As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?
It hit Microsoft 10 years ago and is likely to hit Apple within 10 years.
The DOJ didn't go after Microsoft because they were successful. They went after Microsoft for exactly the same reason they'd gone after IBM the decade prior: because Microsoft was an extremely abusive monopoly. The trial record is public, go read it. Microsoft didn't even try to hide their contempt.
If Apple ever acts like that, the DOJ will probably drop the hammer and they will be right to. But the thing you need to remember is that it is not against the law to be a monopoly. It is against the law to abuse your status as a monopoly to unfairly freeze out competitors. The presumption of antitrust law, as applied to corporations, is that competition is healthy. Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsegenmd
Perhaps they should license their software to third parties, but NOT at the standard price. THose who buy Apple hardware would get a significant discount (rebate, however they want to play that money card) once it's registered on a Mac and offer a "discounted" upgrade pathway to the loyal cadre of Mac users.
This is precisely the sort of preferential treatment that could land them in hot water.
All Apple has to do is: point out that having one company be the sole source for one product line is obvious and with abundant precedent; not threaten to shut out developers unless they abandon support for rival technologies, the way Microsoft did, and; not develop products that have to be interfaced with closed, secret and proprietary technologies the way both Microsoft and IBM have done. As long as they sell Macs on the merits the DOJ has no case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsegenmd
What baffles me is the cheek of the current generation of Mac cloners; they could save themselves a whole lot of hassle by letting the consumer install the software, as it puts the legal onus on the person buying the computer and not the vendor
They could, but that basically guarantees that the already-miniscule market for Mac clones would shrink to the point of irrelevance. If you're selling Macs then you're selling elegance and ease of use, and making the user patch and install their own operating system undermines those selling points completely. Anyone willing to do that is willing to build their own PC--or just repurpose a Windows PC--and pocket the savings from cutting out the middleman.
Are you thinking of trademark issues? For example Pepsi selling some sort of derogatory re-packaging of a Coke product? I could see issues there and clearly, when reselling another company's products, one would have to avoid issues with trademarks, but if businesses can't sell stuff, or put together special offers, or create their own unique displays, or bundle the item with other things, then retail in America is dead.
Maybe it's true, but I'd like to see a citation rather than an assertion.
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
See the 'Made for iPod' licenses, that's how tie-ins are legally done. If a manufacturer wants to not play 'Made for iPod' they just don't say iPod and don't use images of iPods in their marketing and packaging materials. Psystar, violates both of those separations in their use of OS X as a tied-in product dependency and don't have a license either.
I don't honestly know what you are going on about. The point which begs to be understood here is that it makes no difference whether the hardware is exactly the same or somewhat different. What matters to the IP question is the ultimate product, which is a Macintosh computer. Unauthorized parties may not manufacture and sell Macintosh computers, and it really doesn't make any difference how they go about it.
You are in violent agreement with me principle-wise. But Psystar isn't claiming they are making a Mac, so technically your particular point above doesn't apply. They are claiming their machine is as good as a Mac and runs the Mac OS adequately so you don't need to buy a Mac. It is a subtle difference, but exactly the difference the Psystar defenders are trying to use to justify the Psyatar case.
Their point is if the only difference is ip, and ip (software parent and copyright) is by definition evil, then Psystar is in the good. Why make it any easier for them? Especially when it isn't just the software?
It is patently obvious that the AIO computer is a very marginalized market. Apple gets by quite nicely in this market. It is also patently obvious that the vast majority of computers sold are not AIO, why?
Yes, the AIO design and the Mac mini have created a glass ceiling, if you will.
And yes, I concede, my comments although qualified with "may" and "pontentialy" could increase margins with an xMac do seem to indicate that Apple has hamstrung their profitability.
I'm not sure "marginalized" is the word I'd use. Niche market, perhaps. This word is often used as a pejorative to describe the entire Mac market, but without good cause IMO. Most companies decide where they want to be in a market. Few attempt to be all things to all people, and fewer still do it successfully.
