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.
Your comment "it isn't obvious to many people" are you referring to Mac users or to all computer users? And I don't understand your second statement at all.
I can only speak from personal experience, my personal experience, and I can honestly say that I'd never have bought a Mac if it wasn't for the seamless-ease-of-use OS. A distant second is that the look is aesthetically pleasing also. Particularly the iMac AIO, although I don't own one of those.
And given the PC marketshare in HW/SW and their lower price points, I honestly think most people buy a Mac for the OS, more so than any other reason.
Quote:
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.
Why doesn't Apple make lower cost computers (or lower the costs of the existing ones) to spur adoption? Apple wants people (adopters) to pay more for a computer, with much fewer HW/SW options, for the single reason of Mac OS X? I can see the Apple ad now, "Pay more, get less, seamlessly!"
As for Mac OS X being cheaper, let's see now, 1) OS X one price (no tiered pricing model a la MS), 2) no upgrade pricing model (a la MS), 3) no OEM copies available (a la MS (and typically at half price of the retail verion)), 4) more frequent updates to the OS (WRT MS). MS power users might upgrade to to the top-of-the-line MS OS, but IMHO the vast majority of MS users use the lowest 2-3 tiers. SO IMHO a very good argument could be made that Windoze is the cheaper OS over a several year lifespan on average across the entire PC user base.
So while the up front cost of the Mac OS MAY be cheaper, over several years the cost of Windoze OS to the typical user is probably lower.
Cannibalization? About the only evidence I need IS the current desktop mix, it hasn't changed in years. I think Apple fears cannibalization greatly, if the user base doesn't increase in kind with lower margin desktops, this would clearly affect Apple profits in that segment. And if Apple ever did introduce new desktops how would we ever determine it's effects, since we aren't privy to Apple's internal numbers, only Apple would know that real (or potential) answer.
Quote:
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Are you repeating the first one?
Yup (I realized it was redundant after posting, but didn't bother to edit out)!
But honestly, I only offered up a few ideas on Apple HW that might spur adoption, because IMHO having one model that's upgradable (Mac Pro) doesn't cut it. And if the AIO is such a great idea why hasn't the rest of the PC industry adopted that approach? Mac laptops, no problem there, Mac mini, mostly no problem there, but having the AIO (and Mac mini) as your only option(s) outside of the high cost Mac Pro works at cross purposes with an apparent attempt of Apple to gain market share (in those price ranges), or even grow the user base numbers themselves at a faster rate (which I think they would do if there were more desktop options/price points, or if the existing line of desktops was at lower price points).
You change your computer every 12-18 months ??? Why ???
I wouldn't want to, but the iMac is a computer that is not prepared for future needs at all. at all. Any kind of upgrades are impractical, even RAM. When the 64mb of RAM my G3 was no longer enough, I was able to triple it to meet the memory requirements of new programs. The dual channel RAM and notebook controller limit of 3GB (using 2 $300 2GB DIMMs) makes upgrading the iMac to meet future demands in any way impractical. That leaves you with a system less productive with new software or forced to go buy a new computer. The PC guys can just go to new egg and pick up some more RAM.
Which requires replacing both DIMMs and if you want full RAM spending $600. For all intents and purposes what you have when you buy the machine is what you're going to have through out its life.
Your comment "it isn't obvious to many people" are you referring to Mac users or to all computer users? And I don't understand your second statement at all.
I'm refering to most Mac users. As I'm sure you've seen here, many talk about how elegent the machines are, what a high value they are, etc. They think that it is the machines that sell. I can tell you that I now know many people who have switched. While they say that the machines are nice, wonderful even, the reason they switched was because they wanted to get away from Windows. So, they know.
I'm not saying that there aren't Mac users who don't understand this, but nost don't seem to think so. It's almost as though they think that the OS is a bonus you get withe machines.
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
Quote:
I can only speak from personal experience, my personal experience, and I can honestly say that I'd never have bought a Mac if it wasn't for the seamless-ease-of-use OS. A distant second is that the look is aesthetically pleasing also. Particularly the iMac AIO, although I don't own one of those.
Good, that's as it should be! Though asthetics plays more of a role these days.
Quote:
And given the PC marketshare in HW/SW and their lower price points, I honestly think most people buy a Mac for the OS, more so than any other reason.
PC hardware is less expensive if they aren't completely the same devices. SW prices are about the same though. Some are lower, and some are higher.
Quote:
Why doesn't Apple make lower cost computers (or lower the costs of the existing ones) to spur adoption? Apple wants people (adopters) to pay more for a computer, with much fewer HW/SW options, for the single reason of Mac OS X? I can see the Apple ad now, "Pay more, get less, seamlessly!"
Without getting into the "Mind of Steve" we can only keep guessing until he changes his mind again. The only way you can tell when he is coming out with a new product is when he protests most that Apple won't do it.
