If Apple wanted to beat consumer lineups of any PC maker, this is what they'd have to release:
CRT iMac
700MHz PowerPC G3
128MB SDRAM
20GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
RAGE 128 Ultra w/16MB
$599
eMac
700MHz PowerPC G4-------800MHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM-------------256MB SDRAM
20GB Ultra ATA drive----40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive-------------CD-RW drive
Geforce 2MX w/32MB------Radeon 7500 w/32MB
$799--------------------$1099
LCD iMac
933MHz PowerPC G4-------933MHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM-------------256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive----60GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive-------------Combo drive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB------Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1399-------------------$1599
1GHz PowerPC G4
512MB SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1899
MHz aside, these configurations are as good as anything DELL offers for the price,and this is without taking into account Apple's superior industrial design and bundled iApps. Hope we see something along these lines a MWNY.
Actually you can sell prestige names cheap yet maintain the prestige.
Look at BMW:
They'll sell you a 3 series 'compact' or a mini, and soon a 1 series
or they'll sell you a Z8 roadster or 745i.
BIG PRICE difference. They range from slightly pricey economy cars to super luxury performance cars.
the Z8 hasn't lost any of it's cachet just because you can buy a Mini or 3 series compact.
I'm not suggesting Apple sell a you a Z8 at a sub compact price. I'm suggesting Apple sell both Z8's at Z8 prices and compacts at compact prices.
HP, Compaq, Micron and IBM all had loads of problems not related to the price of their PC's. Don't doubt for a second that they made profits on every machine sold. Been to an IBM store lately? See how they gouge you for service? Not to worry, they're making money. What these guys have that Apple doesn't is an acceptable and affordable point of entry.
Also for a company that "knows what it's doing" the only consistent aptitude Apple has shown over the past 18 years (Mac) is the ability to slowly bleed marketshare.
I don't want to get into another long debate about why Marketshare does matter, and how the mac platform would cease to be anything other than a VERY EXPENSIVE specialized pro platform if ever market share shrank to 1% or below.
They need to have a cheap computer in the line-up. The imac classic is that computer. 500-650. It's built in a seperate factory, the design work is long paid for, it's tested, it works reliably, and the components are dirt cheap. Producing it in no way impacts their ability to make the other computers in their line-up.
Do you even understand the concept of being a consumer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't feel so bad, it's the typical apologist ploy -- they automatically deride any consideration of more competitive pricing and dress it up in the guise of "business sense."
The great myth of the Apple price apologists is that PC maker's are somehow selling boxes at a loss. It just isn't true. PC makers are still smarting from the rash of bad decisions they made (as did many companies) in the mid to late 90's. They were so over-extended in every even remotely PC/IT tech related area that when IT, internet, and tel-co failed to turn us all into multi-billionaires they found themselves with too many dead investments, redundant manufacturing/shipping/warehousing capacities, executive payrolls, etc etc... They're still paying for it now. PC box makers are making money on PC's and service just fine.
Matsu, I'll first just the slap at me pass. This all economic theory so lets just forgo the 'your full of it and so am i' routine.....
It is all about money. And I agree that price counts more than any other single factor, ESPECIALLY when people don't know much about technology. And there in lies my point.
I think Apple, at a time when the PC market is volatile as it is, must takes special cares not to let market share and price undermine the things that make them Apple.
They need to be very aggressive in price, again I agree. But to do so solely because we want them too or we think it is something they can afford is whimsy.
I spent enough years in business, four managing an Apple Reseller, to know that blanket statements like that that would run costs in the millions is not just something you can explain away in a 3 or 4 paragraphs. Years of economics barely can.
So sure, we can use BMW as an example but this is the meat.... they will never compete with Hyundai or Kia. And as such why should Apple try to make a $799 PC better than they already do?
They make a profit. It is the bottom line. And as they are actually growing market share on the current model there is no need to adjust the mechanism...just be more aggressive with it.
