Good on them if that info is true. But don't you think they could get 15 - 20% if they'd make their lineup more affordable? I think they could. And I think that would open some new horizons as well (like game market I've already mentioned).
There are two tricks here: One would be to make their lineup more affordable without making it less desirable. The other would be to make it more affordable without taking a huge hit on their profit margin--the same one that keeps Wall Street from having the jitters over their risk taking.
When Steve Jobs says that Apple would make a cheap computer "but we don't know how to" that's what he means. Of course they could throw something together and kick it out the door, but there is figuratively and literally no profit in doing so and it would damage their brand and their reputation. Cheap machines now are generally loss leaders, and contrary to popular opinion there aren't many situations when loss leaders make good business sense (they're great when you have a bunch of stale stock in a warehouse that you need to get rid of, and selling it at Best Buy or Wal-Mart for something near cost is better than bulldozing it).
To address a different conversation in this thread: Desktops are dying, period. They're dying more slowly on the PC side because of enterprise, but the consumer desktop has been in retreat for some years now. There's hardly any reason any more to buy a consumer desktop anymore except to save a few bucks. Even if you want to play games, they've only just started to release games that can't run on a Pentium 4.
Oh, and Mac gaming will not recover in the foreseeable future. It's not the hardware, it's the software, and it's not just the software, it's the user base. Gaming on the Mac has been moribund for so long that Mac users are far less likely to buy video games than their Windows using brethren. That probably won't change unless Apple goes on a rampage and more than doubles its market share, which I find... unlikely.
I'm sure this is possible. I doubt most people are purchasing stand alone copies of Windows in this fashion seeing as retail copies of Windows are sold in every electronics store.
Well, if they want OS upgrade on existing hardware, they'll have to do Retail... but we are discussing new system purchase. If they opt for custom configuration in computer shop, they will be offered OEM software by the shop employees. It is that simple.
If they still decide to purchase retail bix because, well, it comes in colourful shiny box, that is fine, but it does not negate the fact that possibility (and price) are available to everyone building new PC.
Quote:
It is true.
People quite often say stuff like this. In spite of the fact that Apple has increased its marketshare almost 500% and the fact that Apple has doubled its cash reserves. People always seem to say Apple could have done even better if they'd only done what I think they should have done.
In light of the fact that no one here has built a billion dollar company. My question is always, "what makes you so sure of your idea?"
Sigh... I know it is true according to Net Applications survey, my remark was related to how accurate their survey is. For example, we have corporate users with limited Internet access. Reason is very simple - bosses want their employees to work, and not fool around, so their Internet access is limited to a handful of job related sites (suppliers, clients etc.). Limits are enforced through corporate firewalls, Web Marshal... and trend is much stronger with big sites - small businesses usually don't care for such efficiency streamlining. How does that play with Net Applications survey..?
And even home users. Most of my friends are spending good amount of their free, "computer" time playing games. At the end, I would expect their on-line time gets lower by default compared to Mac user who who are less into games. Now... that is just my thinking. I'm not saying above mentioned things are really having any significant impact on survey. I'm just saying they might, thus remark "if it is true".
To answer your question at the end - I am not sure of my idea. I just think it might improve Apple's market share. Lower prices generally tend to upsize sales numbers, in pretty much every segment of market. And I think Apple could lower their margin without making sacrifices in build quality.
Sigh... I know it is true according to Net Applications survey, my remark was related to how accurate their survey is. For example, we have corporate users with limited Internet access.
Net Applications is well respected as a source of trends. These numbers typically shift from quarter to quarter. Over all, Apple's web share numbers have consistently grown.
Quote:
To answer your question at the end - I am not sure of my idea. I just think it might improve Apple's market share. Lower prices generally tend to upsize sales numbers, in pretty much every segment of market. And I think Apple could lower their margin without making sacrifices in build quality.
Here is an article about a lawnmower company called Snapper. I think this story is analogous to Apple's relationship with the larger PC industry. Snapper's CEO decided not to sell Snapper lawnmowers in Wal-mart (the largest retail chain in the US) because Snapper is a premium brand. Snapper believes in making high quality lawnmowers, the CEO felt that Wal-mart's discount business did not provide Snapper with a proper selling enviornment and hurt Snappers value.
Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future--Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.
If you know nothing about maintaining a mower, Wal-Mart has helped make that ignorance irrelevant: At even $138, the lawn mowers at Wal-Mart are cheap enough to be disposable. Use one for a season, and if you can't start it the next spring (Wal-Mart won't help you out with that), put it at the curb and buy another one. That kind of pricing changes not just the economics at the low end of the lawn-mower market, it changes expectations of customers throughout the market.
It's not hard to make a cheap lawn mower. A cheap lawn mower feels flimsy, sounds louder than it has to, and even when new, requires a mysterious, frustrating combination of choke, priming, and pulling to start. The cutting deck of a cheap mower is stamped from thin sheet metal. Making a high-quality lawn mower--even in 109 seconds--requires attention to detail and constant improvement, which seems surprising for a machine that doesn't evolve that much.
