because it's a very good way to increase their revenues and profits. Also, yes, having a larger market share attracts more developers (both software and 3rd party hardware) to the platform and helps to stop shit like this from happening.
IMO Apple should forget the low end buyer anyway. As Murch has mentioned they just aren't worth it.
I disagree. Is it more worthwhile making a cheap machine that 90% of computer users can afford or an expensive one that 10% can?
PC manufacturers make lots of money on the home user market with people who decide to pick up a computer with their shopping. Nearly all of my relatives have done this.
They are willing to buy a computer for their kids to learn on, e-mail friends, use the internet and generally abuse for £299-399 but you put a £399-699 price tag on it and they won't even stop to think about it.
Let's also not forget what targeting this market does too - rapidly increase marketshare. This brings extra sales of Mac software, sales of computers via word of mouth and so on.
From the last few pages, I can see a fairly clear concensus that Apple just need to offer more build-to-order options. Now if it's true that placing bluetooth and wireless in the Macs would cost nowhere near $100 then the fact they charge $100 to do so as a BTO is surely a rip-off.
They could easily sell the machine without it and let me buy two $5 cards and I could get my local dealer to install them for free (I have a nice dealer).
The thing is that from discussions about the Mini, I have seen most people saying the same things over and over again but Apple don't listen. Despite a low-end graphics card, one PCI slot would have fixed everything.
I agree with what someone said that size wasn't the main selling point of the Mini, it was the price. That was it for me. If they had made it slighty bigger with a PCI slot, a 3.5" drive (and for me personally a tray-loading optical drive for mini-cds) that would have been perfection.
But like I said before, maybe that would be too perfect. For example, would you buy a $2000+ G5 tower if you could get a dual-core 2GHz with a good graphics chip, 667MHz fsb below $1000? I wouldn't. Using a low end GPU is the only way IMO that Apple could still make the high-end (and by that I mean expensive) machines appealling.
Apple HAS to continue to gain PC converts and first time buyers. Period.
Apple is becoming a vertically integrated company IMO. Who made ilife, iworks, fcp, aperature? Why depend on Adobe? Sure its great if they want to develope for macs, but mac users are only about 25%. To substantially increase this means fighting the whole OS war with MS again. I just don't see it happening. Apple is trying to put out profitable products and they don't seem to be concerned about market share. Time will tell if they are right.
Out of the realm of possibility???? isn't part of the audience for the mini people who don't have a lot of money for computers? They are the ones who don't have the money for MS Office or iWork, and actually need the open source suites.
People who dont have a lot of money for computers dont buy Apple. Just like they dont buy midrange stereo component systems to listen to music when a regular all in one box is enough.
But like I said before, maybe that would be too perfect. For example, would you buy a $2000+ G5 tower if you could get a dual-core 2GHz with a good graphics chip, 667MHz fsb below $1000? I wouldn't. Using a low end GPU is the only way IMO that Apple could still make the high-end (and by that I mean expensive) machines appealling.
The number of people who ideally want a machine with just one PCI-E slot, but when they find out they can't get it, but a Power Mac instead, is very, very small.
People buy Power Macs because they can take 8 gigs (or is it 16 gigs now?) of EEC-RAM, two hard-drives (more if you get a third party hard drive mounting to go inside the G5 tower), and can have 4 processor cores.
because it's a very good way to increase their revenues and profits.
Only if it is profitable. How much profit can you make on a $399 box. Maybe it would increase market share, but will it make other people go out and buy $2000 MBP or $1500 imacs? Perhaps it is debateable, but I doubt it. You would just have a bunch of people with $399 boxes bitchin about quality(see Dell) because it 's hard to build a quality box at that price.
Huh? It has plenty bearing on the issue. Dell make computers. So does Apple. Now, Apple even uses the same platform as Dell. Your comment would have made more, although not total, sense, in the PPC days.
Only if the Macs that are available have the features that they want.
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, and they could do it really quite easily. Don't forget that Apple are the only company that make computers that will edit legitimately/legally /edit run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share (and if they don't there's something very wrong with them), they are going to have to broaden their appeal on the hardware side. There are plenty of people who like OS X, but don't consider the benefits of it great enough to purchase hardware that has more features than they want for more money than they can afford/are willing to spend.
When someone tells me that they are interested in buying a Mac, they don't go to Best Buy and write down all of the features, price, and speed of the cpu. They are interested in the Mac because of OS X, and the software. They ask me which one I think they should get.
