Took a quick look at smartphone share. RIM, MS, Linux and OSX have grown in share for quarters. Symbian has been losing share to all of them. That 70% slice of the pie Symbian owned in 2007 is going to look like 50%. The other loser is Palm. I expect Palm to die in favor of Windows.
Looks like those aren't minnows swimming with that great white but piranha.
Apple's ability to cut margins is poor. As their margins approach 30%, on the way down, investors get nervous, as they should. A healthy margin for Apple is around 33%. Sustained margins below that are cutting it too fine.
Apple didn't lower the price of the iPhone, they just moved the payments into a long term contract, and have the phone companies paying for the rest.
We don't know what Apple's options for cuts are. No company should be worried of its shareholders' reaction if it believes in its decisions. It is up to the board to convince shareholders that any such measures are for the greater good.
We know that iPod boom is coming to an end. We hope the iPhone boom is just beginning but Apple is a computer company (in spite of the name change) that has successfully dabbled in other markets. Whichever way you look at it Apple's shares are going to be topsy turvy for a while (just like everybody else's). If it's not the end of the iPod boom, it will be SJ and his successor, or the economic climate in general and any amount of other reasons. Reducing margins to achieve longer term goals will do no more harm to Apple's stock than any of the points I just mentioned.
Apple did reduce the price on the iPhone. We cannot say otherwise. We don't know how the price cut was accounted for between the contracted parties though.
Of course they could, how could anyone argue against that. They could also increase the margins and reduce unit sales. If you are asserting that by reducing margins will increase unit sales enough to make the company more money while maintaining the premium branding, then I'll need some proof, or even a well thought out hypothesis before I believe that.
The proof you are asking for cannot exist. If it did everybody would be managing their operations the same way. Everybody would be making money off their premium brands.
Branding is a perception. It's marketing. It's aimed more at the people that don't have your products than those that do. The people who already have your products know full well if the product is really a premium product or not. If you really have a great, premium product it's much easier to retain clients providing they have the cash for what you offer.
Branding is all about convincing potential buyers that the purchase will be worth it.
It is possible to reduce margins, increase sales and maintain the premium label but there are too many factors involved to guarantee success.
IMO Apple's number one concern must be market share growth. I believe current pricing is too high and that sooner rather than later they will have to adjust their price points (especially on the MB).
Can you point out where I altered your words to say that Apple needed low margins? I said that bring it up you suggested that this was an equivalent strategy to low volume/high margins. The counter example I presented was Dell. For that matter HP works as well.
Erm, I don't know how I should put this without causing offence. In the same post I took the above quote from, you quoted me explaining exactly where you changed my words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avon B7
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
Which bit don't you understand? You go on about how I suggested LOW margins and how it's so wrong but I simply never ever said LOW margins. Please try to get it. LOWER is not the same as LOW. You are barking up the wrong tree. Also, I simply don't know why you have put 'needed' in bold in the first quote (above).
And as I have said repeatedly now, this is way off topic. I refuse to pick apart your post which is full of irrelevant information regarding what I wrote. This thread really isn't the place. If you'd like to open another thread so that I can pick your argument apart I will glady reply to everything you have stated but the truth is I'm all for other people making their own minds up. I don't need to do anything regarding what I've already stated.
It is possible to reduce margins, increase sales and maintain the premium label but there are too many factors involved to guarantee success.
Too many factors involved for you but to hypothesis, but you stated that "Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales" which implies that you are certain that it would be successful for Apple. Others have a lot of experience in the budget PC market, but Apple doesn't. I I want to know why you think that Apple can do this while others can't.
Erm, I don't know how I should put this without causing offence. In the same post I took the above quote from, you quoted me explaining exactly where you changed my words:
Ah, I see now. My bad.
However, "lower" margins is almost meaningless without saying how much lower and how much higher volume you expect. In any case, they lowered margins without lowering price because they are producing a higher cost laptop. A cost they choose not to fully pass on to the consumer. So what you want isn't "lower margins" anyway but lower price to chase market share. In which case my comments STILL apply. Apple has both high margins AND growth. There's zero need to change until the economy forces them to lower prices IF they want to maintain growth at this pace.
Which they MAY NOT.
Again, they DO not seek 95% market share as you assert incorrectly. You claim this is and other comments "irrelevant" to the discussion and refuse to address those comments but YOU brought that up in the first place.
Yes, many comments are "off topic" probably because you don't want to BE on topic given you refuse to even acknowledge that the MB is in fact selling well. Now you don't want to discuss points YOU brought up because they are "off topic". Like that Symbian thing.
