The Market Share Mac

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 77
    Did you know that the standard rule of thumb for selling a product is to charge at least twice the cost that it takes to produce the good. Also, if Apple is like most companies with marketing budgets of 10% of the total budget then they have to recoup that too. With the switcher campaign going on as well as print and various other ads Apple is spending a lot of money...



    That is why I was surprised by the price cuts on the towers and displays...pretty cool.



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
  • Reply 42 of 77
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    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,</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple's current strategy is "to milk it for all it's worth," as Jobs said. So, we've got iLife, .Mac, and the iPod which mainly target (or fleece, depending on your point of view) existing Mac users.



    Hey, I think it would be nice if Apple made a cheap and expandable machine, but it won't happen. Price by itself doesn't matter as much as you seem to think...why isn't the $799 iMac knocking out sales records?



    The real problem is that there just isn't enough difference between high and low end right now. Whether it's Apple or Motorola's fault, the fact remains that most Mac users would probably pay $699 for an Apple G4 and motherboard with nothing else right now-it'd be a much better deal than a 1 Ghz Powermac for $1499.



    When and if we ever see a better CPU than the G4, then I could maybe see a $999 G4-based Powermac, but they risk splitting the consumer/pro line again.



    How well does that 14-inch iBook sell? How about the Cube? Those are the questions you want to ask. Because if they were to release a $799 or $999 Powermac tomorrow, the "pro" Powermacs sales would probably drop to Cube levels (craptastic).
  • Reply 43 of 77
    [quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:

    <strong>Hey, I think it would be nice if Apple made a cheap and expandable machine, but it won't happen. Price by itself doesn't matter as much as you seem to think...why isn't the $799 iMac knocking out sales records?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Might it be related to the fact it is an obsolete peice of shit? Apple could bring back the Macintosh IIci for $29.95 and they wouldn't sell any.



    A price is only competitive if what is being sold is worth the asking price.



    [quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:

    <strong>How well does that 14-inch iBook sell? How about the Cube? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The 14" ibook doesn't sell very well because it offers no advantage over the 12" iBook, if the 14" iBook had a higher resolution or other improvement it would do a great deal better.



    The Cube would have sold very well had it been more appropriately priced, it's ironic that while Apple had those things stacked to the ceiling in their warehouses they had the audacity to brag that it was the highest margin personal computer on the market.



    After the Cube was discontinued and were being blown out at $1099 and $1299 respectivly they were sold out worldwide in under 2 weeks flat.



    Had Apple made the Cube an economical mid-range machine rather than an expensive farce we wouldn't be having this conversation
  • Reply 44 of 77
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    I lerv my Cube, but I don't think much of anything inside the box was OEM standard.



    the case

    Slot loading drive

    Video card that needed a special bracket

    the motherboard(s)



    ...luckily Apple decided to use standard RAM! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Sheesh!



    So from the start it cost more to make because of its specialized bits and yet they jacked the prices to the stratosphere...



    Screed



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 45 of 77
    An Apple guy told me last year that the Cube didn't cost anymore to make than the iMac DV and it costs less to make a G4 tower than it costs to make the LCD iMac
  • Reply 46 of 77
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:



    <strong>Might it be related to the fact it is an obsolete peice of shit? Apple could bring back the Macintosh IIci for $29.95 and they wouldn't sell any.



    A price is only competitive if what is being sold is worth the asking price.</strong>

    <hr></blockquote>



    Yes! Thank you!



    This is the important thing to remember in threads like this: It's not enough to merely remove features and introduce compromises until you hit a given price point, especially if your platform is viewed as a risk by most potential buyers. The low end iBook flies off the shelves because it's a compelling machine in its own right that happens to have a great price. You have to design for a given price point.



    Personally, I expect variations on Apple's current product line, rather than low-end towers or pizza boxes or anything else. There is no Step 3 for Apple's consumer offerings. But at this point the eMac could easily take over the CRT iMac's price point, at the very least, and that would be a more compelling purchase (especially with that pesky cable replaced, and maybe a bump to its feature set).



    At this point, the CRT iMac is obsolete at any price, although I suppose Apple could keep it around as a true low-end machine for education...



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 47 of 77
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    The 14" ibook doesn't sell very well because it offers no advantage over the 12" iBook, if the 14" iBook had a higher resolution or other improvement it would do a great deal better.





    After the Cube was discontinued and were being blown out at $1099 and $1299 respectivly they were sold out worldwide in under 2 weeks flat.



    Had Apple made the Cube an economical mid-range machine rather than an expensive farce we wouldn't be having this conversation</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You'd have to be insane to argue that the Cubes weren't overpriced. However, the fact that they did sell out so quickly at reduced price hints at the fact that an expandable, headless "Budget Mac" would completely destroy Powermac sales.



