Yeah, it was that kind of thinkin' that almost got Apple killed around '97... 'Fine'.
There's something dodgy about using the word 'fine' when our favourite fruit company can't get a healthy profit...with a message(s) that are so compelling.
Perhaps therein, lies a tale or two...
If Apple were 'fine'. They'd have stayed with the 4 product grid. If they were 'fine' maybe they wouldn't be moving to a business model that now has almost quarter of their profits in software revenue and related services. 'Fine' would have kept us with a pathetic two pro laptop models. How many Wintel makers have just 'two' pro laptop models? Apple are adding variety and flexibility and 'spread' to their laptop range, from a £750 (Can you say, 'WOW'?) iBook to a 17 inch uber Book that almost justifies the cost. That's not fine. That's GOOD. The desktops are 'fine'. That's their problem. They aint 'good'. If they followed the direction of the laptops? Apple's desktops would have made Apple a healthy profit methinks.
'Fine'. That's alright for x86 makers. Not for the new and improving Apple.
Next? Desktops.
Cheaper towers.
Cheaper iMacs.
Headless models at sub £695 inc Vat prices. Moi iCube please. Here's my wallet. Said Lemon.
Lemon Bon Bon
"I think a lot of people would like to give Apple a try, but over 1K just doesn't cut it.2
Not to be harsh, first learn to read a 10K report, and understand what you are reading. [ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Brendon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry Brendon, did I give you the impression that I can neither read nor understand a 10K filing. Believe that I can!
Key words at the start of my post were "progress" and "momentum". I'm next to certain that these words are used to denote relativity. My post in no way implies that Apple is doing poorly. They're doing well given market conditions clearly. Right now, Apple is roughly where it was last year. Though no progress isn't bad.
What my post does speak to is my fear that Apple will continue to exemplify poor execution. I don't feel that the 970 is necessarily the cure to all that ails Apple. We all sit up and blame Moto, but I understand their being pissed at Apple for killing the clones. While the clone markets were detrimental to Apple, they had to be great to Moto who was doing excellent volume. Then Apple kills the program effectively ensuring that while Moto would no longer do the volume it was, Apple would be healthy because it was now the only competitor in it's market.
The current PC market is more diverse and dynamic than ever. The 2 or 3% of the market that Apple is said to represent is exponentially larget numerically at least a couple millionfold. Of that, not everyone is waiting for the 970 like me whether Apple has a fast G4 or not. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to go look at the Mercedes of the computer world, ever longing for it, and then go right ahead and buy that second tier wintel box, because it's in their budget.
I'm simply saying Apple should entertain even the absurd when it comes to getting Apple kit in these people's hands. Keep in mind that even after the 970 is out, priced as it will be, are their enough die hard Mac Heads out there to purchase enough to get Apple some clear and sustainable momentum. I don't think so. Apple still needs some well priced kit that turns heads AND is affordable.
IMHO Apple needs a good strategy already in place such that when the market improves they will be able to take full advantage the first minute.
This is preferable to waiting to see that the market is improved, attempting to execute, not getting the desired results and then trying to figure out why, because at that point valuable time is being lost.
Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.
I just hope Apple is ready to run when the gates open, but right now I'm not so sure.
You fail to take into account the fact that the clones required only a fraction of the processors that Apple needed. What would happen today if a clone sold computers using sample PowerPC 970s? Think about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont fial to take anything into account. Power Computing was much more agressive about updating the processors in their computers than Apple was, and is today. Case in point, the iMac has not had a processor upgrade in 12 months. Motorolla has chips up to 1.25 Ghz in stock, and is selling them to other vendors. The PM uses Duals, so there is no reason why Apple couldnt use single 1.25's in the iMac. Yet as of today they still have not done the simple update to the processor, and the most "rumours" hint at only 1Ghz's bieng released. That is plain stupid on Apples part. It dosnt help them in any way, it's bad PR, and the longer they keep the stock without an update the harder it is to sell them. They still end up liquidating the computers through auctions, and have lost any number of potential sales due to "slow" hardware and bad PR. Right now Apple cant afford to loose too many sales.
