Considering the current climate of our economy, Apple is doing quite well to weather the storm. I am not dismayed by these recent numbers, and if anything Apple probably is doing better than most of these other computer industry companies.
I'm not surprised at all. The last laptop refresh was underwhelming and the last desktop refresh was a flat out disappointment - many people considered aspects of it a step backward. Apple has done well over the last few years, but in the short term they sure seem to be dropping the ball and out of touch with what is going on in the world. Unless they get a clue, I can see growth lagging for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The 1st Quarter is always the lowest of the year. What's more interesting is the year over year same quarter and how the rest of the industry is doing compared to their year over year with the current economy.
Did you even read the article? That's exactly what it addresses - loss of MARKET SHARE, meaning Apple underperformed compared to the competition.
Considering that only 2 of the 5 makers reported a decline... That isn't great news for Apple or Dell.
Apple is losing ground.
Those MS Ads are working hahaha
You do realize that Macs service the PREMIUM end of the market, and Applw commands about 70% of that, right? Most of the market is by default locked out of Apple's range. Apple isn't looking to gain a lot of ground, just grow their target market. $600 Dell users need not apply. Apple makes a premium product at high margins. It's an entirely different ballgame. "Losing ground" takes on an entirely different meaning in this context. Premium products are not about market share. Never have been, unless you look at the kind of consumer at which these products are targeted, and compare to other premium products in the same class.
Do you think people buy into the MS ecosystem (if you can even call it that) because they make a better product? Hardly.
People buy into it because for many, it's all they can afford at the moment. MS and the junk-box makers peddle a Wal-Mart-like line of products. The user experience between an Apple product and an MS product is like night and day. It's no accident that the Apple-like experience and its associated product ecosystem is the envy of the industry, coveted by the "big" players, but out of reach due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the attitude they have about how the user should interact ideally with a device.
I'm surprised you think that the MS ads have anything redeeming about them. They openly denigrate the product and the user. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with products like that. With every one of these ads, MS has in one breath called their userbase cheap losers, and their products last-resort junk.
The question is . . . which experience do YOU want to be a part of?
Which - I has have said before - means that Apple might profit by licensing OS X to a limited set of preferred vendors.
Apple should leave selling computers with zero profitability to those companies happy to play the zero profit game.
C.
Agree on the "zero-profit" point (your second one.)
Not so sure I agree with the licensing point. Apple already profits like pig in the computer department. Macs represent their biggest profit source already. While licensing OS X out to a limited number of vendors might seem like a good idea, it can very easily lead to a deterioration of what the OS stands for. OS X must stay locked to Apple hardware. That not only maintains the kind of desirability that comes wit exclusivity and that "Premium" image, but it also ensures that there won't be any issues that commonly plague a Windows-based system. The whole point of Mac/OS X is that it is a closed system, with the software closely married to the hardware. The integration is tightest in the industry. That needs to be maintained under any and all circumstances. Lose that, and you get a Windows clone. No thanks.
I understand that this "limited licensing" idea might likely come with strict provisos as to how and what the OS can be installed on, but I'd be the last person to trust that such a thing will maintain the integrity of the OS (and thus the user experience) over the long term.
Really? All that inside a 6GB hard drive? Impressive. Because hey, we all know that if it has enough space to contain iTunes, it must also have enough space to contain music, movies and the likes, yes? And games too, of course. I can easily imagine someone having thousands of musics, videos, while surfing the net and playing the immense choice one has with windows game titles...
You really think people buy netbooks as their PRIMARY machine?
With the exception of grandma types who might not do anything beyond web and email, I can't imagine netbook owners only having that. Most will have either a home desktop or something similar that will have the big audio/video library and they'll only transfer over the media they want to take with to the netbook (or just stream it via wifi). And most of the netbooks I've seen have had more than 6 gigs.
The netbook is designed for pretty basic use, stuff like video editing isn't what it was ever intended for. But I can't imagine anyone doing video editing buying a netbook as their primary machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The profit on a $599 iPhone is > $300
The profit on a $299 netbook is < $50.
So why couldn't apple sell that same netbook for $499? Sure, it would be overpriced. But it would seem like an absolute steal compared to apple's current laptops starting at 999 or 1299.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mheidegger
Yesterday, I bought a new Mac: it's called a Dell mini 9. I think I am going to call it Dellmac. It runs MacOs X 10.5.6 impecably.
Have a link with specific instructions for that model? Is it really 100% functional? Including stuff like cooling and proper battery use?
