But I also like innovators that risk doing new things and adopting new technologies. This is much easier with a smaller user base and product line.
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
]
Which huge portion of the market do you feel apple is ignoring?
PC makers are big enough that they can afford to have niche models, even if those niches don't make them much (if any) of a profit. The existence of a product may show demand, it may also show a company trying to create demand with a new product that others aren't offering yet. And while there may be demand, that demand may be tiny and that product may be unprofitable.
Here's a hypothetical. If a certain subgroup of PC makes up 5% of PC's sold, if apple were to make that subgroup, they'd be looking at 5% of 5%. Does it make sense for apple to make an effort for such a small niche?
It DOES make sense to say no to customers if that subgroup of customers is so small that revenues from them don't cover the R&D and support for that product.
Here's an analogy you're sure to hate:
One shirt company makes shirts through XXXL.
Another makes shirts through XXXXL.
The first company is saying no to a segment of the market. But if only 1% of shirts sold are XXXXL, are they really missing out, or are they smarter by focusing their resources on the other 99%? And even if 1% makes sense, you must admit there's SOME limit at which any product becomes not worth making, right?
Without knowing how big a seller any given product is (which could be a configuration or a price point), we have no idea if apple is making a mistake by not addressing that segment of the market. It seems especially silly to declare that segment "huge" without any sort of numbers.
I'm guessing your magazine was more an enthusiast thing? If you'd had the motivation/will, you could have released another Bike magazine with a different feel, to try and capture the rest of the market.
Any bike magazine is an enthusiast thing. It's a very small niche. And we were a small niche in that niche. If you want to sell a lot of dead trees you do a womans mag or a Hello magazine clone.
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
Apart from that, you hit the nail on the head " If you'd had the motivation/will". I'm not sure Apple have that. I don't think they see any need to compete in the cheap end of the market and have no motivation or will to do so. Financially they are doing great doing just what they want, how they want. Same thing with me - I have my ideals and I don't need to do something I don't want to. eg. I'm not going to cheapen myself by writing Windows software. Same with many companies offering premium products.
I think Apple are right not to compete in the low end too. Just look at the trouble Dell is heading into.
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.
No, it's not always 20 times. It can be five times. In the case of PS it's almost 4 times cuttently.
But it's not always 100 times as many developers either. It could be five times as many as well. Or none.
If the big fish in the small pond analogy were accurite, then there would have been a stampede over to Mac development, Therer hasn't been. We've seen a few more, as sales, and marketshare increase. but, we've also seen them continue to leave. And we see Mac developers continue to offer their products to the Windows market.
Quote:
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.
Well, we can't have all of those computer manufacturers offering us different Macs, right? But, we don't see many ads in the Mac magazines at all.
There are many more magazines out there than the consumer mags. The industry mags don't advertise Mac products, because there isn't a market for them there. For many years Apple has been accused of advertising to the already converted, byt just advertising in Mac publications. That's true, though now, they have spread out somewhat.
Quote:
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.
What happened? I subscribe to two home machinist magazines. Neither accepted ads, at first. They polled the subscribers, and we voted to have ads. The mags improved tremdously. with the added income, they were able to go to color, which helps when seeing pictures of work in progress on machine tools, and the editorial content doubled.
In and of themselves, ads are not a bad thing.
Quote:
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.
Marketshare doesn't matter for cars.
The Ferrari uses the same fuel. The same oil. The same water and anti-freeze for the radiator. It uses the same air in the tires. The tires themselves can be bought from several makers. It travels on the same roads, and carries the same people.
The Mac uses different software, often hardware won't work with it because of driver issues, though, hopefully, hardware compatability itself will be a thing of the past.
How many video cards can we buy for the tower, as an example? Other cards? Do we have the same access to all of the same software?
Sure, I know that much Mac software is of a high quality, but the choice isn't there. While some may not care, some do.
The huge section is folks that spend $100 less on laptops?
Otherwise we're talking about the low end $500 laptops.
Er? Are you saying that all laptops that are less than $1099 are either $999 or $500?? What about all the ones in between?
