aegis, apple would suggest that, and they have. The answer is "why should I spend any extra money on a monitor. All i want is a video card and an extra HD slot - neither of which you get in an imac.
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
i think the point he was making with ipod/itunes was that itunes doesn't sell mp3 formatted songs, which would let you play them DRM or no on other mp3 players.
I gathered. The point is, be it AAC or MP3, it doesn't matter. The DRM is extra.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
You can't possible argue that itunes/ipod isn't restrictive. There are plenty of good reasons to apple to do this (why would they let their competitors use their SW and store for free), but you can't say its not a major restriction.
The iTunes STORE is the restriction not iTunes or the iPod. Both of the latter play pretty much every format going. Lots of people in Windows-land are actually quite unaware of the fact you can load either up with songs from anywhere.
DRM is evil but it's not really Apple's fault and it's the same for any store/device combo. If you're such an open standards play anywhere type, then just avoid DRM.
I've no problem with AAC personally, all my music playing devices support it and none of them are iPods. I wouldn't buy a device that didn't support AAC since it's superior to MP3.
aegis, apple would suggest that, and they have. The answer is "why should I spend any extra money on a monitor. All i want is a video card and an extra HD slot - neither of which you get in an imac.
No, you get a firewire port. Is that such a big deal that adding a second hard disk is done externally?
I've never replaced a graphics card in any computer I've had in 20+ years. If you're not a gamer, there's little point. If you are a gamer, what are you doing with a Mac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
I agree. My point is you should think of what you NEED not WANT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
Most people grow out of it and buy computers based on what they want to do with them, not how big it makes their penis look.
Most people grow out of it and buy computers based on what they want to do with them, not how big it makes their penis look.
and none of those people will ever buy macs
as for people buying what they need and not want. that's kind of a strange argument with computers. I NEED the functionality that I can get from a pentium1 running windows 95. I want a quad-core 4 gigs of ram xmac with 10.4.9.
again, your argument and all those vs the xmac circle back to the same point: apple gives you 3 desktop choices (mini,imac,pro), if you can't fit your wants into what it sells, then go buy a dell.
Huh? You say Apple needs to support more open standards but the things you indicate above are actually all closed Microsoft standards.
AVI is not an open standard unlike the H.264 MPEG standards Apple uses for almost all video now.
Microsoft's Exchange email system is not an open standard unlike Apple's use of IMAP as the basis of it's push email on the iPhone and it's pushing of the iCalendar, Open Directory, LDAP and CalDAV standards it's using for groupware.
AAC as used by iTunes *IS* as open a standard a standard as MP3 is. What you mean is for Apple to drop digital rights management. That is unlikely given the record companies. iTunes and iPods will of course play MP3 files so you're free to buy MP3s elsewhere.
Apple 'breaking the games frontier' is both near impossible and pointless IMHO when you've console companies that do it just fine.
Microsoft's current idea of supporting open standards isn't to actually support existing open standards but to try and get their closed standards ratified as open standards. They make them so complex that their competitors are left with years and years of work to support the new open standard. For example, OpenOffice.org creates an open office document format, various governements back it as a standard so they have documents that may still be read in 20 years time instead of having to reverse engineer Microsoft's formats. Microsoft creates a new Office format with an XML heirarchy so complex even the Mac Business Unit inside Microsoft say it'll take them years to implement. Then they push this complex format as an open standard with the standards bodies so that "Hey, we do open standards too". It's just another way to squash competition not a way to support free and open data interchange between applications.
This has moved on from their 'embrace & extend' policy where they took an open standard and then completely made it their own by adding some proprietary extension that only worked on Windows. See Internet Explorer for example.
Really, support of open standards is one of Apple's strong points.
It's been the case for generations, going back to the first railroads, that standards are set by the first person (or compmay) that gets to market, and dominates it.
Thus, MS's standards are THE standards for the vast majority of the computing world. Is that good? Yes, and no. Business would never have embraced computers if there wasn't that "standard" originally pushed by IBM.
Bad, because, after a while, innovation slows down.
Why does everyone talk about compatability with Outlook? Because it is an international standard? No. Because it is a MS standard that almost everyone uses.
It is what is called, as I'm sure you know, a defacto standard.
Apple must comply with it, and others. They are doing more of that all of the time, but, just not enough.
The quandry that Apple has always found itself, as the little guy on the block always does, that if they give up their uniquiness to join in, they just become another one of the crowd.
The more they ape MS, the less reason people have to buy their expensive machines.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
By the way for those who don't know, AVI is an Intel codec. One that MS is not happy about.
aegis, apple would suggest that, and they have. The answer is "why should I spend any extra money on a monitor. All i want is a video card and an extra HD slot - neither of which you get in an imac.
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
If I were to buy an iMac, the only thing I would want that it doesn't have, would be a slot for a video card. Apple could do that if they wanted to, just as they supply a door to plug in more memory.