Quote:
As for Mac OS X being cheaper, let's see now, 1) OS X one price (no tiered pricing model a la MS), 2) no upgrade pricing model (a la MS), 3) no OEM copies available (a la MS (and typically at half price of the retail verion)), 4) more frequent updates to the OS (WRT MS). MS power users might upgrade to to the top-of-the-line MS OS, but IMHO the vast majority of MS users use the lowest 2-3 tiers. SO IMHO a very good argument could be made that Windoze is the cheaper OS over a several year lifespan on average across the entire PC user base.
There have been so many explanations why that is wrong, that it's hard to know where to start. Let's start with the OEM copies. Just how many PC users know about buying OEM copies? Almost none. Write that off the list, it doesn't matter.
Home was, and is, not recommended by anyone. Read up on what is being said about the lowest versions of Vista.
Vista is an anomoly. MS never intended to have so many problems with this OS that it would take five years to come out. It was due over two years ago. If you bought upgrades, which are still pretty expensive, it would still cost more than buying OS X, which is priced lower, much lower, than the better versions of Windows, which cost about twice as much, or more. You also couldn't get a multi seat license for the home as you could with OS X. That license brings the cost, if you use all five, to $40 list, per seat. As OS X is available for less than list, the full version can cost as little as $109, and the 5 seat version $169.
MS is now offering a very strange licensing deal. If you buy the $299 FULL version, or the $399 FULL version, you get two licenses for Home. Yippie! I don't remember if there is an extra charge.
Quote:
So while the up front cost of the Mac OS MAY be cheaper, over several years the cost of Windoze OS to the typical user is probably lower.
Nope!
Quote:
Cannibalization? About the only evidence I need IS the current desktop mix, it hasn't changed in years. I think Apple fears cannibalization greatly, if the user base doesn't increase in kind with lower margin desktops, this would clearly affect Apple profits in that segment. And if Apple ever did introduce new desktops how would we ever determine it's effects, since we aren't privy to Apple's internal numbers, only Apple would know that real (or potential) answer.
I agree with that. Apple MAY fear cannibalization, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.
They could re-arrange their lines to keep them more separate.
Quote:
But honestly, I only offered up a few ideas on Apple HW that might spur adoption, because IMHO having one model that's upgradable (Mac Pro) doesn't cut it. And if the AIO is such a great idea why hasn't the rest of the PC industry adopted that approach? Mac laptops, no problem there, Mac mini, mostly no problem there, but having the AIO (and Mac mini) as your only option(s) outside of the high cost Mac Pro works at cross purposes with an apparent attempt of Apple to gain market share (in those price ranges), or even grow the user base numbers themselves at a faster rate (which I think they would do if there were more desktop options/price points, or if the existing line of desktops was at lower price points).
Yes, I agree with you here again. This is the same thing I've been saying.
Which requires replacing both DIMMs and if you want full RAM spending $600. For all intents and purposes what you have when you buy the machine is what you're going to have through out its life.
You're just picking nits now. You'd have to be going some to exhaust 2GB of RAM never mind 3GB. I've 2GB in my iMac, expanded from 512MB when I bought it. Past 1GB I barely noticed a speed increase and I've usually got iTunes, Mail, Photoshop, Textmate, Transmit, Gizmo, Butler, Safari and a bunch of other stuff open all day.
The Intel Macs are a bit more ram hungry with Rosetta but that's obviously going to improve over time so you'll require LESS ram.
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.
Ok, sorry for maybe not being as precise as possible on some topics. Although I was aware of the fact that Apple is using standards with AAC and H.264, the emphasis was more on the "more" in my statement. Or maybe I should have named it "common standards". I really like the idea behind iTunes, and I really understand the need for the industry to actually sell movies and music to support the infrastructure. But iTunes is really the perfect example that consumers are WILLING to pay to the stuff!!! It just has to be easy to use, and besides the fact that iTunes is indeed very intuitive, they seem not to accept MP3 as a format themselves. So maybe I am just narrow minded, but today AAC, besides being a standard, is not as widely used as MP3. And related to video, many people probably have MPEG 4 stuff as AVI files flying arround, but you simply cannot use it with a iPod or Apple TV. And again, this is not about pirate stuff, but rather a DVD that I may have bought and won't to have available in a compressed format to stream it from my pc to my tv. Would't it be nice if Hollywood would offer this on a DVD already? Okay, I may stretch my wishlist a bit far from being realistic here .
And my comment with Microsoft was actually related to their problem with the Open Document Format
And last but not least as much as I would like to get rid of Microsoft, it is not realistic to expect it leaving the office space in the near future. So the more interfacing I may get the better. So in some cases it might be wise to fully support propriatory technologies to enlarge the user community.
