This is simply not true. It would be lovely if Apple existed in a world of its own, but it does not. Apple cannot afford to just ignore the rest of the PC market (fortunately, they do not ignore all of it). Apple make computers, and compete against Windows. When consumers are going to get a computer, that is the choice they have: Windows or OS X.
Your argument is blown apart somewhat when you consider the $1099 MacBook and discover that not only is it cheaper than most similarly configured PCs (e.g., it is $50 cheaper than an equivalent Dell Inspiron E1505), it still has many more features (smaller, lighter, iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, DVI out, magsafe). It is difficult to compare the MacBook Pro, because so few PC manufacturers make anything like it. The 15" MBpro tends to be around $500 more than the "competition", but is significantly smaller and lighter and made out of metal rather than plastic, so it is difficult/silly to compare. The 17" seems to be competitive on price with similarly configured PCs. So, Apple do compete with other manufacturers, but only with the configurations that Apple choose to offer.
It is a bizarre decision to deny anyone who wishes to use OS X on a lower-powered machine the opportunity to do so. It would do web, e-mail, and simple iLife stuff perfectly well. Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
Apple is in their own market. Apple is not competing against ATX towers or regular DTR notebooks. They don't have the price or features. Apple wants customers who place design first and are willing to make some concessions to get that. No other maker competes there because there is simply not enough room and Apple already has the loyalty of those customers.
All of this call for lower priced Macs is predicated on two highly questionable assumptions:
1. That price is a gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa.
2. That the price elasticity of demand for computers (particularly at the low end) is such that Appl'e reducing its margins (a probable necessity) will be more than made up for by the quantity of machines purchased such that Apple's profit increases.
To respond to each of your points:
1.) Apple's worldwide market share is %. Enough said.
2.) If cheaper models don't cannibalise the more expensive ones, Apple has more customers (higher unit shipments), and therefore higher profits (no one is suggesting Apple sell any machines at a loss).
Apple is in their own market. Apple is not competing against ATX towers or regular DTR notebooks. They don't have the price or features. Apple wants customers who place design first and are willing to make some concessions to get that. No other maker competes there because there is simply not enough room and Apple already has the loyalty of those customers.
Did you even read the post of mine that you responded to? You are wrong. Apple is a computer manufacturer. Whilst you continue to deny this, I will live in the real world where Apple sell computers and people choose between them and machines running Windows.
What is wrong with wanting Apple to sell more computers than it currently does? How would this be bad for Apple's business?
Did you even read the post of mine that you responded to? You are wrong. Apple is a computer manufacturer. Whilst you continue to deny this, I will live in the real world where Apple sell computers and people choose between them and machines running Windows.
What is wrong with wanting Apple to sell more computers than it currently does? How would this be bad for Apple's business?
And you live in a world where there is one generic PC segment and Apple is able to fulfill the needs of everyone. They compete as much with dell as Chevy competes with BMW. They do basically the same thing, but the people buying them have different ideas in what they want in a car. They could could build the big ATX towers and thick notebooks, but then they wouldn't be Apple. That's exactly what it would take too.
And you live in a world where there is one generic PC segment and Apple is able to fulfill the needs of everyone.
No, I do not think Apple can fulfil the needs of everyone. $399 in the desktop space and $699 in the laptop space are not the lowest of the low-end. Dell and others offer plenty of models below these price points, and I agree that there is no way Apple should go there.
If you refer to my first post in this thread, you will note that I suggest that Apple does not need to sacrifice the elegance of their machines in order to meet these price points.
Take a MacBook (which is price-competitive with an equivalent-spec Dell Inspiron), replace the Core Duo with a Celeron-M 420 (which is pin-compatible with the Core Duo and therefore does not require a motherboard re-design), replace the HD with a 40 gig one, take out iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, replace DVI out with VGA out, and replace the battery with a smaller one, and you have a $699 laptop with the same margins as the $1099 MacBook. It has not sacrificed the elegance of the MacBook form-factor.
Yes, it has sacrificed a few features. But none of those features are required to run OS X or iLife.
1.) Apple's worldwide market share is %. Enough said.
2.) If cheaper models don't cannibalise the more expensive ones, Apple has more customers (higher unit shipments), and therefore higher profits (no one is suggesting Apple sell any machines at a loss).
Nothing you've said refutes either assumption as I stated them. They only elaborate that you hold those assumptions.
Nothing you've said refute either assumption. They only elaborate that you hold those assumptions.
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their % market share?
