Wasn't Michael Spindler like the worst CEO in Apple's history???
There aren't really any CEOs aside from his-steveness that have managed to make Apple work. I think Spindler may have had the least negative impact, though. Amelio and Sculley both were clueless about operating outside of a commodity market.
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The platform does, Apple doesn't.
This is a silly comment. Apple is the platform, and will live and die based upon the vitality of the Mac platform. Yeah, there are iPods now, but that's a very new market. The market for Apple computers is very established, and unless it's foolishly squandered, it will be a good revenue provider for a long time. It also gives Apple some serious clout as an electronics industry heavyweight which the iPod alone cannot.
It is well known that current Mac users are really not that price sensitive. If Apple comes out with a big bulky desktop or laptop, they will get switchers, but won't lose sales of their prime stuff because current Mac users will pay more for an exciting machine.
-Now that Macs use standard Intel parts, you can't claim they cost any more to make than PCs.
So it's the perfect time to get a really low cost model out, no matter what it takes, and get those Windows users to try OS X. They just aren't going to grow marketshare too much with expensive machines. They need one desktop and one laptop at the same low end price as PCs.
Mac users are actually very price sensitive (which is one reason why the clones almost did apple in), and a $399 desktop Mac would devastate the sales of higher priced models. Mac users pay more for their computers than PC users because we don't have a choice: if we want to use the Mac OS, we have to buy Apple's expensive hardware.
Now it would be nice to see the towers start somewhere near $1000, where they could still have a decent margin, but $399 is just too low a price and would not be good for Apple.
There aren't really any CEOs aside from his-steveness that have managed to make Apple work. I think Spindler may have had the least negative impact, though. Amelio and Sculley both were clueless about operating outside of a commodity market.
Nobody else made it work because they weren't as crazy as Steve. The man is willing to rise or fall on on his ideas. I would be company suicide in most places, but it works for Apple.
Quote:
This is a silly comment.
Says you. I think over 80% over computer users would agree with me though.
Quote:
Apple is the platform, and will live and die based upon the vitality of the Mac platform. Yeah, there are iPods now, but that's a very new market. The market for Apple computers is very established, and unless it's foolishly squandered, it will be a good revenue provider for a long time. It also gives Apple some serious clout as an electronics industry heavyweight which the iPod alone cannot.
What good is any clout if you don't use it? The MP3 player phase will evenutally come to an end and if Vista is any good at all, Apple will be exactly where it was a couple years ago. Remember how we were going to take over the computer industry after the Bondi Blue iMac. The industry doesn't rise and fall with Apple, but it could if Apple were willing to also cater to the needs of the other 95%. That will take either licensed machines or a second brand.
You're about 10 years behind the times, my friend.
AT&T already tried the whole video phone idea back in the 90s and it failed not because people didn't have the hardware, but for other obvious reasons... I'll let you think about those...
I used to tele-chat way back in college... it was cool the first few times, but then it just got old... some people just didn't want to see me all messed up and hung over chugging gatorade while I was on the phone.
Videophones did not catch on because they were terrible: They had ridiculously slow frame rates and very low resolution. I always thought that they might have done better if they switched to black and white and increased the frame rate. Video communication needs to have a frame rate high enough for smooth motion (low frame rates makes video communication just too annoying to use). One thing that is holding internet video communication back right now is the ridiculously slow upload speeds that most ISPs provide in the US.
Videophones did not catch on because they were terrible:
I disagree. The actual performance and hardware had nothing to do with it. It's the fact that people didn't need to see the person on day-to-day basis.
I've been using video phone via netmeeting, skype, and other software for years at 30 fps over broadband connections with my friends and family for years... and it's nice to use it for, maybe, once in month tops, but on day-to-day basis I just don't need. In college and grad schools I went to, pretty everybody had computer of their choice, high speed internet and, at first, were really excited about ability to videochat, but none of them used it regularly after the first few months. Again, technology availability and capability were not a problem here.
There are times when ability to see the person you're talking to is critical, but those are few and between and will not be on the top 10 list of most PC buyers... unless, of course, one can come up with someone can come up with a killer app for the camera... but right now I just don't see one.