Comments
Good on them if that info is true. But don't you think they could get 15 - 20% if they'd make their lineup more affordable? I think they could. And I think that would open some new horizons as well (like game market I've already mentioned).
There are two tricks here: One would be to make their lineup more affordable without making it less desirable. The other would be to make it more affordable without taking a huge hit on their profit margin--the same one that keeps Wall Street from having the jitters over their risk taking.
When Steve Jobs says that Apple would make a cheap computer "but we don't know how to" that's what he means. Of course they could throw something together and kick it out the door, but there is figuratively and literally no profit in doing so and it would damage their brand and their reputation. Cheap machines now are generally loss leaders, and contrary to popular opinion there aren't many situations when loss leaders make good business sense (they're great when you have a bunch of stale stock in a warehouse that you need to get rid of, and selling it at Best Buy or Wal-Mart for something near cost is better than bulldozing it).
To address a different conversation in this thread: Desktops are dying, period. They're dying more slowly on the PC side because of enterprise, but the consumer desktop has been in retreat for some years now. There's hardly any reason any more to buy a consumer desktop anymore except to save a few bucks. Even if you want to play games, they've only just started to release games that can't run on a Pentium 4.
Oh, and Mac gaming will not recover in the foreseeable future. It's not the hardware, it's the software, and it's not just the software, it's the user base. Gaming on the Mac has been moribund for so long that Mac users are far less likely to buy video games than their Windows using brethren. That probably won't change unless Apple goes on a rampage and more than doubles its market share, which I find... unlikely.
I'm sure this is possible. I doubt most people are purchasing stand alone copies of Windows in this fashion seeing as retail copies of Windows are sold in every electronics store.
Well, if they want OS upgrade on existing hardware, they'll have to do Retail... but we are discussing new system purchase. If they opt for custom configuration in computer shop, they will be offered OEM software by the shop employees. It is that simple.
If they still decide to purchase retail bix because, well, it comes in colourful shiny box, that is fine, but it does not negate the fact that possibility (and price) are available to everyone building new PC.
It is true.
People quite often say stuff like this. In spite of the fact that Apple has increased its marketshare almost 500% and the fact that Apple has doubled its cash reserves. People always seem to say Apple could have done even better if they'd only done what I think they should have done.
In light of the fact that no one here has built a billion dollar company. My question is always, "what makes you so sure of your idea?"
Sigh... I know it is true according to Net Applications survey, my remark was related to how accurate their survey is. For example, we have corporate users with limited Internet access. Reason is very simple - bosses want their employees to work, and not fool around, so their Internet access is limited to a handful of job related sites (suppliers, clients etc.). Limits are enforced through corporate firewalls, Web Marshal... and trend is much stronger with big sites - small businesses usually don't care for such efficiency streamlining. How does that play with Net Applications survey..?
And even home users. Most of my friends are spending good amount of their free, "computer" time playing games. At the end, I would expect their on-line time gets lower by default compared to Mac user who who are less into games. Now... that is just my thinking. I'm not saying above mentioned things are really having any significant impact on survey. I'm just saying they might, thus remark "if it is true".
To answer your question at the end - I am not sure of my idea. I just think it might improve Apple's market share. Lower prices generally tend to upsize sales numbers, in pretty much every segment of market. And I think Apple could lower their margin without making sacrifices in build quality.
Sigh... I know it is true according to Net Applications survey, my remark was related to how accurate their survey is. For example, we have corporate users with limited Internet access.
Net Applications is well respected as a source of trends. These numbers typically shift from quarter to quarter. Over all, Apple's web share numbers have consistently grown.
To answer your question at the end - I am not sure of my idea. I just think it might improve Apple's market share. Lower prices generally tend to upsize sales numbers, in pretty much every segment of market. And I think Apple could lower their margin without making sacrifices in build quality.
Here is an article about a lawnmower company called Snapper. I think this story is analogous to Apple's relationship with the larger PC industry. Snapper's CEO decided not to sell Snapper lawnmowers in Wal-mart (the largest retail chain in the US) because Snapper is a premium brand. Snapper believes in making high quality lawnmowers, the CEO felt that Wal-mart's discount business did not provide Snapper with a proper selling enviornment and hurt Snappers value.
Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future--Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.
If you know nothing about maintaining a mower, Wal-Mart has helped make that ignorance irrelevant: At even $138, the lawn mowers at Wal-Mart are cheap enough to be disposable. Use one for a season, and if you can't start it the next spring (Wal-Mart won't help you out with that), put it at the curb and buy another one. That kind of pricing changes not just the economics at the low end of the lawn-mower market, it changes expectations of customers throughout the market.
It's not hard to make a cheap lawn mower. A cheap lawn mower feels flimsy, sounds louder than it has to, and even when new, requires a mysterious, frustrating combination of choke, priming, and pulling to start. The cutting deck of a cheap mower is stamped from thin sheet metal. Making a high-quality lawn mower--even in 109 seconds--requires attention to detail and constant improvement, which seems surprising for a machine that doesn't evolve that much.
The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart