Apple needs to make a good profit in order to even think about competing in the market. If apple follows Dell's lead and starts making cheap boxes, they will die and no more Apple. It is really that simple.
Because then people will group them in the same category as AOL when it comes to obnoxious advertising.
No, I do not think that would be the case. AOL could never do anything as amazing as the iPod experience. The iPod is on a whole different level, people may be interested in seeing this so called "OS X demo disc."
yeah, yeah! or they could hand out coasters worth $0.50 for free with every purchase. the coaster could have a nice label printed on it that says something like "Apple Promotional DVD -- Please don't microwave it!"
Apple needs to make a good profit in order to even think about competing in the market. If apple follows Dell's lead and starts making cheap boxes, they will die and no more Apple. It is really that simple.
Because SGI and Sun do not target consumers!
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
$800 on a Dell tower will get you more like 256MB ram, a 40 GB hard drive, and a CD-RW and a 17" monitor. Where the eMac really falls behind is the 1GHz G4 on a slow bus, compared to a 2.8-3GHz P4 on a fast bus.
We have to wait until the eMac update to see if apple is missing the mark or not. If they keeps the same pricing and put in a 1.6 GHz G5, the PCs at the same price range will still outperform the eMac buy a good margin. If apple puts in a 2.4 GHz G5, it would be the clear winer (hey, I can wish).
Most likely we will see a 2GHz model that will perform on par with the PCs in the same price range.
Where the eMac really falls behind is the 1GHz G4 on a slow bus, compared to a 2.8-3GHz P4 on a fast bus.
Nah, not really. Those cheap PCs are usually celerons. The Dell 2400 mentoined a number of times in this article, when configured for $500 comes with a 2.4 Celeron P4 on a 400MHz bus. So it is not as if these budget PCs are coming with 2.8-3.2 P4s with HT on an 800MHz bus...
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
Hey, if apple is not worth the money that you pay, buy a PC, in fact, buy two. Then you will have two big paperweights (especially if you are going to be running a windows product on it.). The market will force apple to do what they must. Apple sells an all around superior product. Simple minded and easily distracted people concentrate on specs which constantly change. There will always be someone ahead in one area or another. Such is the computer game.
As long as there is a demand for a superior product that encapsulates easy user interface, stability, and elegance in design, I suppose Apple will be there to provide for it, and I suppose you will be there complaining about how Apple should be more like a PC. The funny thing is, the entire computer industry would like to be as profitable and have as high a product recognition as apple.
Their are so many areas where PC's should be like apple and not the reverse. I would hope that you go on PC forums and complain about the usability, reliability and security issues that plague the PC owning experience.
If you really want apple's prices to get reduced. Go buy one and recommend it to everyone around you. Stop spending your time worrying about specs and more time enjoying using an apple product. The more apple sells the cheaper it will be to make, thus making it easier to own the best personal computer in the world.
SGI and Sun do target consumers. Just not the same ones that Dell is after (in their low end). There are all sorts of different consumers. Believe it or not, some consumers aren't looking for any type of computer - that's how varied they are.
If Apple wanted the consumers you're thinking of, they'd sell PC's.
Right now Apples low end computer is the $799 eMac, and it is pretty much a bad joke of a machine. It comes with 128 megs of RAM (that's the joke part), and 1 GHz G4 on a slow bus. Top it off with a slow video card, and what you get is kind of pathetic by todays standards. The current eMac is at the end of it's life cycle folks, we all know it, and it is really starting to show.
Shortly we will see the next version of the eMac/iMac line, and if Apple aggressively ups the specs, the market share will follow.
I used to think that the eMac was the ?loss leader? for Apple. I suspected that Apple?s manufacturing process was not efficient enough to produce that particular machine at a more attractive price. But the more I got to thinking about it, I began to consider that my original hypothesis was incorrect.
