mega-hertz matters to the average person buying a computer ... only because of the bigger number.
In reality ... in day-to-day use by the average consumer, they can't see the difference between a 800 mHtz G4 and a 1.25Gig dualG4. So being able to market a 3Gig G5 computer really doesn't matter.
The trick is convincing the consumer (this is the marketing departments job) that an iMac sporting a smaller performance number than the WinTel sitting next to it is actually a better computer. (perceivably just as fast, more stable, comes bundled with the apps you'll need).
So will ANY marketer be able to get past this mega-hertz problem with consumers ? .... I doubt it, in which case APPL's market share really won;t increase much.
The top-end FP iMac is $2000+ after taxes, shipping and a decent addition of RAM. And still we Mac users cry out - BUT IT's WORTH IT!!!
Why? In 15 seconds, ten times a day on twenty different networks, tell the Windows users.
Apple is maintaining high margins NOW to keep the cash flowing in. One reason: stock traders won't let the price fall below $13 or so because Apple has about $12 per share in CASH in the bank. That's great insurance for keeping the stock price at a level better than some of the former dot-coms.
Yes, it hurts sales in the short run - like it or not, price is the single largest factor in a purchase decision. Sometimes it is THE only factor. Sometimes it is 80%, sometimes 10%, depending on the availability of purchasing power (cash, credit, etc).
But keeping up the margins generates more $$$ for research, for marketing, for expansion.
Got that 15 second commercial ready yet?
The switchers are a start - but they are not "real" in the sense that you can visually identify with their problems - you have to think too much to convert that gut-understanding to your own life.
WHy not just show the crap people have to go through with Windows, Linux, etc? Put the viewer in the scene, maybe....
Apple's biggest marketing errors have been related to the loftiness of their mass media campaigns - everything is usually white, crisp, don't-touch-me clean, superior-- in what can be taken as a bad way.
Yet Macs are usually adored by their users, given pet names, decorated, working on them is a closely-held experience, not an exercise in keypunching. Why doesn't Apple portray the Mac this way?
Sure, the dancing iMac was cute, but it, again, was separated from the potential user. It's almost as if Apple would rather make one-offs to go into museums than make computers for home users.
Perceived value is largely a function of price. Other things play into it, but they are minority voices.
Apple knows this. They are not that stupid. But do they want to admit it to themselves?
BTW- I think the Cube will return for $899 with the current iMac FP specs. And it will be $100 too high.
Everybody is right, in a way. Everybody is looking at the same thing from a different angle, and each side of the issue looks different. Rather than propose yet another way to increase market share, here are a few thoughts about Apple, and Dell.
1. Where would Apple be today if they had not developed OS X based on open source Unix, but took another approach? I happen to believe OS X is a big achievement, helping Apple gain wide acceptance.
2. Apple cannot sacrifice profitability to gain market share yet. Apple is too vulnerable now, so for a while they must be satisfied with less growth.
3. Apple needs another achievement, which I believe is coming. Apple needs competitive performance, and with the IBM 970 they will be able to get there.
4. Apple may be planning for lower cost Macs later, possibly when it will make the biggest impact. Right now, Apple may not be financially ready, looking at projected profitability and cash flow. We simply don't have the kind of data needed for such decisions, so we cannot make them for Apple.
Dell did not get where they are today quickly. They had a strategy, and it took many years to get to their present market position. During that time, not every year showed stellar growth, but they kept refining and working their strategy. Today, most other Windows PC manufactures are going broke competing with Dell directly. Apple is in no position to do so. Sometimes the best strategy is to simply let the big guy take some territory that is too costly to defend. The fact that Apple market share went up just slightly, in the face of big losses in education, says they are making gains somewhere. I like to think that Apple does have a long term strategy that they are working. Apple cannot let Dell and others in on the strategy, so we sit in the dark too. It does get frustrating at times.
<strong>It is true that their board was voted one of the worst. But this was an opinion offered by Business Week. An educated opinion, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless. Secondly this did not speak directly to the management team (those responsible for day to day management).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes a worthless board of directors?
a board of people who have little or no reason to be there, and are personal friends of the CEO.
Other than Steve Jobs and Mil Drexler, the rest are useless personal friends of Steve Jobs.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>This is true, and a problem to be addressed. However, Apple is also navigating a significant transitional period with the move to OS X. In fact, in some ways, one might consider Apple to be a "start-up" company. I suspect the "new Apple" will look markedly different than the old Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't an excuse, if they aren't prepared to fight it out with Dell, in a year or two Apple will be the Pan Am of the education and publishing markets, Pan Am is still kinda flying, but it isn't a shadow of what it once was.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>How are they "making it an awful lot worse" exactly? Haven't they produced a MUCH improved operating system with solid, secure, modern underpinnings? Haven't they continued to produce hardware that will run this OS?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The hardware is poor quality and overpriced, plus their core markets are still firmly on Mac OS 9, no credit for Mac OS X until it can actually replace Mac OS 9.
By failing to put up even a passive defence against the Dell onslaught into education and publishing is making things alot worse.
Apple can't even be bothered to submit a credible proposal in alot of cases.
A school district in the North West was courting Dell, but offered Apple a chance to make their case, Apple sent them the stock $40 off educational price list and didn't bother to make a presentation.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>The fact is that this downward spiral began BEFORE Steve's return to Apple. In fact, after Steve returned: For the full year, Apple earned $309m, compared to a loss of nearly $1.05bn, the previous year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Steve had only taken over day to day opperations a few weeks before that profit annoucement, which was a phantom profit resulting from reduced costs as a result of massive firings, rather than a profit comming from increased sales.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Apple's percentage of computers in use (installed base) is much higher than its current market share (Apple puts it at around 5%). Doesn't it sound better to say there are 25 million Macs out in the world instead of saying Apple has a 3% market share?
The market share often quoted is the "current sales share" (a better phrase, in my opinion). And then there is the "install base share" (which is the number referenced above).
The Spymac article (like everything else on spymac) is crap, Every Macintosh sold since 1989 would still have to be in use today for those numbers to jive, when was the last time you saw someone using a Macintosh IIcx?
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Furthermore, I often here people claim that Apple needs to cut their margins, yet still want all of the same benefits that Apple delivers in their products. These same people will also complain when Apple starts bleeding money like it did BEFORE Steve Jobs and the current management team came into being.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apples profit margins have a baseline of 27%, some models have margins approaching 100%
To reach those obscene margins Apple has had to slash quality to the bone, look at the eMac's that have the quality of a 1950's Television set, look at the G4 towers that sound like the Concord and are as reliable as a Soviet car.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>It is commonly agreed that Apple will probably always be a niche player. The real question is how big does the niche have to be for them to survive well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is only a niche player because of the incompetant genius of Steve Jobs, it is a real defeatist attitude to think that it can't be turned around
<strong>Couple of points on this. As I have read about the history of this. Steve originally wanted a price of $1995 for the Mac. Sculley pushed for $2495. Component costs also played a factor as I understand it.
