I found a receipt for the first Mac workstation that I purchased for my first business, ten years or so ago ? a Power Macintosh 7300/200, a 21" monitor and software.
It struck me how much more you get for your money on the hardware side of things (you'd be pushed to justify spending the same amount today). The only item on the receipt that would cost you more today was the software.
Actually on my latest computer purchase for a friend the cost of Software was $0. Everything needed was included except Office like products and Neooffice did great.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
1) Apple makes the majority of their money through hardware
2) Apple uses software as a way to leverage their hardware business.
Using these 2 factors, I conclude that my arguments are based entirely off of Apple's business model because
1) They are not Microsoft, trying to confuse hardware and software in the same business
2) They know all of their money is coming in through hardware sales and by running the same type of hardware as their competitors (which by the way, is more of a reason to go to Dell or HP instead of Apple) they need to use Mac OS X as a selling point.
I would like to be able to buy a motherboard and osX pack from Apple so that I can build my own macintosh for cheap... I don't really see any good reason why Apple shouldn't offer this, even if they don't/won't
I agree with you Dude ! Apple should make a Homebrew Kit let mac fans build and config their own systems. After all didn't the two steve's start out going to a Computer home brew club ?? (ref: pirates of silicon valley)..8)
I agree with you Dude ! Apple should make a Homebrew Kit let mac fans build and config their own systems. After all didn't the two steve's start out going to a Computer home brew club ?? (ref: pirates of silicon valley)..8)
Hmm... reasons Apple won't do this.
It would undercut their Mac sales
They would have to support more hardware configurations
There's not enough money in it to be worth the effort
I don't agree that we should kill Steve Jobs. I'm no killing machine anyway.
This means we need to protect Steve Jobs with our lives! If he dies then Apple might actually... license OS X! *gasp shock and horror now with pure disgust and extra vomit*
The time for Apple to license OS X is far behind them I think unless they can make iPods, iTunes, and iPhones, etc the core of their revenue, and a strong revenue stream at that, and move away from computers as their main source of revenue. Apple can't do what MS did in the 80s and 90s. They had their chance once and they won't get it back again. The truth is Apple will never become a high volume computer maker or capture much of the market from MS. Will they gain some market share? Yes and may even come close to 10% of the market. Apple at the moment needs their hardware sales.
And when the iPod craze wears off, what then? Until Apple introduced the thing in 2001, Apple was operating in the red or pretty close. With the radical designs and protectionist policies, the current crop of Mac users are not enough to keep the ship afloat, even with Steve. Most companies don't make the kind of mistake Apple did and get a second chance to be the driving player in their industry. Apple and the Mac are at their highest popularity and its the best opportunity to license the OS in a way that moves the industry forward in a way that Microsoft never could. I'm sick of this "wait and let them come to us" or "let's protect what have approach" that's left us just barely hanging on. I want to attack while we're at out strongest and Microsoft is at it's most vulnerable and Apple doesn't have the product line or user base to do it alone. The larger the Mac platform is as a whole the more secure it is and the larger chance Apple will be able to produce cutting edge niche computers. If they squander this chance as well, they deserve whatever fate comes to them.
The time for Apple to license OS X is far behind them I think unless they can make iPods, iTunes, and iPhones, etc the core of their revenue, and a strong revenue stream at that, and move away from computers as their main source of revenue. Apple can't do what MS did in the 80s and 90s. They had their chance once and they won't get it back again. The truth is Apple will never become a high volume computer maker or capture much of the market from MS. Will they gain some market share? Yes and may even come close to 10% of the market. Apple at the moment needs their hardware sales.