Nope. Power Computing had a test-bed 750 (G3) doing the rounds (before Apple had a G3 out), but it was never released as a final product, because Apple bought Power Computing and shut down the whole clone machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple pulled the licensing agreements before the G3 was ready for production, and that is why the G3 Power Computing was never released. However in the 603/604 days they did get the faster chips in thier computers and to market at a faster pace than Apple did.
We all sit up and blame Moto, but I understand their being pissed at Apple for killing the clones. While the clone markets were detrimental to Apple, they had to be great to Moto who was doing excellent volume. Then Apple kills the program effectively ensuring that while Moto would no longer do the volume it was, Apple would be healthy because it was now the only competitor in it's market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, there are plenty of more concrete reasons for Mot's performance relative to Intel (and in absolute terms) than the much-ballyhooed anger over the termination of the clones.
Second, I fail to see how Mot's volume increased during the clone era: The clones ate into Apple's market share, rather than growing the overall marketshare of the platform, so the net change in PPC sales through the creation and termination of the clone policy was probably nominal at best.
Third, Mot never made a profit off the clones.
[quote]<strong>IMHO Apple needs a good strategy already in place such that when the market improves they will be able to take full advantage the first minute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you listen to the conference call? This is exactly what Apple is doing. They're not waiting for the economy to improve, in terms of their rate of R&D, or in terms of product releases. Their plan is to make sure they're hitting on all pistons when the economy does start turning around.
[quote]<strong>Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's posted at Ars Technica, it must be true!
How do you improve a FSB subsystem beyond the capabilities of the host processor? How has Apple not improved the memory subsystem? They're using the fastest standard SDRAM you can buy right now, even though they had to conjure up a rather unusual design to do so because of the limitations of the FSB enforced by the G4.
[quote]We all sit up and blame Moto, but I understand their being pissed at Apple for killing the clones. While the clone markets were detrimental to Apple, they had to be great to Moto who was doing excellent volume.<hr></blockquote>Yeah, imagine where Moto would be if they couldn't fab fast enough chips to meet their cloneware demands. Blame Moto because they can't fab the chips they design.
[quote]Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.<hr></blockquote>Reading the wrong Ars threads bub. G4 is a com chip and mfgs like Cisco have no interest in a DDR bus for the G4 family of products. They're waiting for 85xx, which Moto apparently can't deliver.
<strong>...However in the 603/604 days they did get the faster chips in thier computers and to market at a faster pace than Apple did.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I don't believe it, please cite a credible source.
It doesn't seem likely that any other vendor could get 603/604s to market more quickly than Apple, since what we're talking about are processor speed bumps rather than new processors.
How about a 60 gig iPod loaded with OSX, connectors for a kybrd, monitor and CDRW. BAM!!! there you have it......a $1,000 entry level Mac. Darn...guess we overshot the price point.
Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shipping DDR PC2700 systems shows quite clearly that Apple can handle that end of things, even if the SDR FSB of the Motorola CPU parts cannot use all of it. Or am I mis-reading the Ars comment ?
[[[Plenty of box builders spend more than Apple on R&D and STILL have to license an OS and apps. ]]]
Ya know Matsu, I'd believe you if only it actually showed that they are doing more R&D. There is NOTHING that differentiates one PC box from the next other than the price and the name that's taped onto the side of the box, and the PC industry isn't faring so well thanks to Dell. That said, let me ask you this... Let's suppose there was a HUGE BOON in PC sales the very next quarter... Everyone and their brother "saw the light" and raced out and grabbed those 3+ GHz. P-4 speed demons (and space-heaters) What are the PC manufacturers going to sell the next quarter? how about the quarter after that? And so on.... The point is that most people ALREADY HAVE MORE COMPUTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY NEED. And the noticed performance difference is becoming completely nonexistent. Intel already knows this -- that's exactly why they are now preaching what Apple has been preaching for YEARS now... Have a gander at this:
Man, talk about a HUGE bite out of the Apple... The point is that the PC industry isn't going to be relying on people upgrading ever 4 or 5 years.. Unless M$ is going to make them upgrade to the latest and greatest.. They are going to have a hard enough time trying to sell Palladium/Longhorn... And as far as features go... just how many bells and whistles are actually needed? Sheesh, people don't even use 90% of them anyway! I think Apple knows that thanks to Dell, there is really nothing left that will sell more PCs to the already saturated market.