Nothing else is warrented in that type of machine.
Apple does make an enthusiast machine, it's called the Mac Pro, and costs about as much as equivalent machines from Alien, and VooDoo, among others. Note that both companies have now been bought by the largest companies in the business, so there is some validation for that.
Apple's problems in areas such as games, is that they are far too small a market for games companies to care much. Sell more machines, and thay can sell more machines.
as for people buying what they need and not want. that's kind of a strange argument with computers. I NEED the functionality that I can get from a pentium1 running windows 95. I want a quad-core 4 gigs of ram xmac with 10.4.9.
again, your argument and all those vs the xmac circle back to the same point: apple gives you 3 desktop choices (mini,imac,pro), if you can't fit your wants into what it sells, then go buy a dell.
It depends on who you are talking about.
In big corporations, the power users are now using Macs. So, that's a turnaround.
If you think you are geek cool, these days a Mac is almost required.
Insofar as nerd geeks go, let them stay with Linux.
I think to some degree we are all missing the point about Mac market share. For one, Apple just can't compete with the $750-$1,500 PC boxen, remember it's the low end PC's that are driving market share numbers. Real growth is outside the US, in the US the market appears to be saturated.
Inotherwords the market share numbers are pretty much meaningless without a more detailed breakdown either by unit price and/or type.
IMHO, the Apple computer products work quite well in their product segments, because Apple has tried to differentiate their product mix from the rest of the PC industry. And it's more of a form factor differentiation than a price differientation.
Heck, think of it this way, in the near term future, the $100 laptop or $100 AIO desktop, is anyone suggesting that Apple compete for that market segment? Seriously?
So in some sense, Apple maintaining overall market share in this ever shrinking price point times unit sales distribution matrix is a good thing, IMHO.
So having said that, what can Apple do to expand into market segments that Apple CAN compete in, and to me this the $1,500 to $2,500 price point market segment.
1) Premium xMac with a unique form factor (with a minimal upgrade path (say 2 PCIE slots and 2 HD slots and 2-4 memory slots) for the end user and a good margin for Apple). It needs to be a unique form factor otherwise it will always be compared (visully in a physical sense) to the $750 PC boxen.
2) An iModMac, basically a modular desktop, with a main module (CPU + solid state memory), a GPU module (think PCIE in a box with dedicated high speed bus), a HD storage module, etcetera. Tightly integrated, think stack.
3) Lower existing price of Mac Pro by offering a single CPU option, bring back the sub-$2000 Mac Pro. Or just physically shrink the damn thing, fewer PCIE slots, fewer RAM slots, fewer HD slots, whatever to obtain a sub $2000 boxen.
Because right now there is only one PCIE Mac and I don't see that market segment growing for Apple anytime soon, at any price point!
I think to some degree we are all missing the point about Mac market share. For one, Apple just can't compete with the $750-$1,500 PC boxen, remember it's the low end PC's that are driving market share numbers. Real growth is outside the US, in the US the market appears to be saturated.
Inotherwords the market share numbers are pretty much meaningless without a more detailed breakdown either by unit price and/or type.
IMHO, the Apple computer products work quite well in their product segments, because Apple has tried to differentiate their product mix from the rest of the PC industry. And it's more of a form factor differentiation than a price differientation.
Heck, think of it this way, in the near term future, the $100 laptop or $100 AIO desktop, is anyone suggesting that Apple compete for that market segment? Seriously?
So in some sense, Apple maintaining overall market share in this ever shrinking price point times unit sales distribution matrix is a good thing, IMHO.
So having said that, what can Apple do to expand into market segments that Apple CAN compete in, and to me this the $1,500 to $2,500 price point market segment.
1) Premium xMac with a unique form factor (with a minimal upgrade path (say 2 PCIE slots and 2 HD slots and 2-4 memory slots) for the end user and a good margin for Apple). It needs to be a unique form factor otherwise it will always be compared (visully in a physical sense) to the $750 PC boxen.
2) An iModMac, basically a modular desktop, with a main module (CPU + solid state memory), a GPU module (think PCIE in a box with dedicated high speed bus), a HD storage module, etcetera. Tightly integrated, think stack.
3) Lower existing price of Mac Pro by offering a single CPU option, bring back the sub-$2000 Mac Pro. Or just physically shrink the damn thing, fewer PCIE slots, fewer RAM slots, fewer HD slots, whatever to obtain a sub $2000 boxen.
Because right now there is only one PCIE Mac and I don't see that market segment growing for Apple anytime soon, at any price point!
Apple can compete in every market segment.
They don't want to.
If Apple wanted to, they could make a $500 mini tower as well as anyone else could.
If Apple wanted to, they could make a $500 mini tower as well as anyone else could.
There is no magic in this.
