<strong>....(I'd love to see eMacs at Wal*Mart, though I know it will never happen.)... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh my gosh! If I saw an iMac/eMac at Walmart, I'd freak out. I think I'd start calling people I didn't even know and tell them to meet me at Walmart for a demo. Man, that would be so f*cking cool. In retrospect (taking a breath here) with the advent of Apple stores I don't see this happening soon. But DANG, if it did.... that would rock! They would prop up a software display right next to it too! Man.... who would you even call to get iMacs at Walmart??? Would they still price match? LOL! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What would be nice to know is what constitutes the market that Apple is after. Obviously it is not the entire personal computer market. We know this because Apple has very little of it and as someone else pointed out its share of this market is shrinking. But, if the PCs are for Joe Sixpack, what type of person are Macs for?
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
iCode. Your post was profound and thoughtful. I enjoyed it a lot. Thx. If you post no objection I'm printing it and handing it out to my coworkers. It sums up what it means to be a mac man.
[quote]<snip> If you post no objection I'm printing it and handing it out to my coworkers. It sums up what it means to be a mac man.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
<strong>What would be nice to know is what constitutes the market that Apple is after. Obviously it is not the entire personal computer market. We know this because Apple has very little of it and as someone else pointed out its share of this market is shrinking. But, if the PCs are for Joe Sixpack, what type of person are Macs for?
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I thought I'd jump back in one last time to clarify what I believe to be true:
The Mhz/Frame rate guys are a segment Apple neither cares about nor wants. The cheap guys buy a $400 computer and stick a $300 video card in it. The more affluent ones spend big $$$ (easily apple $$$$) to get big Mhz numbers on their desk.
Apple doesn't want or need cheapskates. (referring to Zaz's theory) $900 isn't cheap. Computers grow with people's needs. Thats why they have PORTS. Make the computer cheap enough so that people will feel good about growing with it. Someone who gets a sub $900 G4 mac WILL eventually buy peripherals and more software. I rarely meet a mac user who isn't proud of his mac and the work he produces with it. (Tom Clancy's quote is my favorite!) People that buy the bottom end aren't concerned as much with specs (they know beggars can't be choosers) as they are "Can this computer do what I need?" I think we know the answer is yes.
I surf (and post) on a 400Mhz G4 at home, while running a hotline server (and client), iTunes cranking out hits in the background, AIM keeping me in touch with friends and colleagues. All while running Photoshop and doing large file copies. I'm a speed freak at the office with my Dual533, but this machine feels great. AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS!
Take the cheapest pro PC tower in a reputable manufacturer's line (which is what mine was) from 2+ years ago. Now slap XP on it. Do all the stuff I do every day on this old G4, and attempt to do it well.
All roads apple's high roads lead to market share. Why can Intel afford such expensive fabs and accelerated development? Money from market share.
Why does a program that tracks navel lint exist on the PC, and no Mac version is planned? Market share
Why does my company IT guy shove these PC's down my throat? Market share.
Why does Motorola treat Apple like an annoying kid brother? Market share.
Why does a Mac video card (with mac drivers) cost so much? Market share.
According to Adobe's SEC filing, Apple customers now account for 27% of Adobe's software sales mix, down from 34% year over year 2001. In 1997, Adobe for the first time reported that the Windows market earned a larger percentage then the Macintosh market of Adobe's business. Since that time, Adobe's Apple customer base has decreased year over year.<hr></blockquote>
At what point does it become unprofitable for Adobe to bother with Mac ports?
<strong>What would be nice to know is what constitutes the market that Apple is after. Obviously it is not the entire personal computer market. We know this because Apple has very little of it and as someone else pointed out its share of this market is shrinking. But, if the PCs are for Joe Sixpack, what type of person are Macs for?
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
At what point does it become unprofitable for Adobe to bother with Mac ports?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make the instant presumption that the market has a finite user base and that it does not grow.
34% could be 500,000 last year and the newer 27% could be 600,000 this year. More actual users, but less market share.
And 1/3 of revenue from a platform that holds 3-4% of a market speaks volumes of consumer behavior.
Lastly, the statement makes no difference between the actual Applications, OEM deals for things like PhotoDeluxe, and specific product profitability.
This is exactly the kind blanket statement I refer too... used mostly by armchair CFO's who understand little of business economics. It sounds all big and bad, but the story is amazingly short. It is a headline, nothing more.