[quote]Ya know Matsu, I'd believe you if only it actually showed that they are doing more R&D.<hr></blockquote>Dell does more R&D, but not as a percentage of income. Dell spends most of the R&D dollars on servers, though they have now moved into PDA space.
Apple needs to follow one of the most cliched (and successful) business strategies of all time, the ladder. It first was used by GM in the 50's low end cars get consumers into the GM family and as they make more money or need a new car they will climb the ladder. Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac. Apple should build a $400-$600 that will be attractive to prospective switchers. Once they buy the Computer they will realize how great jaguar and the iapps are and then climb the ladder when buying future computers. It doesn?t matter if the profit margin on the cheap mac is slim since the switchers will eventually buy more profitable computers from apple. Core Ford motor company(ford, Mercury and Lincoln) Make most of their profit from expensive SUVs and expensive cars loaded with options, but they still sell plenty of Focus?s and Taurus?s to get consumers on the ladder. If apple wants to increase its market share it cant just rely on its core apple addict market they must get more people on the ladder with a switcher computer.
Apple's got something up their sleeve. I get a sense of this listening to various analysts, and just listening to Jobs. They know this new PB strategy is a bandaid. There are going to be some new products coming. Apple is going to play big. The one thing that doesn't change amidst all this advance in technology is that the average user still wants devises that work like toasters; easy to use, turn-key apps. The thing is, it's not really the app. anymore, it's how the apps integrate to deliver a lifestyle solution that solve lifestyle issues. Time management, communication, preservation of the family experience. It's not about who can crunch data the fastest (it's still important), but about who can take the data from the DVR and put it on a CD in the easiest, fastest and most reliable way. If Apple can produce a reasonably priced product, they win the lifestyle battle hands down. Now it's a marketing game. Brand recognition (that's why they're opening stores). Game on!
[quote] Apple needs to follow one of the most cliched (and successful) business strategies of all time, the ladder. It first was used by GM in the 50's low end cars get consumers into the GM family and as they make more money or need a new car they will climb the ladder. Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac. Apple should build a $400-$600 that will be attractive to prospective switchers. Once they buy the Computer they will realize how great jaguar and the iapps are and then climb the ladder when buying future computers. It doesn?t matter if the profit margin on the cheap mac is slim since the switchers will eventually buy more profitable computers from apple. Core Ford motor company(ford, Mercury and Lincoln) Make most of their profit from expensive SUVs and expensive cars loaded with options, but they still sell plenty of Focus?s and Taurus?s to get consumers on the ladder. If apple wants to increase its market share it cant just rely on its core apple addict market they must get more people on the ladder with a switcher computer. <hr></blockquote>People don't buy that way anymore. If you haven't noticed the ladder (GM) is very broken. SUV profit margins are the highest because they are heavily subsidized by regulations (more exactly the lack of them--nice to sell a passenger vehicle that doesn't have to meet passenger vehicle fuel and safety standards). Consumers now purchase based on life style and created niche markets (look at the latest car, where differentiation of market segment occurs through an imagined set of consumer behaviors/lifestyles. Apple is already trying to do this.
<strong>People don't buy that way anymore. If you haven't noticed the ladder (GM) is very broken. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps the model doesn't work for GM anymore, because it could easily be argued that they're just going out and getting what they can afford, but then that still sounds like validation of the model. Especially when you look at all the creative financing on trucks & SUVs after 9/11. SUVs especially recently were being priced and financed agressively to sell.
That fact that Dell prevails as the top salesman, shows that by and large, those in the market for computers for whatever reason are thinking with a "Built by the lowest bidder.", mentality. They don't care about pretty plastics, they don't care about gigaflops, specint numbers, or photoshop shootouts. If aesthetics were to win out in computer purchases, seems like Sony (while having improved markedly this year) would have to be at least be in the number 2 or 3 slot.
Even of the Dell purchases that co-workers, neighbors, and friends were asking to evaluate for them, not a one was over $1200.00 w/monitor and quite a few "upgrades". Everyone started with the mid-hundereds to a thousand range and were all more likely to spring for additional memory, CD\\DVD upgrades, or larger screens. Most if not all had their mind made up about the speed they wanted as in my experience that spec. rarely changed.