Finally, Jobs was gone from Apple by the end of 1985.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Other way around Dude, it was John Sculley who wanted to lower the price of the Mac, Steve Jobs felt that making the Macintosh competitive to the IBM PC was a bad idea, this started the battle between Jobs of Sculley, this was extra demented given the original mac only cost about $1000 to make.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Apple's lowest price FP iMac is $1199. A nearly equivalently configured Dell Dimension 2350 is $859. I don't know if the graphics chip set is as good. The Apple has 10 more GB of disk space, the Dell has a 2GHz Celeron.
I also don't know how Windows XP Home (vs. Profressional) compares to OS X. If Professional is more appropriate, add $60. Point here is that the price is not 2X (as your statement implies).
Finally, for the $340 less (from Dell) you have to consider the value of the all-in-one design. This is valuable for some (me...I HATE cables and clutter). And running Mac OS X vs. Windows. In this example is Apple worth $340 MORE? For some it will be. I'd like to see Apple get a little closer, but I don't think they need to be equal.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets see here, The Dell is less expensive, has a processor that is twice as fast as the G4 Celeron in the iMac and is upgradable and has a much higher quality LCD display. (The G4 in the iMAc has no L3 cache, the 7450's without L3 cache are seriously retarded)
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Your statement contains two assumptions:
1. Price is the ONLY thing keeping people from buying Macs, all otehr things being equal.
2. Apple will not lose money at the lower prices.
Not necessarily valid assumptions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Lets see here, I sell Macs.
I can't remember the time I have heard a customer who was interested in the mac raise an issue OTHER than price.
2. Apple has the highest margins in the industry, a hit to those margins would be offset by increased sales, but I will let the economist explain that one.
2. Apple has the highest margins in the industry, a hit to those margins would be offset by increased sales, but I will let the economist explain that one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, perhaps there will be an increase in sales. However, the increase in sales has to be enough to produce equivalent (or greater) profits. This refers to a concept called "price elasticity". The "elasticity" refers to the amount of increased sales response you get by lowering the price of a given product/service. If in one case you lower the price a LOT but sales do not increase very greatly, the product is said to have a "low elasticity of demand". If the opposite occurs (lowered price results in a larger increase in sales, offsetting the lower price), the product is said to have a "high elasticity of demand".
Most people ASSUME that computers (in general) and Macs (in particular) will have a "high elasticity of demand", thus assuming that a lower price on the Macs will automtically increase the sales enough to offset the lower price.
Sadly, I don't know which condition exists.
The other thing to realize here is that elasticies CHANGE...over time...as products become more prevalent and widely used...as the product PRICE itself changes. This already seen in the new $299 PCs.
I run a mac dealer, I see 8/10 perspective mac buyers walk out the door empty handed price was the reason 8/8 didn't buy a Mac.
I have not heard someone raise the issue of compatability in atleast two years, infact until people see the price tag they aren't all that concerned about performance either.
Ask ANY mac dealer in the country, or the world for that matter, what the greatest barrier to the adoption of the Mac is and they will tell you price.
Even if Apple were to get down to a 30% or 50% premium over PC's it would make a world of differance, but where we are today Apple is atleast 100% more expensive and often as much as 200% more expensive. Outside the iBook and xserve.
Which leaves the question. If Apple can make a competitive notebook, why the **** can't they make a competitive desktop?
Some excellent posts from all the steves above. The JCC..post was also superb.
Hmm. I DO believe Apple CAN increase its marketshare.
Problems.
1. Price.
I work in a school that couldn't consider the LCD iMacs because of price.
So they went Dell (again!) and got 'slab-pizza' with flat screen on top. 512 megs of ram, nice screens, decent Pentium 4 processor.
I haven't bought a Mac tower in almost 5 years now!
Why? Price. Performance issues.
It's not good enough that the G4 is faster than the last Mac...it has to be competitive with what Dell and HP have. If not, people who are price sensitive (and mass markets often are!) will vote with wallet.
Solution? They'll have to buy their components from Taiwan in greater numbers, take a profit margin hit and start moving volume. And they'll get volume moving if they have cheaper machines in about 150 Apple stores rather than the puny 50. Retail is a risk. So is doing nothing.
Education and print bedrocks are being eroded by the Dell 'market volume' buzzaw.
Apple don't have to be as cheap as Dell. But for crying out loud...you CAN'T be twice the price or several hundreds of pounds more.
The iMac flat is in danger of becoming another Cube! Drive the damn price down! LCD display PCs are under a £1,000 inc Vat, as low as £800!
They would make great spacing saving edu' machines. They're just not updating them fast enough or making them cheap enough.
2. Perception
If you have a small number for twice the mulla. You're askin' for it. There's no way you're going to convince the British consumer that they should pay almost twice the amount for a machine that has less ram and a processor that appears twice as slow (or is twice as slow!).
Intangible benefits like 'easy of use', 'elegance' and iapps are hard to sell unless the guy from PC World is going to do that on behalf of Apple (and if Apple dealers can barely be bothered...then why would PC world staff?)
Looking at raw numbers, Apple is up against it.
They'll have to address this with a performance rating or something. Even better, the 970 with performance rating.
3. Advertising.
Apple ads are sythetically murky.
Where's the machine, the user, the os and the app?
Where's the Mac advantage at work?
A dancing computer is neat. But why should I buy one that's twice the dough of a tower that IS expandable?
I guess it's price, tech' and perception.
Ie too expensive, old tech' and they're invisible.
Lower prices, get the tech' competitive, DDR/970 CPU/Motherboard specs sorted out, and make them visible via more retail (international:USA centric policies aint helping Mac usage world wide...) stores with a blanket bombing ad' exposure on TV/Print/Internet.
4.3 billion in the bank. Time to start using some of it.
Apple's management have probably done as reasonabley expected all things considered.
They have the pieces.
But, do they have the balls for a fight?
To stay in Education and print industry they will have to go up against Dell and M$ at some point.
Lemon Bon Bon
Lastly, politics. Yeesh. 'X' should be a 'depth charge' against the M$ ship.
Release 'Marklar' with an Intel chip on a proprietary Apple Pie motherboard than can different cpus.
Apple can sell it via Dell and HP (like iPod). Apple can have X-server on it, they can have the iapps, they could bundle Virtual PC with it.
Get rid of the politics.