Well don't worry about Apple sitting around and getting old. Apple is still making great and new products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
And when the iPod craze wears off, what then? Until Apple introduced the thing in 2001, Apple was operating in the red or pretty close. With the radical designs and protectionist policies, the current crop of Mac users are not enough to keep the ship afloat, even with Steve. Most companies don't make the kind of mistake Apple did and get a second chance to be the driving player in their industry. Apple and the Mac are at their highest popularity and its the best opportunity to license the OS in a way that moves the industry forward in a way that Microsoft never could. I'm sick of this "wait and let them come to us" or "let's protect what have approach" that's left us just barely hanging on. I want to attack while we're at out strongest and Microsoft is at it's most vulnerable and Apple doesn't have the product line or user base to do it alone. The larger the Mac platform is as a whole the more secure it is and the larger chance Apple will be able to produce cutting edge niche computers. If they squander this chance as well, they deserve whatever fate comes to them.
You're worst then the guys on DellIdeaStorm telling Dell how they need to get back in shape and re-kick Microsoft OEM ass and go Linux.
Remember this isn't a war, and Apple isn't pulling any punches either. I think the Anti Vista Marketing in their Apple stores alone would be enough to tell you that they are not "wasting any chance" to market their Macs.
1) Apple makes the majority of their money through hardware
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
2) Apple uses software as a way to leverage their hardware business.
Leopard is the big unknown here. If Leopard is good, then that's not going to be good enough. Leopard has to be jaw-droppingly-great in order to encourage PC users to defect in large enough numbers and justify the Apple-hardware-only argument. If Leopard can't encourage masses of PC users to defect (and buy Apple hardware) then Apple may as well ditch the Macintosh platform. I can't see Apple turning their backs on a potentially massive 'OS X on PC' market in order to try and safeguard their slim-margin Macintosh line.
The future of Apple isn't the Macintosh anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that. There have been two giveaways: 1. Steve's little speech about how the soul of the Macintosh, now more than ever, is Mac OS X; you can read in to that that OS X can run on any hardware and it'll still be a 'Mac'; 2. Apple ditching the 'Apple Computer' name.
The future of Apple is in 'closed applicances' like the iPod, the iPhone and Apple TV ? running OS X. That's where the big/smart money is. As soon as the closed appliance market opens up, Apple will ditch/spin-off the Macintosh platform and licence Mac OS X for use on third party hardware. The next big thing on the hardware side is more likely to be the iPhone or Apple TV than a new Macintosh. And a lot of Apple's 'closed applicances' don't require PC users to switch in order to get money from them.
There was a similar product not so long ago that was Apple exclusive, and when Apple decided to make it compatible with the PC, the market, and the revenue, mushroomed. That product was the iPod.
There's nothing to stop the next iPod being something like AirPort Extreme. The wireless market is just waiting for a breakthrough 'idiot friendly' device, and I'll wager that there's more margin in an AirPort base station than there is in an iPod.
It was posted by someone a few posts ago in this thread.
Piracey is illegal, yes. Does nearly everyone pirate at some point in their use of a computer? Yes. It is going to happen. Somtimes the user is able to fork out some big cash once every 3yrs or so for a new computer or an upgrade, but then they have a hard time justifying paying HUGE sums for software.
Most users need at least:
couple games - usually 50-100$ each NEW
WOrd Proessor package - 100 - 2500$ NEW
Image editor - hundreds if not thousands NEW
these simple necessities are so expensive that its prohibitive.
Thagt's why people pirate. I would like to buy software, I really would! I want to support the developers. One of my best friends is a programmer.
If software was lower priced, like 50$ for a word processor, 25-35 for a game, taht would be great.
I also don't use most of my apps everyday. I play my cames once a week and use word processor when I write a resume.
The good news is that there is plenty of FREEWARE / opensource software. You can get OpenOffice and its great and can save a MS-WORD format for emailing your resume or whatever.
You could wait a year for the game you want and get it 1/2-1/3 the price, but by then its old and there's somthing new. It's hard enough to keep a computer fast enough to run the new games, but then to buy the games.
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
Not according to their annual report, which you should read before making such comments since its easily available.
