But, whether the market is large or small, share is looked at as being important. If there are ten customers, and one has your machine, and the other nine have the other one, and they are incompatible, then companies making accessories are much more likely to make them for the machine that has the 90% share. The same is true if the market consists of 100 million.
Look at it the other way. The company chose to sell to nine customers instead of one. They didn't look at market share, they looked at how many customers there were.
When I come out with a new product I look at how many I can sell, not how much market share I can grab. How many I can sell determines the price or even if the product is viable. Market share as a metric is dot-com madness. It also only gives you a handle on existing markets and not new markets. When Apple came out with the iPod I'm sure they didn't look at market share as a metric, they looked at how many customers they could sell to.
When you're talking about millions of potential buyers, most products are viable. Market share is irrelevant.
Apple are right to concentrate on the product and their margin and not market share because their market is certainly large enough to sustain their products and continuing existence.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You don't respond to the problems of lack of apps, and hardware. That's the telling point, however, because that's the lifeblood of the platform.
I DID. There are enough that the Mac is a viable choice for the market Apple operate in. I gave a list even to Mr. H.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes. Their sale are going up. Except for this transition, their marketshare rose significantly as well. You might not pay attention to it, but that is the number most quoted. Why is it that every industry publication, analyst, market manager, and even software companies make note of the marketshare of Apple as being important? They can't all be wrong, and you right.
Every? No they don't. Only the mainstream do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Not everyone thinks that way. Some people 'Think Different'.
You don't have to slavishly follow that path. Prime example would be Delicious Monster or Omni...
If you're going off of analysts and 'market share' then I'd read some different analysis. Look at Profitability and sales instead.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, and other companies of that ilk, don't even care about how many cars they sell. you have to order in advance, often, be approved, and then wait, sometimes for months, or in the case of Aston Martin, sometimes years! You also pay many times what equivalent types of cars sell for.
Is that what you want from Apple? I don't.
Not these days. I can walk in to a garage about 25 miles from here and buy an Aston there and then.
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
You went from "probably" to "totally disagree". Which is it?
Both. They were different points.
At some point a product is viable. That's got nothing to do with market share.
Take melgross' example earlier.
There's ten customers. Nine on Windows, One on a Mac. A product is viable if 5 people buy it. Therefore you create a Windows product. Mac isn't viable.
Now expand that market to 50 customers. Same market share - 45 windows, 5 Mac. But the product still only needs to sell 5 copies. The Mac market is then viable.
Now say there's 4 competitors doing Windows software already since they've seen the 90% market share figure. Now the Windows market is less attractive - you've got to out market your competitors and probably spend a lot of time matching them feature for feature. The Mac market looks a lot more attractive since you've no competition.
Scale the figures up and when you get to millions of customers it quite often doesn't matter either way which you develop for. Do what makes you happy.
Even Apple do that, otherwise they'd be writing Windows software and totally give up on MacOS.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Then how come PC TV card makers only bother to ensure compatibility with Windows?
Because the number of Windows users with card slots is much higher than Mac users. If you notice, ALL of the Mac solutions are USB.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
The reason I'm talking about market share is that I think most developers just look at that number, as it's the only reliable one they've got. No one really knows what the installed user-base of OS X is vs. Windows in the home.
Maybe I am focussing on market share too much, and should just be talking about unit volume. But either way, the numbers are too low and need to be significantly higher.
You're getting there. Sensible businesses look at unit sales. ie. customers, not market share and if your product isn't viable to a market of N million Mac users then you must be doing something wrong or operating in a small niche. Windows has more niches and larger niches which is why there's a larger more diverse set of products for it. It's got nothing to do with the 97%/3% market share split and everything to do with customer base.
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
Look, will you please stop with the damn car analogy? It doesn't work. Aston customers aren't suggesting Aston make a city car because they don't think Aston's market share or indeed, just unit volume, is important.
I take offence at both suggestions that I misunderstand Apple and/or am a cheap bastard. I advocate Apple selling cheaper models in addition to the ones that they already sell for the good of the platform as a whole. I love the Apple platform and want to see it thrive. I suggest that Apple produce these machines because I think it makes business sense. Not only do I think that such machines will increase market share (which you say is not important, and that's fair enough. I don't think we need to discuss that any more), but they would also significantly increase the number of computers that Apple sells and hence vastly increase their revenues and profits.
You were the one who introduced the "$500 laptop" motif. I was talking about laptops less than $1099. You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
Quote:
Originally posted by netdog
The MacBooks are flying off the shelves. Obviously the whingers needs to get a life. Jobs & Company seem to be doing just fine.
Good grief! Did I say, anywhere, that I thought the MacBook would be a poor seller? No. I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
Look at it the other way. The company chose to sell to nine customers instead of one. They didn't look at market share, they looked at how many customers there were.
Except that they do look at marketshare. They also look at total sales. I've agreed to that. but there is a combination of the two that is the "bingo" point. From what I gather, you are a small developer. Not putting that down, I have software from many small developers. But, as a small developer, the marketshare problem just doesn't apply very much. But a company developing a larger product has to weigh those development costs against the return. Since developing for the Mac costs about the same as it does for Windows, that will have a major effect on the decision. Years ago, Symantic came to a meeting at my usergroup. At the dinner afterwards, I asked the rep why we didn't get the 175 page manual that the Windows users got, in addition to the one on the cd. His answer was tyhat as the Mac was such a small market compared to the Windows one, it would wipe out their profit. When I pointed out that Mac only companies didn't have that problem, they said that they charged more for it, and that Symantic couldn't do that because they had to maintain the same price.
I found that to be interesting. When talking to some Mac only developers, they seconded that.
