Marketing people do it that way because they think it works. In real life, no one else says it like that, that I've seen. Even the dumbest people I know don't say it that way because they aren't weenies, and said people aren't fooled by by such a dumb distinction either. From what I've heard, the practice wasn't even begun for such a silly reason. Nobody I know is dumb enough to think that $4.99 is sufficiently less than $5 to call it anything but $5. "Sub-$5" is just a dumbass maneuver.
Mm...I can see HP overtaking Dell because they are currently executing better. Arguably Apple is executing better than Gateway which is as likely to see share taken by HP and a Dell that performs better in 07 than in 06. Perhaps Apple can get to #3.
Likewise, I agree that it would be interesting to see Apple market share in the segments they actually try to compete in rather than the total market...edu, content creation, home as well as a breakdown by price segment.
Oh, you guys are ALL arguing about something stupid as $599 is certainly a sub-$1000 price. The folks that whine for a sub-$1000 tower are always whining and making predictions of doom (OMG Apple is 9% LESS than what is needed to sustain the plaform...Mac is DOOOMED!)...even when there is good news for Apple.
Plus, yes, a lot of folks would by a non-Apple OSX machine and arguably the past experience with clones and market share wasn't too positive for Apple. 20% share for OSX at the expense of Apple profitability is a dumb assed trade.
Napkin math analysis of going the Gartner route from 2003. If Apple can make $50 per sale of OSX they needed 25% share just to break even in 2002.
It would be interesting to repeat this rough analysis for 2005/2006.
Now RedHat manages 82% gross margins and 28% net margins but they don't develop Linux. The open source support for OSX/Darwin is much smaller. Not to mention that OSX is better than Gnome or KDE and almost every component of OSX is arguably better than their OS counterpart (or will be with Safari 3 ) and that costs $$$. Redhat additionally leverages the investments made by Novell, IBM and HP.
Note that RedHat chrages $179 for desktop and $349 for RHEL-ES (with minimum support). in comparison OSX is $129. RedHat's real margins come from enterprise sales and frankly Apple doesn't even compete in that market. There's no flipping way for Apple to get the 80% gross margins that RedHat enjoys.
OSX is great but not so great that it will compete all that well vs Ubuntu for free or Vista Home that will get bundled.
Note that RedHat chrages $179 for desktop and $349 for RHEL-ES (with minimum support). in comparison OSX is $129.
You left out the pricing of the OS X equivalent to RHEL-ES. The price of the Linux server software shouldn't be compared directly against the consumer version of OS X.
Mkay...10 client OSX server is $499 and OSX server unlimited is $999.
I really doubt Apple sells many of those as the Xserve comes with an unlimited license. RedHat DOES sell a lot of ES licenses and for far more than $349...standard support is $799, RHEL-AS cost $1500 and $2500 for basic and standard levels of support. Standard desktop costs $299. But virtually nobody is paying $299 for RedHat desktop. They make money on server licenses.
Nice to miss the point though. There's no flipping way Apple is going to make money selling $500 OSX server licenses to run on Dell hardware. OSX is not all that great as a server OS anyway. Trying to make money on desktop sales against Windows and free Linuxes isn't the sure thing that folks claim.
That's not it though. We're not talking about first grade arithmetic here. We're talking marketing.
Of course 999 is not 1,000. That's not even worth saying.
But no one would think anything other than a $999 computer is in their mind, a $1,000 computer. They take off the dollar to try to stop you from thinking that, but it is thought nevertheless.
People will even think that a $949 computer as a $1,000 model. It's just too close.
Before people stop thinking $1,000 in their minds, it has to drop to $899. Then they think: "Oh, $900 bucks".
You are talking arithmetic, but people round up to the next highest whole number, which in the case of 999, is 1,000.
That's why it's semantics. It's also psychology. The price has to be low enough so that people can't pull it up to the next higher category.
So they will look at two different machines, one costing $949, and the other $1,000 as being the same, but not if the lower one is $899.
Congratulations Mel. Your future in politics is assured.
I say this in an admiring way.
Busy right now, but I'll try to get back to you later.