You are making this so much more complicated than it really is. Apple is making obscene amounts of money quarter after quarter. How you take that and turn it into a questioning of Apple meeting sales projections and costs, I really don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otwayross
but also
- the requirement (to repay costs)
- the potential (which obviously depends on product type/quality & market)
we have little idea on the requirements for the macbook launch (to make it economic)
and my opinion (based on those around me who have avoided this sale)
is that apple has not reached their potential on the MB launch (due to factors discussed previously)
You are making this so much more complicated than it really is. Apple is making obscene amounts of money quarter after quarter. How you take that and turn it into a questioning of Apple meeting sales projections and costs, I really don't know.
Because Apple isn't making machines they want. Therefore Apple must be making the wrong product decisions and could obviously "do better" and folks that point out that Apple is going great are just fanbois.
I guess their "improved" product/business/marketing/pricing strategies can whimsically be called "golden goose optimization".
Yes its quite amazing how people will come on these boards and say Apple is doing well but they would do better if they followed my advice.
I say if you can show me the multi-billion dollar operation you are running and you just may have some validity to your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Because Apple isn't making machines they want. Therefore Apple must be making the wrong product decisions and could obviously "do better" and folks that point out that Apple is going great are just fanbois.
I guess their "improved" product/business/marketing/pricing strategies can whimsically be called "golden goose optimization".
Yes its quite amazing how people will come on these boards and say Apple is doing well but they would do better if they followed my advice.
I say if you can show me the multi-billion dollar operation you are running and you just may have some validity to your point.
my iphone comparison was nothing to do with saying "follow my advice"
it was comparing two Apple run product launches and noting the differences
the second product launch performed 25 times better than the first (in a sales rate sense)
due to a few simple changes... changes we can all observe with hindsight
again - you can say to everyone "apple's sold lots of notebooks this launch so just shut up will you"
but if you're a shareholder or apple fan that wouldn't be the wisest thing would it? (not sure which you are)
shouldn't you want apple to reach their full potential?
i listed the statements as my opinion - which limits them to exactly that - take them for what you think they're worth (and that's where your opinon comes in)
and nowhere did i say "i can guarantee that they would have done better if they'd done this"
...although when i look around me at my very limited selection of apple purchasing friends
i can guarantee that they'd have sold at least 5 more macbooks and a couple of MBPs if they'd changed a few things.
and that's not to mention the other (non-student) friends who have gone back from apple to ms because of... price
and ironically, as some people are claiming - apple's new aluMB market is students
who don't need superior connectivity...
as one of my friends replied recently
(after i looked a little shocked that she'd 'upgraded' from her iBook G4 to a Dell)
"hey i've gotta be reasonable... if all i'm doing is facebook, internet, some pics, a movie or two
and a few MS office docs every now and then why would i spend all that money on a mac?"
If they are only using their computer for the internet and word processing why would they be worried about Firewire?
Quote:
dumbing down of products puts them squarely in line with lower priced competitors
and then all of a sudden any differences which are there become non-essential nice-to-haves.
The problem is that many of you are only looking at firewire. Ignoring the LED screen, the revolutionary new Nvidia chip set, the thinner demissions.
Quote:
and the alu body may be pretty, the use of some components enviro friendly (there's a debate in other threads)
but none of us can claim that these things are essential - particularly in this economic climate
Other important reasons for this design is a thinner profile and a more robust design. Jonny Ive said that the inner works of notebooks can be damaged from cases that flex. The unibody design eliminates flexing cases.
If they are only using their computer for the internet and word processing why would they be worried about Firewire?
The problem is that many of you are only looking at firewire. Ignoring the LED screen, the revolutionary new Nvidia chip set, the thinner demissions.
Other important reasons for this design is a thinner profile and a more robust design. Jonny Ive said that the inner works of notebooks can be damaged from cases that flex. The unibody design eliminates flexing cases.
exactly - many consumers at the level apple's currently aiming don't need firewire
but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either
do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
i quite like the CNC machined case (i've done some of that type of design myself)
but i know it's not necessay for me and i'm not convinced it's necessary for most consumers
Too many factors involved for you but to hypothesis, but you stated that "Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales" which implies that you are certain that it would be successful for Apple. Others have a lot of experience in the budget PC market, but Apple doesn't. I I want to know why you think that Apple can do this while others can't.
