There is nothing wrong with Apple pricing and I have no problem with them making a profit, after all that is how they stay in business.
I recently tried to price out a Media Center PC and there was no way I could get it under $1500 with equivalent hardware and features to a Mac.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
I don't think its fair to say Apple should lower their prices on their Macs just because they made a $1 Billion profit. Maybe it's not obvious but, 1) that's for everything they sell not just Macs, 2) from that profit they have to re-invest probably 75% of those profits back into research to make more great products and 3) they have to pay the bills with the rest!
It maybe a $1 billion profit but that number is probably far from where their actual net income is.
On models that currently exist, I tend to agree. I think the MacBook Pros are slightly overpriced, especially outside the U.S., but otherwise the price charged for what you get is reasonable.
The problem is cost of entry to the platform. There should be models with the same form-factor (i.e. not cheap & nasty casework) but cheaper innards, lowering the price and specification of the cheapest model in each range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
You obviously don't know much about Media Center PCs. Unless you actually meant it beats them on price:features ratio. Because there are plenty of Media Center PCs that offer way more features than the setup you propose.
Have you done any cross comparisons of the hardware? Apple isn't just competitively priced, it's often a bit lower than the competition. And that doesn't include all the extra goodies, user experience, and lack need for of support & security software that aren't easy quantified.
Apple would need to create low-end machines to increase its marketshare. But does it really need to? There are a lot more Chevy Cavilars being sold than Rolls Royce Phantoms, but that doesn't mean the Cavilar is better off. If we compare the high end machines of any leading OEM you'll see that Apple has a significant marketshare.
It's not as if the Cavilars (sic) are bad units though. So they have imitation mouse fur vs. leather, they can still go the distance.
The strength of Apple is its total integration to make sure everything works better but the strength of the rest of the market is that you often don't have to buy things you don't want, if it adds cost, but that you can buy the things that you do want as well. Often, the rest of the market offers other capabilities and conveniences that Apple does not offer. I don't see one as being better than the other, they both have their strengths.
I'm not sure if some of you guys are understanding the deceptive statement that Apple's marketshare is going up. It did not go up last quarter, it went down. It's like this. Let's say you are a refrigerator salesman and want to sell as many per quarter as possible. Lets say these are your numbers for the four quarter of 2005-2006
2005 Q1 500 Q2 500 Q3 500 Q4 500
2006 Q1 700 Q2 700 Q3 700 Q4 700
Now, how many times did you increase sales? Only ONE time, when your sales went from 500 to 700. But if you deceptively look at it by comparing each quarter in 2006 to the one in 2005, you can then say FOUR times that you did way better than last year.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
That setup loses out an stability because EyeTV is the least stable software I've seen in a long time, and the hardware is a bit temperamental too. The only reason I use it is because it is the only software of its kind on the Mac, but I am considering going to some other platform for PVR if it misbehaves again.
Have you done any cross comparisons of the hardware? Apple isn't just competitively priced, it's often a bit lower than the competition. And that doesn't include all the extra goodies, user experience, and lack need for of support & security software that aren't easy quantified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
1. I have compared apple's price for every single machine against everything offered by Dell, HP, and Gateway. I have found Apple's machines to be either the exact same price, higher by maybe 10 or 15 bucks, or significantly lower. They are pricing there machines right in line with other machines with exact same specs. The experience from Apple's machines, I have found, are often much better than that of the other competitors, who, when you need to phone for support, have so called "tech support" in some remote town in India, and often times these people have no stinkin clue about anything except maybe how to wipe their A@!#@!.
I hear these damn 'comparison' arguments so much, and people apparently just don't get it. First, looking at a starting price (say if you're trying to buy little Jimmy his first computer) and the Dell eats the mac, hands down. Second, and more important, is that while what you say is true, its also true that you can get that Dell or HP computer WITHOUT all those features. Yes, not everyone needs or wants to spend money on fluff like a built-in iSight camera. Or they may want a 12" form factor AND an ExpressCard slot. Or, I don't know, spending less then $2000 to get a 15" laptop. Or a computer where you can change the video card that costs less then $2200. Or a computer that has the exact specs of the iMac, but not the screen.
And, BTW, I've also noticed that when people say they compare the computers with the 'exact same specs', yet never take into account having to up the mac side to meet PC specs. A lot of PCs have memory card slots. Macs have none, add in adapter. My Dell has 8 USB ports. The most any mac has is 4. Add in USB card, or USB hub to price. Most PCs can support multiple internal hard drives. Add cost of one USB hard drive case to Mac. The list can go on and on. (But why be bothered with such things as looking at both sides when it ruins a great argument, right people!).
