The consumer machines are a commodity so they do have to be priced as such. I think that's why the iBook is such a value, and the low end iMac is/will be on Monday. Apple always charges a premium for added value (superdrive with iDVD, combo drives that slot load, etc.)
The PowerMac is a different story. PowerMacs are not a commodity, they're mostly a tool. People will pay what they have to for a tool that does the job they want to do. Apple's PowerMac prices don't have to fall in line with other companies as long as they continue to offer tools that they others can't touch. If the current iApps are any indication then I don't think Apple has a whole lot to worry about.
That said, I think they need clustering (rackmount?) servers for the pure speed fix. I think the PowerMac need to become the middle ground product even if it costs as much as a high end PC. On top of the speed heap would be clusters.
Could gigawire be a way for clustered machines to speak to each other wirelessly? I guess it wouldn't be very helpful in a rackmount situation since the mounted machines are already so close, but what if the range was 150 feet? 300 feet? A mile? Every computer on campus could be dynamically brought in and out of a cluster. How would Maya run under those conditions?
You want to see a recent example of this in actual practice?
Look at SGI. Great products, huge margins, down the tubes!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive ( that last one was a bad joke. so sue me ). They should've never released an x86 machine.
Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive ( that last one was a bad joke. so sue me ). They should've never released an x86 machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks, you helped me make part of my point.
Yes, they were too expensive, and they did some stupid things like the proprietary memory,but those machines have unbelievable bandwidth which is the big bottleneck on a lot of computers, Macs included.
I was thinking more of their Unix offerings when I made those statements.
Perhaps the intent of my message was not clear.
SGI has made a lot of great products. Their arrogance made them believe that as long as they made great products, they could maintain those huge margins and charge astronomical prices for their products.
Although there are still features in their hardware that can do things that no other computers can touch, they are not worth the money that they are asking.
So, my point is that Apple can probably get away with charging a small premium because of the uniqueness and quality of their products, but they need to be careful that the perceived value is there.
In other words, I am willing to pay a little more to use an operating system that I perceive to be superior. At some point though, the economic realities of price vs. value will have influence people's buying decisions.
It's not just about price. You also need Insanely Great specs and that, as others have pointed out, is what the iBook gives. I want an Insanely Great price and Insanely Great specs.
I certainly agree that it sure does appear that they are not really all that interested in going beyond their 3-5% marketshare. 1800 dollar flat panel iMucks ain't gonna do it.. hell for quite a bit cheaper, one can get a iBook, something that SHOULD represent what they need to do. It has all the cool Apple features, AND is priced competatively. It's the ONLY machine is their lineup that can boast this. Face it, all the other machines are designed to sell to the installed base. :eek:
<strong>Nader would for sure. Gore probably would, too. Clinton's justice department was ready to nip Microsoft's balls off, and since Gore is more liberal than Clinton, I'm sure he would have pushed this matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gore probably would not have pushed for the breakup. Not in this economy... People would pin the whole thing on him (just like they are doing to bush and his tax cut <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ) and he would not get re-elected.
Nader on the other hand even if he won would have conceded, he was just running to put the green party on the map when it comes to caimpaign contributions....
d) Elect a president who's justice department will bust up the Microsoft monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The government should not and cannot perform the duties of the free market. I wanted Microsoft broken up just as much as many others did, which is quite uncharacteristic of a libertarian - I wanted them broken up just for GPs. Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.
Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. There has never been a better time for this to happen, but like you said, Apple needs to get all of it's ducks in a row.
Well, you didn't exactly say it that way, but you know.....
Last time I checked iBooks and iMacs gave about 4-6% margin while PM gave around 15-20%. Thats huge for a computer company.
Apple has no intention of taking on the 'big guys' any time soon people.
Apple has 5% of a huge market and effectively has a monopoly within that 5%. Why mess it all up?
Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.
Its a good analogy to compare oneself to a quality product like BMW and Merc. Heck , I dont think even COMBINED they have 5% market share.
Despite this... I still very much like the UFO theory
[quote]Apple has 5% of a huge market and effectively has a monopoly within that 5%. Why mess it all up?
Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.<hr></blockquote>
Don't be delusional. If you think the Apple board is happy with 5%, then why all the expeditures for increased R&D, Apple stores and the iPOD foray into consumer electronics.
