...http://sos.noaa.gov/ ...Somebody really wanted to replicate what they saw in Star Wars and finally managed to convince management to pony up some bucks. Too bad it's not all that useful a visualization mechanism...
LOL. The imagery of science fiction, particularly when it comes to visualizing multiple, rich information sources, and intangible dimensions, etc. has been so ingrained in our psyche for decades now. So much so that that NASA one looks really, really lame. It's just a frickin' ball hung over carpet and probably uses chunky expensive projectors which require a lot of maintenance.
I support funding for Science 100%. But to capture the public's imagination, we need to see stuff like the iPhone and these:
(Sunshine - "Icarus")
(I was going to throw in Minority Report but I'm really avoiding anything Cruise nowadays)
...
I know the NASA one had specific surface-spherical visualization in mind, but really the Holy Grail is full 3D imagery of arbitrary shape, texture, etc. then full interaction with this. Cf. Iron Man movie.
"Star Trek" holodecks is a different level, because that involves arbitrary manipulation of matter itself, which is, shall I just say, I'll have my nice super touch thin MacBook Pro-esque 16" ... then I'll start to fantasise about manipulating matter at will at a subatomic level.
If you'll bear with loading the images, come to think of it, all science fiction references to any sort of "visualisation" has to be somebody looking at a big globe like thing:
For wired can't you just use an iPhone Touch with video-out cables?
No, as far as I know. We want to handle NATIVE files with animations, transitions, etc. For that Keynote and PowerPoint applications must open on the device.
I doubt this is what Oppenheimer meant by "final blow to competition". iPod already has 70+% market share and iPhone is just getting started.
I think the best candidate for strategic overhaul is AppleTV. Maybe "technologies and features that others can't match," will be a set-top box which you can use with any cable or satellite provider with built in DVR and VOD. ATT's U-verse hardware can record upto 4 programs at a time. Imagine an elegant user interface that only Apple can design with access to "THE CLOUD" (email, contacts, photos, videos and God knows what else they can come up with), YouTube, music videos and movie rentals like Netflix/XBOX deal. Movies work best in a rental format.
I'm sure they are frustrated with the TV product.
You folks have got to stop looking for Apple the re-do the AppleTV, it is what it is. What it's not is a Tivo. It's a TV-based, self-aware iPod.
Current product X sells for $1999 and costs $1500 to make
Future product X sells for $1999 and costs $1750 to make because the manufacturer added a more expensive component (like SSD.)
Therefore profit margins are reduced without lowering the retail price of the product.
CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
My query was raised on the statement made that, "These technologies, particularly SSD will cut into profit margins enough as it is without lowering the prices."
Oppenheimer said that, "We have been introducing state of the art new products that have technologies and features that competition can't match." Apple has no exclusivity on the SSD, so for its inclusion to affect profit margins negatively, the price of including it (SSD) would have to be lower.
product transition at a price competitors can't match...
goodbye hard drives in all apple laptops, ipods [and imacs?], hello ssd.
maybe?
i agree that dropping 100 bucks off the macbook isn't a transition.
sheathing everything in aluminum isn't something the competition can't match.
multitouch laptop would be nice i guess, but i don't care, just keep making the overall size smaller / screen bigger, the weight lighter, the components faster, and the battery life longer. that will make me keep buying products and shares. like my brother says, i buy anything apple puts in a cool white box. [he forgets the good things come in black boxes...]
- or the introduction of Blu-Ray at an aggressive price?
Wait and see
Which Eee PC? The $300-400 one, or the $600-700 model that no one wants?
The netbook market is pretty saturated ATM, Acer's Aspire One just came out, and is looking pretty nice, and the MSI Wind and Dell E-series should around shortly, and those are also in the $300-400 range. The Eee PC is slipping, as it's too expensive for what it is, but the Acer and Dell should do well.
I don't see Apple doing well if they plan on going the netbook route, with just a Atom CPU. Besides, they have the MBA.
