Apple needs to offer the goods while they have them to offer. We don't know how long this relative "lead" in processing power will last. Apple needs to offer a G5 solution at an affordable price ASAP. To avoid cannibalization, I suggested adopting a dual proc approach for the pro lines Vs. single proc for the consumer lines. But the consumer lines badly need a compelling product at a compelling price. And that means a 2.0 GHz G5 with a price tag of less than 1000.00 USD.
Do whatever it takes to get a Macintosh into the hands of every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.
Be dirty-handed.
Be evil.
Break laws.
Break knees!
Heheh...
I will definately agree that Apple could change much in order to gain market share. However, I'm glad Apple is being run the way it is.
Now for something completely un-american...
Business success and market dominance isn't everything.
I don't think the goal of most apple employees is to make the most money possible. If it was, they'd certainly seek employment elsewhere because there are plenty of companies which offer better salaries. It seems that Apple corporate culture is less hell bent on market dominance when compared to most american companies. Sure, they're trying to be profitable but this goal is tempered with a passion to create quality products.
Do you think Steve really cares that much about accruing more wealth at this point in life? I suspect he?d rather make the most perfect computer possible, even if it means not dominating the market. Not that he would turn down more money and marketshare?
It?s this subtle yet significant difference in philosophy that has created our Mac cult. If this were to change, we?d be left something more like microsoft.
Instead, I hope Apple continues merrily along with their current strategy:
Survive in order to make the best computing experience? rather than making mediocre but supremely profitable products.
I am willing to pay and can afford the apple (quality) premium.
"With this agreement the leading consumer PC company will be selling Apple's music offerings. HP captured 28 per cent of the US home PC market and a 17 per cent of the global home PC market in the third quarter 2003," Wolf says. Apple is also free to arrange similar deals with other manufacturers.
"Clearly HP will cannibalize some of Apple's iPod sales; but HP has 110,000 points of retail presence around the globe whereas the iPod is currently being sold in only 8,000 outlets. The HP partnership should dramatically increase the iPod's addressable market," he said.
110, 000 points. Not only is that more than iPod distribution points which Apple busted a gut to get...(by a factor of 10:1) but massively more than Mac distribution points.
If only Apple could get a similar deal for 'blue HP Macs' manufactured by Apple to each one of those points. If they sold 1 Mac per point, that would be a huge addition to Macs sold per quarter. If it was 10 Macs per distribution point...we'd be taking about over a million Macs sold in addition to to Apple's 800K per quarter.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if there isn't more to this HP deal than meets the eye.
It has been mentioned above that Apple would have to sell 'X' amount more if it lowered its margins eg 3 times more Macs.
Well if they licensed Apple's Mac line to only HP's distribution network then Apple would be exposed to far more than the 3:1 ration they need to make up the shortfall.
Moreover, I'm sure HP would do well to shift PPC Apple boxes even if the margins were split between the two. Surely half Apple's premium margins would be more than HP make in a market where most PC companies are losing money.
I never realised just how big and pervasive HP's presence is.
I think there may be more to come from this alliance...
Sigh, I never said anything about Asia - I originally answered this:
--
And where do you get the $250+ price on the PPC970?
It doesn't matter what you answered. Since a 1.6 GHz G5 + motherboard costs about as much as a 3.2 GHz P4 + motherboard, that's the price comparison. That's a hard sell for Apple or any Mac clone maker.
The prices are from a distributor called Newark Electronics.
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
The current trend is that Apple sell more computers. Please remember that the market share number, we discuss, includee two quarters with virtually no Power Mac sales (Q103 and Q203).
No, that's not a trend. The absolutely pitiful quarters were a blip. The trend is still downward, and it has been for more than a decade.
Increasing market share means bringing new people to the Macintosh
I personally, was hoping to see these products instead of Apple's current offering:
PowerMac - Workstation - Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron
PowerMac - Prosumer - Single Althon64 or P4
PowerMac - Consumer - Althon or Celeron
All enclosed in one award winning tower design. All price competitively with current Intel/AMD PCs offered by Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.
Good luck.
Sure, that can be done. Darwin isn't tied to PPC. It's possible that Apple has builds running on x86 deep within the bowels of Cupertino.