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Other than the ultra portable market Apple isn't ignoring many folks on a capability basis. On a price basis yes, but they need the margin they make on HW because of their much larger R&D requirements.
No. It's not just a price basis. All the laptops Apple make are amazing value for money. But they all include Front Row, iSight, and Core Duo processors, which are high-end.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Regardless of analogy it is true that businesses address different market segments. High end manufacturers do not address the commodity market with product because they tend to suck at it.
The problem with the car analogy is that car manufactures do not need to attract and retain developers, or try and ensure that people don't make Windows IE only websites.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Given the corporate culture Apple would really suck at trying to beat Dell on Dell's turf.
Given that all the Intel laptops that Apple have delivered actually beat the Dell equivalents when it comes to price, I have to disagree. To make the Apple laptops cheaper, you put cheaper electronics inside. It isn't hard.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Pursuing new markets vs the saturated PC market is also a viable model for growth.
Only if you already own a massive chunk of that market.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
The opportunity costs of pursuing PC market share at the expense of margin and increasing corporate emphasis on Macs (which is already very high) means less captial dollars and brain power allocated to emerging markets where rapid growth is more likely.
I wouldn't advocate a big cut in Apple's margins. It's more about offering cheaper models by putting cheaper components inside (= about the same margins). If I was in charge at Apple, I'd probably aim for 25% margins.
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
Any bike magazine is an enthusiast thing. It's a very small niche. And we were a small niche in that niche. If you want to sell a lot of dead trees you do a womans mag or a Hello magazine clone.
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
Apart from that, you hit the nail on the head " If you'd had the motivation/will". I'm not sure Apple have that. I don't think they see any need to compete in the cheap end of the market and have no motivation or will to do so. Financially they are doing great doing just what they want, how they want. Same thing with me - I have my ideals and I don't need to do something I don't want to. eg. I'm not going to cheapen myself by writing Windows software. Same with many companies offering premium products.
I think Apple are right not to compete in the low end too. Just look at the trouble Dell is heading into.
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
If you would like to read a good review if the iMac and such, then read this. By the way, notice that he has trouble letting his feelings out.
like, the macbook is awesome, but the black case def. doesnt look that cool...least on the website anyways
has anybody cheked out those HP notebooks w/ the high def screens? it looks like ur looking thru glass. is that what the glossy option will look like on the black MB?
No, it's not always 20 times. It can be five times. In the case of PS it's almost 4 times cuttently.
But it's not always 100 times as many developers either. It could be five times as many as well. Or none.
It's pretty rare that there's NOT a competitor in the Windows market, even in very small niches.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If the big fish in the small pond analogy were accurite, then there would have been a stampede over to Mac development, Therer hasn't been. We've seen a few more, as sales, and marketshare increase. but, we've also seen them continue to leave. And we see Mac developers continue to offer their products to the Windows market.
It may make sense to offer your product off the back of your Mac development or not. eg. BareBones do really well out of Mac development without a Windows product. Same with Delicious Monster or Omni.
Sure, they aren't Adobe or Microsoft, but they don't want to be. They want to do their thing and not have to put up with the crap working in a large company or market brings. Arguably the software is better than Adobe or Microsoft produce with their cross platform approach too. I'd bet the small developers are more profitable too once they reach a certain number of sales since they aren't spending millions on development.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Well, we can't have all of those computer manufacturers offering us different Macs, right? But, we don't see many ads in the Mac magazines at all.
There are many more magazines out there than the consumer mags. The industry mags don't advertise Mac products, because there isn't a market for them there. For many years Apple has been accused of advertising to the already converted, byt just advertising in Mac publications. That's true, though now, they have spread out somewhat.
Maybe true in the US but Mac mags here have kept a pretty good ad/content ratio. Industry mags have never really carried Apple ads. Sales of mags have dropped across the industry by about a third since 2000 though.
