Though logic and reason often play no part in Steve Jobs' cherished beliefs, today's news of HP "parachuting" out of its "burning plane," this is what football quarterbacks call "the hole." If Jobs was more committed to the Mac, he could use some of Apple's nearly $80 billion hoard of cash and launch a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign, similar to the commitment to the Mac when the "Get a Mac" television ad campaign was running with ever-fresh and hilarious scenarios that gave meaning to the term "PC Weenie."
But he won't. The obvious beneficiary, though only fortuitously, will be Dell. It could be Apple.
I read an article not too long ago that had in its title "Tablet Makers Worried Apple Will 'iPod' the Tablet Market."
With today's HP News, Apple (though with the chronology reversed) could parlay the opportunity such that they could "Mac" the personal computer market.
Give it a shot, Steve!
If you can afford to dabble in money-losing experiments like "Apple TV," you can surely afford to exploit this unexpected and rare opportunity with a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign (including the "necessary evil" of making sure everyone knows Macs run Windows -- even XP if you prefer!).
With today's HP News, Apple (though with the chronology reversed) could parlay the opportunity such that they could "Mac" the personal computer market.
Give it a shot, Steve!
If you can afford to dabble in money-losing experiments like "Apple TV," you can surely afford to exploit this unexpected and rare opportunity with a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign (including the "necessary evil" of making sure everyone knows Macs run Windows -- even XP if you prefer!).
Will he or won't he?
My prediction: He won't
A year-old Newsweek article (before the announcement of Lion and the revamped MacBook Air) and a small UK blog aren't exactly compelling evidence. Apple is a consumer-oriented company. They will keep making Macs as long as they tap a lucrative consumer market.
That said, I highly doubt they want to "Mac" HP's PC business. First, much of HP's PC business is in the enterprise market (selling Elitebooks to big companies thousands at a time for a small upfront margin and providing back-end support for a higher margin). Apple doesn't compete in that business. Remember, Apple is consumer-oriented. Second, they don't compete in HP's consumer segment, which is made up mostly mid-range Pavilion notebooks that sell for about $600-900. The Envy line is really a small part of HP's business, and one that Apple does quite well in with its current lineup.
Remember, Apple cares more about margin than volume. With iPad, they have both, but with the iPhone and Mac markets they seem content to let others bottom feed while they take the more lucrative premium segments.
Your thoughtful post is appreciated. One doesn't have to agree with me for me to appreciate quality contributions to the dialogue (as long as its dignified and mature).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
A year-old Newsweek article (before the announcement of Lion and the revamped MacBook Air) and a small UK blog aren't exactly compelling evidence. Apple is a consumer-oriented company. They will keep making Macs as long as they tap a lucrative consumer market.
We agree with the exception of Apple's approach. Apple could take a laissez faire approach to the Mac and not promote it (outside of their website). Let it fend for itself in the marketplace with no concerted marketing effort behind it and only word-of-mouth (from "cheerleaders" like me) to promote its sale.
Or, if they have a nearly $80 billion cash hoard and can afford to pursue what they have been directly quoting as a "hobby at this point," Apple TV, they can afford to at least lift a finger to promote the Mac. I can't see how this is an unreasonable position.
The BIG difference, is that, unlike the money-losing "hobby," Apple TV, I will bet anyone (donation to charity of their choice) that some Mac television, print, and, yes, RADIO, advertisements would more than pay for themselves in increased Mac sales. (I could get into the whole discounted and underutilized radio ad matter, but this post will end up far too long as it is. I CAN'T HELP IT! IT'S AN APPLE PASSION THING!)
Quote:
That said, I highly doubt they want to "Mac" HP's PC business.
You misunderstand me.
Quote:
Second, they don't compete in HP's consumer segment, which is made up mostly mid-range Pavilion notebooks that sell for about $600-900. The Envy line is really a small part of HP's business, and one that Apple does quite well in with its current lineup.
I'm not talking about shuffling Apple's product line positioning in the wake of the HP news, I'm talking about advertising the Mac!