So, it seems that both total sales, and marketshare come into play, as I've been saying. I see no reason to believe anything else. It's a choice a company makes. If the Mac were the only market for a product, then it wouldn't matter that their sales were far smaller, but when they are not, then it does. It's called, the easy road to profitability.
Quote:
When I come out with a new product I look at how many I can sell, not how much market share I can grab. How many I can sell determines the price or even if the product is viable. Market share as a metric is dot-com madness. It also only gives you a handle on existing markets and not new markets. When Apple came out with the iPod I'm sure they didn't look at market share as a metric, they looked at how many customers they could sell to.
Again, with you, I can't argue that. And, I am quite sure that some small companies will look at the Mac market and try their hand their, at least at first. But, you might also notice that many Mac only companies do, after a while, also go after the far larger Windows market. Very often they are then found to be letting their Mac customers languish.
Quote:
When you're talking about millions of potential buyers, most products are viable. Market share is irrelevant.
Again. Sometimes. If a program costs a million bucks to develop, it's far more likely it will be developed for windows.
Quote:
Apple are right to concentrate on the product and their margin and not market share because their market is certainly large enough to sustain their products and continuing existence.
We don't know if that is true, or if Apple is simply making another mistake. They could be easily thinking that they are so hot as a company, that it won't matter.
Quote:
I DID. There are enough that the Mac is a viable choice for the market Apple operate in. I gave a list even to Mr. H.
Yes, I did see that list, but it is just a fraction of the choices Windows users have. Sure, id a very few cases, we may even have more chioces, but it's rare. You talked about graphics cards after I mentioned them. You said that we have Nvidia and ATI. I beg to disagree. We have no ATI for the current machines, and only a poor sub-grouping of Nvidia cards, at inflated prices, supporting less featurers, at least for the consumer versions. We have NO high-end gaming card, just a middling mid rantge GT, that is now a generation behind. Only what Apple chooses to offer. A sad choice.
The same is true for other cards.
Quote:
Every? No they don't. Only the mainstream do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Not everyone thinks that way. Some people 'Think Different'.
You don't have to slavishly follow that path. Prime example would be Delicious Monster or Omni...
Big deal. Those aren't considered to b important enough to pay attention to. Sorry, if you like them.
If you're going off of analysts and 'market share' then I'd read some different analysis. Look at Profitability and sales instead.
I'm not interested in those sites that no one pays attention to. All of the "mainstream" analysts pay strict attention to margin, sales, and profits, as you well know.
Quote:
Not these days. I can walk in to a garage about 25 miles from here and buy an Aston there and then.
I don't know where you live, but you can't even do that here in New York.
Quote:
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
You might also notice that most of these small very high end auto manufactirers are now owned by those large auto manufacturers that you dispise, like ford, and Gm. Why? Because they didn't have enough money to survive.
I don't think that Apple needs a $500 dollar laptop. But, a more stripped down model for maybe $899, that could be upgraded, would be nice.
Look, will you please stop with the damn car analogy? It doesn't work.
I'm not making ANY car analogy. I'm not saying selling laptops is the same as selling cars or that Apple = Ferrari or Apple = Aston or even Apple = Ford. I've explicitly said that multiple times already. I'm sorry I even used a car company as an example of another company that has it's own market segmentation and is happy to not sell to the mainstream market because reading comprehension seems to go out the window as soon as anyone suggests a car company as an example. Next time I'll use Gaggia coffee makers instead of Morphy Richards Kettles ok?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Aston customers aren't suggesting Aston make a city car because they don't think Aston's market share or indeed, just unit volume, is important.
I'm sure they DO think unit volume is important, otherwise their cars would be as expensive as Morgans and they'd be waiting 5 years+.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I take offence at both suggestions that I misunderstand Apple and/or am a cheap bastard. I advocate Apple selling cheaper models in addition to the ones that they already sell for the good of the platform as a whole.
Then you should take offence because Apple doesn't want to sell cheaper models. That's patently clear. They've got closer than ever recently with the Mini but still they don't what to compromise what makes Apple, Apple.
Or you can just chill out and quit whinging.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I love the Apple platform and want to see it thrive. I suggest that Apple produce these machines because I think it makes business sense. Not only do I think that such machines will increase market share (which you say is not important, and that's fair enough. I don't think we need to discuss that any more), but they would also significantly increase the number of computers that Apple sells and hence vastly increase their revenues and profits.
I disagree. Competing on price is ALWAYS a bad idea. It's business 101. All you end up doing is driving down profit margins. In order to compete with the $300 Dells and even cheaper beige BYO boxes, Apple would have to not be Apple. They'd have to ditch R&D, ditch their expensive design, ditch features they consider important, whether you do or not. They'd cheapen the brand and lose much of the caché of having an Apple. Margins would have to tumble.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You were the one who introduced the "$500 laptop" motif. I was talking about laptops less than $1099. You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, buy removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
I didn't, but I used it as an example because people do buy them only to find out later what's not included. Apple has already come down market more than I thought it would and more than most people realise. Just compare how cheap looking the last of the iBooks were compared to the first G3 Icebooks in 2001. The MacBooks are bargains and the new features create a wow factor above the competitors and beyond the actual value of those extra features. They'll sell loads of them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Good grief! Did I say, anywhere, that I thought the MacBook would be a poor seller? No. I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
Because the lower the price, the less the profit. The lower spec the computer, the less effective the computer experience. If they were going for market share then it'd be a good thing but they obviously aren't. They're going for quality sales. Sales that are likely to turn into software sales too. When you've a premium product that is selling on being a premium product. you don't cheapen the brand by selling crap.