    It's a conservative time for the economy, and Apple is playing it conservative...higher prices, less sales, is easier than lower prices, higher sales.



    I would like to see the current Powermac entry level machine (1 Ghz G4) at $999 or less when the G5 generation arrives, that should be an easy way for Apple to gauge whether or not a "Market Share Mac" will help or hurt their profits.
  • Reply 48 of 77
    [quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:

    <strong>You'd have to be insane to argue that the Cubes weren't overpriced. However, the fact that they did sell out so quickly at reduced price hints at the fact that an expandable, headless "Budget Mac" would completely destroy Powermac sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Power Mac sales wouldn't suffer if Apple were offering a credible power mac, there has to be a reason to justify spending more to buy something.



    This machine doesn't have to be super expandable, it doesn't have to have a G4 processor or a ton of PCI slots, it has to be a headless, economical desktop that can be priced against it's PC rivals.



    It has to have a price tag that will get more than a glance and a smirk from PC users.
  • Reply 49 of 77
    [quote] Might it be related to the fact it is an obsolete peice of shit? <hr></blockquote>



    Stagflation Steve Quakes all comers..., 'Domination...multikill...MEGA-KILL...'







    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />



    Lemon Bon BOn
  • Reply 50 of 77
    japhjaph Posts: 29member
    Considering that the education market has been mentioned...



    Would a 14" LCD be sufficiently cheaper than other displays to warrant using it as part of a very low end education/home/business user model(either AIO or otherwise)?



    Certainly a 14"(1024x768) LCD AIO would be large enough for most users. 14" and 15" CRTs are still found in these markets in abundance, and none have the viewable space of a 14" LCD, in addition to the "not killing your eyes" thing CRTs have going on. At the same time, the smaller screen would nicely differentiate it from the iMac, leaving room for other components to be customized without worrying about cannibalizing sales.



    I wish I were better at doing Photoshop chopjobs or 3D renderings, because I can picture this thing fairly clearly.
  • Reply 51 of 77
    schools don't want LCD's, they get wrecked.



    I know a school that got a lab of IBM Netvista's and half their displays were wrecked by the end of the year.



    It seems kids will never bore of poking at LCD displays to see the cool colors
  • Reply 52 of 77
    buggybuggy Posts: 83member
    my 2 cents.



    Forget about lower priced Mac"lites", these are not the people Apple wants as clients. They don't want to spend for quality, they need lots of support and know little about their machines.



    Profit margins are much tighter and all you get is more users, not necessarily more money. Companies in the Wintel world are going under for good reasons. Why would Apple mimic their buisness models?



    It sounds like most of the people posting specs here are posting computers THEY want and not what would be good for Apple (the company, the one that has to pay the bills).
  • Reply 53 of 77
    more like 2 cents Canadian.



    Dell and HP are doing just fine, people will pay for quality that is why Dell and HP are doing well if not pretty good while Gateway and eMachines are falling apart
  • Reply 54 of 77
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    "It sounds like most of the people posting specs here are posting computers THEY want and not what would be good for Apple (the company, the one that has to pay the bills)."



    Is not the customer always right? If I want to do what's good for the company I'll go back to my Windows world. I switched to Mac because it's good for me.



    On the other hand, I think I know what you're getting at. We all want Apple to be around in the future. In my case however, I bought a used G3 450 for $750 when I switched. This didn't make Apple any money. After about 9 months I bought this shiny new Quicksilver 867 for $1200 from Apple. This did make them money.



    Had there been a "marketshare" Mac, like many that are described here, for $700-$800 I would have bought that to switch instead. My G3 didn't give me any problems so I can assume that I would have upgraded had my mythical marketshare Mac operated reliably as well. Even if they only made $50 or $100 a box, it would be $50 or $100 that they don't have from me using the current system. Every little bit helps to ensure that our beloved fruit company will stick around.



    It should also be pointed out that there are lots of potential switchers out there who think current offerings are too high and won't buy used because used is out of date. Consequently, they never get into the platform unless someone lends them one for a week or something... which never happened to me, despite 2 of my friends who were always trying to convince me.



    Hmmm.. that gives me an idea. Everybody with deep pockets get an iBook to have laying around. Everybody who doesn't, next time you upgrade hold on to your old system for 6 months or so. These extra computers will be our "loaners" Every time one of our friends or co-workers complains about their computer mis-behaving, we can say "Hey, how about you try this computer of mine for a week or two." Then, after they're nice and addicted, take it back (politely) and re-format it for the next potential switcher. Lots of us don't live near Apple Stores or even a Best Buy so we can't go in and play with them. Plus playing witht the display model is never as impactful as having the machine in your home, using it in a comfortable environment. This way more people can experience the Mac without having to shell out big chunks of cash, not even knowing if they like it or not



    It worked for my girlfriend. After I got the aforementioned G4 my G3 was passed on to her for iMovie. Now she's dieing to get her hands on a mid-range iBook.