As you mentioned, Res, the eMac is a mishmash of outdated and inefficient computer parts. The Ram is OLD 133MHz SDRAM. The video card is ONLY 32MB, and isn?t actually produced anymore in that configuration (64MB is now the standard for the ATI 7500 retail). The CRT, while flat glass, is NOT a Trinitron, and therefore cannot cost more than any OTHER flat CRT, which currently retails at < $100. The G4 processor (entry-level) is only 800MHz. And while the case is custom-made for the eMac, I?d find it difficult to believe that Apple HASN?T recouped its costs for any custom molding after 2 year?s time.
So, Apple?s manufacturing process would?ve had to have been AWFULLY inefficient to make a 2-year-old computer with 3+ year-old parts cost MORE than a comparable PC with (often) BETTER hardware. Even more so, it would?ve been hard to believe that EVEN WITH a pitiful manufacturing process, Apple would have BARELY been making money off the machine. And then, it hit me.
What if the eMac was the PRIMARY source of profit in the Macintosh line? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The Apple financial results only state the percentage of machines sold, and the percentage profit margin on ALL SALES. It (to my knowledge) does NOT indicate how much profit margin Apple makes on EACH MACHINE. And that?s where your other statement fits in:
Quote:
Would any of us really be complaining about Apple's pricing if the $799 eMac came with a 2GHz G5 on a fast bus, and a Radeon 8600XT?
It occurred to me that Apple is REALLY giving good value on some of its PowerBooks and PowerMac towers: BIG processors; BIG graphics cards; BRAND NEW enclosures. Most likely, those are the computers that yield the LEAST profit (per machine) for Apple.
So, what if the eMac was INTENTIONALLY kept stagnant so that Apple could temper some of the profits lost to its cutting-edge machines? If that?s true, it would seem to follow that a 'headless' Macintosh would present the same financial conundrum: Yes, we can make a profit off each machine, but not ENOUGH profit to offset the losses on other machines. Moreover, this philosophy would fit very well in line with Apple?s precedent of ?profit BEFORE market share?.
All this, of course, is hypothetical. I?ve no knowledge whatsoever of Apple?s profit margin breakdown on EACH computer sold.
Just a few random thoughts from an Apple stockholder who?s currently using a Windows machine.
The reason she doesn't is because Apple is and always has been terrible at marketing. In fact, Apple is pretty darn bad at all things business related. Maybe now that Steve has a few more grey hairs, things will get better. Don't count on it though.
What utter crap Faeylyn. Nearly as good as your 'Apple to split into two divisions' nonsense
What if the eMac was the PRIMARY source of profit in the Macintosh line? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The Apple financial results only state the percentage of machines sold, and the percentage profit margin on ALL SALES. It (to my knowledge) does NOT indicate how much profit margin Apple makes on EACH MACHINE.
However, Fred Anderson has repeatedly cautioned analysts in conference calls that higher sales of iMacs and eMacs depress margins, while higher sales of PowerMacs and PowerBooks support them. It's not hard to conclude from that that the consumer machines are lower margin than the professional machines.
Apple's most profitable machine per unit, currently, is the PowerMac, followed by the PowerBook. The least profitable unit is probably either the baseline eMac or the 12" iBook.
However, Apple doesn't do "loss leaders." Everything makes a profit. It's just a question of how much.
The reason she doesn't is because Apple is and always has been terrible at marketing. In fact, Apple is pretty darn bad at all things business related. Maybe now that Steve has a few more grey hairs, things will get better. Don't count on it though.
Um... look at the bottom line, the profit, and number of profitable quarters in the past 2 years. From Apple press room:
For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $63 million" (Q1,04)
And marketing isn't working?
"Apple shipped 829 thousand Macintosh® units during the quarter, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter, as well as 733 thousand iPod® units, up 235 percent from the year-ago quarter. "
Things are looking up. Someone who is bad a business does not have almost five billion in cash in the bank. And they have done it with a single-digit slice of the computer market.
However, Fred Anderson has repeatedly cautioned analysts in conference calls that higher sales of iMacs and eMacs depress margins, while higher sales of PowerMacs and PowerBooks support them. It's not hard to conclude from that that the consumer machines are lower margin than the professional machines.
Well, that would pretty much blow a hole through my theory, then.