I mean think about it. The closest thing to Apple that you have in the wintel world is Sony. They adopted Firewire(iLink) right after Apple and even focus their platform around family photos, digital photography and what not. Not that they do it nearly as well, but the've got to be close. Though unlike Apple, they do have the fastest Intel chips to be found typically and their products are not flying off the shelf. That's what we have to look at.
My "limited market segment" clone idea idea may be rediculous. Fine. Though most seem not to understand that I was proposing only in the low end desktop segment. You know $500 - 1200.00 before you got the monitor.
But until Apple has a product that appeals to the masses on price as well as anything else Apple would have them think is important, potential customers will continue to walk around and gawk at Apple kit as though they were at the quite futuristic auto shows in Detroit, and then walk right out and purchase something that pleases their wallet first, and whatever pride they have left over second.
That is the reality my friend and it's an aspect of public perception and people's thinking that Apple will never be able to change.
I think we all have to agree that most people when they decide they want something in the generic sense, they wait until they have what they think should be enough money. Then with price in mind and sale paper in hand, they go off on their journey. From cars, homes, clothes, most thing are purchased in this manner. I have a thousand dollars and I want a computer. When they find they can get more than that for their 1000.00 than they initially planned, they are quite pleased with themselves: you know, CD/DVD upgrade, or LCD as opposed to the CRT they envisioned or one of the cheesy printers or scanners. When they find they can get at least that and it's not as slow as they thought it was going to be they are at least fine with their purchase.
This may be a huge oversimplification, but I'm betting if they got all that, it wasn't at the Apple store and that's a problem that Apple needs to fix.
That fact that Dell prevails as the top salesman, shows that by and large, those in the market for computers for whatever reason are thinking with a "Built by the lowest bidder.", mentality. They don't care about pretty plastics, they don't care about gigaflops, specint numbers, or photoshop shootouts. If aesthetics were to win out in computer purchases, seems like Sony (while having improved markedly this year) would have to be at least be in the number 2 or 3 slot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A couple of clarifications. First, HPaq just reclaimed the #1 vendor crown. Second, none of the single vendors sell as many boxen as the myriad so-called "white box" vendors - local or regional shops that assemble PCs to order.
Second, Dell is rarely the lowest bidder. They are frequently the lowest bidder among those brands that people will consider in the first place, which is an important difference. If price were everything, eMachines wouldn't be gasping for air right now. Actually, Apple has underbid Dell in some instances I'm aware of - but they're rarely given the opportunity to even try.
People buy Dell because it's a not unreliable machine in a mostly inoffensive case backed by solid service, offered inexpensively but not cheaply by a company with a comfortingly familiar name and a large presence at whichever company the person works for. Dell can eliminate retail because PC hardware is enough of a commodity - and Windows is a ubiquitous enough platform - that people can have a pretty good idea of the product they're getting without having seen it.
Note the utter lack of superlatives. Dell exemplifies safety, conformity and mediocrity, which comes with its own comforts.
[quote]<strong>Even of the Dell purchases that co-workers, neighbors, and friends were asking to evaluate for them, not a one was over $1200.00 w/monitor and quite a few "upgrades".</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words, the ladder is definitely broken. It works well enough when times are good, but not during a recession.
[quote]<strong>I mean think about it. The closest thing to Apple that you have in the wintel world is Sony. They adopted Firewire(iLink) right after Apple and even focus their platform around family photos, digital photography and what not. Not that they do it nearly as well, but the've got to be close.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but they're so far behind Apple that, not long after the LCD iMac came out, a maxed-out $4K Sony "home entertainment" PC was only barely able to hold its own against the base iMac in a runoff. The software wasn't - and isn't - there, and although Sony is a giant among PC makers as far as design is concerned, that's damning with faint praise. Most of their efforts boiled down to a gussied-up mini ATX case stuffed full of PCI cards, shipping with stock commercial software.
For another thing, they stupidly standardized on the 4-pin version of IEEE 1394 that doesn't supply power. I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to judge: If my laptops only got an hour and a half of battery life, I might do the same thing.