But that's my point, there's no magic because the boxen at those price points aren't unique, they are, you know, BOXEN. And then we get into the well warn cannibalization argument of Apple's other products, because for Apple to truly compete at those lower price points, Apple WILL take a hit on per unit margin. So unless Apple makes up for in volume what they lose in per unit margin, for Apple it's less than a zero sum gain.
And we can't make an economics of scale argument for Apple "boxen" considering they sell 1 in 40 systems now across the entire market, gosh it must be much lower than 1% at the low end, so no, there isn't a "rat's ass chance in hell" that Apple can compete at the low end.
But that's my point, there's no magic because the boxen at those price points aren't unique, they are, you know, BOXEN. And then we get into the well warn cannibalization argument of Apple's other products, because for Apple to truly compete at those lower price points, Apple WILL take a hit on per unit margin. So unless Apple makes up for in volume what they lose in per unit margin, for Apple it's less than a zero sum gain.
And we can't make an economics of scale argument for Apple "boxen" considering they sell 1 in 40 systems now across the entire market, gosh it must be much lower than 1% at the low end, so no, there isn't a "rat's ass chance in hell" that Apple can compete at the low end.
I don't agree with that at all. Even though Apple had made most of its gross sales on the hardware, their machines sell, such as they do, because of the software. OS X , iLife, FCP, etc.
It's ALWAYS the software. The hardware doesn't sell Macs to most people who do buy them. Apple had a much larger marketshare with beige computers than they have now with their esoteric designs.
I have a theory (well, hypothesis, since it isn't proven?yet!) I've been stating it for two years now, here and on other sites. Apple WILL license out the OS. It's inevitable.
People have put their fanboi hats on, balled their little fists up, and jumped up and down, whilst holding their breath 'till they pass out, then finally coming to the keyboard to call me some most interesting names for suggesting it.
But, I have a scenario that I wrote about, which is coming together as we sit here and write.
I don't agree with that at all. Even though Apple had made most of its gross sales on the hardware, their machines sell, such as they do, because of the software. OS X , iLife, FCP, etc.
It's ALWAYS the software. The hardware doesn't sell Macs to most people who do buy them. Apple had a much larger marketshare with beige computers than they have now with their esoteric designs.
I have a theory (well, hypothesis, since it isn't proven?yet!) I've been stating it for two years now, here and on other sites. Apple WILL license out the OS. It's inevitable.
People have put their fanboi hats on, balled their little fists up, and jumped up and down, whilst holding their breath 'till they pass out, then finally coming to the keyboard to call me some most interesting names for suggesting it.
But, I have a scenario that I wrote about, which is coming together as we sit here and write.
I won't disagree that Apple's SW is what sells it's HW. Isn't that obvious? But at the low end, on low end HW? I really don't think so. Make whatever arguments you would like about Windoze SW universe versus Mac SW universe, ease of use wise, but on price AND volume the Windoze SW market share dwarfs the Mac SW market share.
I don't want to discuss Mac OS licensing other than what I've said above, I don't have any numbers on SW sales, but I can imaging that if such numbers were available, the Mac OS X SW situation would look much worse WRT all SW sales, market share wise, than their HW market share.
I won't disagree that Apple's SW is what sells it's HW. Isn't that obvious? But at the low end, on low end HW? I really don't think so. Make whatever arguments you would like about Windoze SW universe versus Mac SW universe, ease of use wise, but on price AND volume the Windoze SW market share dwarfs the Mac SW market share.
I don't want to discuss Mac OS licensing other than what I've said above, I don't have any numbers on SW sales, but I can imaging that if such numbers were available, the Mac OS X SW situation would look much worse WRT all SW sales, market share wise, than their HW market share.
It isn't obvious to many people that it's the software selling Apple's hardware.
It also isn't obvious to those same people that it's Apple's hardware that often prevents people from buying Apple's software.
There's no question that the Window world has more software, those that say otherwise are living in a dream world. I have never said the opposite.
But, that's marketshare related, to continue an argument from other times and places.
It used to be, back in the old days, that Apple's machines contained many technologies, both large and small, that were in advance of the general industry, or had luxury features that others didn't have, such as the self-ejecting floppy drive.
Those days are, for the most part, gone.
There is rarely anything that Apple has in its machines that PC companies don't have in theirs. Often it's the opposite. And, at lower prices as well.
Optical in and out? Fine! How many people actually use it? For the Mac Pro, wouldn't a card do just as well, or better?
The point is that Apple could make cheaper machines. There is no evidence that Apple isn't making them because they are worried about canabalizing their other machines.
Well, possibly the Mini. But, that isn't selling so well anyway.
Cheaper machines would expand Apple's marketshare, as the price for getting the OS would be less.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Are you repeating the first one?
It isn't obvious to many people that it's the software selling Apple's hardware.