HP and Dell's BIGGEST mistake was buckling under the pressure of the calls from tech journalists, financial analysts, large shareholders, customers and probably highly-paid outside consultants, to "play" in the sub-$1,000 market. It should have been blindingly obvious, that this was to be the entry point to a downward death spiral, as the cutthroat-competitive PC market would unendingly undercut each other in price like two gas stations across the street from one another.
The cycle was, HP and Dell entered the sub-$1,000 market and tried to maintain margins by using cheaper components and housing. Customers noticed that these inexpensive PCs now noticeably "creaked" if you lifted the keyboard up by only one side (like Gateway keyboards have always done). The plastic housings of these sub-$1,000 machines now had "give" if you pressed into the side of the plastic housing. They were lighter.
Maximizing margins also meant resorting to cheaper internal components instead of "best-of-breed" components. Customer support was trimmed. Quality control procedures were scaled back to save money and maximize margins. DOA units, reliability and failure issues began to surface as a result, and the prospect of fixing, or worse, replacing a machine under warrantee erased any profit margin, and then some. Sales of these machines suffered as a result and (no turning back -- you're now a charter member of the sub-$1,000 market) in response, the likes of HP and Dell -- again -- lowered prices and maximized margins with even cheaper components and COGS cutbacks. (See where this viscous cycle is going/has gone?)
The recent news articles report that HP had strong unit sales, but paltry margins. HP realized this would only continue, so they bailed while they could still cut their losses.
The above is just as true for Dell. When Dell owned the solid leadership position as the highest selling PC maker, Dell PCs were never the cheapest on the market -- and yet they vastly outsold cheaper computers. Dell once had a classy brand identity and reputation for quality and service and support. Consumers had a choice: do I buy a cheaper PC from a lesser-brand and save, maybe $400, or do I spend a little more to get a Dell?
The results were clear. But, like HP, Dell too succumbed to the pressure to play in the sub-$1,000 market and did exactly what HP did. Dell stepped onto the top of the inevitable death spiral and has suffered and is suffering. My money's not on things turning out well for Dell.
For once, Steve Jobs' obstinacy paid off. He too felt the same intense pressure to enter the sub-$1,000 market and he stubbornly refused. And what a toll that's taken on Apple! (Inherent sarcasm should be obvious.)
I would venture a guess that if you surveyed a large sample of (computer ambivalent -- e.g. I don't belong in such a survey) Mac buyers, asking them why they paid so much more for their Mac than a Windows PC costing half as much or even less, answers might resemble:
"I don't know, I just felt it was worth the extra money to get an Apple. Macs surely cost a lot more than PCs, but when you look at a Mac, you can plainly see it's quality construction, and when you try one out in a store, you notice the care and investment Apple has put into making using their computers an easy and high-quality experience for the user. I think Macs cost more than PCs for a reason, and I think PCs are so much cheaper for a reason, too. I'm wary of 'bargain-basement' priced PCs. I get the feeling that in the long-run, those cheap PCs will wind up costing me a fortune."
The cycle was, HP and Dell entered the sub-$1,000 market and tried to maintain margins by using cheaper components and housing. Customers noticed that these inexpensive PCs now noticeably "creaked" if you lifted the keyboard up by only one side (like Gateway keyboards have always done). The plastic housings of these sub-$1,000 machines now had "give" if you pressed into the side of the plastic housing. They were lighter. Maximizing margins also meant resorting to cheaper internal components instead of "best-of-breed" components. DOA, reliability and failure issues began to surface as a result, and the prospect of replacing or fixing a machine under warrantee erased any profit margin, and then some. Sales of these machines suffered as a result and (no turning back -- you're a player in the sub-$1,000 market) in response, the likes of HP and Dell lowered prices and maximized margins with even cheaper components. (See where this viscous cycle is going/has gone?)
Prices are so low, my neighbors treated their dirt-cheap PC like a disposable razor when it died recently, and they just went out and bought a new (probably even cheaper).
The recent news articles report that HP had strong unit sales, but paltry margins. HP realized this would only continue, so they bailed while they could still cut their losses.
