Lowering a Mac price will sell more units, but how many? Stag - how much lower would the price have to go to sell more Mac's such that the total gross margin will be greater than the current total gross margin? I would expect that the more Mac's sold will drive down some component costs, but let's not grossly over-estimate this.
Total Gross - (price - component costs) * units sold
Stag - what would be your educated guess at solving the NTG equation? Is there a solution where NTG > CTG? According to JLL's attempt previously, there is no solution for NTG > CTG.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ofcourse it can be solved, JLL just doesn't want to because it would completely destroy his argument,
For the sake of simplicity lets just say some mac costs $500 to make and Apple is trying to sell it for $1200.
And lets say Dell has a system that is better than the Apple system and they are selling it for $700, consumer psychology puts the Macintosh at a disadvantage because the PC is perceived to be the better value and Dell sells 10 computers.
Now lets say Apple only sells 2 computers and they take their $1400 margin and just sit back and watch Dell eat them alive.
Now, Apple likes their $700 margin on each machine, but that margin hurts sales as they are viewed as a poor value by the consumer and rightfully so.
Now some people fell Apple is in the same league as BMW and Versachi, I personally think that is a load of shit, but for the sake of argument lets say that is true.
If Apple were to lower their price to match Dell at $700 to earn the same gross margin of $1400 they would have to sell seven macs where before they had to sell two.
But factor in the snob tax and lets say the Mac is $800 instead of $700 they would only have to sell 6 Macs to get their $1400.
Obviously these are artificial numbers, but that doesn't matter because they are just an illustration.
CTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500)
NTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500) - Savings
Obviously calculating the exact savings is difficult however it has been said in manufacturing that each 50% increase in production costs 20% less than the last one.
If Apple were making only two computers and they increased their production to three computers, the oppertunity cost of each $500 cost computer would fall to $400 (remember this is JUST A MODEL, not an actual computer were talking about) and if production was increased to 6 computers the oppertunity cost would fall to $360. Eventually this reaches a point of null returns,
But for the sake of the model
NTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500) - ($140)
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>2) Production costs.
Don't forget that Production costs can actually rise as more units are produced. This can happen when having to use less efficient manufacturers to produce needed components. For instance, more iMacs may require another source for flat panels, which might require new development engineering costs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Production costs do rise with growth, but they don't rise in lock step with growth, if Apple builds a factory and builds a single iMac, it doesn't cost as much to make the second iMac.
As for flat-panels, Samsung and LG are the largest supliers in the world and Apple is probably their smallest major customer, I don't think they would have trouble dealing with additional demand from Apple.
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>Let me add a couple of things -
1) Apple's costs are high due to various reasons. I'm sure some of the costs could be lowered through smart management. For instance, sell all Silicon Valley capital assets and move to Austin!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple owns most of their facilities in California, I don't think that is breaking the bank and in the current market, there aren't many people other than maybe homeless squatters who would want Infinite Loop.
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>
2) Stag - I am really interested in your thoughts on price versus units sold. Also - what premium would people pay for a Mac such that sales would double/triple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember, at the moment Apple sales are almost statistically irrelivent, so any increase in sales would look like an earthquake.
I think Apple could still demand and receive a premium on the iMac and G4 Powerbook as expensive toys, however as a flagship product the current iMac is the most impractical system imaginable.
I think Apple is in a very good position with the iBook, they seem unable to do any wrong there, but while the laptop market has been growing 10 years straight, it is still quite small compared to desktops, I think if Apple were to produce a basic desktop tower, something along the lines of the old 6500 series and priced it within 20% and got it above the psychological 1ghz barrier we would see alot of movement.
I think with a basic tower alone Apple could take 5% or more just selling to existing mac users what they have been screaming for since 1998.
"I think with a basic tower alone Apple could take 5% or more just selling to existing mac users what they have been screaming for since 1998."
Steve, I've been reading your excellent posts across the many threads.
I agree 100% with your theories on Apple.
Let's face it, Apple have always liked 'fat' profits. They put it before 'Marketshare/critical mass/and Mind share/.' In the end, their short termed greed cost they WAyyy more money in the long run as M$ and the IBM clones have proven.