[quote]<strong>My "limited market segment" clone idea idea may be rediculous. Fine. Though most seem not to understand that I was proposing only in the low end desktop segment. You know $500 - 1200.00 before you got the monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, that doesn't make it much, if any, less ridiculous. The argument for keeping the clones down below $1200 is to keep them from competing with Apple's profitable machines - but then how are they supposed to make a profit themselves? Any attempt to lure Mac cloners has to look appealing to the cloners. If there's no business case for Apple at the offered price points, how much of a business case is there for anyone else?
Note that before the current price war, Dell's average profit margin was 20%. They don't cut to the bone either unless they're trying to outlast another PC vendor in a price war.
[quote]<strong>But until Apple has a product that appeals to the masses on price as well as anything else Apple would have them think is important, potential customers will continue to walk around and gawk at Apple kit as though they were at the quite futuristic auto shows in Detroit, and then walk right out and purchase something that pleases their wallet first, and whatever pride they have left over second.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. It's why iBooks are flying out the doors. I'd reserve judgment on the quality of Apple's response to this reality until they roll out the next wave of upgrades in their consumer offerings. The last iBook upgrade convinced me that they're on to this.
Fortunately, they don't have to ignite a huge firestorm of sales to grow relative to the overall market. All they need is for more than three people out of every hundred who walk by their stores on their way to buy a computer to walk out with a Mac, and their market share will increase.
Comments
And, importantly, Jaguar.
Like the Cube, but low end.
I think a lot of people would like to give Apple a try, but over 1K just doesn't cut it.
My 2 cents,
Dr. L
Yeah, it was that kind of thinkin' that almost got Apple killed around '97... 'Fine'.
There's something dodgy about using the word 'fine' when our favourite fruit company can't get a healthy profit...with a message(s) that are so compelling.
Perhaps therein, lies a tale or two...
If Apple were 'fine'. They'd have stayed with the 4 product grid. If they were 'fine' maybe they wouldn't be moving to a business model that now has almost quarter of their profits in software revenue and related services. 'Fine' would have kept us with a pathetic two pro laptop models. How many Wintel makers have just 'two' pro laptop models? Apple are adding variety and flexibility and 'spread' to their laptop range, from a £750 (Can you say, 'WOW'?) iBook to a 17 inch uber Book that almost justifies the cost. That's not fine. That's GOOD. The desktops are 'fine'. That's their problem. They aint 'good'. If they followed the direction of the laptops? Apple's desktops would have made Apple a healthy profit methinks.
'Fine'. That's alright for x86 makers. Not for the new and improving Apple.
Next? Desktops.
Cheaper towers.
Cheaper iMacs.
Headless models at sub £695 inc Vat prices. Moi iCube please. Here's my wallet. Said Lemon.
Lemon Bon Bon
"I think a lot of people would like to give Apple a try, but over 1K just doesn't cut it.2
Reduce the risk and barrier to entry: price.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
Not to be harsh, first learn to read a 10K report, and understand what you are reading. [ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Brendon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry Brendon, did I give you the impression that I can neither read nor understand a 10K filing. Believe that I can!
Key words at the start of my post were "progress" and "momentum". I'm next to certain that these words are used to denote relativity. My post in no way implies that Apple is doing poorly. They're doing well given market conditions clearly. Right now, Apple is roughly where it was last year. Though no progress isn't bad.
What my post does speak to is my fear that Apple will continue to exemplify poor execution. I don't feel that the 970 is necessarily the cure to all that ails Apple. We all sit up and blame Moto, but I understand their being pissed at Apple for killing the clones. While the clone markets were detrimental to Apple, they had to be great to Moto who was doing excellent volume. Then Apple kills the program effectively ensuring that while Moto would no longer do the volume it was, Apple would be healthy because it was now the only competitor in it's market.
The current PC market is more diverse and dynamic than ever. The 2 or 3% of the market that Apple is said to represent is exponentially larget numerically at least a couple millionfold. Of that, not everyone is waiting for the 970 like me whether Apple has a fast G4 or not. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to go look at the Mercedes of the computer world, ever longing for it, and then go right ahead and buy that second tier wintel box, because it's in their budget.
I'm simply saying Apple should entertain even the absurd when it comes to getting Apple kit in these people's hands. Keep in mind that even after the 970 is out, priced as it will be, are their enough die hard Mac Heads out there to purchase enough to get Apple some clear and sustainable momentum. I don't think so. Apple still needs some well priced kit that turns heads AND is affordable.
