I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've been keeping tabs on it since it first started, and I don't think anyone has come up with the point I'm about to make, so here goes.
Before I start however, lets take a look at Apple and what they've been doing the past years. They've come out with 3 very distinct, very popular products:
1)iPod
2)iPhone
3)MB(P)
Let's take a look at these 3 products. What makes them all successful? They're innovative, of course, but lets take a look at history of products.
PMPs have been around forever. The walkman was the champ for a very long time. Then CD players came around, and everyone had one of those. Then MP3 players came out, and they didn't really catch on. Until the iPod came.
Cell phones have been around forever. Motorola, Nokia, LG, Samsung, Kyocera, Ericsson(sp?), et al ruled the scene. No one could touch them. For a long time, cell phones stayed the same. With time however, screens started getting bigger and cell phones became more capable. Then along came the iPhone, which changed the game.
Laptops, like the other two devices have been around a long time as well. Sony, Dell, IBM(Lenovo), Toshiba, Sony, et al dominated the top positions. Now, Apple is the 3rd biggest laptop maker. What happened?
The similarity with all three products starts with:
STAGNATION
From the very first walkman to the very first MP3 players, the interface never changed. They all had 4 buttons (Play, Stop/Pause, Rewind, Fast Foward).
Cell phones. Two major designs, the clamshell and the candy bar. The biggest change in cell phones for all the years they had been around was the inclusion of a (shock) CAMERA!!
Laptops. Ugh. Big, bulky, ugly. Need I say more? No wonder most people hate them.
Apple takes a look at these products, and adds one single, beautiful ingredient:
INNOVATION
iPods popularity can be attributed to a few simple factors. The click wheel, iTunes, and iTMS. People have discussed this for years, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that.
iPhone was the single biggest leap in functionality cell phones had ever seen since... since... well, I don't know. I can't imagine ever going back to that thing hunk of metal I used to call a cell phone.
MB(P)s are successful because they bring beauty combined with a SFF and innovative features. Think of the magnetic latch, magnetic power cord, ambient light sensing.
This is what Apple does best folks. Most of you know this. I probably could have done without all the typing above.
Armed with this knowledge, why don't you use it? I ask you know to quit bickering about what Apple will do next. There's no way to tell. Instead, look around at your every day electronics. What do you despise the most? What object do you hate with every fiber of your being but you can't survive without. That, my friends is what Apple is going to come out with next.
If you're convinced that its touch screen tablets, take a look at it. Why does it suck? How could it be improved?
Of course, I may be completely wrong. Apple's new transition product could be just a retooled Macbook. I don't know. But I can guarantee you that sooner or later they will improve the most hated thing in your life.
PS: The electronic device I hate the most is my remote. Long shot, I know, but heres to hoping for the impossible. (And no, I do not believe that this will be Apple's new product. I don't own a tablet pc, so I can't hate that. Although I'm sure that I could hate that just as much as my multitude of remotes. )
Huh!? So now 15" laptops are favored by consumers?
They sure are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
So Apple's very popular MacBook for $1100 isn't "mainstream" and the $2000 15" MacBook Pro is?
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I'm lost. Apple is outpacing the industry 3 to 1 and one of their best selling (if not the best selling) computers, the budget-priced MacBook, isn't popular?
Apple's growth is indeed outstripping the market, but that doesn't make the MacBook "popular" relative to 15" consumer laptops. Apple still has "only" 8% share of the laptop market.
If Apple wanted to see their market share really explode, they should produce 15" and 17" MacBook non-pros. I keep on getting the impression that you still haven't read this.
PS: The electronic device I hate the most is my remote. Long shot, I know, but heres to hoping for the impossible. (And no, I do not believe that this will be Apple's new product. I don't own a tablet pc, so I can't hate that. Although I'm sure that I could hate that just as much as my multitude of remotes. )
Apple already has two remotes. The minimalist Apple Remote, which ships with the iMac. And atleast for controlling your music...any iPhone or iPod touch running with Apple's free Remote app available on the iTunes App Store. There's little doubt they'll expand the Remote app's functionality in the future to include video and such.
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
Considering Apple's outpacing the industry 3-to-1 and they're doing even better in the laptop department (with the MacBook being their best seller) obviously the MacBooks have serious mainstream appeal, regardless of whether they fit your definition of "mainstream" or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Apple's growth is indeed outstripping the market, but that doesn't make the MacBook "popular" relative to 15" consumer laptops. Apple still has "only" 8% share of the laptop market.
Market share is not a good indicator of what's currently popular/selling well. Windows PCs make up 96% of the computers, but these beige-box ewaste PCs from HP, Dell, and others have been flat-lining. Market share is also a rather inaccurate metric because it doesn't factor in PCs no longer in use and more importantly, it doesn't account for new sales of Macs that are eating into the over-saturated, stagnating PC market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
If Apple wanted to see their market share really explode, they should produce 15" and 17" MacBook non-pros.
