I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor. [/B]
Even if that turned out to be the case, you think all those users are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find?
And I think more and more people are getting interested in watching video, editing it, making dvd's, and doing audio/video chat. Multimedia is a hog, and it's probably growing more than anything else right now. Once the bare minimum PC can handle video easily, people will start looking at HD.
Really, it's just all speculation without any real numbers. What really matters is, what percentage of the market is $599 laptops versus $1099 laptops? I know a year or two ago there was a ton of hubbub over $399 pcs...but hardly any of them were being sold.
Quote:
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05? Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
So what do you consider the cut off point that apple needs to get up to?
Quote:
II 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 don't think anyone would disagree that additional models would sell. But the question is how many? You say "significantly" more. But we don't know that, with apple's limited resources, it may make more sense for them to focus their resources on the key products that are highest in demand and really nail them.
Quote:
I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
In the short term, they'll likely sell these as fast as they can build them. Having a cheaper model would likely increase demand, but if they're exceeding supply already, that just causes longer waits.
Quote:
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.
I think that's where your argument falls apart. I think apple is addressing probably 80% of the laptop market. Without any numbers, it's just dueling speculation.
Quote:
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. [/B]
There's only demand for those if the price is considerably less. You are assuming that cutting all those features would have a large difference in price. If the price difference isn't that much, I think most consumers would pay a little more for the extras. Apple obviously wants the selling point of their machines to be that they are the *best*. If apple sells machines with less features and low performance, they're turning the machine into a commodity. The arguements for buying the machine are stripped away leaving only the price as a selling point (and that's one they'll likely never win).
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?
They don't need to introduce a new line of macs to sell a sub $1000 Macbook. Core solo, a smaller hard drive and there you go. A celeron m and the above probably gets you to $899. Apple can do it without cutting margins but they choose not to. That's what puzzles some of us.
Although, they may have leaned a lesson from Dell and have chosen to maintain the image of being a step-above PC makers. Part of such a marketing strategy would be pricing, and the cache associated with owning something more expensive.
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?
Because you've not demonstrated at all that it will net Apple any more money. How do you know selling low end computers won't cannibalise sales of higher end computers? And more than that, why do they have to? They're more profitable than Dell now. Using Dell's tactics won't make them more profitable, it'll make them less profitable.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
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.
You think a Celeron-M laptop isn't low end?
And you think iSight and FrontRow account for more than say $10 on the BOM to Apple?
They don't need to introduce a new line of macs to sell a sub $1000 Macbook. Core solo, a smaller hard drive and there you go. A celeron m and the above probably gets you to $899. Apple can do it without cutting margins but they choose not to. That's what puzzles some of us.
I never said they need a different line. Simply that they have a lot on their plate just getting intel macs out the door, they can always add more configs later (look at the MPB's, they've already made improvements). You see it as choosing not to, I see it as choosing not to start with it.
Celeron is a different socket, using it would require a different motherboard from any of the Core machines.
Oh dear. So they're painted matt black not moulded that way?
That's a good question, isn't it? With plastic having the ability to take on any surface pattern from the mold, and the ability to take a "through" color, if the company uses the right material, and if this is still polycarbonate, or ABS, for that matter, there would be no reason for them not to do it that way.
But, if it's really peeling off already, that is not a good sign. Sometimes it's difficult to understand how they QC these products.
When we built something, we went and abused it. If the finish is arriving from the factory in a sub par manner, then someone is messing up badly.
But I question the wisdom of using a finish that can be seperated. I wish I could be there when they evaluate these things.
Although, they may have leaned a lesson from Dell and have chosen to maintain the image of being a step-above PC makers. Part of such a marketing strategy would be pricing, and the cache associated with owning something more expensive.
Dell loses money on their low price offerings not because they are low priced, but because they are always giving out those half (or less) price coupons. They would make money on their $500 units if they didn't sell so many at $250!
Apple doesn't have dozens of white box companies to compete with as Dell does. They also don't have an hp breathing down their neck, or a Lenovo, or a (heavens forbid) Gateway.
Offering a machine for, say, $899, without an iSight, a slower cpu, no Gigabit ethernet, no Wifi or Bluetooth, a smaller HD, but that could be upgraded to them, would not exactly be competing on the low end. It would be the same machine. Just let people decide if they want to go all the way, or stop somewhere else.
Apple doesn't have to start that low, if they think that it will spoil their image, but there is no reason why the same principal concept can't apply. After all, Apple does build to order now. This would just give people more options.
This is really for those who are on the fence, and who have their Windows using friends co-workers, and relatives, trying to convince them that a $1100 computer costs too much. This levels the field somewhat.
When they see the options, they may get most of them anyway, but they will have the feeling that it is they who are making the choices to spend more, not that they are being forced into doing it.
Not when it has a widescreen display, at least 512 MB of RAM, 80 + GB HD, and DVD burner, no.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And you think iSight and FrontRow account for more than say $10 on the BOM to Apple?
iSight requires the camera, cable and connector on the MB. Front Row requires the IR receiver assembly, cable and MB connector, and remote control (with battery).
Yes, I do think those things contribute more than $10 to the BOM.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Even if that turned out to be the case, you think all those users are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find?
I never said they would.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Really, it's just all speculation without any real numbers. What really matters is, what percentage of the market is $599 laptops versus $1099 laptops?
No, the important question is what percentage of the market is 13 or 14 inch widescreens at under $1099 + 15.4 inch widescreens at under $1999? I suggest that it is much, much bigger than you think. Have you gone and looked at Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony and Amazon best-selling list as I suggested?
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
So what do you consider the cut off point that apple needs to get up to?
I think if they can get to 10%, things start to get very interesting.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
I don't think anyone would disagree that additional models would sell. But the question is how many? You say "significantly" more. But we don't know that, with apple's limited resources, it may make more sense for them to focus their resources on the key products that are highest in demand and really nail them.
I agree. It is impossible to know how many such machines Apple would sell without making them and finding out. I believe Apple need to be a lot more agressive, and expand their resources.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
I think apple is addressing probably 80% of the laptop market.
On this point, we must agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
There's only demand for those if the price is considerably less. You are assuming that cutting all those features would have a large difference in price.
I think that the fact Apple can match PC manufacturers on price with machines that match the MacBook and MacBook Pro specs, they could offer machines such as the ones I suggest at similar prices to their competitors.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?
It is not outlandish. I hope you are right. Apple's campus consolidation (which will help improve resources for developing and supporting an expanded product range) cannot come soon enough.
If apple sells machines with less features and low performance, they're turning the machine into a commodity. The arguements for buying the machine are stripped away leaving only the price as a selling point (and that's one they'll likely never win).
You are seriously saying, that in less than a year, iSight, Front Row and Core Duo performance have become an absolute necessity for the "Mac experience", and that without them, a Mac is worthless and you might as well use Windows?
Removing iSight, Front Row and Core Duo does not remove what really makes a Mac a Mac: OS X, iLife and industry-leading industrial design.
No, the important question is what percentage of the market is 13 or 14 inch widescreens at under $1099 + 15.4 inch widescreens at under $1999? I suggest that it is much, much bigger than you think. Have you gone and looked at Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony and Amazon best-selling list as I suggested?
And we don't know the answer to that question. And even if PC makers are selling machines at $999, or whatever number you consider a little less than apple's price, I think many users will see the advantages of the MB and be willing to pay a little more for it. I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are seriously saying, that in less than a year, iSight, Front Row and Core Duo performance have become an absolute necessity for the "Mac experience", and that without them, a Mac is worthless and you might as well use Windows?
Removing iSight, Front Row and Core Duo does not remove what really makes a Mac a Mac: OS X, iLife and industry-leading industrial design.
I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that those features are all great selling points for the mac, and that it makes sense for ALL macs to have those features. They just reinforce the message that mac equals quality and features.
I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
It doesn't have to sell a ton better. Look at iPod. Great design, easy intuitive user interface, models in all price points (and competitve with other MP3 players). I believe iPod has 75% of the MP3 player market. The shuffle is offered to give consumers an entry point into iPods. It may not sell the most and certainly isn't the most 'advanced' iPod but it completes the product lineup.
I used to feel much like you do but Mr. H and others have convinced me that Apple could do better. Heck with the success of the iPod I wonder if arguments inside Apple are similar to the ones we have here.