Apple would need to create low-end machines to increase its marketshare. But does it really need to? There are a lot more Chevy Cavilars being sold than Rolls Royce Phantoms, but that doesn't mean the Cavilar is better off. If we compare the high end machines of any leading OEM you'll see that Apple has a significant marketshare.
Oh boy! Stupid car analogies again! Woohoo! Let's see what we can disect this one up!
We could argue that, by being so high-priced (by not having 'cheap machines'), they basically have that elitist look and attitude about them and their owners, which then drives people away from their product (I'm sure there are people who can afford a Rolls who don't buy them because they don't want people to think they're better then the common folk).
And, again, you can get into the "They both run on gas, so market share isn't as important as it is with something that requires investment from third-parties to support your platform. How well would Rolls Royce be doing if you needed to have special gas stations to fill up at." But let's look at another part of this. If you go to TrakAuto, how likely is it you'll find oil and air filters, wipers, and other parts that are specifically designed for the Rolls? Very unlikely. Why? Well, because the MARKET isn't there to be profitable to carry them.
And, lest we forget, they both have the same problem in terms of maintenance. You're basically forced to take it to an 'authorized dealer' for service, and it'll cost you an arm and a leg to get it fixed (unless you were smart enough to spend the money on applecare). My brother's ethernet port went out on his Gateway (or is it an HP?). It cost $20 to buy a card to stick it into a slot. On a mac, you have to replace the entire motherboard ($500+, easy). And there's no replacing the motherboard at all except through apple, whereas you can get a new mobo for that lowly PC quite cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Creating iLife for Windows would not help Apple's longterm goal. Many swotchers get fed up with Windows. If Apple made the "Windows experience" better then people would be less likely to switch. Now, iTunes software is a different story as it helps to sell iPods and introduce people to the Mac Experience, which is a tight integration of hardware and software.
Except iTunes for Windows doesn't improve on the Windows experience at all. Updates seem to come out way too often (just like MS updates!). The menubar alone causes the software to look just plain stupid (sorry, but whoever at apple thought putting the menu bar IN the title bar is just an idiot - "HEY, let's make our software look completely different then all their other software!"), the installer puts icons all over the place, without asking, installs quicktime without warning (I know its needed, but it should do a better job of telling you), sticks crap into your "Run" registry block to start stuff on login (like quicktime, for one), installs an iPod service that you can't delete or shut off (it seems to keep re-starting like a plague). [It was worse, when they had it such that you HAD to install iTunes just to get Quicktime installed]. Hey, but I digress....
PC prices are dropping so dramatically that substitution to a Mac makes no economic sense for many PC users.
Price. Price. Price.
What's interesting to me about those calling for Apple to lower its prices, is the fact they seem to ignore the OEM's who are competing on price. Is that a winning strategy?
Dell sells cheap computers, makes a little more money than Apple, and is loosing market share. HP is gaining market share but barely makes any real profit at all. While Apple made more money per sale than them all. Looking at the full picture people make it sound as though Apple has the problems?
These are all clear signs the heady days of the PC industry are changing. The demand is stagnating and sales are declining. Why should Apple jump into the price war?
2. You can call Apple arrogant for the following, but I appreciate their candid opinion on this. They do not want to create a piece of $200 crap just to satisfy those who have no business of owning a computer in the first place.
Alright! I just love the elitism of that statement. So who gets to decide who has business to own a computer? And here's a question: If you've got a slew of people who have no business owning a computer, yet, apparently due to their own stupidity, decide to buy one (sorry, but you just can't protect people from themselves!), would you rather have them buying a Mac, with its so-called secure environment and ease of use, or a Windows machine which they'll most likely leave open, unsecured, and unpatched, all to be turned into a big virus infested, bot controlled, spam and bot machine?
But most current and potential mac users aren't looking for $200 machines. But we would like machines that had LESS features, and, thus, cost less. Are you saying that if Apple took the iSight and screen out of the iMac, it somehow becomes a piece of crap? Or if they made a mini-tower type machine with just some expandability/customization options, it would fall apart the second it was touched?
BTW, if Apple could cut down on the cost of the MacPros by, I don't know, changing the case to something that weighed LESS THAN 50 pounds, I'd say go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
3. The commercials, I think, are funny. They are also very true in many cases.
Some of the commercials are funny. The problem is, of course, that if you asked, most people probably like the PC guy more then the mac guy.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
Yes, comparing year-over-year units shipped removes seasonality. But this discussion isn't about a slip in units, it is about a slip in market share. I'd say that making quarter to quarter comparisons of market share is better than year-over-year comparisons, as market share could have a big jump from one quarter to the next, then stop increasing. This will give you four quarters in a row of stellar year-over-year market share growth despite the fact that market share only grew once.
Apple dropped slightly to fifth place in rankings of US computer sales during the fourth quarter of 2006, according to preliminary Gartner data obtained by AppleInsider.
The Mac maker fell a full percentage point to 5.1 percent of the domestic market between the third and fourth quarters of the year, trading places with Toshiba, which climbed from 5.1 to 5.3 percent. Apple remained out of the top five in the world rankings, but a similar set of data released by IDC on Wednesday puts its international share at 2.4 percent.
Shipments of Macs in the U.S. also dipped significantly from 975,000 US systems to 808,000, indicating a genuine slowdown in sales for the Cupertino-based company following a stellar back-to-school quarter. Dell remains in command of US sales at 29.1 percent but is bleeding rapidly, having lost 3.1 of its share. Most of this was gained by Hewett Packard, which jumped from 23 to 25.3 percent, Gartner said.
In spite of the seeming downturn, Apple nevertheless maintained the highest year-over-year growth of any of the top five computer builders operating in the Americans, soaring 30.6 percent compared to Toshiba's gain of 22.3 percent over the same timeframe.
Gartner also noted that the US climate for PC sales was especially harsh: total shipments for the year actually sank 3.2 percent compared to 2005, with Dell suffering the worst losses as it gave up a staggering 17.3 percent. The overall market at home and abroad suffered in large part due to competition with hot-selling electronics such as flat-panel TVs and the Nintendo Wii, Gartner analyst Mikako Kitagawa said. PC makers were also forced to cut prices to spur interest in their systems for buyers who would otherwise have waited for Windows Vista.
"PC price erosion was a defining feature of the quarter," Kitagawa said.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
But the concept behind what he is saying is correct.
Even if Apple has a 28% lift in sales from the year before quarter, marketshare can easily decline. Apple sold less Macs in the US this quarter, but industry sales rose 3%. Therefore Apple's marketshare declined. You may have noticed that Apple's worldwide marketshare increased, because Apple sold more machines abroad this quarter, then they did last quarter.
Quarter to quarter comparisons are very important.
If domestic shipments of Macs dipped significantly to 800,000 something, then it must have been international sales that picked up the slack (total Mac shipments were over 1.6M).
Way to go international Mac buyers! Time for Apple to show some respect.
How about timely shipments of new products, not extra waits while the domestic channel is filled.
Actually, its not a brilliant question as it assumes that market share, by itself, is a business goal. 100% market share and losing money make for a very poor business...........
(Sorry but no snot here)
Hmmm, by the same token, perhaps Apple should price its computers at $1 million each, and say, sell just 1000 units? There are probably 500 well-heeled households around the world that might actually buy two each! And, Apple would make tons of $$ (hundreds of millions) in profits!
Of course, the only slight problem is, as other (more perceptive) posts have pointed out, there may not be much available by way of software run those 1000 Macs.... but hey, who cares, because they look/feel great, are designed beautifully, and have really cool TV ads to back them up, right?
Of course market share (volume), by itself, is a silly business goal. So is a pursuit of margins (price) without any concern for whether you can sustain your volume in the long run.
Hmmm, by the same token, perhaps Apple should price its computers at $1 million each, and say, sell just 1000 units? There are probably 500 well-heeled households around the world that might actually buy two each! And, Apple would make tons of $$ (hundreds of millions) in profits!
Of course, the only slight problem is, as other (more perceptive) posts have pointed out, there may not be much available by way of software run those 1000 Macs.... but hey, who cares, because they look/feel great, are designed beautifully, and have really cool TV ads to back them up, right?
Of course market share (volume), by itself, is a silly business goal. So is a pursuit of margins (price) without any concern for whether you can sustain your volume in the long run.
We can look at the mainframe industry to find our comparison.
Few Mainframes are in use, or sold, because of their cost, size, and complexity. But there is plenty of software available.
If you don't mind paying $2 million for iLife, you'll be fine. Of course, the support for it will be better than it is now, and there won't be any bugs!
I've been wanting one of these puppies since they were introduced as G5 models but I waited and waited and waited until I could no longer wait, which was yesterday.