As to the auto market share, why bother with the comparison. BMW sold about 900,000 autos last year, at a conservative $35,000 per unit. Apple sold about 4.5 million units at about [lets be generous] $2,000 per unit. Who do you think is the happy camper?
If you think 5% market share is good and Apple is happy with that, don't complain about the lack of drivers for peripherals or games coming late [or not coming at all] or features missing from software.
Comments
The PowerMac is a different story. PowerMacs are not a commodity, they're mostly a tool. People will pay what they have to for a tool that does the job they want to do. Apple's PowerMac prices don't have to fall in line with other companies as long as they continue to offer tools that they others can't touch. If the current iApps are any indication then I don't think Apple has a whole lot to worry about.
That said, I think they need clustering (rackmount?) servers for the pure speed fix. I think the PowerMac need to become the middle ground product even if it costs as much as a high end PC. On top of the speed heap would be clusters.
Could gigawire be a way for clustered machines to speak to each other wirelessly? I guess it wouldn't be very helpful in a rackmount situation since the mounted machines are already so close, but what if the range was 150 feet? 300 feet? A mile? Every computer on campus could be dynamically brought in and out of a cluster. How would Maya run under those conditions?
<strong>
You want to see a recent example of this in actual practice?
Look at SGI. Great products, huge margins, down the tubes!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive (
<strong>
Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive (
Thanks, you helped me make part of my point.
Yes, they were too expensive, and they did some stupid things like the proprietary memory,but those machines have unbelievable bandwidth which is the big bottleneck on a lot of computers, Macs included.
I was thinking more of their Unix offerings when I made those statements.
Perhaps the intent of my message was not clear.
SGI has made a lot of great products. Their arrogance made them believe that as long as they made great products, they could maintain those huge margins and charge astronomical prices for their products.
Although there are still features in their hardware that can do things that no other computers can touch, they are not worth the money that they are asking.
So, my point is that Apple can probably get away with charging a small premium because of the uniqueness and quality of their products, but they need to be careful that the perceived value is there.
In other words, I am willing to pay a little more to use an operating system that I perceive to be superior. At some point though, the economic realities of price vs. value will have influence people's buying decisions.
Does that make any sense???
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
<strong>Nader would for sure. Gore probably would, too. Clinton's justice department was ready to nip Microsoft's balls off, and since Gore is more liberal than Clinton, I'm sure he would have pushed this matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gore probably would not have pushed for the breakup. Not in this economy... People would pin the whole thing on him (just like they are doing to bush and his tax cut <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ) and he would not get re-elected.
Nader on the other hand even if he won would have conceded, he was just running to put the green party on the map when it comes to caimpaign contributions....
-Paul
Edit: Nader
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: psantora ]</p>
<strong>
d) Elect a president who's justice department will bust up the Microsoft monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The government should not and cannot perform the duties of the free market. I wanted Microsoft broken up just as much as many others did, which is quite uncharacteristic of a libertarian - I wanted them broken up just for GPs. Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.
<strong>
Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. There has never been a better time for this to happen, but like you said, Apple needs to get all of it's ducks in a row.
Well, you didn't exactly say it that way, but you know.....
PowerMacs and TiBooks are. PM especially.
Last time I checked iBooks and iMacs gave about 4-6% margin while PM gave around 15-20%. Thats huge for a computer company.
Apple has no intention of taking on the 'big guys' any time soon people.
Apple has 5% of a huge market and effectively has a monopoly within that 5%. Why mess it all up?
Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.
Its a good analogy to compare oneself to a quality product like BMW and Merc. Heck , I dont think even COMBINED they have 5% market share.
Despite this... I still very much like the UFO theory
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.<hr></blockquote>
Don't be delusional. If you think the Apple board is happy with 5%, then why all the expeditures for increased R&D, Apple stores and the iPOD foray into consumer electronics.
As to the auto market share, why bother with the comparison. BMW sold about 900,000 autos last year, at a conservative $35,000 per unit. Apple sold about 4.5 million units at about [lets be generous] $2,000 per unit. Who do you think is the happy camper?
If you think 5% market share is good and Apple is happy with that, don't complain about the lack of drivers for peripherals or games coming late [or not coming at all] or features missing from software.