P.S. I find it ironic that in other threads we are tirelessly chanting that Apple needs faster hardware or they are gonna die to this one where the machines are too expensive and we need a lower end model. Sure, there are sticking points...but.... well, it's a good thing we all don't run Apple
So sure, we can use BMW as an example but this is the meat.... they will never compete with Hyundai or Kia. And as such why should Apple try to make a $799 PC better than they already do?
P.S. I find it ironic that in other threads we are tirelessly chanting that Apple needs faster hardware or they are gonna die to this one where the machines are too expensive and we need a lower end model. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
And, BTW The Mini is a different brand, and
I am not apologizing for Apple's prices. I am saying that the MacOS is a better product at any price. I am saying that the hardware doesn't compete with Dell, Compaq, etc.. It is not designed to, and it shouldn't. Apple has little to gain there. I am saying Apple is better than that. That the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That the higher price is justified because of an intangible experience. If you don't get that, and can't feel what it's like to own a Mac, and don't understand that an intangible can have monetary value, then go buy a PC and hush up.
[quote]I am not apologizing for Apple's prices.<hr></blockquote>well your post is some kind of rationalization for Apple's pricing. [quote] I am saying that the MacOS is a better product at any price.<hr></blockquote>I hope you're exaggerating, basic economics indicates that demand curves are price sensitive. [quote]I am saying that the hardware doesn't compete with Dell, Compaq, etc.<hr></blockquote>It seems that Apple does think that they compete, the megahertz myth and altivec and supercomputer marketing seems to indicate this. [quote]That the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That the higher price is justified because of an intangible experience.<hr></blockquote>Yes integration is nice, but you can't continue charging a premium for hardware that is a couple of generations old and selling it a a "pro" setup. I have no problems with most of Apple consumer pricing (except that lame-ass price hike), its the pro market which is grossly overpriced and underfeatured. Even discounting for issues beyond their control--MPX bus and chip speed--how about allowing more than 1.5GB of RAM or at least ATA100 so we can use larger capacity HDs. [quote]then go buy a PC and hush up<hr></blockquote>last refuge of an Apple apologist.
Why does every 3 in 4 peeps I see talking about market share keep harping on about percentages?
If one year their market share is 500,000 customers and the next its 600,000: wouldn't you find this to be more compelling than a stupid percentage of current users? So what if a market share percentage stays the same one year to the next? As long as there is growth and their always is thats all that matters. Wake up, Apple is a niche player! The position suits them AND they are making a profit along with growing their user base!
<slightly OT>
Also ever wondered why console games are so good for the "shitty" hardware they use? Simple, if you can keep the amount of variables in a product range down to a minimum, you can then attempt to squeeze as much performance out of it as possible.
Err... sorry have a cold and kept seeing the word market share after catching up on all the posts in recent weeks(even when my eyes are closed.
[quote] well your post is some kind of rationalization for Apple's pricing. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, that Apple's products have value beyond the monetary.
[quote] I hope you're exaggerating, basic economics indicates that demand curves are price sensitive. <hr></blockquote>I'm not saying there would be demand for the OS at any price just that it is better, and better to such a degree that it is monetarily incalculable.
[quote] It seems that Apple does think that they compete, the megahertz myth and altivec and supercomputer marketing seems to indicate this. <hr></blockquote>
I should have been more clear: Yes, every current hardware product doesn't "compete" dollar for dollar. And yes I'm sure Apple would love to be able to have hardware superior, or equal to it's best rivals. I don't apologize for this, it sucks and everyone knows it.
[quote] Yes integration is nice, but you can't continue charging a premium for hardware that is a couple of generations old and selling it a a "pro" setup. I have no problems with most of Apple consumer pricing (except that lame-ass price hike), its the pro market which is grossly overpriced and underfeatured. Even discounting for issues beyond their control--MPX bus and chip speed--how about allowing more than 1.5GB of RAM or at least ATA100 so we can use larger capacity HDs. <hr></blockquote>Who said anything about integration? I'm referring to the existential experience of using a Mac. And yes, better hardware would be great especially in the desktops. I think we are all aware of what's been going on there, and that MWNY will hopefully bring good news.