I disagree. Competing on price is ALWAYS a bad idea. It's business 101. All you end up doing is driving down profit margins.
I'm not talking about competing on price (presumably, by this, you mean offering machines with equal capabilities to your competitors, but at a lower price?).
The laptops that Dell make that are actually equivalent to the laptops that Apple make, cost the same. Apple is able to match Dell's prices for equally-specified laptops, whilst offering better design aesthetics and presumably having higher margins.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In order to compete with the $300 Dells and even cheaper beige BYO boxes, Apple would have to not be Apple. They'd have to ditch R&D, ditch their expensive design, ditch features they consider important, whether you do or not. They'd cheapen the brand and lose much of the caché of having an Apple. Margins would have to tumble.
What is your obsession with quoting these ridiculous bargain-basement prices? It is not what I am talking about.
I'll say it again. Perhaps with fewer words in my post you'll get it this time:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
Not all people are idiots. Many people really do know that they don't want certain things in their computers, and don't want to pay extra for things they don't want.
even tho my macbook wasn't supposed to ship from apple until the 23rd, just got email saying it will ship TODAY! hooray!!!!!
Which one did you get?
If it's the white one, can you post pictures when it arrives?
And that makes me think:
Why are Apple's product photos always so useless? Their machines have all these wonderful little design features and then they completely fail to show said features off on their website. What's that all about?
What is your obsession with quoting these ridiculous bargain-basement prices? It is not what I am talking about.
Because ultimately that's where it ends up.
If you came out with a $999 MacBook, someone will always point out the $899 Dell. If you came out with an $899 MacBook, someone will point out the $799 Acer. If you came out with a $799 MacBook, someone will point out the $599 YangLiHo....
Your argument is that Apple should go out and out for market share in the lower end of the market. That's where it will end up. It's the reverse of what Dell, HP and the other big manufacturers are trying to do and they don't even have a premium brand image to protect or Apple's R&D costs.
A while back a bike shop owner told me he refuses to sell mountain bikes that cost less than £250. Ostensibly he could sell bikes called 'Mountain bikes' that cost £100. He certainly had customers coming in asking for them and Toys R Us sold them by the truck load.
He refused still. Why?
Because if people used them as 'mountain bikes' they'd fall apart in no time at all and he'd have a lot of returns. The low margin would be eaten up in no time. Plus, he didn't want the hassle and well, he's a cyclist so thinks that selling people 45lb lumps of badly crafted steel will put people off bikes and they'd not be back for better ones later. If he was selling £100 bikes he'd have to sell a lot more of them and not mind pissing off customers when their pile of junk fell apart.
so it is $150 more expensive. i usually keep my computers at least three years... so that's 36 months or 1095 days, generally speaking. means you're paying about $4.17 per month to have a really cool-looking black case. or about $0.14 per day. hey if you like the color and you'll use it almost everyday, you might as well pay the daily $0.14.
...
I never looked it at that way you've proposed. Nice catch.
And, heck, it is absolutely true. Perhaps it is just me, but if you
want to get good long lasting design, you almost always have
to pay the difference. And that is okay for me. At least.
If i am gonna asked, why the hell do you pay a premium price
for a certain luster, i reply: This piece is a beauty of its
own class, i want to pay the extra, to get the extra.
Bad design just makes me sick. It harms me physically.
Another example: If you are in the market for a new, say, refrigerator
or a washing machine you can get a very cheapo poorly designed
machine. The machine likely will perform all tasks as advertised. Sure.
But the overall aesthetic of said machine just doesn't make you
happy. You feel sick whenever you see this bulk, whenever you
touch this piece of electronic. The very moment you unwrap the
new machine, you wanna get rid of this ugly thing. Because it
Hey guys, I hope all of you are doing just fine. It has been a long time since my last post but I wanted to see if anyone else is in the same situation as myself...
I am a University student looking to buy an Apple laptop with a total cost of under $2000 Canadian.
When Apple released the new MacBook, I was stoked! It looks amazing and seems to incorporate every feature that I could want except... Duh duh duh...
INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
Yes, yes, you knew it was coming. I don't want to come off as more whiny than I have to, but when I buy a notebook computer this summer, I want to make sure that I will still be satisfied with it in 3 years to come.
The problem that arises is that, I want to be able to play some games (like WoW with at least the level of performance of my old 9800 Pro), dabble in photoshop (image manipulation etc.) as well as other media style apps and I am worried that in the long run IG won't cut it.
The perplexing thing to me is that while looking at intel specifications on its GMA 950 chipset (found here: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950), it looks to be more than capable of decent hardware acceleration. It supposedly has specs almost on par with my radeon 9800 pro (without the dedicated VRAM and 4 pixel pipes instead of 8 on the 9800 Pro) currently residing in my 6 year old G4 tower.
It seems to me that the problem isn't necessarily hardware limitations but more so inefficient drivers. While reading more about Intel's stance on their IG chipsets they seem to have a set it and forget it attitude, unlike Nvidia and Ati that routinely optimize their drivers for even older hardware (I have seen steady improvements in performance every time Ati, through Apple updates my video drivers).
Now, let's say I want some kind of dedicated graphics card, I have to turn to the MacBook Pro which after AppleCare and taxes comes to approximately 2620 Canadian dollars. In comparison, the high-end white MacBook with AppleCare and taxes comes to about 1830 Canadian. This is a difference of almost 800 dollars! It isn't that the price difference is not justified, but I love the 13.3 inch form-factor.
