Hint: Their average margin on hardware is 27% or so. More at the high end, less at the low end. Last I heard, their margin at the bottom end is around 10%. You're talking about a 20% price cut.
</strong><hr></blockquote> I guess this includes educational sales as well as bidding? I don't know for sure me self but I'm pretty damn sure the margin is higher in retail
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>The issue I have with the low cost market is: Sure, Apple could make a stripped down machine, hardly more than a terminal - but would that be a Mac? </strong><hr></blockquote> Couldn't agree more. What makes a Mac is it's simplicity, how the computer, input devices and monitor make one solid unit. 'Build by your self' machine would hardly feel like Mac. Having said that, I had a PM 6400 and it came with [even at the time] pathetic one meg VRAM. It was much more off a Mac after I put the Picasso card in it. In other words, there could be room for some expansions without loosing the Mac feel.
I'm pretty sure Apple [and SJ in particular] has some plans on extending the Mac user base. Number one priority must be having a healthy profitable business. We have had that for some time now and the next step has to be bigger marked share so the platform can really take off. Maybe they'll wait awhile, wait for OsX to become a bit more major grown up Os. But they sure have the foundations right
In a good economy, price matters. In a bad economy, price matters more. This is a bad economy.
Performance has to be perceived as appropriate for the price. It doesn?t matter if there is enough performance for the task. What matters is that there is enough performance for the price. In the case of the Mac, there is not. Either the performance must be raised, or the price must be lowered. The 15? Superdrive iMac does not have such good performance at $1799.99. At $1499.99, the performance is stellar.
Speed kills. But the lack of speed does something worse. It annihilates market share. A quick search on Bare Feats will clearly show that the G4 800 iMac is inferior in every way (performance wise) to the 667 PB. Perhaps Apple just wants to show that MHz really don?t mater. It is clear that Apple is crippling some of its products to make others look good at certain price points. The Mac?s power deficiency is clear when compared to a similarly priced PC. But it can also be see when comparing Apples to Apples.
It doesn't matter that the average consumer will never push her car past 75 or 80 mph. Do you think a company could be successful by selling a car that could not go faster than that speed... much faster? Can you imagine that car company selling that car at a higher price than regular cars and claiming that the in-dash DVD burner and Jaguar skinned seats made up the difference? Further more, the car could only be driven on special roads. And there were precious few developers of those Carbon lanes and Cocoa boulevards compared to the number of Wintel avenues. You couldn?t go very fast and your routs might be somewhat limited, but, as the dealers of these cars would no doubt point out, you would have an incredible driving experience. (I hate car analogies.)
Price, performance, power, and one more thing, perception. Like it or not, this is what matters to the computer buying public. If Apple wishes to gain market share, they will have to make significant concessions in regard to the first three. And/or even more significant changes in regard to the forth.
Having more electrical stores to promote apple products would help increase consumer awareness
in my country, u hardly see any apple computers around, other than the apple centers.
Its a pity though, apple makes good bundled computers. I personally dun really want apple to increase its market share as that i would means I can boost my beautiful ibook to my friends. But if increased market share means lower prices, more software and more games, I hope apple do something soon.
In order to increase market share, Apple needs to get more people to make the switch from Windows to the Mac.
If I was a potential Windows switcher, one thing that would put me off is the fact that I'd have to throw out all my existing Windows software, which had cost me money and which I'm familiar with. I could always transfer the data across to the Mac, but I'd have to rebuy most of the applications (except those bundled with the Mac) as well as the hardware. Perhaps Apple should bundle Virtual PC, which although slow, would be adequate for non gaming software. In addition, if OSX drivers weren't available for my existing printer, scanner etc (which is highly likely), I'd have to rebuy all my peripherals as well. Perhaps Apple should assist peripheral makers with the writing of their OSX drivers for existing peripherals. This would also help more OS9 users make the switch.
Without the above, in order to switch from Windows to the Mac, I'd have to buy a new computer, new peripherals and new software all at once. That's asking a lot of anyone.
With regards to independent outlets making the Mac more prominent and dedicating more shelf space to Mac software, I think this is a catch 22. Outlets would only do this if the Mac had a greater market share, yet in order for the Mac to get a greater market share, it needs more prominence and shelf space. Currently the Mac accounts for (optimistically) 5% of the total market. If the uptake of OSX amongst new and existing users has been 10%, there's perhaps only 0.5% of the total market (at most) available to the developers of new Mac OSX software. Perhaps Apple has already recognised these problems, which is why it has started opening its own stores and bundling more of its own software. The company I work for developed one of the very first third party Mac applications, before the Mac was even officially launched in the UK. With the release of OSX, it was sadly decided not to develop the application any further.