The above is just as true for Dell. When Dell owned the solid leadership position as the highest selling PC maker, Dell PCs were never the cheapest on the market -- and yet they outsold cheaper computers. Dell once had a classy brand identity and reputation for quality and service. Consumers had a choice: do I buy a cheaper PC from a lesser-brand and save, maybe $400, or do I spend a little more to get a Dell?
The results were clear. But, like HP, Dell too succumbed to the pressure to play in the sub-$1,000 market and did exactly what HP did. Dell stepped onto the top of the inevitable death spiral and has suffered and is suffering. My money's not on things turning out for Dell.
When I saw at my local Wal*Mart a wooden pallet on the sales floor piled with brown Dell boxes, and with a sign taped to it reading, "Sale -- complete Dell desktop PC with Windows 7 Home Edition, including 19" flat screen LCD display, only $599”," I knew it was over.
(BTW, next to the pallet of Dells was a towering floor display of 24-pack generic paper towels.)
What environment reflects better on the product and brand: that described above, or in an Apple Store in the Louvre? (Or 5th Ave., NYC, or Grand Central Terminal? Or any Apple Store.)
I know, I know, Wal*Mart is by far the largest retail distribution channel on the planet and sooooo attractive to any product maker, but at what cost? You have no control over how their many, many stores present your product, in addition to Wal*Mart's reputation as a deep-discounter of cheap products rub off on your brand. (And once the toothpaste is out of the tube....) Once Dell's sterling image was indelibly tarnished, you can go back to being a premium computer maker. But they'd still have that lofty reputation if they fought off temptation and stuck to quality that used to make consumers want to pay "a little more for a Dell."
As Marshall McLuhan famously said, "The medium is the message."
That's why you can buy Timex watches at Wal*Mart but not Rolexes. (And why Rolex doesn't compete in Timex's space.)
As a parallel example from yesteryear, after the late 70's gas shortages, and the attendant explosion in the manufacturing and sales of compact cars, GM buckled to pressure to offer a low-cost, compact, fuel-efficient Cadillac model called the Cimarron. Logic says that people would jump at the chance to own a Cadillac, a car line they expected never to be able to afford in their lifetimes! But consumer behavior has no regard for logic. To consumers, a Cadillac was an enormous, expensive, premium, gas-guzzling status symbol. An affordable compact model like the Cimarron was a Cadillac in a titular sense only.
But was this borne out by the numbers? Boy howdy!
Perhaps desperate to avoid admitting a mistake and cutting their losses early, GM spent profligate amounts of money to market this "Edsel" for 7 years! SEVEN!
In all, GM manufactured a total of 132,499 Cadillac Cimarrons -- that's manufactured, not sold.
So for once, Steve Jobs' obstinance has paid off. He too felt the intense pressure from all quarters to enter the sub-$1,000 personal computer market, and he stubbornly refused. And what a toll it's taken on Apple! (The sarcasm should be obvious.)
Last I heard, Apple had 91% share of the market for above-$1,000 computers. Good economy/bad economy, there are enough consumers left who suspect that fire sale-priced PC desktops or notebooks might prove a quality control nightmare, costing them hours on the phone (including after the toll-free, free tech support period has ended) and prove in the long run to be far more expensive than it was at the cash register.
Consumers prize quality and are willing to pay for it. They know the difference between price and value. The top-selling iPad 2 is the highest priced, top-of-the-line, 64GB, 3G model.
By Apple "iPod-ing" the personal computer market with the Mac (like they iPod-ed the Tablet market -- a term I predict will soon become obsolete as "there is only the iPad"), it does not follow that I mean Apple should fill the vacuum HP has left by selling Macs in that suicidal price category.
I mean that with a MAJOR player suddenly off the field, what a perfect time to step up Mac marketing with a complete campaign including television ads (and mention of its ability to run Windows).
Quote:
Remember, Apple cares more about margin than volume. With iPad, they have both, but with the iPhone and Mac markets they seem content to let others bottom feed while they take the more lucrative premium segment.
The bottom-feeders part is true, especially since it seems to be suicide, but IMHO, Apple cares as much about volume as margin. If you ask Windows/Mac ISVs who offer only some of their apps for the Mac what Apple could do to incentives them to develop for the Mac more, they probably won't say, "Make the SDK more approachable and easier to use," they'll say, "Sell more Macs."