And we don't know the answer to that question. And even if PC makers are selling machines at $999, or whatever number you consider a little less than apple's price, I think many users will see the advantages of the MB and be willing to pay a little more for it. I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
From Amazon:
Top Seller:
Toshiba Satellite A105-S2716 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 740 (Centrino), 1024 MB RAM, 100 GB Hard Drive, DVD SuperMulti Drive). Price $944.99
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
I am not saying that Apple's laptops aren't worth it. They have much better specs than the machines above. But most people aren't buying them. They are buying 15.4" widescreen laptops with less powerful processors. Apple should not ignore this section of the market.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
I'm just saying that those features are all great selling points for the mac, and that it makes sense for ALL macs to have those features.
And anyone who doesn't want them should just get stuffed and buy a PC?
Er? Are you saying that all laptops that are less than $1099 are either $999 or $500?? What about all the ones in between?
No, I'm saying that in broad pricing categories there are laptops in the >2K region, around $1K region and the around $500 region.
The number of customers shopping in the around $1K region that will not buy a $1099 ($999 w/discount) vs $999 ($899-$950 w/discount) is small.
The around $500 market is not one that Apple is likely to compete well in as its not oriented around style or performance but lowest price.
Quote:
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.
And Apple is a high end manufacturer. You want them to be something else. Which is okay but I wouldn't hold my breath or expect much support from folks that like the brand as marketed today.
Quote:
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.
Every analogy has areas where it breaks down. However, with the Ferrari example while the roads, gas, etc are common many things about the car is not. An example is their gas caps are machined out of aluminium.
With respect to developers, one of the brightest moves is to keep some level of compatibility with FreeBSD and to have Darwin. So long as Safari can mimic the same capabilities of say, FireFox, fewer and fewer websites will be inaccessible.
Quote:
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.
If it was trivial and had a high ROI I think that Apple would do it. Beating Dell in the pricing game at the volumes you want IS hard or Dell wouldn't be #1.
Quote:
Only if you already own a massive chunk of that market.
That comment makes no sense. New markets don't have a dominant player even if some competitors will have major advantages. Its MP3 players vs VCRs.
It means going after say the media center PC market vs the general PC market. Where Microsoft might dominate but the market is small enough that Apple with the right product can pull an iPod.
Investing R&D and money in some media appliance/PC has far more potential for explosive growth than trying to butt heads with Dell.
Quote:
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.
No offense but I'm glad neither you or I are in charge of Apple. In any case, cheaper models cheapens the brands and cannibalizes higher end sales.
Just buy the MacBook. As a student, you're not going to game. Trust me, it's bad for your grades.
I am so sick of people on this forum making suggestions like this. Maybe you don't have the ability to be able to go to school and still have a bit of entertainment in your day. Hell I bet you took 20 credits a semester and lived in a library. I know plenty of people that have great GPA's and they have jobs, they party, and they game.
Don't just assume that because someone is in school that is their entire life. It's not. For most people they have jobs and schoolwork, and it is nice to be able to relax with a casual game.
The fact that this is a consumer notebook, and consumers play games, and there is no BTO option to upgrade the graphics card is just plain sad. I will say it again Apple left a gap in their line due to their unwillingness to make an adequate replacement for the 12-inch Powerbook. The Macbook is not a replacement for a 12-inch PB, and it never will be if Apple keeps up their attitude with integrated graphics.
I can't remember which site I read it on but there was a complaint that the Macbooks suffer when running Aperture, and an Apple employee suggested a MBP. Not everyone wants a 15 inch laptop, and please don't suggest having a desktop to game on, many people have a desktop, and some want a laptop that can do even a decent job at gaming. I am not talking about an x1600 but an x300 or a 6200 turbo cache would of greatly increased the performance for little cost.
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).
Then they couldn't meet what appears to be their design goals for their products. Back to the car analogy its like saying Ferrari could make cheaper cars by putting in 4 cyl engines.
Uh yah...but those cars wouldn't meet the desired market segment and tarnish the brand. In this case, Apple projects the image that they make the best user experience in a combination of hardware and software. They have deemed for whatever reason that solid HD playback, iSight, etc are part of that experience moving forward.