Oh, and the eMac is hardly stripped down relative to most cheap PCs. It has solid onboard graphics (not the Intel chipsets shipping on most low-end PC towers), powered FireWire, two USB busses, 10/100 base-T autosensing Ethernet that can automatically compensate if you hook it up to another computer without a crossover cable, a 16 Watt amplifier attached to large (for computer) good quality speakers, a flat screen and a solid kidproof case. The motherboard has vastly superior I/O bandwidth, and comparable real-world processor bus bandwidth.
Fact: If you try to come up with a PC that has everything an eMac has, you're going to shoot past $800 pretty quickly - and that's if you can find one. Adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. And, of course, what you'll end up with is not going to be anywhere near as compact, rugged, or simple to set up and keep up as an eMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amorph,
Pardon me, but I don't see HOW you come up with these conclusions.
1) Yes, the eMac does have a solid onboard graphics chip (GeForce 2MX 32MB) compared to the default Intel chipsets on entry-level PC towers. But the point is irrelevant since one can upgrade the graphics of the PC tower, and NOT upgrade the eMac. Furthermore, entry-level PC towers do not NEARLY cost as much as the eMac, leaving the consumer more money to buy a graphics card that is MUCH superior to the 2MX for about $60.
2) It's true that the ethernet on a Macintosh computer will work seamlessly with a crossover cable. But I have yet to meet anyone that USES crossover cables, anymore. Everyone I know uses a HUB or a SWITCH--present company included.
3) I beg to differ when it comes to a 16W amplifier and the default HK speakers on the eMac. While the speakers are above average, they cannot possibly compete with my Cambridge Soundworks speakers and subwoofer that cost me $30. Again, we're presuming that the current cost difference between entry-level PC towers and the eMac would enable the buyer to spend the extra money for a better product.
4) I do not see how the motherboard having vastly superior I/O bandwidth is relevant. Can you provide me with the link to test results that show that the Macintosh's I/O bandwidth beats out the PC's bandwidth in a real-world application? How does this affect everyday use (in term of seconds, minutes, etc.)?
5) You had said that adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. That may be true, but does this affect performance in MEASURABLE SECONDS? If one can't detect it with the naked eye, is it really relevant?
Pardon me, but I don't see HOW you come up with these conclusions.
1) Yes, the eMac does have a solid onboard graphics chip (GeForce 2MX 32MB) compared to the default Intel chipsets on entry-level PC towers. But the point is irrelevant since one can upgrade the graphics of the PC tower, and NOT upgrade the eMac. Furthermore, entry-level PC towers do not NEARLY cost as much as the eMac, leaving the consumer more money to buy a graphics card that is MUCH superior to the 2MX for about $60.
2) It's true that the ethernet on a Macintosh computer will work seamlessly with a crossover cable. But I have yet to meet anyone that USES crossover cables, anymore. Everyone I know uses a HUB or a SWITCH--present company included.
3) I beg to differ when it comes to a 16W amplifier and the default HK speakers on the eMac. While the speakers are above average, they cannot possibly compete with my Cambridge Soundworks speakers and subwoofer that cost me $30. Again, we're presuming that the current cost difference between entry-level PC towers and the eMac would enable the buyer to spend the extra money for a better product.
4) I do not see how the motherboard having vastly superior I/O bandwidth is relevant. Can you provide me with the link to test results that show that the Macintosh's I/O bandwidth beats out the PC's bandwidth in a real-world application? How does this affect everyday use (in term of seconds, minutes, etc.)?
5) You had said that adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. That may be true, but does this affect performance in MEASURABLE SECONDS? If one can't detect it with the naked eye, is it really relevant?
Respectfully,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Magius, you KNOW you did not spend only $30 for a Cambidge SoundWorks sub-woofer and speaker set. Come on.
Magius, you KNOW you did not spend only $30 for a Cambidge SoundWorks sub-woofer and speaker set. Come on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*raises right hand*
*makes "x" over heart with left*
Fry's Electronics on Baseline Road in Phoenix, AZ had a whole bunch of 'em a while back for $30. I picked one up. I've been VERY happy with the purchase.