Back when the Cell-chip based Playstation was introduced, developers quickly found out it was a BEAR to program for. But development for the console flourished when unit sales rocketed. Easy to program for/hard to program for, installed base trumpt all other concerns.
If Apple sells more units, more software will be developed for it, and with a broad choice of quality software available for the Mac, Apple will in turn sell more units, prompting more software development and increasing unit sales, prompting more software--well, you get the picture...
Spending a lot on product development, from costly materials, industrial design, the finest components, (engineers whose sole job is to study the weight of the base of Apple notebooks versus the lid/display so that when you open the laptop on a flat surface, the base doesn't flip up -- try that on most any Wintel notebook. I should mention that this team did not succeed in this goal with the MacBook Air, whose base flips up when you open the lid and slams back down or you have to pry the base down), the most extensive thermal dynamics engineering in the computer industry, teams devoted entirely to power management for rechargeable Apple products, and on, and on, is not money wasted. In countless ways, when a consumer has one of these Apple products in hand, the care and expense Apple went to, does not go unnoticed. It increases brand image and goodwill, and in turn, long-term brand-loyalty.
If Apple had lower margins, such lengths and expense of developing products that reflect so well on the company (increasing brand-loyalty and sales for as far as the eye can see) would not be possible -- and Apple would not be the most valuable company in the U.S. now. ("What recession?")
Apple should aggressively market the Mac. This was true before the HP news.
There is no justifiable reason for not doing so (like, "We can't afford it."), except that an atmosphere has swept through every part of Apple that says the Mac should be sunsetted proactively by Apple as opposed to letting the consumer and marketplace decide.
I firmly believe Steve Jobs wants the Mac gone and is working incrementally to hasten the process. With this prevailing attitude, allocating company resources to the Mac or (Mac) OS X does not make sense. I believe all further changes to OS X ("Mac" is officially out of its title -- "Oh, but this is a harmless, meaningless detail that portends nothing.") will be, shall we say, "iOSing" the Mac UI so that when the Mac is killed, we Mac-devotees, who in the past have been known to make made noise over issues involving the Mac, will hardly notice the change. We'll be so brainwashed; "What Mac?"
The only Mac in the entire line Steve likes is the MacBook Air. The next edition may not contain "Mac" in its name, and the next MacBook Pros will probably not have integrated optical drives, or even a BTO option for one.
I hope I am wrong. I love my iPad 2. I love my iPhone and will love the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 -- Oh! And I love my iPod nano for when the iPhone is too big for the circumstances (running).
And I love my Mac Pro.
They need not have to replace each other. I'll own an iPad, iPhone AND the top-of-the-line Mac Pro for as long as Apple sells them. While there is overlap, they all serve different and unique functions, and I need them all.
I should think such lack of "cannibalization" should be music to their ears, and they won't pull the plug on the Mac.
Does anyone think it likely that Apple will produce another type of computer [different from the current product line] and name it some other type of apple within the next 3 years?
Does anyone think it likely that Apple will produce another type of computer [different from the current product line] and name it some other type of apple within the next 3 years?
What do you mean "some other type of apple?' Like Granny Smith?
I'm more inclined to think they will bring back the MacBook line. Maybe have the current MacBook Pro design with the big clunky chassis and optical disc drive being called the new MacBook with the new taper svelte deisgn vis-Ã*-vis the MacBook Air, but larger than the MacBook Air, be the new MacBook Pro.
Does anyone think it likely that Apple will produce another type of computer [different from the current product line] and name it some other type of apple within the next 3 years?
Not at all, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
What do you mean "some other type of apple?' Like Granny Smith?
That'd go over well. GranBook, iGran, Gran Mini…
New string of commercials… two geriatrics, one in a 30s-style suit, one in an Elvis getup: "Hello, I'm a Gran." "And I want soup!"
Comments
Man, that post when on for Infinity and Beyond!
My bad.
Looky
Looky, looky: Newsweek!