HOWEVER:
If you switch processor architectures, you suddenly go from having 10,000 available native applications (plus all the thousands of Classic ones) to having zero available third-party applications.
Zero. Need I spell it out? This debate has been hashed out too many times to count. The short of it is as follows. All software that is currently available will have to be recompiled for the new chip. Some software will never run because the developers will either not still be developing it or will be unable/unwilling to port to the new chip because they'd have to buy all new hardware to test it. Then there's the software that will have to take a huge performance hit and lose all AltiVec or G4/G5 optimizations.
So, what happens to Joe Consumer when he buys his "cheap" Dual Xeon? He walks over to the software aisle and nothing but Apple's own products are compatible with his new computer. "Okay," he figures, "I'll just look online." He goes out to MacUpdate or VersionTracker and finds that only a few dozen small titles of the thousands of applications for Mac OS X and Classic Mac OS have been portted to run on the new chip.
You can buy a 17" imac for $500 more than a comparably equipped PC. And it is very likely the PC you choose will have 2x hard drive, 2x RAM, 2x Video and a TV tuner. That is some pretty hard inertia to overcome. On the laptop side of things there isn't necessarily a huge price discrepancy in all cases.
And one thing that is important for some is: the minimm cost for a Mac where you can choose your own monitor is $1300. And it doesn't have a DVD burner. Hmmm......
So g5 sales look great, but what about the consumer market! There is no need for a $500 box....just something reasonable in the $900-$1300 range....with a superdrive. If the emac can be $1099 with a superdrive...there should be a powermac g4 for $1299 with a superdrive.
And can we get 512 minimum RAM on models with a superdrive!!!!!!!!! (And lets say, all models priced over $1299 should include 512 standard.
What we really need to examine is where the growth is coming from. There are a lot of computers selling in the $400-700 range, and Apple deosn't want or need to compete there. Like Fred Anderson said, the sweet spot is about $1000, with more compelling offers in that range most problems could be eliminated. And it would give many computer owners an incentive to make the jump. Lots of people are interested in getting a mac, but the cost of entry is pretty high when you have spare components running around (like a nice screen!)
Comments
Originally posted by Antithesis
My Suggestion
Compete.
Do whatever it takes to get a Macintosh into the hands of every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.
Be dirty-handed.
Be evil.
Break laws.
Break knees!
Heheh...
I will definately agree that Apple could change much in order to gain market share. However, I'm glad Apple is being run the way it is.
Now for something completely un-american...
Business success and market dominance isn't everything.
I don't think the goal of most apple employees is to make the most money possible. If it was, they'd certainly seek employment elsewhere because there are plenty of companies which offer better salaries. It seems that Apple corporate culture is less hell bent on market dominance when compared to most american companies. Sure, they're trying to be profitable but this goal is tempered with a passion to create quality products.
Do you think Steve really cares that much about accruing more wealth at this point in life? I suspect he?d rather make the most perfect computer possible, even if it means not dominating the market. Not that he would turn down more money and marketshare?
It?s this subtle yet significant difference in philosophy that has created our Mac cult. If this were to change, we?d be left something more like microsoft.
Instead, I hope Apple continues merrily along with their current strategy:
Survive in order to make the best computing experience? rather than making mediocre but supremely profitable products.
I am willing to pay and can afford the apple (quality) premium.
"With this agreement the leading consumer PC company will be selling Apple's music offerings. HP captured 28 per cent of the US home PC market and a 17 per cent of the global home PC market in the third quarter 2003," Wolf says. Apple is also free to arrange similar deals with other manufacturers.
"Clearly HP will cannibalize some of Apple's iPod sales; but HP has 110,000 points of retail presence around the globe whereas the iPod is currently being sold in only 8,000 outlets. The HP partnership should dramatically increase the iPod's addressable market," he said.
110, 000 points. Not only is that more than iPod distribution points which Apple busted a gut to get...(by a factor of 10:1) but massively more than Mac distribution points.