The budget PC market has nothing to do with this. Lowering margins does not mean you are automatically meddling in the budget PC market. As I said before Apple can lower margins and still sell as a premium seller (at least in the eyes of those who do not already know the platform).
It's a question of bringing prices within range of those who are currently not buying Macs as they see them as overpriced. That's an option Apple has.
This thread is full of words like 'imply', 'what you mean is ?', 'you are suggesting?'. We have even seen the word 'might' redefined. When I want to say I'm sure of something I say so. If I don't say so then nobody should be suggesting otherwise.
I'm am not implying that I am certain these tactics would be successful but I do think that sales would increase. The question is by how much.
exactly - many consumers at the level apple's currently aiming don't need firewire but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
No, but they know that they can now run WoW and the screen is brighter/prettier. They don't need to know the technology behind why it's better just that it is.
Quote:
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
Except that it has always been a CONSUMER laptop AND the higher price has always been part of the equation...and frankly appeal even if folks don't say that explicitly.
Quote:
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
i quite like the CNC machined case (i've done some of that type of design myself)
but i know it's not necessay for me and i'm not convinced it's necessary for most consumers
Necessary? No more necessary than any other performance part on any other high end product whether TV, stove, or car. It is "necessary" to support the branding. Is stainless steel "necessary" for a consumer stove? Or refigerator? No, but there's a reason that Jenn Air or Viking or other high-end maker to have that on their stoves and why folks are willing to shell out $$$$ even if the Kenmore is sufficient for thier cooking needs.
i said that i could guarantee they would have sold 5 more MBs in my immediate circle.
and in my very small sample that was related to
- lack of firewire / high speed mobile connectivity
- glossy screen
- increased price
- no real speed increase or CPU gain
So what? If Apple sold 15 more because of the new design then they don't care about your 5 sales. I can guarantee you that the lack of a decent GPU has cost Apple far more than 5 MB sales.
The budget PC market has nothing to do with this. Lowering margins does not mean you are automatically meddling in the budget PC market. As I said before Apple can lower margins and still sell as a premium seller (at least in the eyes of those who do not already know the platform).
To what end? Again, you're under the assumption that they can handle faster than 28% growth. I think that Apple is already at risk of losing some of that end user experience at this growth rate.
Quote:
It's a question of bringing prices within range of those who are currently not buying Macs as they see them as overpriced. That's an option Apple has.
Except that Apple does not care. Over and over in quarterly conferences analysts ask if apple is going to reduce margins to capture share and over and over they say no.
Quote:
This thread is full of words like 'imply', 'what you mean is ?', 'you are suggesting?'. We have even seen the word 'might' redefined. When I want to say I'm sure of something I say so. If I don't say so then nobody should be suggesting otherwise.
I'm am not implying that I am certain these tactics would be successful but I do think that sales would increase. The question is by how much.
Then why bother? What is the payoff for increased sales at lower margins if you have to work harder to make about the same amount of profit at the end of the day? Their current strategy has both growth and higher profits.
You can make the case that in the current economic conditions that Apple should lower margins to maintain growth but I suspect that so long as Apple growth is above the industry average (or decline smaller than the industry average) they will stay their current course. And for good reason. Porsche or Ferrari or Viking or Jenn Air does not lower it's price during a downturn. They simply expect to sell fewer cars/stoves/refigerators until the rebound with the understanding that affluent people don't tend to buy Kenmores or a Kia but simply defer a purchase until later. What they don't want to do is dilute their branding because that takes forever to build.
but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either
do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
They can look at the screen and see that it looks better. Or they can tell that media playback and system performance is better. They don't need to know how it all works to see that it works better.
Quote:
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
The MacBook is a consumer notebook but it does not compete in the low end of the market. To meet the MacBook specifications and performance a PC will cost more than $500.
Quote:
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
You really think Apple should no longer care about the robustness of its machines after they are out of warranty. This attitude would not make for good consumer loyalty.
Comments
Looks like those aren't minnows swimming with that great white but piranha.
Apple's ability to cut margins is poor. As their margins approach 30%, on the way down, investors get nervous, as they should. A healthy margin for Apple is around 33%. Sustained margins below that are cutting it too fine.
Apple didn't lower the price of the iPhone, they just moved the payments into a long term contract, and have the phone companies paying for the rest.
We don't know what Apple's options for cuts are. No company should be worried of its shareholders' reaction if it believes in its decisions. It is up to the board to convince shareholders that any such measures are for the greater good.