The problem with the Mac software industry though is there's a lot of small developers and startups that do really well marketing on the net that don't need to advertise in mags and pay, for example, £3500 for a full page ad in MacWorld UK.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
What happened? I subscribe to two home machinist magazines. Neither accepted ads, at first. They polled the subscribers, and we voted to have ads. The mags improved tremdously. with the added income, they were able to go to color, which helps when seeing pictures of work in progress on machine tools, and the editorial content doubled.
In and of themselves, ads are not a bad thing.
It's just had it's 5th anniversary issue. Sells about twice it sold in 2001. Pages up from 100 or so to 148. Ad content still free of mail order ads and usually hits the 25% ad to content ratio we set back in the beginning. It's always been high gloss 90g wood free paper and that's it's selling point. It's a mag to read on the loo, not wipe your arse with.
I don't do anything with the mag though now - I prefer the web to paper. Still own a third of it though. :-)
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Marketshare doesn't matter for cars.
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
Well, what you don't seem to get, is that people who think the car analogy is a bad one think that Apple are mistaken to be happy with their market share.
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
So you'd risk your successful product line and market by entering in to another established highly competitive low-margin saturated market that you don't really want to be in anyway?
Really, I don't think Apple think that's a good bet. Some of it's culture, some of it's good business sense.
The Ferrari uses the same fuel. The same oil. The same water and anti-freeze for the radiator. It uses the same air in the tires. The tires themselves can be bought from several makers. It travels on the same roads, and carries the same people.
That's not always the case. My car uses different coolant than most other cars, I've never seen it at an auto store, only at the dealer or special order. Same with the wiper blades. \ And yes, that's a pain in the ass.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Given that all the Intel laptops that Apple have delivered actually beat the Dell equivalents when it comes to price, I have to disagree. To make the Apple laptops cheaper, you put cheaper electronics inside. It isn't hard.
But that only holds up to a certain extent. You go to core solo, and make other cuts, it doesn't really save that much on the cost of the machine. Apple could make a MB that's a little cheaper, but to go much lower they'd have to take a smaller profit margin at some point. And don't forget, apple has the option of doing this later, after all the hungry early adopters have bought.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
I can't think of an example of a company that's very successful at selling both high end and bargain basement commodity items. Who's doing this?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
The mini could be way more low end, they could put in a celeron or some other awful processor and cut more features. But it still wouldn't be as cheap as the cheapest pc's you can find, and people would still complain (as they do now).
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
But that still doesn't mean that apple needs to try and appeal to 100% of the market. They still have the potential to gain a huge amount of market share with their current products and price points. I'd also argue that people in the market for dirt cheap computers aren't going to buy much software, so increasing that segment won't help the mac software market much.
Well, what you don't seem to get, is that people who think the car analogy is a bad one think that Apple are mistaken to be happy with their market share.
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
They don't.
They need to sell more computers so that there's more computers on which developers can sell software. Market SHARE is only relevant to cross platform developers.
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
Not in the UK. Dell sell computers that are about $200 less than the Mini and that's including a TFT monitor and keyboard. Total crap too but if I was fitting out an office where people just filled in forms or used Word/Excel then they'd probably be more than adequate. Dell aren't even the cheapest.
Apple just isn't in the same market as the Celeron D desktop and crap analogue 15" monitor market.
I can't think of an example of a company that's very successful at selling both high end and bargain basement commodity items. Who's doing this?
Well, in terms of laptops: DELL, HP, Acer, Toshiba, and I'm sure many others, make Apple laptop equivalents in addition to offering a variety of models with lower specs and prices.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
They still have the potential to gain a huge amount of market share with their current products and price points.
We shall see. I'm sure these laptops will sell well and there will be unit sales increases. I don't think they can hit 10% without expanding the range. 10% is what I'd be aiming at initially.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Market SHARE is only relevant to cross platform developers.
Or developers (including hardware and website developers) who currently only target Windows. I think these two segments are vital. Apparently you do not. Fair enough.
It's pretty rare that there's NOT a competitor in the Windows market, even in very small niches.
There can be twenty competitors, and the percentage for each would be the entire Mac market.