If Apple got the top five apps recompiled into Cocoa, that would be a start.
Palladium is coming up. What is Apple gonna do about it?
I have to agree with Stagflation Steve about the importance of price. About 18 months ago, there were six of us using Macs, among my friends and relations. Today there are only three, as the others bought new Windows PCs because of price. They all had older Macs, a Performa 6400 was the newest of the lot, and would have bought a new Mac if the price was closer. Apple lost sales and the Mac installed base shrank.
Possibly Apple has adopted a boutique strategy -- we can only guess what their strategy and plans are. The higher profit margins and the appearance of the Apple stores certainly suggests this kind of strategy. If so, I hope the way Dell is taking away educational sales is enough to wake them up. The situation with sales to schools is impossible to miss. Loss of sales opportunities in the consumer market can be missed if Apple is not looking for this information.
Things cannot be all bad if Apple's market share had a tiny increase in the face of losses in the educational market. Also, dropping prices can be dangerous, if sales do not go up enough to keep total profit from dropping. The safest approach may be a separate, low-cost Mac. Apple could make it a little expandable, with a couple PCI cards, and do what Wintel PCs do. Offer a cheaper product that the buyer may need to expand later on. Set initial profit margins high enough so, if it took many sales from other Macs, Apple's total profit would not be hurt much. If a low cost Mac is a success, the price could be gradually lowered.
in 10 years??!!? thats forever in computer terms... in 10 years apple went from 50% to 15% to 5%
no way you can predict it...
hell there could even be a new OS that runs on X86 that can run windows apps, but is a better product... will most likely be an iteration of linux... but it is possible that it isnt...
also there is a distinct possibility that apple will go away in 10 years...
where do you come up with 10% others... if someone is going to make a new OS, chances are it will have wide acceptance of it, or it will just go away... there really is no more room for more niches for application developers... its like the game console market... there probably isn't enough room for 3 console makers... there is barely enough room for 2 major computer platforms... (linux doesn't count because most of the users compile their own applications, and they are usually free anyway)
Apple needs to get up above 5% in the next 2 years if they want to even have a chance of being somewhat relevant in today's market.
what ever happened to the "other 95%" it has turned into 97+%... at this rate, apple will have to pay developers to code for their OS... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
>Which leaves the question. If Apple can make a competitive notebook, why the **** can't they make a competitive desktop?<
Thats a question I've been asking myself for the last year. Their laptops are price competitive with wintels for the most part, but Apples desktops(towers especially) are no where near the price of wintels.
Lack of a low priced tower is killing Apple, I can't mention this enough.
And Lemon Bon Bon-excellent post! I look at their switch ads and all I can think of is-Show a damn computer or 2! They are paying for the ad, why not show the product also? How about the OS?........................
First of all, I suggest to anyone wanting to speculate about Apple's market share position read the book The Profit Zone: How Strategic Business Design Will Lead You to Tomorrow's Profits as it is one of my favorite books regarding the art of profit design. The first sentence of the first chapter reads: Market share is dead.
Market share and profitability are not the same thing. A company can remain quite profitable without increasing market share at all.
The question of this thread is "Can Apple ever increase its market share".
The answer to this question is: Of course it can.
Which brings me to a better question: Does Apple want to increase its market share?
To which I answer: Probably not--at least not under Steve Jobs' reign as Applesar.
Perhaps a better question would be:
If market share does not guarantee profitability, why would Apple want to increase market share?
The answer to this question is very complicated, because it would involve forecasting Apple's strategy for the next fifteen years. At this point the only thing I have to go on is Steve Jobs promise to shareholders that OS X is the "operating system for the next 15 years." (For who? The <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">LAUB</a>? No shit.)
Right now, Apple's business design is profitable to <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/board.html"; target="_blank">these people</a>, not the shareholders. A recent scan of SEC filings has shown that even the most loyal shareholders in Apple's history have recently dumped hundreds of thousands of shares, all within a six month period.* Even though the market as a whole isn't doing well, it's important to note that Apple is not a company worth investing in at this point. It's going to be hard for Apple to raise the capital neccessary even if the economy gets a kick start to expand its market share, if that's its intention. At this point, with Steve Jobs behind the wheel, I don't think it is. And that's bad news for us.
*give or take a few months, don't have time to fact check right now, sorry.
Although I don't normally post in this forum, I can see the most influential forces that affect Mac marketshare are largely missed here. Lungaretta is the only one I can see who has touched upon the 2 largest factors:
Momentum of the industry and platform familiarity.
These two forces far outweigh issues of price and speed. Not to suggest that they aren't concerns, only that they won't swing Mac marketshare to any significant degree at this stage of the game. The personal computer industry is maturing and people are becoming set in their computing ways. And even in emerging markets, the overwhelming prevalency of PCs and PC manufacurers makes it hard for a company like Apple to compete.
If you own a PC, are familiar with the OS, have all your personal files on it, software investment tied to it - the average user isn't likely to change unless they are *really* dissatisfied with it. This is why these "Switch" ads will never really work at any meaningful level at this stage of the game - 10 years ago perhaps, but now... no.
For most people, the absolute prevalency of PCs essentially remove the Mac as even an *option* for the vast majority of users. If you're a new user looking to buy a computer and 97% of your friends own PCs, what computer do you think he or she will buy?
Price, performance... they become more important after you've decided what you're going to buy (and for most people, the platform choice really isn't even in contention). Not always, of course... but platform decisions due to price alone will be less an influence that others in the larger scheme of things.
For Apple to turn it around it really has to reinvent itself. And by that I mean they have to come up with a *fundamentally* better way to use computers. I don't know what that is, but it has to go far beyond (and simpler) that what were seeing with current OSes. You can argue the superiority of OS:X vs WinXP all you want, the bottom line is that they fundamentally work the same to the average user.
Now to try and end this post on a more upbeat note, I do believe that Apple has it in them to come up with the new computing paradigm of the century. They are company that is not afraid to take risks in an cut-throat industry even when they occassionally fall flat on their faces. Steve Jobs, even simply as a marketing tool to keep Apple in the public eye, is a good thing I think. I think Apple could be in a much, much worse place than it is now...
Although I don't normally post in this forum, I can see the most influential forces that affect Mac marketshare are largely missed here. Lungaretta is the only one I can see who has touched upon the 2 largest factors:
Apple's market share was cut short when the boys at Apple didn't know what critical mass implied and opted to tell Mr. Gates and family to **** off when he wanted to port Apple's OS.
You're basically talking about the PC industry as a commodities market, and making assumptions that there are only a few choice reasons why people don't buy Apple Computers. I'll restate what I've said earlier: There is only ONE reason PC users (or anyone in general) don't buy Apple Computers.
