I think the original iMac was a major contributor to that HUGE martket share hike 4 years ago(went from 20 to 150 in a month)
So whatever the next market share mac is, its got to be very innovative, and everyone has to want one. the iPod is a market share type device, but Its so small and relatively cheap that I don't think its helped much(especially since the computer lines were in such bad shape)
I can guarantee you that there will never be a "market share" Mac, at least not under Steve Jobs.
When Jobs was it NeXT, a reporter asked him what he'd do if he got back at Apple. He said, "I'd milk it for all it's worth."
This is Jobs' strategy...the original iMac was "This year's model for $1199, not last year's model for $999," according to Steve.
There won't be corner-cutting with Apple under Steve Jobs(insert jokes about Macs shipping with 128MB RAM here). Instead of trying to beat PCs on price, he's worked on improving the Mac experience (Mac OS X, iApps, iPod).
Is Apple gaining market share? I don't know for sure, but since 1999 (the year I bought my first Mac) 5 of my friends have switched from PCs.
Computer novices LOVE the iBook and iMac. I'm willing to bet money that the iApps, all-in-one simplicity, and coolness factor sell a hell of lot more Macs than price point does.
Apple has always been viewed with contempt by the people who spend $700 snapping together their own PC systems. Would a $700 no-frills Powermac enclosure cause them to rethink their strategy? No, it would just cannibalize eMac and Powermac sales, with much lighter margins.
Apple can't compete with the $700 Beige Box on price. Hell, most PC makers can't compete on price-IBM, Gateway, etc are all moving away from the low-margin machine. Go to their site and try to spec out a computer under $700 if you don't believe me. Yes, it's possible, but notice all the default options have you up at around $1000, which is where they want you to be.
I do like the "30 day trial" idea though. That's definitely something they should push at their retail outlets and on TV ads.
<strong>... the LCD iMac never should have been in the first place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't understand how you can say this considering the great year Apple just had in this economy. The LCD iMac is definitely a major reason for Apple's recent success.
To increase marketshare ( I wonder what Apple's target for marketshare is...5%, 7%?), Apple needs to continue to produce compelling products like OS X, iLife, etc. Knocking $2-300 off of the eMac would be helpful to getting more boxes out the door and should be seen as a "loss leader" for converting "switchers". A "cube" might result in a few more switchers but it would also likely cause product line issues as it would reduce AIO sales as well as PowerMac sales.
I think the recent price drops on the PowerMacs are a very good start and hope that the upgrades to the AIO lineup will see similar pricing changes.
Apple's marketshare is set to jump as soon as the 970 is shipping and Apple can demonstrate both a superior platform at similar or superior speeds.
<strong>That said, 1 (whatever is cheap and fast) processor, 256MB of RAM, 2 DIMM slots, options for HD sizes, CD (no RW or Superdrive needed), integrated NIC and optional Airport. That's it - businesses don't need firewire, modems, etc. Plain-jane. And don't, I repeat DON'T call it anything-Mac. Xstation, XPC, Xclient, whatever - it needs to be distinguished as completely different than a Mac and it's way of thinking.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fully agree with those specs, except for no CDRW. We're finally weening the users off of Zip drives and to standard-can-open-on-any-PC CDs, though we still have one or two die-hards that save eveything to a floppy (because they think the file server is open to the public or something <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> ). Now if only Dell would offer a no floppy configuration. Floppies... this is 2003, right!?
Is Apple gaining market share? I don't know for sure, but since 1999 (the year I bought my first Mac) 5 of my friends have switched from PCs. </strong>
<strong>
Computer novices LOVE the iBook and iMac. I'm willing to bet money that the iApps, all-in-one simplicity, and coolness factor sell a hell of lot more Macs than price point does.</strong>
<strong>
Apple has always been viewed with contempt by the people who spend $700 snapping together their own PC systems. Would a $700 no-frills Powermac enclosure cause them to rethink their strategy? No, it would just cannibalize eMac and Powermac sales, with much lighter margins.
</strong>
<strong>
I do like the "30 day trial" idea though. That's definitely something they should push at their retail outlets and on TV ads.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe I read recently that Apple made a slight increase in marketshare during this past year (from 2.9% to 3%) but I could be wrong.
We are not going to see a "30 day trial" program. There is a reason why Best Buy, CompUSA and such charge restocking fees. Trial programs result in a lot of borrowing of hardware... Circuit City used to sell a ton of projection TVs the week before the Superbowl and then get them back the week after...now they have a restocking fee.