Jobs has publicly recognized Apple may only ever reach 30% in the dead-and-dying desktop PC market, which makes up the vast majority of the computers in the world. Apple has no interest in doing so. In the profitable consumer market, however, they already have around 16% and in the laptop portion, which is expanding at a much faster rate than the desktop arena, they've got probably 25%, maybe more.
Apple doesn't jump into large, established markets in an attempt to clean up through any and all means, legal or otherwise (like Microsoft did successfully in the '90s by illegally bundling Windows with third party PC hardware vendors; success they haven't been able to replicate in any major way since then). Apple goes into emerging markets, where they can surpass what little competition exists with better hardware, software and especially, the cohesive nature of the two combined that make their products greater than the sum of their parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I keep on getting the impression that you still haven't read this.
Honestly, at this point, I don't remember exactly which posts of yours (or anyone's, for that matter) I have read, haven't read, skimmed over, etc. I'm pretty sure I read it though and going over it again, it sounds like we're in consensus on some things (like that most of Apple's computers are not overpriced compared to similarly speced competitors) and not on others (an xMac, if I'm not mistaken, is the fabled headless Mac mid-tower, which Apple has shown no interest in producing because...the beige-box tower PC market is unprofitable due to over-saturation by ewaste competitors from HP, Dell, etc.).
I think there is demand for a 15-inch consumer laptop from Apple. And the fact that Apple is not delivering one is disappointing. 13-inch displays are too small for the average person.
I think that the prototype pictured in leaked photos a few weeks ago maybe a much needed consumer-oriented 15-inch Macbook ? NOT ? a prototype for a new 15-inch MacBook Pro. If that is indeed the case I think Apple's going to sell tons of them.
Considering Apple's outpacing the industry 3-to-1 and they're doing even better in the laptop department (with the MacBook being their best seller) obviously the MacBooks have serious mainstream appeal, regardless of whether they fit your definition of "mainstream" or not.
Growth is outstripping competitors. Total sales of non-apple laptops still dwarf sales of Apple laptops. The MacBook has limited mainstream appeal and that's why Apple has 8% share not 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Market share is not a good indicator of what's … selling well.
Sorry, you fail today's logic test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Market share is also a rather inaccurate metric because it doesn't factor in PCs no longer in use and more importantly, it doesn't account for new sales of Macs that are eating into the over-saturated, stagnating PC market.
I think you are confusing market share with installed base. Or something.
It's very simple. With the quarterly market share numbers we see from Gartner etc., they first calculate the total number of PCs sold in the last three months. A given company's market share is then that company's sales in those three months, expressed as a percentage of the total. Apple's latest data was that they had 8% share of the US market. That means in three months, the rest of the market sold 11.5 times as many computers as Apple did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
and not about others (an xMac, if I'm not mistaken, is the fabled headless Mac mid-tower, which Apple has shown no interest in producing because...the beige-box tower PC market is unprofitable due to over-saturation by ewaste competitors from HP, Dell, etc.).
Headless mid-towers are unprofitable for everyone else because the only way they can differentiate from each other is price. Apple would have OS X as the major unique selling point, and the fact that they'd be able to make something that wasn't hideously ugly and devoid of any design taste whatsoever as a secondary USP. This would enable Apple to charge that little bit more for the same (internal) specification as the competition.
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
Growth is outstripping competitors. Total sales of non-apple laptops still dwarf sales of Apple laptops. The MacBook has limited mainstream appeal and that's why Apple has 8% share not 50%.
I think you are confusing market share with installed base. Or something.
It's very simple. With the quarterly market share numbers we see from Gartner etc., they first calculate the total number of PCs sold in the last three months. A given company's market share is then that company's sales in those three months, expressed as a percentage of the total. Apple's latest data was that they had 8% share of the US market. That means in three months, the rest of the market sold 11.5 times as many computers as Apple did.
Hmm... read the following and see if we're on the same page:
The number of installed PCs worldwide has surpassed 1 billion units, according to market research firm Gartner, Inc., which estimates the global install base to be growing at a 12 percent annual rate on its was to surpassing 2 billion units by early 2014.
Gartner defines the installed base of PCs as the estimated number of PCs in use as opposed to the number shipped over a given a period, The world’s installed base of PCs remains heavily concentrated in mature markets. However, the firm believes emerging markets will claim an increasingly larger share of the world’s installed base going forward.
Can't remember which philosopher said this, but it seems pretty relevant :
The beginning of knowledge is the defining of terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Headless mid-towers are unprofitable for everyone else because the only way they can differentiate from each other is price. Apple would have OS X as the major unique selling point, and the fact that they'd be able to make something that wasn't hideously ugly and devoid of any design taste whatsoever as a secondary USP. This would enable Apple to charge that little bit more for the same (internal) specification as the competition.