If only Apple could get a similar deal for 'blue HP Macs' manufactured by Apple to each one of those points. If they sold 1 Mac per point, that would be a huge addition to Macs sold per quarter. If it was 10 Macs per distribution point...we'd be taking about over a million Macs sold in addition to to Apple's 800K per quarter.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if there isn't more to this HP deal than meets the eye.
It has been mentioned above that Apple would have to sell 'X' amount more if it lowered its margins eg 3 times more Macs.
Well if they licensed Apple's Mac line to only HP's distribution network then Apple would be exposed to far more than the 3:1 ration they need to make up the shortfall.
Moreover, I'm sure HP would do well to shift PPC Apple boxes even if the margins were split between the two. Surely half Apple's premium margins would be more than HP make in a market where most PC companies are losing money.
I never realised just how big and pervasive HP's presence is.
I think there may be more to come from this alliance...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by JLL
Sigh, I never said anything about Asia - I originally answered this:
--
And where do you get the $250+ price on the PPC970?
It doesn't matter what you answered. Since a 1.6 GHz G5 + motherboard costs about as much as a 3.2 GHz P4 + motherboard, that's the price comparison. That's a hard sell for Apple or any Mac clone maker.
The prices are from a distributor called Newark Electronics.
Originally posted by JLL
The current trend is that Apple sell more computers. Please remember that the market share number, we discuss, includee two quarters with virtually no Power Mac sales (Q103 and Q203).
No, that's not a trend. The absolutely pitiful quarters were a blip. The trend is still downward, and it has been for more than a decade.
Originally posted by Dave K.
Increasing market share means bringing new people to the Macintosh
I personally, was hoping to see these products instead of Apple's current offering:
PowerMac - Workstation - Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron
PowerMac - Prosumer - Single Althon64 or P4
PowerMac - Consumer - Althon or Celeron
All enclosed in one award winning tower design. All price competitively with current Intel/AMD PCs offered by Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.
Good luck.
Sure, that can be done. Darwin isn't tied to PPC. It's possible that Apple has builds running on x86 deep within the bowels of Cupertino.
HOWEVER:
If you switch processor architectures, you suddenly go from having 10,000 available native applications (plus all the thousands of Classic ones) to having zero available third-party applications.
Zero. Need I spell it out? This debate has been hashed out too many times to count. The short of it is as follows. All software that is currently available will have to be recompiled for the new chip. Some software will never run because the developers will either not still be developing it or will be unable/unwilling to port to the new chip because they'd have to buy all new hardware to test it. Then there's the software that will have to take a huge performance hit and lose all AltiVec or G4/G5 optimizations.
So, what happens to Joe Consumer when he buys his "cheap" Dual Xeon? He walks over to the software aisle and nothing but Apple's own products are compatible with his new computer. "Okay," he figures, "I'll just look online." He goes out to MacUpdate or VersionTracker and finds that only a few dozen small titles of the thousands of applications for Mac OS X and Classic Mac OS have been portted to run on the new chip.
Suddenly, that "great" deal isn't so great.
That brought a tear to my eye.
You can buy a 17" imac for $500 more than a comparably equipped PC. And it is very likely the PC you choose will have 2x hard drive, 2x RAM, 2x Video and a TV tuner. That is some pretty hard inertia to overcome. On the laptop side of things there isn't necessarily a huge price discrepancy in all cases.
And one thing that is important for some is: the minimm cost for a Mac where you can choose your own monitor is $1300. And it doesn't have a DVD burner. Hmmm......
So g5 sales look great, but what about the consumer market! There is no need for a $500 box....just something reasonable in the $900-$1300 range....with a superdrive. If the emac can be $1099 with a superdrive...there should be a powermac g4 for $1299 with a superdrive.
And can we get 512 minimum RAM on models with a superdrive!!!!!!!!! (And lets say, all models priced over $1299 should include 512 standard.
What we really need to examine is where the growth is coming from. There are a lot of computers selling in the $400-700 range, and Apple deosn't want or need to compete there. Like Fred Anderson said, the sweet spot is about $1000, with more compelling offers in that range most problems could be eliminated. And it would give many computer owners an incentive to make the jump. Lots of people are interested in getting a mac, but the cost of entry is pretty high when you have spare components running around (like a nice screen!)