I don't feel it's necessary to tell them to go out and make a comparison between Hp, Gateway, or Dell first. And, they don't ask. They now want a Mac.
People who want a $399 machine are always going to want a $399 machine, unless there is a reason for them to get something else. That reason is almost never the hardware.
Very few people are interested in "features" per se. They want to know if it will do what they want it to do. Will it do it easily? And, yes, what will it cost.
But asking what it will cost doesn't mean that they want the cheapest machine. They want to know if they can afford it.
I've gone to the Apple store here in SoHo with people who were going to buy a Mini, and who had a monitor, keyboard, and the rest, and who then fell in love with an iMac, and bought that instead.
And the PPC has nothing to do with this. Most people don't even know what a PPC is, much less care. They want to know what software it will run.
When I tell people that it used the PPC from IBM, but now uses the x86 from Intel, they say; Oh? What's the difference? I tell the truth, and say, not much. They're answer is; Ok.
Not much excitement there.
The only people who get worked up about this stuff, are the people who should kmow better not to.
Volume only helps Apple if they get license or upgrade opportunities.
Most people don't upgrade their OS. They just wait until they're ready to replace their computer.
Apple doesn't license that much software so they're at a disadvantage here.
Computer users who purchase a $399 computer aren't likely going to turn around and spend another $1000 on software. Chasing them seems like chasing Fools Gold.
Only if it is profitable. How much profit can you make on a $399 box. Maybe it would increase market share
If Apple can make a profit on the current mini at $599, they can make a profit on a $399 computer with the specs that I outlined.
The kind of people who currently buy the iMac, MacBook Pro, iBook, PowerMac etc, will continue to do so. Introducing a cheaper, less highly specified machine attracts more people to the platform.
I think Apple should be aiming for 10%. It is perfectly within the realms of possibility.
That is market share for photoshop. 75% of PS users are now on windows. As for the 10% overall market share, I to think this reasonable and attainable. They can even do it by selling macs at a profit instead of giving them away for $399.
Wasn't everyone saying Macs were more expensive because they were paying more for their chips?
Why doesn't Apple just use AMD Chips?
No. Actually, in the days leading up to the announcement, after the WSJ broke the news, it was said that it couldn't be true, because Apple pays SO much less for the chips from IBM and Freescale that Apple would have to raise their prices. These were the chip experts talking, the editor from The Microprocessor Report, among others.
They want to know if it will do what they want it to do. Will it do it easily? And, yes, what will it cost.
And if it does more than they need it to do, they won't think it is worth the extra price. Why are you so resistant to offer people more choices? You have provided absolutely zero reasons why Apple could not make a profit from selling a $399 machine with the specs. I outlined.
If Apple can make a profit on the current mini at $599, they can make a profit on a $399 computer with the specs that I outlined.
The kind of people who currently buy the iMac, MacBook Pro, iBook, PowerMac etc, will continue to do so. Introducing a cheaper, less highly specified machine attracts more people to the platform.
So you think, attract them with the $399 box and eventually they will plunk down $2000 for a MBP or a powermac? Some will but I doubt many will. Just a difference of opinion.
So you think, attract them with the $399 box and eventually they will plunk down $2000 for a MBP or a powermac? Some will but I doubt many will. Just a difference of opinion.
No, no, no. I do not think that.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Apple already have customers who buy the machines that they already make. Apple make a profit, but they have a small market share.
Apple make a profit on the $599 intel mac mini. Take out features, as I have outlined in detail in previous posts, and you have a profitable $399 machine.
That $399 machine is a completely different type of machine to the ones that Apple already sells. The people who buy Apple's current machines will continue to buy those models. New people will come to the platform to purchase the $399 machine, hence market-share increase.
Entirely separate from this, market share will also increase a very small amount as people realise that all of Apple's machines, apart from the Power Mac, are worth what Apple charge for them.
I never said Apple should produce a "cheap computer". The specs I listed in my previous post are sold by the likes of Dell for just under $299. That extra $100 can be spent on more aesthetically pleasing casework.