Definitely re-read my post, which I've edited. I didn't edit it after reading your subsequent response, just saying, I made additions on Apple's marketing strategy vs. it's competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
The Mac Mini wasn't meant to drive major sales; not everything Apple makes is meant to be the "next big thing." It's purpose is to entice hesitant Windows PC owners who already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, but aren't quite ready to take the full Mac plunge, so to speak. Once they buy it, it can be a stepping stone to one of their fully-fledged and more profitable computers like the MacBook or iMac.
Vinea, your arguments are well thought-out, but your underlying argument is this:
Apple's hardware is vulnerable without the unique-selling-point of OS X. And Apple relies on hardware sales for its profitability.
AND
The demand for OS X is not that great.
These seem a little contradictory.
Let me clarify then:
The demand for OSX is insufficient to make Apple as much money selling low margin software (commodity OS) as it does selling high margin hardware.
Quote:
I'd say this:
The demand for a better-than-Windows-OS *is* great. Not 90%-of-the-market great ... but more than the 8% high-end ghetto it finds itself in. Particularly now, demand for OS-X is larger than demand for Mac computers. The mis-match creates a sort of pressure.
We agree. Where we disagree is that the pressure is sufficient to change business models to the extent that some folks desire. Even quadrupling OSX market share is unlikely to make Apple as profitable as it is today if the hardware sales are significantly impacted.
Yes, that explains what installed base is. Market share is different and is as I defined it in my previous post.
Market share is, contrary to what you said, the best indicator of what's selling well. You are right however, that it's not necessarily the best indicator of what's most popular.
Installed base is what developers, hardware makers and web people should look at when determining whether to support a given platform. However, reliable installed-base share numbers are not, to the best of my knowledge, available anywhere and everyone unfortunately goes on market share instead.
The problem is this:
Imagine the number of Macs in use equaled the number of PCs in use.
Macs would have a 50% share of the installed base.
However, if the PCs are replaced twice as often as the Macs, Macs will only have a 33.33% market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
The Mac Mini wasn't meant to drive major sales; not everything Apple makes is meant to be the "next big thing." It's purpose is to entice hesitant Windows PC owners who already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, but aren't quite ready to take the full Mac plunge, so to speak. Once they buy it, it can be a stepping stone to one of their fully-fledged and more profitable computers like the MacBook or iMac.
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins. The only reason they didn't do it was misplaced (IMHO) fear of cannibalising Mac Pro (or Power Mac as it was then) sales.
xc3ll, I really enjoyed your post, and it got me thinking. In fact, I'm still thinking about it and will get back to you when I've considered what I hate most that I use every day. However, while it used to be my phone, the truth is I absolutely loved my blackberry when I got it. I had one of the very first ones - that product was a game changer without doubt. I now love my iphone even more, but I wouldn't say that I hated my blackberry. My point is only that I'm not sure I agree that Apple's products all were in stagnant fields. Sure, the iPod was, but the iPhone is in a dynamic field, with serious competition that isn't sitting on its laurels. Rimm is no joke.
ps - I'm not trying to pick, but it's really hard to read a post filled with abbreviations or acronyms. I still can't thing of what a PMP or SFF is...
Portable Media Player, or sometimes Personal Media Player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgoodman
SFF
Small Form Factor.
Wikipedia can often help with acronyms. In the case of the two above there's only one possible meaning that makes any sense out of the list of all possible meanings provided by wikipedia.
Yes, that explains what installed base is. Market share is different and is as I defined it in my previous post.
Market share is, contrary to what you said, the best indicator of what's selling well. You are right however, that it's not necessarily the best indicator of what's most popular.
Yeah, I can be an airhead sometimes. But doesn't marketshare have an effect on installed base?
Market share = # of computers sold in a given time period, which is then used to figure out the percentage each company has of the whole
Install base = # of computers actually in use
So, while they don't directly correlate, indirectly, the former can inadvertently affect the latter, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Installed base is what developers, hardware makers and web people should look at when determining whether to support a given platform. However, reliable installed-base share numbers are not, to the best of my knowledge, available anywhere and everyone unfortunately goes on market share instead.
Right. It's straight in my mind now. And yeah, while installed base is a better measuring tool, it can't really be calculated on things like different OS web usage and similar metrics that don't tell the whole story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins.
Haha, but then where would be the consumer's drive to buy one of Apple's profitable computers? By doing as you say, the xMac would then become a much more capable, worthwhile computer, defeating the need to move to a full-fledged and far more profitable Mac. Using standard, full-sized, user-replaceable components would also make the job of PC cloners even easier.