    (Edited for nifty "loaner Mac" idea.)



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Guartho ]</p>
  • Reply 55 of 77
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    Power Mac sales wouldn't suffer if Apple were offering a credible power mac, there has to be a reason to justify spending more to buy something.



    This machine doesn't have to be super expandable, it doesn't have to have a G4 processor or a ton of PCI slots, it has to be a headless, economical desktop that can be priced against it's PC rivals.



    It has to have a price tag that will get more than a glance and a smirk from PC users.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Exactly. I don't understand why some people don't understand this.
  • Reply 56 of 77
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>schools don't want LCD's, they get wrecked.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    While I agree with this, I don't see this as insurmountable. It can't cost _that_ much to stick a piece of sturdier glass in front of the plastic film. For laptops or weight conscious situations -&gt; not the plan. But I'd be happier getting an iMac-LCD with a glass protective screen.
  • Reply 57 of 77
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>

    Exactly. I don't understand why some people don't understand this.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The logical consequence of Steve's argument, though, is that the "market share" Mac can't happen until the PowerMac line gets off the G4.



    Once Apple can offer a PowerMac system that is balls-out, period, no apologies, they can think about this sort of thing. Apple knows that there is a huge crowd of professionals who don't need - or want - the full capabilities of the towers, but right now they don't have enough room to maneuver.



    However, their response will probably be something like the Cube, only done better, and this will probably fill out a midrange slot and push traditional internal expansion farther into a niche for those who actually need it, rather than pushing it down to the consumer level. Steve Jobs seems to consider "consumer tower" to be a contradiction in terms, and I can understand why, so I doubt that even the 970 will result in the sort of "switcher machine" people are imagining here.



    On the other hand, I bet the eMac gets really inexpensive...
  • Reply 58 of 77
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Buggy:

    <strong>my 2 cents.



    Forget about lower priced Mac"lites", these are not the people Apple wants as clients. . .



    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Schools and business offices would buy a Mac lite. You say Apple doesn't want that kind of client? A Mac lite desktop would have the performance of say an iBook. Yet to some, a G3 is unthinkable for a desktop. Why? If it sells, Apple will make at least some profit, and it helps market share. When schools and business offices buy Dells, Apple makes nothing.



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
  • Reply 59 of 77
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>When schools and business offices buy Dells, Apple makes nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Exactly my point. Mass markets may not be Apple's niche market, but so what? Where did Apple get their biggest influx from with the Apple II? Schools.



    iBooks in schools are fine, but I think a lot of schools don't want to "lend out" laptops for students. Too much hassle and liability.



    A simple friendly desktop, not all the power of a 970 or something similar, but fast enough for the mass market. It is where they got their start, and where, I feel, they should return.
  • Reply 60 of 77
    OK time for another post.



    I seem to have ruffled a few feathers.



    re schools.



    I work in one. The only people allowed to buy macs in our district are those in the DTP/Video/graphics labs. We (I am one of those that teach graphics/video/dtp), buy eMacs, or when we can scrounge enough... towers. Schools do not buy PC's because they are cheaper than Mac. They are buying Dells/HP/etc. because they are supported by the IT managers. The PC's that the schools buy, are infact almost the same costs as the Apples. This is because (worthy) schools do not buy computers from futureshop/walmart/(insert any big box low brains computer store), we buy our PC's from well repected suppliers with good service records and we do not buy the low end computer slapped together with whatever is cheapest that day. These machines cost more.



    So re: Low cost macs would increase Market share in schools... .... My experianced answer is that it is not nearly as much of a factor as is the Biased IT managers and their abilities to set policies.... My district is not alone in this all the neighbouring districts face the same if not worse policies regarding purchasing.



    re: School's would prefer lower powered/ headless emacs...



    My answer...NO WAY! I need a minimum of a G4 to do my work. Don't give me less, if I want less I can get a classic iMac, which no one I know of in my distrcit would touch considering the move to OSX. The eMac is a great machine at a great price.



    Re: People spec'ng out their own computers in here... I still stand by that. "Most" of the proposals I have seen in this thread have sounded like people want something for nothing. Better equiped computers for WAY less. Yes we all want that, but is that really good for Apple's income? I am not an expert and most in here are also not experts. I am on side of the Apple accountants as to the price point of their computers.



    My point.



    Market share does not necessarily make for a good product or for a solid company.



    Bragging rights might be fine for the mac addicted, but I prefer to use my machines to work, not worship.



    As long as Apple is a strong company making excellent products then I will be very happy. I couldn't give a rats ass if they were 4% or 40% of the marketshare.



    [ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Buggy ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.