(For other people's opinions on the matter of why people don't buy into Mac, see the thread "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" which I've posted three other forums besides this one.)
There is a misconception that one reason weighs heavily over another--in a commodoties market this may be true, however in reality since Apple is a proprietary system (and therefore an anomaly within the market) there are any number of factors that may contribute to the consumer's lack of interest in Apple products--and yet there is only one reason they never buy. I will post this reason later--it is beyond the scope of this topic.
<-- best regards
PS: By "momentum of industry" you're talking about critical mass and by "platform familiarity" you're talking about marketing.
<strong>For Apple to turn it around it really has to reinvent itself. And by that I mean they have to come up with a *fundamentally* better way to use computers. I don't know what that is, but it has to go far beyond (and simpler) that what were seeing with current OSes. You can argue the superiority of OS:X vs WinXP all you want, the bottom line is that they fundamentally work the same to the average user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to make my previous post clear, you are describing the conditions of a commodoties market here. Watches do the same thing--they tell time. What makes one watch better than the other one?
in 10 years??!!? thats forever in computer terms... in 10 years apple went from 50% to 15% to 5%
no way you can predict it...
It isn't forever .... things really don't actually CHANGE that much, things only get faster. I would be surprised to see a "major" advance in the next ten. Perhaps solid state hard drives.
also there is a distinct possibility that apple will go away in 10 years...
They have enough cash to survive 20 years of $200 million annual losses- they'll be around.
where do you come up with 10% others...
This covers Solaris, Oracle andthe likes ... your right, it is too high - but I stand by it.
Apple needs to get up above 5% in the next 2 years if they want to even have a chance of being somewhat relevant in today's market.
Apple have their work cut out for them. But in many respects (the 'boutique' mentality...) Apple doesn't help itself.
The 'time' analogy is an interesting one.
All things being equal, the Mac 'X' factor may swing it. But...
"Can you please provide some specific examples of (name-brand) PCs that are (fairly equivalently configured) 100% to 200% more expensive than the Mac?"
PCworld advertising a Dell £999 laptop with DVD writing abilities. High Mhz, decent ram, screen and hard drive. Well?
Apple's competitive equivalent? The Powerbook for £2,400 ish inc VAT.
Can Apple increase marketshare..?
Yes.
1. Cheap iSlab (pizza flat-cube-esque appearance, monitorless) for education/cheap consumer machine. £499 inc VAT. Cheaper in bulk to defend the Dell attack.
2. 150 Apple retail stores to increase visibility.
3. A tower option for £999 inc Vat. AND cut 'power'Mac prices across the board with introduction of 970 and keep the dual processor option standard.
4. Advertising Apple hardware/'x' and apps (and what people can do with said apps...)
5. Marklar on proprietary x86/Itanium/Sledgehammer cpu / Apple motherboard.
Re-compile all Apple branded iapps, Shake and Final Cut (all the software Apple can control...!) into Cocoa x86/Itanium/Sledgehammer environment...thus giving a Windows alternative on x86. In time, Apple can co-fund Photoshop/Maya/Indesign on Apple x86. All the Unix apps. Watch the rest come.
What the gambit pay off. 97% of the worldwide user base is there for the taking when M$ start playing hardball with Palladium.
IF a fraction of those people want an alternative...Apple can make much more more than they do now. Enough to cover any loss to Apple branded PPC sales.
Sales of Apple x86 'X'
-iapps, isync, rendezvous, iPhone...
-Final Cut Pro'
-Shake etc...
-eMagic
to 97%...of the worldwide userbase.
I think that would be a start. Especially if Apple can brand a 'Staroffice' X Office App' and bundle it free with every Apple x86 branded motherboard.
I'm sure there are millions of Windows and 'Linux' users on x86 are dying for an alternative to 'look' at. The third party support could be very potent.
IF Apple provided the m/b as a start and let customers customise their x86 Apple box alongside the usual 'packaged' boxes.
7. IF, PPC processors are twice as cheap as commentators on these boards say they are then Apple could make their dual processor strategy permanent!
With the 970, this could give Apple a real edge over the x86 competition with their PPC branded solutions and have a lesser but healthier mark-up. Because they'd sell twice the 'power'Macs they currently do because people would perceive it as worth it.
WHERE Apple have gone wrong is the handling of 'perception'. Apple have always been more expensive. However, back then, they at least could go toe to toe on mhz and more on performance. Now? Twice as expensive and twice as 'slow'. Which on a single processor basis they are.
8. Performance Rating.
Peg the dual 970 as a Pentium 4 performance rating.
I think you'd be talking at least '7.2' gig vs 3.6.
That would be a monumental performance shift in favour of Apple.
Apple would take a hit in margins going 970 dual (but hey, they're doing it now!!!) but the increased sales in publishing where Dell is giving them an increased fight (AND Quark are selling loads of PC cross grades according to Quark themselves!!!) and at least Apple can start to make a fist of things.
Alot of PC gamer/tower users would be drooling at the thought of 7.2 gig!
Apple shouldn't overlook the gaming crowd. They made the x86 Athlon a real internet darling at the beginning!
The 970 and upwards and AI alliance should change this. And can't come soon enough.
Other strong suites for Apple?
1. Unix apps' by the bagload (and these could arrive like the cavalry on any Apple x86 motherboard also!)
2. 97% to aim at.
3. A potent 'lifestyle' strategy to build on ala Sony. The iPod can be built on...to transcend the traditional Apple base. Add in an iPhone/iCamera here, a sub-notebook there, an islab cheapo desktop client...and a vPod there...and better still, an iTablet THERE (I've seen the latest x86 tablets. I'm impressed. I think Apple's answer to blow it out the water...)
Who knows. I think Apple's chic, cool, design and ease of use in 'gadgets' may allow Apple to succeed where they lost the opportunity to succeed in computers (in a 'critical mass' way...)
4. An inspired retail strategy that actually shows signs of working in ways that previous computer retail 'box-shifting' strategies haven't.
5. Apple are doing well inspite of all things. This resilience has bought them time...but it won't save them forever. They need to hit two or three homeruns.
6. Apple have the 'best' laptops out there, all in all. It should be the iBooks that allow Apple to take Dell to the cleaners! The iBook needs to be driven to the £499 mark. In terms of all Apple has computer wise, the iBook looks the most likely to achieve the holy grail of competitive Apple at all price points and is only a couple of hundred away from really socking it to the Wintel laptops.
Comments
In reality ... in day-to-day use by the average consumer, they can't see the difference between a 800 mHtz G4 and a 1.25Gig dualG4. So being able to market a 3Gig G5 computer really doesn't matter.