Apple's "trial program" is the Apple Store. Prior to the "Apple Store" many people only heard about Macintosh computers but never really saw them. Now 85 million people can drive 25 miles at most and put their hands on a Mac. Apple just needs to do a better job of convincing people to get in their cars and go take a look.
A couple of things regarding this new Market Share system - we are talking about selling these to businesses, not the home consumer. Thus, they don't need to burn CDs. I suppose you could throw one in, the price ain't much higher anyway.
As for the iApps, just don't include them. Do serious business users use iTunes/Photo/Movie/DVD? Heck no. Give them access to their apps, email and printers and they are 99% happy.
<strong>Apple can't compete with the $700 Beige Box on price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?
I don't understand how you can say this considering the great year Apple just had in this economy. The LCD iMac is definitely a major reason for Apple's recent success.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The LCD iMac has been absolutly dead from a sales perspective since MAY of last year, I haven't sold a 15" LCD iMac since September and only a handful of 17" iMacs.
The LCD iMac is a disaster as a flagship product, even if the economy was great it wouldn't be selling.
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hypothetically, they could produce a $700 box, but like I said before, there wouldn't be a margin OR a market.
NO LARGE PC MANUFACTURER makes money on the low end. It's not a growth area. Even legendary cheapskate eMachines is in serious financial trouble now.
Why would Apple plunge in to that area? Could they succeed where HP, IBM, etc have failed? Very doubtful. Should they try? Hell no.
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I write the way I do because I used to just write everything in one long block (2-3 years ago), with no paragraphs and all. Someone finally said "pscates, it's hard to read your posts...break them up into paragraphs or something!"
And they were right, so I did.
The "smiley on its own line" thing is strictly my idea, however.
These are almost as compact as a Cube but are much more easily expandable. If you're looking for a product that will appeal to the legions of people who happily buy a typical PC box, the Cube isn't the right product. It just doesn't look expandable or re-configurable, and this is definitely something that typical PC users are looking for.
The SpaceWalker has a somewhat similar feel to the Cube (albeit much less stylish) but also feels much more "open" and reconfigurable (note also the excellent roster of front-mounted ports - a sorely missed feature on Macs IMO). A version of this product with an Apple style injection could be very succesful, IMHO, assuming the price was right ($699?).
To pick up on a point above, I also agree that an Apple "Office Light" product would be great. The key thing would be that it would be able to use Office file formats natively. Safari and Keynote, taken with Mail, iCal and iSync are a fairly good start (some quibbles with them, but as v1.x products they're an OK start). Along with these it would be good to see an iFileMaker - maybe missing out the scripting, multi-user and some other features to provide a reason for people to upgrade to the full product.
To add to this, I'd love to see iFileMaker Windows released as a free download - one of the big problems with Macs in a corporate environment is the lack of Access, and if Windows users could use a basic version of FileMaker for free that might help to counter that problem to some degree.
128MB of RAM is not enough. I'd rather that the minimum RAM in all (new) machines was 256MB.
Apple shouldn't release a computer like this without Altivec, especially as the 970 should free up G4s for low end machines.
[quote]Apple should be able to make a simple classy case that would hold all this stuff if they weren't so obsessed with stuffing electronics into inappropriate shapes.<hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately Apple's consumer/low end cases have a history of being a pain to get into, for those of use who are that way inclined (6200, 6400, iMac CRT), and their "pro" models are wonderfully accessible (7/8/9600, G3, G4). Hopefully this wil change...
£800 converts to $1100 if you take off VAT of 17.5%.
The greatest barrier that stands in the way of Apple gaining marketshare is pricing. So yeah, there is a market.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are assuming that there are a ton of PC people just WAITING to buy an Apple, once the price drops below some magic number ($499/$699/$999).
But the low-end PC market is pretty damn right now. It IS NOT a growth market. PC manufacturers with years of experience are pulling out. Gateway/IBM/etc can't even make money there, and Apple can? Think about Apple's disadvantages in traditional computer/retail stores (where they would potentially get home users) and how much they are hated in IT (where they could win over businesses)...how in hell can you say they would win anyone over in this market?
[QB}
And since there is no reason to believe Apple is losing money on the $999 iBook, why would they have to lose money on a $700 desktop?