We know that iPod boom is coming to an end. We hope the iPhone boom is just beginning but Apple is a computer company (in spite of the name change) that has successfully dabbled in other markets. Whichever way you look at it Apple's shares are going to be topsy turvy for a while (just like everybody else's). If it's not the end of the iPod boom, it will be SJ and his successor, or the economic climate in general and any amount of other reasons. Reducing margins to achieve longer term goals will do no more harm to Apple's stock than any of the points I just mentioned.
Apple did reduce the price on the iPhone. We cannot say otherwise. We don't know how the price cut was accounted for between the contracted parties though.
Of course they could, how could anyone argue against that. They could also increase the margins and reduce unit sales. If you are asserting that by reducing margins will increase unit sales enough to make the company more money while maintaining the premium branding, then I'll need some proof, or even a well thought out hypothesis before I believe that.
The proof you are asking for cannot exist. If it did everybody would be managing their operations the same way. Everybody would be making money off their premium brands.
Branding is a perception. It's marketing. It's aimed more at the people that don't have your products than those that do. The people who already have your products know full well if the product is really a premium product or not. If you really have a great, premium product it's much easier to retain clients providing they have the cash for what you offer.
Branding is all about convincing potential buyers that the purchase will be worth it.
It is possible to reduce margins, increase sales and maintain the premium label but there are too many factors involved to guarantee success.
IMO Apple's number one concern must be market share growth. I believe current pricing is too high and that sooner rather than later they will have to adjust their price points (especially on the MB).
Can you point out where I altered your words to say that Apple needed low margins? I said that bring it up you suggested that this was an equivalent strategy to low volume/high margins. The counter example I presented was Dell. For that matter HP works as well.
Erm, I don't know how I should put this without causing offence. In the same post I took the above quote from, you quoted me explaining exactly where you changed my words:
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
Which bit don't you understand? You go on about how I suggested LOW margins and how it's so wrong but I simply never ever said LOW margins. Please try to get it. LOWER is not the same as LOW. You are barking up the wrong tree. Also, I simply don't know why you have put 'needed' in bold in the first quote (above).
And as I have said repeatedly now, this is way off topic. I refuse to pick apart your post which is full of irrelevant information regarding what I wrote. This thread really isn't the place. If you'd like to open another thread so that I can pick your argument apart I will glady reply to everything you have stated but the truth is I'm all for other people making their own minds up. I don't need to do anything regarding what I've already stated.
It is possible to reduce margins, increase sales and maintain the premium label but there are too many factors involved to guarantee success.
Too many factors involved for you but to hypothesis, but you stated that "Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales" which implies that you are certain that it would be successful for Apple. Others have a lot of experience in the budget PC market, but Apple doesn't. I I want to know why you think that Apple can do this while others can't.
Erm, I don't know how I should put this without causing offence. In the same post I took the above quote from, you quoted me explaining exactly where you changed my words:
Ah, I see now. My bad.
However, "lower" margins is almost meaningless without saying how much lower and how much higher volume you expect. In any case, they lowered margins without lowering price because they are producing a higher cost laptop. A cost they choose not to fully pass on to the consumer. So what you want isn't "lower margins" anyway but lower price to chase market share. In which case my comments STILL apply. Apple has both high margins AND growth. There's zero need to change until the economy forces them to lower prices IF they want to maintain growth at this pace.
Which they MAY NOT.
Again, they DO not seek 95% market share as you assert incorrectly. You claim this is and other comments "irrelevant" to the discussion and refuse to address those comments but YOU brought that up in the first place.
Yes, many comments are "off topic" probably because you don't want to BE on topic given you refuse to even acknowledge that the MB is in fact selling well. Now you don't want to discuss points YOU brought up because they are "off topic". Like that Symbian thing.
but also
- the requirement (to repay costs)
- the potential (which obviously depends on product type/quality & market)
we have little idea on the requirements for the macbook launch (to make it economic)
and my opinion (based on those around me who have avoided this sale)
is that apple has not reached their potential on the MB launch (due to factors discussed previously)
You are making this so much more complicated than it really is. Apple is making obscene amounts of money quarter after quarter. How you take that and turn it into a questioning of Apple meeting sales projections and costs, I really don't know.
Because Apple isn't making machines they want. Therefore Apple must be making the wrong product decisions and could obviously "do better" and folks that point out that Apple is going great are just fanbois.
I guess their "improved" product/business/marketing/pricing strategies can whimsically be called "golden goose optimization".
I say if you can show me the multi-billion dollar operation you are running and you just may have some validity to your point.