Quote:
It may make sense to offer your product off the back of your Mac development or not. eg. BareBones do really well out of Mac development without a Windows product. Same with Delicious Monster or Omni.
Sure, they aren't Adobe or Microsoft, but they don't want to be. They want to do their thing and not have to put up with the crap working in a large company or market brings. Arguably the software is better than Adobe or Microsoft produce with their cross platform approach too. I'd bet the small developers are more profitable too once they reach a certain number of sales since they aren't spending millions on development.
Possibly. It depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish. Many want to get rich. Many become that way after a while of struggling in the Mac market, and so they move.
It's just had it's 5th anniversary issue. Sells about twice it sold in 2001. Pages up from 100 or so to 148. Ad content still free of mail order ads and usually hits the 25% ad to content ratio we set back in the beginning. It's always been high gloss 90g wood free paper and that's it's selling point. It's a mag to read on the loo, not wipe your arse with.
I don't do anything with the mag though now - I prefer the web to paper. Still own a third of it though. :-)[/quote}
Good for you!
Quote:
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
The assumption that you are making here is that your point is correct, which is is not.
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens. The analogy is flawed. It doesn't matter what you mean by it. You might use network tv, or some other industry where declining marketshare means long term problems.
No one is talking about Apple making crap. I don't want to see that. Neither do you.
But, leaving out some features, using a slower cpu, perhaps eliminate the isight. None of that means that there will be a crap product, just a slightly slower one, with a few less features. Perhaps Apple should offer some of their machines stripped down more, and allow those upgrades upon order. Let the people decide.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
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.
The Stars were pretty expensive machines, so, sure, they had a 19" screen, which was very expensive at the time, vs the Mac's too small version.
But, the Mac's GUI was still better than that of the star. And, I already gave some points to Vinea, so we can let that go. But, like it or not, the Mac was a big advance.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Parroting that line without understanding the comparison is also bad.
I agree that there are other valid analogies in other industries. Apple should do what they can to grow their market share, but they don't really need to address 100% of the market with their products.
Should McDonalds sell caviar? Should high end restaurants sell big macs and fries?
I think there's an argument to be made for apple addressing the demand for *quality* computers, and ignoring to some degree the consumer who will only buy the cheapest product with no regard to price. Apple is never going to be able to win that contest, and if they did there would be no profit in it. So why should they bother?
Especially if the mac keeps moving toward convergence of audio, video, and telecommunications, which need a certain minimum performance spec to run well. Crappy machines that don't perform just water down the selling points.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's not always 20 times larger though.
If your application is a general application that the whole market uses then that's true
Exactly. So, if the whole market uses the application, it's probably useful, yes? And it would be nice if there were a version for OS X that is fully featured, stable, swift and well supported. Higher market share for OS X helps to ensure this.
Originally posted by melgross
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.
hear hear.
Originally posted by minderbinder
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.
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
I'm not saying that Apple aren't selling a lot of computers. Clearly they are. But they could sell a lot more, I'm sure of it.
Originally posted by Archstudent
comparing the car industry to the computer industry is a bad comparison
Indeed. Please, let's not go down that road. (oops, bad pun)
Originally posted by aegisdesign
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.
Your magazine was just one product. Apple has several products, and could have more, if they so decided.
I'm guessing your magazine was more an enthusiast thing? If you'd had the motivation/will, you could have released another Bike magazine with a different feel, to try and capture the rest of the market.
Originally posted by Scooterboy
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Then buy a macbook pro or a desktop. have fun playing on 13.3"
Originally posted by Mr. H
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
The huge section is folks that spend $100 less on laptops?
Otherwise we're talking about the low end $500 laptops.
Other than the ultra portable market Apple isn't ignoring many folks on a capability basis. On a price basis yes, but they need the margin they make on HW because of their much larger R&D requirements.
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
I'm not saying that Apple aren't selling a lot of computers. Clearly they are. But they could sell a lot more, I'm sure of it.
They could but they'd become a different business competing with folks already well established in that market segment.