If you don't have those things then you are competing on price because its a commodity market...where share is very important because the bigger the share the bigger the discounts you get on component purchases.
I also don't expect Apple machines to continue to be value leaders...have you considered that some of the current aggressive pricing while keeping 25% margins may be part of some sweetheart deal from Intel for the transition period?
I also don't expect Apple machines to continue to be value leaders...have you considered that some of the current aggressive pricing while keeping 25% margins may be part of some sweetheart deal from Intel for the transition period?
Vinea
What makes you think current MBPs are 'value' machines? The Macbooks are a good value but MBPs are considerably higher than a similarly speced Dell inspiron, by about $800. If Apple get's less competitve with pricing going forward that will be a bad turn of events IMO.
Not when it has a widescreen display, at least 512 MB of RAM, 80 + GB HD, and DVD burner, no.
The $1099 Macbook has a 60GB HD and a Combo drive so it's lower end than that. Coming in with a 1.83Ghz Core Duo is a bargain at the price.
Sure, they could do an even lower end config with a 40GB hard drive and a Celeron-M and that might get them to $999 but is there a point when you can have a Core Duo 1.83 for $100 more?
After that they'd have to use things like the P4-M or a Sempron and design a completely new computer for them. They may as well stick with manufacturing G4s if that's the case.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
iSight requires the camera, cable and connector on the MB. Front Row requires the IR receiver assembly, cable and MB connector, and remote control (with battery).
Yes, I do think those things contribute more than $10 to the BOM.
$12? $14? Really, they aren't expensive components. A plastic fixed focal length low res ccd camera like you get in $19 web cams, an IR receiver and a simple remote. They really don't add much to the cost.
Comments
I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor. [/B]
Even if that turned out to be the case, you think all those users are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find?
And I think more and more people are getting interested in watching video, editing it, making dvd's, and doing audio/video chat. Multimedia is a hog, and it's probably growing more than anything else right now. Once the bare minimum PC can handle video easily, people will start looking at HD.
Really, it's just all speculation without any real numbers. What really matters is, what percentage of the market is $599 laptops versus $1099 laptops? I know a year or two ago there was a ton of hubbub over $399 pcs...but hardly any of them were being sold.
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05? Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
So what do you consider the cut off point that apple needs to get up to?
II 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 don't think anyone would disagree that additional models would sell. But the question is how many? You say "significantly" more. But we don't know that, with apple's limited resources, it may make more sense for them to focus their resources on the key products that are highest in demand and really nail them.
I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.
In the short term, they'll likely sell these as fast as they can build them. Having a cheaper model would likely increase demand, but if they're exceeding supply already, that just causes longer waits.
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.
I think that's where your argument falls apart. I think apple is addressing probably 80% of the laptop market. Without any numbers, it's just dueling speculation.
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. [/B]
There's only demand for those if the price is considerably less. You are assuming that cutting all those features would have a large difference in price. If the price difference isn't that much, I think most consumers would pay a little more for the extras. Apple obviously wants the selling point of their machines to be that they are the *best*. If apple sells machines with less features and low performance, they're turning the machine into a commodity. The arguements for buying the machine are stripped away leaving only the price as a selling point (and that's one they'll likely never win).
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?
Originally posted by minderbinder
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?
They don't need to introduce a new line of macs to sell a sub $1000 Macbook. Core solo, a smaller hard drive and there you go. A celeron m and the above probably gets you to $899. Apple can do it without cutting margins but they choose not to. That's what puzzles some of us.
Originally posted by Mr. H
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?
Because you've not demonstrated at all that it will net Apple any more money. How do you know selling low end computers won't cannibalise sales of higher end computers? And more than that, why do they have to? They're more profitable than Dell now. Using Dell's tactics won't make them more profitable, it'll make them less profitable.
Originally posted by Mr. H
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.
You think a Celeron-M laptop isn't low end?
And you think iSight and FrontRow account for more than say $10 on the BOM to Apple?
I'll have what you're smoking.
Originally posted by backtomac
They don't need to introduce a new line of macs to sell a sub $1000 Macbook. Core solo, a smaller hard drive and there you go. A celeron m and the above probably gets you to $899. Apple can do it without cutting margins but they choose not to. That's what puzzles some of us.