BR would be nice I guess, but you can already buy those (interal and external models).
A $1000 MB wouldn't impress me in the slightest, unless it was 3-4 GB, 250 GB HD, and DVD burner standard. Those 3 things are absolutely dirt cheap at the moment. All of Apple's PCs should have a DVD buner standard anyway.
Gross Profit is the difference between the manufacturing cost of something and the sell price. It does not include the cost involved with selling the product and it certainly does not include any taxes.
The money yet to come out of the GP before it can be termed operating profit will be things like salaries, stores, advertising, operating costs etc.. These things tend to stay the same regardless of how many units are sold. So yes dropping the price and selling twice as much may not result in a better overall GP but it could well result in a better overall operating profit.
The general rule is that is costs just the same to sell 10 units as it does to sell 100 (not strictly true but good enough to work in this analogy).
Sure, this was an extremely limited and simplified example. My point was to illustrate that market share was not the end all be all. Gross profit is easier to conceptualize.
And of course there are plenty of other fine points you could bring in, like increasing market share would increase long term revenues from OS upgrades...
But the bottom line is that market share means squat without profitability. Apple may not have dazzled with market share in the past, but it has such a high market capitalization primarily because of its exemplary profits (as a result of its high profit margin) and its capacity for growth. Growth by itself doesn't impress.
There is? I've lost track of all of them...the Eee idea sounded really good at one time, but ASUS has mucked it up good.
It appears I am incorrect as I can't back that up with any internet-proof. Perhaps I saw the 1000H model, not a $1000 model. The most expensive I found as in the $600 range.
Multi-touch screen? Doesn't the screen get dirty enough already without people touching it?
I saw an HP touch screen computer today, and it did have noticeable fingerprints on it. I think the glossy screen made them most obvious, though glossy might be easier to clean, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by syklee26
if Apple introduces Celeron powered MB for $999 and then rips me off by offering new C2D MB for $1199, I will be an angry man.
Celeron is garbage.
I'm pretty sure you're quite behind on that. For one, I'm not sure if Celeron is still around, but Centrino-derived Celerons were pretty good. It was the older models that deserved derision, but newer ones weren't so hamstrung and hardly had a performance penalty clock-for-clock.
Apple inc. is changing from a niche market elitist company to a more mass oriented company.
They have realized they simply cannot get the market share - which is ultimately what makes most MS sales - by maintaining the great margins they have been able to preserve.
Remember that they are creating this new paradigm shift of changing from desktop to handheld mobile. This means they will change from selling 2.5 million Macs per quarter to something like 25 million or even 50 million "insert product name here". Right now with the iPhone they are pretty much setting themselves up to reach that volume in 2009 or 2010.
Now those of you who will dismiss my words out of fear for not feeling special for having a Mac anymore, wake up and smell the coffee. You will still be special because Macs will always be special and fun no matter how many millions are out there.
We all know that Apple likes to make a nice profit. But what if Apple made a product with specifications similar to sub-$1k PC notebooks. Here's a couple of ideas:
Aluminum MacBook:
-2.0GHz C2D or CD processor
-2 GB RAM
-100-120 GB Hard Drive
-Superdrive
-Price...$799 or $899
I doubt the difference in price from a Combo Drive to Super Drive is more than $30-40, a less powerful processor would probably run $100-150 less, a smaller HD may save $40, and an Aluminum shell would probably run close to the cost of the plastic shell, with Apple sacrificing $40-50 in profit. Let's say production runs $200 less than the current $1090 MB. The competitors would be furious. People looking at cheap computers (which we Mac users must admit is a large portion of computer buyers) would look at a $899 PC with its crappy cheap plastic shell (nothing near the quality plastic of the MB); 150 keys; super glossy,plastic display; and Vista and choose the MB with its sleek aluminum shell, simple key layout, lack of bloatware, & easy-to-use OS. Imagine yourself as someone limited to spending <$1k for a computer...which would you choose? We hear $999 thrown around a bit...why not a little lower? Maybe they could throw in iWork...Apple has probably already reaped enough from it to cover its development costs.