I'm not surprised at all. The last laptop refresh was underwhelming and the last desktop refresh was a flat out disappointment - many people considered aspects of it a step backward. Apple has done well over the last few years, but in the short term they sure seem to be dropping the ball and out of touch with what is going on in the world. Unless they get a clue, I can see growth lagging for a while.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking specifically about the last refresh which was just the 17. Not a bad refresh, but not particularly exciting since it was basically the second half of the previous refresh, just the 17 belatedly catching up to the other two.
And while the MacBooks are decent models, they are still extremely limited in the options they offer to consumers. In this economy, having to pay two grand just to get a 15 inch screen (and have to pay for things you may not even necessarily want) isn't particularly competitive.
I don't think you understand what selling a Premium product at high margins means.
You're too stuck in the Windows/PC way of thinking. It might help to get away from Neowin for a while and spend more time learning about Macs and Apple's successful business model.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
Are you the director/spin doctor of Apple publicity? How many posters have stated they hate high glossy screens esoecially on the iMAc? I was in the Apple store 5th Ave yesterday and they still teach Apple class on the last matte cinema display. Why> so everbody can view it. It's clearly the best display in the whole store out of close to 100 perhaps?
I don't think you understand what selling a Premium product at high margins means.
You're too stuck in the Windows/PC way of thinking. It might help to get away from Neowin for a while and spend more time learning about Macs and Apple's successful business model.
Fine- then you'll be happy if the market share shrinks back down to 5%?
So then everyone on here needs to stop droning and whining about how Miscrosoft has all the market share, etc, etc,.
Fine- then you'll be happy if the market share shrinks back down to 5%?
It all depends on whether Apple's core market can maintain its margins. The lower the market share, the greater the need to increase margins. At some point there will be a cut-off between how much Apple's specific market is willing to pay for what they perceive they are getting in return. That market is willing to pay a helluva lot, make no mistake. Apple's current strategy can go on and on for quite a while with little modification. And as economic conditions improve, that strategy will again be the most successful.
You seem to think market share is some definite, static measure of quality or profitability. It isn't.
And there isn't ONE monolithic market. There are several segments to it, each with different levels of disposable income, lifestyle expectations, etc. While unemployment has surged in the US, and the middle class is shrinking, there will always be a segment with steady jobs (read: careers), plenty of disposable income, ready to pay for a Mac or similar premium-end product. For some reason some people tend to think that Apple refusing to lower prices in this climate is an insult. Of course they might give way on a few items, but it won't be significant. We need to understand that Apple isn't looking to target everyone. Now, if some consumers who were previously in an "Apple-friendly" income bracket have for whatever reason dropped out of it, that's an issue, assuming those dropouts aren't replaced anyway. So there will be a cut-off point as I mentioned above. Right now, though, we're a long, long way from seeing it.
Your close-mindedness seems to think that freeing the OS would hurt Apple??
I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking specifically about the last refresh which was just the 17. Not a bad refresh, but not particularly exciting since it was basically the second half of the previous refresh, just the 17 belatedly catching up to the other two.
Gotcha! I was surprised by that post because from your previous postings I knew you would have known that.
I think the 17" model's non-removable battery will catch on with the rest of the line with the next refresh or two. It's just too inline with Apple's business model for them not to do it. I just hope they use their premium position to offer silver?oxide batteries so they can last even longer. Getting a minimum of 8 hours out of every Mac notebook would certainly help set them apart from the rest of the market.
The 17" has been problematic. From the initial delay to the Nvidia 9600 GPU issues to that bolted on, last minute matte screen option. I have a feeling that in a year the sales would have been too low that they won't even be offering the matte screen option. We'll just have an AI article that states, "The Cupertino-based Mac-maker has quietly removed the matte display option from their 17" MacBook Pro."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It all depends on whether Apple's core market can maintain its margins.
Any reasonable person would be happy with 1% marketshare or less if it meant Apple was still maintaining its margins and selling more units year-over-year.
Your close-mindedness seems to think that freeing the OS would hurt Apple??
Do you work in the Auto industry?
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
Any reasonable person would be happy with 1% marketshare or less if it meant Apple was still maintaining its margins and selling more units year-over-year.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.
Comments
Wrong- Microsoft is.
True.
Which - I has have said before - means that Apple might profit by licensing OS X to a limited set of preferred vendors.
Apple should leave selling computers with zero profitability to those companies happy to play the zero profit game.
C.
The 1st Quarter is always the lowest of the year. What's more interesting is the year over year same quarter and how the rest of the industry is doing compared to their year over year with the current economy.
Did you even read the article? That's exactly what it addresses - loss of MARKET SHARE, meaning Apple underperformed compared to the competition.