[/QB]
They would lose money because:
1)No PC users would buy them.
2)Mac users who would have bought the iMac or Powermac (high margin machines) would buy this "Powermac LC" desktop instead.
If you don't believe me, pull out your Apple history book and look at Power Computing. They made cheap, fast, and expandable Mac OS machines with no frills. Hugely popular among Mac users, but they failed to make any headway in home PC or business PC markets (and they targeted businesses quite aggressively-I have a friend who used to work there).
<strong>As for PC's, while they don't make money on the extreme low end $399 PC's they do make pretty good margins on the $700 PC's</strong>
It depends on the manufacturer and configuration, but across the board, PC profit margins are anemic compared to what Apple has. That's why they're all in the red, and have been for at least 2 years.
The low-end PC market is collapsing, major PC manu's are abandoning it, and yet you want Apple to jump into this fray?
<strong>The low-end PC market is collapsing, major PC manu's are abandoning it, and yet you want Apple to jump into this fray?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And think about the reason behind it. Businesses are starting to wise up to the bullshit Microsoft has been putting them through. Trust me, I know. The whole 30% rise in licensing costs pissed a lot of people off. Any reason to jump ship, no matter where to, and people will do it. Picture a sinking Titanic....an Apple lifeboat would have gone a long way.
<strong>You are assuming that there are a ton of PC people just WAITING to buy an Apple, once the price drops below some magic number ($499/$699/$999). </strong><hr></blockquote>
I run an Apple dealer, I see PC users every god damn day, there are lots of people interested in the Macintosh, however they are not prepared to pay double, triple or more to get a Mac.
As one woman said before Christmas "If that $1699 doesn't include that monitor (15" LCD) lets talk Compaq, I don't hate Windows that much."
[quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:
<strong>They would lose money because:
1)No PC users would buy them.
2)Mac users who would have bought the iMac or Powermac (high margin machines) would buy this "Powermac LC" desktop instead. </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. PC users are buying the $999 iBook is pretty large numbers, I sell more of those than ALL other macs combined. A good third of the buyers are PC users.
2. No one is buying the iMac or Power Mac G4, you can't take away sales that aren't happening in the first place, plus I would favor putting G3's in this system to maintain the consumer\\pro abstraction
The $799 price point IS NOT low end, no one is saying Apple should start selling $399 iMacs,
If there is going to be a silver bullet Mac to increase market share, I really think Programmer's idea is a good approach to it, a single product that can serve so many markets. It could be anything from a pretty good Mac for playing games all the way down to a Mac for classrooms or general office applications. Having a processor slot and video card slot gives a huge range of performance options. I'll add one more. Apple could make two versions of the same raw motherboard. One is stuffed with the very lowest cost components for lower end markets, and one with higher performance chips, and higher bus rate. Depending on the market, you can put together the right combination. The maximum performance would fall below G5 PowerMacs by a good bit.
When Programmer first proposed this idea, I thought it would be too easy to upgrade a low cost model and hurt sales of higher margin Macs. Now, I don't think so if the whole line is priced very carefully. The highest performance models would have the highest profit margins. If you purchased the lowest end, with the lowest profit margin, you would have paid for the low end graphics card and processor card. By the time you add on top of that the price of new cards for better performance, there would not be much savings. Add to that the fact that you would have the lower bus rate, and that cancels any savings. It should work.
Steve, seeing as you are running an Apple dealership, I guess you know what you're talking about.
Unlike alot of the snot spouting 'Macs are okay at their tripple premium' dudes.
Like the lady says, 'I don't hate Compaq that much...'
And upto 97% and loads of Edu' buyers obviously think the same.
Can Apple compete on price? All the announcements in the last two months suggest a shift in Apple's thinking.
Many moons ago, I read on Macworld.com that Apple were shifting their component buying to Taiwanese manufacturers. Now what do we get? MUCH cheaper displays. If this follows through for new iMac2 revisions, the pending iBook bump (in a couple of months?) and eMacs? We could see historic Apple consumer price breakthroughs. Maybe not £399 Macs. But an eMac closer to say £595
*(Sterling been around along time, boys. Get used to it. And seeing as how Apple's dollar to sterling conversion sucks, no...SUCKS!, then I'll keep annoying those American centric 'insiders who don't complain when Indesign2's 'bundle' is only included for the US 'power'Mac buying public...and HALLO, where's my iPhoto print service in the UK!?)
You don't have to spend £2,600 to get a decent tower/computer these days. That's so 1990s.
Comments
So whatever the next market share mac is, its got to be very innovative, and everyone has to want one. the iPod is a market share type device, but Its so small and relatively cheap that I don't think its helped much(especially since the computer lines were in such bad shape)
When Jobs was it NeXT, a reporter asked him what he'd do if he got back at Apple. He said, "I'd milk it for all it's worth."
This is Jobs' strategy...the original iMac was "This year's model for $1199, not last year's model for $999," according to Steve.
There won't be corner-cutting with Apple under Steve Jobs(insert jokes about Macs shipping with 128MB RAM here). Instead of trying to beat PCs on price, he's worked on improving the Mac experience (Mac OS X, iApps, iPod).
Is Apple gaining market share? I don't know for sure, but since 1999 (the year I bought my first Mac) 5 of my friends have switched from PCs.
Computer novices LOVE the iBook and iMac. I'm willing to bet money that the iApps, all-in-one simplicity, and coolness factor sell a hell of lot more Macs than price point does.
Apple has always been viewed with contempt by the people who spend $700 snapping together their own PC systems. Would a $700 no-frills Powermac enclosure cause them to rethink their strategy? No, it would just cannibalize eMac and Powermac sales, with much lighter margins.
Apple can't compete with the $700 Beige Box on price. Hell, most PC makers can't compete on price-IBM, Gateway, etc are all moving away from the low-margin machine. Go to their site and try to spec out a computer under $700 if you don't believe me. Yes, it's possible, but notice all the default options have you up at around $1000, which is where they want you to be.
I do like the "30 day trial" idea though. That's definitely something they should push at their retail outlets and on TV ads.
<strong>... the LCD iMac never should have been in the first place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't understand how you can say this considering the great year Apple just had in this economy. The LCD iMac is definitely a major reason for Apple's recent success.
To increase marketshare ( I wonder what Apple's target for marketshare is...5%, 7%?), Apple needs to continue to produce compelling products like OS X, iLife, etc. Knocking $2-300 off of the eMac would be helpful to getting more boxes out the door and should be seen as a "loss leader" for converting "switchers". A "cube" might result in a few more switchers but it would also likely cause product line issues as it would reduce AIO sales as well as PowerMac sales.
I think the recent price drops on the PowerMacs are a very good start and hope that the upgrades to the AIO lineup will see similar pricing changes.
Apple's marketshare is set to jump as soon as the 970 is shipping and Apple can demonstrate both a superior platform at similar or superior speeds.
<strong>That said, 1 (whatever is cheap and fast) processor, 256MB of RAM, 2 DIMM slots, options for HD sizes, CD (no RW or Superdrive needed), integrated NIC and optional Airport. That's it - businesses don't need firewire, modems, etc. Plain-jane. And don't, I repeat DON'T call it anything-Mac. Xstation, XPC, Xclient, whatever - it needs to be distinguished as completely different than a Mac and it's way of thinking.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fully agree with those specs, except for no CDRW. We're finally weening the users off of Zip drives and to standard-can-open-on-any-PC CDs, though we still have one or two die-hards that save eveything to a floppy (because they think the file server is open to the public or something <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> ). Now if only Dell would offer a no floppy configuration. Floppies... this is 2003, right!?
Screed
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>
Is Apple gaining market share? I don't know for sure, but since 1999 (the year I bought my first Mac) 5 of my friends have switched from PCs. </strong>
<strong>
Computer novices LOVE the iBook and iMac. I'm willing to bet money that the iApps, all-in-one simplicity, and coolness factor sell a hell of lot more Macs than price point does.</strong>
<strong>
Apple has always been viewed with contempt by the people who spend $700 snapping together their own PC systems. Would a $700 no-frills Powermac enclosure cause them to rethink their strategy? No, it would just cannibalize eMac and Powermac sales, with much lighter margins.
</strong>
<strong>
I do like the "30 day trial" idea though. That's definitely something they should push at their retail outlets and on TV ads.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe I read recently that Apple made a slight increase in marketshare during this past year (from 2.9% to 3%) but I could be wrong.
We are not going to see a "30 day trial" program. There is a reason why Best Buy, CompUSA and such charge restocking fees. Trial programs result in a lot of borrowing of hardware... Circuit City used to sell a ton of projection TVs the week before the Superbowl and then get them back the week after...now they have a restocking fee.