Second idea, more in line with the "transitional" & "products and features that others can match" quotes:
Aluminum MacBook Touch
-2.0,2.2, 2.4GHz processors
-2GB RAM
-120,160, &200GB HDs
-13"Multitouch display
-.0.9-1in thin
-SuperDrive
-$1199, $1399, &$1799 (assuming the specs of MBs change or MB price drop)
I assume Apple has earned enough from iPhone sales to make up for Multitouch development (although it will need to be changed a bit for the computer-based OS X). Look around at today's tablet PCs...few have good specs, and most are ~$1k. If Apple brings in a far superior & ascetically-pleasing product for a couple hundred more, it would certainly have "products and features that others can't match".
I would imagine both have great potential for success...if Apple would just cut features a little to create a cheaper entry-level product. (And sorry for the long post)
Now those of you who will dismiss my words out of fear for not feeling special for having a Mac anymore, wake up and smell the coffee. You will still be special because Macs will always be special and fun no matter how many millions are out there.
I, too, don't see what's horribly wrong about Apple selling more Macs.
Cons:
-We won't be an elite market
-Apple may face more problems, malware, etc.
-The Genius Bars will need to be expanded, they're already overcrowded.
-Apple will face more criticism (the MobileMe problems would be in every newspaper in America)
Pros:
-It would be a wonderful "humanitarian aid" effort...liberating the world from the form of enslavement known as "Windows"
-I won't have people roll their eyes or say no one available knows how to use a Mac when I take my MBP to Tech Support (and I go to a school named: [insert state] Institute of Technology above all else!!)
-More OS X-compatible software!!!!!!
-The chance to demonstrate our knowledge of OS X to Mac newcomers.
-It won't be awkward when people look at my display and are like WTF is this, I explain about OS X, then they think it's some extra-special or super expensive machine.
-People won't say: "I once used a Mac" and "...I didn't like them" or "...they're hard to use" or something along those lines (everyone that says this used OS 9 or earlier 10 or more years ago...ignorant fools who think times don't change!!!
Add more, but the point is clear...More users is better for we Mac users as it is for Apple's bottom line.
Comments
...http://sos.noaa.gov/ ...Somebody really wanted to replicate what they saw in Star Wars and finally managed to convince management to pony up some bucks. Too bad it's not all that useful a visualization mechanism...
LOL. The imagery of science fiction, particularly when it comes to visualizing multiple, rich information sources, and intangible dimensions, etc. has been so ingrained in our psyche for decades now. So much so that that NASA one looks really, really lame. It's just a frickin' ball hung over carpet and probably uses chunky expensive projectors which require a lot of maintenance.
I support funding for Science 100%. But to capture the public's imagination, we need to see stuff like the iPhone and these:
(Sunshine - "Icarus")
(I was going to throw in Minority Report but I'm really avoiding anything Cruise nowadays)
...
I know the NASA one had specific surface-spherical visualization in mind, but really the Holy Grail is full 3D imagery of arbitrary shape, texture, etc. then full interaction with this. Cf. Iron Man movie.
"Star Trek" holodecks is a different level, because that involves arbitrary manipulation of matter itself, which is, shall I just say, I'll have my nice super touch thin MacBook Pro-esque 16" ... then I'll start to fantasise about manipulating matter at will at a subatomic level.
If you'll bear with loading the images, come to think of it, all science fiction references to any sort of "visualisation" has to be somebody looking at a big globe like thing:
(Sunshine - "Earth Room")
(Linkin Park's video - "Leave out all the rest")
you need to post more.
"In soviet russia...."
Thank you thank you, you're far too kind.
For wired can't you just use an iPhone Touch with video-out cables?