Criticizing Apple's obvious negatives is easy, and if you can't also see the larger positives, then what is the point, except to beat a dead horse?
Apple's most important announcement should be price reductions on yesterday's technology.
That's the way to innovate!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who said innovate? Are you paying attention? More marketshare allows greater R&D budgets to build the supercomputers that 2/3's of this sites visitors complain don't exist. Who would like to bet that if Apple delivers half of what this site's constituency has been clamoring for in the Pro line they will charge MORE MONEY. They did it with iMac, they'll do it with G4(+)/G5. If apple could charge a premium for outdated tech last month, what makes you think they'll stay "fair" when their tech is leading edge? I digress. My point was simply this: the more Mac users there are, the better off we all are. Is it a prestige product? YES. The BMW was a good example, from $20K to 80K. I got news for you, an $899 computer is still too expensive to a great many people. SCREW those people. The other 20% that would pay a fair price for a better product are the answers to ALL our prayers.
tim, might I suggest: not talking down to people in an open forum, calling them thick-headed, or rude sarcasm (as opposed to friendly sarcasm).
Just an idea, although I'm sure you'll think it isn't innovative enough.
Why does every 3 in 4 peeps I see talking about market share keep harping on about percentages?
If one year their market share is 500,000 customers and the next its 600,000: wouldn't you find this to be more compelling than a stupid percentage of current users? So what if a market share percentage stays the same one year to the next? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because when Real decides to allocate $$ to develop real player, they look at market share.
When game developers decide to port or not to port their latest games, they look at market share.
When Berlitz decides to make Mac versions of their language software (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Kazaa decides to develop a Mac version (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Que!/Logitech/etc. decides to write drivers (or not) for Macs, they look at marketshare.
When DiVX decides to write a codec for Mac (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Palm conduit makers decide to write mac versions, they look at Marketshare.
A customer looks at a Mac and asks:
Can I play Half Life?
Nope.
Can I watch Real Videos ?
Nope.
Can I download stuff off of Kazaa?
Nope.
Can I watch DivX clips?
Not really.
Can I use my Quick Cam Express?
Nope.
Can I use my scanner?
Nope.
Can I learn Spanish using a cheap CD-Rom?
Nope.
The traditional Mac evangelist response to these concerns is "Well you don't really want to do those things, anyway."
I'm sorry, but 96.3% of people DO want to do that stuff. That's why they buy a PC. The only thing that will change this situation is market share. The only thing that will change that is better price/performance ratio, and Apple taking the Bull by the horns and personally financing the ports of these types of software packages. Apple will probably never do that, so they will probably never make significant strides in marketshare (i.e. software availabaility).
All the touchy-feely ad campaigns in the world won't change the fact that customers :
1) look at the specs
2) look at the $$$$
3) look at the software racks
4) decide in about 1/10 of a second to buy a PC.
They might say "those iMacs look nifty" as they are carting their brand new PC out to their car, but that's as far as it goes.
Ricain, I'm beginning to wonder if only the newbies see it. You nailed it better than I did in the thread that started this post. Everybody pay attention, this guy gets it!
Indeed, someone who "gets it". Everyone who questions the importance of market share (the percentage!) please refer back to his post whenever you feel a delusional apology coming on.
PS. Apple is NOT GROWING MARKET SHARE doing what they're doing. Looking long term, Apple's market share only does one thing consistently -- shrink, slowly yes, but shrink nonetheless. From '84 to now what have they done? Don't get too impressed by a few quarters of growth. They've been shrinking for years, a point or two increase during a time when the market is a little depressed will be given right back as soon as it picks up.
What baffles me is Jobs' desire to gain marketshare but does little to get there.
Recent successes with the iMac and the Apple stores have definitely helped in the bringing the platform to the forefront. However, the prices simply don't work in bring in a higher marketshare.
Steve, higher prices net you greater margins which helps the bottom line. Fine. No need to apologize for that. But just don't tell me you're going after marketshare and the other 95% when your prices are nearly double that of the competitions'.