I simply wish that on the high end MacBook they could have included even something as low as an Ati X300. Better yet an Nvidia 6200 Turbocache. These bottom of the barrel, el cheapo chips totally humiliate the GMA 950 in all tasks... AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED CHIPSETS!!! Check out http://www.anandtech.com/video/show...?i=2427&p=5 for their article comparing various integrated graphics solutions. Another thing to note... The above article is from almost a year ago. What does that tell you?
In other words, it isn't so much the IG that I am not liking it is the fact that for just a miniscule cost to apple (probably in the <$10 range considering the large quantities) we could have had a much better chipset, albeit integrated running in the MacBook. Even a BTO option would have been nice.
There would have been no clash between Pro and consumer lines, and many consumers would have been willing to pay even $100 extra on top of the Black MacBook's (already inflated) price to get that feature... I know I would.
It just surprised me that Apple could not think just a little differently in this regard and gave us top notch value/performance in every other area...
Another way that I might be convinced to buy a MacBook would be if some hack came out that allowed you to set the amount of shared ram to 224MB (the maximum allowed by the GMA 950 chipset). It might have enough of an effect to sway me.
Lastly, I just hope that those MacBook gamer rumours are true because if not, I will have to wait until some MacBook whatever iteration comes along with a better graphics solution, even if it is still IG.
If you came out with a $999 MacBook, someone will always point out the $899 Dell. If you came out with an $899 MacBook, someone will point out the $799 Acer. If you came out with a $799 MacBook, someone will point out the $599 YangLiHo....
Your argument is that Apple should go out and out for market share in the lower end of the market. That's where it will end up. It's the reverse of what Dell, HP and the other big manufacturers are trying to do and they don't even have a premium brand image to protect or Apple's R&D costs.
This demonstrates that you do not understand what I am talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
A while back a bike shop owner told me he refuses to sell mountain bikes that cost less than £250. Ostensibly he could sell bikes called 'Mountain bikes' that cost £100. He certainly had customers coming in asking for them and Toys R Us sold them by the truck load.
He refused still. Why?
Because if people used them as 'mountain bikes' they'd fall apart in no time at all and he'd have a lot of returns. The low margin would be eaten up in no time. Plus, he didn't want the hassle and well, he's a cyclist so thinks that selling people 45lb lumps of badly crafted steel will put people off bikes and they'd not be back for better ones later. If he was selling £100 bikes he'd have to sell a lot more of them and not mind pissing off customers when their pile of junk fell apart.
Apple is that bike shop owner. Dell is Toys R Us.
Is that a better analogy for you?
You don't have to explain to me why Apple should keep out of the low end. I agree. Apple shouldn't go there.
You just seem to be in denial about the realities of the PC market. The MacBook is an Upper Mid-Range machine, or perhaps even Lower High-End. I think Apple is only addressing about 20% of the market, and that is not a good business decision.
here is a quote from my first post in this thread:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
Increased market share was one of the benefits that I think would result from such a strategy. This is also directly related to selling more units and therefore making more money. This is a bad thing, how exactly?
Perhaps you do not think there is much demand for a laptop with 15.4" widescreen (or 13" or 14" widescreen, for less money), no iSight, no Front Row, and a Pentium-M Celeron (This is not a low-end machine)? Go and look at Dell's, HP's, Acer's, Toshiba's, and Sony's (who together account for at least 70% of the market) product line-ups, and at the best seller list at Amazon, and you will find that you are mistaken.
Now, let's say I want some kind of dedicated graphics card, I have to turn to the MacBook Pro which after AppleCare and taxes comes to approximately 2620 Canadian dollars. In comparison, the high-end white MacBook with AppleCare and taxes comes to about 1830 Canadian. This is a difference of almost 800 dollars! It isn't that the price difference is not justified, but I love the 13.3 inch form-factor.
Does that include Apple's higher-education discounts? In the UK, 3 year warranty (not full Apple Care) is standard (at no extra cost) for higher-education purchasers (makes the MacBooks and MacBook Pros a really sweet deal: can get the 1.83 GHz White with 1 gig of RAM and 3 year warranty for £703.30, or a 2 GHz MBpro with 1 gig RAM for £1,247.84)
Quote:
Originally posted by macaddict74
I simply wish that on the high end MacBook they could have included even something as low as an Ati X300. Better yet an Nvidia 6200 Turbocache. These bottom of the barrel, el cheapo chips totally humiliate the GMA 950 in all tasks... AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED CHIPSETS!!! Check out http://www.anandtech.com/video/show...?i=2427&p=5 for their article comparing various integrated graphics solutions. Another thing to note... The above article is from almost a year ago. What does that tell you?
Your link doesn't work. I didn't think the 950 was that bad a performer.
Quote:
Originally posted by macaddict74
In other words, it isn't so much the IG that I am not liking it is the fact that for just a miniscule cost to apple (probably in the <$10 range considering the large quantities) we could have had a much better chipset, albeit integrated running in the MacBook. Even a BTO option would have been nice.
What makes you so sure that Apple could fit a dedicated GPU into the MacBook? Have you seen the take-apart photos? It's pretty tight in there. Also, there is the heat factor to take into account. Most reports I've seen state that the MacBook runs really hot as it is.
I think you should just save for longer and get a MacBook Pro.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
But, whether the market is large or small, share is looked at as being important. If there are ten customers, and one has your machine, and the other nine have the other one, and they are incompatible, then companies making accessories are much more likely to make them for the machine that has the 90% share. The same is true if the market consists of 100 million.
Look at it the other way. The company chose to sell to nine customers instead of one. They didn't look at market share, they looked at how many customers there were.
When I come out with a new product I look at how many I can sell, not how much market share I can grab. How many I can sell determines the price or even if the product is viable. Market share as a metric is dot-com madness. It also only gives you a handle on existing markets and not new markets. When Apple came out with the iPod I'm sure they didn't look at market share as a metric, they looked at how many customers they could sell to.