The computer market is hardly a normal market. It is a strange and schizophrenic one, for reasons which I think most of us understand. Still, computer manufacturers cater to niches within the Windows PC market, although it may not seem that way, because the market is so vast, and we're not accustomed to thinking of it as being divided into niches. But it is.
Apple seems to have a pretty good feel for where they fit into today's overall market for PCs. I judge this by their growing bottom line, and by the fact that they've been increasing shipments of Macs at a far greater rate than the industry as a whole for the last few years, which translates into increased market share. I feel quite confident that they understand the market and will change their approach to it if and when the need arises. I am equally confident that they have no intention of deliberately limiting their profitability, if only because that concept flies in the face of the entire reason for being in business, and I certainly don't see any sign of it in their quarterly results.
I have to add that I find it puzzling that anyone would suggest that any company, let alone one which has done so screamingly well over the last several years, may not know how to approach their market in the most successful way. If they had not been hitting one home run after another, maybe.
I didn't, you did, by your own numbers, I never said that nor do I believe that.
No I know you didn't. But you still believe that there is a large market waiting for the xMac. I, respectfully, disagree and have at least tried to back up my argument with estimated numbers.
Quote:
That is for OS, which is different than market share.
No. It is market share. I know the difference. Apple's US share Q3 2008
Quote:
Or they could sell the most common style of computer on the Plant Earth.
Sold.. on earth? Well that would be notebooks
Re. the whole Apple segment growth thing.... what I mean... is that I doubt that any PC manufacturer will be growing much in the next few quarters (especially on the desktop) so that's a poor metric to use.
You are in violent agreement with me principle-wise. But Psystar isn't claiming they are making a Mac, so technically your particular point above doesn't apply. They are claiming their machine is as good as a Mac and runs the Mac OS adequately so you don't need to buy a Mac. It is a subtle difference, but exactly the difference the Psystar defenders are trying to use to justify the Psyatar case.
Violent? Sounds so... grisly.
Anyway, claims have nothing to do with it. They could claim that their combination of hardware and software is a Myna bird, but that wouldn't make it a Myna bird. Functionally, it's a Mac, and the Mac is the protected thing. This is the point I find myself repeating to such disturbingly little effect.
Quote:
Their point is if the only difference is ip, and ip (software parent and copyright) is by definition evil, then Psystar is in the good. Why make it any easier for them? Especially when it isn't just the software?
I'm completely disinterested in whether the truth makes it easier or harder for unknowledgeable people to spout complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps it would be more productive for people who are actually interested in the truth to focus on that instead.
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
That's hardly true either. Retailers do integrated multi-brand cross-promotions all the time without any acknowledgement from the manufacturers.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
"In 1999 Mattel sued the Utah artist Tom Forsythe over a series of photographs called Food Chain Barbie, which included a photograph of a Barbie doll in a blender. Mattel lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in costs to Mr. Forsythe."
Note, the example following the Forsythe case is very amusing (Dungeon Barbie), and is even more directly like the Twilight in box example. Matel still lost.
No I know you didn't. But you still believe that there is a large market waiting for the xMac. I, respectfully, disagree and have at least tried to back up my argument with estimated numbers.
Yes you did, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
No. It is market share. I know the difference. Apple's US share Q3 2008
My confusion over OS share stems from recent articles concerning Apple's OS share @ ~ 10%
I've read in the high 9s and the low 10s as a percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Sold.. on earth? Well that would be notebooks
I was talking desktops and I apologize I didn't specify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Re. the whole Apple segment growth thing.... what I mean... is that I doubt that any PC manufacturer will be growing much in the next few quarters (especially on the desktop) so that's a poor metric to use.