They managed to price their way to their current world wide marketshare... Yeah. They're selling more Macs...but they're sliding as further than they climb as part of the whole cake. So, more Mac users in the world? Yes. BUT wayyyyy more PC users. I'd hardly call Apple's current line up, on a bang for buck basis, as competing. I'll exclude the iBook from that generalisation.
Deferred Gratification.
So, Apple chose the hard way.
I did read a Macworld story that Apple are buying more Taiwanese components to make their products more price sensitive. They'll have to as PCs enter 'toaster commodity' status.
I'm glad to hear Apple are seeing the light somewhat belatedly. They DON'T have to be cheaper or as cheap as x86 land. But 10-20% with the same specs would be okay.
But 50% more for last year's spec? Takin' the p*ss and Apple loyalists are footin' the bill. Without question, Apple is taking their loyal users for granted as .Mac and Jag' payments proved.
I'm intrigued by the greater investment Taiwainese tech' to bring prices down. I wonder...what will San Fran' and 2003 bring..?
Two things. Sell a 1 gig tower for £999 inc VAT. Lemon Bon Bon starts sweating. Drive prices down on low end iMac flat screen to £850 inc Vat, Lemon Bon Bon starts sweating. Sell an iCube for £499 sans Monitor. Lemon BOn BOn breaks down into a gibbering wreck and hands over his wallet to Gordon Harwoods Computers...
The most annoying thing about Apple is just how close they have always been. They aren't that far away now. We're talking a hundred quid or so. The economies of scale to drive down price.
Maybe the retail stores will help in this respect. Especially if they can open maybe a hundred stores in the USA and 50 world wide. I'd stick at that.
Twice recently I have heard this from friends, well, from a friend and from a family member:
"I would love to use a Mac, hell I was always a Mac user from way back when . . .but I just got a very powerfull computer for less than a thousand dollars . . . I can't afford to be a Mac user anymore"
Ofcourse it can be solved, JLL just doesn't want to because it would completely destroy his argument,</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet you come up with a calculation containing made up models at made up prices.
140% gross margin
How about doing it all over again with REAL EXISTING PRODUCTS which was my point: Apple can't sell 80% more Macs by lowering their gross margin by $300 on EXISTING MODELS.
Using the 17" iMac and your competing Dell:
For the sake of simplicity lets just say some mac costs $1400 to make and Apple is trying to sell it for $2000.
And lets say Dell has a system that is better than the Apple system and they are selling it for $1200, consumer psychology puts the Macintosh at a disadvantage because the PC is perceived to be the better value and Dell sells 10 computers.
Now lets say Apple only sells 2 computers and they take their $1200 margin and just sit back and watch Dell eat them alive.
Now, Apple likes their $600 margin on each machine, but that margin hurts sales as they are viewed as a poor value by the consumer and rightfully so.
Now some people fell Apple is in the same league as BMW and Versachi, I personally think that is a load of shit, but for the sake of argument lets say that is true.
If Apple were to lower their price to match Dell at $1200 to earn the same gross margin of $1200 they would have to go to the bank and take a loan.
But factor in the snob tax and lets say the Mac is $1500 instead of $1200 they would 'only' have to sell 12 Macs to get their $1200.
600% increase in sales - Yay! Apple will have 30% of the market - a piece of cake!
It's been more than adaquately explained why they can't now it is your job to prove why they can't,
Thusfar outside shameless apple apologism you seem unable to provide an answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real!! Do you really expect Apple to be able to sell 5,872,000 a quarter of the existing models just by lowering their gross margins by $300 per model?
It made Dell the largest PC vendor in the world didn't it?
And $300 is just the average discount that would be required to make the LCD iMac competitive, the Power Mac G4 would need a much much much larger discount.
It doesn't address the need for a more practical desktop or tower system
<strong>It made Dell the largest PC vendor in the world didn't it?
And $300 is just the average discount that would be required to make the LCD iMac competitive, the Power Mac G4 would need a much much much larger discount.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're focusing on price alone. There are other factors that customers look at when choosing a computer.