Your points been made a thousand times over in the past by different people. BUT, what you fail to come to grips with is that these same examples you just quoted look at the potential market they are looking to sell/invest into. When they look at the Mac community/platform they don't say "gee, these guys only have 4.3% of the market, lets skip them", they look at the total user-base that they are targeting. Remember that word "targeting". The know the Mac's base is smaller than Wintel's, but they also know its a market that can still earn it revenue.
Yes I agree whole-heartedly that it would be advantageous if the figure/percentage were higher, but the Mac platform is still and more than likely always be expanding in its base of potential customers for the above-mentioned hardware/software manufacturers. If they don't tap it or make better products to service it, one of their competitors will.
REPEAT AFTER ME
Niche Market! (look it up).
[quote] The traditional Mac evangelist response to these concerns is "Well you don't really want to do those things, anyway." <hr></blockquote>
I don't own a Mac and am not an apologist/evangelist. I just love reading your forumns, as they are the only ones that exhibit so much passion for a product which i find fascinating.
My apology to Mack Damon for making his thread veer off-course. I just re-read what I posted and assure all its not a flame of any kind, just my opinion and bad judgement. So lets get back to the subject .
<strong>Speed bump the eMac, cut the margin to 10% (5% of which goes to the reseller) and put those puppies everywhere. It's time to put up or shut up, Steve-O. Really want that other 95%? Then you have to take the gloves off. I think apple could sell a 800 Mhz G4 eMac for $899 and scoot by. More importantly, it'd get these suckers onto school desks and in to the market in much bigger numbers. (I'd love to see eMacs at Wal*Mart, though I know it will never happen.) I'd love to see a G5. I'd love to see 2Ghz. I'd love to see iWhatever, but I'd really just like to see more Mac users. My bet is Apple might, too. I think Mac users "grow" in to their mac experience, like all my mac friends have. They started small, with a performa or something similar and moved into the high end when they could. Making the leap to a Mac or the leap to a computer the first time is scary for 2/3rds of the populace. They don't want to spend a ton of cash and find out they made a mistake. They'd rather ease into the experience. This is where apple needs to feast. Steve-O, are you listening?
When the G5 comes out, do you really believe first time computer buyers will say "HEY! The G5 is here! That settles it, honey, I'm gonna buy one of them Mac things"?!? Let's face it PEOPLE WHO ALREADY USE MACS care most about the G5 when it comes, Apple will sell a 1/4 million to current G4 users in that quarter alone. Let's not be greedy folks, let share the macs with everyone</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are probably good ideas to sell computers, and I really appreciate the enthusiasm!
There may be many reasons for Apple not appearing to be as agressive in the marketplace, and this too may change.
One thing I would like to point out though, is that Steve Jobs is much like an Ayn Rand protagonist...And remember Apple is profitable when others are not...but there are higher ideals lofted by Apple, placing importance on things other than just profit and marketshare.
[quote]Who said anything about integration?<hr></blockquote>
You did.
That the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts
Get a dictionary.
[quote]...but there are higher ideals lofted by Apple, placing importance on things other than just profit and marketshare.<hr></blockquote>
They put Gandi, Einstein and Cesar Chavez on a poster and now they have higher ideals? It really seems that Apple's corporate groupthink works in a manner so that profits and marketshare are mutually exclusive. They seem to behave as if one and not both are possible.
Agreed. All companies look at 'market share.' Apple is right to want more of it... but only a select part of it.
But do not go so far as to base things solely as a market percentile base. Number of users within the base is what actually counts. If you maintain the same market share percent year over year, but the market size increases, as it happens to, what was 500,000 last year may in fact be 600,00 this year.
Yes, the flat share percentage is important tool but sales to installed base is what actually determines the corporate ventures into a market. Potential sales to an entire demographic, not market share percentage.
This has nothing to do with gaining market share. Yes, gaining and holding market share increases the installed base, but it doesn't tell the entire story and is a poor reference for determining a venture. The behavior of the demographics within your share is more important the the sum total.
Taking it all one step further, if you increase your market share using low end units and sell it completely based on price you do little to attract new 3rd party vendors. The segment you have gained is not a demographic that spends money and extras and thus are of little interest to 3rd party vendors.
Apple has good extended sales within its market share. Maintaining the quality of that demographic is very important as you increase market share. Diluting it is a dangerous prospect.
Apple may be a niche market. But historically niche markets are more successful over all in measure of investment return and profitability. They just need to expand the niche.
Comments
CRT iMac
700MHz PowerPC G3
128MB SDRAM
20GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
RAGE 128 Ultra w/16MB
$599
eMac
700MHz PowerPC G4-------800MHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM-------------256MB SDRAM
20GB Ultra ATA drive----40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive-------------CD-RW drive
Geforce 2MX w/32MB------Radeon 7500 w/32MB
$799--------------------$1099
LCD iMac
933MHz PowerPC G4-------933MHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM-------------256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive----60GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive-------------Combo drive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB------Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1399-------------------$1599
1GHz PowerPC G4
512MB SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1899
MHz aside, these configurations are as good as anything DELL offers for the price,and this is without taking into account Apple's superior industrial design and bundled iApps. Hope we see something along these lines a MWNY.
Look at BMW:
They'll sell you a 3 series 'compact' or a mini, and soon a 1 series
or they'll sell you a Z8 roadster or 745i.
BIG PRICE difference. They range from slightly pricey economy cars to super luxury performance cars.
the Z8 hasn't lost any of it's cachet just because you can buy a Mini or 3 series compact.
I'm not suggesting Apple sell a you a Z8 at a sub compact price. I'm suggesting Apple sell both Z8's at Z8 prices and compacts at compact prices.
HP, Compaq, Micron and IBM all had loads of problems not related to the price of their PC's. Don't doubt for a second that they made profits on every machine sold. Been to an IBM store lately? See how they gouge you for service? Not to worry, they're making money. What these guys have that Apple doesn't is an acceptable and affordable point of entry.
Also for a company that "knows what it's doing" the only consistent aptitude Apple has shown over the past 18 years (Mac) is the ability to slowly bleed marketshare.
I don't want to get into another long debate about why Marketshare does matter, and how the mac platform would cease to be anything other than a VERY EXPENSIVE specialized pro platform if ever market share shrank to 1% or below.
They need to have a cheap computer in the line-up. The imac classic is that computer. 500-650. It's built in a seperate factory, the design work is long paid for, it's tested, it works reliably, and the components are dirt cheap. Producing it in no way impacts their ability to make the other computers in their line-up.
Do you even understand the concept of being a consumer?
What other computer company does all this?
(But yes, I'd like a cheaper Mac as well)
<strong>
Do you even understand the concept of being a consumer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't feel so bad, it's the typical apologist ploy -- they automatically deride any consideration of more competitive pricing and dress it up in the guise of "business sense."
The great myth of the Apple price apologists is that PC maker's are somehow selling boxes at a loss. It just isn't true. PC makers are still smarting from the rash of bad decisions they made (as did many companies) in the mid to late 90's. They were so over-extended in every even remotely PC/IT tech related area that when IT, internet, and tel-co failed to turn us all into multi-billionaires they found themselves with too many dead investments, redundant manufacturing/shipping/warehousing capacities, executive payrolls, etc etc... They're still paying for it now. PC box makers are making money on PC's and service just fine.
It is all about money. And I agree that price counts more than any other single factor, ESPECIALLY when people don't know much about technology. And there in lies my point.
I think Apple, at a time when the PC market is volatile as it is, must takes special cares not to let market share and price undermine the things that make them Apple.
They need to be very aggressive in price, again I agree. But to do so solely because we want them too or we think it is something they can afford is whimsy.
I spent enough years in business, four managing an Apple Reseller, to know that blanket statements like that that would run costs in the millions is not just something you can explain away in a 3 or 4 paragraphs. Years of economics barely can.