Quote:
Gross margin percentage of 29.0% in 2006 remained flat as compared to 2005. The Company experienced more favorable pricing on certain commodity components including LCD flat-panel displays and DRAM memory and higher overall revenue that provided for more leverage on fixed production costs, offset by an increase in lower margin iPod sales and other music-related services.
and for 2005
Quote:
Gross margin percentage increased in 2005 to 29.0% of net sales from 27.3% of net sales in 2004. The Company?s gross margin during 2005 increased due to more favorable pricing on certain commodity components including LCD flat-panel displays and DRAM memory; an increase in higher margin software sales; a favorable shift in direct sales related primarily to the Company?s retail and online stores; and higher overall revenue that provided for more leverage on fixed production costs. These increases to gross margin were partially offset by an increase in lower margin iPod sales.
[emphasis mine]
These imply that it is iPod's that are under the most margin pressure and they are lowering the margin percentage. Given that on sales the Mac and iPod line are about equal (7.4 vs 7.7 billion USD in sales) they will want to maintain the higher margin percentage and total margin dollars associated with the Mac sales. Leopard (and CS3) will likely do this.
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
Leopard is the big unknown here. If Leopard is good, then that's not going to be good enough. Leopard has to be jaw-droppingly-great in order to encourage PC users to defect in large enough numbers and justify the Apple-hardware-only argument. If Leopard can't encourage masses of PC users to defect (and buy Apple hardware) then Apple may as well ditch the Macintosh platform. I can't see Apple turning their backs on a potentially massive 'OS X on PC' market in order to try and safeguard their slim-margin Macintosh line.
The future of Apple isn't the Macintosh anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that. There have been two giveaways: 1. Steve's little speech about how the soul of the Macintosh, now more than ever, is Mac OS X; you can read in to that that OS X can run on any hardware and it'll still be a 'Mac'; 2. Apple ditching the 'Apple Computer' name.
The future of Apple is in 'closed applicances' like the iPod, the iPhone and Apple TV ? running OS X. That's where the big/smart money is. As soon as the closed appliance market opens up, Apple will ditch/spin-off the Macintosh platform and licence Mac OS X for use on third party hardware. The next big thing on the hardware side is more likely to be the iPhone or Apple TV than a new Macintosh. And a lot of Apple's 'closed applicances' don't require PC users to switch in order to get money from them.
There was a similar product not so long ago that was Apple exclusive, and when Apple decided to make it compatible with the PC, the market, and the revenue, mushroomed. That product was the iPod.
There's nothing to stop the next iPod being something like AirPort Extreme. The wireless market is just waiting for a breakthrough 'idiot friendly' device, and I'll wager that there's more margin in an AirPort base station than there is in an iPod.
Apple doesn't have to stop making hardware. They're in a very unique position in that they're the only real mainstream boutique maker. The things apple sells you can't get elsewhere. Likewise There are things HP, or Dell, or even the gaming companies Mac that Apple does not. I'd also like to say a couple other things. Apple only competes in the vaguest since of the term with HP/Dell/ETC. In the same what they GMC or Pontiac "competes" with Mercedes Benz. In most cases the users needs and wants are so different that you're not going to see too many users leaving one for the other. The real open competition is Microsoft. In addition, products like iTV and iPhone benefit greatly the more computers running Mac OS X there are.
Well don't worry about Apple sitting around and getting old. Apple is still making great and new products.
Sebastian
I didn't say they were not making great products. They are. Heck I have one of them sitting at home. The point I was making is that Apple, IMHO, can't dump their Macs until they get revenue from other products. The money they'll get from selling OS X to Dell, etc. won't equal the money they get from selling their computers. At least not at first. I do agree that there may come a point when they'll want (can) do it, but I'd also think they'd want to dump their consumer desktop line before they dump their pro or laptop line. Apple makes great laptops and work stations, but most people seem to feel their consumer line is not up to par with PCs and might benefit the most from having "PCs" running OS X and Apple software. Since Apple now uses Intel the only real differences between an Apple-Dell and a Apple should be style and industrial design. With the later having more style. Hopefully Apple would see to it that any partner would produce the best computer as possible. Of course since none of us are Steve Jobs (that we know of ) this is all a fun flight of fancy.
Wrong, the real difference between Apple and Dell is Mac OS X. One may be more stylish but style isn't the number 1 selling point of a Mac. Mac OS X is, and these days running Windows too seems to come it at number 2.
Wrong, the real difference between Apple and Dell is Mac OS X. One may be more stylish but style isn't the number 1 selling point of a Mac. Mac OS X is, and these days running Windows too seems to come it at number 2.
Sebastian
The complete lack of towers is a big difference. If things were as simple as you say they are, many more Macs would be sold. The operating system is huge in a fight on equal terms, but because of the differences in hardware types you really don't see a fight on equal terms very often. When when the hardware you have cannot adequately do what you want it to do, it can be just as frustrating as using windows if not more. If Apple played by the same hardware rules as the PCs, I doubt many of you would be here.
Comments
It struck me how much more you get for your money on the hardware side of things (you'd be pushed to justify spending the same amount today). The only item on the receipt that would cost you more today was the software.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
1) Apple makes the majority of their money through hardware
2) Apple uses software as a way to leverage their hardware business.
Using these 2 factors, I conclude that my arguments are based entirely off of Apple's business model because
1) They are not Microsoft, trying to confuse hardware and software in the same business
2) They know all of their money is coming in through hardware sales and by running the same type of hardware as their competitors (which by the way, is more of a reason to go to Dell or HP instead of Apple) they need to use Mac OS X as a selling point.
Market share is irrlevant. Install base is what matters.
Sebastian
I would like to be able to buy a motherboard and osX pack from Apple so that I can build my own macintosh for cheap... I don't really see any good reason why Apple shouldn't offer this, even if they don't/won't
I agree with you Dude ! Apple should make a Homebrew Kit let mac fans build and config their own systems. After all didn't the two steve's start out going to a Computer home brew club ?? (ref: pirates of silicon valley)..8)
I agree with you Dude ! Apple should make a Homebrew Kit let mac fans build and config their own systems. After all didn't the two steve's start out going to a Computer home brew club ?? (ref: pirates of silicon valley)..8)
Hmm... reasons Apple won't do this.
- It would undercut their Mac sales
- They would have to support more hardware configurations
- There's not enough money in it to be worth the effort
SebastianApple is not going to license OS X as long as Steve Jobs is alive.
Have a nice day.
Apple is not going to license OS X as long as Steve Jobs is alive.
I don't agree that we should kill Steve Jobs. I'm no killing machine anyway.
I don't agree that we should kill Steve Jobs. I'm no killing machine anyway.
This means we need to protect Steve Jobs with our lives! If he dies then Apple might actually... license OS X! *gasp shock and horror now with pure disgust and extra vomit*
Sebastian
The time for Apple to license OS X is far behind them I think unless they can make iPods, iTunes, and iPhones, etc the core of their revenue, and a strong revenue stream at that, and move away from computers as their main source of revenue. Apple can't do what MS did in the 80s and 90s. They had their chance once and they won't get it back again. The truth is Apple will never become a high volume computer maker or capture much of the market from MS. Will they gain some market share? Yes and may even come close to 10% of the market. Apple at the moment needs their hardware sales.
Well don't worry about Apple sitting around and getting old. Apple is still making great and new products.
And when the iPod craze wears off, what then? Until Apple introduced the thing in 2001, Apple was operating in the red or pretty close. With the radical designs and protectionist policies, the current crop of Mac users are not enough to keep the ship afloat, even with Steve. Most companies don't make the kind of mistake Apple did and get a second chance to be the driving player in their industry. Apple and the Mac are at their highest popularity and its the best opportunity to license the OS in a way that moves the industry forward in a way that Microsoft never could. I'm sick of this "wait and let them come to us" or "let's protect what have approach" that's left us just barely hanging on. I want to attack while we're at out strongest and Microsoft is at it's most vulnerable and Apple doesn't have the product line or user base to do it alone. The larger the Mac platform is as a whole the more secure it is and the larger chance Apple will be able to produce cutting edge niche computers. If they squander this chance as well, they deserve whatever fate comes to them.