Though logic and reason often play no part in Steve Jobs' cherished beliefs, today's news of HP "parachuting" out of its "burning plane," this is what football quarterbacks call "the hole." If Jobs was more committed to the Mac, he could use some of Apple's nearly $80 billion hoard of cash and launch a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign, similar to the commitment to the Mac when the "Get a Mac" television ad campaign was running with ever-fresh and hilarious scenarios that gave meaning to the term "PC Weenie."
But he won't. The obvious beneficiary, though only fortuitously, will be Dell. It could be Apple.
I read an article not too long ago that had in its title "Tablet Makers Worried Apple Will 'iPod' the Tablet Market."
With today's HP News, Apple (though with the chronology reversed) could parlay the opportunity such that they could "Mac" the personal computer market.
Give it a shot, Steve!
If you can afford to dabble in money-losing experiments like "Apple TV," you can surely afford to exploit this unexpected and rare opportunity with a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign (including the "necessary evil" of making sure everyone knows Macs run Windows -- even XP if you prefer!).
Will he or won't he?
My prediction: He won't
Man, that post when on for Infinity and Beyond!
My bad.
And the spelling mistake ("when" instead of "went") was my bad!
Looky
Looky, looky: Newsweek!
With today's HP News, Apple (though with the chronology reversed) could parlay the opportunity such that they could "Mac" the personal computer market.
Give it a shot, Steve!
If you can afford to dabble in money-losing experiments like "Apple TV," you can surely afford to exploit this unexpected and rare opportunity with a highly-visible Mac marketing campaign (including the "necessary evil" of making sure everyone knows Macs run Windows -- even XP if you prefer!).
Will he or won't he?
My prediction: He won't
A year-old Newsweek article (before the announcement of Lion and the revamped MacBook Air) and a small UK blog aren't exactly compelling evidence. Apple is a consumer-oriented company. They will keep making Macs as long as they tap a lucrative consumer market.
That said, I highly doubt they want to "Mac" HP's PC business. First, much of HP's PC business is in the enterprise market (selling Elitebooks to big companies thousands at a time for a small upfront margin and providing back-end support for a higher margin). Apple doesn't compete in that business. Remember, Apple is consumer-oriented. Second, they don't compete in HP's consumer segment, which is made up mostly mid-range Pavilion notebooks that sell for about $600-900. The Envy line is really a small part of HP's business, and one that Apple does quite well in with its current lineup.
Remember, Apple cares more about margin than volume. With iPad, they have both, but with the iPhone and Mac markets they seem content to let others bottom feed while they take the more lucrative premium segments.
A year-old Newsweek article (before the announcement of Lion and the revamped MacBook Air) and a small UK blog aren't exactly compelling evidence. Apple is a consumer-oriented company. They will keep making Macs as long as they tap a lucrative consumer market.
We agree with the exception of Apple's approach. Apple could take a laissez faire approach to the Mac and not promote it (outside of their website). Let it fend for itself in the marketplace with no concerted marketing effort behind it and only word-of-mouth (from "cheerleaders" like me) to promote its sale.
Or, if they have a nearly $80 billion cash hoard and can afford to pursue what they have been directly quoting as a "hobby at this point," Apple TV, they can afford to at least lift a finger to promote the Mac. I can't see how this is an unreasonable position.
The BIG difference, is that, unlike the money-losing "hobby," Apple TV, I will bet anyone (donation to charity of their choice) that some Mac television, print, and, yes, RADIO, advertisements would more than pay for themselves in increased Mac sales. (I could get into the whole discounted and underutilized radio ad matter, but this post will end up far too long as it is. I CAN'T HELP IT! IT'S AN APPLE PASSION THING!)
That said, I highly doubt they want to "Mac" HP's PC business.
You misunderstand me.
Second, they don't compete in HP's consumer segment, which is made up mostly mid-range Pavilion notebooks that sell for about $600-900. The Envy line is really a small part of HP's business, and one that Apple does quite well in with its current lineup.
I'm not talking about shuffling Apple's product line positioning in the wake of the HP news, I'm talking about advertising the Mac!
