I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.
Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.
More thoughts on this line.
Of course in a very general sense Apple would prefer to sell more computers to the entire computer user base as opposed to selling fewer computers at all.
But there is a plum section of the user base that is more desirable than other sections.
Apple would much more covet a demographic (A) of educated, computer literate, higher income people who would use a Macintosh for more than word processing and e-mail.
The less desirable demographic (B) of less education, not computer literate, lower income people who would mostly use a Macintosh for word processing and e-mail.
Most people would fall into a mix between A and B, but there are a sizable number who would fall into the extremes.
In Demographic A a computer literate person would have a knowledge base to actively decide they want to use the Macintosh. Demographic A is more likely to encourage others to buy Macintosh. Demographic B the choice would not depend on who made the computer or which operating system runs on it. The loyalty of choice would depend on price. Demographic B is also more likely to not understand how to use its computer/software and in a larger number request service from Apple and Apple software developers.
Demographic A would likely pay more money for a better product and buy assorted software and accessories. As well in the future buy new software updates and new accessories as needed. Demographic A will likely buy a new computer in 3 to 5 years. Demographic B cannot afford the best product and cannot buy additional software or accessories. Its likely demographic B would use the same computer with its same software for many years until the hardware no longer functions.
Demographic A is more likely to buy advanced and expensive productivity software that will demonstrate to others the power and functionality of the Macintosh. Demographic B is likely to only use the software that originally shipped with the computer and possibly never learn the full functionality of what they have.
For many many reasons its more lucrative for Apple to have a small Demographic A user base than have a large Demographic B user base.
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
You are right in that IT people defy logic in how they will talk about Mac and OS X.
An IT manager could require Mac users to install antivirus software before they are allowed onto the network. Its not that difficult but they will make it so.
Most of the 250 million computers shipped next year will come with Vista installed.
Vista shipped on a computer next year is the same revenue as XP shipped on a computer this year. I can only see this making a difference if over all computer sales significantly rose next year over this year.
There are few people who do not own computers who can afford and will buy a new computer. Most of the installed computer base will not be buying a new computer next year. That is the real money maker for Vista. If a large number of people who already own computers switched from XP to Vista.
I think you should read this....John is not only an expert in computing (his degrees are in computer cpu, and systems design), but he is a heavy Mac user for a ways back. His articles are always goo. Also, check out the article by Gruber (and join his site!) he refers to. I agree with what he says here.
According to them the target market are those "sitting on the fence", potential high-profit target market. John Siracusa and Gruber do not mention anything about the business market. I agree with both their analyses, and their suggestion of Apple's rationale in this.
I am still excited about the possibilities of penetrating (that sounds a bit rude, huh) the business market through Apple's dual-boot (and hopefully virtualization in Leopard) strategy.
So thanks for the links mate, interesting if Apple is making a big play for BOTH MARKETS - the profitable "sitting on the fence" potential switchers AND the (possibly starting with the smaller ones) business market.
This over the next 5 years could and would as Siracusa and Gruber suggest, make Apple a "special" PC manufacturer, not "different", and maintain their high profit margins.
Very ballsy move by Steve, and if it pays off, like I mentioned, bodes really well for Apple's Mac side of the business.
And again, referring to Siracusa and Gruber, Apple must be extremely confident of taking Leopard up against Vista and essentially demolishing Vista such that people will only use Vista dual-boot (or hopefully virtualized) out of sheer last-resort need. edit: or maybe reasonable co-existence is a possibility
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.
Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.
So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.
To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.
Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.
So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.
To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.
Who has the most support needs? The consumer. Not schools, not business. They have support staff. I'm the support staff for my network at home.
But consumers in general are not so lucky. That's why the genius bar is always full. you don't see business people there, nor school teachers, unless it's for their own machines.
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files
Oh yah that is safety... just put an infected system directly on. *rolls eyes*
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.
I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.
These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.
If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.
Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.
Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".
These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.
If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.
Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.
Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".
The Army game is more realistic than almost any of the others. It's not really a first person shooter.
But, the other games are all the same. Get the right weapons, pick this up, pick that up, lose strength, get shields, look around the corner, yawn.
She had kind of resigned herself to buying a windows machine at her lab because there were a couple windows only apps she needs to run. Now a mac is certainly back in the running for her.
This is going to do more good than bad in the short term and long term. Mac users are still giong to demand mac software. Just because they can run windows doesn't mean they are going to / willing to switch. The whole reason they bought a mac in the first place was to USE MAC SOFTWARE / OS. As stated before if a developer simply says "boot into windows" ... mac users won't stand for that and eventually someone will swoop that mac market. I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.
I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.
I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.
My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.
Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.
I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.
My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.
Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.
That's about it.
If they see uptake on their software go up on the Mac side, they will be convinced to stay. If they see the Mac sales percentage go down, they will have to think about the next step.
The problem is with programs that have a far greater Windows share than Mac share. Depending on how, or even whether, their Mac versions are profitable, they might decide that they will gain enough Mac users coming over to use the Windows version to cover a Mac retreat. If they can eliminate the development costs, as well as the support costs, they might break even.
That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.
That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.
But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.
Comments
I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.
Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.
More thoughts on this line.
Of course in a very general sense Apple would prefer to sell more computers to the entire computer user base as opposed to selling fewer computers at all.
But there is a plum section of the user base that is more desirable than other sections.
Apple would much more covet a demographic (A) of educated, computer literate, higher income people who would use a Macintosh for more than word processing and e-mail.