More the reason to offer a desktop form factor that meets the needs, real or perceived, or the desires of most of the buying public
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I'm not sure "marginalized" is the word I'd use. Niche market, perhaps. This word is often used as a pejorative to describe the entire Mac market, but without good cause IMO. Most companies decide where they want to be in a market. Few attempt to be all things to all people, and fewer still do it successfully.
The computer market is hardly a normal market. It is a strange and schizophrenic one, for reasons which I think most of us understand. Still, computer manufacturers cater to niches within the Windows PC market, although it may not seem that way, because the market is so vast, and we're not accustomed to thinking of it as being divided into niches. But it is.
Apple seems to have a pretty good feel for where they fit into today's overall market for PCs. I judge this by their growing bottom line, and by the fact that they've been increasing shipments of Macs at a far greater rate than the industry as a whole for the last few years, which translates into increased market share. I feel quite confident that they understand the market and will change their approach to it if and when the need arises. I am equally confident that they have no intention of deliberately limiting their profitability, if only because that concept flies in the face of the entire reason for being in business, and I certainly don't see any sign of it in their quarterly results.
I have to add that I find it puzzling that anyone would suggest that any company, let alone one which has done so screamingly well over the last several years, may not know how to approach their market in the most successful way. If they had not been hitting one home run after another, maybe.
Ok, not "marginalized" and "niche market".
I do believe Apple does know how to approach their market, as the market they target is specifically the iMac and Mac mini. They have done well, at the same time they have effectively limited their target market.
To summarize my opinions / arguments as this can go on endlessly, will crop up again and again on this board and many others, as I don't ever expect Apple to manufacture an xMac or anything resembling an xMac.
The iMac and Mac mini by design are "niche market computers"
The iMac's design specifically embodies the philosophy of Steve Jobs and Raskin that a computer for consumers should be like an appliance.
Both the iMac and Mac mini use laptop parts making them more expensive than necessary if the consumer doesn't place a premium on AIO or size
The Consumer buys towers rather than AIOs or minis in much larger numbers.
The iMac especially and the Mac mini are in the price range typically associated with more advanced users that desire flexibility, but they are designed for the new or less demanding consumer that would be fine with a much less expensive computer.
While laptops are capturing market share, until recently even desktops were selling more units ,sequentially over time, worldwide. Desktops for the foreseeable future will offer the benefits of flexibility(except for Apple consumer desktops)and more performance at a lower price, so I contend they will not cease to exist for a long time. As computers get more powerful, software will increasingly become more demanding, technology will continue to advance which will provide a market for more powerful desktops as opposed to lower power more expensive laptops.
thank you for your replies and arguments and we can just agree to disagree. I'll wait for the next reappearance of this topic as I know it will surface again and again and again.
Just to add one point which I think is critical and often overlooked: most people do not buy "performance." In fact when you look at ads for Windows PCs, a great many of them don't even quote the processor type and speed in way that a typical consumer could use to make meaningful comparisons. This is one reason why I think the "laptop parts" argument is shallow. Since virtually any new computer is going to be powerful enough for any task that most people will ever demand of it, hardly anyone really cares about specs anymore, except for computer geeks, some professionals, and gamers. So this is why Apple can focus on making nice packages, much nicer than most of the Windows PC makers can afford to attempt, and distinguish their products in a meaningful way that non-geek consumers actually understand.
Anyway, I think it's important to consider on occasion at least how Apple has managed to be successful competing with the Microsoft juggernaut, rather than continually predicting future failures. I do believe I've heard enough of the latter over the past 25 years to last a lifetime.
That's hardly true either. Retailers do integrated multi-brand cross-promotions all the time without any acknowledgement from the manufacturers.
WTF do you think the first line of the post you quoted says! [re-quoted below for truth] !!! We now have incontrovertible proof of your lack of ability to actually read and understand the words as they appear in the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
WTF do you think the first line of the post you quoted says! [re-quoted below for truth] !!! We now have incontrovertible proof of your lack of ability to actually read and understand the words as they appear in the post.