But I promise to have a deeper look, the design is simply to cool
You're just picking nits now. You'd have to be going some to exhaust 2GB of RAM never mind 3GB. I've 2GB in my iMac, expanded from 512MB when I bought it. Past 1GB I barely noticed a speed increase and I've usually got iTunes, Mail, Photoshop, Textmate, Transmit, Gizmo, Butler, Safari and a bunch of other stuff open all day.
The Intel Macs are a bit more ram hungry with Rosetta but that's obviously going to improve over time so you'll require LESS ram.
Nitpicking? Something that can effect the way you use future software is nitpicking? I should also point out, it's the little things that are the difference between the Mac experience and windows.
Nitpicking? Something that can effect the way you use future software is nitpicking?
Not taking sides here, but it does depend on how the machine is being used. It's not likely that more memory would be needed if the machine was going to be used for the home. The max is fine for the lifetime of the machine, about 5 years on average.
If one is going to use it out of the parameters of Apple's design envelope, which some do, then the memory max may not be enough.
Not taking sides here, but it does depend on how the machine is being used. It's not likely that more memory would be needed if the machine was going to be used for the home. The max is fine for the lifetime of the machine, about 5 years on average.
If one is going to use it out of the parameters of Apple's design envelope, which some do, then the memory max may not be enough.
That would be fine if it was just a light duty home computer, but it's the only option below a professional workstation.
Why would you need more than 3GB on a 'light duty home computer'?
I use my 1.8Ghz G5 iMac for web design and development with all the usual tools. Very rarely do I butt up against the top of the 2GB limit I have.
Yet, you're suggesting a 3GB equipped dual-core Intel iMac is only ok for a 'light duty home computer' ?
Lots of designers and developers I know use PowerBooks and MacBooks which are even less well specced than an iMac.
I'm puzzled.
You don't, but unfortunately do to either stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, you don't have other options unless you to pay the big bucks to move up two rungs for a professional workstation. Unfortunately the only reasonable option for many is to buy a PC desktop instead. You've shown the major problem with the Mac platform, Apple sees exactly two categories: home users who need iMacs and Professionals who need high end workstations. They don't seem to understand or care what lies between. The company Apple was before and during this was able to understand the need for a prosumer desktop. After all that was what what the first couple G-series PowerMacs were.
You don't, but unfortunately do to either stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, you don't have other options unless you to pay the big bucks to move up two rungs for a professional workstation. Unfortunately the only reasonable option for many is to buy a PC desktop instead. You've shown the major problem with the Mac platform, Apple sees exactly two categories: home users who need iMacs and Professionals who need high end workstations. They don't seem to understand or care what lies between. The company Apple was before and during this was able to understand the need for a prosumer desktop. After all that was what what the first couple G-series PowerMacs were.
Huh? I'm still puzzled. As I said, many professionals use iMacs and MacBook(Pro)s. A MacPro is overkill for pretty much anything other than professional video work. Today's iMac is faster than last year's dual processor G5 PowerMac even.
That's not just my view. That's the view of most professional developers and designers.
edit: and I don't think it's stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, quite the opposite, more like snobbery on the users part.
Huh? I'm still puzzled. As I said, many professionals use iMacs and MacBook(Pro)s. A MacPro is overkill for pretty much anything other than professional video work. Today's iMac is faster than last year's dual processor G5 PowerMac even.
That's not just my view. That's the view of most professional developers and designers.
edit: and I don't think it's stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, quite the opposite, more like snobbery on the users part.
You're making the assumption that Apple is representative of the company industry as a whole.
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
That's interesting and sad. I was recently helping my wife's friend and her family get a new computer. They knew I have a Mac but weren't interested enough to look at one and I make it a rule not to encourge it unless people are interested. Anyway they were trying to replace their old Dell with a new one and wanted me to advice them which configuration to go with. They had one Intel and one AMD and both were selling for about $1,800. They thought the price was too high and they were wondering if they were getting a good deal. I tried to configre one myself online and I was hard pressed to get the price below $1,800 which surprised me. Granted they were starting from scratch but Dell didn't seem to be offering anything more than Apple at that price. The other thing I noticed was how confusing Dell's site is and the range of options added to the confusion. Too many options are as bad as too few. I guess my point is this. I agree that Apple should offer headless machine but I think the upgrade paths should be well thought out and not their just to take up space and look impressive. Personally I'd rather have one great application that works (or hardware) rather than 10 kinds that are all crap.
I was recently helping my wife's friend and her family get a new computer. They knew I have a Mac but weren't interested enough to look at one and I make it a rule not to encourge it unless people are interested. Anyway they were trying to replace their old Dell with a new one and wanted me to advice them which configuration to go with. . . .
You are braver than I. I always plead ignorance of anything to do with Windows when people ask for advice. I don't want to be blaimed for the computer they buy. Also, I don't want to be called every time something goes wrong.