Indeed. Please, let's not go down that road. (oops, bad pun)
Regardless of analogy it is true that businesses address different market segments. High end manufacturers do not address the commodity market with product because they tend to suck at it.
Given the corporate culture Apple would really suck at trying to beat Dell on Dell's turf.
Pursuing margin vs share is a viable business model. Pursuing new markets vs the saturated PC market is also a viable model for growth.
The opportunity costs of pursuing PC market share at the expense of margin and increasing corporate emphasis on Macs (which is already very high) means less captial dollars and brain power allocated to emerging markets where rapid growth is more likely.
I like Dell as a consumer because they drive competition on price. But I also like innovators that risk doing new things and adopting new technologies. This is much easier with a smaller user base and product line.
Vinea
Originally posted by Mr. H
It's true that I've not looked up the numbers. But I am aware of what other manufacturers offer, which one must assume is a very good indicator of demand. In terms of number of models, there isn't just a small portion of the market that Apple is ignoring, there is a huge section of the market that Apple is ignoring.
I don't get it, it's like Apple just saying no to more customers, they aren't even trying. They are afraid of support problems? Hire more support staff. They are having issues developing more models? Hire more engineers.
]
Which huge portion of the market do you feel apple is ignoring?
PC makers are big enough that they can afford to have niche models, even if those niches don't make them much (if any) of a profit. The existence of a product may show demand, it may also show a company trying to create demand with a new product that others aren't offering yet. And while there may be demand, that demand may be tiny and that product may be unprofitable.
Here's a hypothetical. If a certain subgroup of PC makes up 5% of PC's sold, if apple were to make that subgroup, they'd be looking at 5% of 5%. Does it make sense for apple to make an effort for such a small niche?
It DOES make sense to say no to customers if that subgroup of customers is so small that revenues from them don't cover the R&D and support for that product.
Here's an analogy you're sure to hate:
One shirt company makes shirts through XXXL.
Another makes shirts through XXXXL.
The first company is saying no to a segment of the market. But if only 1% of shirts sold are XXXXL, are they really missing out, or are they smarter by focusing their resources on the other 99%? And even if 1% makes sense, you must admit there's SOME limit at which any product becomes not worth making, right?
Without knowing how big a seller any given product is (which could be a configuration or a price point), we have no idea if apple is making a mistake by not addressing that segment of the market. It seems especially silly to declare that segment "huge" without any sort of numbers.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I'm guessing your magazine was more an enthusiast thing? If you'd had the motivation/will, you could have released another Bike magazine with a different feel, to try and capture the rest of the market.
Any bike magazine is an enthusiast thing. It's a very small niche. And we were a small niche in that niche. If you want to sell a lot of dead trees you do a womans mag or a Hello magazine clone.
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
Apart from that, you hit the nail on the head " If you'd had the motivation/will". I'm not sure Apple have that. I don't think they see any need to compete in the cheap end of the market and have no motivation or will to do so. Financially they are doing great doing just what they want, how they want. Same thing with me - I have my ideals and I don't need to do something I don't want to. eg. I'm not going to cheapen myself by writing Windows software. Same with many companies offering premium products.
I think Apple are right not to compete in the low end too. Just look at the trouble Dell is heading into.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
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.
No, it's not always 20 times. It can be five times. In the case of PS it's almost 4 times cuttently.
But it's not always 100 times as many developers either. It could be five times as many as well. Or none.
If the big fish in the small pond analogy were accurite, then there would have been a stampede over to Mac development, Therer hasn't been. We've seen a few more, as sales, and marketshare increase. but, we've also seen them continue to leave. And we see Mac developers continue to offer their products to the Windows market.
Quote:
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.
Well, we can't have all of those computer manufacturers offering us different Macs, right? But, we don't see many ads in the Mac magazines at all.
There are many more magazines out there than the consumer mags. The industry mags don't advertise Mac products, because there isn't a market for them there. For many years Apple has been accused of advertising to the already converted, byt just advertising in Mac publications. That's true, though now, they have spread out somewhat.
Quote:
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.