When you're talking about millions of potential buyers, most products are viable. Market share is irrelevant.
Apple are right to concentrate on the product and their margin and not market share because their market is certainly large enough to sustain their products and continuing existence.
Originally posted by melgross
You don't respond to the problems of lack of apps, and hardware. That's the telling point, however, because that's the lifeblood of the platform.
I DID. There are enough that the Mac is a viable choice for the market Apple operate in. I gave a list even to Mr. H.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes. Their sale are going up. Except for this transition, their marketshare rose significantly as well. You might not pay attention to it, but that is the number most quoted. Why is it that every industry publication, analyst, market manager, and even software companies make note of the marketshare of Apple as being important? They can't all be wrong, and you right.
Every? No they don't. Only the mainstream do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Not everyone thinks that way. Some people 'Think Different'.
You don't have to slavishly follow that path. Prime example would be Delicious Monster or Omni...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...licious13.html
If you're going off of analysts and 'market share' then I'd read some different analysis. Look at Profitability and sales instead.
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, and other companies of that ilk, don't even care about how many cars they sell. you have to order in advance, often, be approved, and then wait, sometimes for months, or in the case of Aston Martin, sometimes years! You also pay many times what equivalent types of cars sell for.
Is that what you want from Apple? I don't.
Not these days. I can walk in to a garage about 25 miles from here and buy an Aston there and then.
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You went from "probably" to "totally disagree". Which is it?
Both. They were different points.
At some point a product is viable. That's got nothing to do with market share.
Take melgross' example earlier.
There's ten customers. Nine on Windows, One on a Mac. A product is viable if 5 people buy it. Therefore you create a Windows product. Mac isn't viable.
Now expand that market to 50 customers. Same market share - 45 windows, 5 Mac. But the product still only needs to sell 5 copies. The Mac market is then viable.
Now say there's 4 competitors doing Windows software already since they've seen the 90% market share figure. Now the Windows market is less attractive - you've got to out market your competitors and probably spend a lot of time matching them feature for feature. The Mac market looks a lot more attractive since you've no competition.
Scale the figures up and when you get to millions of customers it quite often doesn't matter either way which you develop for. Do what makes you happy.
Even Apple do that, otherwise they'd be writing Windows software and totally give up on MacOS.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Then how come PC TV card makers only bother to ensure compatibility with Windows?
Because the number of Windows users with card slots is much higher than Mac users. If you notice, ALL of the Mac solutions are USB.
Originally posted by Mr. H
The reason I'm talking about market share is that I think most developers just look at that number, as it's the only reliable one they've got. No one really knows what the installed user-base of OS X is vs. Windows in the home.
Maybe I am focussing on market share too much, and should just be talking about unit volume. But either way, the numbers are too low and need to be significantly higher.
You're getting there. Sensible businesses look at unit sales. ie. customers, not market share and if your product isn't viable to a market of N million Mac users then you must be doing something wrong or operating in a small niche. Windows has more niches and larger niches which is why there's a larger more diverse set of products for it. It's got nothing to do with the 97%/3% market share split and everything to do with customer base.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
Look, will you please stop with the damn car analogy? It doesn't work. Aston customers aren't suggesting Aston make a city car because they don't think Aston's market share or indeed, just unit volume, is important.
I take offence at both suggestions that I misunderstand Apple and/or am a cheap bastard. I advocate Apple selling cheaper models in addition to the ones that they already sell for the good of the platform as a whole. I love the Apple platform and want to see it thrive. I suggest that Apple produce these machines because I think it makes business sense. Not only do I think that such machines will increase market share (which you say is not important, and that's fair enough. I don't think we need to discuss that any more), but they would also significantly increase the number of computers that Apple sells and hence vastly increase their revenues and profits.
You were the one who introduced the "$500 laptop" motif. I was talking about laptops less than $1099. You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
Originally posted by netdog
The MacBooks are flying off the shelves. Obviously the whingers needs to get a life. Jobs & Company seem to be doing just fine.
Good grief! Did I say, anywhere, that I thought the MacBook would be a poor seller? No. I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
edit: corrected a spelling mistake
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Look at it the other way. The company chose to sell to nine customers instead of one. They didn't look at market share, they looked at how many customers there were.
Except that they do look at marketshare. They also look at total sales. I've agreed to that. but there is a combination of the two that is the "bingo" point. From what I gather, you are a small developer. Not putting that down, I have software from many small developers. But, as a small developer, the marketshare problem just doesn't apply very much. But a company developing a larger product has to weigh those development costs against the return. Since developing for the Mac costs about the same as it does for Windows, that will have a major effect on the decision. Years ago, Symantic came to a meeting at my usergroup. At the dinner afterwards, I asked the rep why we didn't get the 175 page manual that the Windows users got, in addition to the one on the cd. His answer was tyhat as the Mac was such a small market compared to the Windows one, it would wipe out their profit. When I pointed out that Mac only companies didn't have that problem, they said that they charged more for it, and that Symantic couldn't do that because they had to maintain the same price.
I found that to be interesting. When talking to some Mac only developers, they seconded that.
So, it seems that both total sales, and marketshare come into play, as I've been saying. I see no reason to believe anything else. It's a choice a company makes. If the Mac were the only market for a product, then it wouldn't matter that their sales were far smaller, but when they are not, then it does. It's called, the easy road to profitability.