<strong>34% could be 500,000 last year and the newer 27% could be 600,000 this year. More actual users, but less market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true for "the other 95%" too. Think about it, when our yearly 100,000 users gain will be insignificant compared to the 600,000 (or whatever) on the other side of the fence that'll be the time when development costs won't justify Mac support any longer. Shall we name Discrete again?
Apple sorely needs market share, period. If they can manage to increase it without compromising product quality that'd be the optimum. But I wouldn't mind a new "very low end" row on the product matrix, together with a new sharply targeted ad campaign.
I wish I could get the gist of my message across as clearly as ZAZ, I loved your eloquent clarification of my fumbled attempt.
Do not concern yourselves with the other 95% as much, Macs lost that part of the race in the 80's. Be more concerned that the 5% stays true and you will still keep seeing great and inspiring products that although on paper at times(not always) seem dated manage to squeeze more performance out of them than seemed possible.
Although I have my fingers crossed for some awe-inspiring products to soon be released. Can't wait for my next reading foray into these forumns.
Zoso, do you truly believe that the Mac user base which includes a great deal of talented people would be skipped over as a market? It's sizable enough NOW for developers to make positive returns on their investment, and sizable enough for developers not to ignore it lest their competitors do.
And whats with the three of us being on here with a Z starting each Nick ?
<strong>Zoso, do you truly believe that the Mac user base which includes a great deal of talented people would be skipped over as a market?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, seriously, I don't believe that as a "general rule". I mean, Photoshop is not certainly going to disappear anytime soon, and the same is true for many other Pro apps. But, at the same time, I can't honestly fool myself and pretend that defections such as Discrete's are of no importance. It is a growing (albeit slowly) trend, but it is a very dangerous one. Especially if you take into account defections on the consumer side, like Real's. I'm predicting no apocalypse, but I'm not going to like the future either if things will keep on going this way (ie: marketshare, rolling downhill...).
How long before a really key application will cease to be developed for the Mac? It was happening only 5 years ago, and that app was M$ Office. And Apple was going to be doomed. And the agreement is expiring...
Oh well, AppleWorks will be good enough... </sarcasm>
[hey, will you stop being bitterly sarcastic?, MyOtherEditingPersonality.]
[quote]<strong>And whats with the three of us being on here with a Z starting each Nick ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
'Cause 'z' is far cooler than 'i'... Hey Steve, you reading this? We want a zMac!!!
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez QB]<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Geez ! are you kidding? Check out<a href="http://www.ufw.org/ufw/cecstory.htm"; target="_blank">The Story of Cesar Chavez</a> He was even awarded America's highest civilian honor theMedal of Freedom.
Very witty indeed ! pointing out that the effects of a free market capitalist corporation exercising it's "individual rights" to choose the working conditions for it's employees is as bad and oppressive as the effects of Stalin's Central Plan. Especially since this is the very thing Chavez fought against.
However, iCode the rest of what you say (I won't quote it all again) is a very good point well taken!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Geez ! are you kidding? Check out<a href="http://www.ufw.org/ufw/cecstory.htm"; target="_blank">The Story of Cesar Chavez</a> He was even awarded America's highest civilian honor theMedal of Freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I read the reference I am now convinced that this guy was a socialist. A union and _collective_ bargaining is the last resort of people who have very little to offer besides physical labor which is usually in over supply. Unfortunately, the only reason the unions exist is the government meddling in the free market.
By leading boycotts and strikes Chavez has made decisions for ALL union members (central planning).
Enough politics!
The point is that people ought to make their own individual choices that is best for them. That is what I think the Mac is about. Although the Mac's existence is in jeopardy if Apple is unable to make a profit because there are fewer and fewer customers I would not force anyone through edict, union membership or government coercion to buy a Mac.
Very witty indeed ! pointing out that the effects of a free market capitalist corporation exercising it's "individual rights" to choose the working conditions for it's employees is as bad and oppressive as the effects of Stalin's Central Plan. Especially since this is the very thing Chavez fought against.
However, iCode the rest of what you say (I won't quote it all again) is a very good point well taken!
You are right, but a corporation is not an individual, the decisions are made either by a single person or a group on behalf of all employees, the essence of central planning.
The folks that buy Macs despite it's apparent lack of latest whizbang technology usually make the choice on an individual basis.
As I said in a previous post maybe politics/economics should be taken to another forum...
Unfortunately, when the corporate big whigs make idiotic choices (not allowing individuals to choose) this has the effect of stacking the deck against Apple.