I'm refering to most Mac users. As I'm sure you've seen here, many talk about how elegent the machines are, what a high value they are, etc. They think that it is the machines that sell. I can tell you that I now know many people who have switched. While they say that the machines are nice, wonderful even, the reason they switched was because they wanted to get away from Windows. So, they know.
So what? That the entire package is built to "just work" as much as possible is the selling point and most folks understand that the OS and software is a big part of that.
Just like the iPod and iTunes.
So Apple should offer $30 iPods to reduce the cost of entry for using iTunes? There's a 512MB XM Radio/MP3 player for $29 on sale at CC (price includes rebate). There's a $39.99 512MB MP3 player without rebates.
Oh...the Shuffle is overpriced because of the small form factor! The entry price of the Shuffle at $79 is too high! Everyone knows that it isn't the elegance of the iPod hardware that sells but the easy to use iTunes integration since there are many cheaper and more powerful MP3 players on the market.
Quote:
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
So is a BMW or Mercedes. While the ease of use is perhaps the prime seller the branding also is a major factor.
Quote:
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
Nice thing we have a Mini at $600 eh?
Quote:
There have been so many explanations why that is wrong, that it's hard to know where to start. Let's start with the OEM copies. Just how many PC users know about buying OEM copies? Almost none. Write that off the list, it doesn't matter.
You're kidding right? Every time a PC user buys a Dell/HP/whatever they get an OEM copy. Microsoft has to take little risk and small investment since they don't make the PCs but everyone buys their OS from them.
Quote:
Home was, and is, not recommended by anyone. Read up on what is being said about the lowest versions of Vista.
Home is effectively free when you buy a new PC. That is how most folks will get Vista.
Quote:
I agree with that. Apple MAY fear cannibalization, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.
My assessment is that Apple is pursing a mobile platform strategy and has optimized toward that end. Hence the use of laptop parts in desktop machines for larger volume buys. They may only be #5 but in term of mobility parts they appear much larger than they are. Effectively computerwise they make NOTHING but laptops and workstations.
Apple desktops are probably priced as competitively as you can with laptop parts and still make the margins required for Apple to write software and pursue R&D and make shareholders happy. So what would sales of a cheap tower do? Well any mini part buys that contribute to MB and MBP component volume buy discounts are gone. Likewise a lot of iMac sales and potentially even a few Mac Pro sales. And you sure as hell can't offer a Merom tower because that gets completely creamed by Conroe machines on price and performance.
Just getting BACK to EVEN pretty much requires you to double desktop share (don't recall the exact number now) and incurs risk and resources best spent elsewhere. Both aTV and iPhone are big risks for Apple right now but their potential payout is much higher than even tripling desktop share.
"?We?re thrilled to have concluded the best year in Apple?s history, with 68 percent year-over-year revenue growth and 384 percent net profit growth,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO. ?This is the direct result of our focus on innovation and the immense talent and creativity at Apple. We could not be more excited about the new products we?re working on for 2006.?
Yea...that's an indictment on Apple's piss poor performance this year and they really NEED to change tack because of "dismal' desktop sales. Like it takes innovation, immense talent and creativity to make yet another tower and run the Apple ship aground again like it did under Sculley/Spindler pursuing market share against the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer...
They're representative of what? I don't understand your sentence.
Apple isn't representative of users that want a cheap tower...aka the "industry". Because prosumers are that all powerful market segment that makes or breaks a computer company.
Oddly though it seems a good number of prosumers use the utterly consumer oriented iMacs...
Now gamers don't and for good reason. Yah, that's another market segment that makes or breaks a computer company...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
They're representative of what? I don't understand your sentence.
Apple isn't representative of users that want a cheap tower...aka the "industry". Because prosumers are that all powerful market segment that makes or breaks a computer company.
Oddly though it seems a good number of prosumers use the utterly consumer oriented iMacs...
Now gamers don't and for good reason. Yah, that's another market segment that makes or breaks a computer company...did someone mention 384% net profit growth this year? Nah...Apple management suxxors and they need a tower real bad or they gonna go out of business.
Comments
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.
Your comment "it isn't obvious to many people" are you referring to Mac users or to all computer users? And I don't understand your second statement at all.
I can only speak from personal experience, my personal experience, and I can honestly say that I'd never have bought a Mac if it wasn't for the seamless-ease-of-use OS. A distant second is that the look is aesthetically pleasing also. Particularly the iMac AIO, although I don't own one of those.
And given the PC marketshare in HW/SW and their lower price points, I honestly think most people buy a Mac for the OS, more so than any other reason.
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.
Why doesn't Apple make lower cost computers (or lower the costs of the existing ones) to spur adoption? Apple wants people (adopters) to pay more for a computer, with much fewer HW/SW options, for the single reason of Mac OS X? I can see the Apple ad now, "Pay more, get less, seamlessly!"