Because Apple isn't making machines they want. Therefore Apple must be making the wrong product decisions and could obviously "do better" and folks that point out that Apple is going great are just fanbois.
I guess their "improved" product/business/marketing/pricing strategies can whimsically be called "golden goose optimization".
Yes its quite amazing how people will come on these boards and say Apple is doing well but they would do better if they followed my advice.
I say if you can show me the multi-billion dollar operation you are running and you just may have some validity to your point.
my iphone comparison was nothing to do with saying "follow my advice"
it was comparing two Apple run product launches and noting the differences
the second product launch performed 25 times better than the first (in a sales rate sense)
due to a few simple changes... changes we can all observe with hindsight
again - you can say to everyone "apple's sold lots of notebooks this launch so just shut up will you"
but if you're a shareholder or apple fan that wouldn't be the wisest thing would it? (not sure which you are)
shouldn't you want apple to reach their full potential?
i listed the statements as my opinion - which limits them to exactly that - take them for what you think they're worth (and that's where your opinon comes in)
and nowhere did i say "i can guarantee that they would have done better if they'd done this"
...although when i look around me at my very limited selection of apple purchasing friends
i can guarantee that they'd have sold at least 5 more macbooks and a couple of MBPs if they'd changed a few things.
and that's not to mention the other (non-student) friends who have gone back from apple to ms because of... price
and that's not to mention the other (non-student) friends who have gone back from apple to ms because of... price
and ironically, as some people are claiming - apple's new aluMB market is students
who don't need superior connectivity...
as one of my friends replied recently
(after i looked a little shocked that she'd 'upgraded' from her iBook G4 to a Dell)
"hey i've gotta be reasonable... if all i'm doing is facebook, internet, some pics, a movie or two
and a few MS office docs every now and then why would i spend all that money on a mac?"
dumbing down of products puts them squarely in line with lower priced competitors
and then all of a sudden any differences which are there become non-essential nice-to-haves.
and the alu body may be pretty, the use of some components enviro friendly (there's a debate in other threads)
but none of us can claim that these things are essential - particularly in this economic climate
as i've said before, it could be the $999 whitebook which saves the day !
...although when i look around me at my very limited selection of apple purchasing friends
i can guarantee that they'd have sold at least 5 more macbooks and a couple of MBPs if they'd changed a few things.
and that's not to mention the other (non-student) friends who have gone back from apple to ms because of... price
Apple would have sold more only if they had..........
Apple is not trying to be everything to everyone. Windows is which has become its main problem.
and ironically, as some people are claiming - apple's new aluMB market is students
who don't need superior connectivity...
as one of my friends replied recently
(after i looked a little shocked that she'd 'upgraded' from her iBook G4 to a Dell)
"hey i've gotta be reasonable... if all i'm doing is facebook, internet, some pics, a movie or two
and a few MS office docs every now and then why would i spend all that money on a mac?"
If they are only using their computer for the internet and word processing why would they be worried about Firewire?
dumbing down of products puts them squarely in line with lower priced competitors
and then all of a sudden any differences which are there become non-essential nice-to-haves.
The problem is that many of you are only looking at firewire. Ignoring the LED screen, the revolutionary new Nvidia chip set, the thinner demissions.
and the alu body may be pretty, the use of some components enviro friendly (there's a debate in other threads)
but none of us can claim that these things are essential - particularly in this economic climate
Other important reasons for this design is a thinner profile and a more robust design. Jonny Ive said that the inner works of notebooks can be damaged from cases that flex. The unibody design eliminates flexing cases.
If they are only using their computer for the internet and word processing why would they be worried about Firewire?
The problem is that many of you are only looking at firewire. Ignoring the LED screen, the revolutionary new Nvidia chip set, the thinner demissions.
Other important reasons for this design is a thinner profile and a more robust design. Jonny Ive said that the inner works of notebooks can be damaged from cases that flex. The unibody design eliminates flexing cases.
exactly - many consumers at the level apple's currently aiming don't need firewire
but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either
do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
i quite like the CNC machined case (i've done some of that type of design myself)
but i know it's not necessay for me and i'm not convinced it's necessary for most consumers
Apple would have sold more only if they had..........
Apple is not trying to be everything to everyone. Windows is which has become its main problem.
yeah take a chill pill on that one
i said that i could guarantee they would have sold 5 more MBs in my immediate circle.
and in my very small sample that was related to
- lack of firewire / high speed mobile connectivity
- glossy screen
- increased price
- no real speed increase or CPU gain
Too many factors involved for you but to hypothesis, but you stated that "Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales" which implies that you are certain that it would be successful for Apple. Others have a lot of experience in the budget PC market, but Apple doesn't. I I want to know why you think that Apple can do this while others can't.