IMHO Apple needs a good strategy already in place such that when the market improves they will be able to take full advantage the first minute.
This is preferable to waiting to see that the market is improved, attempting to execute, not getting the desired results and then trying to figure out why, because at that point valuable time is being lost.
Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.
I just hope Apple is ready to run when the gates open, but right now I'm not so sure.
<strong>
You fail to take into account the fact that the clones required only a fraction of the processors that Apple needed. What would happen today if a clone sold computers using sample PowerPC 970s? Think about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont fial to take anything into account. Power Computing was much more agressive about updating the processors in their computers than Apple was, and is today. Case in point, the iMac has not had a processor upgrade in 12 months. Motorolla has chips up to 1.25 Ghz in stock, and is selling them to other vendors. The PM uses Duals, so there is no reason why Apple couldnt use single 1.25's in the iMac. Yet as of today they still have not done the simple update to the processor, and the most "rumours" hint at only 1Ghz's bieng released. That is plain stupid on Apples part. It dosnt help them in any way, it's bad PR, and the longer they keep the stock without an update the harder it is to sell them. They still end up liquidating the computers through auctions, and have lost any number of potential sales due to "slow" hardware and bad PR. Right now Apple cant afford to loose too many sales.
<strong>
Nope. Power Computing had a test-bed 750 (G3) doing the rounds (before Apple had a G3 out), but it was never released as a final product, because Apple bought Power Computing and shut down the whole clone machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple pulled the licensing agreements before the G3 was ready for production, and that is why the G3 Power Computing was never released. However in the 603/604 days they did get the faster chips in thier computers and to market at a faster pace than Apple did.
<strong>
We all sit up and blame Moto, but I understand their being pissed at Apple for killing the clones. While the clone markets were detrimental to Apple, they had to be great to Moto who was doing excellent volume. Then Apple kills the program effectively ensuring that while Moto would no longer do the volume it was, Apple would be healthy because it was now the only competitor in it's market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, there are plenty of more concrete reasons for Mot's performance relative to Intel (and in absolute terms) than the much-ballyhooed anger over the termination of the clones.
Second, I fail to see how Mot's volume increased during the clone era: The clones ate into Apple's market share, rather than growing the overall marketshare of the platform, so the net change in PPC sales through the creation and termination of the clone policy was probably nominal at best.
Third, Mot never made a profit off the clones.
[quote]<strong>IMHO Apple needs a good strategy already in place such that when the market improves they will be able to take full advantage the first minute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you listen to the conference call? This is exactly what Apple is doing. They're not waiting for the economy to improve, in terms of their rate of R&D, or in terms of product releases. Their plan is to make sure they're hitting on all pistons when the economy does start turning around.
[quote]<strong>Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's posted at Ars Technica, it must be true!
How do you improve a FSB subsystem beyond the capabilities of the host processor? How has Apple not improved the memory subsystem? They're using the fastest standard SDRAM you can buy right now, even though they had to conjure up a rather unusual design to do so because of the limitations of the FSB enforced by the G4.
[quote]Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.<hr></blockquote>Reading the wrong Ars threads bub. G4 is a com chip and mfgs like Cisco have no interest in a DDR bus for the G4 family of products. They're waiting for 85xx, which Moto apparently can't deliver.
<strong>
I have a starmax, but not because it was cheaper, but because it was the best, one of the fastest out!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AFAIR the Motorola clones were just based on Apple boards, so I really don't think they were any faster than anything Apple had at the same time.
Can you see it, Motorola, Apple's chip supplier, putting faster chips in their own machines than they're shipping to Apple!?
<strong>...However in the 603/604 days they did get the faster chips in thier computers and to market at a faster pace than Apple did.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I don't believe it, please cite a credible source.
It doesn't seem likely that any other vendor could get 603/604s to market more quickly than Apple, since what we're talking about are processor speed bumps rather than new processors.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
Apple:
PowerMacs 970 2 - 3Ghz $3-5000.00
PowerBooks (970/Fastest G4 avail.) $2-4500.00
iMac/iBooks 1.5 - 2 GHz (fG4 avail.) $1200+
Clone Shops:
Desktops(Only) Older/Slower G4s $399-1300.00
</strong><hr></blockquote>
WHEW!!!! I hope the cheapest powermac doesn't become 3 Grand....