Apple's only hope is to provide its customers with computers that allow small businesses and individuals to outperform their big corporate counterparts. If three guys in a garage can come up with a (hypothetical) gene sequencing algorithm on their Macs against two dozen corporate types running Windoze spending $2.5 mil. people will take notice. But the Macs MUST be one of the very reasons for their success!
When viewed in this light it may be understandable that Apple does not spend all its R&D budget on PC killer hardware. For example I can attest to the fact that writing OS X software is a factor of 4 easier than writing for Windows. Managing my Macs is a factor of 10 easier than my Windows machines.
We need more of the same from Apple, so that when a guy with a Mac can put 10 corporate PC folks to shame at most business tasks Apple can say: "You have a choice of joining us or allow your competitor to join us..."
In my experience, the #1 worry of most people who could be Mac users is that they'll be stuck in a little island, and they won't be able to do all the things they're used to doing, or communicate with other Windows users in the ways they're accustomed to. So they put up with the devil they know.
This worry is mostly, but not entirely, myth. That's why Apple is targetting their ad campaign the way they are: "I switched and I can do everything I did before, only better."
Real support is coming. They couldn't use MS' cross compiler to target OS X, so they had to roll up their sleeves and do some real Mac development.
The "single platform" myth endures, too, but that can be chipped at. I recently sold NIH on the need for us to write cross platform solutions even though we only had to target Win32, because I was able to argue that Win32 isn't one platform. They've had enough headaches with compatibility across versions of Windows, and between executables built with different compilers, that they agreed. Once it's established that supporting "Windows only" is really supporting a multitude of platforms, why not add one more that happens to be low-maintenance, compatible, and exceptionally useful for certain applications?
As for the cheap PC route, I don't think Apple can go there. Most of the really cheap PCs come from white box makers, and the build-your-own computer-fair-attending hobbyists. No big PC vendor can compete in this market, and Apple couldn't hope to, since several critical components (the cases, the motherboards) are not commodities (and the "whole widget" strategy disappears once people can expect to assemble their own frankenmacs). Steve's on record as saying that he'd like to offer $199 iMacs, so the spirit is willing. If they're not offering $199 iMacs, it's probably because they can't pull it off.
Apple will have to fight for market share on a number of fronts. Getting the education market back is important; getting back into higher ed is even more important. The server strategy allows them to become a single vendor for complete solutions, which makes them a lot more attractive to businesses. It also makes them more attractive in mixed environments. The $1099 consumer eMac is a strong play at the low end (for retail PCs), as is the iBook. The current "switch" campaign should be effective, and the retail strategy looks promising.
More importantly, Apple is pushing just when the PC market is getting shaken up. MS is losing a lot of the goodwill that they had through a variety of arrogant decisions, and the antitrust trial has made them appear vulnerable enough that a number of their customers and competitors have been emboldened to an extent that would have been suicidal in the mid-90s. My tea leaves say that HP-Compaq will collapse under its own weight, then get pulverized by IBM - who won't even notice the crunching sound underfoot as it lumbers by. Gateway is reeling. It doesn't really matter why they are struggling (although HP's PC division in particular was losing money at a rate that made HP decide to cut it); what matters is that Apple is attacking while many of their rivals are weakened, and that will amplify the effectiveness of any of their tactics.
The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate. Sun have monopolistic tendencies of their own, and they've done a number of sleazy things with Java that make me wonder what their long term plans are for the platform, such as convincing ANSI to ratify Java as a standard without requiring Sun to relinquish control over the platform's specification to ANSI - a unique and frightening precedent.
Comments
<strong>....(I'd love to see eMacs at Wal*Mart, though I know it will never happen.)... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh my gosh! If I saw an iMac/eMac at Walmart, I'd freak out. I think I'd start calling people I didn't even know and tell them to meet me at Walmart for a demo. Man, that would be so f*cking cool. In retrospect (taking a breath here) with the advent of Apple stores I don't see this happening soon. But DANG, if it did.... that would rock! They would prop up a software display right next to it too! Man.... who would you even call to get iMacs at Walmart??? Would they still price match? LOL! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
iCode
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</p>
Be my guest. I'm glad it may have some impact.
iCode
<strong>What would be nice to know is what constitutes the market that Apple is after. Obviously it is not the entire personal computer market. We know this because Apple has very little of it and as someone else pointed out its share of this market is shrinking. But, if the PCs are for Joe Sixpack, what type of person are Macs for?