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa", % market share would make absolutely no sense given how much better Macs are than PCs.
Of course, there are other things that contribute to the low market share such as software and peripheral hardware availability and general awareness of OS X, but I find it odd to suggest that price is not a significant factor for most people.
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their % market share?
No.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa", % market share would make absolutely no sense given how much better Macs are than PCs.
You seem to be (as many here do) assuming that price is the only factor people consider when purchasing a Mac vs. PC (NOTE: I am talking about the condition of the market as it currently exists, not how it may or may not have gotten to this point). This is certainly not true. Other significant and likely factors include:
- Not as many games (or other software titles) available...or specific desired ones
- I have a PC at work/school/some other place and need to be "compatible"
- "Sure, the machine itself is cheap enough, but I will have to re-buy a variety of software titles that I already own for the PC."
(NOTE: I haven't even mentioned tha variety of "Mac myths" that would prevent people from buying regardless of price.)
Even if you can counter the 1st two, that 3rd one is a tough nut to crack. So price alone is not likely the sole factor. Add into this equation the fact that comparably equipped usable machines are comparably priced from Dell, et al...meaning that once someone pimps out their $399 bargin machine to do what they want it to do and make it usable...it probably costs what Apple was asking anyway. Agreed that many people are captured by the $399 "gotcha price".
You seem to be (as many here do) assuming that price is the only factor people consider when purchasing a Mac vs. PC
You must have missed the last paragraph of my post.
But you put the "other factors" better than I did.
I grant you, It is difficult to know how all these things balance out. I think that with cheaper, lower-end machines, Apple could get to 10% share, and then some of the other problems such as low OS X awareness, software and hardware availability, and "Mac myths", will start to dissolve as well.
Perhaps they can get to 10% without cheaper machines. We shall see.
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their % market share?
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa", % market share would make absolutely no sense given how much better Macs are than PCs.
Of course, there are other things that contribute to the low market share such as software and peripheral hardware availability and general awareness of OS X, but I find it odd to suggest that price is not a significant factor for most people.
Another reason is that Apple doesn't cater to the prosumer at all. The iMac could be very competitive on price (which it really is by the way), but if the buyer does not want an all in one, you are not going to sell them one. You can not buy a consumer machine from Apple with multiple full sized optical drives, a card reader, multiple hard drive bays, or expansion slots of any kind. I know most of you hate towers, but they've stayed around so long because they are very practical and expandable form factors. Apple doesn't have all the answers on how to make PCs. Just a different set for a different kind of user.
I think that with cheaper, lower-end machines, Apple could get to 10% share, and then some of the other problems such as low OS X awareness, software and hardware availability, and "Mac myths", will start to dissolve as well.
Possibly. And possibly they could bankrupt themselves in the process. This is a delicate balance and I actually think that Apple is handling it well. Their current low-end offerings are compelling and reasonably priced. Apple's problem may be more about marketing (i.e., getting past the $399 "gotcha" price).
i'm only considering getting a mac cause if i buy it in the USA i can save £200+.....to crack the UK market they need to offer a cheaper alternative. at the end of the day £749 for their lowest range laptop just isnt cheap enough to compete with sellers such as Dell. especially not in the UK.
Possibly. And possibly they could bankrupt themselves in the process.
That would be pretty hard to do, seeing as they have, what, 7 billion USD in the bank, hard cash?
Quote:
This is a delicate balance and I actually think that Apple is handling it well.
No, they're not. They lost a lot of their marketshare in the last 5 years, and they continue to struggle within the 2-3% margin.
Quote:
Their current low-end offerings are compelling and reasonably priced.
A lot of people think that $1,099 for a laptop is too high. Some will gladly pay $800, some will even pay $900. But a person that buys a laptop to basically surf the web at home and watch some movies on it will not pay $1099 for it. He goes to BestBuy, picks out some $799 Acer laptop that's perfectly capable of surfing the web and playing movies and he goes home happily. He's the average guy/girl, doesn't really care what OS his laptop runs as long as it runs it, and is not particularly interested in the technical merits of one OS over the other.
This is the majority of the market.
Quote:
Apple's problem may be more about marketing (i.e., getting past the $399 "gotcha" price).
Yes, and they need to change their image of a boutique shop that sells laptops to rich, spoiled brats and start creating a fresh new image for itself. Believe me, whomever I ask 'who do you think Apple's target market is' the answer is always 'rich people'.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
This is simply not true. It would be lovely if Apple existed in a world of its own, but it does not. Apple cannot afford to just ignore the rest of the PC market (fortunately, they do not ignore all of it). Apple make computers, and compete against Windows. When consumers are going to get a computer, that is the choice they have: Windows or OS X.