What happened? I subscribe to two home machinist magazines. Neither accepted ads, at first. They polled the subscribers, and we voted to have ads. The mags improved tremdously. with the added income, they were able to go to color, which helps when seeing pictures of work in progress on machine tools, and the editorial content doubled.
In and of themselves, ads are not a bad thing.
Quote:
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.
Marketshare doesn't matter for cars.
The Ferrari uses the same fuel. The same oil. The same water and anti-freeze for the radiator. It uses the same air in the tires. The tires themselves can be bought from several makers. It travels on the same roads, and carries the same people.
The Mac uses different software, often hardware won't work with it because of driver issues, though, hopefully, hardware compatability itself will be a thing of the past.
How many video cards can we buy for the tower, as an example? Other cards? Do we have the same access to all of the same software?
Sure, I know that much Mac software is of a high quality, but the choice isn't there. While some may not care, some do.
Originally posted by vinea
The huge section is folks that spend $100 less on laptops?
Otherwise we're talking about the low end $500 laptops.
Er? Are you saying that all laptops that are less than $1099 are either $999 or $500?? What about all the ones in between?
Originally posted by vinea
Other than the ultra portable market Apple isn't ignoring many folks on a capability basis. On a price basis yes, but they need the margin they make on HW because of their much larger R&D requirements.
No. It's not just a price basis. All the laptops Apple make are amazing value for money. But they all include Front Row, iSight, and Core Duo processors, which are high-end.
Originally posted by vinea
Regardless of analogy it is true that businesses address different market segments. High end manufacturers do not address the commodity market with product because they tend to suck at it.
The problem with the car analogy is that car manufactures do not need to attract and retain developers, or try and ensure that people don't make Windows IE only websites.
Originally posted by vinea
Given the corporate culture Apple would really suck at trying to beat Dell on Dell's turf.
Given that all the Intel laptops that Apple have delivered actually beat the Dell equivalents when it comes to price, I have to disagree. To make the Apple laptops cheaper, you put cheaper electronics inside. It isn't hard.
Originally posted by vinea
Pursuing new markets vs the saturated PC market is also a viable model for growth.
Only if you already own a massive chunk of that market.
Originally posted by vinea
The opportunity costs of pursuing PC market share at the expense of margin and increasing corporate emphasis on Macs (which is already very high) means less captial dollars and brain power allocated to emerging markets where rapid growth is more likely.
I wouldn't advocate a big cut in Apple's margins. It's more about offering cheaper models by putting cheaper components inside (= about the same margins). If I was in charge at Apple, I'd probably aim for 25% margins.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Any bike magazine is an enthusiast thing. It's a very small niche. And we were a small niche in that niche. If you want to sell a lot of dead trees you do a womans mag or a Hello magazine clone.
I wouldn't equate Apple with our mag as they are much more mainstream than we were but I think a valid comparison might be the tabloids v broadsheets. The Independent or Guardian could sell a lot more newspapers if they lowered the price and cheapened the content and took the content downstream in intelligence required. Some would argue they have recently with their new format.
However, then they'd just be another tabloid competing in a crowded market. Instead, it's better for them to create their own niche or compete outside the mainstream. It's not necessarily profitable being the 5th tabloid.
Apart from that, you hit the nail on the head " If you'd had the motivation/will". I'm not sure Apple have that. I don't think they see any need to compete in the cheap end of the market and have no motivation or will to do so. Financially they are doing great doing just what they want, how they want. Same thing with me - I have my ideals and I don't need to do something I don't want to. eg. I'm not going to cheapen myself by writing Windows software. Same with many companies offering premium products.
I think Apple are right not to compete in the low end too. Just look at the trouble Dell is heading into.
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
If you would like to read a good review if the iMac and such, then read this. By the way, notice that he has trouble letting his feelings out.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50508.html
like, the macbook is awesome, but the black case def. doesnt look that cool...least on the website anyways
has anybody cheked out those HP notebooks w/ the high def screens? it looks like ur looking thru glass. is that what the glossy option will look like on the black MB?