As for Mac OS X being cheaper, let's see now, 1) OS X one price (no tiered pricing model a la MS), 2) no upgrade pricing model (a la MS), 3) no OEM copies available (a la MS (and typically at half price of the retail verion)), 4) more frequent updates to the OS (WRT MS). MS power users might upgrade to to the top-of-the-line MS OS, but IMHO the vast majority of MS users use the lowest 2-3 tiers. SO IMHO a very good argument could be made that Windoze is the cheaper OS over a several year lifespan on average across the entire PC user base.
So while the up front cost of the Mac OS MAY be cheaper, over several years the cost of Windoze OS to the typical user is probably lower.
Cannibalization? About the only evidence I need IS the current desktop mix, it hasn't changed in years. I think Apple fears cannibalization greatly, if the user base doesn't increase in kind with lower margin desktops, this would clearly affect Apple profits in that segment. And if Apple ever did introduce new desktops how would we ever determine it's effects, since we aren't privy to Apple's internal numbers, only Apple would know that real (or potential) answer.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Are you repeating the first one?
Yup (I realized it was redundant after posting, but didn't bother to edit out)!
But honestly, I only offered up a few ideas on Apple HW that might spur adoption, because IMHO having one model that's upgradable (Mac Pro) doesn't cut it. And if the AIO is such a great idea why hasn't the rest of the PC industry adopted that approach? Mac laptops, no problem there, Mac mini, mostly no problem there, but having the AIO (and Mac mini) as your only option(s) outside of the high cost Mac Pro works at cross purposes with an apparent attempt of Apple to gain market share (in those price ranges), or even grow the user base numbers themselves at a faster rate (which I think they would do if there were more desktop options/price points, or if the existing line of desktops was at lower price points).
You change your computer every 12-18 months ??? Why ???
I wouldn't want to, but the iMac is a computer that is not prepared for future needs at all. at all. Any kind of upgrades are impractical, even RAM. When the 64mb of RAM my G3 was no longer enough, I was able to triple it to meet the memory requirements of new programs. The dual channel RAM and notebook controller limit of 3GB (using 2 $300 2GB DIMMs) makes upgrading the iMac to meet future demands in any way impractical. That leaves you with a system less productive with new software or forced to go buy a new computer. The PC guys can just go to new egg and pick up some more RAM.
I wouldn't want to, but the iMac is a computer that is not prepared for future needs at all. at all. Any kind of upgrades are impractical, even RAM.
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/ne...ever-01271218/
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/ne...ever-01271218/
Which requires replacing both DIMMs and if you want full RAM spending $600. For all intents and purposes what you have when you buy the machine is what you're going to have through out its life.
Your comment "it isn't obvious to many people" are you referring to Mac users or to all computer users? And I don't understand your second statement at all.
I'm refering to most Mac users. As I'm sure you've seen here, many talk about how elegent the machines are, what a high value they are, etc. They think that it is the machines that sell. I can tell you that I now know many people who have switched. While they say that the machines are nice, wonderful even, the reason they switched was because they wanted to get away from Windows. So, they know.
I'm not saying that there aren't Mac users who don't understand this, but nost don't seem to think so. It's almost as though they think that the OS is a bonus you get withe machines.
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
I can only speak from personal experience, my personal experience, and I can honestly say that I'd never have bought a Mac if it wasn't for the seamless-ease-of-use OS. A distant second is that the look is aesthetically pleasing also. Particularly the iMac AIO, although I don't own one of those.
Good, that's as it should be! Though asthetics plays more of a role these days.
And given the PC marketshare in HW/SW and their lower price points, I honestly think most people buy a Mac for the OS, more so than any other reason.
PC hardware is less expensive if they aren't completely the same devices. SW prices are about the same though. Some are lower, and some are higher.
Why doesn't Apple make lower cost computers (or lower the costs of the existing ones) to spur adoption? Apple wants people (adopters) to pay more for a computer, with much fewer HW/SW options, for the single reason of Mac OS X? I can see the Apple ad now, "Pay more, get less, seamlessly!"
Without getting into the "Mind of Steve" we can only keep guessing until he changes his mind again. The only way you can tell when he is coming out with a new product is when he protests most that Apple won't do it.
As for Mac OS X being cheaper, let's see now, 1) OS X one price (no tiered pricing model a la MS), 2) no upgrade pricing model (a la MS), 3) no OEM copies available (a la MS (and typically at half price of the retail verion)), 4) more frequent updates to the OS (WRT MS). MS power users might upgrade to to the top-of-the-line MS OS, but IMHO the vast majority of MS users use the lowest 2-3 tiers. SO IMHO a very good argument could be made that Windoze is the cheaper OS over a several year lifespan on average across the entire PC user base.