With each machine, Apple would have to give away three things in addition to the current iApps.
A very standards friendly OS.
A very standards (read M$ Office) friendly Office suite. 99.9% compatible actually. Something that takes Office formats and converts them seamlessly from M$ format to an agreed upon standard format, and alternatively lets you work in both. And not just Word and Excel, but Access, Frontpage, Powerpoint and all the rest too (including a fully sorted adress of all the interconnectivity bug-a-boos...)
A very (read perfectly) standards compliant browser, a fast one that plays with both standards and M$ bastardizations equally well.
Give these away with every computer. Then, licencees may look twice at the mac as a business solution. That alone would give your magic 10% back. The "Office" killer could come in two flavors -- consumer and pro -- but the consumer version would have to offer a lot more than Appleworks currently does.
I tell you right now, I look at macs and I can't recommend them to any schools because of price. Even with all the licences, the opening bid on any windows system comes in considerably cheaper. But, M$ is getting a little too funky with the software licensing. For simplicity's sake, an eMac with full licences to an great Office and web suite, licences that didn't require a yearly rental fee, such a computer would win a lot more edu bids, and a lot more business bids too.
Apple needs to get the word out about this stuff, not just do it. Something like: Like your privacy? Then why are you using a PC?
My brother, a pretty staunch anti-Apple person (not the vocal kind), is coming up today so that we can go to the Apple Store so he can look at an iBook. Why? Because he actually read the license agreement for XP. I wonder how many people do that. They should scroll it in big letters, star wars style for everyone to see. Then a apple.com/switch shot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can anyone produce a copy of this to me by email, i'd love to read it and highlight some parts to show my PC friends...if you can call them that
Apple has got to explain somehow that the price you pay is well worth it for the seemless work that HW&SW does.
Apple may have higher prices, but you do pay for higher quality HW, and their SW/OS is in a league of its own.
If apple could produce marklar to run on high end PCs so it was nice and fast, and maybe ported an iApp over just as a preview of what its like (i mean OS X look and feel, not too much functionality) and could figure a way to make it run stable, that would be a key thing for people to try it out.
-They could do this if they selected only one major system at a time (because trying to support however man y odd systems is hard...thus MS and stability)
Obviously price would help, but with the iPod people are starting to see what Apple is about
No they can't win unless they have some kind of real institutuinal support, ie the US government drops all windows machines.
The battle is already lost. Betamax could never come back and neither can Apple. We are loyal followers and there will always be people like us, and more to follow, but it won't every get better than that.
Even if our machines could out pace windows, it wouldn't make any difference. The problem is that there are lots of apps like the UPS software where there is only a windows version. There is banking software and again there are only windows versions. Macs aren't going to make it as desktop machines in business as there is really just too much against them.
Apple can increase marketshare, the scenario of BetaMax is not totally accurate. Beta format found itself thriving in the high-end, professional video industry.
I'm seeing marketshare increase first hand, I've converted 3 people to switch. All diehard windows users. There is room to grow.
2) Use the profits they have already to do a mass marketing campaign.
3) Begin getting their chips up to speed. Regardless of whether the Mhz standard that PC's use is a myth or not, it has gotten them 95% of the market. It is time Apple began to play along, or face eventual extinction.
These will cost Apple money, but you have to spend money to make money.
Can anyone produce a copy of this to me by email, i'd love to read it and highlight some parts to show my PC friends...if you can call them that </strong><hr></blockquote> Exactly what is in the license agreement that's so scary?
<strong> Exactly what is in the license agreement that's so scary?</strong><hr></blockquote>
normally the lack of privace you have, and lack of control over your computer, alot of agreements are like this, not just XP, just interested in reading it because i know MS and lawsuits, so they protect themselves pretty well
I forgot...lights, lot of lights, blinking lights, all different colors, and shiny things, also big numbers that don't mean very much, but people act like that IS the basis of computing
[quote] Apple may have higher prices, but you do pay for higher quality HW <hr></blockquote>
This has got to be the biggest misconception among Mac users.
Apple buys their hardware (RAM, Hard drives, LCD's, video cards, CD/DVD/CD-RW/DVD-RW drives) from the same people that dell, Gateway, eMachines, etc. buy them from.
If you think Apple is getting "magical better quality Hard drives" from someplace, you're wrong.