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>It doesn't address the need for a more practical desktop or tower system</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been more than adaquately explained why they can now it is your job to prove why they can't,
Thusfar outside shameless apple apologism you seem unable to provide an answer.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not picking but what is your point Steve?? I don't mean with this particular post but in general. Are you really going on and on about Apple selling computers that are much more expensive than the rest?? When has this not been the case?? If the computers are much more expensive and folks won't buy them then the Apple stores are a great way for them (Apple) to get this message. I think that what you getting at is that you do not agree with the way the executive team is leading Apple. If this is the case surely you have a better plan to effectively to make this argument. In other words you could be preaching to the choir. What I think that you are advocating is Apple should lower their margins to the point that they are making around 10% not 30%, and that way they could sell more computers and the laws of market size will take over and then they will make more money, it will just be spread out over a much bigger market. Is that right? If that is the case then perhaps some time in the future, but not right now. When Apple starts to see significant revenue from all that software they purchased and the stuff they already had, and they have a good desktop offering, is the only time they should consider lowering prices. While your argument is compelling, it may as well be short sighted, and narrow in focus. Currently I say ride out the storm, don't change what isn't screaming to be changed. Continue to improve the software portfolio, and continue to improve the overall package (iApps and devices), which is what they are doing, while they wait for the desktop situation to improve.
Have you ever thought about pinning a letter to the Apple board, and or the executive team?? They are the ones impowered to take action on your argument, at least it would not be wasted time, because you could convince everyone of us that Apples' prices are out of line and what, nothing. I say Amen brother, go forth and take your argument on high!
<strong>However today PC's are so cheap, that price becomes the only issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given Apple's current market share, I'm convinced that a Mac and a comparable PC costing about the same would still mean that the majority leaves the shop with the PC.
Given Apple's current market share, I'm convinced that a Mac and a comparable PC costing about the same would still mean that the majority leaves the shop with the PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think if more people went to Apple Stores and not places like CompUSA and they got to actually use a Mac that might not be the case.
While reading through the last ten posts of so I thought to look back and check the original topic name. After doing so, I realized that we are just a little off topic. Apple can not afford to lower prices at this time. If apple lowers prices and the right effect is not achieved they are going to have a hell of a time raising them again. In other words what they are doing now is working well enough and as usual apple will take no chances.
\tAlso it is important to realize that apple does not want to play Dell's game. They could not win a price war with the PC's. Apple competes with features and not with price. If you want a computer buy a PC, but if you want a beautiful, easy, and fun to use computer buy an apple. It's the same way with many things. If you want a car by a Kia, but if you want a fun, fast, beautiful, well made car buy a BMW or similar.
\tAs far as the original topic name goes: lets get back on topic.
As far as the original topic name goes: lets get back on topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, we need the G5, aka IBM 970.
Seriously though, I also have a question that is on topic, sort of. I understand Apple added AltiVec code to OS X, to speed it up. That makes sense with the sluggish G4. But once OS X is fast enough, it is, well, fast enough. So what speed G3, without AltiVec, would make OS X fast enough? I know that is a subjective guess.
The reason I pose this question is because someone mentioned that AltiVec would not benefit performance of most applications as much as a really good floating point unit. I don't even know whether that is true, but It did get me thinking about the choices for a low end processor, for say an iBook. If we have an IBM 970, with 64 bits, AltiVec and a good FPU, at the high end, what is the best choice for the low end? Maybe a G4 like chip (AltiVec) is not needed at all? The middle Macs might use a slower 970, eventually.
"But once OS X is fast enough, it is, well, fast enough. So what speed G3, without AltiVec, would make OS X fast enough? I know that is a subjective guess."
1 gig 'Gobo' G3/simd/200mhz bus. Panther 10.3 will offer up further efficiency savings no doubt...and add to that the higher base of ram we'll get of maybe 256 megs...and look to the new reliance of Quartz Extreme to take an expanded OS drawing role in the next year. Where it look like IBM 'may' be going with the G3...it doesn't look like Apple will need Moto' at all. Apple's software strat' has leaned increasingly to open/more standards supported.
I think the next step of that evolution will be hardware based. 'Options'. So if we don't have an exclusive IBM deal, we may have IBM, Moto', and even 'AMD' instead!
So, I think in the next year Moto' will be relegated to the consumer line. Which, with 1.8 gig processors by the end of 2003? Makes for a fair iMac cpu. Add in Rio in 2004 and you've got decent performance in a Mac that would leave the current 'power'Macs standing.
For the Pro' line, you're talking 970. Duals. Quads for new workstation line for the Pixar worker...etc.
X-serve .9 970s from single up to octo. Enterprise/business sales are on the upward incline for Apple.
.9 shrink sees the 970 as the first 64 bit cpu to hit the Powerbook.
2004. Apple broadens it's CPU strategy to salvo M$ 'Palladium' boat out the water. Apple releases a 'Hammer' machine with superior/compatible Appleworks 7/8 that takes on 'Office' and comes standard with iapps that run 'x86' or maybe...something similar... It will prove to be Apple's best chance for growth in decades.
Palladium could inadvertently give Apple a backdoor entrance into the x86 market. Put that in yer 'Switch' campaign and smoke it! Where would AMD fit in? Cheap chips. In x86 Enterprise/business contracts...cheap edu' boxes... When's Palladium due? 2004/5/6?
That's plenty of time for Apple's developers to get over the 'carbon' recompile for 'X'. Fat binaries for Apple's Marklar strategy.
I think Apple's next goal will be cocoa so Apple will become CPU independent in the years to come.
The 'Moto'/Ati reliance that held Apple's hardware back won't be allowed to happen again.
"The reason I pose this question is because someone mentioned that AltiVec would not benefit performance of most applications as much as a really good floating point unit. I don't even know whether that is true, but It did get me thinking about the choices for a low end processor, for say an iBook. If we have an IBM 970, with 64 bits, AltiVec and a good FPU, at the high end, what is the best choice for the low end? Maybe a G4 like chip (AltiVec) is not needed at all? The middle Macs might use a slower 970, eventually."
As the 970 moves, quickly to .9 and is somewhere between 1.8 and 3 gig...what surprise for an iMac flat with 1.4-1.8 gig 970?
Add in the fact that the 980 is ( in Moto terms...) on the heels of the 970 then the Towers will get the 980 in 2004 leaving the consumer line with .9 970 clocks.
Can you spell 'awesome' consumer machine?
I've never been more excited by Apple in years. The next two years look very intriguing.
I'm very intrigued by Marklar. I'm growing more sure that THEY ARE going to DO it...but the real question is...'how'?
'Options'? In 2003-4, Apple's going to be loaded with 'Options'.
Comments
<strong>
1) Elasticity of price
Lowering a Mac price will sell more units, but how many? Stag - how much lower would the price have to go to sell more Mac's such that the total gross margin will be greater than the current total gross margin? I would expect that the more Mac's sold will drive down some component costs, but let's not grossly over-estimate this.
CTG = (C#MacSold * Price) - (C#MacSold * cost)
NTG = (N#MacSold * LowerPrice) - (N#MacSold * (cost - smallSavings)
CTG - Current Total Gross
NTG - New Total Gross
Total Gross - (price - component costs) * units sold
Stag - what would be your educated guess at solving the NTG equation? Is there a solution where NTG > CTG? According to JLL's attempt previously, there is no solution for NTG > CTG.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ofcourse it can be solved, JLL just doesn't want to because it would completely destroy his argument,
For the sake of simplicity lets just say some mac costs $500 to make and Apple is trying to sell it for $1200.
And lets say Dell has a system that is better than the Apple system and they are selling it for $700, consumer psychology puts the Macintosh at a disadvantage because the PC is perceived to be the better value and Dell sells 10 computers.
Now lets say Apple only sells 2 computers and they take their $1400 margin and just sit back and watch Dell eat them alive.
Now, Apple likes their $700 margin on each machine, but that margin hurts sales as they are viewed as a poor value by the consumer and rightfully so.
Now some people fell Apple is in the same league as BMW and Versachi, I personally think that is a load of shit, but for the sake of argument lets say that is true.
If Apple were to lower their price to match Dell at $700 to earn the same gross margin of $1400 they would have to sell seven macs where before they had to sell two.
But factor in the snob tax and lets say the Mac is $800 instead of $700 they would only have to sell 6 Macs to get their $1400.
Obviously these are artificial numbers, but that doesn't matter because they are just an illustration.
CTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500)
NTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500) - Savings
Obviously calculating the exact savings is difficult however it has been said in manufacturing that each 50% increase in production costs 20% less than the last one.
If Apple were making only two computers and they increased their production to three computers, the oppertunity cost of each $500 cost computer would fall to $400 (remember this is JUST A MODEL, not an actual computer were talking about) and if production was increased to 6 computers the oppertunity cost would fall to $360. Eventually this reaches a point of null returns,
But for the sake of the model
NTG = (6) * ($800) - (6) * ($500) - ($140)
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>2) Production costs.
Don't forget that Production costs can actually rise as more units are produced. This can happen when having to use less efficient manufacturers to produce needed components. For instance, more iMacs may require another source for flat panels, which might require new development engineering costs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Production costs do rise with growth, but they don't rise in lock step with growth, if Apple builds a factory and builds a single iMac, it doesn't cost as much to make the second iMac.
As for flat-panels, Samsung and LG are the largest supliers in the world and Apple is probably their smallest major customer, I don't think they would have trouble dealing with additional demand from Apple.
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>Let me add a couple of things -
1) Apple's costs are high due to various reasons. I'm sure some of the costs could be lowered through smart management. For instance, sell all Silicon Valley capital assets and move to Austin!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple owns most of their facilities in California, I don't think that is breaking the bank and in the current market, there aren't many people other than maybe homeless squatters who would want Infinite Loop.
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>
2) Stag - I am really interested in your thoughts on price versus units sold. Also - what premium would people pay for a Mac such that sales would double/triple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember, at the moment Apple sales are almost statistically irrelivent, so any increase in sales would look like an earthquake.
I think Apple could still demand and receive a premium on the iMac and G4 Powerbook as expensive toys, however as a flagship product the current iMac is the most impractical system imaginable.
I think Apple is in a very good position with the iBook, they seem unable to do any wrong there, but while the laptop market has been growing 10 years straight, it is still quite small compared to desktops, I think if Apple were to produce a basic desktop tower, something along the lines of the old 6500 series and priced it within 20% and got it above the psychological 1ghz barrier we would see alot of movement.
I think with a basic tower alone Apple could take 5% or more just selling to existing mac users what they have been screaming for since 1998.
Steve, I've been reading your excellent posts across the many threads.
I agree 100% with your theories on Apple.
Let's face it, Apple have always liked 'fat' profits. They put it before 'Marketshare/critical mass/and Mind share/.' In the end, their short termed greed cost they WAyyy more money in the long run as M$ and the IBM clones have proven.
They managed to price their way to their current world wide marketshare...
Deferred Gratification.
So, Apple chose the hard way.
I did read a Macworld story that Apple are buying more Taiwanese components to make their products more price sensitive. They'll have to as PCs enter 'toaster commodity' status.
I'm glad to hear Apple are seeing the light somewhat belatedly. They DON'T have to be cheaper or as cheap as x86 land. But 10-20% with the same specs would be okay.
But 50% more for last year's spec? Takin' the p*ss and Apple loyalists are footin' the bill. Without question, Apple is taking their loyal users for granted as .Mac and Jag' payments proved.
I'm intrigued by the greater investment Taiwainese tech' to bring prices down. I wonder...what will San Fran' and 2003 bring..?
Two things. Sell a 1 gig tower for £999 inc VAT. Lemon Bon Bon starts sweating. Drive prices down on low end iMac flat screen to £850 inc Vat, Lemon Bon Bon starts sweating. Sell an iCube for £499 sans Monitor. Lemon BOn BOn breaks down into a gibbering wreck and hands over his wallet to Gordon Harwoods Computers...
The most annoying thing about Apple is just how close they have always been. They aren't that far away now. We're talking a hundred quid or so. The economies of scale to drive down price.
Maybe the retail stores will help in this respect. Especially if they can open maybe a hundred stores in the USA and 50 world wide. I'd stick at that.
Lemon Bon Bon
"I would love to use a Mac, hell I was always a Mac user from way back when . . .but I just got a very powerfull computer for less than a thousand dollars . . . I can't afford to be a Mac user anymore"
HEY APPLE ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!
<strong>
HEY APPLE ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!
They obviously don't care.
<strong>
Ofcourse it can be solved, JLL just doesn't want to because it would completely destroy his argument,</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet you come up with a calculation containing made up models at made up prices.
140% gross margin
How about doing it all over again with REAL EXISTING PRODUCTS which was my point: Apple can't sell 80% more Macs by lowering their gross margin by $300 on EXISTING MODELS.
Using the 17" iMac and your competing Dell:
For the sake of simplicity lets just say some mac costs $1400 to make and Apple is trying to sell it for $2000.