And how dare you accuse anyone of not understanding facts, when you are so tied to the belief that a rational understanding of language is a clear view of reality. Try not to be so condescending next time and read some of William James's philosophy.
Wow... wrong AND indignant, with a philosophy reference on the side. 8 out of 10. TBag gives it a thumbs-up for sheer pathos. 8)
Mkay...10 client OSX server is $499 and OSX server unlimited is $999.
I really doubt Apple sells many of those as the Xserve comes with an unlimited license. RedHat DOES sell a lot of ES licenses and for far more than $349...standard support is $799, RHEL-AS cost $1500 and $2500 for basic and standard levels of support. Standard desktop costs $299. But virtually nobody is paying $299 for RedHat desktop. They make money on server licenses.
Nice to miss the point though. There's no flipping way Apple is going to make money selling $500 OSX server licenses to run on Dell hardware. OSX is not all that great as a server OS anyway. Trying to make money on desktop sales against Windows and free Linuxes isn't the sure thing that folks claim.
I got the point, but I was pointing out an obviously incomplete comparison that didn't help your argument.
I'm not sure if Red Hat is an apt comparison because they are competing against a few other vendor supported distributions, and dozen other distributions available for free, and they are all fairly equivalent. And it's not that good of an OS for consumer use.
Since I am sure Mac hardware sales help support software R&D (not the other way around) and iPod sales compensate for iTunes R&D (and not the other way around), I doubt anyone needs to use more than a few dozen neurons to figure out that Apple needs to stay in the H/W business.
I got the point, but I was pointing out an obviously incomplete comparison that didn't help your argument.
To be honest I never even thought about a server license for OSX. There's no obvious link to it from the Apple store OSX Tiger page...you get to choose individual or family. You need to search through software to find it.
Quote:
I'm not sure if Red Hat is an apt comparison because they are competing against a few other vendor supported distributions, and dozen other distributions available for free, and they are all fairly equivalent. And it's not that good of an OS for consumer use.
Well, I suppose Microsoft or Sun would be the other candidates. Of the two only MS doesn't make computers. I really don't think that MS is a better choice for comparison than RedHat since they are the dominant player from whom you're trying to capture share.
Wait, you aren't seriously thinking that Apple could make $100 on every copy of OSX are you?
"Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent"
From what??
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
Actually, this is pretty common. Delis include tax, because they will get better business for the convenience of not having to give change. Secondly, you are right, it is a sub-$5 bagel. But what's the point? Nobody will squabble over $.01 in reality. It's not worth the pain, just like the cost of buying what is essentially a $1000 computer for $1.
Quote:
Wow... wrong AND indignant, with a philosophy reference on the side. 8 out of 10. TBag gives it a thumbs-up for sheer pathos.
I proved that you were both right and wrong in one post and all i get is your pity for my rage against you? What a lame prize. You should be telling me "touche" and then buying me a drink! I just think you don't get my point: that it's stupid to argue that one dollar does anyone but the biggest purchasers any good, and that holding to your point is stubborn. I claim no foul against Apple's marketers, but their cleverness does not help actual consumers. Life is fuzzy and gray, even if small actions are black-and-white.
Also - there were more than just one philosophy references in that post.
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
The people to whom those reports are intended understand that already.
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
thats what the market is... saying market in sales is redundant
thats what the market is... saying market in sales is redundant
You could also refer to market share as a percent of installed base - but now that Apple is using the same hardware (with higher production quality) than PCs, I doubt that there is any reason that they will be in service for longer per unit (which would make sales and installed base trend to the same numbers over time).
Heh...not on my MBP...thing runs hot but not hot enough that I want to wipe it to replace with another.
A couple of people I know with MBPs and MBs noticed the temperature dropped dramatically with a replacement battery. I had the same with an iBook that had a replacement battery under the recent battery replacement program.
You could also refer to market share as a percent of installed base - but now that Apple is using the same hardware (with higher production quality) than PCs, I doubt that there is any reason that they will be in service for longer per unit (which would make sales and installed base trend to the same numbers over time).
That's very hard to do, because no one knows what that is.
Comments
That argument is nonsense.
There is no $5 bagel, it's $4.99.
You can call it a sub-$5 bagel.
All pricing is done that way because it works.
Marketing people do it that way because they think it works. In real life, no one else says it like that, that I've seen. Even the dumbest people I know don't say it that way because they aren't weenies, and said people aren't fooled by by such a dumb distinction either. From what I've heard, the practice wasn't even begun for such a silly reason. Nobody I know is dumb enough to think that $4.99 is sufficiently less than $5 to call it anything but $5. "Sub-$5" is just a dumbass maneuver.
Likewise, I agree that it would be interesting to see Apple market share in the segments they actually try to compete in rather than the total market...edu, content creation, home as well as a breakdown by price segment.
Oh, you guys are ALL arguing about something stupid as $599 is certainly a sub-$1000 price. The folks that whine for a sub-$1000 tower are always whining and making predictions of doom (OMG Apple is 9% LESS than what is needed to sustain the plaform...Mac is DOOOMED!)...even when there is good news for Apple.
Plus, yes, a lot of folks would by a non-Apple OSX machine and arguably the past experience with clones and market share wasn't too positive for Apple. 20% share for OSX at the expense of Apple profitability is a dumb assed trade.
Vinea
Napkin math analysis of going the Gartner route from 2003. If Apple can make $50 per sale of OSX they needed 25% share just to break even in 2002.
It would be interesting to repeat this rough analysis for 2005/2006.
Now RedHat manages 82% gross margins and 28% net margins but they don't develop Linux. The open source support for OSX/Darwin is much smaller. Not to mention that OSX is better than Gnome or KDE and almost every component of OSX is arguably better than their OS counterpart (or will be with Safari 3
Note that RedHat chrages $179 for desktop and $349 for RHEL-ES (with minimum support). in comparison OSX is $129. RedHat's real margins come from enterprise sales and frankly Apple doesn't even compete in that market. There's no flipping way for Apple to get the 80% gross margins that RedHat enjoys.
OSX is great but not so great that it will compete all that well vs Ubuntu for free or Vista Home that will get bundled.
Vinea
Note that RedHat chrages $179 for desktop and $349 for RHEL-ES (with minimum support). in comparison OSX is $129.
You left out the pricing of the OS X equivalent to RHEL-ES. The price of the Linux server software shouldn't be compared directly against the consumer version of OS X.
I really doubt Apple sells many of those as the Xserve comes with an unlimited license. RedHat DOES sell a lot of ES licenses and for far more than $349...standard support is $799, RHEL-AS cost $1500 and $2500 for basic and standard levels of support. Standard desktop costs $299. But virtually nobody is paying $299 for RedHat desktop. They make money on server licenses.
Nice to miss the point though. There's no flipping way Apple is going to make money selling $500 OSX server licenses to run on Dell hardware. OSX is not all that great as a server OS anyway. Trying to make money on desktop sales against Windows and free Linuxes isn't the sure thing that folks claim.
Vinea
That's not it though. We're not talking about first grade arithmetic here. We're talking marketing.
Of course 999 is not 1,000. That's not even worth saying.
But no one would think anything other than a $999 computer is in their mind, a $1,000 computer. They take off the dollar to try to stop you from thinking that, but it is thought nevertheless.
People will even think that a $949 computer as a $1,000 model. It's just too close.
Before people stop thinking $1,000 in their minds, it has to drop to $899. Then they think: "Oh, $900 bucks".
You are talking arithmetic, but people round up to the next highest whole number, which in the case of 999, is 1,000.
That's why it's semantics. It's also psychology. The price has to be low enough so that people can't pull it up to the next higher category.
So they will look at two different machines, one costing $949, and the other $1,000 as being the same, but not if the lower one is $899.
Congratulations Mel. Your future in politics is assured.
I say this in an admiring way.
Busy right now, but I'll try to get back to you later.
.
And how dare you accuse anyone of not understanding facts, when you are so tied to the belief that a rational understanding of language is a clear view of reality. Try not to be so condescending next time and read some of William James's philosophy.
Wow... wrong AND indignant, with a philosophy reference on the side. 8 out of 10. TBag gives it a thumbs-up for sheer pathos. 8)
.
Mkay...10 client OSX server is $499 and OSX server unlimited is $999.
I really doubt Apple sells many of those as the Xserve comes with an unlimited license. RedHat DOES sell a lot of ES licenses and for far more than $349...standard support is $799, RHEL-AS cost $1500 and $2500 for basic and standard levels of support. Standard desktop costs $299. But virtually nobody is paying $299 for RedHat desktop. They make money on server licenses.
Nice to miss the point though. There's no flipping way Apple is going to make money selling $500 OSX server licenses to run on Dell hardware. OSX is not all that great as a server OS anyway. Trying to make money on desktop sales against Windows and free Linuxes isn't the sure thing that folks claim.
I got the point, but I was pointing out an obviously incomplete comparison that didn't help your argument.
I'm not sure if Red Hat is an apt comparison because they are competing against a few other vendor supported distributions, and dozen other distributions available for free, and they are all fairly equivalent. And it's not that good of an OS for consumer use.
I got the point, but I was pointing out an obviously incomplete comparison that didn't help your argument.
To be honest I never even thought about a server license for OSX. There's no obvious link to it from the Apple store OSX Tiger page...you get to choose individual or family. You need to search through software to find it.
I'm not sure if Red Hat is an apt comparison because they are competing against a few other vendor supported distributions, and dozen other distributions available for free, and they are all fairly equivalent. And it's not that good of an OS for consumer use.
Well, I suppose Microsoft or Sun would be the other candidates. Of the two only MS doesn't make computers. I really don't think that MS is a better choice for comparison than RedHat since they are the dominant player from whom you're trying to capture share.
Wait, you aren't seriously thinking that Apple could make $100 on every copy of OSX are you?
Vinea
"Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent"
From what??
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
That argument is nonsense.
There is no $5 bagel, it's $4.99.
You can call it a sub-$5 bagel.
Actually, this is pretty common. Delis include tax, because they will get better business for the convenience of not having to give change. Secondly, you are right, it is a sub-$5 bagel. But what's the point? Nobody will squabble over $.01 in reality. It's not worth the pain, just like the cost of buying what is essentially a $1000 computer for $1.
Wow... wrong AND indignant, with a philosophy reference on the side. 8 out of 10. TBag gives it a thumbs-up for sheer pathos.
I proved that you were both right and wrong in one post and all i get is your pity for my rage against you? What a lame prize. You should be telling me "touche" and then buying me a drink! I just think you don't get my point: that it's stupid to argue that one dollar does anyone but the biggest purchasers any good, and that holding to your point is stubborn. I claim no foul against Apple's marketers, but their cleverness does not help actual consumers. Life is fuzzy and gray, even if small actions are black-and-white.
Also - there were more than just one philosophy references in that post.
That argument is nonsense.
There is no $5 bagel, it's $4.99.
You can call it a sub-$5 bagel.
All pricing is done that way because it works.
You don't get it either.
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
The people to whom those reports are intended understand that already.
4.3 percent in 2005, according to International Data Corporation.
The statement "Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent" really needs to be rephrased to "Apple's share of U.S. PC market in sales jumps to 6.1 percent"
thats what the market is... saying market in sales is redundant
thats what the market is... saying market in sales is redundant
You could also refer to market share as a percent of installed base - but now that Apple is using the same hardware (with higher production quality) than PCs, I doubt that there is any reason that they will be in service for longer per unit (which would make sales and installed base trend to the same numbers over time).
If Apple can solve the heat issue in their non-lap-compatible laptops, they will double their portable market share in a year. Focus: it's the heat.
You mean the heat issue they solved, oh, 7 months ago?
You mean the heat issue they solved, oh, 7 months ago?
Heh...not on my MBP...thing runs hot but not hot enough that I want to wipe it to replace with another.
Heh...not on my MBP...thing runs hot but not hot enough that I want to wipe it to replace with another.
A couple of people I know with MBPs and MBs noticed the temperature dropped dramatically with a replacement battery. I had the same with an iBook that had a replacement battery under the recent battery replacement program.
You could also refer to market share as a percent of installed base - but now that Apple is using the same hardware (with higher production quality) than PCs, I doubt that there is any reason that they will be in service for longer per unit (which would make sales and installed base trend to the same numbers over time).
That's very hard to do, because no one knows what that is.