<strong>
Just as mentioned in a post at Arstechnica where is was noted that while the G4 has been stagnent in Motos hand's Apple has had every opportunity to improve memory and FSB subsystems so that the chips it is getting could be used to their full potential.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shipping DDR PC2700 systems shows quite clearly that Apple can handle that end of things, even if the SDR FSB of the Motorola CPU parts cannot use all of it. Or am I mis-reading the Ars comment ?
Ya know Matsu, I'd believe you if only it actually showed that they are doing more R&D. There is NOTHING that differentiates one PC box from the next other than the price and the name that's taped onto the side of the box, and the PC industry isn't faring so well thanks to Dell. That said, let me ask you this... Let's suppose there was a HUGE BOON in PC sales the very next quarter... Everyone and their brother "saw the light" and raced out and grabbed those 3+ GHz. P-4 speed demons (and space-heaters) What are the PC manufacturers going to sell the next quarter? how about the quarter after that? And so on.... The point is that most people ALREADY HAVE MORE COMPUTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY NEED. And the noticed performance difference is becoming completely nonexistent. Intel already knows this -- that's exactly why they are now preaching what Apple has been preaching for YEARS now... Have a gander at this:
<a href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2902061,00.html"; target="_blank">http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2902061,00.html</a>;
Man, talk about a HUGE bite out of the Apple... The point is that the PC industry isn't going to be relying on people upgrading ever 4 or 5 years.. Unless M$ is going to make them upgrade to the latest and greatest.. They are going to have a hard enough time trying to sell Palladium/Longhorn... And as far as features go... just how many bells and whistles are actually needed? Sheesh, people don't even use 90% of them anyway! I think Apple knows that thanks to Dell, there is really nothing left that will sell more PCs to the already saturated market.
--
Ed M.
<strong>People don't buy that way anymore. If you haven't noticed the ladder (GM) is very broken. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps the model doesn't work for GM anymore, because it could easily be argued that they're just going out and getting what they can afford, but then that still sounds like validation of the model. Especially when you look at all the creative financing on trucks & SUVs after 9/11. SUVs especially recently were being priced and financed agressively to sell.
That fact that Dell prevails as the top salesman, shows that by and large, those in the market for computers for whatever reason are thinking with a "Built by the lowest bidder.", mentality. They don't care about pretty plastics, they don't care about gigaflops, specint numbers, or photoshop shootouts. If aesthetics were to win out in computer purchases, seems like Sony (while having improved markedly this year) would have to be at least be in the number 2 or 3 slot.
Even of the Dell purchases that co-workers, neighbors, and friends were asking to evaluate for them, not a one was over $1200.00 w/monitor and quite a few "upgrades". Everyone started with the mid-hundereds to a thousand range and were all more likely to spring for additional memory, CD\\DVD upgrades, or larger screens. Most if not all had their mind made up about the speed they wanted as in my experience that spec. rarely changed.
I mean think about it. The closest thing to Apple that you have in the wintel world is Sony. They adopted Firewire(iLink) right after Apple and even focus their platform around family photos, digital photography and what not. Not that they do it nearly as well, but the've got to be close. Though unlike Apple, they do have the fastest Intel chips to be found typically and their products are not flying off the shelf. That's what we have to look at.
My "limited market segment" clone idea idea may be rediculous. Fine. Though most seem not to understand that I was proposing only in the low end desktop segment. You know $500 - 1200.00 before you got the monitor.
But until Apple has a product that appeals to the masses on price as well as anything else Apple would have them think is important, potential customers will continue to walk around and gawk at Apple kit as though they were at the quite futuristic auto shows in Detroit, and then walk right out and purchase something that pleases their wallet first, and whatever pride they have left over second.
That is the reality my friend and it's an aspect of public perception and people's thinking that Apple will never be able to change.
I think we all have to agree that most people when they decide they want something in the generic sense, they wait until they have what they think should be enough money. Then with price in mind and sale paper in hand, they go off on their journey. From cars, homes, clothes, most thing are purchased in this manner. I have a thousand dollars and I want a computer. When they find they can get more than that for their 1000.00 than they initially planned, they are quite pleased with themselves: you know, CD/DVD upgrade, or LCD as opposed to the CRT they envisioned or one of the cheesy printers or scanners. When they find they can get at least that and it's not as slow as they thought it was going to be they are at least fine with their purchase.