You're worst then the guys on DellIdeaStorm telling Dell how they need to get back in shape and re-kick Microsoft OEM ass and go Linux.
Remember this isn't a war, and Apple isn't pulling any punches either. I think the Anti Vista Marketing in their Apple stores alone would be enough to tell you that they are not "wasting any chance" to market their Macs.
Sebastian
1) Apple makes the majority of their money through hardware
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
2) Apple uses software as a way to leverage their hardware business.
Leopard is the big unknown here. If Leopard is good, then that's not going to be good enough. Leopard has to be jaw-droppingly-great in order to encourage PC users to defect in large enough numbers and justify the Apple-hardware-only argument. If Leopard can't encourage masses of PC users to defect (and buy Apple hardware) then Apple may as well ditch the Macintosh platform. I can't see Apple turning their backs on a potentially massive 'OS X on PC' market in order to try and safeguard their slim-margin Macintosh line.
The future of Apple isn't the Macintosh anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that. There have been two giveaways: 1. Steve's little speech about how the soul of the Macintosh, now more than ever, is Mac OS X; you can read in to that that OS X can run on any hardware and it'll still be a 'Mac'; 2. Apple ditching the 'Apple Computer' name.
The future of Apple is in 'closed applicances' like the iPod, the iPhone and Apple TV ? running OS X. That's where the big/smart money is. As soon as the closed appliance market opens up, Apple will ditch/spin-off the Macintosh platform and licence Mac OS X for use on third party hardware. The next big thing on the hardware side is more likely to be the iPhone or Apple TV than a new Macintosh. And a lot of Apple's 'closed applicances' don't require PC users to switch in order to get money from them.
There was a similar product not so long ago that was Apple exclusive, and when Apple decided to make it compatible with the PC, the market, and the revenue, mushroomed. That product was the iPod.
There's nothing to stop the next iPod being something like AirPort Extreme. The wireless market is just waiting for a breakthrough 'idiot friendly' device, and I'll wager that there's more margin in an AirPort base station than there is in an iPod.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...A6AC07C37.html
It was posted by someone a few posts ago in this thread.
Piracey is illegal, yes. Does nearly everyone pirate at some point in their use of a computer? Yes. It is going to happen. Somtimes the user is able to fork out some big cash once every 3yrs or so for a new computer or an upgrade, but then they have a hard time justifying paying HUGE sums for software.
Most users need at least:
couple games - usually 50-100$ each NEW
WOrd Proessor package - 100 - 2500$ NEW
Image editor - hundreds if not thousands NEW
these simple necessities are so expensive that its prohibitive.
Thagt's why people pirate. I would like to buy software, I really would! I want to support the developers. One of my best friends is a programmer.
If software was lower priced, like 50$ for a word processor, 25-35 for a game, taht would be great.
I also don't use most of my apps everyday. I play my cames once a week and use word processor when I write a resume.
The good news is that there is plenty of FREEWARE / opensource software. You can get OpenOffice and its great and can save a MS-WORD format for emailing your resume or whatever.
You could wait a year for the game you want and get it 1/2-1/3 the price, but by then its old and there's somthing new. It's hard enough to keep a computer fast enough to run the new games, but then to buy the games.
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
Not according to their annual report, which you should read before making such comments since its easily available.