Quote:
Mac users are actually very price sensitive (which is one reason why the clones almost did apple in), and a $399 desktop Mac would devastate the sales of higher priced models. Mac users pay more for their computers than PC users because we don't have a choice: if we want to use the Mac OS, we have to buy Apple's expensive hardware.
Well said! This may not be for long though... because it's not clear if Apple would make more money by licensing Mac OS to run on 3rd party hardware. It may take a bite out of the hardware sales, but OSX is likely to gain big time marketshare and software base if it was licensed to run on generic hardware.
Says you. I think over 80% over computer users would agree with me though.
The difference between me and the other 80+% is that I have some high-tech business experience.
Here's an example: every good football fan comments about how his team's coach is not doing things right. If they even had the slightest clue about how complicated the job is, they might be a little more hesitant about providing judgement. Apple has good people who have exhaustively studied the market and know what are probably the best strides to take. I trust in them pretty thoroughly since the current regime has kicked butt for years and has made my Apple stock quite valuable.
So what if you have high-tech business experience? That doesn't make you an authority when it comes to marketing. Marketing is a complicated thing, and it takes a lot more than high-tech business experience to be able to disqualify others from the discussion.
So what if you have high-tech business experience? That doesn't make you an authority when it comes to marketing. Marketing is a complicated thing, and it takes a lot more than high-tech business experience to be able to disqualify others from the discussion.
I said almost that exactly in the same post. The part about the experience is just a way to say that the more you learn, the more humble you become. Stop baiting me: it seems like you go around AI just to throw shit at people.
I once read an interesting blog post, about apple and competition. The main point was, that people should realize, that Apple is NOT trying compete against other manufacturers. The second they try to compete against bulk manufacturers, they lose every reason they exist. Already, profit margins in bulk pc business are so low, that only few of the biggest players can afford it. Apple would have no chance in that market. What apple need's to do is bravely ignore all the competition and only compete in class of it's own. When Mac was still running on Power PC it was (maybe) more obvious that you were buying something different than average pc. That's the same reason I think it is stupid to offer Macbook in black, not that I don't like the looks of it, but whose gonna notice it amongst every other black notebook? iPod is a great example of this, it's not just an another mp3 player it's the iPod, and that is what Apple should/are trying to do with Apple computers as well, not an another pc but Apple computer. End of rant
Apple is NOT trying compete against other manufacturers. The second they try to compete against bulk manufacturers, they lose every reason they exist.
This is simply not true. It would be lovely if Apple existed in a world of its own, but it does not. Apple cannot afford to just ignore the rest of the PC market (fortunately, they do not ignore all of it). Apple make computers, and compete against Windows. When consumers are going to get a computer, that is the choice they have: Windows or OS X.
Your argument is blown apart somewhat when you consider the $1099 MacBook and discover that not only is it cheaper than most similarly configured PCs (e.g., it is $50 cheaper than an equivalent Dell Inspiron E1505), it still has many more features (smaller, lighter, iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, DVI out, magsafe). It is difficult to compare the MacBook Pro, because so few PC manufacturers make anything like it. The 15" MBpro tends to be around $500 more than the "competition", but is significantly smaller and lighter and made out of metal rather than plastic, so it is difficult/silly to compare. The 17" seems to be competitive on price with similarly configured PCs. So, Apple do compete with other manufacturers, but only with the configurations that Apple choose to offer.
It is a bizarre decision to deny anyone who wishes to use OS X on a lower-powered machine the opportunity to do so. It would do web, e-mail, and simple iLife stuff perfectly well. Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
...Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
Yes it would offer a much better user experience but it may not offer Apple a better profit margin, better profits and revenues and a higher stock price.
Yes it would offer a much better user experience but it may not offer Apple a better profit margin, better profits and revenues and a higher stock price.
It all hinges on whether you think lower-end machines would attract more users to the platform, or just cannibalise sales of the more expensive machines.
I think it would be the former. Unfortunately, there is no sure-fire way of finding out, other than offering them and seeing what happens.
Personally if it were possible I'd like to see Apple take the risk and offer lower-priced models (than current). Just personally. Just to see what happens.