The trick is convincing the consumer (this is the marketing departments job) that an iMac sporting a smaller performance number than the WinTel sitting next to it is actually a better computer. (perceivably just as fast, more stable, comes bundled with the apps you'll need).
So will ANY marketer be able to get past this mega-hertz problem with consumers ? .... I doubt it, in which case APPL's market share really won;t increase much.
The top-end FP iMac is $2000+ after taxes, shipping and a decent addition of RAM. And still we Mac users cry out - BUT IT's WORTH IT!!!
Why? In 15 seconds, ten times a day on twenty different networks, tell the Windows users.
Apple is maintaining high margins NOW to keep the cash flowing in. One reason: stock traders won't let the price fall below $13 or so because Apple has about $12 per share in CASH in the bank. That's great insurance for keeping the stock price at a level better than some of the former dot-coms.
Yes, it hurts sales in the short run - like it or not, price is the single largest factor in a purchase decision. Sometimes it is THE only factor. Sometimes it is 80%, sometimes 10%, depending on the availability of purchasing power (cash, credit, etc).
But keeping up the margins generates more $$$ for research, for marketing, for expansion.
Got that 15 second commercial ready yet?
The switchers are a start - but they are not "real" in the sense that you can visually identify with their problems - you have to think too much to convert that gut-understanding to your own life.
WHy not just show the crap people have to go through with Windows, Linux, etc? Put the viewer in the scene, maybe....
Apple's biggest marketing errors have been related to the loftiness of their mass media campaigns - everything is usually white, crisp, don't-touch-me clean, superior-- in what can be taken as a bad way.
Yet Macs are usually adored by their users, given pet names, decorated, working on them is a closely-held experience, not an exercise in keypunching. Why doesn't Apple portray the Mac this way?
Sure, the dancing iMac was cute, but it, again, was separated from the potential user. It's almost as if Apple would rather make one-offs to go into museums than make computers for home users.
Perceived value is largely a function of price. Other things play into it, but they are minority voices.
Apple knows this. They are not that stupid. But do they want to admit it to themselves?
BTW- I think the Cube will return for $899 with the current iMac FP specs. And it will be $100 too high.
Damn I hope I'm wrong.
-edit- to becomes too
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
1. Where would Apple be today if they had not developed OS X based on open source Unix, but took another approach? I happen to believe OS X is a big achievement, helping Apple gain wide acceptance.
2. Apple cannot sacrifice profitability to gain market share yet. Apple is too vulnerable now, so for a while they must be satisfied with less growth.
3. Apple needs another achievement, which I believe is coming. Apple needs competitive performance, and with the IBM 970 they will be able to get there.
4. Apple may be planning for lower cost Macs later, possibly when it will make the biggest impact. Right now, Apple may not be financially ready, looking at projected profitability and cash flow. We simply don't have the kind of data needed for such decisions, so we cannot make them for Apple.
Dell did not get where they are today quickly. They had a strategy, and it took many years to get to their present market position. During that time, not every year showed stellar growth, but they kept refining and working their strategy. Today, most other Windows PC manufactures are going broke competing with Dell directly. Apple is in no position to do so. Sometimes the best strategy is to simply let the big guy take some territory that is too costly to defend. The fact that Apple market share went up just slightly, in the face of big losses in education, says they are making gains somewhere. I like to think that Apple does have a long term strategy that they are working. Apple cannot let Dell and others in on the strategy, so we sit in the dark too. It does get frustrating at times.
a 1ghz G4 is at least a 1.5 P4,
with a 1.8 970 trumping a 2.8 P4...
I think Apple can be very darn competivite...
especialy if they keep putting dual procs in the Power Macs...
But we did need the P970 yesterday, whenever the p4 2.8 started selling... if you ask me...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
While I am most certainly trolling; iCal + iChat + Adress Book + Mail + Rendovous = Apple 2003...
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: greg123 ]</p>
<strong>It is true that their board was voted one of the worst. But this was an opinion offered by Business Week. An educated opinion, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless. Secondly this did not speak directly to the management team (those responsible for day to day management).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes a worthless board of directors?
a board of people who have little or no reason to be there, and are personal friends of the CEO.
Other than Steve Jobs and Mil Drexler, the rest are useless personal friends of Steve Jobs.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>This is true, and a problem to be addressed. However, Apple is also navigating a significant transitional period with the move to OS X. In fact, in some ways, one might consider Apple to be a "start-up" company. I suspect the "new Apple" will look markedly different than the old Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't an excuse, if they aren't prepared to fight it out with Dell, in a year or two Apple will be the Pan Am of the education and publishing markets, Pan Am is still kinda flying, but it isn't a shadow of what it once was.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>How are they "making it an awful lot worse" exactly? Haven't they produced a MUCH improved operating system with solid, secure, modern underpinnings? Haven't they continued to produce hardware that will run this OS?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The hardware is poor quality and overpriced, plus their core markets are still firmly on Mac OS 9, no credit for Mac OS X until it can actually replace Mac OS 9.
By failing to put up even a passive defence against the Dell onslaught into education and publishing is making things alot worse.
Apple can't even be bothered to submit a credible proposal in alot of cases.
A school district in the North West was courting Dell, but offered Apple a chance to make their case, Apple sent them the stock $40 off educational price list and didn't bother to make a presentation.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>The fact is that this downward spiral began BEFORE Steve's return to Apple. In fact, after Steve returned: For the full year, Apple earned $309m, compared to a loss of nearly $1.05bn, the previous year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Steve had only taken over day to day opperations a few weeks before that profit annoucement, which was a phantom profit resulting from reduced costs as a result of massive firings, rather than a profit comming from increased sales.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Apple's percentage of computers in use (installed base) is much higher than its current market share (Apple puts it at around 5%). Doesn't it sound better to say there are 25 million Macs out in the world instead of saying Apple has a 3% market share?
The market share often quoted is the "current sales share" (a better phrase, in my opinion). And then there is the "install base share" (which is the number referenced above).
Then there is this (http://www.spymac.com/comments.php?id=P215_0_5_0_C) thoughtful article suggesting an even higher number (for the "install base share") of almost 12%!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Spymac article (like everything else on spymac) is crap, Every Macintosh sold since 1989 would still have to be in use today for those numbers to jive, when was the last time you saw someone using a Macintosh IIcx?