The budget PC market has nothing to do with this. Lowering margins does not mean you are automatically meddling in the budget PC market. As I said before Apple can lower margins and still sell as a premium seller (at least in the eyes of those who do not already know the platform).
It's a question of bringing prices within range of those who are currently not buying Macs as they see them as overpriced. That's an option Apple has.
This thread is full of words like 'imply', 'what you mean is ?', 'you are suggesting?'. We have even seen the word 'might' redefined. When I want to say I'm sure of something I say so. If I don't say so then nobody should be suggesting otherwise.
I'm am not implying that I am certain these tactics would be successful but I do think that sales would increase. The question is by how much.
exactly - many consumers at the level apple's currently aiming don't need firewire but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
No, but they know that they can now run WoW and the screen is brighter/prettier. They don't need to know the technology behind why it's better just that it is.
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
Except that it has always been a CONSUMER laptop AND the higher price has always been part of the equation...and frankly appeal even if folks don't say that explicitly.
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
i quite like the CNC machined case (i've done some of that type of design myself)
but i know it's not necessay for me and i'm not convinced it's necessary for most consumers
Necessary? No more necessary than any other performance part on any other high end product whether TV, stove, or car. It is "necessary" to support the branding. Is stainless steel "necessary" for a consumer stove? Or refigerator? No, but there's a reason that Jenn Air or Viking or other high-end maker to have that on their stoves and why folks are willing to shell out $$$$ even if the Kenmore is sufficient for thier cooking needs.
yeah take a chill pill on that one
i said that i could guarantee they would have sold 5 more MBs in my immediate circle.
and in my very small sample that was related to
- lack of firewire / high speed mobile connectivity
- glossy screen
- increased price
- no real speed increase or CPU gain
So what? If Apple sold 15 more because of the new design then they don't care about your 5 sales. I can guarantee you that the lack of a decent GPU has cost Apple far more than 5 MB sales.
The budget PC market has nothing to do with this. Lowering margins does not mean you are automatically meddling in the budget PC market. As I said before Apple can lower margins and still sell as a premium seller (at least in the eyes of those who do not already know the platform).
To what end? Again, you're under the assumption that they can handle faster than 28% growth. I think that Apple is already at risk of losing some of that end user experience at this growth rate.
It's a question of bringing prices within range of those who are currently not buying Macs as they see them as overpriced. That's an option Apple has.
Except that Apple does not care. Over and over in quarterly conferences analysts ask if apple is going to reduce margins to capture share and over and over they say no.
This thread is full of words like 'imply', 'what you mean is ?', 'you are suggesting?'. We have even seen the word 'might' redefined. When I want to say I'm sure of something I say so. If I don't say so then nobody should be suggesting otherwise.
I'm am not implying that I am certain these tactics would be successful but I do think that sales would increase. The question is by how much.
Then why bother? What is the payoff for increased sales at lower margins if you have to work harder to make about the same amount of profit at the end of the day? Their current strategy has both growth and higher profits.
You can make the case that in the current economic conditions that Apple should lower margins to maintain growth but I suspect that so long as Apple growth is above the industry average (or decline smaller than the industry average) they will stay their current course. And for good reason. Porsche or Ferrari or Viking or Jenn Air does not lower it's price during a downturn. They simply expect to sell fewer cars/stoves/refigerators until the rebound with the understanding that affluent people don't tend to buy Kenmores or a Kia but simply defer a purchase until later. What they don't want to do is dilute their branding because that takes forever to build.
but then they don't need all the other things you've mentioned either
do you think an average consumer knows what an LED screen is? or has even heard of a graphics card?
They can look at the screen and see that it looks better. Or they can tell that media playback and system performance is better. They don't need to know how it all works to see that it works better.
when apple's notebook cannot support their regular prosumer market
it has to compete in the low end of the market, blessed with good looks but crippled with a higher price
The MacBook is a consumer notebook but it does not compete in the low end of the market. To meet the MacBook specifications and performance a PC will cost more than $500.
and regarding the flexing, i think that's creating a problem that 'needed' to be fixed
(and the problem wasn't even for apple as their warranty only lasts a year)
You really think Apple should no longer care about the robustness of its machines after they are out of warranty. This attitude would not make for good consumer loyalty.