All of this call for lower priced Macs is predicated on two highly questionable assumptions:
1. That price is a gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa.
2. That the price elasticity of demand for computers (particularly at the low end) is such that Appl'e reducing its margins (a probable necessity) will be more than made up for by the quantity of machines purchased such that Apple's profit increases.
Comments
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Wasn't Michael Spindler like the worst CEO in Apple's history???
He might of been the worst CEO in any company's history.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Wasn't Michael Spindler like the worst CEO in Apple's history???
There aren't really any CEOs aside from his-steveness that have managed to make Apple work. I think Spindler may have had the least negative impact, though. Amelio and Sculley both were clueless about operating outside of a commodity market.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The platform does, Apple doesn't.
This is a silly comment. Apple is the platform, and will live and die based upon the vitality of the Mac platform. Yeah, there are iPods now, but that's a very new market. The market for Apple computers is very established, and unless it's foolishly squandered, it will be a good revenue provider for a long time. It also gives Apple some serious clout as an electronics industry heavyweight which the iPod alone cannot.
Originally posted by spindler
-snip-
It is well known that current Mac users are really not that price sensitive. If Apple comes out with a big bulky desktop or laptop, they will get switchers, but won't lose sales of their prime stuff because current Mac users will pay more for an exciting machine.
-Now that Macs use standard Intel parts, you can't claim they cost any more to make than PCs.
So it's the perfect time to get a really low cost model out, no matter what it takes, and get those Windows users to try OS X. They just aren't going to grow marketshare too much with expensive machines. They need one desktop and one laptop at the same low end price as PCs.
Mac users are actually very price sensitive (which is one reason why the clones almost did apple in), and a $399 desktop Mac would devastate the sales of higher priced models. Mac users pay more for their computers than PC users because we don't have a choice: if we want to use the Mac OS, we have to buy Apple's expensive hardware.
Now it would be nice to see the towers start somewhere near $1000, where they could still have a decent margin, but $399 is just too low a price and would not be good for Apple.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There aren't really any CEOs aside from his-steveness that have managed to make Apple work. I think Spindler may have had the least negative impact, though. Amelio and Sculley both were clueless about operating outside of a commodity market.
Nobody else made it work because they weren't as crazy as Steve. The man is willing to rise or fall on on his ideas. I would be company suicide in most places, but it works for Apple.
This is a silly comment.
Says you. I think over 80% over computer users would agree with me though.
Apple is the platform, and will live and die based upon the vitality of the Mac platform. Yeah, there are iPods now, but that's a very new market. The market for Apple computers is very established, and unless it's foolishly squandered, it will be a good revenue provider for a long time. It also gives Apple some serious clout as an electronics industry heavyweight which the iPod alone cannot.
What good is any clout if you don't use it? The MP3 player phase will evenutally come to an end and if Vista is any good at all, Apple will be exactly where it was a couple years ago. Remember how we were going to take over the computer industry after the Bondi Blue iMac. The industry doesn't rise and fall with Apple, but it could if Apple were willing to also cater to the needs of the other 95%. That will take either licensed machines or a second brand.
Originally posted by skatman
You're about 10 years behind the times, my friend.
AT&T already tried the whole video phone idea back in the 90s and it failed not because people didn't have the hardware, but for other obvious reasons... I'll let you think about those...
I used to tele-chat way back in college... it was cool the first few times, but then it just got old... some people just didn't want to see me all messed up and hung over chugging gatorade while I was on the phone.
Videophones did not catch on because they were terrible: They had ridiculously slow frame rates and very low resolution. I always thought that they might have done better if they switched to black and white and increased the frame rate. Video communication needs to have a frame rate high enough for smooth motion (low frame rates makes video communication just too annoying to use). One thing that is holding internet video communication back right now is the ridiculously slow upload speeds that most ISPs provide in the US.
Videophones did not catch on because they were terrible:
I disagree. The actual performance and hardware had nothing to do with it. It's the fact that people didn't need to see the person on day-to-day basis.