I never said they need a different line. Simply that they have a lot on their plate just getting intel macs out the door, they can always add more configs later (look at the MPB's, they've already made improvements). You see it as choosing not to, I see it as choosing not to start with it.
Celeron is a different socket, using it would require a different motherboard from any of the Core machines.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Oh dear. So they're painted matt black not moulded that way?
That's a good question, isn't it? With plastic having the ability to take on any surface pattern from the mold, and the ability to take a "through" color, if the company uses the right material, and if this is still polycarbonate, or ABS, for that matter, there would be no reason for them not to do it that way.
But, if it's really peeling off already, that is not a good sign. Sometimes it's difficult to understand how they QC these products.
When we built something, we went and abused it. If the finish is arriving from the factory in a sub par manner, then someone is messing up badly.
But I question the wisdom of using a finish that can be seperated. I wish I could be there when they evaluate these things.
Originally posted by mowenbrown
Although, they may have leaned a lesson from Dell and have chosen to maintain the image of being a step-above PC makers. Part of such a marketing strategy would be pricing, and the cache associated with owning something more expensive.
Dell loses money on their low price offerings not because they are low priced, but because they are always giving out those half (or less) price coupons. They would make money on their $500 units if they didn't sell so many at $250!
Apple doesn't have dozens of white box companies to compete with as Dell does. They also don't have an hp breathing down their neck, or a Lenovo, or a (heavens forbid) Gateway.
Offering a machine for, say, $899, without an iSight, a slower cpu, no Gigabit ethernet, no Wifi or Bluetooth, a smaller HD, but that could be upgraded to them, would not exactly be competing on the low end. It would be the same machine. Just let people decide if they want to go all the way, or stop somewhere else.
The Macworld article;
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05...dson/index.php
Apple doesn't have to start that low, if they think that it will spoil their image, but there is no reason why the same principal concept can't apply. After all, Apple does build to order now. This would just give people more options.
This is really for those who are on the fence, and who have their Windows using friends co-workers, and relatives, trying to convince them that a $1100 computer costs too much. This levels the field somewhat.
When they see the options, they may get most of them anyway, but they will have the feeling that it is they who are making the choices to spend more, not that they are being forced into doing it.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Celeron is a different socket, using it would require a different motherboard from any of the Core machines.
A good point.
Originally posted by Ti Fighter
My blackbook just shipped from macmall today, I'll have it on friday
although gotta pick up some ram faster than i expected,
Actually it's comming today,
Originally posted by aegisdesign
You think a Celeron-M laptop isn't low end?
Not when it has a widescreen display, at least 512 MB of RAM, 80 + GB HD, and DVD burner, no.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And you think iSight and FrontRow account for more than say $10 on the BOM to Apple?
iSight requires the camera, cable and connector on the MB. Front Row requires the IR receiver assembly, cable and MB connector, and remote control (with battery).
Yes, I do think those things contribute more than $10 to the BOM.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Even if that turned out to be the case, you think all those users are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find?
I never said they would.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Really, it's just all speculation without any real numbers. What really matters is, what percentage of the market is $599 laptops versus $1099 laptops?
No, the important question is what percentage of the market is 13 or 14 inch widescreens at under $1099 + 15.4 inch widescreens at under $1999? I suggest that it is much, much bigger than you think. Have you gone and looked at Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony and Amazon best-selling list as I suggested?
Originally posted by minderbinder
So what do you consider the cut off point that apple needs to get up to?
I think if they can get to 10%, things start to get very interesting.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I don't think anyone would disagree that additional models would sell. But the question is how many? You say "significantly" more. But we don't know that, with apple's limited resources, it may make more sense for them to focus their resources on the key products that are highest in demand and really nail them.
I agree. It is impossible to know how many such machines Apple would sell without making them and finding out. I believe Apple need to be a lot more agressive, and expand their resources.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I think apple is addressing probably 80% of the laptop market.
On this point, we must agree to disagree.
Originally posted by minderbinder
There's only demand for those if the price is considerably less. You are assuming that cutting all those features would have a large difference in price.
I think that the fact Apple can match PC manufacturers on price with machines that match the MacBook and MacBook Pro specs, they could offer machines such as the ones I suggest at similar prices to their competitors.