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
iCode
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exact parity with sentiments.
<strong>
"I'd like to buy the world a mac, and keep it company (that's the real thing)"</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's funny. And, it's the LAST product-category Steve would EVER steal a line from. Since his disdain for sugar water is readily seen, you know.
The Mhz/Frame rate guys are a segment Apple neither cares about nor wants. The cheap guys buy a $400 computer and stick a $300 video card in it. The more affluent ones spend big $$$ (easily apple $$$$) to get big Mhz numbers on their desk.
Apple doesn't want or need cheapskates. (referring to Zaz's theory) $900 isn't cheap. Computers grow with people's needs. Thats why they have PORTS. Make the computer cheap enough so that people will feel good about growing with it. Someone who gets a sub $900 G4 mac WILL eventually buy peripherals and more software. I rarely meet a mac user who isn't proud of his mac and the work he produces with it. (Tom Clancy's quote is my favorite!) People that buy the bottom end aren't concerned as much with specs (they know beggars can't be choosers) as they are "Can this computer do what I need?" I think we know the answer is yes.
I surf (and post) on a 400Mhz G4 at home, while running a hotline server (and client), iTunes cranking out hits in the background, AIM keeping me in touch with friends and colleagues. All while running Photoshop and doing large file copies. I'm a speed freak at the office with my Dual533, but this machine feels great. AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS!
Take the cheapest pro PC tower in a reputable manufacturer's line (which is what mine was) from 2+ years ago. Now slap XP on it. Do all the stuff I do every day on this old G4, and attempt to do it well.
All roads apple's high roads lead to market share. Why can Intel afford such expensive fabs and accelerated development? Money from market share.
Why does a program that tracks navel lint exist on the PC, and no Mac version is planned? Market share
Why does my company IT guy shove these PC's down my throat? Market share.
Why does Motorola treat Apple like an annoying kid brother? Market share.
Why does a Mac video card (with mac drivers) cost so much? Market share.
Let's go get us some market share, kids.
<a href="http://www.osxworld.com/artman/publish/article_37.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.osxworld.com/artman/publish/article_37.shtml</a>;
[quote]
Adobe's Apple Consumer base slips to 27%
By Alex Alexzander
Jun 14, 2002, 11:28am
According to Adobe's SEC filing, Apple customers now account for 27% of Adobe's software sales mix, down from 34% year over year 2001. In 1997, Adobe for the first time reported that the Windows market earned a larger percentage then the Macintosh market of Adobe's business. Since that time, Adobe's Apple customer base has decreased year over year.<hr></blockquote>
At what point does it become unprofitable for Adobe to bother with Mac ports?
<strong>What would be nice to know is what constitutes the market that Apple is after. Obviously it is not the entire personal computer market. We know this because Apple has very little of it and as someone else pointed out its share of this market is shrinking. But, if the PCs are for Joe Sixpack, what type of person are Macs for?
I'd like to think that it is for folks that can appreciate well designed and reliable computers, whos aim is to accomplish their tasks with efficiency (not having to spend 25%-30% of their time maintaining their systems) and with some measure of joy. These are, I would presume, individualists and small business folks (I'm being redundant) who clearly understand what they have to do and how the Mac can get them there more efficiently. If you look around you'll find that these type of people are in short supply (shrinking?).
Apple can never design for folks who's only concern is having the highest MHz and biggest HDs on the block so they can brag about having 500 fps while running Doom III. Anyone that concerned about frame rates has too much time on their hands and not likely doing something productive (earning money). Which may also mean they can only afford to spend $800 on a PC. That market segment is owned by the Wintel producers. Apple trying to capture such audience could be described as "pearls before swine".
All Apple has to do is to remain profitable, year after year, even in a down economy. This invariably means that their customer base is more able to wheather the economic hardships, are more afluent and can make a buck when Joe Sixpack is standing in the unemployment line. Apple must make certain that what ever their customers use their computers for they measurably improve those customers' productivity. The computer is just a tool.
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez in the context of Apple. Wasn't that guy at a minimum a socialist? I sure hope Apple celebrates the individualists and not the central planner socialists among us. Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning. How does that make you feel? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
iCode
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with u Icode. However the problem is not so direct. If apple do not sell more hardware/software then:
1) developers will be less prone to develop for a minority platform (Discrete anyone?)