Now, I did buy it from CompUSA so I'm not sure what that means. Does each one sold at CompUSA count as a sale or are all the computers CompUSA purchases accounted for as sold already and it is now CompUSA's responsibility to sell them off to the public?
Anyway, this is way cool. My first Mac and am already giddy thinking about my next mac (future laptop).
I hear these damn 'comparison' arguments so much, and people apparently just don't get it. First, looking at a starting price (say if you're trying to buy little Jimmy his first computer) and the Dell eats the mac, hands down. Second, and more important, is that while what you say is true, its also true that you can get that Dell or HP computer WITHOUT all those features. Yes, not everyone needs or wants to spend money on fluff like a built-in iSight camera. Or they may want a 12" form factor AND an ExpressCard slot. Or, I don't know, spending less then $2000 to get a 15" laptop. Or a computer where you can change the video card that costs less then $2200. Or a computer that has the exact specs of the iMac, but not the screen.
And, BTW, I've also noticed that when people say they compare the computers with the 'exact same specs', yet never take into account having to up the mac side to meet PC specs. A lot of PCs have memory card slots. Macs have none, add in adapter. My Dell has 8 USB ports. The most any mac has is 4. Add in USB card, or USB hub to price. Most PCs can support multiple internal hard drives. Add cost of one USB hard drive case to Mac. The list can go on and on. (But why be bothered with such things as looking at both sides when it ruins a great argument, right people!).
I have sir! I can also resolve all of your so called "issues for under 100 bucks. Actually I HAVE gotten everything on that list of yours for under 100. Not for an imac but for my Powerbook! I have a firewire external enclosure for a 200 gig Maxtor hard drive, and a backup copy of Mac os X tiger onto so I can boot from it in case of emergencies, and for backup reasons. I have a 15 in one external USB 2.0 Card reader, and a powered USB hub (which is just as good as having built in USB ports). Actually you should try installing your copy of Windows onto a firewire drive... oh wait... you cant!! I'm sorry I wont go there.
I work with both Windows and Mac every single day! I also noticed you silly post about Itunes on Windows! Your issue there is silly!
1. Download the unbundled version!
2. EVERY windows application has the menubar at the top of the Application. What in the hell are you talking about?!
3. The registry should not even be there! It was a bad idea from the very beginning, and Apple having to use the registry to develope for Windows is not Apples fault. The registry is part of the reason Windows can become so tangled with virii and spyware!
I also noticed you silly post about Itunes on Windows! Your issue there is silly!
Well, I think your use of exclamation points is silly
All of Louzer's points about iTunes for Windows are mostly perfectly legitimate. iTunes for Windows is a poor program. You seem to have misunderstood all the points he made:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
1. Download the unbundled version!
There is no "unbundled" version. The iTunes download includes QuickTime, because QuickTime is needed for iTunes to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
2. EVERY windows application has the menubar at the top of the Application. What in the hell are you talking about?!
Yes, but not every Windows application has the menu bar in the title bar. In most applications, the title bar is at the very top of the window, and the menubar is underneath. In iTunes for Windows, the menubar and title bar are merged. Personally, I think that approach looks better than the normal approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
3. The registry should not even be there! It was a bad idea from the very beginning, and Apple having to use the registry to develope for Windows is not Apples fault.
Yes, we all know that the registry is a heap of mouldy old junk. But that is beside the point in this case. Louzer was making the point that iTunes uses the registry to make various items launch when Windows is started. It does this without asking the user first. Starting those processes at Windows launch is unnecessary for iTunes to work.
So to recap, the reason lots of Windows users hate iTunes for Windows is because:
1.) It installs QuickTime without making it clear that QuickTime is necessary for iTunes to function.
2.) iTunes is slow and bloated (huge, utterly excessive memory requirement for coverflow, for example)
3.) The installer creates icons all over without asking the user.
4.) The installer sets QuickTime to place an item in the System Tray, without asking the user first if they'd like that to happen.
5.) The installer installs an iPod servicing application which automatically starts every time you use Windows and which won't shut-down properly, whether you have an iPod or not.
6.) In my experience, iTunes rarely shuts-down properly, especially in response to a system-wide shutdown request when Windows itself is shutting down (i.e., the app won't quit when you try to shut-down Windows and Windows tells iTunes to quit).
Comments
I recently tried to price out a Media Center PC and there was no way I could get it under $1500 with equivalent hardware and features to a Mac.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
I don't think its fair to say Apple should lower their prices on their Macs just because they made a $1 Billion profit. Maybe it's not obvious but, 1) that's for everything they sell not just Macs, 2) from that profit they have to re-invest probably 75% of those profits back into research to make more great products and 3) they have to pay the bills with the rest!