Originally posted by minderbinder
One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.
Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?
It is not outlandish. I hope you are right. Apple's campus consolidation (which will help improve resources for developing and supporting an expanded product range) cannot come soon enough.
Originally posted by minderbinder
If apple sells machines with less features and low performance, they're turning the machine into a commodity. The arguements for buying the machine are stripped away leaving only the price as a selling point (and that's one they'll likely never win).
You are seriously saying, that in less than a year, iSight, Front Row and Core Duo performance have become an absolute necessity for the "Mac experience", and that without them, a Mac is worthless and you might as well use Windows?
Removing iSight, Front Row and Core Duo does not remove what really makes a Mac a Mac: OS X, iLife and industry-leading industrial design.
Originally posted by Mr. H
No, the important question is what percentage of the market is 13 or 14 inch widescreens at under $1099 + 15.4 inch widescreens at under $1999? I suggest that it is much, much bigger than you think. Have you gone and looked at Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony and Amazon best-selling list as I suggested?
And we don't know the answer to that question. And even if PC makers are selling machines at $999, or whatever number you consider a little less than apple's price, I think many users will see the advantages of the MB and be willing to pay a little more for it. I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are seriously saying, that in less than a year, iSight, Front Row and Core Duo performance have become an absolute necessity for the "Mac experience", and that without them, a Mac is worthless and you might as well use Windows?
Removing iSight, Front Row and Core Duo does not remove what really makes a Mac a Mac: OS X, iLife and industry-leading industrial design.
I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that those features are all great selling points for the mac, and that it makes sense for ALL macs to have those features. They just reinforce the message that mac equals quality and features.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
It doesn't have to sell a ton better. Look at iPod. Great design, easy intuitive user interface, models in all price points (and competitve with other MP3 players). I believe iPod has 75% of the MP3 player market. The shuffle is offered to give consumers an entry point into iPods. It may not sell the most and certainly isn't the most 'advanced' iPod but it completes the product lineup.
I used to feel much like you do but Mr. H and others have convinced me that Apple could do better. Heck with the success of the iPod I wonder if arguments inside Apple are similar to the ones we have here.
Originally posted by minderbinder
And we don't know the answer to that question. And even if PC makers are selling machines at $999, or whatever number you consider a little less than apple's price, I think many users will see the advantages of the MB and be willing to pay a little more for it. I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.
From Amazon:
Top Seller:
Toshiba Satellite A105-S2716 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 740 (Centrino), 1024 MB RAM, 100 GB Hard Drive, DVD SuperMulti Drive). Price $944.99
Number 4:
Acer Aspire 3004WLCi 15.4" Notebook PC (Mobile AMD Sempron 3100+, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive). Price $599.99
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
I am not saying that Apple's laptops aren't worth it. They have much better specs than the machines above. But most people aren't buying them. They are buying 15.4" widescreen laptops with less powerful processors. Apple should not ignore this section of the market.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I'm just saying that those features are all great selling points for the mac, and that it makes sense for ALL macs to have those features.
And anyone who doesn't want them should just get stuffed and buy a PC?
Originally posted by minderbinder
Celeron is a different socket, using it would require a different motherboard from any of the Core machines.
Even the Yonah based Celeron-M 4xx series ?
I've not seen a socket description for the new Celeron-M but I'd be surprised if it's not the same socket as the Core.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Er? Are you saying that all laptops that are less than $1099 are either $999 or $500?? What about all the ones in between?
No, I'm saying that in broad pricing categories there are laptops in the >2K region, around $1K region and the around $500 region.
The number of customers shopping in the around $1K region that will not buy a $1099 ($999 w/discount) vs $999 ($899-$950 w/discount) is small.
The around $500 market is not one that Apple is likely to compete well in as its not oriented around style or performance but lowest price.
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.
And Apple is a high end manufacturer. You want them to be something else. Which is okay but I wouldn't hold my breath or expect much support from folks that like the brand as marketed today.
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.
Every analogy has areas where it breaks down. However, with the Ferrari example while the roads, gas, etc are common many things about the car is not. An example is their gas caps are machined out of aluminium.