No, as far as I know. We want to handle NATIVE files with animations, transitions, etc. For that Keynote and PowerPoint applications must open on the device.
I doubt this is what Oppenheimer meant by "final blow to competition". iPod already has 70+% market share and iPhone is just getting started.
I think the best candidate for strategic overhaul is AppleTV. Maybe "technologies and features that others can't match," will be a set-top box which you can use with any cable or satellite provider with built in DVR and VOD. ATT's U-verse hardware can record upto 4 programs at a time. Imagine an elegant user interface that only Apple can design with access to "THE CLOUD" (email, contacts, photos, videos and God knows what else they can come up with), YouTube, music videos and movie rentals like Netflix/XBOX deal. Movies work best in a rental format.
I'm sure they are frustrated with the TV product.
You folks have got to stop looking for Apple the re-do the AppleTV, it is what it is. What it's not is a Tivo. It's a TV-based, self-aware iPod.
Current product X sells for $1999 and costs $1500 to make
Future product X sells for $1999 and costs $1750 to make because the manufacturer added a more expensive component (like SSD.)
Therefore profit margins are reduced without lowering the retail price of the product.
CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
My query was raised on the statement made that, "These technologies, particularly SSD will cut into profit margins enough as it is without lowering the prices."
Oppenheimer said that, "We have been introducing state of the art new products that have technologies and features that competition can't match." Apple has no exclusivity on the SSD, so for its inclusion to affect profit margins negatively, the price of including it (SSD) would have to be lower.
- a MacBook mini, close to the EEE PC?
- or the introduction of Blu-Ray at an aggressive price?
Wait and see
goodbye hard drives in all apple laptops, ipods [and imacs?], hello ssd.
maybe?
i agree that dropping 100 bucks off the macbook isn't a transition.
sheathing everything in aluminum isn't something the competition can't match.
multitouch laptop would be nice i guess, but i don't care, just keep making the overall size smaller / screen bigger, the weight lighter, the components faster, and the battery life longer. that will make me keep buying products and shares. like my brother says, i buy anything apple puts in a cool white box. [he forgets the good things come in black boxes...]
Something new, with less margin? Could we imagine
- a MacBook mini, close to the EEE PC?
- or the introduction of Blu-Ray at an aggressive price?
Wait and see
Which Eee PC? The $300-400 one, or the $600-700 model that no one wants?
The netbook market is pretty saturated ATM, Acer's Aspire One just came out, and is looking pretty nice, and the MSI Wind and Dell E-series should around shortly, and those are also in the $300-400 range. The Eee PC is slipping, as it's too expensive for what it is, but the Acer and Dell should do well.
I don't see Apple doing well if they plan on going the netbook route, with just a Atom CPU. Besides, they have the MBA.
BR would be nice I guess, but you can already buy those (interal and external models).
A $1000 MB wouldn't impress me in the slightest, unless it was 3-4 GB, 250 GB HD, and DVD burner standard. Those 3 things are absolutely dirt cheap at the moment. All of Apple's PCs should have a DVD buner standard anyway.
Which Eee PC? The $300-400 one, or the $600-700 model that no one wants?
There is also the $1000 Eee.
There is also the $1000 Eee.
There is? I've lost track of all of them...the Eee idea sounded really good at one time, but ASUS has mucked it up good.
Something that the Acer would be perfect if I still needed a small laptop to take notes with:
Color\tSeashell white
Operating System\tLinpus Linux Lite version
CPU Type\tIntel Atom N270(1.60GHz)
Screen\t8.9" WSVGA
Memory Size\t512MB (onboard)
Hard Disk\t8GB Solid-State Disk
Graphics Card\tIntel GMA950
Video Memory\tshared memory
Battery Life\t3.0 hours
Dimensions\t9.8" x 6.7" x 1.14"
Weight\t2.19 lbs.