I've been using video phone via netmeeting, skype, and other software for years at 30 fps over broadband connections with my friends and family for years... and it's nice to use it for, maybe, once in month tops, but on day-to-day basis I just don't need. In college and grad schools I went to, pretty everybody had computer of their choice, high speed internet and, at first, were really excited about ability to videochat, but none of them used it regularly after the first few months. Again, technology availability and capability were not a problem here.
There are times when ability to see the person you're talking to is critical, but those are few and between and will not be on the top 10 list of most PC buyers... unless, of course, one can come up with someone can come up with a killer app for the camera... but right now I just don't see one.
Mac users are actually very price sensitive (which is one reason why the clones almost did apple in), and a $399 desktop Mac would devastate the sales of higher priced models. Mac users pay more for their computers than PC users because we don't have a choice: if we want to use the Mac OS, we have to buy Apple's expensive hardware.
Well said! This may not be for long though... because it's not clear if Apple would make more money by licensing Mac OS to run on 3rd party hardware. It may take a bite out of the hardware sales, but OSX is likely to gain big time marketshare and software base if it was licensed to run on generic hardware.
Originally posted by spindler
Apple needs a $399 desktop and a $699 laptop now
No they don't.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Says you. I think over 80% over computer users would agree with me though.
The difference between me and the other 80+% is that I have some high-tech business experience.
Here's an example: every good football fan comments about how his team's coach is not doing things right. If they even had the slightest clue about how complicated the job is, they might be a little more hesitant about providing judgement. Apple has good people who have exhaustively studied the market and know what are probably the best strides to take. I trust in them pretty thoroughly since the current regime has kicked butt for years and has made my Apple stock quite valuable.
This is still quite a valid and plausible comment though. 8)
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So what if you have high-tech business experience? That doesn't make you an authority when it comes to marketing. Marketing is a complicated thing, and it takes a lot more than high-tech business experience to be able to disqualify others from the discussion.
I said almost that exactly in the same post. The part about the experience is just a way to say that the more you learn, the more humble you become. Stop baiting me: it seems like you go around AI just to throw shit at people.
it seems like you go around AI just to throw shit at people.
Ouch.
Originally posted by Project2501
Apple is NOT trying compete against other manufacturers. The second they try to compete against bulk manufacturers, they lose every reason they exist.
This is simply not true. It would be lovely if Apple existed in a world of its own, but it does not. Apple cannot afford to just ignore the rest of the PC market (fortunately, they do not ignore all of it). Apple make computers, and compete against Windows. When consumers are going to get a computer, that is the choice they have: Windows or OS X.
Your argument is blown apart somewhat when you consider the $1099 MacBook and discover that not only is it cheaper than most similarly configured PCs (e.g., it is $50 cheaper than an equivalent Dell Inspiron E1505), it still has many more features (smaller, lighter, iSight, Front Row, Optical audio I/O, DVI out, magsafe). It is difficult to compare the MacBook Pro, because so few PC manufacturers make anything like it. The 15" MBpro tends to be around $500 more than the "competition", but is significantly smaller and lighter and made out of metal rather than plastic, so it is difficult/silly to compare. The 17" seems to be competitive on price with similarly configured PCs. So, Apple do compete with other manufacturers, but only with the configurations that Apple choose to offer.
It is a bizarre decision to deny anyone who wishes to use OS X on a lower-powered machine the opportunity to do so. It would do web, e-mail, and simple iLife stuff perfectly well. Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
...Such a machine would offer a much better user experience than a low-powered machine running Windows, and you know it.
Yes it would offer a much better user experience but it may not offer Apple a better profit margin, better profits and revenues and a higher stock price.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Yes it would offer a much better user experience but it may not offer Apple a better profit margin, better profits and revenues and a higher stock price.
It all hinges on whether you think lower-end machines would attract more users to the platform, or just cannibalise sales of the more expensive machines.
I think it would be the former. Unfortunately, there is no sure-fire way of finding out, other than offering them and seeing what happens.
1. That price is a gating factor for many customers when choosing a computer to purchase, specifically when choosing a PC vs. Mac or vice versa.
2. That the price elasticity of demand for computers (particularly at the low end) is such that Appl'e reducing its margins (a probable necessity) will be more than made up for by the quantity of machines purchased such that Apple's profit increases.