It's all bought in bulk, from the same people.
But yes, you are right about the OS thing. X is clearly in a league of its own....
Comments
<strong>
Hint: Their average margin on hardware is 27% or so. More at the high end, less at the low end. Last I heard, their margin at the bottom end is around 10%. You're talking about a 20% price cut.
</strong><hr></blockquote> I guess this includes educational sales as well as bidding? I don't know for sure me self but I'm pretty damn sure the margin is higher in retail
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>The issue I have with the low cost market is: Sure, Apple could make a stripped down machine, hardly more than a terminal - but would that be a Mac? </strong><hr></blockquote> Couldn't agree more. What makes a Mac is it's simplicity, how the computer, input devices and monitor make one solid unit. 'Build by your self' machine would hardly feel like Mac. Having said that, I had a PM 6400 and it came with [even at the time] pathetic one meg VRAM. It was much more off a Mac after I put the Picasso card in it. In other words, there could be room for some expansions without loosing the Mac feel.
I'm pretty sure Apple [and SJ in particular] has some plans on extending the Mac user base. Number one priority must be having a healthy profitable business. We have had that for some time now and the next step has to be bigger marked share so the platform can really take off. Maybe they'll wait awhile, wait for OsX to become a bit more major grown up Os. But they sure have the foundations right
[ 10-05-2002: Message edited by: kelib ]</p>
In a good economy, price matters. In a bad economy, price matters more. This is a bad economy.
Performance has to be perceived as appropriate for the price. It doesn?t matter if there is enough performance for the task. What matters is that there is enough performance for the price. In the case of the Mac, there is not. Either the performance must be raised, or the price must be lowered. The 15? Superdrive iMac does not have such good performance at $1799.99. At $1499.99, the performance is stellar.
Speed kills. But the lack of speed does something worse. It annihilates market share. A quick search on Bare Feats will clearly show that the G4 800 iMac is inferior in every way (performance wise) to the 667 PB. Perhaps Apple just wants to show that MHz really don?t mater.
It doesn't matter that the average consumer will never push her car past 75 or 80 mph. Do you think a company could be successful by selling a car that could not go faster than that speed... much faster? Can you imagine that car company selling that car at a higher price than regular cars and claiming that the in-dash DVD burner and Jaguar skinned seats made up the difference? Further more, the car could only be driven on special roads. And there were precious few developers of those Carbon lanes and Cocoa boulevards compared to the number of Wintel avenues. You couldn?t go very fast and your routs might be somewhat limited, but, as the dealers of these cars would no doubt point out, you would have an incredible driving experience. (I hate car analogies.)
Price, performance, power, and one more thing, perception. Like it or not, this is what matters to the computer buying public. If Apple wishes to gain market share, they will have to make significant concessions in regard to the first three. And/or even more significant changes in regard to the forth.
in my country, u hardly see any apple computers around, other than the apple centers.
Its a pity though, apple makes good bundled computers. I personally dun really want apple to increase its market share as that i would means I can boost my beautiful ibook to my friends. But if increased market share means lower prices, more software and more games, I hope apple do something soon.
If I was a potential Windows switcher, one thing that would put me off is the fact that I'd have to throw out all my existing Windows software, which had cost me money and which I'm familiar with. I could always transfer the data across to the Mac, but I'd have to rebuy most of the applications (except those bundled with the Mac) as well as the hardware. Perhaps Apple should bundle Virtual PC, which although slow, would be adequate for non gaming software. In addition, if OSX drivers weren't available for my existing printer, scanner etc (which is highly likely), I'd have to rebuy all my peripherals as well. Perhaps Apple should assist peripheral makers with the writing of their OSX drivers for existing peripherals. This would also help more OS9 users make the switch.
Without the above, in order to switch from Windows to the Mac, I'd have to buy a new computer, new peripherals and new software all at once. That's asking a lot of anyone.
With regards to independent outlets making the Mac more prominent and dedicating more shelf space to Mac software, I think this is a catch 22. Outlets would only do this if the Mac had a greater market share, yet in order for the Mac to get a greater market share, it needs more prominence and shelf space. Currently the Mac accounts for (optimistically) 5% of the total market. If the uptake of OSX amongst new and existing users has been 10%, there's perhaps only 0.5% of the total market (at most) available to the developers of new Mac OSX software. Perhaps Apple has already recognised these problems, which is why it has started opening its own stores and bundling more of its own software. The company I work for developed one of the very first third party Mac applications, before the Mac was even officially launched in the UK. With the release of OSX, it was sadly decided not to develop the application any further.