Originally posted by melgross
No, it's not always 20 times. It can be five times. In the case of PS it's almost 4 times cuttently.
But it's not always 100 times as many developers either. It could be five times as many as well. Or none.
It's pretty rare that there's NOT a competitor in the Windows market, even in very small niches.
Originally posted by melgross
If the big fish in the small pond analogy were accurite, then there would have been a stampede over to Mac development, Therer hasn't been. We've seen a few more, as sales, and marketshare increase. but, we've also seen them continue to leave. And we see Mac developers continue to offer their products to the Windows market.
It may make sense to offer your product off the back of your Mac development or not. eg. BareBones do really well out of Mac development without a Windows product. Same with Delicious Monster or Omni.
Sure, they aren't Adobe or Microsoft, but they don't want to be. They want to do their thing and not have to put up with the crap working in a large company or market brings. Arguably the software is better than Adobe or Microsoft produce with their cross platform approach too. I'd bet the small developers are more profitable too once they reach a certain number of sales since they aren't spending millions on development.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, we can't have all of those computer manufacturers offering us different Macs, right? But, we don't see many ads in the Mac magazines at all.
There are many more magazines out there than the consumer mags. The industry mags don't advertise Mac products, because there isn't a market for them there. For many years Apple has been accused of advertising to the already converted, byt just advertising in Mac publications. That's true, though now, they have spread out somewhat.
Maybe true in the US but Mac mags here have kept a pretty good ad/content ratio. Industry mags have never really carried Apple ads. Sales of mags have dropped across the industry by about a third since 2000 though.
The problem with the Mac software industry though is there's a lot of small developers and startups that do really well marketing on the net that don't need to advertise in mags and pay, for example, £3500 for a full page ad in MacWorld UK.
Originally posted by melgross
What happened? I subscribe to two home machinist magazines. Neither accepted ads, at first. They polled the subscribers, and we voted to have ads. The mags improved tremdously. with the added income, they were able to go to color, which helps when seeing pictures of work in progress on machine tools, and the editorial content doubled.
In and of themselves, ads are not a bad thing.
It's just had it's 5th anniversary issue. Sells about twice it sold in 2001. Pages up from 100 or so to 148. Ad content still free of mail order ads and usually hits the 25% ad to content ratio we set back in the beginning. It's always been high gloss 90g wood free paper and that's it's selling point. It's a mag to read on the loo, not wipe your arse with.
I don't do anything with the mag though now - I prefer the web to paper. Still own a third of it though. :-)
Originally posted by melgross
Marketshare doesn't matter for cars.
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
Well, what you don't seem to get, is that people who think the car analogy is a bad one think that Apple are mistaken to be happy with their market share.
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
So you'd risk your successful product line and market by entering in to another established highly competitive low-margin saturated market that you don't really want to be in anyway?
Really, I don't think Apple think that's a good bet. Some of it's culture, some of it's good business sense.
Originally posted by melgross
Marketshare doesn't matter for cars.
The Ferrari uses the same fuel. The same oil. The same water and anti-freeze for the radiator. It uses the same air in the tires. The tires themselves can be bought from several makers. It travels on the same roads, and carries the same people.
That's not always the case. My car uses different coolant than most other cars, I've never seen it at an auto store, only at the dealer or special order. Same with the wiper blades.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Given that all the Intel laptops that Apple have delivered actually beat the Dell equivalents when it comes to price, I have to disagree. To make the Apple laptops cheaper, you put cheaper electronics inside. It isn't hard.
But that only holds up to a certain extent. You go to core solo, and make other cuts, it doesn't really save that much on the cost of the machine. Apple could make a MB that's a little cheaper, but to go much lower they'd have to take a smaller profit margin at some point. And don't forget, apple has the option of doing this later, after all the hungry early adopters have bought.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You misunderstand. To use your analogy, I'm not suggesting changing the Guardian into a tabloid. I'm talking about keeping on publishing the Guardian and publishing a tabloid.
I can't think of an example of a company that's very successful at selling both high end and bargain basement commodity items. Who's doing this?