Also, while Apple could sure as hell make a prettier mid-tower compared to the competition - essentially a slightly smaller Mac Pro - the Mac Mini provides a DRAMATIC, STARK contrast to what the competitors offer. Just envision an isle of a Best Buy computer department. Walking along, people would see a bunch of mid-towers, some silver, some shinny black, some white, some blue (god, so tasteless), and a brushed metal mid-tower Mac Pro-ish xMac. Now certainly they'd say "oooh." But then they'd say "but look at this little Dell. It's like $400 less and offers a lot of the same specs." And they buy the cheaper PC based on price or fear of the commitment a tower PC gives most people.
Then imagine the same average consumer shopping around and discovering Apple's current Mac Mini:
Consumer: "Mid-tower, mid-tower, mid-tower, mid...WAIT, WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE]!!?? Excuse me sir, is this an Apple hard drive or something?"
Clerk: "No, that's a compu.."
Consumer: "That's a computer? That little thing?"
Clerk: "And it works with your standard monitor, mouse, etc."
Consumer: "Hey honey, come look at this. [wispers] Hey, we could just hook our mouse, keyboard and monitor to this thing. It even comes with this little remote. Just look at it, it's tiny."
Consumer's Significant Other: But can it web browse fast? Can I write Word documents? Email? Can I play music on it?"
Clerk: [eavesdropping on their conversation] Yes, it does all those things fine.
SOLD
I question if it was merely a fear of Power Mac/Mac Pro cannibalization. Don't underestimate the real marketable value of compactness. It costs money to make things abnormally small. The small, portable nature of something is often seen by consumers as impressive. Like Euro-style cars for instance. Americans generally laugh at them when compared to their SUV's and mini vans they use to shuttle their kids and their kids' friends around in. At the same time, no matter how attached and pleased they are with their large automobile, most won't deny how their amazement at how small they can make a car that offers rather decent head and leg room. Miniaturization is a feat that captivates people.
When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
Although I still like my two guesses (1: bundled Windows + Parallels (or VMware); 2: Touch for all Macs), two more possibilities have occurred to me:
3. A two-disk disk drive, with the second disk mirroring the first to provide automatic backup.
4. Some sort of hardware key to make it harder to port OS X to a PC.
PS: Possibly this second disk surface could be used to provide a disk partition for Windows.
PPS: If Windows was running in its own "core" of the CPU and from its own disk surface, then instantaneous switching between it and OS X would be possible, and the possibility of one of the systems messing up the other would be reduced. It would be a tremendous selling point, enabling a painless, gradual migration to OS X.
PPPS: A few years ago, in the aftermath of the shift-to-Intel announcement, John Dvorak, spurred by a lengthy speculative e-mail from a reader, opined that the Mac and Windows were moving toward some sort of merger with each other. If Apple were to provide the two-in-one set-up I suggested above, and if MS were to be flexible on its licensing terms (for instance, by charging Apple only for the amount of actual use of Windows, as determined during OS X point-updates by checks of a usage meter in Windows), then this cohabitation would fulfill his prediction.
I still stand by my earlier statement regarding an electronics transition and/or merger between Consumer TVs and LED Monitor Displays from Apple.
Howabout a laptop/multitouch/keyboard tablet that wirelessly transmits to any tv/led screen, enabling the user to travel with a very small but potentially very powerful machine with no inbuilt screen of its own.
Not going to happen any time soon but my dream device has to be an Apple TV + Time Capsule + DVD Player + Safari all in on box. With connections to the internet, your TV and computers the possibilies are endless. Control it with a wireless keyboard or even better an iphone/ ipod touch! All the data from your computers backed up and available on your TV Throw in cable/sky connections and they could name their price.
it has to go across platforms that others can do well lets see
ssd across the board, do those crash??
touch across the board
home server / raid/ backup--better intergration
iTV with home server, iphone inegration
lower prices across the board to build market share.
i think apple feels it's at critical mass to make some huge platform expansio
the more people have macs, and the integration is vertical WOW, iphone etc
big gains .
what's the critical mass for a platform to get more software and hardware attention
i want a single page scanner usb powered to travel with that's mac compatible, i had a visioneer strobe for os 9 but why not do it for mac
just another gripe --better power management for the iphone, i should have one button that turns off 3g, network, bluetooth without having to go to several screen. power management button that gives me options, 2g network, no bluetooth, 3g, no bluetooth, no network etc.\
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The Macbook/MBP is as mainstream as a Lexus. As in high end mainstream. If you hate car analogies replace with any high end mainstream product/brand you prefer.
Quote:
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
They did in 2001. It was called the Cube. The mini removed the limited expandability of the cube at a much lower price point. The first mini was essentially "desktop" parts as far as the processor went (G4) and had a desktop GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins. The only reason they didn't do it was misplaced (IMHO) fear of cannibalising Mac Pro (or Power Mac as it was then) sales.
Stuffing a G5 into the mini back then would have seriously impacted PowerMac sales. If you could have done so without melting the thing anyway.