HP and Dell's BIGGEST mistake was buckling under the pressure of the calls from tech journalists, financial analysts, large shareholders, customers and probably highly-paid outside consultants, to "play" in the sub-$1,000 market. It should have been blindingly obvious, that this was to be the entry point to a downward death spiral, as the cutthroat-competitive PC market would unendingly undercut each other in price like two gas stations across the street from one another.
The cycle was, HP and Dell entered the sub-$1,000 market and tried to maintain margins by using cheaper components and housing. Customers noticed that these inexpensive PCs now noticeably "creaked" if you lifted the keyboard up by only one side (like Gateway keyboards have always done). The plastic housings of these sub-$1,000 machines now had "give" if you pressed into the side of the plastic housing. They were lighter.
Maximizing margins also meant resorting to cheaper internal components instead of "best-of-breed" components. Customer support was trimmed. Quality control procedures were scaled back to save money and maximize margins. DOA units, reliability and failure issues began to surface as a result, and the prospect of fixing, or worse, replacing a machine under warrantee erased any profit margin, and then some. Sales of these machines suffered as a result and (no turning back -- you're now a charter member of the sub-$1,000 market) in response, the likes of HP and Dell -- again -- lowered prices and maximized margins with even cheaper components and COGS cutbacks. (See where this viscous cycle is going/has gone?)
The recent news articles report that HP had strong unit sales, but paltry margins. HP realized this would only continue, so they bailed while they could still cut their losses.
The above is just as true for Dell. When Dell owned the solid leadership position as the highest selling PC maker, Dell PCs were never the cheapest on the market -- and yet they vastly outsold cheaper computers. Dell once had a classy brand identity and reputation for quality and service and support. Consumers had a choice: do I buy a cheaper PC from a lesser-brand and save, maybe $400, or do I spend a little more to get a Dell?
The results were clear. But, like HP, Dell too succumbed to the pressure to play in the sub-$1,000 market and did exactly what HP did. Dell stepped onto the top of the inevitable death spiral and has suffered and is suffering. My money's not on things turning out well for Dell.
For once, Steve Jobs' obstinacy paid off. He too felt the same intense pressure to enter the sub-$1,000 market and he stubbornly refused. And what a toll that's taken on Apple! (Inherent sarcasm should be obvious.)
I would venture a guess that if you surveyed a large sample of (computer ambivalent -- e.g. I don't belong in such a survey) Mac buyers, asking them why they paid so much more for their Mac than a Windows PC costing half as much or even less, answers might resemble:
"I don't know, I just felt it was worth the extra money to get an Apple. Macs surely cost a lot more than PCs, but when you look at a Mac, you can plainly see it's quality construction, and when you try one out in a store, you notice the care and investment Apple has put into making using their computers an easy and high-quality experience for the user. I think Macs cost more than PCs for a reason, and I think PCs are so much cheaper for a reason, too. I'm wary of 'bargain-basement' priced PCs. I get the feeling that in the long-run, those cheap PCs will wind up costing me a fortune."
The cycle was, HP and Dell entered the sub-$1,000 market and tried to maintain margins by using cheaper components and housing. Customers noticed that these inexpensive PCs now noticeably "creaked" if you lifted the keyboard up by only one side (like Gateway keyboards have always done). The plastic housings of these sub-$1,000 machines now had "give" if you pressed into the side of the plastic housing. They were lighter. Maximizing margins also meant resorting to cheaper internal components instead of "best-of-breed" components. DOA, reliability and failure issues began to surface as a result, and the prospect of replacing or fixing a machine under warrantee erased any profit margin, and then some. Sales of these machines suffered as a result and (no turning back -- you're a player in the sub-$1,000 market) in response, the likes of HP and Dell lowered prices and maximized margins with even cheaper components. (See where this viscous cycle is going/has gone?)
Prices are so low, my neighbors treated their dirt-cheap PC like a disposable razor when it died recently, and they just went out and bought a new (probably even cheaper).
The recent news articles report that HP had strong unit sales, but paltry margins. HP realized this would only continue, so they bailed while they could still cut their losses.