Considering that only 2 of the 5 makers reported a decline... That isn't great news for Apple or Dell.
Apple is losing ground.
Those MS Ads are working hahaha
You do realize that Macs service the PREMIUM end of the market, and Applw commands about 70% of that, right? Most of the market is by default locked out of Apple's range. Apple isn't looking to gain a lot of ground, just grow their target market. $600 Dell users need not apply. Apple makes a premium product at high margins. It's an entirely different ballgame. "Losing ground" takes on an entirely different meaning in this context. Premium products are not about market share. Never have been, unless you look at the kind of consumer at which these products are targeted, and compare to other premium products in the same class.
Do you think people buy into the MS ecosystem (if you can even call it that) because they make a better product? Hardly.
People buy into it because for many, it's all they can afford at the moment. MS and the junk-box makers peddle a Wal-Mart-like line of products. The user experience between an Apple product and an MS product is like night and day. It's no accident that the Apple-like experience and its associated product ecosystem is the envy of the industry, coveted by the "big" players, but out of reach due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the attitude they have about how the user should interact ideally with a device.
I'm surprised you think that the MS ads have anything redeeming about them. They openly denigrate the product and the user. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with products like that. With every one of these ads, MS has in one breath called their userbase cheap losers, and their products last-resort junk.
The question is . . . which experience do YOU want to be a part of?
True.
Which - I has have said before - means that Apple might profit by licensing OS X to a limited set of preferred vendors.
Apple should leave selling computers with zero profitability to those companies happy to play the zero profit game.
C.
Sounds good to me- love the OS, not crazy about the current crop of Macs.
Once SJ leaves I think it will be inevitable.
Apple's now more and more an electronics company these days anyway. Now we're hearing cameras next?
True.
Which - I has have said before - means that Apple might profit by licensing OS X to a limited set of preferred vendors.
Apple should leave selling computers with zero profitability to those companies happy to play the zero profit game.
C.
Agree on the "zero-profit" point (your second one.)
Not so sure I agree with the licensing point. Apple already profits like pig in the computer department. Macs represent their biggest profit source already. While licensing OS X out to a limited number of vendors might seem like a good idea, it can very easily lead to a deterioration of what the OS stands for. OS X must stay locked to Apple hardware. That not only maintains the kind of desirability that comes wit exclusivity and that "Premium" image, but it also ensures that there won't be any issues that commonly plague a Windows-based system. The whole point of Mac/OS X is that it is a closed system, with the software closely married to the hardware. The integration is tightest in the industry. That needs to be maintained under any and all circumstances. Lose that, and you get a Windows clone. No thanks.
I understand that this "limited licensing" idea might likely come with strict provisos as to how and what the OS can be installed on, but I'd be the last person to trust that such a thing will maintain the integrity of the OS (and thus the user experience) over the long term.
Sounds good to me- love the OS, not crazy about the current crop of Macs.
Once SJ leaves I think it will be inevitable.
God help OS X if it is. That'll be the beginning of the end.
God help OS X if it is. That'll be the beginning of the end.
Of what- Apple's measly market share?
Really? All that inside a 6GB hard drive? Impressive. Because hey, we all know that if it has enough space to contain iTunes, it must also have enough space to contain music, movies and the likes, yes? And games too, of course. I can easily imagine someone having thousands of musics, videos, while surfing the net and playing the immense choice one has with windows game titles...
You really think people buy netbooks as their PRIMARY machine?
With the exception of grandma types who might not do anything beyond web and email, I can't imagine netbook owners only having that. Most will have either a home desktop or something similar that will have the big audio/video library and they'll only transfer over the media they want to take with to the netbook (or just stream it via wifi). And most of the netbooks I've seen have had more than 6 gigs.
The netbook is designed for pretty basic use, stuff like video editing isn't what it was ever intended for. But I can't imagine anyone doing video editing buying a netbook as their primary machine.
The profit on a $599 iPhone is > $300
The profit on a $299 netbook is < $50.
So why couldn't apple sell that same netbook for $499? Sure, it would be overpriced. But it would seem like an absolute steal compared to apple's current laptops starting at 999 or 1299.
Yesterday, I bought a new Mac: it's called a Dell mini 9. I think I am going to call it Dellmac. It runs MacOs X 10.5.6 impecably.
Have a link with specific instructions for that model? Is it really 100% functional? Including stuff like cooling and proper battery use?