It maybe a $1 billion profit but that number is probably far from where their actual net income is.
There is nothing wrong with Apple pricing
On models that currently exist, I tend to agree. I think the MacBook Pros are slightly overpriced, especially outside the U.S., but otherwise the price charged for what you get is reasonable.
The problem is cost of entry to the platform. There should be models with the same form-factor (i.e. not cheap & nasty casework) but cheaper innards, lowering the price and specification of the cheapest model in each range.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
Have you done any cross comparisons of the hardware? Apple isn't just competitively priced, it's often a bit lower than the competition. And that doesn't include all the extra goodies, user experience, and lack need for of support & security software that aren't easy quantified.
Apple would need to create low-end machines to increase its marketshare. But does it really need to? There are a lot more Chevy Cavilars being sold than Rolls Royce Phantoms, but that doesn't mean the Cavilar is better off. If we compare the high end machines of any leading OEM you'll see that Apple has a significant marketshare.
It's not as if the Cavilars (sic) are bad units though. So they have imitation mouse fur vs. leather, they can still go the distance.
The strength of Apple is its total integration to make sure everything works better but the strength of the rest of the market is that you often don't have to buy things you don't want, if it adds cost, but that you can buy the things that you do want as well. Often, the rest of the market offers other capabilities and conveniences that Apple does not offer. I don't see one as being better than the other, they both have their strengths.
I'm not sure if some of you guys are understanding the deceptive statement that Apple's marketshare is going up. It did not go up last quarter, it went down. It's like this. Let's say you are a refrigerator salesman and want to sell as many per quarter as possible. Lets say these are your numbers for the four quarter of 2005-2006
2005 Q1 500 Q2 500 Q3 500 Q4 500
2006 Q1 700 Q2 700 Q3 700 Q4 700
Now, how many times did you increase sales? Only ONE time, when your sales went from 500 to 700. But if you deceptively look at it by comparing each quarter in 2006 to the one in 2005, you can then say FOUR times that you did way better than last year.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
That setup loses out an stability because EyeTV is the least stable software I've seen in a long time, and the hardware is a bit temperamental too. The only reason I use it is because it is the only software of its kind on the Mac, but I am considering going to some other platform for PVR if it misbehaves again.
Have you done any cross comparisons of the hardware? Apple isn't just competitively priced, it's often a bit lower than the competition. And that doesn't include all the extra goodies, user experience, and lack need for of support & security software that aren't easy quantified.
1. I have compared apple's price for every single machine against everything offered by Dell, HP, and Gateway. I have found Apple's machines to be either the exact same price, higher by maybe 10 or 15 bucks, or significantly lower. They are pricing there machines right in line with other machines with exact same specs. The experience from Apple's machines, I have found, are often much better than that of the other competitors, who, when you need to phone for support, have so called "tech support" in some remote town in India, and often times these people have no stinkin clue about anything except maybe how to wipe their A@!#@!.
I hear these damn 'comparison' arguments so much, and people apparently just don't get it. First, looking at a starting price (say if you're trying to buy little Jimmy his first computer) and the Dell eats the mac, hands down. Second, and more important, is that while what you say is true, its also true that you can get that Dell or HP computer WITHOUT all those features. Yes, not everyone needs or wants to spend money on fluff like a built-in iSight camera. Or they may want a 12" form factor AND an ExpressCard slot. Or, I don't know, spending less then $2000 to get a 15" laptop. Or a computer where you can change the video card that costs less then $2200. Or a computer that has the exact specs of the iMac, but not the screen.
And, BTW, I've also noticed that when people say they compare the computers with the 'exact same specs', yet never take into account having to up the mac side to meet PC specs. A lot of PCs have memory card slots. Macs have none, add in adapter. My Dell has 8 USB ports. The most any mac has is 4. Add in USB card, or USB hub to price. Most PCs can support multiple internal hard drives. Add cost of one USB hard drive case to Mac. The list can go on and on. (But why be bothered with such things as looking at both sides when it ruins a great argument, right people!).
Apple would need to create low-end machines to increase its marketshare. But does it really need to? There are a lot more Chevy Cavilars being sold than Rolls Royce Phantoms, but that doesn't mean the Cavilar is better off. If we compare the high end machines of any leading OEM you'll see that Apple has a significant marketshare.
Oh boy! Stupid car analogies again! Woohoo! Let's see what we can disect this one up!
