Many would argue that market share is not the same as user base. But it doesn't ultimately matter. What really matters is to have as many users as possible, so it will attract more developers and create an actual "market" around the platform. Less users, less money flowing, less third party development, which ultimately leads to the death of a platform. I was reading today this and this editorials, even journalists now buy the "cheap PCs with Linux" deal. Apple has to wake up before is too late and should offer a cheap solution. Apple should learn from NeXT's mistakes, not duplicate them. Update: Look inside for one more idea by some of our readers.
Post a Comment
I don't think that Apple can really be considered in the same class of computer as Windows PC's are given their present pricing structure. I think there are a lot of PC users who would be open to an Apple as a second computer if they were priced competitively with Windows PC's
Not on Apple's part but rather computer buyers.
Most consumers will buy whichever's cheapest, and yes, end up regretting it. It doesn't matter what the cost of the feature-lacking box is, or how much morre impressive a package the Mac offers. If a consumer is shopping for a $199 computer they're not going to consider a $499 computer. I think that would hold true even for x86 PCs.
Thus I don't think Apple should try to compete in that market. They might be able to get an eMac down to $599 or so, and keep some profit margin, and frankly, with the extra features and included software that's a pretty good offering compared to other brand names.
LINUX is an OS XP is an OS APPLE isbuilds HARDWARE with an OS. You can run LINUX on you MAC.
So I think these editorials went down the wrong path in some respect.
No, it doesn't have to be a distinction. It just _happens_ that Apple does both the hardware and the OS. For the buyer, doesn't matter, what matters is what the buyer gets for 500 bucks.
Apple release quality products. I know a number of converts from Linux and BSD. They tell me not to even try an iBook and Mac OS X, because once I've tried it I'll see everything else as inferior and will brood for one until I have it.
What still baffles me that you get an Apple notebook cheaper than any Mac without a screen.
Apple needs an affordable headless box, not an eMac. Chances are that people want to buy a Mac as a 2nd or computer or a replacement for their preivous PC, where in both cases they already own a monitor and don't want to have another one.
The cheapest eMac is $799, but a lot people don't consider it because they prefer expandabilty over integration. Apple could easily build a computer based on the eMac, without monitor but with one or two PCI slots instead.
" I think there are a lot of PC users who would be open to an Apple as a second computer if they were priced competitively with Windows PC's"
They already are. Compare the computer spec for spec in both hardware and software and Apple is typically slightly over, at the same price point or sometimes less than a name brand PC.
This wasn't true for the towers before last week because the G4 didn;t match the speed, but now everything has changed with the G5. Apple prices their computers VERY competatively.
We are talking of the hardware and OS price combos. You must lump in the all OS dealers including Linux because the Lindows, Lycoris and Xandros folks are all making money selling the hardware and software combo.
So I think the editorial is heading down the right path.
They already are. Compare the computer spec for spec in both hardware and software and Apple is typically slightly over, at the same price point or sometimes less than a name brand PC.
Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can't get right now anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know don't want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. When you compare in that price range, Apple loses big time, G5 or not. Anyone will sell you a 2GHz Athlon for less than an eMac.
> The cheapest eMac is $799, but a lot people don't consider it because they prefer expandabilty over integration.
I don't think you need much expandability with a Mac, because you an hook up whatever you want on its Firewire and USB ports. From floppy drives, to hard drives, to superdrives, to DV cameras, to usb speakers, even TV cards and these days... sound cards!
I believe that a cheap but feature-rich eMac is all is needed. Mac is about integration, so that would fair better against an ugly PC box.
sorry, you do (very often) sound negative about Apple. not so here. i agree _very_ much with you, and hope apple has the same idea.
with a very fast G5 machine out, the G4 in the emac is no longer so impressive. the flat panel imac is a whole other beast due to the panel, especially the 17". so we are left with the emac, that apple seems to think should be trapped in education situations only. that is just silly! Apple makes good margins, and they should. they make great machines. but with the advertising that the G5 brings, they need to offer a machine for those who go to take a look at the G5 but can't blow that much on a box.
bring in the emac. at a loss.
if apple offered the emac for as low as possible, maybe even a loss, they just create future imac, powerbook, ibook, G5 customers. one of the biggest selling points for a mac is OS X and there "i" software. and who cares if nobody ever uses it. i don't mean try out in an apple store, i mean actually use it. spend some time on it. weeks. it will pay off.
with OS X finally at nearly full power, and things like ipod, isight, itunes music store, etc. they are in a position to show people what a great platform can be like. but if they don't bring people in the door so to speak, it won't matter.
<disclaimer> if you you disagree with things like the "great platform" comment, either you have a closed mind, and can keep your windows, or you haven't used a mac, and are the proof of the argument. it is a great platform. it may not be the one for you, but it is good. </disclaimer>
What really matters is to have as many users as possible, so it will attract more developers and create an actual "market" around the platform. Less users, less money flowing, less third party development, which ultimately leads to the death of a platform.
I didn't read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Ok, you don't have allot of users. But there are users. A relatively large number of users, that shows increase in numbers, not decrease. They have a demand, and they have allot of money. They are willing to pay a small premium for hard or software that works on the mac.
The cost for developing on the mac is comparable to the windows platform. (slightly more expensive hardware, free developer tools) So a developer can easily supply without making huge expenses. There is a low cost in marketing expenses and a low number of competitors. If I make a really good GraphicViewer application for Windows, it's pretty hard to get windows users to notice my application. It's allot easier on the mac platform.
Point is, that there is no reason that a system with a low number of users, will die. There is also no reason that low price will mean that you get a lot of users. Look at BeOS. Cheap, and easy to program for developers, and easy to use. Yet no users. I doubt that those Walmarkt - Lindows machines have captured any significant market share either.
Fact is, that people have declared Apple to be dead since 1990. Was that a zombie I saw on stage last monday?
"Apple needs an affordable headless box, not an eMac. Chances are that people want to buy a Mac as a 2nd or computer or a replacement for their previous PC, where in both cases they already own a monitor and don't want to have another one."
The PC industry has collapsed under the weight of its own business model... "COMPETE ON PRICE, COMPETE ON PRICE, COMPETE ON PRICE". Because every PC manufacturer has access to the same technologies that his competitor does, these companies can ONLY compete on price.
Don't get me wrong, i want an inexpensive computer like anybody else, but it is important that we support the companies that create this technologies less they fall under their own weight. With companies like HP and Compaq having to merge and Gateway on the verge of bankruptcy, We're likely to only have one name brand PC vendor to build our hardware. if thats the case, you should have bought a Mac anyways.
Apple doesn't compete in the ultra low-end range because it would mean that they would be forced to get margins in the "less than 1% range" Hence the reason why apple makes you buy a screen as well if you want to buy a low end Mac.
The reason why Apple can not only survive but also thrive in this world is because it differentiates itself from the competition. If they compete on price and accept margins that are less than 1% we'll simply end up with a boring PC because they will no longer have the budget to differentiate themselves as they have been.
"Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can't get right now anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know don't want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. "
Get a G4
>I didn't read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Too bad for you. Because you took the wrong impression of the article. You should read it all before commenting.
I know that I would buy a (very?)low end Mac in a hearbeat if the price was <=$1000. The absolute only thing that is preventing me from getting an Apple to COMPLETELY replace the PC that I custom built are the high prices of Apple computers. I know that I may sound like an extremist, and I probably am, but I know that many people would also love an Apple, think that it is the 'savior of the common beige box', and know that it will save them time and frustration, but will not buy one because they are too expensive. If Apple could just lower their prices.......
I don't think you need much expandability with a Mac, because you an hook up whatever you want on its Firewire and USB ports. From floppy drives, to hard drives, to superdrives, to DV cameras, to usb speakers, even TV cards and these days... sound cards!
And it's getting very very messy, wanna see my desk?
I believe that a cheap but feature-rich eMac is all is needed. Mac is about integration, so that would fair better against an ugly PC box.
Still, I think a cheaper headless box is needed. If they can build $799 eMacs, why do I have to pay extra ($1299) when I want a Mac without a monitor?
Apple positions itself as the Lexus or BMW of the personal computing world. That's their niche for better or worse. When they try to compete with Dell and the others on price, like that fiasco with Power Computing, it only puts pressure on its own high end margins. Besides, Jobs' business model is based on tightly controlling the combined hardware+OS+application software user experience.
The falling prices of personal computers may actually help Apple because they'll be easily affordable to more consumers. Back when an entry-level machine cost $2000, people could barely afford to pay that, let alone the premium for a Mac. Now that the PC is dirt cheap, people might stretch to buy a Mac.
But seriously, the claim is: that Apple cannot sustain a developer community therefore marketshare/user base DOES matter.
Can anyone point to a decline in the community since the release of OS X?
It seems like the dev community continues to grow. That Apple has locked up the Pro Audio market. Has miraculously gotten quite a bit of steam in the animation/rendering market. Has the lead in the video segment. Has the attention and respect of the scientific community. Is a joy for the OS community (they get to have the best of both worlds). They are wooing the CAD market. And despite all the odds have enterprise companies like Sybase, HP, Oracle, and others porting enterprise-class software to the environment. The biggest whole in their dev community is games, and I think that's too difficult to attempt to change.
So... unless you can show that the dev community is diminishing (and I think all the evidence points to it growing), why jump the gun?
After all, if you appeal to the low end, the users who make their decision either solely or primarily on price, they are just inviting problems. These people (the low-ballers) are going to encounter problems and differences from what they are used to. They are going to cry that Apple lied to them.
I think Apple should only attract the people to the Mac that can see the Mac as the right tool for them.
Not the cheapest.
If you think the benchmarking incidence was a nightmare, what happens when you have 2 or 3 million people buying Macs because these are the people that like cheap games and cheesy software and are happy with a $200 box?
Consider.
"I know that I would buy a (very?)low end Mac in a hearbeat if the price was <=$1000."
here you go: Starting at $799: http://www.apple.com/emac/
Let me correct something: I would definitely buy an apple if a respectable Apple was around(like with at least a cd burner and good video card) for <=$1000.
"Apple positions itself as the Lexus or BMW of the personal computing world. That's their niche for better or worse."
Except for the fact that Apple makes some nice hyndai-priced Mac as well
Get a G4
$1299 for a 1.25GHz computer...so much for competetive pricing. I'll have the 2400 Athlon for $800, thank you.
Let me correct something: I would definitely buy an apple if a respectable Apple was around(like with at least a cd burner and good video card) for <=$1000.
Again: here you go: Starting at $999 with a CD burner: http://www.apple.com/emac/
"$1299 for a 1.25GHz computer...so much for competetive pricing. I'll have the 2400 Athlon for $800, thank you."
I see you learned nothing from the MHz myth
I'de like to see Apple produce a product that made it really easy to write OSX/Linux Apps. They could base it around free software like they did with Safari. I think that would help them keep developers because the combined market share of Linux/OSX is large enough to attract developers.
Since OSX can run a lot of Linux apps, Linux ppl (and developers) with a little more money could opt to get OSX...
Just my .02...
>I didn't read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Too bad for you. Because you took the wrong impression of the article. You should read it all before commenting.
I read the article now, and it is pretty much built on the very fact I countered in my comment. Namely:
1) You can get more users to your platform by competing on price.
2) If you don't have allot of users, there will be no developers.
I see you learned nothing from the MHz myth
You obviously "learned" a lot from Apple's marketing: A 2GHz Athlon is at least equal in performance to a 1.25GHz G4, but is $500 cheaper. Especially if the G4 ships with only 128MB RAM.
I like your idea, but I would add more memory. Memory costs almost nothing. You can get 256mbs of DDR for 20 dollars at best buy when it's on sale. I'm sure apple pays atlease that little, if not less, for their memory.
"I'de like to see Apple produce a product that made it really easy to write OSX/Linux Apps."
For me, I'd like a Mac that really made itself dependant on Microsoft Windows.
Also, like you, I want a Mac that makes it easy to program for OTHER platforms. That would be great. Ya, Apple should built that. THAT would be a great business model.
After thinking about it for a while, I realized..."wait a second, why dont they make a great platform thats good at everything, something that is good at software development period.
Then I realized, "WAIT, they're doing that right now"
" You obviously "learned" a lot from Apple's marketing: A 2GHz Athlon is at least equal in performance to a 1.25GHz G4, but is $500 cheaper. Especially if the G4 ships with only 128MB RAM."
And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
>I like your idea, but I would add more memory.
Currently, eMac low-end model comes with 128 MB. 256 MB is ok for starters, especially because the Apple resellers are not allowed to pull the price down, but instead give freebies like memory or printers. Trust me, Apple wouldn't go with more than 256 MB if they would go for this plan, they can't really.
buy your amd box, the 1.25 G4 will blow it away in most ways, and OS X alone is worth the price difference!
i guess you are the "clueless user" other posters were saying apple should stay away from.......
Apple offers a lot of value beyond the cheap boxes but they have to narrow the "pricing gap." They have to be closer to the range of bargain prices.
i guess you are the "clueless user" other posters were saying apple should stay away from.......
Yes, must be the reason why I'm typing this on my iBook.
And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
Like what? In contrast to the entry-level Macs, the PowerMac G4 doesn't even come with AppleWorks.
"Apple offers a lot of value beyond the cheap boxes but they have to narrow the "pricing gap." They have to be closer to the range of bargain prices."
Asside from the ultra low-end machines, Apple has computers that are comperable in price to PCs in every area... (again except for the ultra low end), but contrary to popular opinion, consumers don;t buy these machines. yes, they get lured in by them, but once they realize that you can't do much with them, they typically upgrade accordingly... to the specs that they would have got had they purchased a Mac anyways.
Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform.
There are only 7 million OS X users, making Apple's OS X market share less than 1%.
While a cheaper eMac would be a move in the right direction, an iBox would be strategically smarter.
First, the iBox would be at a lower price point.
Second, being small and with a ADC/DVI output, people could buy a DVI switcher and use an existing Apple or other DVI monitor. If the iBox includes an analog output, then it could be used by many monitors would include dual inputs.
Third, the iBox could be stackable, allowing for a vertical stack of little computers that could be video-switched to some good monitors. The little stack would give Apple developers enough machines to build great apps on -- not just client apps but also server apps and client/server/internet apps.
I agree the machine needs a 1Ghz G4 processor. This speed is the Panther performance baseline so it needs to be in the iBox.
When I walked out of the WWDC keynote I was very impressed by the G5. But I saw Apple's strategic failure in not making a cheap entry level G4 machine that doesn't have a monitor.
If Apple could sell iBox bricks for $500, they would sell out immediately. And that would be far more stunning to the world than a workstation.
">>>And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
"Like what? In contrast to the entry-level Macs, the PowerMac G4 doesn't even come with AppleWorks.
iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto just to name a few.
I really like what Derrick Story from O'reilly macdevcenter wrote in his editorial about this:
Regardless of how Apple corporate wants to portray its products, the Mac isn't a machine for the masses any more than red wine is the preferred beverage at baseball games. To be honest, the masses don't have the capability to appreciate the elegance and depth of this platform.
In reality, the Mac is a computer for developers, geeks, power users, risk takers, visionaries, lunatics, scientists, musicians, photographers, educators, and entrepreneurs. When you consider that half of the PC world is still running Windows 95 and 98, you understand why Mac OS X is often overlooked. Many of these people think that an operating system is some type of medical procedure.
So who cares about ubiquity anyway? Once you have 10 to 15 percent of the market, you have enough momentum to keep the best developers employed and paying taxes. This audience in San Francisco gets that. And more importantly, so does Apple.
the "Editorial at MacDevCenter" is a good read, but do they have 10-15%?
there is the trouble.
yes, i know about the market share/install base stuff. but does apple have more than 6-8%? i wonder........
"Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform."
Its a good thing that they do and that developers are moving to the Macintosh faster than ever before
"There are only 7 million OS X users, making Apple's OS X market share less than 1%.
And growing rapidly.
"While a cheaper eMac would be a move in the right direction, an iBox would be strategically smarter."
You mean something that gets Apple less than 1% margins? if you want that, you can kiss all the R7D that Apple invests into their products goodbye, and you would end up with... well, just another PC.
"When I walked out of the WWDC keynote I was very impressed by the G5. But I saw Apple's strategic failure in not making a cheap entry level G4 machine that doesn't have a monitor.
Its the inclusion of a monitor that allows them to get slightly more than 1% margins. Its a necessary evil.
"If Apple could sell iBox bricks for $500, they would sell out immediately. And that would be far more stunning to the world than a workstation."
I guarantee you they would sell like crazy, but considering the fact that Apple would be selling the machines at a loss, I'm not so sure its such a great idea. (Selling at a loss is done because Apple still invests more R&D into the boxes than the average PC manufacturer... who is content with less than 1% margins)
" yes, i know about the market share/install base stuff. but does apple have more than 6-8%? i wonder.......
I've read a few places that Apple's install base is somewhere in the 10-12% range.
I agree with Eugenia's article. And this is particularly true because of one thing - Steve Jobs has always had a blind spot when it comes to this issue. The Lisa cost over $7000 and bombed, the original Macs cost a fortune, NeXT cost a fortune...this is an area he does not see. I think he looks at Sony and sees they aren't offering cheap PC's and figures that's the best way to go.
I think the Switch campaign pretty much failed because there was no really low priced entry level Mac. I really believe Apple will again miss the boat unless they do this.
Some people think it should be headless (ala bring back the Cube), but I think the eMac does make a good choice for this area. I keep saying they will lose money on it and have to bite the bullet so this "market" will grow around them. People will not switch or become new Mac users for the old reasons. Those are all gone now. It has to be something else now to compel people who are not Mac users to try a Mac.
Steve Jobs is CEO...
He liked the slab enough to sell them while at NeXT...
Everyone seems to agree a low-priced slab would be a big seller for Apple...
3rd parties are even trying to make them (e.g. iBox)
Yet Apple hasn't made one yet...
*sigh*
I have a hard time agreeing with Eugenia.
1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer - people will pass by your desk and have a bad 1st impression if it's not. Price competition can come later!
2) Apple can't cannibalize its high end. It doesn't need to yet. Maybe one day it will.
3) Apple has enough differentiation with the music store, ipod, etc. This justifies high price.
4) lowering price is a signal - this signal must stand for something.
Of course, I would need a lot of financial data on Apple for a truly informed opinion. But this is what I currently think. Thanks to Eugenia for starting an interesting debate.
"I agree with Eugenia's article. And this is particularly true because of one thing - Steve Jobs has always had a blind spot when it comes to this issue. The Lisa cost over $7000 and bombed, the original Macs cost a fortune, NeXT cost a fortune...this is an area he does not see. I think he looks at Sony and sees they aren't offering cheap PC's and figures that's the best way to go."
Considering the fact that all of Apple's hardware is comparitively priced to PCs of similar hardware and software specs... this is not an issue anymore.
" I think the Switch campaign pretty much failed because there was no really low priced entry level Mac. I really believe Apple will again miss the boat unless they do this. "
Not at all. As long as Apple can diferente their hardware... as they have been doing, thir market share WILL increase... ESPECIALLY in a market where most PC manufacturers are cutting R&D and this all posability to diferentate their hardware. Consumers do need some time to be re-educated.... Slowly but surely they are, and people are makeing the transition.
"People will not switch or become new Mac users for the old reasons. Those are all gone now. It has to be something else now to compel people who are not Mac users to try a Mac."
Like the ilife software apps, OS X, and REALLY fast computers
Subject says it all. Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic...whatever. Will it work?
I have no experience with Macs though I'm very intrigued by them. I'd love to take one of the dual G5s for a test drive (when released)...though I'd have to make some big $ to be able to get on that ship for the long haul. Being a student working weekends kind of sucks for someone who wants to dabble in Apple products.
>1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer -
An eMac at 1 GHz is enough to run OSX. I have a Cube at 450 Mhz G4 and a 867 Mhz Powerbook.
>2) Apple can't cannibalize its high end. It doesn't need to yet. Maybe one day it will.
I suggested that all prices of all products should go down, but the eMac one should be really low. The rest don't have to go down as much price-wise.
>3) Apple has enough differentiation with the music store, ipod, etc. This justifies high price.
I don't think so. There are already two online stores like Real's for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99.
>4) lowering price is a signal - this signal must stand for something.
yeah, competition! 
Eugenia
" Steve Jobs is CEO...
He liked the slab enough to sell them while at NeXT..."
And knows better than to try it again as both attempts were not well received.
"Everyone seems to agree a low-priced slab would be a big seller for Apple..."
Ofcourse they want the slap, because they want the Mac with all its R&D but at the same margins that PC manufacturers sell computers. (IE without the R&D) Essentially what it boils down to is that these individuals want Apple to sell their computers at a loss.
iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto just to name a few.
iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac.
For the other ones, there are free or cheap equivalents on Windows.
"Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic...whatever. Will it work?"
Yep.
I don't think so. There are already two online stores like Real's for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99.
Actually, it's .79$ a burn plus a monthly fee if you want to keep listening to the original digital version on your computer.
"iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac.
True. However, when you buy a superdrive it does.
"For the other ones, there are free or cheap equivalents on Windows."
And there were free and cheap solutions 6 years ago, yet few (if any) are able to take advantage of much of todays technologies.
Apple's iLife software is best of breed consumer software. This type of software development would cost a pretty penny if bought seperately and made by a third party developer..
If Apple can't convince people to actually pay for their OS they should get out of the business. Mac OS X shouldn't command a $1000 premium but something in the $80 range is not unreasonable when packaged with a computer.
That said, I do expect Apple to at least consider this. There was a rumor of a market analysis of such a machine at Apple and the (rumored) analysis pointed to it being a good decision for Apple to come out with such a machine.
But, again, it won't be the eMac. It won't have a monitor. People buying cheap-ass computers are looking to save as much money as possible. Forcing them to buy a monitor is defeating the point.
Apple doesn't need to enter the $199 space. But they need something in the $499 space to fight the perception that Macs are expensive.
Ok, the topend G5's are finally full blown Unix workstations.
Apple's got nice Industrial Design G4s.
What it _might_ need is a lowend / loss-leader headless box....
Here's an idea - open up the G3 motherboards for cloners!Somebody might be able to figure out a volume/profit way of selling MacOSX boxes built around the G3... and leave Apple the high margin / low volume work station market.
Just a thought.
"If Apple can't convince people to actually pay for their OS they should get out of the business."
Agreed, but you must also understand that Apple is the largest reseller of boxed operating systems... even ahead of Microsoft.
Microsoft manages to make so many Windows sales by bundling them with the hardware that PC manufacturers sell... not by selling box copies.
Thankfully, Apple is VERY good at convincing consumers to buy their OS.
"Mac OS X shouldn't command a $1000 premium but something in the $80 range is not unreasonable when packaged with a computer."
But Apple does NOT command a $1000 premium for their computers. If you're going to compare prices, you must compare them EXACTLY spec for spec... including software hardware warenty etc. When you do this, Apple's prices are typically only sligtly over (well within the $80 range you mention) sometimes at the same price and yet even less than the PC competion.
"That said, I do expect Apple to at least consider this. There was a rumor of a market analysis of such a machine at Apple and the (rumored) analysis pointed to it being a good decision for Apple to come out with such a machine."
Whichever market analysis you're refering to is based on the assumption that Apple can continue to incorporate huge amounts of R&D while selling their hardware with margins that equal less than 1%. PC manufacturerrs can do it because they have no means of diferentiating themselves other that price.
"But, again, it won't be the eMac. It won't have a monitor. People buying cheap-ass computers are looking to save as much money as possible. Forcing them to buy a monitor is defeating the point."
If people want a "cheap ass computer" let them continue buying a PC.
"Apple doesn't need to enter the $199 space. But they need something in the $499 space to fight the perception that Macs are expensive."
A more appropriate mark would be to compete in the $800 range. (Wait a second, Apple already does!)
>A more appropriate mark would be to compete in the $800 range. (Wait a second, Apple already does!)
I am sorry, but that is not "appriopriate". It is not 1995 anymore.
"What [Apple] _might_ need is a lowend / loss-leader headless box...."
Thats rediculios. Apple can gain market share without having to loos money.
"Here's an idea - open up the G3 motherboards for cloners!Somebody might be able to figure out a volume/profit way of selling MacOSX boxes built around the G3... and leave Apple the high margin / low volume work station market."
To do that would mean that these companies wouldn;t have to pay for OS R&D. It was THIS reason why Mac cloning was cancled.
if you want an inexpensive Mac... buy one from Apple. I don;t know what the problem is.
"I am sorry, but that is not "appriopriate". It is not 1995 anymore.
it is when you consider the fact that you're also getting a monitor.
I found this part:
David then dropped a disk into the CD drive and after following a few on-screen instructions - some of which aren't exactly intuitive. <-- This reads to me like someone who hates using his brain or something. You are not allowed to make me think cause it hurts...
Anonymous, I agree with your last point - OS X and iLife are great. But, people have to know about them.
it is when you consider the fact that you're also getting a monitor.
Err, that's the problem percisely. I'd encourage a headless box. Listen: People don't give a shit about "Oooh, a monitor too!" They don't pay much attention to that on average. On average they see "$799" and say "Too expensive". They then see the headless box at $500 and say "ooooh."
And in their current state Macs are too fucking expensive. I'm sorry, I own an iBook, and it's true. I just bought a PC, P4 2.4ghz, Monitor, et all for $699. $699. Let's see: It includes everything that the eMac does, is $100 less, and is 1.6ghz faster.
Apple needs to drop their prices, and need to do it fast. I'll keep buying Macs, but they don't need me. They need the masses, and the masses will not pay what Apple is asking of them.
I'm sorry, but to continue the mantra: The price:perfomance ratio is way off. While it may only be on paper, guess what people look at when buying a computer?
The one thing I think you're missing is that the sub $500 market are not good customers. These users generally have cheap machines loaded with pirated software. I know several people like this who have NEVER bought any software(other than a game or 2).
I really think Linux has the lowend covered. Any good apps that are developed for it will get ported to the Mac.
Focusing on the hardware is silly.
Software drives the hardware. Apple needs a killer app. It needs one now. They already have so many good ones with iMovie, iPhoto and what not, they juat need better advertising.
Apple needs a Mac only application that can't be easily duplicated on a PC and they need it yesterday. OSX won't cut it. They need something along the lines of a Spreadsheet, yes we all take them for granted but when the first spreadsheets came out they were nothing short of amazing.
>Focusing on the hardware is silly.
I don't think so. People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more. And generally, hardware costs more than software in a PC/home solution (the opposite is true in the enterprise/workstation market).
Also, Apple is a hardware company, remember. ;-)
People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more.
Err, what?
>1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer -
An eMac at 1 GHz is enough to run OSX. I have a Cube at 450 Mhz G4 and a 867 Mhz Powerbook.
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Good editorial. It doesn't take a lot of excuse for me to look into a new box, but I can't get over Apple prices. I've had my I out for old G3 imacs. I don't mind being a little behind the curve, but with G5's coming out, that's too far. But the G4 at 799 is a lot.
Agreed on the headless comments too. I have monitors out the wazoo, I don't need to pay 799 to have one included...
-b
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Right on! My iBook 600mhz is damn snappy, and it beats the piss out of my p4 1.5ghz. Whatever Apple does to their OS, they do it right. =p
Oh, and to back that up..
I'd like to point to the Maya PLE icon in my dock. It works very well 
Same for Quake 3 (yea, so it's old, so what?) running a bunch of mods. Urban Terror, True Combat, Bid For Power...all of em run unbelievably well.
I run Red Hat 9 in VPC6 too, and while it's slow as far as app boot-ups, the actual responsiveness is damn good. Same for X11 running OOo.
YES, the OS does run damn well on slow machines (My G3 600mhz...). The only issue is that on paper...
There's a couple issues I would like to address in the claims you made:
1) "What really matters is to have as many users as possible"
I don't agree, as a consumer. I agree that it would be more profitable from a business point of view, however I think one of Apple's *strengths* is a smaller marketshare. The combination of being vertically integrated and a smaller marketshare allow it to be more controversial, and therefore more innovative. As a consumer I benefit from this in a very direct way. Compare that to Microsoft who is stuck supporting so many users that migrating to a new technology is a decade long struggle (Microsoft still requires floppy disks despite industry pressure, has struggled to change architectures and file systems, and it makes it difficult to change chip architecture).
Apple is the only company in the industry to successfully survive (and even prosper) after changing chip architecture (68k to PPC), killed the floppy in 1997, has the first *desktop* computer to support both 64-bit and 32-bit seamlessly, introduced USB to the industry with the first iMac (and spurred a much more rapid adoption of the technology), etc.
If it had an 80% marketshare I don't think it could have done this... or at least would have been as motivated to take the chances.
2) Your pricing scheme.
While using Pricewatch.com works for individuals, it isn't really an accurate way to measure the cost of components in bulk. Yes, Apple has enough buying power to get price breaks, although one thing that Apple prides itself on and is not willing to do is buy substandard or lower quality parts. For example, there is a set minimum standard for RAM that can be used with MacOS X. This means that you pay a bit of a premium for RAM, but also get better quality RAM (RAM is actually one of the leading causes of system crashes in computers). The samething goes for the monitor. Have you ever seen the *quality* of a screen Apple sells? It's so much crisper and brighter compared to screens sold by Dell or HP, and is also viewable from high angles without picture degradation (Apple only sells LCDs remember). $120 for a 17" monitor is not compatible with Apple standards (even for the eMac line with their CRT monitors).
Now, a lot of technology from Apple's higher end machines works its way down into the eMac. So the eMac is a more expensive machine that's trying to be made cheap. If Apple wanted a low end machine, they would have to develop cheaper motherboards, use a cheaper processor, etc. And they've still got to remember that MacOS X has certain minimums for a graphics card and RAM to be a useable OS.
I could actually see Apple migrating the G5 to the eMac, at speeds of 1GHz or 1.2GHz. It's actually cheaper than the G4, and dissipates less heat at those speeds (less than 19W). It also helps running OS X and whatever games may be run on it, since it is faster, still supports AltiVec, and would support the new 64-bit OS. The RAM would stay at 256MB, and I'm not sure how much of a hit Apple would take here... what's compatible with the G5. They would also want to fabricate a new System Controller, based on the G5 System Controller... but essentially make it as cheap as possible. Stick with the 40GB ATA HD. Standard CD-ROM drive. Cheap motherboard... maybe 1 FireWire port, 2 USB. Possibly not even include a monitor.
If it was expected to sell in massive bulk, Apple might be able to bring it down to the $499 range without a monitor... $699 with the monitor. I can't see Apple dipping lower than that though.
Whichever market analysis you're refering to is based on the assumption that Apple can continue to incorporate huge amounts of R&D while selling their hardware with margins that equal less than 1%. PC manufacturerrs can do it because they have no means of diferentiating themselves other that price.
Actually, the rumored market analysis included an estimate as to how many of Apple's other system sales would be canibalized by the introduction of the new product (any good market analysis does this). The guess was that it would by rather low.
So, you see, Apple would continue to sell high margin machines. They would just be including new lower margin machines in their lineup. It's not like photoshop users are going to see a $499 machine and dump their dual G5's to go buy one.
it is when you consider the fact that you're also getting a monitor.
The usable life of a monitor is typically longer than that of a computer. The point I was making was that if Apple wanted to be inexpensive they could sell a headless device. This would be at a very low price point like $499. Then, the Apple resellers can combine it with a monitor that Apple doesn't sell (like a low end CRT) and everyone's happy....
Eugenia,
I think your article is too focused on what you "feel" and not on what Apple's business model is. As in any business, making money is the primary objective. Your logic train is: lower price -> sell more machines -> attract more developers -> have more software available -> therefore sell more machines. I don't think this logic holds up. I can't think of a single time I couldn't find software for the Mac that I needed. Sure, my choices were sometimes limited but in general the choice available was as good as the better Windows' offerings. So attracting developers won't necessarily improve the attractiveness of buying a Mac (of course I don't have any data to support either case). So lowering prices only reduces margin. To break even, they have to sell a lot more to make an equivalent profit. How low would they have to go to increase the attractiveness enough to break even? Only Apple knows.
Now for developers. they will go where they can make money. Apple has enough of a user base for that to happen. would more market share increase a developer's chance of making money? Possibly. But bigger market share will also increase competition and could reduce a developer's chance of making money. All you really need is a large enough customer base to make a decent profit year over year.
I would like to see a more serious business case made for your hypothesis (with assumed numbers if you like). It would be interesting to see, even with assumed numbers, how low Apple would need to go and how many users they would need to add to break even.
twocents
Osnews should do a survey of the cheap lindows/linux platforms
I would bet that at least 50% of the machines have been reformated and are now running Windows 98. I do agree with
your article and would buy a cheap emac for my children. Most of the kids games are hybrid mac/Pc programs and I end up installing Windows 98 every three months. And yes, I have tried XP, quite a few of the games will not run and are not supported under XP. Legos software anyone?
>making money is the objective not market share
I totally agree. But when you put the company's future at risk and don't think about the tomorrow, then bankrupsy strikes. The whole point of selling so low, is so you can create a bigger market that will later purchase more gimmicks from you and drive others to do the same too.
If Apple finds that there is no money to be making in the PC/OS business, then they might want to change focus altogether, I would find this acceptable for a company that tries to stay profitable, no matter what they are selling each time.
"I think that would help them keep developers..."
Keep? Again, show me they are losing developers.
"Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform."
Again, show a lack of developers.
"I don't think so. There are already two online stores like Real's for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99."
No, Eugenia, the Real service requires a subscription, and you can only download by paying an additional $.79 per track.
"iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac." Every SuperDrive-equipped Mac comes with iDVD. Add $200 for the drive, get the software. If you buy a machine without a DVD burner, what's the point of the software?
"Subject says it all. Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic...whatever. Will it work?" Of course. If it's a DDR SDRAM computer. PC users are so restricted in their worldviews. They jump all over Apple for using marketing text but publishing the tech details of everything, but they don't realize that they are living in narrwo, smallminded lies about the Mac fed to them by their own community. I buy all my hardware without even looking for Mac compatibility. It usually works.
"and is 1.6ghz faster" THere's a complete lack of understanding. Can you imagine if Apple had an option for ignorant lowballers with this level of ignorance trying to figure things out? Not pretty.
"I don't think so. People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more. And generally, hardware costs more than software in a PC/home solution (the opposite is true in the enterprise/workstation market)." I thought it was about developers, not attracting cheap consumers?
If the argument is that Apple's future is threatened you have to show that developers are leaving. They are currently attracting MORE developers. Why? Not because of price.
Pleas, please, please--Anyway, please, step up and make the claim that Apple is not currently attracting more developers now than they have in an extremely long time.
"But when you put the company's future at risk and don't think about the tomorrow, then bankrupsy strikes."
Really? It's your thesis and now you are throwing around words like "Bankruptcy." Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Do you agree that more developers are coming to the community now?
Would you agree this is the crux of your thesis?
Do you think this level of interest is due to price?
Or do to technology and newly competitive hardware (no matter what the price is)?
Simple questions.
>Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Not today. But in 3-4 years, if they continue the same policies, someone will buy them...
How about a $289 ATX mainboard with a fast G4, an Apple BIOS and a licensed OS X CD? and a $489 model with a G5?
Honestly Eugenia, I think Apple can make a lot more money on this market than with your idea of a $499 eMac. The present eMac already stretches Apple´s cost structure, and also last time I checked it was competitively priced compared with similar offerings from Dell.
I think your idea that Apple should compete in an even lower price bracket is good, but why not go all the way and create something really different?
BTW if I want a cheap iMac I can get one on eBay for a couple of hundred bucks.
I think Eugenia has a good idea for two reasons
1) cheap will drive market share and make the developers happy.
2) It would give apple an entry product, an easy way for PC users to migrate to apple and then to upgrade to more expensive machins
Some comparisons
Palm introduced a $100 zire to attract first time users, to gain share, and to get customers who'll one day upgrade to pricier palm. Looks like it is working
Japanese car makers started out selling inexpensive cars in the US. What did that do? gave them share and a legion of followers who are now paying $25K-$30K for an accord or camry that is twice the size of the old.
Apple has to be careful though. they don't have all the worlds gold like MS. They just offered a G4 powermac for $1299 and that is a first step. They keep bringing out more attractive price points and i think they'll continue but they'll probably implement it in their own way.
But did I really need to be modded down for saying I would buy a Macintosh if it ran BeOS?
http://www.bedoper.com
I think that simply saying that the cheapest PCs are less than $500 and Apple must meet that price is too simplistic. If price was the only consideration then eMachines, not Dell, would be the world’s largest computer maker. Yes Apple’s prices are high compared to x86 (Intel and AMD) devices and should come down some. However the lowest price is not the answer either. Any solution that is successful should include creative product design and integration. Apple must win over customers because the feel they are getting superior product at a reasonable price. Otherwise Apple loses out as soon as someone figures out how to build a lower cost unit. A good example of this is the iPod. It holds significant market share in the music player market. It isn’t the cheapest product in that market, but people are willing to pay more for it because they feel they are getting more.
Apple has just finish refreshing the high end. Now they can start looking at the lower end. I think you will see lower cost systems being introduced by the end of the year. However I hope this includes new categories of machines that offer innovation like the iPod has.
Cheap Linux PCs are GARBAGE! People ballyhoo having all of these "choices" on the PC platform, slam Apple for having under-performing hardware, and THEN yap about how awesome a $199 computer with Linux is. INCREDIBLE! I wouldn't use one of those "PCs" to crap on. I have a ton of respect for the Linux community and their effort but Linux is neither fish nor foul, neither UNIX nor Windows, and is a pretty good imitation of one and a poor imitation of the other. The ONLY reason Linux has any traction is because IBM and Intel needed it as a hedge against Microsoft; the majority of new enterprise-wide Linux deployments are still as bundles with hardware. Very few companies are running to it as strictly a software solution and almost NOBODY wants it on the desktop. Having used Linux, Mac OS, and Windows, Linux is a distant fourth on my list (I'd rather use an old copy of BeOS than Linux)
That being said, I like the idea of a $499 eMac; that's a great price point if you can offer a PC that won't be a paperweight in a matter of months. The Mac OS is PERFECT for casual users, just the type of neophytes that pay $199 for the dreck that is a cheap Linux PC. Apple's software would more than compensate for the computing experience. i hope they will move in that direction.
Japanese car makers started out selling inexpensive cars in the US. What did that do? gave them share and a legion of followers who are now paying $25K-$30K for an accord or camry that is twice the size of the old.
Don't mistatke "the way things worked out" for "a plan".
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Right on! My iBook 600mhz is damn snappy, and it beats the piss out of my p4 1.5ghz. Whatever Apple does to their OS, they do it right. =p
You people have a weird idea of "slow" and "snappy". I've used OS X on a whole swathe of Macs all the way from a G3/233 to a dual 1.25Ghz G4 and not one of them has ever been even remotely close to "snappy". Either the PCs you and your friends are using are severely crippled, or you've got the fastest iBooks in the world.
OS X is _slow_. It's chunky and unresponsive to use, even under trivial load. Gobs of RAM help a lot to take from "glacial" to merely "slow" (as does QE), but even a dual 1.25Ghz G4 with a GB of RAM wasn't as responsive as my dual P3/733 running XP - let alone a box running something really fast, like BeOS. Heck, the main reason I sold my old PB667 was because it was simply too unresponsive to be used frustration-free all day, every day - everything else about it was great.
This is the best editorial I've read about Apple in a long time.
The high end of the market -- developers, scientists, video people, publishers, etc. -- are not going to stop buying the high end hardware.
But more users of the OS will increase the "network effect" on the software supply side.
And OS X is just so cool. In my view, it is the best OS thus far for the broadest range of computer tasks:
* desktop;
* server;
* unix;
* modern GUI (Cocoa Frameworks);
* X11;
* traditional computing tasks of every kind;
* digital hub;
* graphics and video;
* etc.
No other platform comes close. Apple is the best computer for so many things that people want to do with computers.
I only hope the Apple will get a clue on this and do it. Or at least come closer.
My mom and I both have eMacs with the same graphic cards (hers is 600 mhz and mine is 700) and we both have Jaguar - 10.2.0. The only real difference is that I have 3 times the memory she has. Her computer runs fine for simple tasks with 384 mb ram. Mine runs blazing fast at 1 gb ram. Think free office (all java) loads in a couple seconds. It takes 20 seconds to load x windows or classic. Photoshop filters happen in seconds. Safari takes a second to load. Even Mozilla only takes a few seconds to load. The ram is the key for performance with UNIX - they all work on realtively slow processors compared to PCs but they require much more ram. I increased ram on my toshiba from 128 to 384 with windows me and there is no difference in performance or free memory.
One point I haven't seen yet is the fact that many tech-type people are interested in a Mac, would love to be able to try out Mac OS X for an extended period of time, but don't want to spend $800 for a brand new computer. I think this is why we see so many commentaries along the lines of "Apple should release Mac OS X for Intel computers".
If Apple released a mini, headless Mac for less than $300 say, I suspect that they would sell like hotcakes. They wouldn't even have to be as powerful as the current eMacs - I find my 700MHz G3 iBook fast enough for common tasks. Apple could sell it without a keyboard and mouse, and limit upgrading to memory. I bet a lot of tech-types would consider buying one.
Heck, I'd buy one of those for my mom.
What i dont understand is, why havent we seen mac clones?
Is it un the OSX ELUA that you can only run it on apple ]-only hardware?
and if so you could still simply buy a mac clone and buy a boxed set of osx.
i do see companies selling mac compatible parts, even one guy managed to build a box that was capable of running osx, it used a ppc chip and mobo, all of the rest of the hardware is pc stuff
>If Apple released a mini, headless Mac for less than $300 say, I suspect that they would sell like hotcakes.
I think this is a great idea to get more userbase. When Apple is move ALL its products to G4/G5s, including the iBooks, then, they could offer the new Motorola 1 GHz G3 in a small mini-case (doesn't have to be beautiful, but it could have the 'Apple touch') without a monitor, like this:
G3 1 GHz (for 900 Mhz, subtract $40)
128 MB RAM (up to 768 MB)
ATI radeon 7500 32 MB
CD-rom
20 MB disk
on board sound, nic, modem
2 usb
keyoboard, mouse, speaker
3 free pci slots
$259 or $299 (depending on the CPU selected)
and then, users could be able to customize it via the apple store for more disk, combo drive or memory. Or, Apple could limit the machine to only allow more memory but not upgrade to other items via the apple stores but only via manual user upgrade (cheaper this way for apple)
I believe that such a plan could work well, but it is not the most powerful way to get into new users who want "this something else" to really switch.
If Apple released a $499-$699 Mac without a monitor I'd buy one in a second. Tower case Mac's aren't overpriced considering what you get, but I just don't need a computer that expensive. I spent less than $1000 on my last PC and I regret spending so much money on it, a slower system would meet my needs just as well.
But one thing I can't live with is a tiny 17" monitor, I'd feel claustrophobic using it for light web browsing. I would also want an upgradeable graphics card and preferably a free PCI slot. Basically what I want is a machine half way between the eMac/iMac and a tower case Mac.
But I expect if there was a big enough market for such a system Apple would have already created one. Maybe I'll start looking around for a second hand G4 after the G5s have been available for a while.
BMW needs to make a shitty car as a loss leader too, everyone will hate it because of it's poor quality and it will undermine peoples confidence in the rest of their products. GG!
Hellooooooo, clue to stew. 95% of people DON'T upgrade their computer. The most a user MAY do is upgrade the memory, anything more intensive than that they simply put up with the slow speed and decide to upgrade later. That is the fact of the matter.
Why don't people chose Macs? because there is a perception that if you buy a Mac you will make yourself completely incompatible with the rest of the world. Apple needs to first of all stop being so bloody US centric. There is 5.99billion other people in the world and the VAST majority don't have PC's. Heck, even in Australia the PC penitration isn't as high as it is in the US. There is MARKET SHARE they can grab without even competing head on with the PC.
Secondly, they need to embark on a mass re-education programme via mainstream media that if you do buy a Mac you not only get a better "user eXPerience" but still able to communicate and share with PC users.
As for who they target, they should target those who are WILLING to pay for hardware and WILLING to pay for software. People look at Apples market and can't work out why Adobe still produces products. Here is a reason, Adobe KNOW that the vast majority of Mac users are professionals and WILLING to pay for software. Just compare that to PC users and the large, IMHO, majority who pirate software under the pre-tense of "oh, I'm only borrowing my friends copy of Office".
Market share is NOT the only measure. Marketshare + number willing to pay IS the deciding factor hence the reason why Linux will never get mainstream applications. This is because the vast majority don't want to pay for software. They simply expect a free ride just like their Windows counterparts. If you took all the business licenses out of the software market you would end up with a VERY unprofitable software market. The only reason why people DO write for Windows isn't because of its market share, it is the number who are willing and able to buy their software.
"Apple killed off the clones.. They will surely go under now"
... never happened...
"Apple is losing market share... They will go under or be bought out"
... never happened...
We have been hearing this and other tripe for years. Apple has MORE users today then they ever did. Their market share has dropped, but that doesnt mean they are losing users. It means the other guys are selling faster and most likely this is due to the growth of global business (who almost all use Windows because they feel they "need" to).
Apple has more users today than ever. It has more developers than ever. For 99% of us, we have all the applications that we need. Apple may not have 40 different DVD rippers, or 20 3d applications or whatever... But all we need is one good app...not 20+ crappy applications.
Games are a different matter, but if I wanted to play games, I would play on my PS2.
Apple shouldn't try to compete with the $199 Lindows PCs and other low cost personal computers. The PC market is fighting for scraps right now - which is why we have the $199, $299 computers.
Apple produces a quality product which includes hardware, software (OS and applications), and provides excellent support. No other pc manufacturer can say that.
Apples products cost more than the pressed steel case, high production, low quality crap from eMac, Gateway, etc. Apple customers recognize this and have always recognized this, just like BMW, Porsche customers recognize the quality of the products they buy.
It is amazing all the angst Apple/IBM have caused with the new G5 and OSX.3 in the Windows world. They must be doing something right.
I look forward to a G5 vs Opteron vs Athlon64 vs P4 vs Xeon vs Itanium application shoot-out (not benchmarking) once the G5 and the Athlon64 are released.
- John
on the Mac OS X UI responsiveness?
Too much apples today, might wanna read something else, than the
ussual apple stuff....flamewarz, Mac VS. PC, and so on. Well, lets post my comment here, a true troll:)
Appipcollak hajamac danzully mangully soluray delabagay in pizfulakama du paraday....
Don't ask what it means, don't know...its just how trolls sound to me...
About the other thing, Apple cutting prices, and so on: Well, Apple is the Rols Royce of desktops, so yes, they won't cut prices. They don't have any competition on theyr platform anyway, but they are targetting the right people. I won't buy a Mac also because of the price, and another factor is the expansive games and software. I run my games trough WineX3 (yes, I've subscribed), and.... I enjoy playing Diablo II under Linux. On the other hand games are expansive for the Mac...the same ones as for the PC.
Maybe I'll get one of those PPC boards when they come out with G4 CPUs, and try Linux on them. MacOSX is not so appealing for me...altough a while ago (a long while) I wished I had a Mac, but now I've realized that for me the platform doesn't matter so much so long as it works.
Just my cheap troll and my 2 cents...
You basically need something that supports Quartz Extreme. For a low end machine that still works fine, Ati Radeon 7500 and GeForce2MX 32 MB AGP, is the absolute minimum requirements (they work well though).
Faster cards with more GRAM will do a bit better, but not a whole lot.
However, again, you're forgetting that you didn't get a degree in marketing or manage a billion dollar technology company in any lifetime of your reincarnations.
Do you think all companies have to become like dell to compete? I think apple has a great business model, quality products at a premium. Why don't you toot them as the only alternative to windows if you're a graphic designer or flash webpage designer? How about pre-press? Can linux run Quark Express? How about Macromedia flash in non-emulated mode? I mean, don't get me wrong, I have a linux cluster in my house, it's great for serving, but I wouldn't want to create flash pages through wine on linux. I think the demand on apple is fairly high right now, they've got a lot of things to do still, so it's not imperative that they supply to so many at this point. Bigger is not always better (in the case of non-anatomical human body parts, ohohoho), bigger is the source of bubbles and huge layoffs that rock company cultures. What do you do if the economy continues to weaken for the next 10 years?
Why is it so apparent to the hordes of you that quantity wins over quality? Apple's going to continue to be expensive (relatively), yet their os x developer base is increasing, how many of your favorite open source applications don't have a mac os x beta version or talk of one?
The technology is good, the vision is better, the management is superb, I wouldn't say they're in bad shape at all, especially once the economy takes off.
If apple really wanted to explode in terms of market share, they'd have done what ibm did years ago, and it's plenty still possible--license their hardware so that anybody can create one (dell). But it's not about domination (just yet), it's about quality and innovation and branding strategy. Everyone here's got to admit, apple has a great brand image, expensive or not. Sooner or later you youngsters can afford a nice bmw or porsche (i'm talking about quality parts, not engine performance) and it will dawn on you why there's a business model shaped like that.
Just give apple/mac os x some time, they'll start to retake market share, linux will also take share from windows so it's all for the better. Steve Jobs is no idiot, despite the tons of you that think you can do a better job than him. I think BMW has a similar model, where at first they had their 3 models, now they've expanded into the mass market with mini's, x3's, and the 1 series due out soon.
The bottom line is that apple will take on the mass market when it's good and ready, bmw took a few decades did they not? And they built their future on the quality of their airplane engines in world war 2, now the brand is about as largely adopted as any other luxury car maker in the world.
Shit doesn't happen overnight.
I think this is a great idea to get more userbase. When Apple is move ALL its products to G4/G5s, including the iBooks, then, they could offer the new Motorola 1 GHz G3 in a small mini-case (doesn't have to be beautiful, but it could have the 'Apple touch') without a monitor, like this:
These machines would defeat the purpose, as they would be too slow to be useful. They would not sell well to the target audience - people with multiple machines who want a Mac as well and people upgrading from an existing machine - for this very reason.
If Apple release a pizza box machine, it needs to have specs at _least_ on par with iMacs and ideally a top end model about equal to the bottom end PowerMac. The lower price tags needs to be justified by lack of expandability, not slower performance (bottom end Macs can barely run OS X fast enough now - heck, top end G4 Macs can only just scrape by).
What they need is a pizza box with:
* (Ideally) Up to 1.6Ghz G5
* (More realistically) Up to 1.4Ghz G4
* AGP mounted video card (needs to be replaceable).
* Superdrive option
* Capacity for at least 1G of RAM
* Firewire, 10/100 ethernet, etc (usual goodies).
Basically, they need an iMac/eMac without a screen, and with an upgraeable video card. The idea is to sacrifice expandability at the lower cost, not performance. I'd be reasonably happy with a headless iMac. I would _not_ be happy with a slow G3 based machine.
I am so sick of the comparison of Macs to BMWs. People buy luxury cars for one reason (weather they believe it or not): an expensive car screams "I am wealthy and successful". In a sense the high cost of a BMW is an attractive feature - it keeps the common folk away and makes its statement about your status all the more powerful. Having a low end BMW devalues the whole line, you don't want people driving them to Walmart. Macs are great computers, but they are just that "computers" - tools. Having a low end computer doesn't hurt the high end. I really hope that other Mac owners don't sit around feeling cool because there are people that can't afford the computing experience they enjoy.
Someone posted a great idea about bringing back the G4 cube. There is no R & D cost and maybe they could mold it out of a white plastic so people wouldn't cry about the little "crack" lines...
Would really give MS a run for its money. You maybe be able to buy cheapish Mac in the states, but in other parts of the world, there a dear as all hell
> These machines would defeat the purpose, as they would be too slow to be useful
For that price, they would be fine. Heck, even iBooks and eMacs still sell at 700 and 800 Mhz today. And we even suggested 1 GHz G3.
I agree with Eugenia (which doesn't happen much) mostly because I think a low cost entry level machine fits in well with Apple's strategy and the realities of the market.
Apple has put a lot of effort and energy into the "SWITCH" ad campaign, and I think they've generated a lot of interest. Their cheapest computer, however, is about $800 which, while it's a decent value, is still a big chunk of money. That price means they have to convince new consumers (who, with penetration in the US being as high as it is are probably buying a second machine) that it's worth an $800 risk to change from what they are familiar with (most people recognize Windows from work/school)
A $400 entry level machine makes this transition much less risky, and would I think do a good job of encouraging people to "gamble" on switching platforms, or maybe getting a second computer just for Apple's great media apps.
Just a thought. People react well to positive momentum in the market place, and I think it would be a good way for Apple to drive it's Switch campaign.
Mac hardware is beautiful and extremely well designed. But it does not have to be inordinately expensive (like a BMW does) to be highly profitable. Remember, Eugenia said let's hit the $500 price point, not the $200 price point. And I would sell it with the minimum memory possible (a reseller can add RAM at a discount as a sales inducement).
Mac OS X is the key. It is simply the best overall OS available at any price.
Maybe in addition to debating whether or not it's a good idea for Apple to build a cheap, headless machine(because that's what people seem to want), we should also pool our creative and technical talents to figuring out the best way to make it happen.
But back to debating the reasons for and against it.
Maybe instead of home consumers we should be thinking about places a cheap Mac might fare even better - namely the education and corporate markets. Tech specs could be cut back even further if whisperings about network transparent Aqua are true. Inexpensive terminals all hooked into an Xserve cluster could be an attractive package for schools and businesses. After all, the goal there is to keep the expensive stuff behind lock and key.
As for the terminals themselves, one of the G3s IBM has been holding back, or a low-clocked G5 could serve as an ideal low-heat processor. Of course, the Motorola 7457 couldn't be ruled out as a potential option. The usual connnectivity options. An optical drive as an option(systems available without on demand). A DVI/VGA graphics card in an AGP slot and one PCI slot. I rather like the idea of a case composed of a single piece of aluminum bent around into shape. I'm wondering if it's cheaper to do things that way than with plastic, and if it coould work well in a small form factor.
Anyway, just a few musings.
This is not true - more people buy the most expensive Linux available. Think how many people use SUSE that is commerical or Lycoris which is totally commercial or even Lindows. Opera has a higher percentage of sales from Linux users than Windows users. And Linux already has a wide variety of very good browsers - ie Konquerer which Safari is built on. Linux comes with free PDF viewers but people are still interested in Adobe Acrobat Reader. Linux has a wider variety of free development environments than any other platform and many companies are running the proprietary Java. Most people don't care what license they get for a product as long as they get value for what they are paying. And for the quality you get with Windows, it isn't worth the hardware that it is required to run it on. And although XP may not be stable enough to do word processing it isn't secure enough for the web and does not network well with other computers. Macs work great for design and home use, but for running one custom application, word processing or browsing the net, Linux is much more productive. When you save even a hundred dollars on each machine then multiply that by tens of thousands for large companies, and you really save.
NOT.
Some people in this world value things of...value. A lousy 2% market share is still 20 million Mac users. The number of Apple software developers has increased at an incredible rate since the introduction of OSX replacing the stale and tired old classic Mac OS.
Flame not. I used that "tired old...etc." for a good many years as I also struggled to use the inane and dumb getting dumber windows and now I have to use to not so friendly as advertised (but *not* inexpensive) Linux box. It's good to put those things the rest of the retarded world has gathered to their bosom for fear of (you fill in the blank).
Steve Jobs will die before Apple Computer changes its name to Chicken Coop Computer Company. Die you heathens. :-)
I would never want Apple to be like Dell. But, Apple needs to do something to attract the attention of the average user. Attract attention in the same way they did with the original iMac. If headless, i think they should come out with a new version of the Cube.
It doesn't have to be rock bottom pricing either. I think $699 or $799 with a monitor (or $699 for an eMac) would do the job. But, it has to catch people's attention. Apple got the attention of the high, that's for sure. It can do the same at the low end without being like Dell.
I have one of these Shuttle SK41G's I am using as a server. It takes up less than one square foot of desk space. Right now it is sitting between my 2 headed G4 and my Linux workstation. Fully assembled with an Athlon XP 2100+, 256MB RAM, 80 GB HDD, and a CD-RW cost less than $500.
If I didn't want to buid it myself, I could have bought a $500 server from IBM, HP, Dell, or even Gateway. Don't get me wrong, I wanted a Mac but Apple didn't have anything comperable. An iMac occupies way too much space, and used G4 Cubes still cost more than $1000.
I think Apple could only benefit from selling a line of super low cost Macs based on a 1GHz G3. Add in 256 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, and a CD-RW. I would lower the costs even more and sell them with out a monitor. Apple would have my $400.
For that price, they would be fine. Heck, even iBooks and eMacs still sell at 700 and 800 Mhz today. And we even suggested 1 GHz G3.
And *they're* too slow as well. The eMacs also have *G4s* in them, and are thus a lot faster than the G3 based iBooks.
Walmart can get away with "only" a 1.1Ghz Duron in their cheapo machines because for Windows, that's more than adequate. OS X requires a _lot_ more grunt.
I want a _useful_ Mac w/o an included monitor, built to the same standards as other Macs, not a slow and crappy bargain box. I'd prefer to see Apple stay out of the US$200 PC business and instead aim around the typical consumer market of about US$600 - $1000. And, as I said, I'd also like to see a top-end headless machine with a 1.6Ghz 970 in it under the US$1500 mark. If Dell can sell a small box like the Dimension 4600 with a 2.6Ghz P4/HT, 256MB, 256MB, 60G, Combo drive for around US$1000, Apple should certainly be able to sell a similar machine with a 1.6Ghz 970 for not much more.
Thanks to the massive performance boost of the 970, Apple has suddenly become price competitive at the higher end (although I doubt that will be as good as it is for long). In the mid range and bottom end though, they're still very expensive (and for a large chunk of the market, don't even have a product).
Personally, I think the best way for Apple to address this would to be make the screen on the next iMacs (which can't be far away - hopefully with 1.4Ghz and 1.6Ghz 970s in them) a modular option. It would be simple to do this with a neat and elegant hardware design (just have the screen+arm detach where it meets the main body). Then they kill two birds with one stone - they still have a very nice all-in-one machine _and_ a cheaper, *useful*, headless box for people like me.
i believe it was supposed to be a cheapie powermac.
perhaps a $199 mac os 9 product is what we need with an all-in one integrated powerpc chip like the cyrix media GX chip.
os 9 so it doesn't take away os x's market share.
It'll never happen, their marketing people are wary.
Remember the G4 Cube? It was hundreds of dollars more expensive that the more expandible low-end tower but it looked nice. No wonder it didn't sell well.
My interpretation of the headless concept is an iMac without an LCD screen. After all, with no expansion slots and built-in everything, it is what you're asking for.
By contrast, the eMac without the CRT is useless, it uses obsolete DDR RAM. Anyone buying a computer today with SDRAM is foolish. Here in Australia at least, DDR is far cheaper.
[i]I<i/> wouldn't buy a computer from Apple which compromised on such elementary areas. So the 17" iMac without the 17" it is. It currently sells for $US1799. The 17" Apple LCD (non widescreen) is $US699. Let's say the widescreen equivalent were to sell for $US899 (corresponding WS markup)
Cost 1799-899=$US900 with Superdrive.