Apparently your forté is more projection rather than actually reading. Try again. Note the use of the work integrated.
Apparently your forté is more projection rather than actually reading. Try again. Note the use of the work integrated.
Trying to say "integrated" and "in one group" is different, when the context is product bundling, is like trying to say two and 2 represent numerically different values. Not even a nice try for that one.
"This week, the MyMac podcast crew interview CEO Rashantha De Silva of Quo Computer, the new maker of Macintosh computers. We go in-depth with Rashantha, asking the questions you want answers to"
Trying to say "integrated" and "in one group" is different, when the context is product bundling, is like trying to say two and 2 represent numerically different values. Not even a nice try for that one.
The context is that businesses regularly put products together in a package that goes far beyond just bundling, where a certain flagship brand is carrying the value for a parts/products/ingredients of lesser or off brands, all without the manufacturer having any say in the matter. Two boxes sold at the same time are not integrated. Multiple products installed or incorporated together and sold as one unit is integrated.
The context is that businesses regularly put products together in a package that goes far beyond just bundling, where a certain flagship brand is carrying the value for a parts/products/ingredients of lesser or off brands, all without the manufacturer having any say in the matter. Two boxes sold at the same time are not integrated. Multiple products installed or incorporated together and sold as one unit is integrated.
That's simply known as a bundle! Your attempt to redefine the landscape fails because it doesn't matter if one is worth more than another. You continue to serve dead red herrings.
That's simply known as a bundle! Your attempt to redefine the landscape fails because it doesn't matter if one is worth more than another. You continue to serve dead red herrings.
I am not talking about bundles. I'm taking about things that require manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. If you do not think there is a substantial difference, then you must also think that OS X cloners are just selling bundles too.
I am not talking about bundles. I'm taking about things that require manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. If you do not think there is a substantial difference, then you must also think that OS X cloners are just selling bundles too.
Everything sold requires manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. You just included "The World" in the logical sense most closely described as "damn near everything".
Comments
As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?
It hit Microsoft 10 years ago and is likely to hit Apple within 10 years.
The DOJ didn't go after Microsoft because they were successful. They went after Microsoft for exactly the same reason they'd gone after IBM the decade prior: because Microsoft was an extremely abusive monopoly. The trial record is public, go read it. Microsoft didn't even try to hide their contempt.
If Apple ever acts like that, the DOJ will probably drop the hammer and they will be right to. But the thing you need to remember is that it is not against the law to be a monopoly. It is against the law to abuse your status as a monopoly to unfairly freeze out competitors. The presumption of antitrust law, as applied to corporations, is that competition is healthy. Do you disagree?
Perhaps they should license their software to third parties, but NOT at the standard price. THose who buy Apple hardware would get a significant discount (rebate, however they want to play that money card) once it's registered on a Mac and offer a "discounted" upgrade pathway to the loyal cadre of Mac users.
This is precisely the sort of preferential treatment that could land them in hot water.
All Apple has to do is: point out that having one company be the sole source for one product line is obvious and with abundant precedent; not threaten to shut out developers unless they abandon support for rival technologies, the way Microsoft did, and; not develop products that have to be interfaced with closed, secret and proprietary technologies the way both Microsoft and IBM have done. As long as they sell Macs on the merits the DOJ has no case.
What baffles me is the cheek of the current generation of Mac cloners; they could save themselves a whole lot of hassle by letting the consumer install the software, as it puts the legal onus on the person buying the computer and not the vendor
They could, but that basically guarantees that the already-miniscule market for Mac clones would shrink to the point of irrelevance. If you're selling Macs then you're selling elegance and ease of use, and making the user patch and install their own operating system undermines those selling points completely. Anyone willing to do that is willing to build their own PC--or just repurpose a Windows PC--and pocket the savings from cutting out the middleman.