The less desirable demographic (B) of less education, not computer literate, lower income people who would mostly use a Macintosh for word processing and e-mail.
Most people would fall into a mix between A and B, but there are a sizable number who would fall into the extremes.
In Demographic A a computer literate person would have a knowledge base to actively decide they want to use the Macintosh. Demographic A is more likely to encourage others to buy Macintosh. Demographic B the choice would not depend on who made the computer or which operating system runs on it. The loyalty of choice would depend on price. Demographic B is also more likely to not understand how to use its computer/software and in a larger number request service from Apple and Apple software developers.
Demographic A would likely pay more money for a better product and buy assorted software and accessories. As well in the future buy new software updates and new accessories as needed. Demographic A will likely buy a new computer in 3 to 5 years. Demographic B cannot afford the best product and cannot buy additional software or accessories. Its likely demographic B would use the same computer with its same software for many years until the hardware no longer functions.
Demographic A is more likely to buy advanced and expensive productivity software that will demonstrate to others the power and functionality of the Macintosh. Demographic B is likely to only use the software that originally shipped with the computer and possibly never learn the full functionality of what they have.
For many many reasons its more lucrative for Apple to have a small Demographic A user base than have a large Demographic B user base.
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
You are right in that IT people defy logic in how they will talk about Mac and OS X.
An IT manager could require Mac users to install antivirus software before they are allowed onto the network. Its not that difficult but they will make it so.
Most of the 250 million computers shipped next year will come with Vista installed.
Vista shipped on a computer next year is the same revenue as XP shipped on a computer this year. I can only see this making a difference if over all computer sales significantly rose next year over this year.
There are few people who do not own computers who can afford and will buy a new computer. Most of the installed computer base will not be buying a new computer next year. That is the real money maker for Vista. If a large number of people who already own computers switched from XP to Vista.
I think you should read this....John is not only an expert in computing (his degrees are in computer cpu, and systems design), but he is a heavy Mac user for a ways back. His articles are always goo. Also, check out the article by Gruber (and join his site!) he refers to. I agree with what he says here.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/8/3524
According to them the target market are those "sitting on the fence", potential high-profit target market. John Siracusa and Gruber do not mention anything about the business market. I agree with both their analyses, and their suggestion of Apple's rationale in this.
I am still excited about the possibilities of penetrating (that sounds a bit rude, huh) the business market through Apple's dual-boot (and hopefully virtualization in Leopard) strategy.
So thanks for the links mate, interesting if Apple is making a big play for BOTH MARKETS - the profitable "sitting on the fence" potential switchers AND the (possibly starting with the smaller ones) business market.
This over the next 5 years could and would as Siracusa and Gruber suggest, make Apple a "special" PC manufacturer, not "different", and maintain their high profit margins.
Very ballsy move by Steve, and if it pays off, like I mentioned, bodes really well for Apple's Mac side of the business.
And again, referring to Siracusa and Gruber, Apple must be extremely confident of taking Leopard up against Vista and essentially demolishing Vista such that people will only use Vista dual-boot (or hopefully virtualized) out of sheer last-resort need. edit: or maybe reasonable co-existence is a possibility
Yup!
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.
Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.
So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.
To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
Yup!
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.
Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.
So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.
To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.
Who has the most support needs? The consumer. Not schools, not business. They have support staff. I'm the support staff for my network at home.
But consumers in general are not so lucky. That's why the genius bar is always full. you don't see business people there, nor school teachers, unless it's for their own machines.
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
If you are running a box that has windows XP you can slipstream SP2 onto a new disk using the files from your old XP CD. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files
Originally posted by backwar
If you are running a box that has windows XP you can slipstream SP2 onto a new disk using the files from your old XP CD. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files
Oh yah that is safety... just put an infected system directly on. *rolls eyes*
Originally posted by emig647
Oh yah that is safety... just put an infected system directly on. *rolls eyes*
Do you understand the concept? I don't think you do.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
Originally posted by Placebo
Do you understand the concept? I don't think you do.
WEll I guess it would have helped if I read it first....
:P
I thought they were saying to install it first, then add sp2 then put it back on cd then install it on a mac...
whatever
*spits on windows*
Originally posted by Placebo
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.
Originally posted by melgross
I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.
These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.
If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.
Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.
Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".
Originally posted by emig647
These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.
If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.
Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.
Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".
The Army game is more realistic than almost any of the others. It's not really a first person shooter.
But, the other games are all the same. Get the right weapons, pick this up, pick that up, lose strength, get shields, look around the corner, yawn.
She had kind of resigned herself to buying a windows machine at her lab because there were a couple windows only apps she needs to run. Now a mac is certainly back in the running for her.
This is going to do more good than bad in the short term and long term. Mac users are still giong to demand mac software. Just because they can run windows doesn't mean they are going to / willing to switch. The whole reason they bought a mac in the first place was to USE MAC SOFTWARE / OS. As stated before if a developer simply says "boot into windows" ... mac users won't stand for that and eventually someone will swoop that mac market. I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.
I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.
I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.
My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.
Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.
Originally posted by lundy
I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.
My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.
Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.
That's about it.
If they see uptake on their software go up on the Mac side, they will be convinced to stay. If they see the Mac sales percentage go down, they will have to think about the next step.
The problem is with programs that have a far greater Windows share than Mac share. Depending on how, or even whether, their Mac versions are profitable, they might decide that they will gain enough Mac users coming over to use the Windows version to cover a Mac retreat. If they can eliminate the development costs, as well as the support costs, they might break even.
That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.
Originally posted by melgross
That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.
But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.