Other Features\tStorage expansion: SD Card reader
CPU
CPU Type\tIntel Atom
CPU Speed\tN270(1.60GHz)
CPU FSB\t533MHz
CPU L2 Cache\t512KB
Display
Screen Size\t8.9"
Wide Screen Support\tYes
LCD Features\tLED backlight & Acer CrystalBrite Technology
Display Type\tWide SVGA
Resolution\t1024 x 600
Operating Systems
Operating System\tLinpus Linux Lite version
Graphics
GPU/VPU\tIntel GMA950
Video Memory\tShared system memory
Graphic Type\tIntegrated Card
Hard Drive
HDD\t8GB SSD
HD Spec\t8GB NAND flash memory (SSD)
Memory
Memory Slots\t1 x SO-DIMM
Memory\t512MB (onboard)
Max Memory Supported\t1.5GB
Communications
LAN\t10/100Mbps
WLAN\t802.11b/g Wireless LAN
Ports
USB\t3
Video Port\t1 x VGA
Audio Ports\t1 x Microphone jack; 1 x Headphone jack
Audio
Audio\tHigh-definition audio support
MS-Sound compatible
Built-in digital microphone
Speaker\tTwo built-in stereo speakers
Input Device
Touchpad\tTouchpad pointing device with two buttons
Keyboard\t84-key keyboard with 1.6 mm (minimum) key travel
Supplemental Drive
Card Reader\tMulti-in-1 card reader
Supporting Secure Digital (SD) Card, MultiMediaCard (MMC), Memory Stick (MS), Memory Stick PRO (MS PRO), xD-Picture Card (xD)
Webcam\tYes
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834115489
$380 bucks. Just too bad about the Atom and battery life.
Again you are talking about Gross Profit.
Gross Profit is the difference between the manufacturing cost of something and the sell price. It does not include the cost involved with selling the product and it certainly does not include any taxes.
The money yet to come out of the GP before it can be termed operating profit will be things like salaries, stores, advertising, operating costs etc.. These things tend to stay the same regardless of how many units are sold. So yes dropping the price and selling twice as much may not result in a better overall GP but it could well result in a better overall operating profit.
The general rule is that is costs just the same to sell 10 units as it does to sell 100 (not strictly true but good enough to work in this analogy).
Sure, this was an extremely limited and simplified example. My point was to illustrate that market share was not the end all be all. Gross profit is easier to conceptualize.
And of course there are plenty of other fine points you could bring in, like increasing market share would increase long term revenues from OS upgrades...
But the bottom line is that market share means squat without profitability. Apple may not have dazzled with market share in the past, but it has such a high market capitalization primarily because of its exemplary profits (as a result of its high profit margin) and its capacity for growth. Growth by itself doesn't impress.
There is? I've lost track of all of them...the Eee idea sounded really good at one time, but ASUS has mucked it up good.
It appears I am incorrect as I can't back that up with any internet-proof. Perhaps I saw the 1000H model, not a $1000 model. The most expensive I found as in the $600 range.
Multi-touch screen? Doesn't the screen get dirty enough already without people touching it?
I saw an HP touch screen computer today, and it did have noticeable fingerprints on it. I think the glossy screen made them most obvious, though glossy might be easier to clean, I don't know.
if Apple introduces Celeron powered MB for $999 and then rips me off by offering new C2D MB for $1199, I will be an angry man.
Celeron is garbage.
I'm pretty sure you're quite behind on that. For one, I'm not sure if Celeron is still around, but Centrino-derived Celerons were pretty good. It was the older models that deserved derision, but newer ones weren't so hamstrung and hardly had a performance penalty clock-for-clock.
In other words, the analyst read the below thread:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...mbers_end.html
i was thinking that as i was reading.
They have realized they simply cannot get the market share - which is ultimately what makes most MS sales - by maintaining the great margins they have been able to preserve.