Are you thinking of trademark issues? For example Pepsi selling some sort of derogatory re-packaging of a Coke product? I could see issues there and clearly, when reselling another company's products, one would have to avoid issues with trademarks, but if businesses can't sell stuff, or put together special offers, or create their own unique displays, or bundle the item with other things, then retail in America is dead.
Maybe it's true, but I'd like to see a citation rather than an assertion.
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
See the 'Made for iPod' licenses, that's how tie-ins are legally done. If a manufacturer wants to not play 'Made for iPod' they just don't say iPod and don't use images of iPods in their marketing and packaging materials. Psystar, violates both of those separations in their use of OS X as a tied-in product dependency and don't have a license either.
I don't honestly know what you are going on about. The point which begs to be understood here is that it makes no difference whether the hardware is exactly the same or somewhat different. What matters to the IP question is the ultimate product, which is a Macintosh computer. Unauthorized parties may not manufacture and sell Macintosh computers, and it really doesn't make any difference how they go about it.
You are in violent agreement with me principle-wise. But Psystar isn't claiming they are making a Mac, so technically your particular point above doesn't apply. They are claiming their machine is as good as a Mac and runs the Mac OS adequately so you don't need to buy a Mac. It is a subtle difference, but exactly the difference the Psystar defenders are trying to use to justify the Psyatar case.
Their point is if the only difference is ip, and ip (software parent and copyright) is by definition evil, then Psystar is in the good. Why make it any easier for them? Especially when it isn't just the software?
It is patently obvious that the AIO computer is a very marginalized market. Apple gets by quite nicely in this market. It is also patently obvious that the vast majority of computers sold are not AIO, why?
Yes, the AIO design and the Mac mini have created a glass ceiling, if you will.
And yes, I concede, my comments although qualified with "may" and "pontentialy" could increase margins with an xMac do seem to indicate that Apple has hamstrung their profitability.
I'm not sure "marginalized" is the word I'd use. Niche market, perhaps. This word is often used as a pejorative to describe the entire Mac market, but without good cause IMO. Most companies decide where they want to be in a market. Few attempt to be all things to all people, and fewer still do it successfully.
The computer market is hardly a normal market. It is a strange and schizophrenic one, for reasons which I think most of us understand. Still, computer manufacturers cater to niches within the Windows PC market, although it may not seem that way, because the market is so vast, and we're not accustomed to thinking of it as being divided into niches. But it is.
Apple seems to have a pretty good feel for where they fit into today's overall market for PCs. I judge this by their growing bottom line, and by the fact that they've been increasing shipments of Macs at a far greater rate than the industry as a whole for the last few years, which translates into increased market share. I feel quite confident that they understand the market and will change their approach to it if and when the need arises. I am equally confident that they have no intention of deliberately limiting their profitability, if only because that concept flies in the face of the entire reason for being in business, and I certainly don't see any sign of it in their quarterly results.
I have to add that I find it puzzling that anyone would suggest that any company, let alone one which has done so screamingly well over the last several years, may not know how to approach their market in the most successful way. If they had not been hitting one home run after another, maybe.
I didn't, you did, by your own numbers, I never said that nor do I believe that.
No I know you didn't. But you still believe that there is a large market waiting for the xMac. I, respectfully, disagree and have at least tried to back up my argument with estimated numbers.
That is for OS, which is different than market share.
No. It is market share. I know the difference. Apple's US share Q3 2008
Or they could sell the most common style of computer on the Plant Earth.
Sold.. on earth? Well that would be notebooks
Re. the whole Apple segment growth thing.... what I mean... is that I doubt that any PC manufacturer will be growing much in the next few quarters (especially on the desktop) so that's a poor metric to use.
You are in violent agreement with me principle-wise. But Psystar isn't claiming they are making a Mac, so technically your particular point above doesn't apply. They are claiming their machine is as good as a Mac and runs the Mac OS adequately so you don't need to buy a Mac. It is a subtle difference, but exactly the difference the Psystar defenders are trying to use to justify the Psyatar case.