Quote:
When I come out with a new product I look at how many I can sell, not how much market share I can grab. How many I can sell determines the price or even if the product is viable. Market share as a metric is dot-com madness. It also only gives you a handle on existing markets and not new markets. When Apple came out with the iPod I'm sure they didn't look at market share as a metric, they looked at how many customers they could sell to.
Again, with you, I can't argue that. And, I am quite sure that some small companies will look at the Mac market and try their hand their, at least at first. But, you might also notice that many Mac only companies do, after a while, also go after the far larger Windows market. Very often they are then found to be letting their Mac customers languish.
Quote:
When you're talking about millions of potential buyers, most products are viable. Market share is irrelevant.
Again. Sometimes. If a program costs a million bucks to develop, it's far more likely it will be developed for windows.
Quote:
Apple are right to concentrate on the product and their margin and not market share because their market is certainly large enough to sustain their products and continuing existence.
We don't know if that is true, or if Apple is simply making another mistake. They could be easily thinking that they are so hot as a company, that it won't matter.
Quote:
I DID. There are enough that the Mac is a viable choice for the market Apple operate in. I gave a list even to Mr. H.
Yes, I did see that list, but it is just a fraction of the choices Windows users have. Sure, id a very few cases, we may even have more chioces, but it's rare. You talked about graphics cards after I mentioned them. You said that we have Nvidia and ATI. I beg to disagree. We have no ATI for the current machines, and only a poor sub-grouping of Nvidia cards, at inflated prices, supporting less featurers, at least for the consumer versions. We have NO high-end gaming card, just a middling mid rantge GT, that is now a generation behind. Only what Apple chooses to offer. A sad choice.
The same is true for other cards.
Quote:
Every? No they don't. Only the mainstream do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Not everyone thinks that way. Some people 'Think Different'.
You don't have to slavishly follow that path. Prime example would be Delicious Monster or Omni...
Big deal. Those aren't considered to b important enough to pay attention to. Sorry, if you like them.
Quote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...licious13.html
If you're going off of analysts and 'market share' then I'd read some different analysis. Look at Profitability and sales instead.
I'm not interested in those sites that no one pays attention to. All of the "mainstream" analysts pay strict attention to margin, sales, and profits, as you well know.
Quote:
Not these days. I can walk in to a garage about 25 miles from here and buy an Aston there and then.
I don't know where you live, but you can't even do that here in New York.
Quote:
However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.
You might also notice that most of these small very high end auto manufactirers are now owned by those large auto manufacturers that you dispise, like ford, and Gm. Why? Because they didn't have enough money to survive.
I don't think that Apple needs a $500 dollar laptop. But, a more stripped down model for maybe $899, that could be upgraded, would be nice.
Originally posted by netdog
The MacBooks are flying off the shelves. Obviously the whingers needs to get a life. Jobs & Company seem to be doing just fine.
You're missing the entire discussion here, and the entire point to it.
No one is arguing that these won't sell well. Read what we've been saying.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Look, will you please stop with the damn car analogy? It doesn't work.
I'm not making ANY car analogy. I'm not saying selling laptops is the same as selling cars or that Apple = Ferrari or Apple = Aston or even Apple = Ford. I've explicitly said that multiple times already. I'm sorry I even used a car company as an example of another company that has it's own market segmentation and is happy to not sell to the mainstream market because reading comprehension seems to go out the window as soon as anyone suggests a car company as an example. Next time I'll use Gaggia coffee makers instead of Morphy Richards Kettles ok?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Aston customers aren't suggesting Aston make a city car because they don't think Aston's market share or indeed, just unit volume, is important.
I'm sure they DO think unit volume is important, otherwise their cars would be as expensive as Morgans and they'd be waiting 5 years+.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I take offence at both suggestions that I misunderstand Apple and/or am a cheap bastard. I advocate Apple selling cheaper models in addition to the ones that they already sell for the good of the platform as a whole.
Then you should take offence because Apple doesn't want to sell cheaper models. That's patently clear. They've got closer than ever recently with the Mini but still they don't what to compromise what makes Apple, Apple.
Or you can just chill out and quit whinging.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I love the Apple platform and want to see it thrive. I suggest that Apple produce these machines because I think it makes business sense. Not only do I think that such machines will increase market share (which you say is not important, and that's fair enough. I don't think we need to discuss that any more), but they would also significantly increase the number of computers that Apple sells and hence vastly increase their revenues and profits.
I disagree. Competing on price is ALWAYS a bad idea. It's business 101. All you end up doing is driving down profit margins. In order to compete with the $300 Dells and even cheaper beige BYO boxes, Apple would have to not be Apple. They'd have to ditch R&D, ditch their expensive design, ditch features they consider important, whether you do or not. They'd cheapen the brand and lose much of the caché of having an Apple. Margins would have to tumble.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You were the one who introduced the "$500 laptop" motif. I was talking about laptops less than $1099. You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, buy removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
I didn't, but I used it as an example because people do buy them only to find out later what's not included. Apple has already come down market more than I thought it would and more than most people realise. Just compare how cheap looking the last of the iBooks were compared to the first G3 Icebooks in 2001. The MacBooks are bargains and the new features create a wow factor above the competitors and beyond the actual value of those extra features. They'll sell loads of them.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Good grief! Did I say, anywhere, that I thought the MacBook would be a poor seller? No. I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
Because the lower the price, the less the profit. The lower spec the computer, the less effective the computer experience. If they were going for market share then it'd be a good thing but they obviously aren't. They're going for quality sales. Sales that are likely to turn into software sales too. When you've a premium product that is selling on being a premium product. you don't cheapen the brand by selling crap.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I disagree. Competing on price is ALWAYS a bad idea. It's business 101. All you end up doing is driving down profit margins.