17" iMac specs:
1GHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Ready
Replace the superdrive with a combo drive and downgrade to a 40GB HD and you'd have a pretty capable headless iMac for ~ $US700
So, does this represent value for money?
I'd wait for them to discontinue the iBook in favour of the 12" powerbook once the G5 portables emerge.
Provided enough quantities of g5 chips are shipped, this should happen within 12 months, possibly by Christmas.
A cheap nicely styled headless black or beige box with VGA connectors for US$300 would hit the mark. Businesses don't want unconventional looking computers. RAM and CPUs are dirt cheap so don't skimp.
Brand dilution is nonsense. I see Mercedes-Benz commercial vans and trucks every day wearing the three pointed star but it doesn't make an S600 less appealing or less exclusive. European cities are full of diesel Mercedes taxis. That doesn't stop fat cats and dignitaries buying MB limousines.
...it's honestly pretty silly. I think I described my idea for the $600 "iBox" elsewhere on OSNews, but the same basic idea has been repeated in this thread, i.e., an inexpensive headless box. (I'd go even farther and make a $399 version with no hard drive, video card or RAM, basically competing with the $299 Shuttle "bare bones" PCs, to be sold only online or at third-party dealers like Fry's.)
Having said that, I think the reason that Apple hasn't done a "cheap PC" yet is because from a marketing/sales perspective, they couldn't do it until the PowerMac G5s were ready. You can't sell a $500-700 1 GHz machine and sell a $1500-2000 1.25 GHz machine simultaneously, no matter how different you make the two cases look. Apple may be many things, but ignorant of consumer trends just ain't one of them; as paradoxical as it sounds, they've had to keep prices inflated to protect their bottom line. And there's a reason they've been focusing so much on their portables the last few months.
I think it's significant that the "consumer" lines haven't been substantially updated by Apple in over a year. It's time for another big revamping. I don't know if we'll see G5s pushed into that space--but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if IBM makes the PPC 970 in 1 GHz speeds. And in any case, I suspect we'll see a very different iMac/iBook lineup in time for Christmas sales.
"I am so sick of the comparison of Macs to BMWs. People buy luxury cars for one reason (weather they believe it or not): an expensive car screams "I am wealthy and successful". In a sense the high cost of a BMW is an attractive feature - it keeps the common folk away and makes its statement about your status all the more powerful. Having a low end BMW devalues the whole line, you don't want people driving them to Walmart. Macs are great computers, but they are just that "computers" - tools. Having a low end computer doesn't hurt the high end. I really hope that other Mac owners don't sit around feeling cool because there are people that can't afford the computing experience they enjoy."
Well if you went to Germany you would see plenty of (relatively) cheap BMW316is parked outside Aldi (the German equivalent of Walmart). BMW competes directly with vehicles like the Ford Focus in the home market. In Sweden the Ikea carpark is full of Saabs.
I think a 500 headless mac would be great. Actually I would like to see it in a tiny case (cube maybe) and have no legacy support. Even no VGA, just DVI and Apple Digital dispay. Apple might not even have to include a CD-rom. Except for memory and Airport cards the system would be a closed box. If the user wants any type of expansion he will have to go firewire or USB. I don't see regular consumers as a target audience though. Instead Apple could use them to regain the education market share and make inroads to the enterprise market. These people have been sucking up $500 dollar Dells like hotcakes. A small, quiet, low power consumption Unix PC with a very user friendly interface is just what the doctor ordered. The bonus is that Apple could move more X-servers in the process.
Just a thought
Um, you are essentially saying that Apple is in a downward spiral of losing users and developers. However, Jobs stated at WWDC that Apple now has over 300,000 developers, triple the number of developers on hte platform last year. I would say that OS X is driving plenty of developers to Apple. It has also driven over 7 million users to switch from OS 9 or Windows. It looks to me like the numbers are going up just fine.
As for the price argument, Apple's prices are just fine and compare favorably with most Windows PC's. Why? Because you have to add the cost of programs to compete with iApps on the PC. Apple offers a solution of software and hardware, not just a box. I think more and more people are shying away from the "cheapest box" strategy.
If you really want a cheap mac, try buying a two year old Powermac. Those are in the $500 range and compare favorably with your test case machine (A 500mhz G4 should perform similar to a 1Ghz Duron).
I think the G3 does not perform bad speedwise. The 750FX should even be faster than the G4 at the same clock speed when not using Altivec! And IBM has two more G3 products in the pipeline, the next at 1+ GHz with 1 MB L2 cache and then a model with Atlivec (so its more like a G4). And they have also increased the front side bus on the 750FX, it can run at upto 200 MHz. I would think that this should be enough to run all the standard apps and even decent graphics card.
I am running OSX on my AmigaOne (800MHz 750FX) at the moment, via Mac-On-Linux, and it is quite fast (could be faster though). But the graphics is non accelerated and DMA for IDE is switched off atm, so the CPU has to do a lot more work than normal.
And you should consider that IBMs 750 models draw a lot less power than Motorolas G4s. No need to use fans in a computer can even make it more cheaper, but the best thing is more quiet :-)
But why wait for Apple to make that move!? You can buy an AmigaOne now ;-)
I think Apple can get away with slower processors as long as the internal bandwidth is high. The G4 is still a serviceable processor for the low end as long as its not saddled to a friggin' 133 Mhz front-side bus. The G5 kicks as because it has the 970 AND HyperTransport; Apple's architecture was archaic and that is why the platform performed so poorly. If Apple can attach a decent processor and graphic chip in some type of high-bandwidth manner, they should get a system that performs pretty well for a good price.
Although I don't think Apple should involve itself in the "race to the bottom" strategy that has been adopted by PC manufacturers( principally Dell); I do believe that Apple should produce a lower-cost machine that will attract the majority of PC buyers in the $600-$750 range.
As someone pointed out Dell is not the cheapest manufacturer. Consumers recognize quality and are willing to pay for it(to a point). It is my opinion(totally unsupported by facts) that the majority of PC buyers pay $600-$900 for their machine. Apple should make sure that they have a product that targets this market aside from the eMac. Something that could serve as a nice second machine for a geek or a primary machine for an ordinary user.
My first foray into Macs has been an eMac, however, I would have probably been better served with a headless model. The integrated CRT is a negative for me since it takes up desk space and can't be attached to a KVM. My eMac has been sort of a test machine to go along with the other linux and windows boxes that I own and has been become my principal box. Although, I believe the eMac could use some more ram out the box, I absolutely love it.
Anyways, the market for those looking for $600-$750 range is different that those likely to be attracted to the $3000 Power Mac and in some sense even the $1800 iMac. A headless option for the iMac might just be the key. The response that I hear most often to Apples product offering "is that the Mac is expensive. I would buy one but I can't afford it." Apple should take heed of this and put a product together that meets this need. The reality is that Apple can not(because it is impossible) put together a product that is so compelling that a user who only has $800 will spend $1800. With the plethora of chip options available for the PowerPC architecure(G3, G4, and now G5). Apple should be able to find a suitable chip with 1GHz that can fit the bill. My guess is that they would choose a G3 in order to keep the differentiation between the product lines. It is my guess that a headless $600-$750 machine would expaned the market for Apple products and could probably bring in a healthy profit margin.
Although Apple is probably weary of supporting too many product lines they have to be careful to support enough so that they are attractive to the broadest range of users. I get the sense that Apple is leaving money and market share on the table by not having a headless machine that competes with your typical PC. With the introduction of the G5 on the high end and the price reductions in G4 boxes, the time seems to be right to produce an "cheaper" box that showcases what OS X can do for the masses.
>Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Not today. But in 3-4 years, if they continue the same policies, someone will buy them...
People have been saying that for the last 3 or 4 years..
Amen.
If the G5's benchmarks indicate the real deal, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple starts gaining marketshare at a decnt clip.
arschlesinger-
I say put your money where your mouth is. Want a cheap "low end" Mac??? Check out eBay. Someone would be more than happy to sell you last years model for a new G5 today.
The problem is that these developers aren't writing "killer apps", they are simply rewriting all the software that a brand new OS doesn't have - chat programs, IRC clients, simple utilities etc.
I also suspect that the "developers" figure includes people porting Linux software to MacOS, which isn't really the point.
It's misleading to assume that because Apples death has been wrongly predicted before, it couldn't happen. With Jobs on the throne, they are spending money like never before. I read somewhere they have got through over a quarter of their cash pile - that's over a billion dollars! We'll see how things turn out, but I expect the old catch 22 that prevented anybody else realistically competing with Windows will hurt Apple just the same.
OT: That writeup by the "IT Editor" was a bit disturbing. It contained so many basic errors! I mean, since when is Quanta Plus a web browser?
What i dont understand is, why havent we seen mac clones?
Is it un the OSX ELUA that you can only run it on apple ]-only hardware?
and if so you could still simply buy a mac clone and buy a boxed set of osx.
i do see companies selling mac compatible parts, even one guy managed to build a box that was capable of running osx, it used a ppc chip and mobo, all of the rest of the hardware is pc stuff
=========
Um, hate to break it to you Blake, but other than the mobo just about every other piece in a Mac is a PC standard part. What did you think? Macs run on pixie dust?
>>Um, you are essentially saying that Apple is in a downward spiral of losing users and developers. However, Jobs stated at WWDC that Apple now has over 300,000 developers, triple the number of developers on hte platform last year.
<sarcasm>Um, Ian, you forgot one thing... Apple lied about their specs, what's to keep them from lying about the number of developers for the platform.</sarcasm>
That I agree with but still think a headless box w/vga out would be great. There may be a lot of people that want to try a mac but already have a nice monitor from their existing PC.
Apple would never release such a machine. It would cannibalize their higher end sales. If Apple sells a lower end box it will likely have specs similar to the eMac. It will probably not be available in multiple CPU configurations and will in now way come close to a PowerMac. If people can buy an "almost PowerMac" for under $1000 why would they pay $2000 for one? A pretty case and extra slots? No. It will never happen.
IBMs were copied because the entire motherboard (except the BIOS I believe) was off-the-shelf parts. So all Compaq had to do was reverse-engineer one chip.