Violent? Sounds so... grisly.
Anyway, claims have nothing to do with it. They could claim that their combination of hardware and software is a Myna bird, but that wouldn't make it a Myna bird. Functionally, it's a Mac, and the Mac is the protected thing. This is the point I find myself repeating to such disturbingly little effect.
Their point is if the only difference is ip, and ip (software parent and copyright) is by definition evil, then Psystar is in the good. Why make it any easier for them? Especially when it isn't just the software?
I'm completely disinterested in whether the truth makes it easier or harder for unknowledgeable people to spout complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps it would be more productive for people who are actually interested in the truth to focus on that instead.
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
That's hardly true either. Retailers do integrated multi-brand cross-promotions all the time without any acknowledgement from the manufacturers.
But the specific example was a vendor creating some new semi-artistic thing and then putting in somebody else's work of art as the "hook" to buy the package. That is the dangerous slope because we are no longer talking about merely bundling together independent products, we ate talking about specifically making one product saleable based on a direct dependency to a name recognized product. This type of relationship has always required a licensing agreement, or a complete lack of using the product being depended on as part of the marketing materials.
Well, going back to Twilight in a coffin box, I don't think that is problematic. For example, see the paradoies and lawsuits section on Barbie in Wikipedia for several references, including this doozy:
"In 1999 Mattel sued the Utah artist Tom Forsythe over a series of photographs called Food Chain Barbie, which included a photograph of a Barbie doll in a blender. Mattel lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in costs to Mr. Forsythe."
Note, the example following the Forsythe case is very amusing (Dungeon Barbie), and is even more directly like the Twilight in box example. Matel still lost.
No I know you didn't. But you still believe that there is a large market waiting for the xMac. I, respectfully, disagree and have at least tried to back up my argument with estimated numbers.
Yes you did, thank you.
No. It is market share. I know the difference. Apple's US share Q3 2008
Sorry, I missed the part about Q3 2008.
It now stands @ ~7.4%
http://www.mactropolis.com/apple-new...in-q1-of-2009/
My confusion over OS share stems from recent articles concerning Apple's OS share @ ~ 10%
I've read in the high 9s and the low 10s as a percentage.
Sold.. on earth? Well that would be notebooks
I was talking desktops and I apologize I didn't specify.
Re. the whole Apple segment growth thing.... what I mean... is that I doubt that any PC manufacturer will be growing much in the next few quarters (especially on the desktop) so that's a poor metric to use.
More the reason to offer a desktop form factor that meets the needs, real or perceived, or the desires of most of the buying public
I'm not sure "marginalized" is the word I'd use. Niche market, perhaps. This word is often used as a pejorative to describe the entire Mac market, but without good cause IMO. Most companies decide where they want to be in a market. Few attempt to be all things to all people, and fewer still do it successfully.
The computer market is hardly a normal market. It is a strange and schizophrenic one, for reasons which I think most of us understand. Still, computer manufacturers cater to niches within the Windows PC market, although it may not seem that way, because the market is so vast, and we're not accustomed to thinking of it as being divided into niches. But it is.
Apple seems to have a pretty good feel for where they fit into today's overall market for PCs. I judge this by their growing bottom line, and by the fact that they've been increasing shipments of Macs at a far greater rate than the industry as a whole for the last few years, which translates into increased market share. I feel quite confident that they understand the market and will change their approach to it if and when the need arises. I am equally confident that they have no intention of deliberately limiting their profitability, if only because that concept flies in the face of the entire reason for being in business, and I certainly don't see any sign of it in their quarterly results.
I have to add that I find it puzzling that anyone would suggest that any company, let alone one which has done so screamingly well over the last several years, may not know how to approach their market in the most successful way. If they had not been hitting one home run after another, maybe.
Ok, not "marginalized" and "niche market".