There have been so many explanations why that is wrong, that it's hard to know where to start. Let's start with the OEM copies. Just how many PC users know about buying OEM copies? Almost none. Write that off the list, it doesn't matter.
Home was, and is, not recommended by anyone. Read up on what is being said about the lowest versions of Vista.
Vista is an anomoly. MS never intended to have so many problems with this OS that it would take five years to come out. It was due over two years ago. If you bought upgrades, which are still pretty expensive, it would still cost more than buying OS X, which is priced lower, much lower, than the better versions of Windows, which cost about twice as much, or more. You also couldn't get a multi seat license for the home as you could with OS X. That license brings the cost, if you use all five, to $40 list, per seat. As OS X is available for less than list, the full version can cost as little as $109, and the 5 seat version $169.
MS is now offering a very strange licensing deal. If you buy the $299 FULL version, or the $399 FULL version, you get two licenses for Home. Yippie! I don't remember if there is an extra charge.
So while the up front cost of the Mac OS MAY be cheaper, over several years the cost of Windoze OS to the typical user is probably lower.
Nope!
Cannibalization? About the only evidence I need IS the current desktop mix, it hasn't changed in years. I think Apple fears cannibalization greatly, if the user base doesn't increase in kind with lower margin desktops, this would clearly affect Apple profits in that segment. And if Apple ever did introduce new desktops how would we ever determine it's effects, since we aren't privy to Apple's internal numbers, only Apple would know that real (or potential) answer.
I agree with that. Apple MAY fear cannibalization, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.
They could re-arrange their lines to keep them more separate.
But honestly, I only offered up a few ideas on Apple HW that might spur adoption, because IMHO having one model that's upgradable (Mac Pro) doesn't cut it. And if the AIO is such a great idea why hasn't the rest of the PC industry adopted that approach? Mac laptops, no problem there, Mac mini, mostly no problem there, but having the AIO (and Mac mini) as your only option(s) outside of the high cost Mac Pro works at cross purposes with an apparent attempt of Apple to gain market share (in those price ranges), or even grow the user base numbers themselves at a faster rate (which I think they would do if there were more desktop options/price points, or if the existing line of desktops was at lower price points).
Yes, I agree with you here again. This is the same thing I've been saying.
Which requires replacing both DIMMs and if you want full RAM spending $600. For all intents and purposes what you have when you buy the machine is what you're going to have through out its life.
You're just picking nits now. You'd have to be going some to exhaust 2GB of RAM never mind 3GB. I've 2GB in my iMac, expanded from 512MB when I bought it. Past 1GB I barely noticed a speed increase and I've usually got iTunes, Mail, Photoshop, Textmate, Transmit, Gizmo, Butler, Safari and a bunch of other stuff open all day.
The Intel Macs are a bit more ram hungry with Rosetta but that's obviously going to improve over time so you'll require LESS ram.
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.
Ok, sorry for maybe not being as precise as possible on some topics. Although I was aware of the fact that Apple is using standards with AAC and H.264, the emphasis was more on the "more" in my statement. Or maybe I should have named it "common standards". I really like the idea behind iTunes, and I really understand the need for the industry to actually sell movies and music to support the infrastructure. But iTunes is really the perfect example that consumers are WILLING to pay to the stuff!!! It just has to be easy to use, and besides the fact that iTunes is indeed very intuitive, they seem not to accept MP3 as a format themselves. So maybe I am just narrow minded, but today AAC, besides being a standard, is not as widely used as MP3. And related to video, many people probably have MPEG 4 stuff as AVI files flying arround, but you simply cannot use it with a iPod or Apple TV. And again, this is not about pirate stuff, but rather a DVD that I may have bought and won't to have available in a compressed format to stream it from my pc to my tv. Would't it be nice if Hollywood would offer this on a DVD already? Okay, I may stretch my wishlist a bit far from being realistic here
And my comment with Microsoft was actually related to their problem with the Open Document Format
And last but not least as much as I would like to get rid of Microsoft, it is not realistic to expect it leaving the office space in the near future. So the more interfacing I may get the better. So in some cases it might be wise to fully support propriatory technologies to enlarge the user community.
But I promise to have a deeper look, the design is simply to cool
You're just picking nits now. You'd have to be going some to exhaust 2GB of RAM never mind 3GB. I've 2GB in my iMac, expanded from 512MB when I bought it. Past 1GB I barely noticed a speed increase and I've usually got iTunes, Mail, Photoshop, Textmate, Transmit, Gizmo, Butler, Safari and a bunch of other stuff open all day.
The Intel Macs are a bit more ram hungry with Rosetta but that's obviously going to improve over time so you'll require LESS ram.
Nitpicking? Something that can effect the way you use future software is nitpicking? I should also point out, it's the little things that are the difference between the Mac experience and windows.
Nitpicking? Something that can effect the way you use future software is nitpicking?
Not taking sides here, but it does depend on how the machine is being used. It's not likely that more memory would be needed if the machine was going to be used for the home. The max is fine for the lifetime of the machine, about 5 years on average.
If one is going to use it out of the parameters of Apple's design envelope, which some do, then the memory max may not be enough.
Not taking sides here, but it does depend on how the machine is being used. It's not likely that more memory would be needed if the machine was going to be used for the home. The max is fine for the lifetime of the machine, about 5 years on average.
If one is going to use it out of the parameters of Apple's design envelope, which some do, then the memory max may not be enough.
That would be fine if it was just a light duty home computer, but it's the only option below a professional workstation.
That would be fine if it was just a light duty home computer, but it's the only option below a professional workstation.
That goes to the second part of my statement.
That would be fine if it was just a light duty home computer, but it's the only option below a professional workstation.
Why would you need more than 3GB on a 'light duty home computer'?
I use my 1.8Ghz G5 iMac for web design and development with all the usual tools. Very rarely do I butt up against the top of the 2GB limit I have.
Yet, you're suggesting a 3GB equipped dual-core Intel iMac is only ok for a 'light duty home computer' ?
Lots of designers and developers I know use PowerBooks and MacBooks which are even less well specced than an iMac.
I'm puzzled.
Why would you need more than 3GB on a 'light duty home computer'?
I use my 1.8Ghz G5 iMac for web design and development with all the usual tools. Very rarely do I butt up against the top of the 2GB limit I have.
Yet, you're suggesting a 3GB equipped dual-core Intel iMac is only ok for a 'light duty home computer' ?
Lots of designers and developers I know use PowerBooks and MacBooks which are even less well specced than an iMac.
I'm puzzled.
You don't, but unfortunately do to either stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, you don't have other options unless you to pay the big bucks to move up two rungs for a professional workstation. Unfortunately the only reasonable option for many is to buy a PC desktop instead. You've shown the major problem with the Mac platform, Apple sees exactly two categories: home users who need iMacs and Professionals who need high end workstations. They don't seem to understand or care what lies between. The company Apple was before and during this was able to understand the need for a prosumer desktop. After all that was what what the first couple G-series PowerMacs were.
You don't, but unfortunately do to either stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, you don't have other options unless you to pay the big bucks to move up two rungs for a professional workstation. Unfortunately the only reasonable option for many is to buy a PC desktop instead. You've shown the major problem with the Mac platform, Apple sees exactly two categories: home users who need iMacs and Professionals who need high end workstations. They don't seem to understand or care what lies between. The company Apple was before and during this was able to understand the need for a prosumer desktop. After all that was what what the first couple G-series PowerMacs were.
Huh? I'm still puzzled. As I said, many professionals use iMacs and MacBook(Pro)s. A MacPro is overkill for pretty much anything other than professional video work. Today's iMac is faster than last year's dual processor G5 PowerMac even.
That's not just my view. That's the view of most professional developers and designers.
edit: and I don't think it's stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, quite the opposite, more like snobbery on the users part.
Huh? I'm still puzzled. As I said, many professionals use iMacs and MacBook(Pro)s. A MacPro is overkill for pretty much anything other than professional video work. Today's iMac is faster than last year's dual processor G5 PowerMac even.
That's not just my view. That's the view of most professional developers and designers.
edit: and I don't think it's stupidity or arrogance on Apple's part, quite the opposite, more like snobbery on the users part.
You're making the assumption that Apple is representative of the company industry as a whole.
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
That's interesting and sad. I was recently helping my wife's friend and her family get a new computer. They knew I have a Mac but weren't interested enough to look at one and I make it a rule not to encourge it unless people are interested. Anyway they were trying to replace their old Dell with a new one and wanted me to advice them which configuration to go with. They had one Intel and one AMD and both were selling for about $1,800. They thought the price was too high and they were wondering if they were getting a good deal. I tried to configre one myself online and I was hard pressed to get the price below $1,800 which surprised me. Granted they were starting from scratch but Dell didn't seem to be offering anything more than Apple at that price. The other thing I noticed was how confusing Dell's site is and the range of options added to the confusion. Too many options are as bad as too few. I guess my point is this. I agree that Apple should offer headless machine but I think the upgrade paths should be well thought out and not their just to take up space and look impressive. Personally I'd rather have one great application that works (or hardware) rather than 10 kinds that are all crap.
I was recently helping my wife's friend and her family get a new computer. They knew I have a Mac but weren't interested enough to look at one and I make it a rule not to encourge it unless people are interested. Anyway they were trying to replace their old Dell with a new one and wanted me to advice them which configuration to go with. . . .
You are braver than I. I always plead ignorance of anything to do with Windows when people ask for advice. I don't want to be blaimed for the computer they buy. Also, I don't want to be called every time something goes wrong.
You're making the assumption that Apple is representative of the company industry as a whole.
They're representative of what? I don't understand your sentence.
I'm refering to most Mac users. As I'm sure you've seen here, many talk about how elegent the machines are, what a high value they are, etc. They think that it is the machines that sell. I can tell you that I now know many people who have switched. While they say that the machines are nice, wonderful even, the reason they switched was because they wanted to get away from Windows. So, they know.
So what? That the entire package is built to "just work" as much as possible is the selling point and most folks understand that the OS and software is a big part of that.
Just like the iPod and iTunes.
So Apple should offer $30 iPods to reduce the cost of entry for using iTunes? There's a 512MB XM Radio/MP3 player for $29 on sale at CC (price includes rebate). There's a $39.99 512MB MP3 player without rebates.
Oh...the Shuffle is overpriced because of the small form factor! The entry price of the Shuffle at $79 is too high! Everyone knows that it isn't the elegance of the iPod hardware that sells but the easy to use iTunes integration since there are many cheaper and more powerful MP3 players on the market.
The second statement refers to the fact that while many want to get a Mac, they are turned off by the price. Now, I know that Apple's machines are priced failry for what is gotten, once one includes the cost of the esthetics, which adds a premium to that price. But, to many people it's still too high a price to pay.
So is a BMW or Mercedes. While the ease of use is perhaps the prime seller the branding also is a major factor.
I read an interesting article some time ago. He said that people would rather see a machine selling for $600, and add extras to bring the price up to $1,000, than buy a machine that is priced at $1,000 with the extras built-in. It's a bit of psychology. The $600 machine seems to be more of a bargain, even though the final price is the same. The reason is that people feel as thought THEY are making the choice to pay more, rather than being forced to pay more. They feel as though they have more control over the situation, even though they do not.
Nice thing we have a Mini at $600 eh?
There have been so many explanations why that is wrong, that it's hard to know where to start. Let's start with the OEM copies. Just how many PC users know about buying OEM copies? Almost none. Write that off the list, it doesn't matter.
You're kidding right? Every time a PC user buys a Dell/HP/whatever they get an OEM copy. Microsoft has to take little risk and small investment since they don't make the PCs but everyone buys their OS from them.
Home was, and is, not recommended by anyone. Read up on what is being said about the lowest versions of Vista.
Home is effectively free when you buy a new PC. That is how most folks will get Vista.
I agree with that. Apple MAY fear cannibalization, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.
My assessment is that Apple is pursing a mobile platform strategy and has optimized toward that end. Hence the use of laptop parts in desktop machines for larger volume buys. They may only be #5 but in term of mobility parts they appear much larger than they are. Effectively computerwise they make NOTHING but laptops and workstations.
Apple desktops are probably priced as competitively as you can with laptop parts and still make the margins required for Apple to write software and pursue R&D and make shareholders happy. So what would sales of a cheap tower do? Well any mini part buys that contribute to MB and MBP component volume buy discounts are gone. Likewise a lot of iMac sales and potentially even a few Mac Pro sales. And you sure as hell can't offer a Merom tower because that gets completely creamed by Conroe machines on price and performance.
Just getting BACK to EVEN pretty much requires you to double desktop share (don't recall the exact number now) and incurs risk and resources best spent elsewhere. Both aTV and iPhone are big risks for Apple right now but their potential payout is much higher than even tripling desktop share.
"?We?re thrilled to have concluded the best year in Apple?s history, with 68 percent year-over-year revenue growth and 384 percent net profit growth,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO. ?This is the direct result of our focus on innovation and the immense talent and creativity at Apple. We could not be more excited about the new products we?re working on for 2006.?
Yea...that's an indictment on Apple's piss poor performance this year and they really NEED to change tack because of "dismal' desktop sales. Like it takes innovation, immense talent and creativity to make yet another tower and run the Apple ship aground again like it did under Sculley/Spindler pursuing market share against the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer...
Vinea
They're representative of what? I don't understand your sentence.
Apple isn't representative of users that want a cheap tower...aka the "industry". Because prosumers are that all powerful market segment that makes or breaks a computer company.
Oddly though it seems a good number of prosumers use the utterly consumer oriented iMacs...
Now gamers don't and for good reason. Yah, that's another market segment that makes or breaks a computer company...
They're representative of what? I don't understand your sentence.
Apple isn't representative of users that want a cheap tower...aka the "industry". Because prosumers are that all powerful market segment that makes or breaks a computer company.
Oddly though it seems a good number of prosumers use the utterly consumer oriented iMacs...
Now gamers don't and for good reason. Yah, that's another market segment that makes or breaks a computer company...did someone mention 384% net profit growth this year? Nah...Apple management suxxors and they need a tower real bad or they gonna go out of business.
Vinea