Your kidding right? Do a search on that term from this site alone will bring you up a big listing of forum posts.
Its widely expected.....at some point....that Apple will unveil either a tablet or a netbook of some manifestation soon. Of those who think it will be a tablet of some sort many have nicknamed it the "mactouch". I personally think its not going to be a tablet or a netbook but some new category of mobile that no one has thought up yet.
How about a nine inch iPod touch kind of device but with a mini chicklet keyboard, no track-pad (use the screen instead) running both the iPhones OS and regular OSX by having two seperate snap on plates. A thin design for the mobile OS and a heavier and thicker seperate full OSX when you want iPhoto etc?
You seems to know a lot, are you running one of the big five computer companies, what is your vision of the computer industry and where it is heading and what are the innovations likely in these challenging time ahead?
How much of Acer's growth is due to the late 2007 acquisition of Gateway and the early 2008 purchase of Packard Bell?
Packard Bell isn't sold in the United States. But that is the question, is Acer really selling more machines or is the growth because they got to count the Gateway and eMachines sales?
[Apple] can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.
Apple could buy netbooks OEM'd from Acer, writer drivers for the Acer hardware that's not out-of-the-box compatible with OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the Acer logo, and sell them for a 20% markup. Starving students and road warriors would buy them in hordes.
BTW, that's essentially what tons of people are doing with their netbook Hackintoshes (install a hacked-up OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the PC maker's logo). I think the exploding popularity of the netbook-based Hackintosh marketplace (MSI Wind, Dell Mini 9, Asus Eee PC, etc) is evidence that there is a substantial market for these things.
Well, Apple makes a great product, but there are ways they can sell more Mac Units.
1- finally release revamped desktop models (new Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro)
2- include Blu-Ray integration into devices. including new monitors.
3- Release new Midsized Tower. One which is upgradable, powerful and a bargain.
Apple needs a $799 laptop as well, they have to price themselves a little better.
yes, Apple has better technology investment than their competitors, but they need to make some of their computers more affordable in this stressed economy. so... lets hope for this. if they do so they can expand their customer base.
oh well... we have tough economic times where companies need to offer more for the money, also it would be great to have a more dynamic and full product line to offer more choices for consumers on what they really need.
Hopefully, the new leadership at Apple will be inspired by these numbers.
What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?
These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.
So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?
Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:
A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.
I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.
Which means - the MILLIONS of folks who got Apple to where they are today, Print media, graphics designers, TV, Video, Musicians, Newspapers, Advertising Agency, Insurance Companies, Schools and MILLIONS of small businesses will now have to purchase a "Acer, HP, Dell", to get the latest or greatest desktop unit?
I believe this will make Apples shares slip ? right?
Desktop units are not a dying breed, unless you say "If we don't make it, "they won't but it"! And if this is the goal, then YES Apple desktop, any desktop units for that matter, are going to be a dying breed.
I for one, NEED 4 new desktop units & monitors, and WILL purchase 4 new Apple Desktop units, if they come out with them.
4 isn't many, but when you multiply by the MILLIONS who are just like us, and many of these folks NEEDING hundreds more then 4 units, then I for one, think this is still a great market place for Apple to GET back into.
Oh did I mention that there are OVER 5,000 LARGE manufacturing companies just in the Promotional Products world i.e., BIC pens, Norwood, Gieger Bros., Leeds and the list goes on and on that REQUIRE Mac files when sending in artwork for ANY items to be imprinted! This is OVER 800,000 Items that can be printed with your company name on them and all work is done on Apple computers.
No surprise. I love OS X but Apple continues to put out computers that are more and more expensive and at the same time give people what Apple wants to give them NOT what the customers want. Glossy screen, no fire wire......
I was all set to get a brand new Macbook but a $300 increase and specs I wasn't too crazy about(not to mention the black keys), were deal breakers.
The Iphone is a huge money maker for Apple but unless they want to see a continuation of lost market share in the computer area, do what most companies do. CATER TO THE CUSTOMER
Just more info suggesting that apple is ignoring the low end of the market and is starting to suffer because of it.
They need a decent budget laptop and a decent budget desktop (and in apple's case, "budget" necessarily means headless). And no the mini doesn't cut it, nor would a simple speed bump be likely to cut it either, they need to take advantage of the chips Intel offers AND switch from using all laptop parts when so much money could be saved simply by using the desktop equivalents.
Acer added 1MM units. Even if they are half the price of normal laptops, the question is if the added units made up for deteriation in average selling price.
From where I sit, a Netbook is an extra computer rather than a main computer. It might extend the time between purchase of a "main" computer, but it is a net benefit to both the consumer and the manufacturer (more money gets spent/more value is felt).
The market isn't as "nascent" as it was last August, and Apple is now trailing: every other manufacturer has a netbook offering (sans Toshiba?).
I think I represent Apple's current problem pretty well: my wife and I are not in a hurry to upgrade our Macs given the current economy. I am however happy to plunk down less than $500 on a new computer. This is a major problem to Apple, because it suggests that there is limited value (even to their high-end customers) for their premium product line.