The above is just as true for Dell. When Dell owned the solid leadership position as the highest selling PC maker, Dell PCs were never the cheapest on the market -- and yet they outsold cheaper computers. Dell once had a classy brand identity and reputation for quality and service. Consumers had a choice: do I buy a cheaper PC from a lesser-brand and save, maybe $400, or do I spend a little more to get a Dell?
The results were clear. But, like HP, Dell too succumbed to the pressure to play in the sub-$1,000 market and did exactly what HP did. Dell stepped onto the top of the inevitable death spiral and has suffered and is suffering. My money's not on things turning out for Dell.
When I saw at my local Wal*Mart a wooden pallet on the sales floor piled with brown Dell boxes, and with a sign taped to it reading, "Sale -- complete Dell desktop PC with Windows 7 Home Edition, including 19" flat screen LCD display, only $599”," I knew it was over.
(BTW, next to the pallet of Dells was a towering floor display of 24-pack generic paper towels.)
What environment reflects better on the product and brand: that described above, or in an Apple Store in the Louvre? (Or 5th Ave., NYC, or Grand Central Terminal? Or any Apple Store.)
I know, I know, Wal*Mart is by far the largest retail distribution channel on the planet and sooooo attractive to any product maker, but at what cost? You have no control over how their many, many stores present your product, in addition to Wal*Mart's reputation as a deep-discounter of cheap products rub off on your brand. (And once the toothpaste is out of the tube....) Once Dell's sterling image was indelibly tarnished, you can go back to being a premium computer maker. But they'd still have that lofty reputation if they fought off temptation and stuck to quality that used to make consumers want to pay "a little more for a Dell."
As Marshall McLuhan famously said, "The medium is the message."
That's why you can buy Timex watches at Wal*Mart but not Rolexes. (And why Rolex doesn't compete in Timex's space.)
As a parallel example from yesteryear, after the late 70's gas shortages, and the attendant explosion in the manufacturing and sales of compact cars, GM buckled to pressure to offer a low-cost, compact, fuel-efficient Cadillac model called the Cimarron. Logic says that people would jump at the chance to own a Cadillac, a car line they expected never to be able to afford in their lifetimes! But consumer behavior has no regard for logic. To consumers, a Cadillac was an enormous, expensive, premium, gas-guzzling status symbol. An affordable compact model like the Cimarron was a Cadillac in a titular sense only.
But was this borne out by the numbers? Boy howdy!
Perhaps desperate to avoid admitting a mistake and cutting their losses early, GM spent profligate amounts of money to market this "Edsel" for 7 years! SEVEN!
In all, GM manufactured a total of 132,499 Cadillac Cimarrons -- that's manufactured, not sold.
So for once, Steve Jobs' obstinance has paid off. He too felt the intense pressure from all quarters to enter the sub-$1,000 personal computer market, and he stubbornly refused. And what a toll it's taken on Apple! (The sarcasm should be obvious.)
Last I heard, Apple had 91% share of the market for above-$1,000 computers. Good economy/bad economy, there are enough consumers left who suspect that fire sale-priced PC desktops or notebooks might prove a quality control nightmare, costing them hours on the phone (including after the toll-free, free tech support period has ended) and prove in the long run to be far more expensive than it was at the cash register.
Consumers prize quality and are willing to pay for it. They know the difference between price and value. The top-selling iPad 2 is the highest priced, top-of-the-line, 64GB, 3G model.
By Apple "iPod-ing" the personal computer market with the Mac (like they iPod-ed the Tablet market -- a term I predict will soon become obsolete as "there is only the iPad"), it does not follow that I mean Apple should fill the vacuum HP has left by selling Macs in that suicidal price category.
I mean that with a MAJOR player suddenly off the field, what a perfect time to step up Mac marketing with a complete campaign including television ads (and mention of its ability to run Windows).
Remember, Apple cares more about margin than volume. With iPad, they have both, but with the iPhone and Mac markets they seem content to let others bottom feed while they take the more lucrative premium segment.
The bottom-feeders part is true, especially since it seems to be suicide, but IMHO, Apple cares as much about volume as margin. If you ask Windows/Mac ISVs who offer only some of their apps for the Mac what Apple could do to incentives them to develop for the Mac more, they probably won't say, "Make the SDK more approachable and easier to use," they'll say, "Sell more Macs."