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Furthermore, I often here people claim that Apple needs to cut their margins, yet still want all of the same benefits that Apple delivers in their products. These same people will also complain when Apple starts bleeding money like it did BEFORE Steve Jobs and the current management team came into being.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apples profit margins have a baseline of 27%, some models have margins approaching 100%
To reach those obscene margins Apple has had to slash quality to the bone, look at the eMac's that have the quality of a 1950's Television set, look at the G4 towers that sound like the Concord and are as reliable as a Soviet car.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>It is commonly agreed that Apple will probably always be a niche player. The real question is how big does the niche have to be for them to survive well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is only a niche player because of the incompetant genius of Steve Jobs, it is a real defeatist attitude to think that it can't be turned around
<strong>Couple of points on this. As I have read about the history of this. Steve originally wanted a price of $1995 for the Mac. Sculley pushed for $2495. Component costs also played a factor as I understand it.
Finally, Jobs was gone from Apple by the end of 1985.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Other way around Dude, it was John Sculley who wanted to lower the price of the Mac, Steve Jobs felt that making the Macintosh competitive to the IBM PC was a bad idea, this started the battle between Jobs of Sculley, this was extra demented given the original mac only cost about $1000 to make.
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Apple's lowest price FP iMac is $1199. A nearly equivalently configured Dell Dimension 2350 is $859. I don't know if the graphics chip set is as good. The Apple has 10 more GB of disk space, the Dell has a 2GHz Celeron.
I also don't know how Windows XP Home (vs. Profressional) compares to OS X. If Professional is more appropriate, add $60. Point here is that the price is not 2X (as your statement implies).
Finally, for the $340 less (from Dell) you have to consider the value of the all-in-one design. This is valuable for some (me...I HATE cables and clutter). And running Mac OS X vs. Windows. In this example is Apple worth $340 MORE? For some it will be. I'd like to see Apple get a little closer, but I don't think they need to be equal.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets see here, The Dell is less expensive, has a processor that is twice as fast as the G4 Celeron in the iMac and is upgradable and has a much higher quality LCD display. (The G4 in the iMAc has no L3 cache, the 7450's without L3 cache are seriously retarded)
[quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:
<strong>Your statement contains two assumptions:
1. Price is the ONLY thing keeping people from buying Macs, all otehr things being equal.
2. Apple will not lose money at the lower prices.
Not necessarily valid assumptions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Lets see here, I sell Macs.
I can't remember the time I have heard a customer who was interested in the mac raise an issue OTHER than price.
2. Apple has the highest margins in the industry, a hit to those margins would be offset by increased sales, but I will let the economist explain that one.
<strong>
2. Apple has the highest margins in the industry, a hit to those margins would be offset by increased sales, but I will let the economist explain that one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, perhaps there will be an increase in sales. However, the increase in sales has to be enough to produce equivalent (or greater) profits. This refers to a concept called "price elasticity". The "elasticity" refers to the amount of increased sales response you get by lowering the price of a given product/service. If in one case you lower the price a LOT but sales do not increase very greatly, the product is said to have a "low elasticity of demand". If the opposite occurs (lowered price results in a larger increase in sales, offsetting the lower price), the product is said to have a "high elasticity of demand".
Most people ASSUME that computers (in general) and Macs (in particular) will have a "high elasticity of demand", thus assuming that a lower price on the Macs will automtically increase the sales enough to offset the lower price.
Sadly, I don't know which condition exists.
The other thing to realize here is that elasticies CHANGE...over time...as products become more prevalent and widely used...as the product PRICE itself changes. This already seen in the new $299 PCs.
I have not heard someone raise the issue of compatability in atleast two years, infact until people see the price tag they aren't all that concerned about performance either.
Ask ANY mac dealer in the country, or the world for that matter, what the greatest barrier to the adoption of the Mac is and they will tell you price.
Even if Apple were to get down to a 30% or 50% premium over PC's it would make a world of differance, but where we are today Apple is atleast 100% more expensive and often as much as 200% more expensive. Outside the iBook and xserve.
Which leaves the question. If Apple can make a competitive notebook, why the **** can't they make a competitive desktop?
Hmm. I DO believe Apple CAN increase its marketshare.
Problems.
1. Price.
I work in a school that couldn't consider the LCD iMacs because of price.
So they went Dell (again!) and got 'slab-pizza' with flat screen on top. 512 megs of ram, nice screens, decent Pentium 4 processor.
I haven't bought a Mac tower in almost 5 years now!
Why? Price. Performance issues.
It's not good enough that the G4 is faster than the last Mac...it has to be competitive with what Dell and HP have. If not, people who are price sensitive (and mass markets often are!) will vote with wallet.
Solution? They'll have to buy their components from Taiwan in greater numbers, take a profit margin hit and start moving volume. And they'll get volume moving if they have cheaper machines in about 150 Apple stores rather than the puny 50. Retail is a risk. So is doing nothing.
Education and print bedrocks are being eroded by the Dell 'market volume' buzzaw.
Apple don't have to be as cheap as Dell. But for crying out loud...you CAN'T be twice the price or several hundreds of pounds more.
The iMac flat is in danger of becoming another Cube! Drive the damn price down! LCD display PCs are under a £1,000 inc Vat, as low as £800!
They would make great spacing saving edu' machines. They're just not updating them fast enough or making them cheap enough.
2. Perception
If you have a small number for twice the mulla. You're askin' for it. There's no way you're going to convince the British consumer that they should pay almost twice the amount for a machine that has less ram and a processor that appears twice as slow (or is twice as slow!).
Intangible benefits like 'easy of use', 'elegance' and iapps are hard to sell unless the guy from PC World is going to do that on behalf of Apple (and if Apple dealers can barely be bothered...then why would PC world staff?)
Looking at raw numbers, Apple is up against it.
They'll have to address this with a performance rating or something. Even better, the 970 with performance rating.
3. Advertising.
Apple ads are sythetically murky.
Where's the machine, the user, the os and the app?
Where's the Mac advantage at work?
A dancing computer is neat. But why should I buy one that's twice the dough of a tower that IS expandable?
I guess it's price, tech' and perception.
Ie too expensive, old tech' and they're invisible.
Lower prices, get the tech' competitive, DDR/970 CPU/Motherboard specs sorted out, and make them visible via more retail (international:USA centric policies aint helping Mac usage world wide...) stores with a blanket bombing ad' exposure on TV/Print/Internet.
4.3 billion in the bank. Time to start using some of it.
Apple's management have probably done as reasonabley expected all things considered.
They have the pieces.
But, do they have the balls for a fight?
To stay in Education and print industry they will have to go up against Dell and M$ at some point.
Lemon Bon Bon
Lastly, politics. Yeesh. 'X' should be a 'depth charge' against the M$ ship.
Release 'Marklar' with an Intel chip on a proprietary Apple Pie motherboard than can different cpus.
Apple can sell it via Dell and HP (like iPod). Apple can have X-server on it, they can have the iapps, they could bundle Virtual PC with it.