Your argument is blown apart somewhat when you consider the $1099 MacBook and discover that not only is it cheaper than most similarly configured PCs (e.g., it is $50 cheaper than an equivalent Dell Inspiron E1505), it still has many more features (smaller, lighter, iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, DVI out, magsafe). It is difficult to compare the MacBook Pro, because so few PC manufacturers make anything like it. The 15" MBpro tends to be around $500 more than the "competition", but is significantly smaller and lighter and made out of metal rather than plastic, so it is difficult/silly to compare. The 17" seems to be competitive on price with similarly configured PCs. So, Apple do compete with other manufacturers, but only with the configurations that Apple choose to offer.
It is a bizarre decision to deny anyone who wishes to use OS X on a lower-powered machine the opportunity to do so. It would do web, e-mail, and simple iLife stuff perfectly well. Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
Apple is in their own market. Apple is not competing against ATX towers or regular DTR notebooks. They don't have the price or features. Apple wants customers who place design first and are willing to make some concessions to get that. No other maker competes there because there is simply not enough room and Apple already has the loyalty of those customers.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
All of this call for lower priced Macs is predicated on two highly questionable assumptions:
1. That price is a gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa.
2. That the price elasticity of demand for computers (particularly at the low end) is such that Appl'e reducing its margins (a probable necessity) will be more than made up for by the quantity of machines purchased such that Apple's profit increases.
To respond to each of your points:
1.) Apple's worldwide market share is
2.) If cheaper models don't cannibalise the more expensive ones, Apple has more customers (higher unit shipments), and therefore higher profits (no one is suggesting Apple sell any machines at a loss).
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Apple is in their own market. Apple is not competing against ATX towers or regular DTR notebooks. They don't have the price or features. Apple wants customers who place design first and are willing to make some concessions to get that. No other maker competes there because there is simply not enough room and Apple already has the loyalty of those customers.
Did you even read the post of mine that you responded to? You are wrong. Apple is a computer manufacturer. Whilst you continue to deny this, I will live in the real world where Apple sell computers and people choose between them and machines running Windows.
What is wrong with wanting Apple to sell more computers than it currently does? How would this be bad for Apple's business?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Did you even read the post of mine that you responded to? You are wrong. Apple is a computer manufacturer. Whilst you continue to deny this, I will live in the real world where Apple sell computers and people choose between them and machines running Windows.
What is wrong with wanting Apple to sell more computers than it currently does? How would this be bad for Apple's business?
And you live in a world where there is one generic PC segment and Apple is able to fulfill the needs of everyone. They compete as much with dell as Chevy competes with BMW. They do basically the same thing, but the people buying them have different ideas in what they want in a car. They could could build the big ATX towers and thick notebooks, but then they wouldn't be Apple. That's exactly what it would take too.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
And you live in a world where there is one generic PC segment and Apple is able to fulfill the needs of everyone.
No, I do not think Apple can fulfil the needs of everyone. $399 in the desktop space and $699 in the laptop space are not the lowest of the low-end. Dell and others offer plenty of models below these price points, and I agree that there is no way Apple should go there.
If you refer to my first post in this thread, you will note that I suggest that Apple does not need to sacrifice the elegance of their machines in order to meet these price points.
Take a MacBook (which is price-competitive with an equivalent-spec Dell Inspiron), replace the Core Duo with a Celeron-M 420 (which is pin-compatible with the Core Duo and therefore does not require a motherboard re-design), replace the HD with a 40 gig one, take out iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, replace DVI out with VGA out, and replace the battery with a smaller one, and you have a $699 laptop with the same margins as the $1099 MacBook. It has not sacrificed the elegance of the MacBook form-factor.
Yes, it has sacrificed a few features. But none of those features are required to run OS X or iLife.
Originally posted by Mr. H
To respond to each of your points:
1.) Apple's worldwide market share is
2.) If cheaper models don't cannibalise the more expensive ones, Apple has more customers (higher unit shipments), and therefore higher profits (no one is suggesting Apple sell any machines at a loss).
Nothing you've said refutes either assumption as I stated them. They only elaborate that you hold those assumptions.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Nothing you've said refute either assumption. They only elaborate that you hold those assumptions.