And lets say Dell has a system that is better than the Apple system and they are selling it for $1200, consumer psychology puts the Macintosh at a disadvantage because the PC is perceived to be the better value and Dell sells 10 computers.
Now lets say Apple only sells 2 computers and they take their $1200 margin and just sit back and watch Dell eat them alive.
Now, Apple likes their $600 margin on each machine, but that margin hurts sales as they are viewed as a poor value by the consumer and rightfully so.
Now some people fell Apple is in the same league as BMW and Versachi, I personally think that is a load of shit, but for the sake of argument lets say that is true.
If Apple were to lower their price to match Dell at $1200 to earn the same gross margin of $1200 they would have to go to the bank and take a loan.
But factor in the snob tax and lets say the Mac is $1500 instead of $1200 they would 'only' have to sell 12 Macs to get their $1200.
600% increase in sales - Yay! Apple will have 30% of the market - a piece of cake!
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>Well I'll keep buying Macs and so will everyone else here, even Matsu. Admit it
Well Matsu doesn't even own a Mac...
<strong>Uhh okay, other than plagerizing me what is your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That Apple in no way can four-six double their market share by lowering gross margins - I've only said it four times in this thread now.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>
That Apple in no way can four-six double their market share by lowering gross margins - I've only said it four times in this thread now.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been more than adaquately explained why they can now it is your job to prove why they can't,
Thusfar outside shameless apple apologism you seem unable to provide an answer.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</p>
<strong>
It's been more than adaquately explained why they can't now it is your job to prove why they can't,
Thusfar outside shameless apple apologism you seem unable to provide an answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real!! Do you really expect Apple to be able to sell 5,872,000 a quarter of the existing models just by lowering their gross margins by $300 per model?
And $300 is just the average discount that would be required to make the LCD iMac competitive, the Power Mac G4 would need a much much much larger discount.
It doesn't address the need for a more practical desktop or tower system
<strong>It made Dell the largest PC vendor in the world didn't it?
And $300 is just the average discount that would be required to make the LCD iMac competitive, the Power Mac G4 would need a much much much larger discount.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're focusing on price alone. There are other factors that customers look at when choosing a computer.
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>It doesn't address the need for a more practical desktop or tower system</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
<strong>
It's been more than adaquately explained why they can now it is your job to prove why they can't,
Thusfar outside shameless apple apologism you seem unable to provide an answer.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not picking but what is your point Steve?? I don't mean with this particular post but in general. Are you really going on and on about Apple selling computers that are much more expensive than the rest?? When has this not been the case?? If the computers are much more expensive and folks won't buy them then the Apple stores are a great way for them (Apple) to get this message. I think that what you getting at is that you do not agree with the way the executive team is leading Apple. If this is the case surely you have a better plan to effectively to make this argument. In other words you could be preaching to the choir. What I think that you are advocating is Apple should lower their margins to the point that they are making around 10% not 30%, and that way they could sell more computers and the laws of market size will take over and then they will make more money, it will just be spread out over a much bigger market. Is that right? If that is the case then perhaps some time in the future, but not right now. When Apple starts to see significant revenue from all that software they purchased and the stuff they already had, and they have a good desktop offering, is the only time they should consider lowering prices. While your argument is compelling, it may as well be short sighted, and narrow in focus. Currently I say ride out the storm, don't change what isn't screaming to be changed. Continue to improve the software portfolio, and continue to improve the overall package (iApps and devices), which is what they are doing, while they wait for the desktop situation to improve.
Have you ever thought about pinning a letter to the Apple board, and or the executive team?? They are the ones impowered to take action on your argument, at least it would not be wasted time, because you could convince everyone of us that Apples' prices are out of line and what, nothing. I say Amen brother, go forth and take your argument on high!
<strong>You're focusing on price alone. There are other factors that customers look at when choosing a computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was true back when a PC was $3000 and a Mac was $3500.
However today PC's are so cheap, that price becomes the only issue.
<strong>However today PC's are so cheap, that price becomes the only issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given Apple's current market share, I'm convinced that a Mac and a comparable PC costing about the same would still mean that the majority leaves the shop with the PC.
<strong>
Given Apple's current market share, I'm convinced that a Mac and a comparable PC costing about the same would still mean that the majority leaves the shop with the PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think if more people went to Apple Stores and not places like CompUSA and they got to actually use a Mac that might not be the case.