So sure, we can use BMW as an example but this is the meat.... they will never compete with Hyundai or Kia. And as such why should Apple try to make a $799 PC better than they already do?
They make a profit. It is the bottom line. And as they are actually growing market share on the current model there is no need to adjust the mechanism...just be more aggressive with it.
P.S. I find it ironic that in other threads we are tirelessly chanting that Apple needs faster hardware or they are gonna die to this one where the machines are too expensive and we need a lower end model. Sure, there are sticking points...but.... well, it's a good thing we all don't run Apple
[quote] [/QB]Originally posted by zaz:
So sure, we can use BMW as an example but this is the meat.... they will never compete with Hyundai or Kia. And as such why should Apple try to make a $799 PC better than they already do?
P.S. I find it ironic that in other threads we are tirelessly chanting that Apple needs faster hardware or they are gonna die to this one where the machines are too expensive and we need a lower end model. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
And, BTW The Mini is a different brand, and
I am not apologizing for Apple's prices. I am saying that the MacOS is a better product at any price. I am saying that the hardware doesn't compete with Dell, Compaq, etc.. It is not designed to, and it shouldn't. Apple has little to gain there. I am saying Apple is better than that. That the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That the higher price is justified because of an intangible experience. If you don't get that, and can't feel what it's like to own a Mac, and don't understand that an intangible can have monetary value, then go buy a PC and hush up.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Why does every 3 in 4 peeps I see talking about market share keep harping on about percentages?
If one year their market share is 500,000 customers and the next its 600,000: wouldn't you find this to be more compelling than a stupid percentage of current users? So what if a market share percentage stays the same one year to the next? As long as there is growth and their always is thats all that matters. Wake up, Apple is a niche player! The position suits them AND they are making a profit along with growing their user base!
<slightly OT>
Also ever wondered why console games are so good for the "shitty" hardware they use? Simple, if you can keep the amount of variables in a product range down to a minimum, you can then attempt to squeeze as much performance out of it as possible.
Err... sorry have a cold and kept seeing the word market share after catching up on all the posts in recent weeks(even when my eyes are closed.
</cough>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, that Apple's products have value beyond the monetary.
[quote] I hope you're exaggerating, basic economics indicates that demand curves are price sensitive. <hr></blockquote>I'm not saying there would be demand for the OS at any price just that it is better, and better to such a degree that it is monetarily incalculable.
[quote] It seems that Apple does think that they compete, the megahertz myth and altivec and supercomputer marketing seems to indicate this. <hr></blockquote>
I should have been more clear: Yes, every current hardware product doesn't "compete" dollar for dollar. And yes I'm sure Apple would love to be able to have hardware superior, or equal to it's best rivals. I don't apologize for this, it sucks and everyone knows it.
[quote] Yes integration is nice, but you can't continue charging a premium for hardware that is a couple of generations old and selling it a a "pro" setup. I have no problems with most of Apple consumer pricing (except that lame-ass price hike), its the pro market which is grossly overpriced and underfeatured. Even discounting for issues beyond their control--MPX bus and chip speed--how about allowing more than 1.5GB of RAM or at least ATA100 so we can use larger capacity HDs. <hr></blockquote>Who said anything about integration? I'm referring to the existential experience of using a Mac. And yes, better hardware would be great especially in the desktops. I think we are all aware of what's been going on there, and that MWNY will hopefully bring good news.
Criticizing Apple's obvious negatives is easy, and if you can't also see the larger positives, then what is the point, except to beat a dead horse?
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>
<strong>Oh yeah! That's very exciting!
Apple's most important announcement should be price reductions on yesterday's technology.
That's the way to innovate!