It also isn't obvious to those same people that it's Apple's hardware that often prevents people from buying Apple's software.
Apple also does quite well out of having drop dead gorgeous hardware that people would buy and do buy regardless of the software. Often people appreciate the software later. I gave my parents a MacBook for Xmas. 1) they thought it looked nice but 2) after about 3 days it was 'Wow, this is so much easier than our old PC and iPhoto is great". They were somewhat floored that they didn't have to right click ever again too.
Equally, I agree though, the nerd contingent worry too much over OMG!!! it's a mobile CPU not a desktop CPU or crap like that to the point they don't buy or that they can build it themselves cheaper. Anyone that's actually got work to do on their computers knows that's a false economy.
Or plan for what they might need during the life of that computer. When it comes to the prices Apple is selling at, most can't afford a new Mac every 12-18 months.
You change your computer every 12-18 months ??? Why ???
Example, let's say you have a home business that involves creating custom (not stolen) DVDs or CDs. Do it on an iMac, not only is every done half as fast, one the first unit is kicked out you can't use the second optical drive to duplicate. Then again, what's another couple hundred bucks, we're all insanely rich right?
An iMac costs from £679 here. A second external DVD drive costs from £34 as opposed to £18 for internal.
I actually do create DVDs as part of my business, on an iMac (G5 1.8 which is slower than even the slowest Intel Mac now). I've never felt the need for a second drive but I can't imagine if I did, paying £16 extra for the external drive would be something I'd be concerned about. It's about 1/50th of what I charge for some of the DVDs I do or about twenty minutes of billable time as a web developer which I can quite easily do whilst the DVD is rendering/burning. It's not like I'm sat there twiddling. £16 is 5 pints of beer and a takeaway Indian.
I think, given the choice, I'll have the night out and keep the insanely rich lifestyle I'm obviously living, having not spent it wherever you're buying external DVD drives Ben.
Example, let's say you have a home business that involves creating custom (not stolen) DVDs or CDs. Do it on an iMac, not only is every done half as fast, one the first unit is kicked out you can't use the second optical drive to duplicate. Then again, what's another couple hundred bucks, we're all insanely rich right?
I didn't see this post!?
My response is much as Aegis's below. But, I would say to you is that if this is part of your business, you should do what everyone else in business does, buy a dedicated duplication tower. You can get them for $300 or less these days, with two drives. There are models with four drives for $500-$600. You can get models that will work with the Mac for the first copy (or you can do it on the Mac, and then transfer it to the duping machine). Even if this is a "home business", that shouldn't be a burden. That is, if it's a real business, and not a hobby. If it is a real business, you get your accountant (you do have one, don't you?) to realize the cost for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
An iMac costs from £679 here. A second external DVD drive costs from £34 as opposed to £18 for internal.
Quote:
I actually do create DVDs as part of my business, on an iMac (G5 1.8 which is slower than even the slowest Intel Mac now). I've never felt the need for a second drive but I can't imagine if I did, paying £16 extra for the external drive would be something I'd be concerned about. It's about 1/50th of what I charge for some of the DVDs I do or about twenty minutes of billable time as a web developer which I can quite easily do whilst the DVD is rendering/burning. It's not like I'm sat there twiddling. £16 is 5 pints of beer and a takeaway Indian.
I think, given the choice, I'll have the night out and keep the insanely rich lifestyle I'm obviously living, having not spent it wherever you're buying external DVD drives Ben.
Aegis, I'm not sure if some of these people really have "businesses", or would like to have them. Most of them are really hobbies, with the occasional buck (quid) being made on the side.
But, I would say to you is that if this is part of your business, you should do what everyone else in business does, buy a dedicated duplication tower.
I've been thinking about one of those, mostly for backups, but creating DVDs came about because I did someone's wedding DVD as a favour. It's not something I'd like to make a business but it's a nice bonus when it comes along since it really takes very little time to do for the money, and I'm charging half what some wedding photographers are charging for much worse. Even the iDVD templates make some Pro photographers efforts look totally amateur. I'd much rather be up to my eyeballs in code than trying to make the bride look pretty but 2 hours doing the occasional DVD pays for a week of self indulgent coding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Aegis, I'm not sure if some of these people really have "businesses", or would like to have them. Most of them are really hobbies, with the occasional buck (quid) being made on the side.
That's kind of how I've ended up doing DVDs for people so I'm not going to knock it but in general it's a side line. If I was doing it properly I'd spend the money on kit to do it more efficiently but like Apple releasing mid range towers, it's not really me.
Comments
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
i think the point he was making with ipod/itunes was that itunes doesn't sell mp3 formatted songs, which would let you play them DRM or no on other mp3 players.
I gathered. The point is, be it AAC or MP3, it doesn't matter. The DRM is extra.