And, what is all this rubbish about "we don't know what Apple could do for $399"? We know what they can do for $499 with the G4 Mini, and what they can do for $599 with the Intel Mini. Take the Intel Mini, take out the wireless (yes, I know that the cost comes to about $10 - $15 for the components + PCB, but that is a significant percentage of the Mini's component costs), the Apple Remote, a full-size hard drive and full-size optical drive (significantly cheaper than their laptop equivalents), and desktop RAM, and you easily have a $499 machine. Put in smaller-capacity hard drive, lower capability optical drive, and a cheaper CPU, and you have a $399 machine. But you don't have a "cheap" machine. It could easily have Apple's trademark style. [/B]
Dell loses money on every low end computer they sell. They admitted that a few months ago. They said that to help change that situation they were going to now charge for shipping, cut back the warrantees (it's now 90 days on these machines, you buy an upgrade), and eventually cut back on the cupon discounts they sometimes give. They also said that simply going after marketshare wasn't where they were going to be at.
It's why they introduced their new hi-end computer line.
Dell makes most of its profits from its servcers, and business services.
And, yes, we DON"T know what Apple could have done for $399-$499. You think you do,but you don't know Apple's costs.
We know that the Core Sole costs about $200. I don't remember the actual price, but the G4 7447a was supposed to be costing Apple somewhere around $50 - $75. That's quite a jump! What do you want them to do?
Chip prices will fall at least two times this year. Possibly three. That's Intel's normal procedure. We already know that they will drop somewhat when the faster 2.33GHz version comes out. They will drop further when Merom comes out, and possibly when the faster Merom chips come out near the end of the year. If Apple continues to use the Yonah in the Mini this year, the price drops will be significant. The Core Solo could drop, eventually, late this year, to under $100.
If you want Apple to sell a machine for $399, good luck. I don't think Apple will produce a loss leader like that.
Comments
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share?
because it's a very good way to increase their revenues and profits. Also, yes, having a larger market share attracts more developers (both software and 3rd party hardware) to the platform and helps to stop shit like this from happening.
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
Originally posted by backtomac
IMO Apple should forget the low end buyer anyway. As Murch has mentioned they just aren't worth it.
I disagree. Is it more worthwhile making a cheap machine that 90% of computer users can afford or an expensive one that 10% can?
PC manufacturers make lots of money on the home user market with people who decide to pick up a computer with their shopping. Nearly all of my relatives have done this.
They are willing to buy a computer for their kids to learn on, e-mail friends, use the internet and generally abuse for £299-399 but you put a £399-699 price tag on it and they won't even stop to think about it.
Let's also not forget what targeting this market does too - rapidly increase marketshare. This brings extra sales of Mac software, sales of computers via word of mouth and so on.
From the last few pages, I can see a fairly clear concensus that Apple just need to offer more build-to-order options. Now if it's true that placing bluetooth and wireless in the Macs would cost nowhere near $100 then the fact they charge $100 to do so as a BTO is surely a rip-off.
They could easily sell the machine without it and let me buy two $5 cards and I could get my local dealer to install them for free (I have a nice dealer).
The thing is that from discussions about the Mini, I have seen most people saying the same things over and over again but Apple don't listen. Despite a low-end graphics card, one PCI slot would have fixed everything.
I agree with what someone said that size wasn't the main selling point of the Mini, it was the price. That was it for me. If they had made it slighty bigger with a PCI slot, a 3.5" drive (and for me personally a tray-loading optical drive for mini-cds) that would have been perfection.
But like I said before, maybe that would be too perfect. For example, would you buy a $2000+ G5 tower if you could get a dual-core 2GHz with a good graphics chip, 667MHz fsb below $1000? I wouldn't. Using a low end GPU is the only way IMO that Apple could still make the high-end (and by that I mean expensive) machines appealling.
Originally posted by steve666
Are you kidding me?
Apple dies without developers, period.
And without market share, Apple is dead.
Apple HAS to continue to gain PC converts and first time buyers. Period.
Apple is becoming a vertically integrated company IMO. Who made ilife, iworks, fcp, aperature? Why depend on Adobe? Sure its great if they want to develope for macs, but mac users are only about 25%. To substantially increase this means fighting the whole OS war with MS again. I just don't see it happening. Apple is trying to put out profitable products and they don't seem to be concerned about market share. Time will tell if they are right.
Drop the price of Macs down to skin n bones.
Serialize all the software so that none of you can buy Tiger and install it on your computer and your buddies computer.
Offer OS X Home and OS X Pro. Charge more money for the Pro version.
Create add on packs for money. Want more desktops and other widgets to spice of your computer. Buy the OS X Extreme Pack $39.98
Charge for any meaninful upgrades that come with new features. Use product activation to ensure proper compensation.
Originally posted by Res
Out of the realm of possibility???? isn't part of the audience for the mini people who don't have a lot of money for computers? They are the ones who don't have the money for MS Office or iWork, and actually need the open source suites.