[ 10-06-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>
Oh, and the eMac is hardly stripped down relative to most cheap PCs. It has solid onboard graphics (not the Intel chipsets shipping on most low-end PC towers), powered FireWire, two USB busses, 10/100 base-T autosensing Ethernet that can automatically compensate if you hook it up to another computer without a crossover cable, a 16 Watt amplifier attached to large (for computer) good quality speakers, a flat screen and a solid kidproof case. The motherboard has vastly superior I/O bandwidth, and comparable real-world processor bus bandwidth.
Fact: If you try to come up with a PC that has everything an eMac has, you're going to shoot past $800 pretty quickly - and that's if you can find one. Adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. And, of course, what you'll end up with is not going to be anywhere near as compact, rugged, or simple to set up and keep up as an eMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amorph,
Pardon me, but I don't see HOW you come up with these conclusions.
1) Yes, the eMac does have a solid onboard graphics chip (GeForce 2MX 32MB) compared to the default Intel chipsets on entry-level PC towers. But the point is irrelevant since one can upgrade the graphics of the PC tower, and NOT upgrade the eMac. Furthermore, entry-level PC towers do not NEARLY cost as much as the eMac, leaving the consumer more money to buy a graphics card that is MUCH superior to the 2MX for about $60.
2) It's true that the ethernet on a Macintosh computer will work seamlessly with a crossover cable. But I have yet to meet anyone that USES crossover cables, anymore. Everyone I know uses a HUB or a SWITCH--present company included.
3) I beg to differ when it comes to a 16W amplifier and the default HK speakers on the eMac. While the speakers are above average, they cannot possibly compete with my Cambridge Soundworks speakers and subwoofer that cost me $30. Again, we're presuming that the current cost difference between entry-level PC towers and the eMac would enable the buyer to spend the extra money for a better product.
4) I do not see how the motherboard having vastly superior I/O bandwidth is relevant. Can you provide me with the link to test results that show that the Macintosh's I/O bandwidth beats out the PC's bandwidth in a real-world application? How does this affect everyday use (in term of seconds, minutes, etc.)?
5) You had said that adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. That may be true, but does this affect performance in MEASURABLE SECONDS? If one can't detect it with the naked eye, is it really relevant?
Respectfully,
-theMagius
<strong>
Amorph,
Pardon me, but I don't see HOW you come up with these conclusions.
1) Yes, the eMac does have a solid onboard graphics chip (GeForce 2MX 32MB) compared to the default Intel chipsets on entry-level PC towers. But the point is irrelevant since one can upgrade the graphics of the PC tower, and NOT upgrade the eMac. Furthermore, entry-level PC towers do not NEARLY cost as much as the eMac, leaving the consumer more money to buy a graphics card that is MUCH superior to the 2MX for about $60.
2) It's true that the ethernet on a Macintosh computer will work seamlessly with a crossover cable. But I have yet to meet anyone that USES crossover cables, anymore. Everyone I know uses a HUB or a SWITCH--present company included.
3) I beg to differ when it comes to a 16W amplifier and the default HK speakers on the eMac. While the speakers are above average, they cannot possibly compete with my Cambridge Soundworks speakers and subwoofer that cost me $30. Again, we're presuming that the current cost difference between entry-level PC towers and the eMac would enable the buyer to spend the extra money for a better product.
4) I do not see how the motherboard having vastly superior I/O bandwidth is relevant. Can you provide me with the link to test results that show that the Macintosh's I/O bandwidth beats out the PC's bandwidth in a real-world application? How does this affect everyday use (in term of seconds, minutes, etc.)?
5) You had said that adding features via PCI cards isn't the same, because then they all compete for the PCI bus instead of getting their own dedicated channels. That may be true, but does this affect performance in MEASURABLE SECONDS? If one can't detect it with the naked eye, is it really relevant?
Respectfully,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Magius, you KNOW you did not spend only $30 for a Cambidge SoundWorks sub-woofer and speaker set. Come on.
<strong>
Magius, you KNOW you did not spend only $30 for a Cambidge SoundWorks sub-woofer and speaker set. Come on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*raises right hand*
*makes "x" over heart with left*
Fry's Electronics on Baseline Road in Phoenix, AZ had a whole bunch of 'em a while back for $30. I picked one up. I've been VERY happy with the purchase.