Who said innovate? Are you paying attention? More marketshare allows greater R&D budgets to build the supercomputers that 2/3's of this sites visitors complain don't exist. Who would like to bet that if Apple delivers half of what this site's constituency has been clamoring for in the Pro line they will charge MORE MONEY. They did it with iMac, they'll do it with G4(+)/G5. If apple could charge a premium for outdated tech last month, what makes you think they'll stay "fair" when their tech is leading edge? I digress. My point was simply this: the more Mac users there are, the better off we all are. Is it a prestige product? YES. The BMW was a good example, from $20K to 80K. I got news for you, an $899 computer is still too expensive to a great many people. SCREW those people. The other 20% that would pay a fair price for a better product are the answers to ALL our prayers.
tim, might I suggest: not talking down to people in an open forum, calling them thick-headed, or rude sarcasm (as opposed to friendly sarcasm).
Just an idea, although I'm sure you'll think it isn't innovative enough.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong><cough>
Why does every 3 in 4 peeps I see talking about market share keep harping on about percentages?
If one year their market share is 500,000 customers and the next its 600,000: wouldn't you find this to be more compelling than a stupid percentage of current users? So what if a market share percentage stays the same one year to the next? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because when Real decides to allocate $$ to develop real player, they look at market share.
When game developers decide to port or not to port their latest games, they look at market share.
When Berlitz decides to make Mac versions of their language software (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Kazaa decides to develop a Mac version (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Que!/Logitech/etc. decides to write drivers (or not) for Macs, they look at marketshare.
When DiVX decides to write a codec for Mac (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Palm conduit makers decide to write mac versions, they look at Marketshare.
A customer looks at a Mac and asks:
Can I play Half Life?
Nope.
Can I watch Real Videos ?
Nope.
Can I download stuff off of Kazaa?
Nope.
Can I watch DivX clips?
Not really.
Can I use my Quick Cam Express?
Nope.
Can I use my scanner?
Nope.
Can I learn Spanish using a cheap CD-Rom?
Nope.
The traditional Mac evangelist response to these concerns is "Well you don't really want to do those things, anyway."
I'm sorry, but 96.3% of people DO want to do that stuff. That's why they buy a PC. The only thing that will change this situation is market share. The only thing that will change that is better price/performance ratio, and Apple taking the Bull by the horns and personally financing the ports of these types of software packages. Apple will probably never do that, so they will probably never make significant strides in marketshare (i.e. software availabaility).
All the touchy-feely ad campaigns in the world won't change the fact that customers :
1) look at the specs
2) look at the $$$$
3) look at the software racks
4) decide in about 1/10 of a second to buy a PC.
They might say "those iMacs look nifty" as they are carting their brand new PC out to their car, but that's as far as it goes.
:cool:
Indeed, someone who "gets it". Everyone who questions the importance of market share (the percentage!) please refer back to his post whenever you feel a delusional apology coming on.
PS. Apple is NOT GROWING MARKET SHARE doing what they're doing. Looking long term, Apple's market share only does one thing consistently -- shrink, slowly yes, but shrink nonetheless. From '84 to now what have they done? Don't get too impressed by a few quarters of growth. They've been shrinking for years, a point or two increase during a time when the market is a little depressed will be given right back as soon as it picks up.
What baffles me is Jobs' desire to gain marketshare but does little to get there.
Recent successes with the iMac and the Apple stores have definitely helped in the bringing the platform to the forefront. However, the prices simply don't work in bring in a higher marketshare.
Steve, higher prices net you greater margins which helps the bottom line. Fine. No need to apologize for that. But just don't tell me you're going after marketshare and the other 95% when your prices are nearly double that of the competitions'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when Real decides to allocate $$ to develop real player, they look at market share.
When game developers decide to port or not to port their latest games, they look at market share.
When Berlitz decides to make Mac versions of their language software (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Kazaa decides to develop a Mac version (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Que!/Logitech/etc. decides to write drivers (or not) for Macs, they look at marketshare.
When DiVX decides to write a codec for Mac (or not), they look at marketshare.
