Apple could easily take Microsoft's marketshare but they choose not to compete there.
Apple chooses to make money. They are not actively trying to take market share unless it includes making money. Have you noticed that computer makers competing on market share are LOSING money?
Apple's market share is growing slowly but its very stable, I don't think Micro$oft can say 'oh we gonna get those 10% back." In my opinion people who switched are lost forever to Micro$oft.
Imagine is Linux got serious and took another 10% from Micro$oft.
And everyone of those switchers show several friends and family their Mac and in the immortal words of Kurt Vonnegut ... "So it goes ..."
My 5 Year old mac runs the latest version of os x... do you see the difference?
My iBook G4, purchased October 2003, runs 10.5.6 no problem too. I use my latest hardware most of the time to be sure but for Mail and Safari it still runs like a champ.
My iBook G4, purchased October 2003, runs 10.5.6 no problem too. I use my latest hardware most of the time to be sure but for Mail and Safari it still runs like a champ.
How does it run, speedwise, in comparison to older versions of OS X?
How does it run, speedwise, in comparison to older versions of OS X?
Hard to know exactly since I have no way to do a side by side test with it running anything older but given I use an 8 Core Mac Pro all day so am used to speed it is plenty fast for me and beats the pants of several far more recent PCs running XP Pro at surfing and fetching Mail. It sleeps and wakes up right away and has never had a single problem with any version of Leopard. It even runs BBC news and YouTube videos fine although CNN videos stutter a bit for some reason. By the way it is a stock base model with no extra RAM or upgrades.
I payed 2700? for a 15" PowerBook five years ago, the upper MBP now is 500? less. In a sane market a company sets the price where demand equals supply, that's where the cost/income balance is best, I don't see Apple slowly rising prices to squeeze any more out of their customers.
Another example: The MacBook Air costs exactly the same as the entry level iBook in 1999.
Another example: The MacBook Air costs exactly the same as the entry level iBook in 1999.
$1799
Actually the original iBook was $1599.
I do think apple needs to cover more market with their macs, by adding more models. All this "it will eat up sales of their other products" stuff is BS. If that were the case, apple would only sell one Mac, called the Mac. Different kinds of computer will appeal to more people who have different needs, and overall you'll sell many more computers.
1) Microsoft will be lucky if they make $20 on a $200 Netbook.
2) Acer is going to bankrupt HP & Dell with Netbooks that they need to make virtually minimal profit on
Apple already own the $1000+ market and they say time and time again they don't want to make cheap junk hardware....if they release a $500 7" Ipod Touch they'll satisfy the desire for an Apple Netbook-esque offering, that will neither cannibalize Macbook sales or cheaper iPod Touch sales..
I can see the difference if by running that OS you can do something you need to do that the old OS couldn't do. But Windows XP does pretty much everything Vista does, so there's really no need to try and cram the latest OS onto it. See the difference?
I can't really comment as to whether Vista offers anything over and above XP, I don't have experience. However, I can tell you that the latest version of osx 10.5 gives me many more features than the 10.2 it was delivered with. In addition, each upgrade has improved performance.
Microsoft isn't currently suffering because it has to ship XP on netbooks, but because it is unable to charge OEMs the Vista price for it. This keeps the price of Windows netbooks comparable to Linux and reduces Microsoft's overall margins as sales shift toward netbooks. Windows 7 will likely run on netbooks, but the question is whether Microsoft will be able to ratchet up the price after OEMs and consumers have become used to current prices for a couple years. If Windows 7 run great but people are still only willing to pay XP prices it hurts Microsoft rather than helps.
If they come out with a netbook, that is Cheap it WILL take away sales of it's notebooks ... Apple is doing a pretty good job of making and selling products that don't compete to much with each other, and a sale of one unit doesn't take away from the sale of another...
Well, look at the iPod. With the Shuffle, Nano, Classic, and Touch they have 'pods at nearly every price point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
...and any that it does, is still a sale for Apple.
Precisely. As many companies have learned far too late, it's much, much better to cannibalize your own product line than let someone else do it.
My money is on Apple doing an oversized Touch, perhaps 4x6 or 5x7 max. Any larger and the touchscreen keyboard would be too awkward to use, and you'd be reaching the point where you might as well carry a notebook.
A "tween" device would make an excellent media device, game player, email and web browser, AND a great ebook/news reader (the iPhone's screen, with Stanza, is already adequate for this task).
I think it's because people finally realized that the total cost of ownership of a computer doesn't equal the price at purchase. Expensive upgrades, antivirus subscriptions, repair, data loss, Microsoft Office vs iWork, and lost time factor in.