Today, tell me how many iMac and Mac Pro sales there would be if there were a $799 E8400 (3.0Ghz Wolfdale) Mini with a GeForce 9100MG equivalent (between a HD2400XT and a GeForce 8400GS)?
Damned few. As we've shown back in the xMac threads, you need to more than double your sales JUST to break even because while the margins might be the same, the revenue is half since your ASPs will have dropped from $1499 to $799.
Comments
Before I start however, lets take a look at Apple and what they've been doing the past years. They've come out with 3 very distinct, very popular products:
1)iPod
2)iPhone
3)MB(P)
Let's take a look at these 3 products. What makes them all successful? They're innovative, of course, but lets take a look at history of products.
PMPs have been around forever. The walkman was the champ for a very long time. Then CD players came around, and everyone had one of those. Then MP3 players came out, and they didn't really catch on. Until the iPod came.
Cell phones have been around forever. Motorola, Nokia, LG, Samsung, Kyocera, Ericsson(sp?), et al ruled the scene. No one could touch them. For a long time, cell phones stayed the same. With time however, screens started getting bigger and cell phones became more capable. Then along came the iPhone, which changed the game.
Laptops, like the other two devices have been around a long time as well. Sony, Dell, IBM(Lenovo), Toshiba, Sony, et al dominated the top positions. Now, Apple is the 3rd biggest laptop maker. What happened?
The similarity with all three products starts with:
STAGNATION
From the very first walkman to the very first MP3 players, the interface never changed. They all had 4 buttons (Play, Stop/Pause, Rewind, Fast Foward).
Cell phones. Two major designs, the clamshell and the candy bar. The biggest change in cell phones for all the years they had been around was the inclusion of a (shock) CAMERA!!
Laptops. Ugh. Big, bulky, ugly. Need I say more? No wonder most people hate them.
Apple takes a look at these products, and adds one single, beautiful ingredient:
INNOVATION
iPods popularity can be attributed to a few simple factors. The click wheel, iTunes, and iTMS. People have discussed this for years, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that.
iPhone was the single biggest leap in functionality cell phones had ever seen since... since... well, I don't know. I can't imagine ever going back to that thing hunk of metal I used to call a cell phone.
MB(P)s are successful because they bring beauty combined with a SFF and innovative features. Think of the magnetic latch, magnetic power cord, ambient light sensing.
This is what Apple does best folks. Most of you know this. I probably could have done without all the typing above.
Armed with this knowledge, why don't you use it? I ask you know to quit bickering about what Apple will do next. There's no way to tell. Instead, look around at your every day electronics. What do you despise the most? What object do you hate with every fiber of your being but you can't survive without. That, my friends is what Apple is going to come out with next.
If you're convinced that its touch screen tablets, take a look at it. Why does it suck? How could it be improved?
Of course, I may be completely wrong. Apple's new transition product could be just a retooled Macbook. I don't know. But I can guarantee you that sooner or later they will improve the most hated thing in your life.
PS: The electronic device I hate the most is my remote. Long shot, I know, but heres to hoping for the impossible. (And no, I do not believe that this will be Apple's new product. I don't own a tablet pc, so I can't hate that. Although I'm sure that I could hate that just as much as my multitude of remotes. )
Huh!?
They sure are.
So Apple's very popular MacBook for $1100 isn't "mainstream" and the $2000 15" MacBook Pro is?
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
I'm lost. Apple is outpacing the industry 3 to 1 and one of their best selling (if not the best selling) computers, the budget-priced MacBook, isn't popular?
Apple's growth is indeed outstripping the market, but that doesn't make the MacBook "popular" relative to 15" consumer laptops. Apple still has "only" 8% share of the laptop market.
If Apple wanted to see their market share really explode, they should produce 15" and 17" MacBook non-pros. I keep on getting the impression that you still haven't read this.
PS: The electronic device I hate the most is my remote. Long shot, I know, but heres to hoping for the impossible. (And no, I do not believe that this will be Apple's new product. I don't own a tablet pc, so I can't hate that. Although I'm sure that I could hate that just as much as my multitude of remotes. )
Apple already has two remotes. The minimalist Apple Remote, which ships with the iMac. And atleast for controlling your music...any iPhone or iPod touch running with Apple's free Remote app available on the iTunes App Store. There's little doubt they'll expand the Remote app's functionality in the future to include video and such.
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
Considering Apple's outpacing the industry 3-to-1 and they're doing even better in the laptop department (with the MacBook being their best seller) obviously the MacBooks have serious mainstream appeal, regardless of whether they fit your definition of "mainstream" or not.
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
Agreed.
Apple's growth is indeed outstripping the market, but that doesn't make the MacBook "popular" relative to 15" consumer laptops. Apple still has "only" 8% share of the laptop market.
Market share is not a good indicator of what's currently popular/selling well. Windows PCs make up 96% of the computers, but these beige-box ewaste PCs from HP, Dell, and others have been flat-lining. Market share is also a rather inaccurate metric because it doesn't factor in PCs no longer in use and more importantly, it doesn't account for new sales of Macs that are eating into the over-saturated, stagnating PC market.