Apple's "trial program" is the Apple Store. Prior to the "Apple Store" many people only heard about Macintosh computers but never really saw them. Now 85 million people can drive 25 miles at most and put their hands on a Mac. Apple just needs to do a better job of convincing people to get in their cars and go take a look.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Estevan2737 ]</p>
As for the iApps, just don't include them. Do serious business users use iTunes/Photo/Movie/DVD? Heck no. Give them access to their apps, email and printers and they are 99% happy.
<strong>Apple can't compete with the $700 Beige Box on price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?
<strong>
I don't understand how you can say this considering the great year Apple just had in this economy. The LCD iMac is definitely a major reason for Apple's recent success.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The LCD iMac has been absolutly dead from a sales perspective since MAY of last year, I haven't sold a 15" LCD iMac since September and only a handful of 17" iMacs.
The LCD iMac is a disaster as a flagship product, even if the economy was great it wouldn't be selling.
It's overpriced, anemic and fugly
<strong>
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hypothetically, they could produce a $700 box, but like I said before, there wouldn't be a margin OR a market.
NO LARGE PC MANUFACTURER makes money on the low end. It's not a growth area. Even legendary cheapskate eMachines is in serious financial trouble now.
Why would Apple plunge in to that area? Could they succeed where HP, IBM, etc have failed? Very doubtful. Should they try? Hell no.
<strong>
Riddle me this, if Apple can magically produce a $999 highly competitive noteboke computer when notebooks need much more expensive components than desktops, why the fsck can't they do the same with a desktop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've definately got a point there, Steve.
I write the way I do because I used to just write everything in one long block (2-3 years ago), with no paragraphs and all. Someone finally said "pscates, it's hard to read your posts...break them up into paragraphs or something!"
And they were right, so I did.
The "smiley on its own line" thing is strictly my idea, however.
At least I didn't say "I know know...I'm asking".
[QB]
Hypothetically, they could produce a $700 box, but like I said before, there wouldn't be a margin OR a market.QB]<hr></blockquote>
The greatest barrier that stands in the way of Apple gaining marketshare is pricing. So yeah, there is a market.
And since there is no reason to believe Apple is losing money on the $999 iBook, why would they have to lose money on a $700 desktop?
No LCD Display, No Laptop Drives, No Laptop Graphics Chipset, No Complicated or expensive small chasis or PCB's
As for PC's, while they don't make money on the extreme low end $399 PC's they do make pretty good margins on the $700 PC's
<a href="http://us.shuttle.com/specs2.asp?pro_id=85"; target="_blank">http://us.shuttle.com/specs2.asp?pro_id=85</a>;
These are almost as compact as a Cube but are much more easily expandable. If you're looking for a product that will appeal to the legions of people who happily buy a typical PC box, the Cube isn't the right product. It just doesn't look expandable or re-configurable, and this is definitely something that typical PC users are looking for.
The SpaceWalker has a somewhat similar feel to the Cube (albeit much less stylish) but also feels much more "open" and reconfigurable (note also the excellent roster of front-mounted ports - a sorely missed feature on Macs IMO). A version of this product with an Apple style injection could be very succesful, IMHO, assuming the price was right ($699?).
To pick up on a point above, I also agree that an Apple "Office Light" product would be great. The key thing would be that it would be able to use Office file formats natively. Safari and Keynote, taken with Mail, iCal and iSync are a fairly good start (some quibbles with them, but as v1.x products they're an OK start). Along with these it would be good to see an iFileMaker - maybe missing out the scripting, multi-user and some other features to provide a reason for people to upgrade to the full product.
To add to this, I'd love to see iFileMaker Windows released as a free download - one of the big problems with Macs in a corporate environment is the lack of Access, and if Windows users could use a basic version of FileMaker for free that might help to counter that problem to some degree.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Aerial ]</p>
Apple shouldn't release a computer like this without Altivec, especially as the 970 should free up G4s for low end machines.
[quote]Apple should be able to make a simple classy case that would hold all this stuff if they weren't so obsessed with stuffing electronics into inappropriate shapes.<hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately Apple's consumer/low end cases have a history of being a pain to get into, for those of use who are that way inclined (6200, 6400, iMac CRT), and their "pro" models are wonderfully accessible (7/8/9600, G3, G4). Hopefully this wil change...