Still, I'm left wondering WHAT Apple's doing to make the eMac so darned expensive to manufacture. Somehow, 1+1 just ain't equaling 2.
*shrugs*
Oh, well. I appreciate the clarification, anyways.
What utter crap Faeylyn. Nearly as good as your 'Apple to split into two divisions' nonsense
A company that has typically had the best hardware/software (i.e. best product) in the industry for the past 15 years and only has a mere 3% marketshare pretty suggests Faeylyn's statement is pretty accurate. If you can't sell the best product in an industry there is someting wrong with your business philosophies.
Sorry for the car analogy again but surely the same could be said for BMW no? Or Mercedes? Many would that these are the best 'products', yet they don't have the numbers that Ford or GM sell. Would you say these are bad at business? It's pretty basic economics. The best products cost more to manufacture, and as such rules out x% of the buying population.
The average consumer doesn't even consider macs when purchasing a new computer... because its like choosing a Denon receiver over a Pioneer / Kenwood / Sony / Panasonic receiver. The Denon is usually more powerful and nicer than any of those other receivers. But the name is not out there like it can be. I really don't think the problem is pricing as much as the name.
The problem I have with apple is they keep the same prices for months. The PowerMac has been out for 7 months now... prices are STILL the same. That is definitely a problem that needs to be dealth with. It doesn't make sense to buy 7 month old hardware for the same price as it was the day it was released. Apple needs to have price drops in their products... not just when new products come out but as they deteriorate as a value on the market also.
Comments
I have to ask why do you not complain that, say SGI or SUN make sub-1000 dollar systems to attract customers.
Look at these:
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CESe...P&catid=108738
Apple needs to make a good profit in order to even think about competing in the market. If apple follows Dell's lead and starts making cheap boxes, they will die and no more Apple. It is really that simple.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Honestly, it is, why doesnt Apple do that?!
Because then people will group them in the same category as AOL when it comes to obnoxious advertising.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Because then people will group them in the same category as AOL when it comes to obnoxious advertising.
No, I do not think that would be the case. AOL could never do anything as amazing as the iPod experience. The iPod is on a whole different level, people may be interested in seeing this so called "OS X demo disc."
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Honestly, it is, why doesnt Apple do that?!
yeah, yeah! or they could hand out coasters worth $0.50 for free with every purchase. the coaster could have a nice label printed on it that says something like "Apple Promotional DVD -- Please don't microwave it!"
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Because then people will group them in the same category as AOL when it comes to obnoxious advertising.
oh and who is the biggest Internet service provider in the world again?... oh yeah AOL
Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys that argue that Apple needs to justify it's prices are at least a little loopy.
I have to ask why do you not complain that, say SGI or SUN make sub-1000 dollar systems to attract customers.
Look at these:
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CESe...P&catid=108738
Apple needs to make a good profit in order to even think about competing in the market. If apple follows Dell's lead and starts making cheap boxes, they will die and no more Apple. It is really that simple.
Because SGI and Sun do not target consumers!
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
Originally posted by jade
Because SGI and Sun do not target consumers!
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
$800 on a Dell tower will get you more like 256MB ram, a 40 GB hard drive, and a CD-RW and a 17" monitor. Where the eMac really falls behind is the 1GHz G4 on a slow bus, compared to a 2.8-3GHz P4 on a fast bus.
We have to wait until the eMac update to see if apple is missing the mark or not. If they keeps the same pricing and put in a 1.6 GHz G5, the PCs at the same price range will still outperform the eMac buy a good margin. If apple puts in a 2.4 GHz G5, it would be the clear winer (hey, I can wish).
Most likely we will see a 2GHz model that will perform on par with the PCs in the same price range.
Originally posted by Res
Where the eMac really falls behind is the 1GHz G4 on a slow bus, compared to a 2.8-3GHz P4 on a fast bus.
Nah, not really. Those cheap PCs are usually celerons. The Dell 2400 mentoined a number of times in this article, when configured for $500 comes with a 2.4 Celeron P4 on a 400MHz bus. So it is not as if these budget PCs are coming with 2.8-3.2 P4s with HT on an 800MHz bus...