OpenOffice 3.1 will only accelerate their growth. With Applescript built-in I'm expecting people to use Applescript as a go-between iWorks and OOo 3.1. Now if Apple would include ODF 1.2 iWorks it would be a double-edged sword.
Comments
Apple could easily take Microsoft's marketshare but they choose not to compete there.
Apple chooses to make money. They are not actively trying to take market share unless it includes making money. Have you noticed that computer makers competing on market share are LOSING money?
Apple's market share is growing slowly but its very stable, I don't think Micro$oft can say 'oh we gonna get those 10% back." In my opinion people who switched are lost forever to Micro$oft.
Imagine is Linux got serious and took another 10% from Micro$oft.
And everyone of those switchers show several friends and family their Mac and in the immortal words of Kurt Vonnegut ... "So it goes ..."
My 5 Year old mac runs the latest version of os x... do you see the difference?
My iBook G4, purchased October 2003, runs 10.5.6 no problem too. I use my latest hardware most of the time to be sure but for Mail and Safari it still runs like a champ.
My iBook G4, purchased October 2003, runs 10.5.6 no problem too. I use my latest hardware most of the time to be sure but for Mail and Safari it still runs like a champ.
How does it run, speedwise, in comparison to older versions of OS X?
How does it run, speedwise, in comparison to older versions of OS X?
Hard to know exactly since I have no way to do a side by side test with it running anything older but given I use an 8 Core Mac Pro all day so am used to speed it is plenty fast for me and beats the pants of several far more recent PCs running XP Pro at surfing and fetching Mail. It sleeps and wakes up right away and has never had a single problem with any version of Leopard. It even runs BBC news and YouTube videos fine although CNN videos stutter a bit for some reason. By the way it is a stock base model with no extra RAM or upgrades.
I payed 2700? for a 15" PowerBook five years ago, the upper MBP now is 500? less. In a sane market a company sets the price where demand equals supply, that's where the cost/income balance is best, I don't see Apple slowly rising prices to squeeze any more out of their customers.
Another example: The MacBook Air costs exactly the same as the entry level iBook in 1999.
$1799
Another example: The MacBook Air costs exactly the same as the entry level iBook in 1999.
$1799
Actually the original iBook was $1599.
I do think apple needs to cover more market with their macs, by adding more models. All this "it will eat up sales of their other products" stuff is BS. If that were the case, apple would only sell one Mac, called the Mac. Different kinds of computer will appeal to more people who have different needs, and overall you'll sell many more computers.
2) Acer is going to bankrupt HP & Dell with Netbooks that they need to make virtually minimal profit on
Apple already own the $1000+ market and they say time and time again they don't want to make cheap junk hardware....if they release a $500 7" Ipod Touch they'll satisfy the desire for an Apple Netbook-esque offering, that will neither cannibalize Macbook sales or cheaper iPod Touch sales..
I can see the difference if by running that OS you can do something you need to do that the old OS couldn't do. But Windows XP does pretty much everything Vista does, so there's really no need to try and cram the latest OS onto it. See the difference?
I can't really comment as to whether Vista offers anything over and above XP, I don't have experience. However, I can tell you that the latest version of osx 10.5 gives me many more features than the 10.2 it was delivered with. In addition, each upgrade has improved performance.
If they come out with a netbook, that is Cheap it WILL take away sales of it's notebooks ... Apple is doing a pretty good job of making and selling products that don't compete to much with each other, and a sale of one unit doesn't take away from the sale of another...
Well, look at the iPod. With the Shuffle, Nano, Classic, and Touch they have 'pods at nearly every price point.
...and any that it does, is still a sale for Apple.
Precisely. As many companies have learned far too late, it's much, much better to cannibalize your own product line than let someone else do it.
My money is on Apple doing an oversized Touch, perhaps 4x6 or 5x7 max. Any larger and the touchscreen keyboard would be too awkward to use, and you'd be reaching the point where you might as well carry a notebook.
A "tween" device would make an excellent media device, game player, email and web browser, AND a great ebook/news reader (the iPhone's screen, with Stanza, is already adequate for this task).
I think it's because people finally realized that the total cost of ownership of a computer doesn't equal the price at purchase. Expensive upgrades, antivirus subscriptions, repair, data loss, Microsoft Office vs iWork, and lost time factor in.
OpenOffice 3.1 will only accelerate their growth. With Applescript built-in I'm expecting people to use Applescript as a go-between iWorks and OOo 3.1. Now if Apple would include ODF 1.2 iWorks it would be a double-edged sword.
How about creating desktops, laptops, and netbooks for the rest of the folks too
Ironic that once upon a time Apple was "the computer for the rest of us"
Now they've ceded that noble title entirely to MS and Linux boxes