Maybe it is a good time for SJ to step down.
I'm guessing Apple should put out a 900 dollar netbook like Sony did, that will do y'all good.
Hopefully, the new leadership at Apple will be inspired by these numbers.
What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?
These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.
So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?
Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:
A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.
Apple is doomed while Dell is not, meanwhile in the real world, Dell is laying off workers everyday despite them being in a better position than Apple according to you, you gotta love the internet, it has given the opportunity for you to learn whole lot.
Because Steve said it isn't the right time. The market is still in it's infancy. Plus they can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.
OTimer,
I think that you're being a little on the harsh side.
I do agree that the 17" MB and the Air, appear to be a bit of bad timing, but Apple, could well afford to do that, just for the panache it gives them in the industry. Hey, somebody's gotta make "The Best", or a
Rolls Royce.. ya know?
For instance, how do you know that Apple / Jobs aren't poised and ready to release a netbook within the year? If they do, it'll probably be the coolest of the bunch, and on the pricey side.
And, you know what it'll come with? (That nearly every Apple product does, under Jobs reign) MARGIN!
Acer will have to sell three of theirs to earn the MARGIN that Apple will earn off of one of their MB nanos.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have working mock-ups, and one in Steve's hands.
Good one. But I've never liked Job's use of the "puck" metaphor. Apple trails on technology as often as they lead. They seem to do things on their own time.
There is a difference between a fad and a sustainable business.
What makes you think it's a fad?
Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).
Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead?
Many.
Quote:
Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
No. The corresponding increase in sales will not offset the corresponding reduction in profit.
Quote:
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
There's not mid-tower Mac because the margins on AIOs are far higher and a mid-tower mac would destroy iMac sales.
Apple is a profitable company and wishes to remain that way.
Quote:
They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
High end gear is often made in the sasme factories as low end gear. It's the design and components that matter. Even using a higher end touch pad improves user experience over a low end touch pad. Look at the various netbook threads about Synamptics cs Sentelic touchpads.
Quote:
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
One reason was that in 2001 computers did cost a little more than today. Especially with netbooks. If you believe that Apple hasn't gained significant customers you're kidding yourself.
Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).
Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.
It's not a fad but it's also not a market that Apple is likely to address directly except for perhaps a slimmed down 10" MacBook for $899 with a dual core Atom. A $400 netbook just isn't in the cards.
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
When the Mini was first released it had a discrete ATI Radeon graphics card. Apple's page even remarked that it could be used as a decent gaming system, though of course not an advanced one. It's really sad that it went away. Or else I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Mini last August, even though it was a year old.
Comments
Your kidding right? Do a search on that term from this site alone will bring you up a big listing of forum posts.
Its widely expected.....at some point....that Apple will unveil either a tablet or a netbook of some manifestation soon. Of those who think it will be a tablet of some sort many have nicknamed it the "mactouch". I personally think its not going to be a tablet or a netbook but some new category of mobile that no one has thought up yet.
How about a nine inch iPod touch kind of device but with a mini chicklet keyboard, no track-pad (use the screen instead) running both the iPhones OS and regular OSX by having two seperate snap on plates. A thin design for the mobile OS and a heavier and thicker seperate full OSX when you want iPhoto etc?
Talk is cheap so show us the money.
How much of Acer's growth is due to the late 2007 acquisition of Gateway and the early 2008 purchase of Packard Bell?
Packard Bell isn't sold in the United States. But that is the question, is Acer really selling more machines or is the growth because they got to count the Gateway and eMachines sales?
[Apple] can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.
Apple could buy netbooks OEM'd from Acer, writer drivers for the Acer hardware that's not out-of-the-box compatible with OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the Acer logo, and sell them for a 20% markup. Starving students and road warriors would buy them in hordes.
BTW, that's essentially what tons of people are doing with their netbook Hackintoshes (install a hacked-up OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the PC maker's logo). I think the exploding popularity of the netbook-based Hackintosh marketplace (MSI Wind, Dell Mini 9, Asus Eee PC, etc) is evidence that there is a substantial market for these things.
1- finally release revamped desktop models (new Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro)
2- include Blu-Ray integration into devices. including new monitors.
3- Release new Midsized Tower. One which is upgradable, powerful and a bargain.
Apple needs a $799 laptop as well, they have to price themselves a little better.
yes, Apple has better technology investment than their competitors, but they need to make some of their computers more affordable in this stressed economy. so... lets hope for this. if they do so they can expand their customer base.
oh well... we have tough economic times where companies need to offer more for the money, also it would be great to have a more dynamic and full product line to offer more choices for consumers on what they really need.
What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?
These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.
So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?
Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:
Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
So why are they often in these discussions? Because they make a LOT of money?
Skip
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.
I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.
Which means - the MILLIONS of folks who got Apple to where they are today, Print media, graphics designers, TV, Video, Musicians, Newspapers, Advertising Agency, Insurance Companies, Schools and MILLIONS of small businesses will now have to purchase a "Acer, HP, Dell", to get the latest or greatest desktop unit?