£800 converts to $1100 if you take off VAT of 17.5%.
Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>
The greatest barrier that stands in the way of Apple gaining marketshare is pricing. So yeah, there is a market.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are assuming that there are a ton of PC people just WAITING to buy an Apple, once the price drops below some magic number ($499/$699/$999).
But the low-end PC market is pretty damn right now. It IS NOT a growth market. PC manufacturers with years of experience are pulling out. Gateway/IBM/etc can't even make money there, and Apple can? Think about Apple's disadvantages in traditional computer/retail stores (where they would potentially get home users) and how much they are hated in IT (where they could win over businesses)...how in hell can you say they would win anyone over in this market?
[QB}
And since there is no reason to believe Apple is losing money on the $999 iBook, why would they have to lose money on a $700 desktop?
[/QB]
They would lose money because:
1)No PC users would buy them.
2)Mac users who would have bought the iMac or Powermac (high margin machines) would buy this "Powermac LC" desktop instead.
If you don't believe me, pull out your Apple history book and look at Power Computing. They made cheap, fast, and expandable Mac OS machines with no frills. Hugely popular among Mac users, but they failed to make any headway in home PC or business PC markets (and they targeted businesses quite aggressively-I have a friend who used to work there).
<strong>As for PC's, while they don't make money on the extreme low end $399 PC's they do make pretty good margins on the $700 PC's</strong>
It depends on the manufacturer and configuration, but across the board, PC profit margins are anemic compared to what Apple has. That's why they're all in the red, and have been for at least 2 years.
The low-end PC market is collapsing, major PC manu's are abandoning it, and yet you want Apple to jump into this fray?
<strong>The low-end PC market is collapsing, major PC manu's are abandoning it, and yet you want Apple to jump into this fray?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And think about the reason behind it. Businesses are starting to wise up to the bullshit Microsoft has been putting them through. Trust me, I know. The whole 30% rise in licensing costs pissed a lot of people off. Any reason to jump ship, no matter where to, and people will do it. Picture a sinking Titanic....an Apple lifeboat would have gone a long way.
<strong>You are assuming that there are a ton of PC people just WAITING to buy an Apple, once the price drops below some magic number ($499/$699/$999). </strong><hr></blockquote>
I run an Apple dealer, I see PC users every god damn day, there are lots of people interested in the Macintosh, however they are not prepared to pay double, triple or more to get a Mac.
As one woman said before Christmas "If that $1699 doesn't include that monitor (15" LCD) lets talk Compaq, I don't hate Windows that much."
[quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:
<strong>They would lose money because:
1)No PC users would buy them.
2)Mac users who would have bought the iMac or Powermac (high margin machines) would buy this "Powermac LC" desktop instead. </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. PC users are buying the $999 iBook is pretty large numbers, I sell more of those than ALL other macs combined. A good third of the buyers are PC users.
2. No one is buying the iMac or Power Mac G4, you can't take away sales that aren't happening in the first place, plus I would favor putting G3's in this system to maintain the consumer\\pro abstraction
The $799 price point IS NOT low end, no one is saying Apple should start selling $399 iMacs,
When Programmer first proposed this idea, I thought it would be too easy to upgrade a low cost model and hurt sales of higher margin Macs. Now, I don't think so if the whole line is priced very carefully. The highest performance models would have the highest profit margins. If you purchased the lowest end, with the lowest profit margin, you would have paid for the low end graphics card and processor card. By the time you add on top of that the price of new cards for better performance, there would not be much savings. Add to that the fact that you would have the lower bus rate, and that cancels any savings. It should work.
Unlike alot of the snot spouting 'Macs are okay at their tripple premium' dudes.
Like the lady says, 'I don't hate Compaq that much...'
And upto 97% and loads of Edu' buyers obviously think the same.
Can Apple compete on price? All the announcements in the last two months suggest a shift in Apple's thinking.
Many moons ago, I read on Macworld.com that Apple were shifting their component buying to Taiwanese manufacturers. Now what do we get? MUCH cheaper displays. If this follows through for new iMac2 revisions, the pending iBook bump (in a couple of months?) and eMacs? We could see historic Apple consumer price breakthroughs. Maybe not £399 Macs. But an eMac closer to say £595
*(Sterling been around along time, boys. Get used to it.
You don't have to spend £2,600 to get a decent tower/computer these days. That's so 1990s.
Lemon Bon Bon