2) More and more central planners will be Pc only
3) fewer people will come into contact with macs
4) The general myths we always hear about macs will contnue to prpogate
So,
where will the income come from to develop the next iMac, PowerMac, emac, Xserve, FCP . . .
<strong>Here is a good example of why marketshare matters:
<a href="http://www.osxworld.com/artman/publish/article_37.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.osxworld.com/artman/publish/article_37.shtml</a>;
At what point does it become unprofitable for Adobe to bother with Mac ports?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make the instant presumption that the market has a finite user base and that it does not grow.
34% could be 500,000 last year and the newer 27% could be 600,000 this year. More actual users, but less market share.
And 1/3 of revenue from a platform that holds 3-4% of a market speaks volumes of consumer behavior.
Lastly, the statement makes no difference between the actual Applications, OEM deals for things like PhotoDeluxe, and specific product profitability.
This is exactly the kind blanket statement I refer too... used mostly by armchair CFO's who understand little of business economics. It sounds all big and bad, but the story is amazingly short. It is a headline, nothing more.
<strong>34% could be 500,000 last year and the newer 27% could be 600,000 this year. More actual users, but less market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true for "the other 95%" too. Think about it, when our yearly 100,000 users gain will be insignificant compared to the 600,000 (or whatever) on the other side of the fence that'll be the time when development costs won't justify Mac support any longer. Shall we name Discrete again?
Apple sorely needs market share, period. If they can manage to increase it without compromising product quality that'd be the optimum. But I wouldn't mind a new "very low end" row on the product matrix, together with a new sharply targeted ad campaign.
Am I the only fool to think this?
ZoSo
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</p>
I wish I could get the gist of my message across as clearly as ZAZ, I loved your eloquent clarification of my fumbled attempt.
Do not concern yourselves with the other 95% as much, Macs lost that part of the race in the 80's. Be more concerned that the 5% stays true and you will still keep seeing great and inspiring products that although on paper at times(not always) seem dated manage to squeeze more performance out of them than seemed possible.
Although I have my fingers crossed for some awe-inspiring products to soon be released. Can't wait for my next reading foray into these forumns.
And whats with the three of us being on here with a Z starting each Nick ?
<strong>Zoso, do you truly believe that the Mac user base which includes a great deal of talented people would be skipped over as a market?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, seriously, I don't believe that as a "general rule". I mean, Photoshop is not certainly going to disappear anytime soon, and the same is true for many other Pro apps. But, at the same time, I can't honestly fool myself and pretend that defections such as Discrete's are of no importance. It is a growing (albeit slowly) trend, but it is a very dangerous one. Especially if you take into account defections on the consumer side, like Real's. I'm predicting no apocalypse, but I'm not going to like the future either if things will keep on going this way (ie: marketshare, rolling downhill...).
How long before a really key application will cease to be developed for the Mac? It was happening only 5 years ago, and that app was M$ Office. And Apple was going to be doomed. And the agreement is expiring...
Oh well, AppleWorks will be good enough...
[hey, will you stop being bitterly sarcastic?, MyOtherEditingPersonality.]
[quote]<strong>And whats with the three of us being on here with a Z starting each Nick ?
'Cause 'z' is far cooler than 'i'... Hey Steve, you reading this? We want a zMac!!!
ZoSo
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</p>
It is full of people that actually put thought into what they are saying and look at both sides of the issue before making a decision.
These are the people that buy macs.
[QB]
The only worry I have is references to Cesar Chavez QB]<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Geez ! are you kidding? Check out<a href="http://www.ufw.org/ufw/cecstory.htm"; target="_blank">The Story of Cesar Chavez</a> He was even awarded America's highest civilian honor theMedal of Freedom.
<strong>Remember, when your employer sticks you with a Dell without asking you: What you think would make your job easier? is doing central planning.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very witty indeed ! pointing out that the effects of a free market capitalist corporation exercising it's "individual rights" to choose the working conditions for it's employees is as bad and oppressive as the effects of Stalin's Central Plan. Especially since this is the very thing Chavez fought against.
However, iCode the rest of what you say (I won't quote it all again) is a very good point well taken!
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Geez ! are you kidding? Check out<a href="http://www.ufw.org/ufw/cecstory.htm"; target="_blank">The Story of Cesar Chavez</a> He was even awarded America's highest civilian honor theMedal of Freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I read the reference I am now convinced that this guy was a socialist. A union and _collective_ bargaining is the last resort of people who have very little to offer besides physical labor which is usually in over supply. Unfortunately, the only reason the unions exist is the government meddling in the free market.