I do believe Apple does know how to approach their market, as the market they target is specifically the iMac and Mac mini. They have done well, at the same time they have effectively limited their target market.
To summarize my opinions / arguments as this can go on endlessly, will crop up again and again on this board and many others, as I don't ever expect Apple to manufacture an xMac or anything resembling an xMac.
The iMac and Mac mini by design are "niche market computers"
The iMac's design specifically embodies the philosophy of Steve Jobs and Raskin that a computer for consumers should be like an appliance.
Both the iMac and Mac mini use laptop parts making them more expensive than necessary if the consumer doesn't place a premium on AIO or size
The Consumer buys towers rather than AIOs or minis in much larger numbers.
The iMac especially and the Mac mini are in the price range typically associated with more advanced users that desire flexibility, but they are designed for the new or less demanding consumer that would be fine with a much less expensive computer.
While laptops are capturing market share, until recently even desktops were selling more units ,sequentially over time, worldwide. Desktops for the foreseeable future will offer the benefits of flexibility(except for Apple consumer desktops)and more performance at a lower price, so I contend they will not cease to exist for a long time. As computers get more powerful, software will increasingly become more demanding, technology will continue to advance which will provide a market for more powerful desktops as opposed to lower power more expensive laptops.
thank you for your replies and arguments and we can just agree to disagree. I'll wait for the next reappearance of this topic as I know it will surface again and again and again.
Anyway, I think it's important to consider on occasion at least how Apple has managed to be successful competing with the Microsoft juggernaut, rather than continually predicting future failures. I do believe I've heard enough of the latter over the past 25 years to last a lifetime.
More the reason to offer a desktop form factor that meets the needs, real or perceived, or the desires of most of the buying public
Well I think you may have just encapsulated this whole debate in a nutshell!
Apple has decided to target the real needs of consumers, instead of the perceived needs.
That's hardly true either. Retailers do integrated multi-brand cross-promotions all the time without any acknowledgement from the manufacturers.
WTF do you think the first line of the post you quoted says! [re-quoted below for truth] !!! We now have incontrovertible proof of your lack of ability to actually read and understand the words as they appear in the post.
Businesses can normally bundle products together, it's just selling several independent things from independent vendors in one group. Everyone wins.
WTF do you think the first line of the post you quoted says! [re-quoted below for truth] !!! We now have incontrovertible proof of your lack of ability to actually read and understand the words as they appear in the post.
Apparently your forté is more projection rather than actually reading. Try again. Note the use of the work integrated.
Apparently your forté is more projection rather than actually reading. Try again. Note the use of the work integrated.
Link
The context is that businesses regularly put products together in a package that goes far beyond just bundling, where a certain flagship brand is carrying the value for a parts/products/ingredients of lesser or off brands, all without the manufacturer having any say in the matter. Two boxes sold at the same time are not integrated. Multiple products installed or incorporated together and sold as one unit is integrated.
The context is that businesses regularly put products together in a package that goes far beyond just bundling, where a certain flagship brand is carrying the value for a parts/products/ingredients of lesser or off brands, all without the manufacturer having any say in the matter. Two boxes sold at the same time are not integrated. Multiple products installed or incorporated together and sold as one unit is integrated.
That's simply known as a bundle! Your attempt to redefine the landscape fails because it doesn't matter if one is worth more than another. You continue to serve dead red herrings.
That's simply known as a bundle! Your attempt to redefine the landscape fails because it doesn't matter if one is worth more than another. You continue to serve dead red herrings.
I am not talking about bundles. I'm taking about things that require manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. If you do not think there is a substantial difference, then you must also think that OS X cloners are just selling bundles too.
I am not talking about bundles. I'm taking about things that require manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. If you do not think there is a substantial difference, then you must also think that OS X cloners are just selling bundles too.
Everything sold requires manufacturing, assembly, and/or installation. You just included "The World" in the logical sense most closely described as "damn near everything".
This isn't getting any better...