We could argue that, by being so high-priced (by not having 'cheap machines'), they basically have that elitist look and attitude about them and their owners, which then drives people away from their product (I'm sure there are people who can afford a Rolls who don't buy them because they don't want people to think they're better then the common folk).
And, again, you can get into the "They both run on gas, so market share isn't as important as it is with something that requires investment from third-parties to support your platform. How well would Rolls Royce be doing if you needed to have special gas stations to fill up at." But let's look at another part of this. If you go to TrakAuto, how likely is it you'll find oil and air filters, wipers, and other parts that are specifically designed for the Rolls? Very unlikely. Why? Well, because the MARKET isn't there to be profitable to carry them.
And, lest we forget, they both have the same problem in terms of maintenance. You're basically forced to take it to an 'authorized dealer' for service, and it'll cost you an arm and a leg to get it fixed (unless you were smart enough to spend the money on applecare). My brother's ethernet port went out on his Gateway (or is it an HP?). It cost $20 to buy a card to stick it into a slot. On a mac, you have to replace the entire motherboard ($500+, easy). And there's no replacing the motherboard at all except through apple, whereas you can get a new mobo for that lowly PC quite cheap.
Creating iLife for Windows would not help Apple's longterm goal. Many swotchers get fed up with Windows. If Apple made the "Windows experience" better then people would be less likely to switch. Now, iTunes software is a different story as it helps to sell iPods and introduce people to the Mac Experience, which is a tight integration of hardware and software.
Except iTunes for Windows doesn't improve on the Windows experience at all. Updates seem to come out way too often (just like MS updates!). The menubar alone causes the software to look just plain stupid (sorry, but whoever at apple thought putting the menu bar IN the title bar is just an idiot - "HEY, let's make our software look completely different then all their other software!"), the installer puts icons all over the place, without asking, installs quicktime without warning (I know its needed, but it should do a better job of telling you), sticks crap into your "Run" registry block to start stuff on login (like quicktime, for one), installs an iPod service that you can't delete or shut off (it seems to keep re-starting like a plague). [It was worse, when they had it such that you HAD to install iTunes just to get Quicktime installed]. Hey, but I digress....
[It was worse, when they had it such that you HAD to install iTunes just to get Quicktime installed]. Hey, but I digress....
I don't think this was ever the case, just that it was easy to gloss over the link to download just Quicktime. I know I missed it several times.
PC prices are dropping so dramatically that substitution to a Mac makes no economic sense for many PC users.
Price. Price. Price.
What's interesting to me about those calling for Apple to lower its prices, is the fact they seem to ignore the OEM's who are competing on price. Is that a winning strategy?
Dell sells cheap computers, makes a little more money than Apple, and is loosing market share. HP is gaining market share but barely makes any real profit at all. While Apple made more money per sale than them all. Looking at the full picture people make it sound as though Apple has the problems?
These are all clear signs the heady days of the PC industry are changing. The demand is stagnating and sales are declining. Why should Apple jump into the price war?
2. You can call Apple arrogant for the following, but I appreciate their candid opinion on this. They do not want to create a piece of $200 crap just to satisfy those who have no business of owning a computer in the first place.
Alright! I just love the elitism of that statement. So who gets to decide who has business to own a computer? And here's a question: If you've got a slew of people who have no business owning a computer, yet, apparently due to their own stupidity, decide to buy one (sorry, but you just can't protect people from themselves!), would you rather have them buying a Mac, with its so-called secure environment and ease of use, or a Windows machine which they'll most likely leave open, unsecured, and unpatched, all to be turned into a big virus infested, bot controlled, spam and bot machine?
But most current and potential mac users aren't looking for $200 machines. But we would like machines that had LESS features, and, thus, cost less. Are you saying that if Apple took the iSight and screen out of the iMac, it somehow becomes a piece of crap? Or if they made a mini-tower type machine with just some expandability/customization options, it would fall apart the second it was touched?
BTW, if Apple could cut down on the cost of the MacPros by, I don't know, changing the case to something that weighed LESS THAN 50 pounds, I'd say go for it.
3. The commercials, I think, are funny. They are also very true in many cases.
Some of the commercials are funny. The problem is, of course, that if you asked, most people probably like the PC guy more then the mac guy.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
Yes, comparing year-over-year units shipped removes seasonality. But this discussion isn't about a slip in units, it is about a slip in market share. I'd say that making quarter to quarter comparisons of market share is better than year-over-year comparisons, as market share could have a big jump from one quarter to the next, then stop increasing. This will give you four quarters in a row of stellar year-over-year market share growth despite the fact that market share only grew once.