People who dont have a lot of money for computers dont buy Apple. Just like they dont buy midrange stereo component systems to listen to music when a regular all in one box is enough.
Originally posted by Marvin
But like I said before, maybe that would be too perfect. For example, would you buy a $2000+ G5 tower if you could get a dual-core 2GHz with a good graphics chip, 667MHz fsb below $1000? I wouldn't. Using a low end GPU is the only way IMO that Apple could still make the high-end (and by that I mean expensive) machines appealling.
The number of people who ideally want a machine with just one PCI-E slot, but when they find out they can't get it, but a Power Mac instead, is very, very small.
People buy Power Macs because they can take 8 gigs (or is it 16 gigs now?) of EEC-RAM, two hard-drives (more if you get a third party hard drive mounting to go inside the G5 tower), and can have 4 processor cores.
Originally posted by Mr. H
because it's a very good way to increase their revenues and profits.
Only if it is profitable. How much profit can you make on a $399 box. Maybe it would increase market share, but will it make other people go out and buy $2000 MBP or $1500 imacs? Perhaps it is debateable, but I doubt it. You would just have a bunch of people with $399 boxes bitchin about quality(see Dell) because it 's hard to build a quality box at that price.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Here's what Apple should do.
Drop the price of Macs down to skin n bones.
Serialize all the software so that none of you can buy Tiger and install it on your computer and your buddies computer.
Offer OS X Home and OS X Pro. Charge more money for the Pro version.
Create add on packs for money. Want more desktops and other widgets to spice of your computer. Buy the OS X Extreme Pack $39.98
Charge for any meaninful upgrades that come with new features. Use product activation to ensure proper compensation.
Originally posted by backtomac
but mac users are only about 25%.
pardon?
Apple's worldwide market share is under 4%.
I think Apple should be aiming for 10%. It is perfectly within the realms of possibility.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Huh? It has plenty bearing on the issue. Dell make computers. So does Apple. Now, Apple even uses the same platform as Dell. Your comment would have made more, although not total, sense, in the PPC days.
Only if the Macs that are available have the features that they want.
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, and they could do it really quite easily. Don't forget that Apple are the only company that make computers that will edit legitimately/legally /edit run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share (and if they don't there's something very wrong with them), they are going to have to broaden their appeal on the hardware side. There are plenty of people who like OS X, but don't consider the benefits of it great enough to purchase hardware that has more features than they want for more money than they can afford/are willing to spend.
When someone tells me that they are interested in buying a Mac, they don't go to Best Buy and write down all of the features, price, and speed of the cpu. They are interested in the Mac because of OS X, and the software. They ask me which one I think they should get.
I don't feel it's necessary to tell them to go out and make a comparison between Hp, Gateway, or Dell first. And, they don't ask. They now want a Mac.
People who want a $399 machine are always going to want a $399 machine, unless there is a reason for them to get something else. That reason is almost never the hardware.
Very few people are interested in "features" per se. They want to know if it will do what they want it to do. Will it do it easily? And, yes, what will it cost.
But asking what it will cost doesn't mean that they want the cheapest machine. They want to know if they can afford it.
I've gone to the Apple store here in SoHo with people who were going to buy a Mini, and who had a monitor, keyboard, and the rest, and who then fell in love with an iMac, and bought that instead.
And the PPC has nothing to do with this. Most people don't even know what a PPC is, much less care. They want to know what software it will run.
When I tell people that it used the PPC from IBM, but now uses the x86 from Intel, they say; Oh? What's the difference? I tell the truth, and say, not much. They're answer is; Ok.
Not much excitement there.
The only people who get worked up about this stuff, are the people who should kmow better not to.
Most people don't upgrade their OS. They just wait until they're ready to replace their computer.
Apple doesn't license that much software so they're at a disadvantage here.
Computer users who purchase a $399 computer aren't likely going to turn around and spend another $1000 on software. Chasing them seems like chasing Fools Gold.
Originally posted by backtomac
Only if it is profitable. How much profit can you make on a $399 box. Maybe it would increase market share
If Apple can make a profit on the current mini at $599, they can make a profit on a $399 computer with the specs that I outlined.
The kind of people who currently buy the iMac, MacBook Pro, iBook, PowerMac etc, will continue to do so. Introducing a cheaper, less highly specified machine attracts more people to the platform.
Originally posted by Mr. H
pardon?
Apple's worldwide market share is under 4%.