This may be a huge oversimplification, but I'm betting if they got all that, it wasn't at the Apple store and that's a problem that Apple needs to fix.
<strong>
That fact that Dell prevails as the top salesman, shows that by and large, those in the market for computers for whatever reason are thinking with a "Built by the lowest bidder.", mentality. They don't care about pretty plastics, they don't care about gigaflops, specint numbers, or photoshop shootouts. If aesthetics were to win out in computer purchases, seems like Sony (while having improved markedly this year) would have to be at least be in the number 2 or 3 slot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A couple of clarifications. First, HPaq just reclaimed the #1 vendor crown. Second, none of the single vendors sell as many boxen as the myriad so-called "white box" vendors - local or regional shops that assemble PCs to order.
Second, Dell is rarely the lowest bidder. They are frequently the lowest bidder among those brands that people will consider in the first place, which is an important difference. If price were everything, eMachines wouldn't be gasping for air right now. Actually, Apple has underbid Dell in some instances I'm aware of - but they're rarely given the opportunity to even try.
People buy Dell because it's a not unreliable machine in a mostly inoffensive case backed by solid service, offered inexpensively but not cheaply by a company with a comfortingly familiar name and a large presence at whichever company the person works for. Dell can eliminate retail because PC hardware is enough of a commodity - and Windows is a ubiquitous enough platform - that people can have a pretty good idea of the product they're getting without having seen it.
Note the utter lack of superlatives. Dell exemplifies safety, conformity and mediocrity, which comes with its own comforts.
[quote]<strong>Even of the Dell purchases that co-workers, neighbors, and friends were asking to evaluate for them, not a one was over $1200.00 w/monitor and quite a few "upgrades".</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words, the ladder is definitely broken. It works well enough when times are good, but not during a recession.
[quote]<strong>I mean think about it. The closest thing to Apple that you have in the wintel world is Sony. They adopted Firewire(iLink) right after Apple and even focus their platform around family photos, digital photography and what not. Not that they do it nearly as well, but the've got to be close.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but they're so far behind Apple that, not long after the LCD iMac came out, a maxed-out $4K Sony "home entertainment" PC was only barely able to hold its own against the base iMac in a runoff. The software wasn't - and isn't - there, and although Sony is a giant among PC makers as far as design is concerned, that's damning with faint praise. Most of their efforts boiled down to a gussied-up mini ATX case stuffed full of PCI cards, shipping with stock commercial software.
For another thing, they stupidly standardized on the 4-pin version of IEEE 1394 that doesn't supply power. I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to judge: If my laptops only got an hour and a half of battery life, I might do the same thing.
[quote]<strong>My "limited market segment" clone idea idea may be rediculous. Fine. Though most seem not to understand that I was proposing only in the low end desktop segment. You know $500 - 1200.00 before you got the monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, that doesn't make it much, if any, less ridiculous. The argument for keeping the clones down below $1200 is to keep them from competing with Apple's profitable machines - but then how are they supposed to make a profit themselves? Any attempt to lure Mac cloners has to look appealing to the cloners. If there's no business case for Apple at the offered price points, how much of a business case is there for anyone else?
Note that before the current price war, Dell's average profit margin was 20%. They don't cut to the bone either unless they're trying to outlast another PC vendor in a price war.
[quote]<strong>But until Apple has a product that appeals to the masses on price as well as anything else Apple would have them think is important, potential customers will continue to walk around and gawk at Apple kit as though they were at the quite futuristic auto shows in Detroit, and then walk right out and purchase something that pleases their wallet first, and whatever pride they have left over second.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. It's why iBooks are flying out the doors. I'd reserve judgment on the quality of Apple's response to this reality until they roll out the next wave of upgrades in their consumer offerings. The last iBook upgrade convinced me that they're on to this.
Fortunately, they don't have to ignite a huge firestorm of sales to grow relative to the overall market. All they need is for more than three people out of every hundred who walk by their stores on their way to buy a computer to walk out with a Mac, and their market share will increase.