Apple dropped slightly to fifth place in rankings of US computer sales during the fourth quarter of 2006, according to preliminary Gartner data obtained by AppleInsider.
The Mac maker fell a full percentage point to 5.1 percent of the domestic market between the third and fourth quarters of the year, trading places with Toshiba, which climbed from 5.1 to 5.3 percent. Apple remained out of the top five in the world rankings, but a similar set of data released by IDC on Wednesday puts its international share at 2.4 percent.
Shipments of Macs in the U.S. also dipped significantly from 975,000 US systems to 808,000, indicating a genuine slowdown in sales for the Cupertino-based company following a stellar back-to-school quarter. Dell remains in command of US sales at 29.1 percent but is bleeding rapidly, having lost 3.1 of its share. Most of this was gained by Hewett Packard, which jumped from 23 to 25.3 percent, Gartner said.
In spite of the seeming downturn, Apple nevertheless maintained the highest year-over-year growth of any of the top five computer builders operating in the Americans, soaring 30.6 percent compared to Toshiba's gain of 22.3 percent over the same timeframe.
Gartner also noted that the US climate for PC sales was especially harsh: total shipments for the year actually sank 3.2 percent compared to 2005, with Dell suffering the worst losses as it gave up a staggering 17.3 percent. The overall market at home and abroad suffered in large part due to competition with hot-selling electronics such as flat-panel TVs and the Nintendo Wii, Gartner analyst Mikako Kitagawa said. PC makers were also forced to cut prices to spur interest in their systems for buyers who would otherwise have waited for Windows Vista.
"PC price erosion was a defining feature of the quarter," Kitagawa said.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
More gloom and doom based on volatile quarterlies.
Dude your an idiot.
Cars are car's and Ford's are Ford's.
If you are going to call someone an idiot, at least spell correctly, and put a comma where it belongs.
Dude, you're an idiot.
You are ignoring the big reason they do this. It's a useful analysis tool because not all quarters are of the same value, ignoring this is a greater folly than your example. Your hypothetical situation pretty much never happens. While Q4 and Q1 of the next year might be close to the same, but Q2 is almost always less than Q1. It looks stupid to say that it is a "loss" because it was not seasonally adjusted. Back to school and holiday seasons are very big selling times. Comparing Y-O-Y is the legitimate way to seasonally adjust the numbers.
But the concept behind what he is saying is correct.
Even if Apple has a 28% lift in sales from the year before quarter, marketshare can easily decline. Apple sold less Macs in the US this quarter, but industry sales rose 3%. Therefore Apple's marketshare declined. You may have noticed that Apple's worldwide marketshare increased, because Apple sold more machines abroad this quarter, then they did last quarter.
Quarter to quarter comparisons are very important.
Way to go international Mac buyers! Time for Apple to show some respect.
How about timely shipments of new products, not extra waits while the domestic channel is filled.
Actually, its not a brilliant question as it assumes that market share, by itself, is a business goal. 100% market share and losing money make for a very poor business...........
(Sorry but no snot here)
Hmmm, by the same token, perhaps Apple should price its computers at $1 million each, and say, sell just 1000 units? There are probably 500 well-heeled households around the world that might actually buy two each! And, Apple would make tons of $$ (hundreds of millions) in profits!
Of course, the only slight problem is, as other (more perceptive) posts have pointed out, there may not be much available by way of software run those 1000 Macs.... but hey, who cares, because they look/feel great, are designed beautifully, and have really cool TV ads to back them up, right?
Of course market share (volume), by itself, is a silly business goal. So is a pursuit of margins (price) without any concern for whether you can sustain your volume in the long run.
Hmmm, by the same token, perhaps Apple should price its computers at $1 million each, and say, sell just 1000 units? There are probably 500 well-heeled households around the world that might actually buy two each! And, Apple would make tons of $$ (hundreds of millions) in profits!
Of course, the only slight problem is, as other (more perceptive) posts have pointed out, there may not be much available by way of software run those 1000 Macs.... but hey, who cares, because they look/feel great, are designed beautifully, and have really cool TV ads to back them up, right?
Of course market share (volume), by itself, is a silly business goal. So is a pursuit of margins (price) without any concern for whether you can sustain your volume in the long run.
We can look at the mainframe industry to find our comparison.
Few Mainframes are in use, or sold, because of their cost, size, and complexity. But there is plenty of software available.
If you don't mind paying $2 million for iLife, you'll be fine. Of course, the support for it will be better than it is now, and there won't be any bugs!