I'm not talking about competing on price (presumably, by this, you mean offering machines with equal capabilities to your competitors, but at a lower price?).
The laptops that Dell make that are actually equivalent to the laptops that Apple make, cost the same. Apple is able to match Dell's prices for equally-specified laptops, whilst offering better design aesthetics and presumably having higher margins.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In order to compete with the $300 Dells and even cheaper beige BYO boxes, Apple would have to not be Apple. They'd have to ditch R&D, ditch their expensive design, ditch features they consider important, whether you do or not. They'd cheapen the brand and lose much of the caché of having an Apple. Margins would have to tumble.
What is your obsession with quoting these ridiculous bargain-basement prices? It is not what I am talking about.
I'll say it again. Perhaps with fewer words in my post you'll get it this time:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
Not all people are idiots. Many people really do know that they don't want certain things in their computers, and don't want to pay extra for things they don't want.
edit: edited for grammar
okay, and is it just me or is all of this market share talk making your head spin?
Originally posted by booisgolden
even tho my macbook wasn't supposed to ship from apple until the 23rd, just got email saying it will ship TODAY! hooray!!!!!
Which one did you get?
If it's the white one, can you post pictures when it arrives?
And that makes me think:
Why are Apple's product photos always so useless? Their machines have all these wonderful little design features and then they completely fail to show said features off on their website. What's that all about?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2397
Originally posted by Mr. H
What is your obsession with quoting these ridiculous bargain-basement prices? It is not what I am talking about.
Because ultimately that's where it ends up.
If you came out with a $999 MacBook, someone will always point out the $899 Dell. If you came out with an $899 MacBook, someone will point out the $799 Acer. If you came out with a $799 MacBook, someone will point out the $599 YangLiHo....
Your argument is that Apple should go out and out for market share in the lower end of the market. That's where it will end up. It's the reverse of what Dell, HP and the other big manufacturers are trying to do and they don't even have a premium brand image to protect or Apple's R&D costs.
He refused still. Why?
Because if people used them as 'mountain bikes' they'd fall apart in no time at all and he'd have a lot of returns. The low margin would be eaten up in no time. Plus, he didn't want the hassle and well, he's a cyclist so thinks that selling people 45lb lumps of badly crafted steel will put people off bikes and they'd not be back for better ones later. If he was selling £100 bikes he'd have to sell a lot more of them and not mind pissing off customers when their pile of junk fell apart.
Apple is that bike shop owner. Dell is Toys R Us.
Is that a better analogy for you?
Originally posted by melgross
I posted this before, but I think it got lost in the late hour, and between out overly long posts, but it's worth posting again.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2397
Oh dear. So they're painted matt black not moulded that way?
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
...
-the black model looks sick!! retro is good.
so it is $150 more expensive. i usually keep my computers at least three years... so that's 36 months or 1095 days, generally speaking. means you're paying about $4.17 per month to have a really cool-looking black case. or about $0.14 per day. hey if you like the color and you'll use it almost everyday, you might as well pay the daily $0.14.
...
I never looked it at that way you've proposed. Nice catch.
And, heck, it is absolutely true. Perhaps it is just me, but if you
want to get good long lasting design, you almost always have
to pay the difference. And that is okay for me. At least.
If i am gonna asked, why the hell do you pay a premium price
for a certain luster, i reply: This piece is a beauty of its
own class, i want to pay the extra, to get the extra.
Bad design just makes me sick. It harms me physically.
Another example: If you are in the market for a new, say, refrigerator
or a washing machine you can get a very cheapo poorly designed
machine. The machine likely will perform all tasks as advertised. Sure.
But the overall aesthetic of said machine just doesn't make you
happy. You feel sick whenever you see this bulk, whenever you
touch this piece of electronic. The very moment you unwrap the
new machine, you wanna get rid of this ugly thing. Because it
disturbs you so much. Perhaps it is just me...
cheers
Hey guys, I hope all of you are doing just fine. It has been a long time since my last post but I wanted to see if anyone else is in the same situation as myself...
I am a University student looking to buy an Apple laptop with a total cost of under $2000 Canadian.
When Apple released the new MacBook, I was stoked! It looks amazing and seems to incorporate every feature that I could want except... Duh duh duh...
INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
Yes, yes, you knew it was coming. I don't want to come off as more whiny than I have to, but when I buy a notebook computer this summer, I want to make sure that I will still be satisfied with it in 3 years to come.
The problem that arises is that, I want to be able to play some games (like WoW with at least the level of performance of my old 9800 Pro), dabble in photoshop (image manipulation etc.) as well as other media style apps and I am worried that in the long run IG won't cut it.
The perplexing thing to me is that while looking at intel specifications on its GMA 950 chipset (found here: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950), it looks to be more than capable of decent hardware acceleration. It supposedly has specs almost on par with my radeon 9800 pro (without the dedicated VRAM and 4 pixel pipes instead of 8 on the 9800 Pro) currently residing in my 6 year old G4 tower.
It seems to me that the problem isn't necessarily hardware limitations but more so inefficient drivers. While reading more about Intel's stance on their IG chipsets they seem to have a set it and forget it attitude, unlike Nvidia and Ati that routinely optimize their drivers for even older hardware (I have seen steady improvements in performance every time Ati, through Apple updates my video drivers).
Now, let's say I want some kind of dedicated graphics card, I have to turn to the MacBook Pro which after AppleCare and taxes comes to approximately 2620 Canadian dollars. In comparison, the high-end white MacBook with AppleCare and taxes comes to about 1830 Canadian. This is a difference of almost 800 dollars! It isn't that the price difference is not justified, but I love the 13.3 inch form-factor.