You can't possible argue that itunes/ipod isn't restrictive. There are plenty of good reasons to apple to do this (why would they let their competitors use their SW and store for free), but you can't say its not a major restriction.
The iTunes STORE is the restriction not iTunes or the iPod. Both of the latter play pretty much every format going. Lots of people in Windows-land are actually quite unaware of the fact you can load either up with songs from anywhere.
DRM is evil but it's not really Apple's fault and it's the same for any store/device combo. If you're such an open standards play anywhere type, then just avoid DRM.
I've no problem with AAC personally, all my music playing devices support it and none of them are iPods. I wouldn't buy a device that didn't support AAC since it's superior to MP3.
aegis, apple would suggest that, and they have. The answer is "why should I spend any extra money on a monitor. All i want is a video card and an extra HD slot - neither of which you get in an imac.
No, you get a firewire port. Is that such a big deal that adding a second hard disk is done externally?
I've never replaced a graphics card in any computer I've had in 20+ years. If you're not a gamer, there's little point. If you are a gamer, what are you doing with a Mac?
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
I agree. My point is you should think of what you NEED not WANT.
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
Most people grow out of it and buy computers based on what they want to do with them, not how big it makes their penis look.
Most people grow out of it and buy computers based on what they want to do with them, not how big it makes their penis look.
and none of those people will ever buy macs
as for people buying what they need and not want. that's kind of a strange argument with computers. I NEED the functionality that I can get from a pentium1 running windows 95. I want a quad-core 4 gigs of ram xmac with 10.4.9.
again, your argument and all those vs the xmac circle back to the same point: apple gives you 3 desktop choices (mini,imac,pro), if you can't fit your wants into what it sells, then go buy a dell.
Huh? You say Apple needs to support more open standards but the things you indicate above are actually all closed Microsoft standards.
AVI is not an open standard unlike the H.264 MPEG standards Apple uses for almost all video now.
Microsoft's Exchange email system is not an open standard unlike Apple's use of IMAP as the basis of it's push email on the iPhone and it's pushing of the iCalendar, Open Directory, LDAP and CalDAV standards it's using for groupware.
AAC as used by iTunes *IS* as open a standard a standard as MP3 is. What you mean is for Apple to drop digital rights management. That is unlikely given the record companies. iTunes and iPods will of course play MP3 files so you're free to buy MP3s elsewhere.
Apple 'breaking the games frontier' is both near impossible and pointless IMHO when you've console companies that do it just fine.
Microsoft's current idea of supporting open standards isn't to actually support existing open standards but to try and get their closed standards ratified as open standards. They make them so complex that their competitors are left with years and years of work to support the new open standard. For example, OpenOffice.org creates an open office document format, various governements back it as a standard so they have documents that may still be read in 20 years time instead of having to reverse engineer Microsoft's formats. Microsoft creates a new Office format with an XML heirarchy so complex even the Mac Business Unit inside Microsoft say it'll take them years to implement. Then they push this complex format as an open standard with the standards bodies so that "Hey, we do open standards too". It's just another way to squash competition not a way to support free and open data interchange between applications.
This has moved on from their 'embrace & extend' policy where they took an open standard and then completely made it their own by adding some proprietary extension that only worked on Windows. See Internet Explorer for example.
Really, support of open standards is one of Apple's strong points.
It's been the case for generations, going back to the first railroads, that standards are set by the first person (or compmay) that gets to market, and dominates it.
Thus, MS's standards are THE standards for the vast majority of the computing world. Is that good? Yes, and no. Business would never have embraced computers if there wasn't that "standard" originally pushed by IBM.
Bad, because, after a while, innovation slows down.
Why does everyone talk about compatability with Outlook? Because it is an international standard? No. Because it is a MS standard that almost everyone uses.
It is what is called, as I'm sure you know, a defacto standard.
Apple must comply with it, and others. They are doing more of that all of the time, but, just not enough.
The quandry that Apple has always found itself, as the little guy on the block always does, that if they give up their uniquiness to join in, they just become another one of the crowd.
The more they ape MS, the less reason people have to buy their expensive machines.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
By the way for those who don't know, AVI is an Intel codec. One that MS is not happy about.
As for who is more "open", who knows. I know that M$ windows sucks chunks. Isn't that enough?
Enough for whom?
aegis, apple would suggest that, and they have. The answer is "why should I spend any extra money on a monitor. All i want is a video card and an extra HD slot - neither of which you get in an imac.
so instead of being able to buy what you want, you are presented with an alternative that isn't what you want or another one which is 2.5 times more expensive than the competitor.
Also, it was suggested to me at some point ago, that computers are the new hotrods for computer geeks. People like to be able to go out and buy a new XXX for their machine and put it in, get all geeky about it making it go 5% faster, etc. Apple takes that nerd-love and crushes it hard. It hurts people's inner chi, when apple does that.
apple needs to sell a computer enthusiast machine. (xmac) Apple could even encourage this behavior by selling *gasp* upgrades(??!?!)!!!?!?!(!!?!)