Originally posted by jade
Because SGI and Sun do not target consumers!
These days for $800 you either get a tower with a fast processer, 512 RAM and 120gb of hard drive space and CD and DVD or you get an emac with 1/4 the RAM, 1/3 the Hard drive or you can get a 17" CRT and tower with silar specs to the above 256/80gb.
Looking at the consumer market these days, Apple is missing the sweet spot by a mile!
Hey, if apple is not worth the money that you pay, buy a PC, in fact, buy two. Then you will have two big paperweights (especially if you are going to be running a windows product on it.). The market will force apple to do what they must. Apple sells an all around superior product. Simple minded and easily distracted people concentrate on specs which constantly change. There will always be someone ahead in one area or another. Such is the computer game.
As long as there is a demand for a superior product that encapsulates easy user interface, stability, and elegance in design, I suppose Apple will be there to provide for it, and I suppose you will be there complaining about how Apple should be more like a PC. The funny thing is, the entire computer industry would like to be as profitable and have as high a product recognition as apple.
Their are so many areas where PC's should be like apple and not the reverse. I would hope that you go on PC forums and complain about the usability, reliability and security issues that plague the PC owning experience.
If you really want apple's prices to get reduced. Go buy one and recommend it to everyone around you. Stop spending your time worrying about specs and more time enjoying using an apple product. The more apple sells the cheaper it will be to make, thus making it easier to own the best personal computer in the world.
Originally posted by jade
Because SGI and Sun do not target consumers!
SGI and Sun do target consumers. Just not the same ones that Dell is after (in their low end). There are all sorts of different consumers. Believe it or not, some consumers aren't looking for any type of computer - that's how varied they are.
If Apple wanted the consumers you're thinking of, they'd sell PC's.
Originally Posted by Res
Right now Apples low end computer is the $799 eMac, and it is pretty much a bad joke of a machine. It comes with 128 megs of RAM (that's the joke part), and 1 GHz G4 on a slow bus. Top it off with a slow video card, and what you get is kind of pathetic by todays standards. The current eMac is at the end of it's life cycle folks, we all know it, and it is really starting to show.
Shortly we will see the next version of the eMac/iMac line, and if Apple aggressively ups the specs, the market share will follow.
I used to think that the eMac was the ?loss leader? for Apple. I suspected that Apple?s manufacturing process was not efficient enough to produce that particular machine at a more attractive price. But the more I got to thinking about it, I began to consider that my original hypothesis was incorrect.
As you mentioned, Res, the eMac is a mishmash of outdated and inefficient computer parts. The Ram is OLD 133MHz SDRAM. The video card is ONLY 32MB, and isn?t actually produced anymore in that configuration (64MB is now the standard for the ATI 7500 retail). The CRT, while flat glass, is NOT a Trinitron, and therefore cannot cost more than any OTHER flat CRT, which currently retails at < $100. The G4 processor (entry-level) is only 800MHz. And while the case is custom-made for the eMac, I?d find it difficult to believe that Apple HASN?T recouped its costs for any custom molding after 2 year?s time.
So, Apple?s manufacturing process would?ve had to have been AWFULLY inefficient to make a 2-year-old computer with 3+ year-old parts cost MORE than a comparable PC with (often) BETTER hardware. Even more so, it would?ve been hard to believe that EVEN WITH a pitiful manufacturing process, Apple would have BARELY been making money off the machine. And then, it hit me.
What if the eMac was the PRIMARY source of profit in the Macintosh line? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The Apple financial results only state the percentage of machines sold, and the percentage profit margin on ALL SALES. It (to my knowledge) does NOT indicate how much profit margin Apple makes on EACH MACHINE. And that?s where your other statement fits in:
Would any of us really be complaining about Apple's pricing if the $799 eMac came with a 2GHz G5 on a fast bus, and a Radeon 8600XT?
It occurred to me that Apple is REALLY giving good value on some of its PowerBooks and PowerMac towers: BIG processors; BIG graphics cards; BRAND NEW enclosures. Most likely, those are the computers that yield the LEAST profit (per machine) for Apple.