I simply wish that on the high end MacBook they could have included even something as low as an Ati X300. Better yet an Nvidia 6200 Turbocache. These bottom of the barrel, el cheapo chips totally humiliate the GMA 950 in all tasks... AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED CHIPSETS!!! Check out http://www.anandtech.com/video/show...?i=2427&p=5 for their article comparing various integrated graphics solutions. Another thing to note... The above article is from almost a year ago. What does that tell you?
In other words, it isn't so much the IG that I am not liking it is the fact that for just a miniscule cost to apple (probably in the <$10 range considering the large quantities) we could have had a much better chipset, albeit integrated running in the MacBook. Even a BTO option would have been nice.
There would have been no clash between Pro and consumer lines, and many consumers would have been willing to pay even $100 extra on top of the Black MacBook's (already inflated) price to get that feature... I know I would.
It just surprised me that Apple could not think just a little differently in this regard and gave us top notch value/performance in every other area...
Another way that I might be convinced to buy a MacBook would be if some hack came out that allowed you to set the amount of shared ram to 224MB (the maximum allowed by the GMA 950 chipset). It might have enough of an effect to sway me.
Lastly, I just hope that those MacBook gamer rumours are true because if not, I will have to wait until some MacBook whatever iteration comes along with a better graphics solution, even if it is still IG.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by melgross
I posted this before, but I think it got lost in the late hour, and between out overly long posts, but it's worth posting again.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2397
Heck, this isn't true, is it?
Originally posted by macaddict74
Reposted from another thread:
*snip*
Any thoughts?
Just buy the MacBook. As a student, you're not going to game. Trust me, it's bad for your grades.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Because ultimately that's where it ends up.
If you came out with a $999 MacBook, someone will always point out the $899 Dell. If you came out with an $899 MacBook, someone will point out the $799 Acer. If you came out with a $799 MacBook, someone will point out the $599 YangLiHo....
Your argument is that Apple should go out and out for market share in the lower end of the market. That's where it will end up. It's the reverse of what Dell, HP and the other big manufacturers are trying to do and they don't even have a premium brand image to protect or Apple's R&D costs.
This demonstrates that you do not understand what I am talking about.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
A while back a bike shop owner told me he refuses to sell mountain bikes that cost less than £250. Ostensibly he could sell bikes called 'Mountain bikes' that cost £100. He certainly had customers coming in asking for them and Toys R Us sold them by the truck load.
He refused still. Why?
Because if people used them as 'mountain bikes' they'd fall apart in no time at all and he'd have a lot of returns. The low margin would be eaten up in no time. Plus, he didn't want the hassle and well, he's a cyclist so thinks that selling people 45lb lumps of badly crafted steel will put people off bikes and they'd not be back for better ones later. If he was selling £100 bikes he'd have to sell a lot more of them and not mind pissing off customers when their pile of junk fell apart.
Apple is that bike shop owner. Dell is Toys R Us.
Is that a better analogy for you?
You don't have to explain to me why Apple should keep out of the low end. I agree. Apple shouldn't go there.
You just seem to be in denial about the realities of the PC market. The MacBook is an Upper Mid-Range machine, or perhaps even Lower High-End. I think Apple is only addressing about 20% of the market, and that is not a good business decision.
here is a quote from my first post in this thread:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
Increased market share was one of the benefits that I think would result from such a strategy. This is also directly related to selling more units and therefore making more money. This is a bad thing, how exactly?
Perhaps you do not think there is much demand for a laptop with 15.4" widescreen (or 13" or 14" widescreen, for less money), no iSight, no Front Row, and a Pentium-M Celeron (This is not a low-end machine)? Go and look at Dell's, HP's, Acer's, Toshiba's, and Sony's (who together account for at least 70% of the market) product line-ups, and at the best seller list at Amazon, and you will find that you are mistaken.
Originally posted by macaddict74
Now, let's say I want some kind of dedicated graphics card, I have to turn to the MacBook Pro which after AppleCare and taxes comes to approximately 2620 Canadian dollars. In comparison, the high-end white MacBook with AppleCare and taxes comes to about 1830 Canadian. This is a difference of almost 800 dollars! It isn't that the price difference is not justified, but I love the 13.3 inch form-factor.
Does that include Apple's higher-education discounts? In the UK, 3 year warranty (not full Apple Care) is standard (at no extra cost) for higher-education purchasers (makes the MacBooks and MacBook Pros a really sweet deal: can get the 1.83 GHz White with 1 gig of RAM and 3 year warranty for £703.30, or a 2 GHz MBpro with 1 gig RAM for £1,247.84)
Originally posted by macaddict74
I simply wish that on the high end MacBook they could have included even something as low as an Ati X300. Better yet an Nvidia 6200 Turbocache. These bottom of the barrel, el cheapo chips totally humiliate the GMA 950 in all tasks... AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED CHIPSETS!!! Check out http://www.anandtech.com/video/show...?i=2427&p=5 for their article comparing various integrated graphics solutions. Another thing to note... The above article is from almost a year ago. What does that tell you?
Your link doesn't work. I didn't think the 950 was that bad a performer.
Originally posted by macaddict74
In other words, it isn't so much the IG that I am not liking it is the fact that for just a miniscule cost to apple (probably in the <$10 range considering the large quantities) we could have had a much better chipset, albeit integrated running in the MacBook. Even a BTO option would have been nice.
What makes you so sure that Apple could fit a dedicated GPU into the MacBook? Have you seen the take-apart photos? It's pretty tight in there. Also, there is the heat factor to take into account. Most reports I've seen state that the MacBook runs really hot as it is.
I think you should just save for longer and get a MacBook Pro.