Get rid of the politics.
If Apple got the top five apps recompiled into Cocoa, that would be a start.
Palladium is coming up. What is Apple gonna do about it?
Possibly Apple has adopted a boutique strategy -- we can only guess what their strategy and plans are. The higher profit margins and the appearance of the Apple stores certainly suggests this kind of strategy. If so, I hope the way Dell is taking away educational sales is enough to wake them up. The situation with sales to schools is impossible to miss. Loss of sales opportunities in the consumer market can be missed if Apple is not looking for this information.
Things cannot be all bad if Apple's market share had a tiny increase in the face of losses in the educational market. Also, dropping prices can be dangerous, if sales do not go up enough to keep total profit from dropping. The safest approach may be a separate, low-cost Mac. Apple could make it a little expandable, with a couple PCI cards, and do what Wintel PCs do. Offer a cheaper product that the buyer may need to expand later on. Set initial profit margins high enough so, if it took many sales from other Macs, Apple's total profit would not be hurt much. If a low cost Mac is a success, the price could be gradually lowered.
Linux: 60%
Windows: 20%
Apple: 10%
Others: 10%
<strong>In ten years time:
Linux: 60%
Windows: 20%
Apple: 10%
Others: 10%</strong><hr></blockquote>
in 10 years??!!? thats forever in computer terms... in 10 years apple went from 50% to 15% to 5%
no way you can predict it...
hell there could even be a new OS that runs on X86 that can run windows apps, but is a better product... will most likely be an iteration of linux... but it is possible that it isnt...
also there is a distinct possibility that apple will go away in 10 years...
where do you come up with 10% others... if someone is going to make a new OS, chances are it will have wide acceptance of it, or it will just go away... there really is no more room for more niches for application developers... its like the game console market... there probably isn't enough room for 3 console makers... there is barely enough room for 2 major computer platforms... (linux doesn't count because most of the users compile their own applications, and they are usually free anyway)
Apple needs to get up above 5% in the next 2 years if they want to even have a chance of being somewhat relevant in today's market.
what ever happened to the "other 95%" it has turned into 97+%... at this rate, apple will have to pay developers to code for their OS... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Thats a question I've been asking myself for the last year. Their laptops are price competitive with wintels for the most part, but Apples desktops(towers especially) are no where near the price of wintels.
Lack of a low priced tower is killing Apple, I can't mention this enough.
And Lemon Bon Bon-excellent post! I look at their switch ads and all I can think of is-Show a damn computer or 2! They are paying for the ad, why not show the product also? How about the OS?........................
<strong>but where we are today Apple is atleast 100% more expensive and often as much as 200% more expensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you please provide some specific examples of (name-brand) PCs that are (fairly equivalently configured) 100% to 200% more expensive than the Mac?
First of all, I suggest to anyone wanting to speculate about Apple's market share position read the book The Profit Zone: How Strategic Business Design Will Lead You to Tomorrow's Profits as it is one of my favorite books regarding the art of profit design. The first sentence of the first chapter reads: Market share is dead.
Market share and profitability are not the same thing. A company can remain quite profitable without increasing market share at all.
The question of this thread is "Can Apple ever increase its market share".
The answer to this question is: Of course it can.
Which brings me to a better question: Does Apple want to increase its market share?
To which I answer: Probably not--at least not under Steve Jobs' reign as Applesar.
Perhaps a better question would be:
If market share does not guarantee profitability, why would Apple want to increase market share?
The answer to this question is very complicated, because it would involve forecasting Apple's strategy for the next fifteen years. At this point the only thing I have to go on is Steve Jobs promise to shareholders that OS X is the "operating system for the next 15 years." (For who? The <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">LAUB</a>? No shit.)
Right now, Apple's business design is profitable to <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/board.html"; target="_blank">these people</a>, not the shareholders. A recent scan of SEC filings has shown that even the most loyal shareholders in Apple's history have recently dumped hundreds of thousands of shares, all within a six month period.* Even though the market as a whole isn't doing well, it's important to note that Apple is not a company worth investing in at this point. It's going to be hard for Apple to raise the capital neccessary even if the economy gets a kick start to expand its market share, if that's its intention. At this point, with Steve Jobs behind the wheel, I don't think it is. And that's bad news for us.
*give or take a few months, don't have time to fact check right now, sorry.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
Although I don't normally post in this forum, I can see the most influential forces that affect Mac marketshare are largely missed here. Lungaretta is the only one I can see who has touched upon the 2 largest factors:
Momentum of the industry and platform familiarity.
These two forces far outweigh issues of price and speed. Not to suggest that they aren't concerns, only that they won't swing Mac marketshare to any significant degree at this stage of the game. The personal computer industry is maturing and people are becoming set in their computing ways. And even in emerging markets, the overwhelming prevalency of PCs and PC manufacurers makes it hard for a company like Apple to compete.
If you own a PC, are familiar with the OS, have all your personal files on it, software investment tied to it - the average user isn't likely to change unless they are *really* dissatisfied with it. This is why these "Switch" ads will never really work at any meaningful level at this stage of the game - 10 years ago perhaps, but now... no.
For most people, the absolute prevalency of PCs essentially remove the Mac as even an *option* for the vast majority of users. If you're a new user looking to buy a computer and 97% of your friends own PCs, what computer do you think he or she will buy?
Price, performance... they become more important after you've decided what you're going to buy (and for most people, the platform choice really isn't even in contention). Not always, of course... but platform decisions due to price alone will be less an influence that others in the larger scheme of things.
For Apple to turn it around it really has to reinvent itself. And by that I mean they have to come up with a *fundamentally* better way to use computers. I don't know what that is, but it has to go far beyond (and simpler) that what were seeing with current OSes. You can argue the superiority of OS:X vs WinXP all you want, the bottom line is that they fundamentally work the same to the average user.
Now to try and end this post on a more upbeat note, I do believe that Apple has it in them to come up with the new computing paradigm of the century. They are company that is not afraid to take risks in an cut-throat industry even when they occassionally fall flat on their faces. Steve Jobs, even simply as a marketing tool to keep Apple in the public eye, is a good thing I think. I think Apple could be in a much, much worse place than it is now...
Just some thoughts to keep in mind.
- Aesir
<strong>Greetings...
Although I don't normally post in this forum, I can see the most influential forces that affect Mac marketshare are largely missed here. Lungaretta is the only one I can see who has touched upon the 2 largest factors:
{...}</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Apple's market share was cut short when the boys at Apple didn't know what critical mass implied and opted to tell Mr. Gates and family to **** off when he wanted to port Apple's OS.