Originally posted by melgross
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
The mini could be way more low end, they could put in a celeron or some other awful processor and cut more features. But it still wouldn't be as cheap as the cheapest pc's you can find, and people would still complain (as they do now).
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
But that still doesn't mean that apple needs to try and appeal to 100% of the market. They still have the potential to gain a huge amount of market share with their current products and price points. I'd also argue that people in the market for dirt cheap computers aren't going to buy much software, so increasing that segment won't help the mac software market much.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, what you don't seem to get, is that people who think the car analogy is a bad one think that Apple are mistaken to be happy with their market share.
Ferrari don't need market share. Apple do, whether they like it or not.
They don't.
They need to sell more computers so that there's more computers on which developers can sell software. Market SHARE is only relevant to cross platform developers.
Originally posted by melgross
Then what would you call the Mini? Even with the higher pricing, it comes pretty close to being low end. Many low end PC's can be upgraded until they cost as much as the Mac does.
Not in the UK. Dell sell computers that are about $200 less than the Mini and that's including a TFT monitor and keyboard. Total crap too but if I was fitting out an office where people just filled in forms or used Word/Excel then they'd probably be more than adequate. Dell aren't even the cheapest.
Apple just isn't in the same market as the Celeron D desktop and crap analogue 15" monitor market.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I can't think of an example of a company that's very successful at selling both high end and bargain basement commodity items. Who's doing this?
Well, in terms of laptops: DELL, HP, Acer, Toshiba, and I'm sure many others, make Apple laptop equivalents in addition to offering a variety of models with lower specs and prices.
Originally posted by minderbinder
They still have the potential to gain a huge amount of market share with their current products and price points.
We shall see. I'm sure these laptops will sell well and there will be unit sales increases. I don't think they can hit 10% without expanding the range. 10% is what I'd be aiming at initially.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Market SHARE is only relevant to cross platform developers.
Or developers (including hardware and website developers) who currently only target Windows. I think these two segments are vital. Apparently you do not. Fair enough.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's pretty rare that there's NOT a competitor in the Windows market, even in very small niches.
There can be twenty competitors, and the percentage for each would be the entire Mac market.
Quote:
It may make sense to offer your product off the back of your Mac development or not. eg. BareBones do really well out of Mac development without a Windows product. Same with Delicious Monster or Omni.
Sure, they aren't Adobe or Microsoft, but they don't want to be. They want to do their thing and not have to put up with the crap working in a large company or market brings. Arguably the software is better than Adobe or Microsoft produce with their cross platform approach too. I'd bet the small developers are more profitable too once they reach a certain number of sales since they aren't spending millions on development.
Possibly. It depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish. Many want to get rich. Many become that way after a while of struggling in the Mac market, and so they move.
It's just had it's 5th anniversary issue. Sells about twice it sold in 2001. Pages up from 100 or so to 148. Ad content still free of mail order ads and usually hits the 25% ad to content ratio we set back in the beginning. It's always been high gloss 90g wood free paper and that's it's selling point. It's a mag to read on the loo, not wipe your arse with.
I don't do anything with the mag though now - I prefer the web to paper. Still own a third of it though. :-)[/quote}
Good for you!
Quote:
That's not the point I was making and you don't understand that obviously as you just parroted the same repost everyone uses.
The point is, both Apple and Ferrari are happy doing what they do without having to lower themselves to do something they don't want to - produce cheap crap to gain market share. That's the point I was making, not that Apple = Ferrari and if you read my post, I explicitly stated that.
The assumption that you are making here is that your point is correct, which is is not.
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens. The analogy is flawed. It doesn't matter what you mean by it. You might use network tv, or some other industry where declining marketshare means long term problems.
No one is talking about Apple making crap. I don't want to see that. Neither do you.
But, leaving out some features, using a slower cpu, perhaps eliminate the isight. None of that means that there will be a crap product, just a slightly slower one, with a few less features. Perhaps Apple should offer some of their machines stripped down more, and allow those upgrades upon order. Let the people decide.