If Apple wanted to see their market share really explode, they should produce 15" and 17" MacBook non-pros.
Jobs has publicly recognized Apple may only ever reach 30% in the dead-and-dying desktop PC market, which makes up the vast majority of the computers in the world. Apple has no interest in doing so. In the profitable consumer market, however, they already have around 16% and in the laptop portion, which is expanding at a much faster rate than the desktop arena, they've got probably 25%, maybe more.
Apple doesn't jump into large, established markets in an attempt to clean up through any and all means, legal or otherwise (like Microsoft did successfully in the '90s by illegally bundling Windows with third party PC hardware vendors; success they haven't been able to replicate in any major way since then). Apple goes into emerging markets, where they can surpass what little competition exists with better hardware, software and especially, the cohesive nature of the two combined that make their products greater than the sum of their parts.
I keep on getting the impression that you still haven't read this.
Honestly, at this point, I don't remember exactly which posts of yours (or anyone's, for that matter) I have read, haven't read, skimmed over, etc.
I think that the prototype pictured in leaked photos a few weeks ago maybe a much needed consumer-oriented 15-inch Macbook ? NOT ? a prototype for a new 15-inch MacBook Pro. If that is indeed the case I think Apple's going to sell tons of them.
Considering Apple's outpacing the industry 3-to-1 and they're doing even better in the laptop department (with the MacBook being their best seller) obviously the MacBooks have serious mainstream appeal, regardless of whether they fit your definition of "mainstream" or not.
Growth is outstripping competitors. Total sales of non-apple laptops still dwarf sales of Apple laptops. The MacBook has limited mainstream appeal and that's why Apple has 8% share not 50%.
Market share is not a good indicator of what's … selling well.
Market share is also a rather inaccurate metric because it doesn't factor in PCs no longer in use and more importantly, it doesn't account for new sales of Macs that are eating into the over-saturated, stagnating PC market.
I think you are confusing market share with installed base. Or something.
It's very simple. With the quarterly market share numbers we see from Gartner etc., they first calculate the total number of PCs sold in the last three months. A given company's market share is then that company's sales in those three months, expressed as a percentage of the total. Apple's latest data was that they had 8% share of the US market. That means in three months, the rest of the market sold 11.5 times as many computers as Apple did.
and not about others (an xMac, if I'm not mistaken, is the fabled headless Mac mid-tower, which Apple has shown no interest in producing because...the beige-box tower PC market is unprofitable due to over-saturation by ewaste competitors from HP, Dell, etc.).
Headless mid-towers are unprofitable for everyone else because the only way they can differentiate from each other is price. Apple would have OS X as the major unique selling point, and the fact that they'd be able to make something that wasn't hideously ugly and devoid of any design taste whatsoever as a secondary USP. This would enable Apple to charge that little bit more for the same (internal) specification as the competition.
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
The MacBook is close enough to mainstream that its "nicheness" (in this case 13" rather than 15" widescreen) entices many people over. Rest assured however, that its "nicheness" also scares plenty of people away.
The MacBook Pro is an unashamedly high-end laptop and I think it's great; it'll be even better when it gets a MacBook Air-esque case and keyboard.
Well said.
Growth is outstripping competitors. Total sales of non-apple laptops still dwarf sales of Apple laptops. The MacBook has limited mainstream appeal and that's why Apple has 8% share not 50%.
I think you are confusing market share with installed base. Or something.
It's very simple. With the quarterly market share numbers we see from Gartner etc., they first calculate the total number of PCs sold in the last three months. A given company's market share is then that company's sales in those three months, expressed as a percentage of the total. Apple's latest data was that they had 8% share of the US market. That means in three months, the rest of the market sold 11.5 times as many computers as Apple did.
Hmm... read the following and see if we're on the same page:
The number of installed PCs worldwide has surpassed 1 billion units, according to market research firm Gartner, Inc., which estimates the global install base to be growing at a 12 percent annual rate on its was to surpassing 2 billion units by early 2014.
Gartner defines the installed base of PCs as the estimated number of PCs in use as opposed to the number shipped over a given a period, The world’s installed base of PCs remains heavily concentrated in mature markets. However, the firm believes emerging markets will claim an increasingly larger share of the world’s installed base going forward.
SOURCE
Can't remember which philosopher said this, but it seems pretty relevant
The beginning of knowledge is the defining of terms.
Headless mid-towers are unprofitable for everyone else because the only way they can differentiate from each other is price. Apple would have OS X as the major unique selling point, and the fact that they'd be able to make something that wasn't hideously ugly and devoid of any design taste whatsoever as a secondary USP. This would enable Apple to charge that little bit more for the same (internal) specification as the competition.