Honestagoodness,
-theMagius
That ALONE would drive new hardware sales enough to get a 10% market share in a few years.
Do you think in 4-5 years, you will easily run the latest 2006 version of Mac OS on your current hardware? No, you'll most likely buy new hardware.
[ 10-07-2002: Message edited by: JPF ]</p>
With each machine, Apple would have to give away three things in addition to the current iApps.
A very standards friendly OS.
A very standards (read M$ Office) friendly Office suite. 99.9% compatible actually. Something that takes Office formats and converts them seamlessly from M$ format to an agreed upon standard format, and alternatively lets you work in both. And not just Word and Excel, but Access, Frontpage, Powerpoint and all the rest too (including a fully sorted adress of all the interconnectivity bug-a-boos...)
A very (read perfectly) standards compliant browser, a fast one that plays with both standards and M$ bastardizations equally well.
Give these away with every computer. Then, licencees may look twice at the mac as a business solution. That alone would give your magic 10% back. The "Office" killer could come in two flavors -- consumer and pro -- but the consumer version would have to offer a lot more than Appleworks currently does.
I tell you right now, I look at macs and I can't recommend them to any schools because of price. Even with all the licences, the opening bid on any windows system comes in considerably cheaper. But, M$ is getting a little too funky with the software licensing. For simplicity's sake, an eMac with full licences to an great Office and web suite, licences that didn't require a yearly rental fee, such a computer would win a lot more edu bids, and a lot more business bids too.
<strong>
Apple needs to get the word out about this stuff, not just do it. Something like: Like your privacy? Then why are you using a PC?
My brother, a pretty staunch anti-Apple person (not the vocal kind), is coming up today so that we can go to the Apple Store so he can look at an iBook. Why? Because he actually read the license agreement for XP. I wonder how many people do that. They should scroll it in big letters, star wars style for everyone to see. Then a apple.com/switch shot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can anyone produce a copy of this to me by email, i'd love to read it and highlight some parts to show my PC friends...if you can call them that
Apple has got to explain somehow that the price you pay is well worth it for the seemless work that HW&SW does.
Apple may have higher prices, but you do pay for higher quality HW, and their SW/OS is in a league of its own.
If apple could produce marklar to run on high end PCs so it was nice and fast, and maybe ported an iApp over just as a preview of what its like (i mean OS X look and feel, not too much functionality) and could figure a way to make it run stable, that would be a key thing for people to try it out.
-They could do this if they selected only one major system at a time (because trying to support however man y odd systems is hard...thus MS and stability)
Obviously price would help, but with the iPod people are starting to see what Apple is about
The battle is already lost. Betamax could never come back and neither can Apple. We are loyal followers and there will always be people like us, and more to follow, but it won't every get better than that.
Even if our machines could out pace windows, it wouldn't make any difference. The problem is that there are lots of apps like the UPS software where there is only a windows version. There is banking software and again there are only windows versions. Macs aren't going to make it as desktop machines in business as there is really just too much against them.
I'm seeing marketshare increase first hand, I've converted 3 people to switch. All diehard windows users. There is room to grow.
1) Lower prices over their entire line.
2) Use the profits they have already to do a mass marketing campaign.
3) Begin getting their chips up to speed. Regardless of whether the Mhz standard that PC's use is a myth or not, it has gotten them 95% of the market. It is time Apple began to play along, or face eventual extinction.
These will cost Apple money, but you have to spend money to make money.
<strong>
Can anyone produce a copy of this to me by email, i'd love to read it and highlight some parts to show my PC friends...if you can call them that
<strong> Exactly what is in the license agreement that's so scary?</strong><hr></blockquote>
normally the lack of privace you have, and lack of control over your computer, alot of agreements are like this, not just XP, just interested in reading it because i know MS and lawsuits, so they protect themselves pretty well
This has got to be the biggest misconception among Mac users.
Apple buys their hardware (RAM, Hard drives, LCD's, video cards, CD/DVD/CD-RW/DVD-RW drives) from the same people that dell, Gateway, eMachines, etc. buy them from.
If you think Apple is getting "magical better quality Hard drives" from someplace, you're wrong.
It's all bought in bulk, from the same people.
But yes, you are right about the OS thing. X is clearly in a league of its own....