\tAlso it is important to realize that apple does not want to play Dell's game. They could not win a price war with the PC's. Apple competes with features and not with price. If you want a computer buy a PC, but if you want a beautiful, easy, and fun to use computer buy an apple. It's the same way with many things. If you want a car by a Kia, but if you want a fun, fast, beautiful, well made car buy a BMW or similar.
\tAs far as the original topic name goes: lets get back on topic.
<strong>
As far as the original topic name goes: lets get back on topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, we need the G5, aka IBM 970.
Seriously though, I also have a question that is on topic, sort of. I understand Apple added AltiVec code to OS X, to speed it up. That makes sense with the sluggish G4. But once OS X is fast enough, it is, well, fast enough. So what speed G3, without AltiVec, would make OS X fast enough? I know that is a subjective guess.
The reason I pose this question is because someone mentioned that AltiVec would not benefit performance of most applications as much as a really good floating point unit. I don't even know whether that is true, but It did get me thinking about the choices for a low end processor, for say an iBook. If we have an IBM 970, with 64 bits, AltiVec and a good FPU, at the high end, what is the best choice for the low end? Maybe a G4 like chip (AltiVec) is not needed at all? The middle Macs might use a slower 970, eventually.
1 gig 'Gobo' G3/simd/200mhz bus. Panther 10.3 will offer up further efficiency savings no doubt...and add to that the higher base of ram we'll get of maybe 256 megs...and look to the new reliance of Quartz Extreme to take an expanded OS drawing role in the next year. Where it look like IBM 'may' be going with the G3...it doesn't look like Apple will need Moto' at all. Apple's software strat' has leaned increasingly to open/more standards supported.
I think the next step of that evolution will be hardware based. 'Options'. So if we don't have an exclusive IBM deal, we may have IBM, Moto', and even 'AMD' instead!
So, I think in the next year Moto' will be relegated to the consumer line. Which, with 1.8 gig processors by the end of 2003? Makes for a fair iMac cpu. Add in Rio in 2004 and you've got decent performance in a Mac that would leave the current 'power'Macs standing.
For the Pro' line, you're talking 970. Duals. Quads for new workstation line for the Pixar worker...etc.
X-serve .9 970s from single up to octo. Enterprise/business sales are on the upward incline for Apple.
.9 shrink sees the 970 as the first 64 bit cpu to hit the Powerbook.
2004. Apple broadens it's CPU strategy to salvo M$ 'Palladium' boat out the water. Apple releases a 'Hammer' machine with superior/compatible Appleworks 7/8 that takes on 'Office' and comes standard with iapps that run 'x86' or maybe...something similar... It will prove to be Apple's best chance for growth in decades.
Palladium could inadvertently give Apple a backdoor entrance into the x86 market. Put that in yer 'Switch' campaign and smoke it! Where would AMD fit in? Cheap chips. In x86 Enterprise/business contracts...cheap edu' boxes... When's Palladium due? 2004/5/6?
That's plenty of time for Apple's developers to get over the 'carbon' recompile for 'X'. Fat binaries for Apple's Marklar strategy.
I think Apple's next goal will be cocoa so Apple will become CPU independent in the years to come.
The 'Moto'/Ati reliance that held Apple's hardware back won't be allowed to happen again.
"The reason I pose this question is because someone mentioned that AltiVec would not benefit performance of most applications as much as a really good floating point unit. I don't even know whether that is true, but It did get me thinking about the choices for a low end processor, for say an iBook. If we have an IBM 970, with 64 bits, AltiVec and a good FPU, at the high end, what is the best choice for the low end? Maybe a G4 like chip (AltiVec) is not needed at all? The middle Macs might use a slower 970, eventually."
As the 970 moves, quickly to .9 and is somewhere between 1.8 and 3 gig...what surprise for an iMac flat with 1.4-1.8 gig 970?
Add in the fact that the 980 is ( in Moto terms...) on the heels of the 970 then the Towers will get the 980 in 2004 leaving the consumer line with .9 970 clocks.
Can you spell 'awesome' consumer machine?
I've never been more excited by Apple in years. The next two years look very intriguing.
I'm very intrigued by Marklar. I'm growing more sure that THEY ARE going to DO it...but the real question is...'how'?
'Options'? In 2003-4, Apple's going to be loaded with 'Options'.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>