I'm not surprised at all. The last laptop refresh was underwhelming and the last desktop refresh was a flat out disappointment - many people considered aspects of it a step backward. Apple has done well over the last few years, but in the short term they sure seem to be dropping the ball and out of touch with what is going on in the world. Unless they get a clue, I can see growth lagging for a while.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking specifically about the last refresh which was just the 17. Not a bad refresh, but not particularly exciting since it was basically the second half of the previous refresh, just the 17 belatedly catching up to the other two.
And while the MacBooks are decent models, they are still extremely limited in the options they offer to consumers. In this economy, having to pay two grand just to get a 15 inch screen (and have to pay for things you may not even necessarily want) isn't particularly competitive.
Of what- Apple's measly market share?
I don't think you understand what selling a Premium product at high margins means.
You're too stuck in the Windows/PC way of thinking. It might help to get away from Neowin for a while and spend more time learning about Macs and Apple's successful business model.
These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced. There have been issues with using so much new tech, but all of us reading this forum should expect that from any CE company, including Apple. The lack of mini-DVI and the nearly obsolete FW400 only seem to be important to a small, yet vocal, of posters.
Are you the director/spin doctor of Apple publicity? How many posters have stated they hate high glossy screens esoecially on the iMAc? I was in the Apple store 5th Ave yesterday and they still teach Apple class on the last matte cinema display. Why> so everbody can view it. It's clearly the best display in the whole store out of close to 100 perhaps?
I don't think you understand what selling a Premium product at high margins means.
You're too stuck in the Windows/PC way of thinking. It might help to get away from Neowin for a while and spend more time learning about Macs and Apple's successful business model.
Fine- then you'll be happy if the market share shrinks back down to 5%?
So then everyone on here needs to stop droning and whining about how Miscrosoft has all the market share, etc, etc,.
Fine- then you'll be happy if the market share shrinks back down to 5%?
It all depends on whether Apple's core market can maintain its margins. The lower the market share, the greater the need to increase margins. At some point there will be a cut-off between how much Apple's specific market is willing to pay for what they perceive they are getting in return. That market is willing to pay a helluva lot, make no mistake. Apple's current strategy can go on and on for quite a while with little modification. And as economic conditions improve, that strategy will again be the most successful.
You seem to think market share is some definite, static measure of quality or profitability. It isn't.
And there isn't ONE monolithic market. There are several segments to it, each with different levels of disposable income, lifestyle expectations, etc. While unemployment has surged in the US, and the middle class is shrinking, there will always be a segment with steady jobs (read: careers), plenty of disposable income, ready to pay for a Mac or similar premium-end product. For some reason some people tend to think that Apple refusing to lower prices in this climate is an insult. Of course they might give way on a few items, but it won't be significant. We need to understand that Apple isn't looking to target everyone. Now, if some consumers who were previously in an "Apple-friendly" income bracket have for whatever reason dropped out of it, that's an issue, assuming those dropouts aren't replaced anyway. So there will be a cut-off point as I mentioned above. Right now, though, we're a long, long way from seeing it.
It all depends on whether Apple's core market can maintain its margins.
You seem to think market share is some definite measure of quality or profitability. It isn't.
And there isn't ONE monolithic market. There are several segments to it, each with different levels of disposable income, lifestyle expectations, etc.
Your close-mindedness seems to think that freeing the OS would hurt Apple??
Do you work in the Auto industry?
Your close-mindedness seems to think that freeing the OS would hurt Apple??
I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking specifically about the last refresh which was just the 17. Not a bad refresh, but not particularly exciting since it was basically the second half of the previous refresh, just the 17 belatedly catching up to the other two.
Gotcha! I was surprised by that post because from your previous postings I knew you would have known that.
I think the 17" model's non-removable battery will catch on with the rest of the line with the next refresh or two. It's just too inline with Apple's business model for them not to do it. I just hope they use their premium position to offer silver?oxide batteries so they can last even longer. Getting a minimum of 8 hours out of every Mac notebook would certainly help set them apart from the rest of the market.
The 17" has been problematic. From the initial delay to the Nvidia 9600 GPU issues to that bolted on, last minute matte screen option. I have a feeling that in a year the sales would have been too low that they won't even be offering the matte screen option. We'll just have an AI article that states, "The Cupertino-based Mac-maker has quietly removed the matte display option from their 17" MacBook Pro."
It all depends on whether Apple's core market can maintain its margins.
Any reasonable person would be happy with 1% marketshare or less if it meant Apple was still maintaining its margins and selling more units year-over-year.
Your close-mindedness seems to think that freeing the OS would hurt Apple??
Do you work in the Auto industry?
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
Any reasonable person would be happy with 1% marketshare or less if it meant Apple was still maintaining its margins and selling more units year-over-year.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.