If I were to buy an iMac, the only thing I would want that it doesn't have, would be a slot for a video card. Apple could do that if they wanted to, just as they supply a door to plug in more memory.
Nothing else is warrented in that type of machine.
Apple does make an enthusiast machine, it's called the Mac Pro, and costs about as much as equivalent machines from Alien, and VooDoo, among others. Note that both companies have now been bought by the largest companies in the business, so there is some validation for that.
Apple's problems in areas such as games, is that they are far too small a market for games companies to care much. Sell more machines, and thay can sell more machines.
and none of those people will ever buy macs
as for people buying what they need and not want. that's kind of a strange argument with computers. I NEED the functionality that I can get from a pentium1 running windows 95. I want a quad-core 4 gigs of ram xmac with 10.4.9.
again, your argument and all those vs the xmac circle back to the same point: apple gives you 3 desktop choices (mini,imac,pro), if you can't fit your wants into what it sells, then go buy a dell.
It depends on who you are talking about.
In big corporations, the power users are now using Macs. So, that's a turnaround.
If you think you are geek cool, these days a Mac is almost required.
Insofar as nerd geeks go, let them stay with Linux.
Inotherwords the market share numbers are pretty much meaningless without a more detailed breakdown either by unit price and/or type.
IMHO, the Apple computer products work quite well in their product segments, because Apple has tried to differentiate their product mix from the rest of the PC industry. And it's more of a form factor differentiation than a price differientation.
Heck, think of it this way, in the near term future, the $100 laptop or $100 AIO desktop, is anyone suggesting that Apple compete for that market segment? Seriously?
So in some sense, Apple maintaining overall market share in this ever shrinking price point times unit sales distribution matrix is a good thing, IMHO.
So having said that, what can Apple do to expand into market segments that Apple CAN compete in, and to me this the $1,500 to $2,500 price point market segment.
1) Premium xMac with a unique form factor (with a minimal upgrade path (say 2 PCIE slots and 2 HD slots and 2-4 memory slots) for the end user and a good margin for Apple). It needs to be a unique form factor otherwise it will always be compared (visully in a physical sense) to the $750 PC boxen.
2) An iModMac, basically a modular desktop, with a main module (CPU + solid state memory), a GPU module (think PCIE in a box with dedicated high speed bus), a HD storage module, etcetera. Tightly integrated, think stack.
3) Lower existing price of Mac Pro by offering a single CPU option, bring back the sub-$2000 Mac Pro. Or just physically shrink the damn thing, fewer PCIE slots, fewer RAM slots, fewer HD slots, whatever to obtain a sub $2000 boxen.
Because right now there is only one PCIE Mac and I don't see that market segment growing for Apple anytime soon, at any price point!
I think to some degree we are all missing the point about Mac market share. For one, Apple just can't compete with the $750-$1,500 PC boxen, remember it's the low end PC's that are driving market share numbers. Real growth is outside the US, in the US the market appears to be saturated.
Inotherwords the market share numbers are pretty much meaningless without a more detailed breakdown either by unit price and/or type.
IMHO, the Apple computer products work quite well in their product segments, because Apple has tried to differentiate their product mix from the rest of the PC industry. And it's more of a form factor differentiation than a price differientation.
Heck, think of it this way, in the near term future, the $100 laptop or $100 AIO desktop, is anyone suggesting that Apple compete for that market segment? Seriously?
So in some sense, Apple maintaining overall market share in this ever shrinking price point times unit sales distribution matrix is a good thing, IMHO.
So having said that, what can Apple do to expand into market segments that Apple CAN compete in, and to me this the $1,500 to $2,500 price point market segment.
1) Premium xMac with a unique form factor (with a minimal upgrade path (say 2 PCIE slots and 2 HD slots and 2-4 memory slots) for the end user and a good margin for Apple). It needs to be a unique form factor otherwise it will always be compared (visully in a physical sense) to the $750 PC boxen.
2) An iModMac, basically a modular desktop, with a main module (CPU + solid state memory), a GPU module (think PCIE in a box with dedicated high speed bus), a HD storage module, etcetera. Tightly integrated, think stack.
3) Lower existing price of Mac Pro by offering a single CPU option, bring back the sub-$2000 Mac Pro. Or just physically shrink the damn thing, fewer PCIE slots, fewer RAM slots, fewer HD slots, whatever to obtain a sub $2000 boxen.
Because right now there is only one PCIE Mac and I don't see that market segment growing for Apple anytime soon, at any price point!
Apple can compete in every market segment.
They don't want to.
If Apple wanted to, they could make a $500 mini tower as well as anyone else could.
There is no magic in this.
Apple can compete in every market segment.