I believe this will make Apples shares slip ? right?
Desktop units are not a dying breed, unless you say "If we don't make it, "they won't but it"! And if this is the goal, then YES Apple desktop, any desktop units for that matter, are going to be a dying breed.
I for one, NEED 4 new desktop units & monitors, and WILL purchase 4 new Apple Desktop units, if they come out with them.
4 isn't many, but when you multiply by the MILLIONS who are just like us, and many of these folks NEEDING hundreds more then 4 units, then I for one, think this is still a great market place for Apple to GET back into.
Oh did I mention that there are OVER 5,000 LARGE manufacturing companies just in the Promotional Products world i.e., BIC pens, Norwood, Gieger Bros., Leeds and the list goes on and on that REQUIRE Mac files when sending in artwork for ANY items to be imprinted! This is OVER 800,000 Items that can be printed with your company name on them and all work is done on Apple computers.
Skip
I was all set to get a brand new Macbook but a $300 increase and specs I wasn't too crazy about(not to mention the black keys
The Iphone is a huge money maker for Apple but unless they want to see a continuation of lost market share in the computer area, do what most companies do. CATER TO THE CUSTOMER
They need a decent budget laptop and a decent budget desktop (and in apple's case, "budget" necessarily means headless). And no the mini doesn't cut it, nor would a simple speed bump be likely to cut it either, they need to take advantage of the chips Intel offers AND switch from using all laptop parts when so much money could be saved simply by using the desktop equivalents.
Acer added 1MM units. Even if they are half the price of normal laptops, the question is if the added units made up for deteriation in average selling price.
From where I sit, a Netbook is an extra computer rather than a main computer. It might extend the time between purchase of a "main" computer, but it is a net benefit to both the consumer and the manufacturer (more money gets spent/more value is felt).
The market isn't as "nascent" as it was last August, and Apple is now trailing: every other manufacturer has a netbook offering (sans Toshiba?).
I think I represent Apple's current problem pretty well: my wife and I are not in a hurry to upgrade our Macs given the current economy. I am however happy to plunk down less than $500 on a new computer. This is a major problem to Apple, because it suggests that there is limited value (even to their high-end customers) for their premium product line.
Maybe it is a good time for SJ to step down.
I'm guessing Apple should put out a 900 dollar netbook like Sony did, that will do y'all good.
Hopefully, the new leadership at Apple will be inspired by these numbers.
What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?
These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.
So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?
Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:
Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.
Apple is doomed while Dell is not, meanwhile in the real world, Dell is laying off workers everyday despite them being in a better position than Apple according to you, you gotta love the internet, it has given the opportunity for you to learn whole lot.
Because Steve said it isn't the right time. The market is still in it's infancy. Plus they can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.
OTimer,
I think that you're being a little on the harsh side.
I do agree that the 17" MB and the Air, appear to be a bit of bad timing, but Apple, could well afford to do that, just for the panache it gives them in the industry. Hey, somebody's gotta make "The Best", or a
Rolls Royce.. ya know?
For instance, how do you know that Apple / Jobs aren't poised and ready to release a netbook within the year? If they do, it'll probably be the coolest of the bunch, and on the pricey side.
And, you know what it'll come with? (That nearly every Apple product does, under Jobs reign) MARGIN!
Acer will have to sell three of theirs to earn the MARGIN that Apple will earn off of one of their MB nanos.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have working mock-ups, and one in Steve's hands.
I doubt anyone here would be surprised, either.
Good one. But I've never liked Job's use of the "puck" metaphor. Apple trails on technology as often as they lead. They seem to do things on their own time.
There is a difference between a fad and a sustainable business.
What makes you think it's a fad?
Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).
Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.
How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead?
Many.
Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.
No. The corresponding increase in sales will not offset the corresponding reduction in profit.
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
There's not mid-tower Mac because the margins on AIOs are far higher and a mid-tower mac would destroy iMac sales.
Apple is a profitable company and wishes to remain that way.
They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
High end gear is often made in the sasme factories as low end gear. It's the design and components that matter. Even using a higher end touch pad improves user experience over a low end touch pad. Look at the various netbook threads about Synamptics cs Sentelic touchpads.
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
One reason was that in 2001 computers did cost a little more than today. Especially with netbooks. If you believe that Apple hasn't gained significant customers you're kidding yourself.
What makes you think it's a fad?
Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).
Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.
It's not a fad but it's also not a market that Apple is likely to address directly except for perhaps a slimmed down 10" MacBook for $899 with a dual core Atom. A $400 netbook just isn't in the cards.
Yep, anytime now.
Yep, Apple is doomed......... again.
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
When the Mini was first released it had a discrete ATI Radeon graphics card. Apple's page even remarked that it could be used as a decent gaming system, though of course not an advanced one. It's really sad that it went away. Or else I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Mini last August, even though it was a year old.