I think Apple should be aiming for 10%. It is perfectly within the realms of possibility.
That is market share for photoshop. 75% of PS users are now on windows. As for the 10% overall market share, I to think this reasonable and attainable. They can even do it by selling macs at a profit instead of giving them away for $399.
Originally posted by steve666
They should be cheaper, not more expensive.
Wasn't everyone saying Macs were more expensive because they were paying more for their chips?
Why doesn't Apple just use AMD Chips?
No. Actually, in the days leading up to the announcement, after the WSJ broke the news, it was said that it couldn't be true, because Apple pays SO much less for the chips from IBM and Freescale that Apple would have to raise their prices. These were the chip experts talking, the editor from The Microprocessor Report, among others.
Originally posted by melgross
They want to know if it will do what they want it to do. Will it do it easily? And, yes, what will it cost.
And if it does more than they need it to do, they won't think it is worth the extra price. Why are you so resistant to offer people more choices? You have provided absolutely zero reasons why Apple could not make a profit from selling a $399 machine with the specs. I outlined.
Originally posted by Mr. H
If Apple can make a profit on the current mini at $599, they can make a profit on a $399 computer with the specs that I outlined.
The kind of people who currently buy the iMac, MacBook Pro, iBook, PowerMac etc, will continue to do so. Introducing a cheaper, less highly specified machine attracts more people to the platform.
So you think, attract them with the $399 box and eventually they will plunk down $2000 for a MBP or a powermac? Some will but I doubt many will. Just a difference of opinion.
Originally posted by stw
They do: Smart
Let me change the anology as you are correct. BMW doesn't make $12000 subcompact- as far as I know.
Originally posted by backtomac
So you think, attract them with the $399 box and eventually they will plunk down $2000 for a MBP or a powermac? Some will but I doubt many will. Just a difference of opinion.
No, no, no. I do not think that.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Apple already have customers who buy the machines that they already make. Apple make a profit, but they have a small market share.
Apple make a profit on the $599 intel mac mini. Take out features, as I have outlined in detail in previous posts, and you have a profitable $399 machine.
That $399 machine is a completely different type of machine to the ones that Apple already sells. The people who buy Apple's current machines will continue to buy those models. New people will come to the platform to purchase the $399 machine, hence market-share increase.
Entirely separate from this, market share will also increase a very small amount as people realise that all of Apple's machines, apart from the Power Mac, are worth what Apple charge for them.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I never said Apple should produce a "cheap computer". The specs I listed in my previous post are sold by the likes of Dell for just under $299. That extra $100 can be spent on more aesthetically pleasing casework.
And, what is all this rubbish about "we don't know what Apple could do for $399"? We know what they can do for $499 with the G4 Mini, and what they can do for $599 with the Intel Mini. Take the Intel Mini, take out the wireless (yes, I know that the cost comes to about $10 - $15 for the components + PCB, but that is a significant percentage of the Mini's component costs), the Apple Remote, a full-size hard drive and full-size optical drive (significantly cheaper than their laptop equivalents), and desktop RAM, and you easily have a $499 machine. Put in smaller-capacity hard drive, lower capability optical drive, and a cheaper CPU, and you have a $399 machine. But you don't have a "cheap" machine. It could easily have Apple's trademark style. [/B]
Dell loses money on every low end computer they sell. They admitted that a few months ago. They said that to help change that situation they were going to now charge for shipping, cut back the warrantees (it's now 90 days on these machines, you buy an upgrade), and eventually cut back on the cupon discounts they sometimes give. They also said that simply going after marketshare wasn't where they were going to be at.
It's why they introduced their new hi-end computer line.
Dell makes most of its profits from its servcers, and business services.
And, yes, we DON"T know what Apple could have done for $399-$499. You think you do,but you don't know Apple's costs.
We know that the Core Sole costs about $200. I don't remember the actual price, but the G4 7447a was supposed to be costing Apple somewhere around $50 - $75. That's quite a jump! What do you want them to do?
Chip prices will fall at least two times this year. Possibly three. That's Intel's normal procedure. We already know that they will drop somewhat when the faster 2.33GHz version comes out. They will drop further when Merom comes out, and possibly when the faster Merom chips come out near the end of the year. If Apple continues to use the Yonah in the Mini this year, the price drops will be significant. The Core Solo could drop, eventually, late this year, to under $100.
If you want Apple to sell a machine for $399, good luck. I don't think Apple will produce a loss leader like that.