Definitely re-read my post, which I've edited. I didn't edit it after reading your subsequent response, just saying, I made additions on Apple's marketing strategy vs. it's competitors.
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
The Mac Mini wasn't meant to drive major sales; not everything Apple makes is meant to be the "next big thing." It's purpose is to entice hesitant Windows PC owners who already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, but aren't quite ready to take the full Mac plunge, so to speak. Once they buy it, it can be a stepping stone to one of their fully-fledged and more profitable computers like the MacBook or iMac.
Vinea, your arguments are well thought-out, but your underlying argument is this:
Apple's hardware is vulnerable without the unique-selling-point of OS X. And Apple relies on hardware sales for its profitability.
AND
The demand for OS X is not that great.
These seem a little contradictory.
Let me clarify then:
The demand for OSX is insufficient to make Apple as much money selling low margin software (commodity OS) as it does selling high margin hardware.
I'd say this:
The demand for a better-than-Windows-OS *is* great. Not 90%-of-the-market great ... but more than the 8% high-end ghetto it finds itself in. Particularly now, demand for OS-X is larger than demand for Mac computers. The mis-match creates a sort of pressure.
We agree. Where we disagree is that the pressure is sufficient to change business models to the extent that some folks desire. Even quadrupling OSX market share is unlikely to make Apple as profitable as it is today if the hardware sales are significantly impacted.
Hmm... read the following and see if we're on the page:
…
SOURCE
Yes, that explains what installed base is. Market share is different and is as I defined it in my previous post.
Market share is, contrary to what you said, the best indicator of what's selling well. You are right however, that it's not necessarily the best indicator of what's most popular.
Installed base is what developers, hardware makers and web people should look at when determining whether to support a given platform. However, reliable installed-base share numbers are not, to the best of my knowledge, available anywhere and everyone unfortunately goes on market share instead.
The problem is this:
Imagine the number of Macs in use equaled the number of PCs in use.
Macs would have a 50% share of the installed base.
However, if the PCs are replaced twice as often as the Macs, Macs will only have a 33.33% market share.
The Mac Mini wasn't meant to drive major sales; not everything Apple makes is meant to be the "next big thing." It's purpose is to entice hesitant Windows PC owners who already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, but aren't quite ready to take the full Mac plunge, so to speak. Once they buy it, it can be a stepping stone to one of their fully-fledged and more profitable computers like the MacBook or iMac.
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins. The only reason they didn't do it was misplaced (IMHO) fear of cannibalising Mac Pro (or Power Mac as it was then) sales.
MB(P)
PMPs
with a SFF
)
xc3ll, I really enjoyed your post, and it got me thinking. In fact, I'm still thinking about it and will get back to you when I've considered what I hate most that I use every day. However, while it used to be my phone, the truth is I absolutely loved my blackberry when I got it. I had one of the very first ones - that product was a game changer without doubt. I now love my iphone even more, but I wouldn't say that I hated my blackberry. My point is only that I'm not sure I agree that Apple's products all were in stagnant fields. Sure, the iPod was, but the iPhone is in a dynamic field, with serious competition that isn't sitting on its laurels. Rimm is no joke.
ps - I'm not trying to pick, but it's really hard to read a post filled with abbreviations or acronyms. I still can't thing of what a PMP or SFF is...
PMP
Portable Media Player, or sometimes Personal Media Player.
SFF
Small Form Factor.
Wikipedia can often help with acronyms. In the case of the two above there's only one possible meaning that makes any sense out of the list of all possible meanings provided by wikipedia.
Yes, that explains what installed base is. Market share is different and is as I defined it in my previous post.
Market share is, contrary to what you said, the best indicator of what's selling well. You are right however, that it's not necessarily the best indicator of what's most popular.
Yeah, I can be an airhead sometimes.
Market share = # of computers sold in a given time period, which is then used to figure out the percentage each company has of the whole
Install base = # of computers actually in use
So, while they don't directly correlate, indirectly, the former can inadvertently affect the latter, right?
Installed base is what developers, hardware makers and web people should look at when determining whether to support a given platform. However, reliable installed-base share numbers are not, to the best of my knowledge, available anywhere and everyone unfortunately goes on market share instead.
Right. It's straight in my mind now.
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins.
Haha, but then where would be the consumer's drive to buy one of Apple's profitable computers?
Also, while Apple could sure as hell make a prettier mid-tower compared to the competition - essentially a slightly smaller Mac Pro - the Mac Mini provides a DRAMATIC, STARK contrast to what the competitors offer. Just envision an isle of a Best Buy computer department. Walking along, people would see a bunch of mid-towers, some silver, some shinny black, some white, some blue (god, so tasteless), and a brushed metal mid-tower Mac Pro-ish xMac. Now certainly they'd say "oooh." But then they'd say "but look at this little Dell. It's like $400 less and offers a lot of the same specs." And they buy the cheaper PC based on price or fear of the commitment a tower PC gives most people.