By leading boycotts and strikes Chavez has made decisions for ALL union members (central planning).
Enough politics!
The point is that people ought to make their own individual choices that is best for them. That is what I think the Mac is about. Although the Mac's existence is in jeopardy if Apple is unable to make a profit because there are fewer and fewer customers I would not force anyone through edict, union membership or government coercion to buy a Mac.
Maybe we should take this to some other forum...
<strong>
Very witty indeed ! pointing out that the effects of a free market capitalist corporation exercising it's "individual rights" to choose the working conditions for it's employees is as bad and oppressive as the effects of Stalin's Central Plan. Especially since this is the very thing Chavez fought against.
However, iCode the rest of what you say (I won't quote it all again) is a very good point well taken!
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I try to be as thoughtful as possible.
You are right, but a corporation is not an individual, the decisions are made either by a single person or a group on behalf of all employees, the essence of central planning.
The folks that buy Macs despite it's apparent lack of latest whizbang technology usually make the choice on an individual basis.
As I said in a previous post maybe politics/economics should be taken to another forum...
Unfortunately, when the corporate big whigs make idiotic choices (not allowing individuals to choose) this has the effect of stacking the deck against Apple.
Apple's only hope is to provide its customers with computers that allow small businesses and individuals to outperform their big corporate counterparts. If three guys in a garage can come up with a (hypothetical) gene sequencing algorithm on their Macs against two dozen corporate types running Windoze spending $2.5 mil. people will take notice. But the Macs MUST be one of the very reasons for their success!
When viewed in this light it may be understandable that Apple does not spend all its R&D budget on PC killer hardware. For example I can attest to the fact that writing OS X software is a factor of 4 easier than writing for Windows. Managing my Macs is a factor of 10 easier than my Windows machines.
We need more of the same from Apple, so that when a guy with a Mac can put 10 corporate PC folks to shame at most business tasks Apple can say: "You have a choice of joining us or allow your competitor to join us..."
I wish.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</p>
This worry is mostly, but not entirely, myth. That's why Apple is targetting their ad campaign the way they are: "I switched and I can do everything I did before, only better."
Real support is coming. They couldn't use MS' cross compiler to target OS X, so they had to roll up their sleeves and do some real Mac development.
The "single platform" myth endures, too, but that can be chipped at. I recently sold NIH on the need for us to write cross platform solutions even though we only had to target Win32, because I was able to argue that Win32 isn't one platform. They've had enough headaches with compatibility across versions of Windows, and between executables built with different compilers, that they agreed.
As for the cheap PC route, I don't think Apple can go there. Most of the really cheap PCs come from white box makers, and the build-your-own computer-fair-attending hobbyists. No big PC vendor can compete in this market, and Apple couldn't hope to, since several critical components (the cases, the motherboards) are not commodities (and the "whole widget" strategy disappears once people can expect to assemble their own frankenmacs). Steve's on record as saying that he'd like to offer $199 iMacs, so the spirit is willing. If they're not offering $199 iMacs, it's probably because they can't pull it off.
Apple will have to fight for market share on a number of fronts. Getting the education market back is important; getting back into higher ed is even more important. The server strategy allows them to become a single vendor for complete solutions, which makes them a lot more attractive to businesses. It also makes them more attractive in mixed environments. The $1099 consumer eMac is a strong play at the low end (for retail PCs), as is the iBook. The current "switch" campaign should be effective, and the retail strategy looks promising.
More importantly, Apple is pushing just when the PC market is getting shaken up. MS is losing a lot of the goodwill that they had through a variety of arrogant decisions, and the antitrust trial has made them appear vulnerable enough that a number of their customers and competitors have been emboldened to an extent that would have been suicidal in the mid-90s. My tea leaves say that HP-Compaq will collapse under its own weight, then get pulverized by IBM - who won't even notice the crunching sound underfoot as it lumbers by. Gateway is reeling. It doesn't really matter why they are struggling (although HP's PC division in particular was losing money at a rate that made HP decide to cut it); what matters is that Apple is attacking while many of their rivals are weakened, and that will amplify the effectiveness of any of their tactics.
The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate. Sun have monopolistic tendencies of their own, and they've done a number of sleazy things with Java that make me wonder what their long term plans are for the platform, such as convincing ANSI to ratify Java as a standard without requiring Sun to relinquish control over the platform's specification to ANSI - a unique and frightening precedent.