Gross margin percentage of 29.0% in 2006 remained flat as compared to 2005. The Company experienced more favorable pricing on certain commodity components including LCD flat-panel displays and DRAM memory and higher overall revenue that provided for more leverage on fixed production costs, offset by an increase in lower margin iPod sales and other music-related services.
and for 2005
Gross margin percentage increased in 2005 to 29.0% of net sales from 27.3% of net sales in 2004. The Company?s gross margin during 2005 increased due to more favorable pricing on certain commodity components including LCD flat-panel displays and DRAM memory; an increase in higher margin software sales; a favorable shift in direct sales related primarily to the Company?s retail and online stores; and higher overall revenue that provided for more leverage on fixed production costs. These increases to gross margin were partially offset by an increase in lower margin iPod sales.
[emphasis mine]
These imply that it is iPod's that are under the most margin pressure and they are lowering the margin percentage. Given that on sales the Mac and iPod line are about equal (7.4 vs 7.7 billion USD in sales) they will want to maintain the higher margin percentage and total margin dollars associated with the Mac sales. Leopard (and CS3) will likely do this.
Yes, but only because they give most of their software away for free with their Macs. I also suspect that recently the hardware in question is the iPod, not the iMac. The Macintosh is probably the slimmest margin product in the Apple hardware portfolio.
Leopard is the big unknown here. If Leopard is good, then that's not going to be good enough. Leopard has to be jaw-droppingly-great in order to encourage PC users to defect in large enough numbers and justify the Apple-hardware-only argument. If Leopard can't encourage masses of PC users to defect (and buy Apple hardware) then Apple may as well ditch the Macintosh platform. I can't see Apple turning their backs on a potentially massive 'OS X on PC' market in order to try and safeguard their slim-margin Macintosh line.
The future of Apple isn't the Macintosh anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that. There have been two giveaways: 1. Steve's little speech about how the soul of the Macintosh, now more than ever, is Mac OS X; you can read in to that that OS X can run on any hardware and it'll still be a 'Mac'; 2. Apple ditching the 'Apple Computer' name.
The future of Apple is in 'closed applicances' like the iPod, the iPhone and Apple TV ? running OS X. That's where the big/smart money is. As soon as the closed appliance market opens up, Apple will ditch/spin-off the Macintosh platform and licence Mac OS X for use on third party hardware. The next big thing on the hardware side is more likely to be the iPhone or Apple TV than a new Macintosh. And a lot of Apple's 'closed applicances' don't require PC users to switch in order to get money from them.
There was a similar product not so long ago that was Apple exclusive, and when Apple decided to make it compatible with the PC, the market, and the revenue, mushroomed. That product was the iPod.
There's nothing to stop the next iPod being something like AirPort Extreme. The wireless market is just waiting for a breakthrough 'idiot friendly' device, and I'll wager that there's more margin in an AirPort base station than there is in an iPod.
Apple doesn't have to stop making hardware. They're in a very unique position in that they're the only real mainstream boutique maker. The things apple sells you can't get elsewhere. Likewise There are things HP, or Dell, or even the gaming companies Mac that Apple does not. I'd also like to say a couple other things. Apple only competes in the vaguest since of the term with HP/Dell/ETC. In the same what they GMC or Pontiac "competes" with Mercedes Benz. In most cases the users needs and wants are so different that you're not going to see too many users leaving one for the other. The real open competition is Microsoft. In addition, products like iTV and iPhone benefit greatly the more computers running Mac OS X there are.
Well don't worry about Apple sitting around and getting old. Apple is still making great and new products.
Sebastian
I didn't say they were not making great products.
Sebastian
Wrong, the real difference between Apple and Dell is Mac OS X. One may be more stylish but style isn't the number 1 selling point of a Mac. Mac OS X is, and these days running Windows too seems to come it at number 2.
Sebastian
The complete lack of towers is a big difference. If things were as simple as you say they are, many more Macs would be sold. The operating system is huge in a fight on equal terms, but because of the differences in hardware types you really don't see a fight on equal terms very often. When when the hardware you have cannot adequately do what you want it to do, it can be just as frustrating as using windows if not more. If Apple played by the same hardware rules as the PCs, I doubt many of you would be here.