With respect to developers, one of the brightest moves is to keep some level of compatibility with FreeBSD and to have Darwin. So long as Safari can mimic the same capabilities of say, FireFox, fewer and fewer websites will be inaccessible.
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.
If it was trivial and had a high ROI I think that Apple would do it. Beating Dell in the pricing game at the volumes you want IS hard or Dell wouldn't be #1.
Only if you already own a massive chunk of that market.
That comment makes no sense. New markets don't have a dominant player even if some competitors will have major advantages. Its MP3 players vs VCRs.
It means going after say the media center PC market vs the general PC market. Where Microsoft might dominate but the market is small enough that Apple with the right product can pull an iPod.
Investing R&D and money in some media appliance/PC has far more potential for explosive growth than trying to butt heads with Dell.
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.
No offense but I'm glad neither you or I are in charge of Apple. In any case, cheaper models cheapens the brands and cannibalizes higher end sales.
Vinea
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Just buy the MacBook. As a student, you're not going to game. Trust me, it's bad for your grades.
I am so sick of people on this forum making suggestions like this. Maybe you don't have the ability to be able to go to school and still have a bit of entertainment in your day. Hell I bet you took 20 credits a semester and lived in a library. I know plenty of people that have great GPA's and they have jobs, they party, and they game.
Don't just assume that because someone is in school that is their entire life. It's not. For most people they have jobs and schoolwork, and it is nice to be able to relax with a casual game.
The fact that this is a consumer notebook, and consumers play games, and there is no BTO option to upgrade the graphics card is just plain sad. I will say it again Apple left a gap in their line due to their unwillingness to make an adequate replacement for the 12-inch Powerbook. The Macbook is not a replacement for a 12-inch PB, and it never will be if Apple keeps up their attitude with integrated graphics.
I can't remember which site I read it on but there was a complaint that the Macbooks suffer when running Aperture, and an Apple employee suggested a MBP. Not everyone wants a 15 inch laptop, and please don't suggest having a desktop to game on, many people have a desktop, and some want a laptop that can do even a decent job at gaming. I am not talking about an x1600 but an x300 or a 6200 turbo cache would of greatly increased the performance for little cost.
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, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).
Then they couldn't meet what appears to be their design goals for their products. Back to the car analogy its like saying Ferrari could make cheaper cars by putting in 4 cyl engines.
Uh yah...but those cars wouldn't meet the desired market segment and tarnish the brand. In this case, Apple projects the image that they make the best user experience in a combination of hardware and software. They have deemed for whatever reason that solid HD playback, iSight, etc are part of that experience moving forward.
If you don't have those things then you are competing on price because its a commodity market...where share is very important because the bigger the share the bigger the discounts you get on component purchases.
I also don't expect Apple machines to continue to be value leaders...have you considered that some of the current aggressive pricing while keeping 25% margins may be part of some sweetheart deal from Intel for the transition period?
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
I also don't expect Apple machines to continue to be value leaders...have you considered that some of the current aggressive pricing while keeping 25% margins may be part of some sweetheart deal from Intel for the transition period?
Vinea
What makes you think current MBPs are 'value' machines? The Macbooks are a good value but MBPs are considerably higher than a similarly speced Dell inspiron, by about $800. If Apple get's less competitve with pricing going forward that will be a bad turn of events IMO.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Not when it has a widescreen display, at least 512 MB of RAM, 80 + GB HD, and DVD burner, no.
The $1099 Macbook has a 60GB HD and a Combo drive so it's lower end than that. Coming in with a 1.83Ghz Core Duo is a bargain at the price.
Sure, they could do an even lower end config with a 40GB hard drive and a Celeron-M and that might get them to $999 but is there a point when you can have a Core Duo 1.83 for $100 more?
After that they'd have to use things like the P4-M or a Sempron and design a completely new computer for them. They may as well stick with manufacturing G4s if that's the case.
Originally posted by Mr. H
iSight requires the camera, cable and connector on the MB. Front Row requires the IR receiver assembly, cable and MB connector, and remote control (with battery).
Yes, I do think those things contribute more than $10 to the BOM.
$12? $14? Really, they aren't expensive components. A plastic fixed focal length low res ccd camera like you get in $19 web cams, an IR receiver and a simple remote. They really don't add much to the cost.