So, what if the eMac was INTENTIONALLY kept stagnant so that Apple could temper some of the profits lost to its cutting-edge machines? If that?s true, it would seem to follow that a 'headless' Macintosh would present the same financial conundrum: Yes, we can make a profit off each machine, but not ENOUGH profit to offset the losses on other machines. Moreover, this philosophy would fit very well in line with Apple?s precedent of ?profit BEFORE market share?.
All this, of course, is hypothetical. I?ve no knowledge whatsoever of Apple?s profit margin breakdown on EACH computer sold.
Just a few random thoughts from an Apple stockholder who?s currently using a Windows machine.
-Antithesis
The reason she doesn't is because Apple is and always has been terrible at marketing. In fact, Apple is pretty darn bad at all things business related. Maybe now that Steve has a few more grey hairs, things will get better. Don't count on it though.
What utter crap Faeylyn. Nearly as good as your 'Apple to split into two divisions' nonsense
Originally posted by Antithesis
What if the eMac was the PRIMARY source of profit in the Macintosh line? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The Apple financial results only state the percentage of machines sold, and the percentage profit margin on ALL SALES. It (to my knowledge) does NOT indicate how much profit margin Apple makes on EACH MACHINE.
However, Fred Anderson has repeatedly cautioned analysts in conference calls that higher sales of iMacs and eMacs depress margins, while higher sales of PowerMacs and PowerBooks support them. It's not hard to conclude from that that the consumer machines are lower margin than the professional machines.
Apple's most profitable machine per unit, currently, is the PowerMac, followed by the PowerBook. The least profitable unit is probably either the baseline eMac or the 12" iBook.
However, Apple doesn't do "loss leaders." Everything makes a profit. It's just a question of how much.
Originally posted by Faeylyn
The reason she doesn't is because Apple is and always has been terrible at marketing. In fact, Apple is pretty darn bad at all things business related. Maybe now that Steve has a few more grey hairs, things will get better. Don't count on it though.
Um... look at the bottom line, the profit, and number of profitable quarters in the past 2 years. From Apple press room:
For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $63 million" (Q1,04)
And marketing isn't working?
"Apple shipped 829 thousand Macintosh® units during the quarter, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter, as well as 733 thousand iPod® units, up 235 percent from the year-ago quarter. "
Things are looking up. Someone who is bad a business does not have almost five billion in cash in the bank. And they have done it with a single-digit slice of the computer market.
Originally posted by Amorph
However, Fred Anderson has repeatedly cautioned analysts in conference calls that higher sales of iMacs and eMacs depress margins, while higher sales of PowerMacs and PowerBooks support them. It's not hard to conclude from that that the consumer machines are lower margin than the professional machines.
Well, that would pretty much blow a hole through my theory, then.
Still, I'm left wondering WHAT Apple's doing to make the eMac so darned expensive to manufacture. Somehow, 1+1 just ain't equaling 2.
*shrugs*
Oh, well. I appreciate the clarification, anyways.
-Antithesis
Originally posted by vinney57
What utter crap Faeylyn. Nearly as good as your 'Apple to split into two divisions' nonsense
A company that has typically had the best hardware/software (i.e. best product) in the industry for the past 15 years and only has a mere 3% marketshare pretty suggests Faeylyn's statement is pretty accurate. If you can't sell the best product in an industry there is someting wrong with your business philosophies.
Sorry for the car analogy again but surely the same could be said for BMW no? Or Mercedes? Many would that these are the best 'products', yet they don't have the numbers that Ford or GM sell. Would you say these are bad at business? It's pretty basic economics. The best products cost more to manufacture, and as such rules out x% of the buying population.
The problem I have with apple is they keep the same prices for months. The PowerMac has been out for 7 months now... prices are STILL the same. That is definitely a problem that needs to be dealth with. It doesn't make sense to buy 7 month old hardware for the same price as it was the day it was released. Apple needs to have price drops in their products... not just when new products come out but as they deteriorate as a value on the market also.