Then imagine the same average consumer shopping around and discovering Apple's current Mac Mini:
Consumer: "Mid-tower, mid-tower, mid-tower, mid...WAIT, WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE]!!?? Excuse me sir, is this an Apple hard drive or something?"
Clerk: "No, that's a compu.."
Consumer: "That's a computer? That little thing?"
Clerk: "And it works with your standard monitor, mouse, etc."
Consumer: "Hey honey, come look at this. [wispers] Hey, we could just hook our mouse, keyboard and monitor to this thing. It even comes with this little remote. Just look at it, it's tiny."
Consumer's Significant Other: But can it web browse fast? Can I write Word documents? Email? Can I play music on it?"
Clerk: [eavesdropping on their conversation] Yes, it does all those things fine.
SOLD
I question if it was merely a fear of Power Mac/Mac Pro cannibalization. Don't underestimate the real marketable value of compactness. It costs money to make things abnormally small. The small, portable nature of something is often seen by consumers as impressive. Like Euro-style cars for instance. Americans generally laugh at them when compared to their SUV's and mini vans they use to shuttle their kids and their kids' friends around in. At the same time, no matter how attached and pleased they are with their large automobile, most won't deny how their amazement at how small they can make a car that offers rather decent head and leg room. Miniaturization is a feat that captivates people.
When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
3. A two-disk disk drive, with the second disk mirroring the first to provide automatic backup.
4. Some sort of hardware key to make it harder to port OS X to a PC.
PS: Possibly this second disk surface could be used to provide a disk partition for Windows.
PPS: If Windows was running in its own "core" of the CPU and from its own disk surface, then instantaneous switching between it and OS X would be possible, and the possibility of one of the systems messing up the other would be reduced. It would be a tremendous selling point, enabling a painless, gradual migration to OS X.
PPPS: A few years ago, in the aftermath of the shift-to-Intel announcement, John Dvorak, spurred by a lengthy speculative e-mail from a reader, opined that the Mac and Windows were moving toward some sort of merger with each other. If Apple were to provide the two-in-one set-up I suggested above, and if MS were to be flexible on its licensing terms (for instance, by charging Apple only for the amount of actual use of Windows, as determined during OS X point-updates by checks of a usage meter in Windows), then this cohabitation would fulfill his prediction.
You put that apostrophe there just to annoy me, didn't you?
Someone's, at least, still paying attention.
It's the details. It's all in the details!
I still stand by my earlier statement regarding an electronics transition and/or merger between Consumer TVs and LED Monitor Displays from Apple.
Howabout a laptop/multitouch/keyboard tablet that wirelessly transmits to any tv/led screen, enabling the user to travel with a very small but potentially very powerful machine with no inbuilt screen of its own.
Just my 2c.
ssd across the board, do those crash??
touch across the board
home server / raid/ backup--better intergration
iTV with home server, iphone inegration
lower prices across the board to build market share.
i think apple feels it's at critical mass to make some huge platform expansio
the more people have macs, and the integration is vertical WOW, iphone etc
big gains .
what's the critical mass for a platform to get more software and hardware attention
i want a single page scanner usb powered to travel with that's mac compatible, i had a visioneer strobe for os 9 but why not do it for mac
just another gripe --better power management for the iphone, i should have one button that turns off 3g, network, bluetooth without having to go to several screen. power management button that gives me options, 2g network, no bluetooth, 3g, no bluetooth, no network etc.
No, neither are mainstream. Certainly they're both less niche than the Air.
The Macbook/MBP is as mainstream as a Lexus. As in high end mainstream. If you hate car analogies replace with any high end mainstream product/brand you prefer.
As time passes, the need for the xMac does diminish. The Mac Mini should never have been and instead Apple should have launched the xMac. But that was almost four years ago now.
They did in 2001. It was called the Cube. The mini removed the limited expandability of the cube at a much lower price point. The first mini was essentially "desktop" parts as far as the processor went (G4) and had a desktop GPU.
And it would do that job better if it used proper desktop components instead of having all the compromises of a laptop with none of the advantages. Using desktop components Apple could produce a much more powerful machine with more storage for the same price and the same margins. The only reason they didn't do it was misplaced (IMHO) fear of cannibalising Mac Pro (or Power Mac as it was then) sales.
Stuffing a G5 into the mini back then would have seriously impacted PowerMac sales. If you could have done so without melting the thing anyway.
Today, tell me how many iMac and Mac Pro sales there would be if there were a $799 E8400 (3.0Ghz Wolfdale) Mini with a GeForce 9100MG equivalent (between a HD2400XT and a GeForce 8400GS)?
Damned few. As we've shown back in the xMac threads, you need to more than double your sales JUST to break even because while the margins might be the same, the revenue is half since your ASPs will have dropped from $1499 to $799.