Remember that they are creating this new paradigm shift of changing from desktop to handheld mobile. This means they will change from selling 2.5 million Macs per quarter to something like 25 million or even 50 million "insert product name here". Right now with the iPhone they are pretty much setting themselves up to reach that volume in 2009 or 2010.
Now those of you who will dismiss my words out of fear for not feeling special for having a Mac anymore, wake up and smell the coffee. You will still be special because Macs will always be special and fun no matter how many millions are out there.
Aluminum MacBook:
-2.0GHz C2D or CD processor
-2 GB RAM
-100-120 GB Hard Drive
-Superdrive
-Price...$799 or $899
I doubt the difference in price from a Combo Drive to Super Drive is more than $30-40, a less powerful processor would probably run $100-150 less, a smaller HD may save $40, and an Aluminum shell would probably run close to the cost of the plastic shell, with Apple sacrificing $40-50 in profit. Let's say production runs $200 less than the current $1090 MB. The competitors would be furious. People looking at cheap computers (which we Mac users must admit is a large portion of computer buyers) would look at a $899 PC with its crappy cheap plastic shell (nothing near the quality plastic of the MB); 150 keys; super glossy,plastic display; and Vista and choose the MB with its sleek aluminum shell, simple key layout, lack of bloatware, & easy-to-use OS. Imagine yourself as someone limited to spending <$1k for a computer...which would you choose? We hear $999 thrown around a bit...why not a little lower? Maybe they could throw in iWork...Apple has probably already reaped enough from it to cover its development costs.
Second idea, more in line with the "transitional" & "products and features that others can match" quotes:
Aluminum MacBook Touch
-2.0,2.2, 2.4GHz processors
-2GB RAM
-120,160, &200GB HDs
-13"Multitouch display
-.0.9-1in thin
-SuperDrive
-$1199, $1399, &$1799 (assuming the specs of MBs change or MB price drop)
I assume Apple has earned enough from iPhone sales to make up for Multitouch development (although it will need to be changed a bit for the computer-based OS X). Look around at today's tablet PCs...few have good specs, and most are ~$1k. If Apple brings in a far superior & ascetically-pleasing product for a couple hundred more, it would certainly have "products and features that others can't match".
I would imagine both have great potential for success...if Apple would just cut features a little to create a cheaper entry-level product. (And sorry for the long post)
I doubt the difference in price from a Combo Drive to Super Drive is more than $30-40
Last I heard, the actual difference was $5 or less. A DVD writer is supposed to be one of those upsell features.
Now those of you who will dismiss my words out of fear for not feeling special for having a Mac anymore, wake up and smell the coffee. You will still be special because Macs will always be special and fun no matter how many millions are out there.
I, too, don't see what's horribly wrong about Apple selling more Macs.
Cons:
-We won't be an elite market
-Apple may face more problems, malware, etc.
-The Genius Bars will need to be expanded, they're already overcrowded.
-Apple will face more criticism (the MobileMe problems would be in every newspaper in America)
Pros:
-It would be a wonderful "humanitarian aid" effort...liberating the world from the form of enslavement known as "Windows"
-I won't have people roll their eyes or say no one available knows how to use a Mac when I take my MBP to Tech Support (and I go to a school named: [insert state] Institute of Technology above all else!!)
-More OS X-compatible software!!!!!!
-The chance to demonstrate our knowledge of OS X to Mac newcomers.
-It won't be awkward when people look at my display and are like WTF is this, I explain about OS X, then they think it's some extra-special or super expensive machine.
-People won't say: "I once used a Mac" and "...I didn't like them" or "...they're hard to use" or something along those lines (everyone that says this used OS 9 or earlier 10 or more years ago...ignorant fools who think times don't change!!!
Add more, but the point is clear...More users is better for we Mac users as it is for Apple's bottom line.
Last I heard, the actual difference was $5 or less. A DVD writer is supposed to be one of those upsell features.
Combo drives are such a low-volume item they're typically more expensive than DVD burners.