They don't want to.
If Apple wanted to, they could make a $500 mini tower as well as anyone else could.
There is no magic in this.
But that's my point, there's no magic because the boxen at those price points aren't unique, they are, you know, BOXEN. And then we get into the well warn cannibalization argument of Apple's other products, because for Apple to truly compete at those lower price points, Apple WILL take a hit on per unit margin. So unless Apple makes up for in volume what they lose in per unit margin, for Apple it's less than a zero sum gain.
And we can't make an economics of scale argument for Apple "boxen" considering they sell 1 in 40 systems now across the entire market, gosh it must be much lower than 1% at the low end, so no, there isn't a "rat's ass chance in hell" that Apple can compete at the low end.
But that's my point, there's no magic because the boxen at those price points aren't unique, they are, you know, BOXEN. And then we get into the well warn cannibalization argument of Apple's other products, because for Apple to truly compete at those lower price points, Apple WILL take a hit on per unit margin. So unless Apple makes up for in volume what they lose in per unit margin, for Apple it's less than a zero sum gain.
And we can't make an economics of scale argument for Apple "boxen" considering they sell 1 in 40 systems now across the entire market, gosh it must be much lower than 1% at the low end, so no, there isn't a "rat's ass chance in hell" that Apple can compete at the low end.
I don't agree with that at all. Even though Apple had made most of its gross sales on the hardware, their machines sell, such as they do, because of the software. OS X , iLife, FCP, etc.
It's ALWAYS the software. The hardware doesn't sell Macs to most people who do buy them. Apple had a much larger marketshare with beige computers than they have now with their esoteric designs.
I have a theory (well, hypothesis, since it isn't proven?yet!) I've been stating it for two years now, here and on other sites. Apple WILL license out the OS. It's inevitable.
People have put their fanboi hats on, balled their little fists up, and jumped up and down, whilst holding their breath 'till they pass out, then finally coming to the keyboard to call me some most interesting names for suggesting it.
But, I have a scenario that I wrote about, which is coming together as we sit here and write.
I don't agree with that at all. Even though Apple had made most of its gross sales on the hardware, their machines sell, such as they do, because of the software. OS X , iLife, FCP, etc.
It's ALWAYS the software. The hardware doesn't sell Macs to most people who do buy them. Apple had a much larger marketshare with beige computers than they have now with their esoteric designs.
I have a theory (well, hypothesis, since it isn't proven?yet!) I've been stating it for two years now, here and on other sites. Apple WILL license out the OS. It's inevitable.
People have put their fanboi hats on, balled their little fists up, and jumped up and down, whilst holding their breath 'till they pass out, then finally coming to the keyboard to call me some most interesting names for suggesting it.
But, I have a scenario that I wrote about, which is coming together as we sit here and write.
I won't disagree that Apple's SW is what sells it's HW. Isn't that obvious? But at the low end, on low end HW? I really don't think so. Make whatever arguments you would like about Windoze SW universe versus Mac SW universe, ease of use wise, but on price AND volume the Windoze SW market share dwarfs the Mac SW market share.
I don't want to discuss Mac OS licensing other than what I've said above, I don't have any numbers on SW sales, but I can imaging that if such numbers were available, the Mac OS X SW situation would look much worse WRT all SW sales, market share wise, than their HW market share.
I won't disagree that Apple's SW is what sells it's HW. Isn't that obvious? But at the low end, on low end HW? I really don't think so. Make whatever arguments you would like about Windoze SW universe versus Mac SW universe, ease of use wise, but on price AND volume the Windoze SW market share dwarfs the Mac SW market share.
I don't want to discuss Mac OS licensing other than what I've said above, I don't have any numbers on SW sales, but I can imaging that if such numbers were available, the Mac OS X SW situation would look much worse WRT all SW sales, market share wise, than their HW market share.
It isn't obvious to many people that it's the software selling Apple's hardware.
It also isn't obvious to those same people that it's Apple's hardware that often prevents people from buying Apple's software.
There's no question that the Window world has more software, those that say otherwise are living in a dream world. I have never said the opposite.
But, that's marketshare related, to continue an argument from other times and places.
It used to be, back in the old days, that Apple's machines contained many technologies, both large and small, that were in advance of the general industry, or had luxury features that others didn't have, such as the self-ejecting floppy drive.
Those days are, for the most part, gone.
There is rarely anything that Apple has in its machines that PC companies don't have in theirs. Often it's the opposite. And, at lower prices as well.
Optical in and out? Fine! How many people actually use it? For the Mac Pro, wouldn't a card do just as well, or better?
The point is that Apple could make cheaper machines. There is no evidence that Apple isn't making them because they are worried about canabalizing their other machines.
Well, possibly the Mini. But, that isn't selling so well anyway.
Cheaper machines would expand Apple's marketshare, as the price for getting the OS would be less.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Are you repeating the first one?