When Palm conduit makers decide to write mac versions, they look at Marketshare.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your points been made a thousand times over in the past by different people. BUT, what you fail to come to grips with is that these same examples you just quoted look at the potential market they are looking to sell/invest into. When they look at the Mac community/platform they don't say "gee, these guys only have 4.3% of the market, lets skip them", they look at the total user-base that they are targeting. Remember that word "targeting". The know the Mac's base is smaller than Wintel's, but they also know its a market that can still earn it revenue.
Yes I agree whole-heartedly that it would be advantageous if the figure/percentage were higher, but the Mac platform is still and more than likely always be expanding in its base of potential customers for the above-mentioned hardware/software manufacturers. If they don't tap it or make better products to service it, one of their competitors will.
REPEAT AFTER ME
Niche Market! (look it up).
[quote] The traditional Mac evangelist response to these concerns is "Well you don't really want to do those things, anyway." <hr></blockquote>
I don't own a Mac and am not an apologist/evangelist. I just love reading your forumns, as they are the only ones that exhibit so much passion for a product which i find fascinating.
<strong>Speed bump the eMac, cut the margin to 10% (5% of which goes to the reseller) and put those puppies everywhere. It's time to put up or shut up, Steve-O. Really want that other 95%? Then you have to take the gloves off. I think apple could sell a 800 Mhz G4 eMac for $899 and scoot by. More importantly, it'd get these suckers onto school desks and in to the market in much bigger numbers. (I'd love to see eMacs at Wal*Mart, though I know it will never happen.) I'd love to see a G5. I'd love to see 2Ghz. I'd love to see iWhatever, but I'd really just like to see more Mac users. My bet is Apple might, too. I think Mac users "grow" in to their mac experience, like all my mac friends have. They started small, with a performa or something similar and moved into the high end when they could. Making the leap to a Mac or the leap to a computer the first time is scary for 2/3rds of the populace. They don't want to spend a ton of cash and find out they made a mistake. They'd rather ease into the experience. This is where apple needs to feast. Steve-O, are you listening?
When the G5 comes out, do you really believe first time computer buyers will say "HEY! The G5 is here! That settles it, honey, I'm gonna buy one of them Mac things"?!? Let's face it PEOPLE WHO ALREADY USE MACS care most about the G5 when it comes, Apple will sell a 1/4 million to current G4 users in that quarter alone. Let's not be greedy folks, let share the macs with everyone</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are probably good ideas to sell computers, and I really appreciate the enthusiasm!
There may be many reasons for Apple not appearing to be as agressive in the marketplace, and this too may change.
One thing I would like to point out though, is that Steve Jobs is much like an Ayn Rand protagonist...And remember Apple is profitable when others are not...but there are higher ideals lofted by Apple, placing importance on things other than just profit and marketshare.
...just an observation
You did.
That the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts
Get a dictionary.
[quote]...but there are higher ideals lofted by Apple, placing importance on things other than just profit and marketshare.<hr></blockquote>
They put Gandi, Einstein and Cesar Chavez on a poster and now they have higher ideals? It really seems that Apple's corporate groupthink works in a manner so that profits and marketshare are mutually exclusive. They seem to behave as if one and not both are possible.
But do not go so far as to base things solely as a market percentile base. Number of users within the base is what actually counts. If you maintain the same market share percent year over year, but the market size increases, as it happens to, what was 500,000 last year may in fact be 600,00 this year.
Yes, the flat share percentage is important tool but sales to installed base is what actually determines the corporate ventures into a market. Potential sales to an entire demographic, not market share percentage.
This has nothing to do with gaining market share. Yes, gaining and holding market share increases the installed base, but it doesn't tell the entire story and is a poor reference for determining a venture. The behavior of the demographics within your share is more important the the sum total.
Taking it all one step further, if you increase your market share using low end units and sell it completely based on price you do little to attract new 3rd party vendors. The segment you have gained is not a demographic that spends money and extras and thus are of little interest to 3rd party vendors.
Apple has good extended sales within its market share. Maintaining the quality of that demographic is very important as you increase market share. Diluting it is a dangerous prospect.
Apple may be a niche market. But historically niche markets are more successful over all in measure of investment return and profitability. They just need to expand the niche.