I'm now typing on my new iMac 20" C2D.
I've been wanting one of these puppies since they were introduced as G5 models but I waited and waited and waited until I could no longer wait, which was yesterday.
Now, I did buy it from CompUSA so I'm not sure what that means. Does each one sold at CompUSA count as a sale or are all the computers CompUSA purchases accounted for as sold already and it is now CompUSA's responsibility to sell them off to the public?
Anyway, this is way cool. My first Mac and am already giddy thinking about my next mac (future laptop).
-ken
I hear these damn 'comparison' arguments so much, and people apparently just don't get it. First, looking at a starting price (say if you're trying to buy little Jimmy his first computer) and the Dell eats the mac, hands down. Second, and more important, is that while what you say is true, its also true that you can get that Dell or HP computer WITHOUT all those features. Yes, not everyone needs or wants to spend money on fluff like a built-in iSight camera. Or they may want a 12" form factor AND an ExpressCard slot. Or, I don't know, spending less then $2000 to get a 15" laptop. Or a computer where you can change the video card that costs less then $2200. Or a computer that has the exact specs of the iMac, but not the screen.
And, BTW, I've also noticed that when people say they compare the computers with the 'exact same specs', yet never take into account having to up the mac side to meet PC specs. A lot of PCs have memory card slots. Macs have none, add in adapter. My Dell has 8 USB ports. The most any mac has is 4. Add in USB card, or USB hub to price. Most PCs can support multiple internal hard drives. Add cost of one USB hard drive case to Mac. The list can go on and on. (But why be bothered with such things as looking at both sides when it ruins a great argument, right people!).
I have sir! I can also resolve all of your so called "issues for under 100 bucks. Actually I HAVE gotten everything on that list of yours for under 100. Not for an imac but for my Powerbook! I have a firewire external enclosure for a 200 gig Maxtor hard drive, and a backup copy of Mac os X tiger onto so I can boot from it in case of emergencies, and for backup reasons. I have a 15 in one external USB 2.0 Card reader, and a powered USB hub (which is just as good as having built in USB ports). Actually you should try installing your copy of Windows onto a firewire drive... oh wait... you cant!! I'm sorry I wont go there.
I work with both Windows and Mac every single day! I also noticed you silly post about Itunes on Windows! Your issue there is silly!
1. Download the unbundled version!
2. EVERY windows application has the menubar at the top of the Application. What in the hell are you talking about?!
3. The registry should not even be there! It was a bad idea from the very beginning, and Apple having to use the registry to develope for Windows is not Apples fault. The registry is part of the reason Windows can become so tangled with virii and spyware!
But please lets have more of this debate!
I also noticed you silly post about Itunes on Windows! Your issue there is silly!
Well, I think your use of exclamation points is silly
All of Louzer's points about iTunes for Windows are mostly perfectly legitimate. iTunes for Windows is a poor program. You seem to have misunderstood all the points he made:
1. Download the unbundled version!
There is no "unbundled" version. The iTunes download includes QuickTime, because QuickTime is needed for iTunes to work.
2. EVERY windows application has the menubar at the top of the Application. What in the hell are you talking about?!
Yes, but not every Windows application has the menu bar in the title bar. In most applications, the title bar is at the very top of the window, and the menubar is underneath. In iTunes for Windows, the menubar and title bar are merged. Personally, I think that approach looks better than the normal approach.
3. The registry should not even be there! It was a bad idea from the very beginning, and Apple having to use the registry to develope for Windows is not Apples fault.
Yes, we all know that the registry is a heap of mouldy old junk. But that is beside the point in this case. Louzer was making the point that iTunes uses the registry to make various items launch when Windows is started. It does this without asking the user first. Starting those processes at Windows launch is unnecessary for iTunes to work.
So to recap, the reason lots of Windows users hate iTunes for Windows is because:
1.) It installs QuickTime without making it clear that QuickTime is necessary for iTunes to function.
2.) iTunes is slow and bloated (huge, utterly excessive memory requirement for coverflow, for example)
3.) The installer creates icons all over without asking the user.
4.) The installer sets QuickTime to place an item in the System Tray, without asking the user first if they'd like that to happen.
5.) The installer installs an iPod servicing application which automatically starts every time you use Windows and which won't shut-down properly, whether you have an iPod or not.
6.) In my experience, iTunes rarely shuts-down properly, especially in response to a system-wide shutdown request when Windows itself is shutting down (i.e., the app won't quit when you try to shut-down Windows and Windows tells iTunes to quit).