You're basically talking about the PC industry as a commodities market, and making assumptions that there are only a few choice reasons why people don't buy Apple Computers. I'll restate what I've said earlier: There is only ONE reason PC users (or anyone in general) don't buy Apple Computers.
(For other people's opinions on the matter of why people don't buy into Mac, see the thread "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" which I've posted three other forums besides this one.)
There is a misconception that one reason weighs heavily over another--in a commodoties market this may be true, however in reality since Apple is a proprietary system (and therefore an anomaly within the market) there are any number of factors that may contribute to the consumer's lack of interest in Apple products--and yet there is only one reason they never buy. I will post this reason later--it is beyond the scope of this topic.
PS: By "momentum of industry" you're talking about critical mass and by "platform familiarity" you're talking about marketing.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>For Apple to turn it around it really has to reinvent itself. And by that I mean they have to come up with a *fundamentally* better way to use computers. I don't know what that is, but it has to go far beyond (and simpler) that what were seeing with current OSes. You can argue the superiority of OS:X vs WinXP all you want, the bottom line is that they fundamentally work the same to the average user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to make my previous post clear, you are describing the conditions of a commodoties market here. Watches do the same thing--they tell time. What makes one watch better than the other one?
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
in 10 years??!!? thats forever in computer terms... in 10 years apple went from 50% to 15% to 5%
no way you can predict it...
It isn't forever .... things really don't actually CHANGE that much, things only get faster. I would be surprised to see a "major" advance in the next ten. Perhaps solid state hard drives.
also there is a distinct possibility that apple will go away in 10 years...
They have enough cash to survive 20 years of $200 million annual losses- they'll be around.
where do you come up with 10% others...
This covers Solaris, Oracle andthe likes ... your right, it is too high - but I stand by it.
Apple needs to get up above 5% in the next 2 years if they want to even have a chance of being somewhat relevant in today's market.
They are already "relevant"
Apple have their work cut out for them. But in many respects (the 'boutique' mentality...) Apple doesn't help itself.
The 'time' analogy is an interesting one.
All things being equal, the Mac 'X' factor may swing it. But...
"Can you please provide some specific examples of (name-brand) PCs that are (fairly equivalently configured) 100% to 200% more expensive than the Mac?"
PCworld advertising a Dell £999 laptop with DVD writing abilities. High Mhz, decent ram, screen and hard drive. Well?
Apple's competitive equivalent? The Powerbook for £2,400 ish inc VAT.
Can Apple increase marketshare..?
Yes.
1. Cheap iSlab (pizza flat-cube-esque appearance, monitorless) for education/cheap consumer machine. £499 inc VAT. Cheaper in bulk to defend the Dell attack.
2. 150 Apple retail stores to increase visibility.
3. A tower option for £999 inc Vat. AND cut 'power'Mac prices across the board with introduction of 970 and keep the dual processor option standard.
4. Advertising Apple hardware/'x' and apps (and what people can do with said apps...)
5. Marklar on proprietary x86/Itanium/Sledgehammer cpu / Apple motherboard.
Re-compile all Apple branded iapps, Shake and Final Cut (all the software Apple can control...!) into Cocoa x86/Itanium/Sledgehammer environment...thus giving a Windows alternative on x86. In time, Apple can co-fund Photoshop/Maya/Indesign on Apple x86. All the Unix apps. Watch the rest come.
What the gambit pay off. 97% of the worldwide user base is there for the taking when M$ start playing hardball with Palladium.
IF a fraction of those people want an alternative...Apple can make much more more than they do now. Enough to cover any loss to Apple branded PPC sales.
Sales of Apple x86 'X'
-iapps, isync, rendezvous, iPhone...
-Final Cut Pro'
-Shake etc...
-eMagic
to 97%...of the worldwide userbase.
I think that would be a start. Especially if Apple can brand a 'Staroffice' X Office App' and bundle it free with every Apple x86 branded motherboard.
I'm sure there are millions of Windows and 'Linux' users on x86 are dying for an alternative to 'look' at. The third party support could be very potent.
IF Apple provided the m/b as a start and let customers customise their x86 Apple box alongside the usual 'packaged' boxes.
7. IF, PPC processors are twice as cheap as commentators on these boards say they are then Apple could make their dual processor strategy permanent!
With the 970, this could give Apple a real edge over the x86 competition with their PPC branded solutions and have a lesser but healthier mark-up. Because they'd sell twice the 'power'Macs they currently do because people would perceive it as worth it.
WHERE Apple have gone wrong is the handling of 'perception'. Apple have always been more expensive. However, back then, they at least could go toe to toe on mhz and more on performance. Now? Twice as expensive and twice as 'slow'. Which on a single processor basis they are.
8. Performance Rating.
Peg the dual 970 as a Pentium 4 performance rating.
I think you'd be talking at least '7.2' gig vs 3.6.
That would be a monumental performance shift in favour of Apple.
Apple would take a hit in margins going 970 dual (but hey, they're doing it now!!!) but the increased sales in publishing where Dell is giving them an increased fight (AND Quark are selling loads of PC cross grades according to Quark themselves!!!) and at least Apple can start to make a fist of things.
Alot of PC gamer/tower users would be drooling at the thought of 7.2 gig!
Apple shouldn't overlook the gaming crowd. They made the x86 Athlon a real internet darling at the beginning!
The 970 and upwards and AI alliance should change this. And can't come soon enough.
Other strong suites for Apple?
1. Unix apps' by the bagload (and these could arrive like the cavalry on any Apple x86 motherboard also!)
2. 97% to aim at.
3. A potent 'lifestyle' strategy to build on ala Sony. The iPod can be built on...to transcend the traditional Apple base. Add in an iPhone/iCamera here, a sub-notebook there, an islab cheapo desktop client...and a vPod there...and better still, an iTablet THERE (I've seen the latest x86 tablets. I'm impressed. I think Apple's answer to blow it out the water...)
Who knows. I think Apple's chic, cool, design and ease of use in 'gadgets' may allow Apple to succeed where they lost the opportunity to succeed in computers (in a 'critical mass' way...)
4. An inspired retail strategy that actually shows signs of working in ways that previous computer retail 'box-shifting' strategies haven't.
5. Apple are doing well inspite of all things. This resilience has bought them time...but it won't save them forever. They need to hit two or three homeruns.
6. Apple have the 'best' laptops out there, all in all. It should be the iBooks that allow Apple to take Dell to the cleaners! The iBook needs to be driven to the £499 mark. In terms of all Apple has computer wise, the iBook looks the most likely to achieve the holy grail of competitive Apple at all price points and is only a couple of hundred away from really socking it to the Wintel laptops.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>