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa",
Of course, there are other things that contribute to the low market share such as software and peripheral hardware availability and general awareness of OS X, but I find it odd to suggest that price is not a significant factor for most people.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their
No.
Originally posted by Mr. H
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa",
You seem to be (as many here do) assuming that price is the only factor people consider when purchasing a Mac vs. PC (NOTE: I am talking about the condition of the market as it currently exists, not how it may or may not have gotten to this point). This is certainly not true. Other significant and likely factors include:
- Not as many games (or other software titles) available...or specific desired ones
- I have a PC at work/school/some other place and need to be "compatible"
- "Sure, the machine itself is cheap enough, but I will have to re-buy a variety of software titles that I already own for the PC."
(NOTE: I haven't even mentioned tha variety of "Mac myths" that would prevent people from buying regardless of price.)
Even if you can counter the 1st two, that 3rd one is a tough nut to crack. So price alone is not likely the sole factor. Add into this equation the fact that comparably equipped usable machines are comparably priced from Dell, et al...meaning that once someone pimps out their $399 bargin machine to do what they want it to do and make it usable...it probably costs what Apple was asking anyway. Agreed that many people are captured by the $399 "gotcha price".
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple is DOOMED!!!
Well duh!
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple is DOOMED!!!
No, they are not doomed, not did I mean for anyone to infer that I thought that.
They could do a lot better though, on the selling Macs front, IMHO.
Hence the =>
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You seem to be (as many here do) assuming that price is the only factor people consider when purchasing a Mac vs. PC
You must have missed the last paragraph of my post.
But you put the "other factors" better than I did.
I grant you, It is difficult to know how all these things balance out. I think that with cheaper, lower-end machines, Apple could get to 10% share, and then some of the other problems such as low OS X awareness, software and hardware availability, and "Mac myths", will start to dissolve as well.
Perhaps they can get to 10% without cheaper machines. We shall see.
Originally posted by TednDi
I was being facetious.
Hence the =>
I know. That's why I laughed. I thought it was a funny post.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are suggesting that the fact that Apple totally ignores the lower mid-range of the market ($599 to $1099 in laptops, $399 to $599 in dekstops) has no bearing on their
If price was not a "gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa",
Of course, there are other things that contribute to the low market share such as software and peripheral hardware availability and general awareness of OS X, but I find it odd to suggest that price is not a significant factor for most people.
Another reason is that Apple doesn't cater to the prosumer at all. The iMac could be very competitive on price (which it really is by the way), but if the buyer does not want an all in one, you are not going to sell them one. You can not buy a consumer machine from Apple with multiple full sized optical drives, a card reader, multiple hard drive bays, or expansion slots of any kind. I know most of you hate towers, but they've stayed around so long because they are very practical and expandable form factors. Apple doesn't have all the answers on how to make PCs. Just a different set for a different kind of user.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think that with cheaper, lower-end machines, Apple could get to 10% share, and then some of the other problems such as low OS X awareness, software and hardware availability, and "Mac myths", will start to dissolve as well.
Possibly. And possibly they could bankrupt themselves in the process. This is a delicate balance and I actually think that Apple is handling it well. Their current low-end offerings are compelling and reasonably priced. Apple's problem may be more about marketing (i.e., getting past the $399 "gotcha" price).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Possibly. And possibly they could bankrupt themselves in the process.
That would be pretty hard to do, seeing as they have, what, 7 billion USD in the bank, hard cash?
This is a delicate balance and I actually think that Apple is handling it well.
No, they're not. They lost a lot of their marketshare in the last 5 years, and they continue to struggle within the 2-3% margin.
Their current low-end offerings are compelling and reasonably priced.
A lot of people think that $1,099 for a laptop is too high. Some will gladly pay $800, some will even pay $900. But a person that buys a laptop to basically surf the web at home and watch some movies on it will not pay $1099 for it. He goes to BestBuy, picks out some $799 Acer laptop that's perfectly capable of surfing the web and playing movies and he goes home happily. He's the average guy/girl, doesn't really care what OS his laptop runs as long as it runs it, and is not particularly interested in the technical merits of one OS over the other.
This is the majority of the market.
Apple's problem may be more about marketing (i.e., getting past the $399 "gotcha" price).
Yes, and they need to change their image of a boutique shop that sells laptops to rich, spoiled brats and start creating a fresh new image for itself. Believe me, whomever I ask 'who do you think Apple's target market is' the answer is always 'rich people'.
That's a pretty strong perception right there.