Back when the Cell-chip based Playstation was introduced, developers quickly found out it was a BEAR to program for. But development for the console flourished when unit sales rocketed. Easy to program for/hard to program for, installed base trumpt all other concerns.
If Apple sells more units, more software will be developed for it, and with a broad choice of quality software available for the Mac, Apple will in turn sell more units, prompting more software development and increasing unit sales, prompting more software--well, you get the picture...
Spending a lot on product development, from costly materials, industrial design, the finest components, (engineers whose sole job is to study the weight of the base of Apple notebooks versus the lid/display so that when you open the laptop on a flat surface, the base doesn't flip up -- try that on most any Wintel notebook. I should mention that this team did not succeed in this goal with the MacBook Air, whose base flips up when you open the lid and slams back down or you have to pry the base down), the most extensive thermal dynamics engineering in the computer industry, teams devoted entirely to power management for rechargeable Apple products, and on, and on, is not money wasted. In countless ways, when a consumer has one of these Apple products in hand, the care and expense Apple went to, does not go unnoticed. It increases brand image and goodwill, and in turn, long-term brand-loyalty.
If Apple had lower margins, such lengths and expense of developing products that reflect so well on the company (increasing brand-loyalty and sales for as far as the eye can see) would not be possible -- and Apple would not be the most valuable company in the U.S. now. ("What recession?")
Apple should aggressively market the Mac. This was true before the HP news.
There is no justifiable reason for not doing so (like, "We can't afford it."), except that an atmosphere has swept through every part of Apple that says the Mac should be sunsetted proactively by Apple as opposed to letting the consumer and marketplace decide.
I firmly believe Steve Jobs wants the Mac gone and is working incrementally to hasten the process. With this prevailing attitude, allocating company resources to the Mac or (Mac) OS X does not make sense. I believe all further changes to OS X ("Mac" is officially out of its title -- "Oh, but this is a harmless, meaningless detail that portends nothing.") will be, shall we say, "iOSing" the Mac UI so that when the Mac is killed, we Mac-devotees, who in the past have been known to make made noise over issues involving the Mac, will hardly notice the change. We'll be so brainwashed; "What Mac?"
The only Mac in the entire line Steve likes is the MacBook Air. The next edition may not contain "Mac" in its name, and the next MacBook Pros will probably not have integrated optical drives, or even a BTO option for one.
I hope I am wrong. I love my iPad 2. I love my iPhone and will love the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 -- Oh! And I love my iPod nano for when the iPhone is too big for the circumstances (running).
And I love my Mac Pro.
They need not have to replace each other. I'll own an iPad, iPhone AND the top-of-the-line Mac Pro for as long as Apple sells them. While there is overlap, they all serve different and unique functions, and I need them all.
I should think such lack of "cannibalization" should be music to their ears, and they won't pull the plug on the Mac.
I'd be elated to be wrong.
Does anyone think it likely that Apple will produce another type of computer [different from the current product line] and name it some other type of apple within the next 3 years?
What do you mean "some other type of apple?' Like Granny Smith?
I'm more inclined to think they will bring back the MacBook line. Maybe have the current MacBook Pro design with the big clunky chassis and optical disc drive being called the new MacBook with the new taper svelte deisgn vis-Ã*-vis the MacBook Air, but larger than the MacBook Air, be the new MacBook Pro.
Does anyone think it likely that Apple will produce another type of computer [different from the current product line] and name it some other type of apple within the next 3 years?
Not at all, no.
What do you mean "some other type of apple?' Like Granny Smith?
That'd go over well. GranBook, iGran, Gran Mini…
New string of commercials… two geriatrics, one in a 30s-style suit, one in an Elvis getup: "Hello, I'm a Gran." "And I want soup!"
Not at all, no.
That'd go over well. GranBook, iGran, Gran Mini?
New string of commercials? two geriatrics, one in a 30s-style suit, one in an Elvis getup: "Hello, I'm a Gran." "And I want soup!"
What type of apple could you call it?