It isn't obvious to many people that it's the software selling Apple's hardware.
It also isn't obvious to those same people that it's Apple's hardware that often prevents people from buying Apple's software.
Apple also does quite well out of having drop dead gorgeous hardware that people would buy and do buy regardless of the software. Often people appreciate the software later. I gave my parents a MacBook for Xmas. 1) they thought it looked nice but 2) after about 3 days it was 'Wow, this is so much easier than our old PC and iPhoto is great". They were somewhat floored that they didn't have to right click ever again too.
Equally, I agree though, the nerd contingent worry too much over OMG!!! it's a mobile CPU not a desktop CPU or crap like that to the point they don't buy or that they can build it themselves cheaper. Anyone that's actually got work to do on their computers knows that's a false economy.
Apple can compete in every market segment.
They don't want to.
If Apple wanted to, they could make a $500 mini tower as well as anyone else could.
There is no magic in this.
Exactly. And that's why they don't.
Or plan for what they might need during the life of that computer. When it comes to the prices Apple is selling at, most can't afford a new Mac every 12-18 months.
You change your computer every 12-18 months ??? Why ???
Example, let's say you have a home business that involves creating custom (not stolen) DVDs or CDs. Do it on an iMac, not only is every done half as fast, one the first unit is kicked out you can't use the second optical drive to duplicate. Then again, what's another couple hundred bucks, we're all insanely rich right?
An iMac costs from £679 here. A second external DVD drive costs from £34 as opposed to £18 for internal.
I actually do create DVDs as part of my business, on an iMac (G5 1.8 which is slower than even the slowest Intel Mac now). I've never felt the need for a second drive but I can't imagine if I did, paying £16 extra for the external drive would be something I'd be concerned about. It's about 1/50th of what I charge for some of the DVDs I do or about twenty minutes of billable time as a web developer which I can quite easily do whilst the DVD is rendering/burning. It's not like I'm sat there twiddling. £16 is 5 pints of beer and a takeaway Indian.
I think, given the choice, I'll have the night out and keep the insanely rich lifestyle I'm obviously living, having not spent it wherever you're buying external DVD drives Ben.
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Example, let's say you have a home business that involves creating custom (not stolen) DVDs or CDs. Do it on an iMac, not only is every done half as fast, one the first unit is kicked out you can't use the second optical drive to duplicate. Then again, what's another couple hundred bucks, we're all insanely rich right?
I didn't see this post!?
My response is much as Aegis's below. But, I would say to you is that if this is part of your business, you should do what everyone else in business does, buy a dedicated duplication tower. You can get them for $300 or less these days, with two drives. There are models with four drives for $500-$600. You can get models that will work with the Mac for the first copy (or you can do it on the Mac, and then transfer it to the duping machine). Even if this is a "home business", that shouldn't be a burden. That is, if it's a real business, and not a hobby. If it is a real business, you get your accountant (you do have one, don't you?) to realize the cost for you.
An iMac costs from £679 here. A second external DVD drive costs from £34 as opposed to £18 for internal.
I actually do create DVDs as part of my business, on an iMac (G5 1.8 which is slower than even the slowest Intel Mac now). I've never felt the need for a second drive but I can't imagine if I did, paying £16 extra for the external drive would be something I'd be concerned about. It's about 1/50th of what I charge for some of the DVDs I do or about twenty minutes of billable time as a web developer which I can quite easily do whilst the DVD is rendering/burning. It's not like I'm sat there twiddling. £16 is 5 pints of beer and a takeaway Indian.
I think, given the choice, I'll have the night out and keep the insanely rich lifestyle I'm obviously living, having not spent it wherever you're buying external DVD drives Ben.
Aegis, I'm not sure if some of these people really have "businesses", or would like to have them. Most of them are really hobbies, with the occasional buck (quid) being made on the side.
But, I would say to you is that if this is part of your business, you should do what everyone else in business does, buy a dedicated duplication tower.
I've been thinking about one of those, mostly for backups, but creating DVDs came about because I did someone's wedding DVD as a favour. It's not something I'd like to make a business but it's a nice bonus when it comes along since it really takes very little time to do for the money, and I'm charging half what some wedding photographers are charging for much worse. Even the iDVD templates make some Pro photographers efforts look totally amateur. I'd much rather be up to my eyeballs in code than trying to make the bride look pretty but 2 hours doing the occasional DVD pays for a week of self indulgent coding.
Aegis, I'm not sure if some of these people really have "businesses", or would like to have them. Most of them are really hobbies, with the occasional buck (quid) being made on the side.
That's kind of how I've ended up doing DVDs for people so I'm not going to knock it but in general it's a side line. If I was doing it properly I'd spend the money on kit to do it more efficiently but like Apple releasing mid range towers, it's not really me.