Apple has a complete motherboard design. Certainly some parts are probably licensed technology. But the fact is there is (and always has been) just so much more to reverse-engineer. That's why there are no Apple clones.
"Apple has a complete motherboard design. Certainly some parts are probably licensed technology. But the fact is there is (and always has been) just so much more to reverse-engineer. That's why there are no Apple clones."
There are no Apple clones because no one wants to build them.
Apple has virtually no mindshare outside the graphics and multimedia businesses. The 95% of the world outside the USA has almost no interest in Macs or Apple technology period.
Apple would probably need to offer 30-50% better price/performance to gain significant share.
The low end will probably be taken by small form factor machines such as the Via Eden ITX. Within 18 months a basic computer could sell for as little as US$100 without a monitor.
ISPs will probably start bundling ultra-cheap PCs with broadband services similar to mobile phone plans.
Not one poster has made a business case that a lower end Mac would increase Apple's profit or long term viability. Please someone show me how a low end machine will do this. From what I see, people who buy low end machines don't buy software and don't buy upgrades. They will be happy with the apps that come with the machine.
XnetZero,
Apple didn't lie abou their benchmarks. In fact, they documented it better than any other benchmark I've seen. You may not like the way they did the benchmark but they didn't lie.
Anon,
Macs have a disproportianate amount of mindshare relative to their market share. Why do you think Panther and G5 has gotten so much press. Same with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. I would bet the largest amount of influence Apple has is on Microsoft. Why are you posting on a Mac topic?
twocents
The first step for Apple to really increase marketshare is to increase it's presence in the marketplace. I hope the rumors are true and Apple is trying to once again get into Best Buy. That would give Apple another 533 outlets in which to sell it's computers. If the rumors are true and Apple hires it's own employees to man the Best Buy stores then sales should be nice.
Apple also needs to expand it's own Apple stores. How many stores can you put in California? The mid-major cities also need some love. Apple also needs to make a nice push overseas. Tokyo is a nice start, but they also need London and Paris.
I agree that Apple needs to drop the price of the eMac..to $599 (A little more realistic) I also think that they could drop the iMac another $150-$200 as well. I would also keep the G4 towers (that now start at $1299) That offers a nice bridge to the G5.
Competing on price is going to be hard for Apple. If they can agument some of the loss of profits with iTMS, the iPod, iSight, and whatever else they may have a shot.
Like I said..getting in Best Buy with their own Apple store sales staff is the Key. Apple needs more outlets.
Buy a used one...! I bought a mint condition G4 Cube for $700 US. Gave it a 1GB of RAM for next to nothing, plopped in a 40GB 7200RPM ultra quite drive, and found a 17" LCD Studio Display on eBay for $500. So, for around $1400, I have a very nice/cool/trendy machine to muck about with OS X.
Since no one posting on this site has access to the kind of information that would be necessary to produce a cohesive intelligent business plan for a cheap PC all the opinions on this site have been conjecture.
However, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that Apple doesn't have enough products on the lower end to appeal to people. I'm probably one of the few folks who believe that their pricing in laptops, high-end machines(with the G5), etc is very competitive(if you choose the right competitors on the PC side, ie. IBM thinkpads and Alienware desktops). More anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of users purchase headless machines in the $600 - $900 range. If this is the case then it can safely be assumed that Apple can enter this market without causing significant negative impact to their other product offerings. I will be the first to agree that my opinions are not based on facts but just that opinions. However, Apple needs to try to turn the mindshare that they receive into marketshare. I don't believe that there is any harm in doing that. A revamped cube or headless iMac might go a long way towards making that happen. Strategically I believe they would probably go with a sped up G3 produced by IBM to power the machine. This has the added benefit of allowing some differntiation between this product and the iMac/eMac. Based off of my experience with my wifes iBook, my feeling is that at equal speeds a G4 doesn't provide much value for simple web browsing, running Word, iTunes and instant messaging(ram is the key). The iLife apps are best of breed and at the right price point could convince some folks to purchase a Mac as a no-hassle second machine or a primary machine playing mp3's, web browsing, dvds etc is all that you are interested in.
I am not sure what Apple is doing, but I hope that they are looking into the possiblity of producing such a machine. If my hunches are correct then there is a large market for folks who would consider a Mac purchase but don't see a product that is attractive enough at their price point. Personally I think that market will pay more than $500 but less than $900 for a headless machine. Producing said product should help expand the market of Mac users without cannibilzing existing sales.
i am glad someone told us this! we had no idea! i guess those polls that place it in the top 3 most recognized companies are all apple marketing........
what bull.
A vague feeling can't quite form into a thought as I read this forum on a site filled with Open Source/BeOS/Amiga alums. Today's developers are not just "write for the largest audience" capitalists; there are plenty of quality coders that will write for 'nix. If Eugenia's (a popular view) was correct and small market share would have killed Apple and Linux long ago.
I believe Amiga support diminished because Commodore did not practice good business; they tried to chase an unprofitable cheap computer model.
I also note comments mentioning Apple is desirable because they fight the beige box syndrome...but they are too expensive. R&D, stand-alone engineering, Ive all combine to give the raspberry its seeds: you might want to stick to jello if you don't like those seeds. Wishing Apple would make a loss leader diverts limited energy from, ah, seed production(?).
As I said, I feel there's something wrong with the cheap box argument, but I can't grip exactly what it is.
Apple has been decreasing their pricing and making their product more price competitive, based on features.
I personally suspect that apple will produce a $500-$900 device. However, i think their energies today are going towards capturing more of the high-end SGI, Sun type of users, software, and upon expanding the product line via consumer electronic devices (ipod, isight).
This may be the better strategy in the short term because it gives nice margins and a potential increase in revenues. The $500-$900 apple is a necessary step, at least i think it is. But i don't think it will be an immediate step. Apple is limited by resources. I beleive that apple's existing actions will in fact increase apple's market share but not by a major amount.
The next step might be a $500-$900 product.
There are no Apple clones because no one wants to build them.
That may be true now. However that wasn't the case 10 years ago. And the technical limitations I outlined were the reason why clones were not made (although back then it was worse because more of their system was proprietary).
I've seen many post where people say Apple needs a headless Mac...why not bring back a slightly larger (more upgradeable perhaps) Cube for about the price of the current eMac?
It probably would be nice to see some data displayed on charts like bar and pie charts showing relations and corellations about low priced Macs on the market.
For example, below is a fictitious narrative of it...
"The generated data compiled by Doctor-PC-Trends Inc. show there is a high probability using Poisson method that an increase in sales of Mac boxes priced within the range of 400 to 500 bucks have influence of developer marketshare, it also shows an increase in sales of off-the-shelf apps written exclusively for the Mac (see figure 1.b)"
I don't know the technical details, but Apple should make their OS run on current Intel/AMD chips. This, and this alone, is the alternative to MS, and dare i say it Linux.
They want to keep making boxes? let 'em. Their position of making an OS, on their hardware, on their chip is why they are stuck--not that greedy pig Jobs is hurting--this is all a defensive, uncreative posture, ward off any and all threats by making a total proprietary system.
Computers (unfortunately not notebooks) have become close to commodities. Apple can enter this hugh user base--those who only buy computers at a commodity price--if OS Apple runs on commodity computers. Reason why Apple is so far behind the market is because of its insistance on using oddball chips. It's a defensive posture, to repeat myself. Enough with these silly specialty chips!
Oh puhlease.. The reason Apple still exists today is because they are able to create a nice integrated package. If they put osx on intel clones, they will be bankrupt faster than you can say "apple on an intel?"
So don't be stupid and say bullshit like that..
>> 4) lowering price is a signal - this signal must stand for
>> something.
> yeah, competition!
This is the point that I wonder about. What would Apple get but a Pyrrhic victory? They'll win many of the 98% who don't want to pay a lot for their computer.
In fact, the price drop would send a message to the market that they're not that different from PCs. Right now they're in a different market -- high quality and luxury. If they had lowcost machines, they'd start looking more like Dell.
Again, this is what I think without the help of market research.
I have one of these Shuttle SK41G's I am using as a server. It takes up less than one square foot of desk space. Right now it is sitting between my 2 headed G4 and my Linux workstation. Fully assembled with an Athlon XP 2100+, 256MB RAM, 80 GB HDD, and a CD-RW cost less than $500.
If I didn't want to buid it myself, I could have bought a $500 server from IBM, HP, Dell, or even Gateway. Don't get me wrong, I wanted a Mac but Apple didn't have anything comperable. An iMac occupies way too much space, and used G4 Cubes still cost more than $1000.
I think Apple could only benefit from selling a line of super low cost Macs based on a 1GHz G3. Add in 256 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, and a CD-RW. I would lower the costs even more and sell them with out a monitor. Apple would have my $400.
The idea of a $499 eMac seems a good idea to me. When there was a Mac priced like that, I would consider buying one, because I have heard good stories about OS X, because our old Performa 6400 has never broken (my PC has had a broken cd-rom drive, broken power supply, speakers smelling like smoke, and yesterday I found out one of my memory modules has went bad)... But now I only want to buy a PC because they are simply much more affordable.
I would have to partly agree woth you on your assessment of Apple. Apple needs to reduce prices to draw more customers. I was a Winblows user, i finally got fed up with it a bought an iBook. I will never have a PC running Winblows in my home again!
I believe that Apple can drastically lower their prices on the lower models to attract new users.
This is just too silly. Why are all these people so concerned with Mac Pricing? Everytime I go to these websites, I see people talking about how expensive the Mac is. Well - It is superior, it is better, if you want it, pay it. If you don't stick with windows. Mac users don't have a problem with it, they have a mac, and they realise that all in all they are good value - they get the job done. If you are a consumer buy the cheap consumer macs (you cant moan about an eMac price), but don't go moaning about the cost of professional TOOLS like the powermac.
Forget about cost - value is much more important. And if you windows people really want a mac that badly just bloody buy one! Dont moan and moan about how you would really like to have one. Just get one, and shut up with your moaning!
If you wan to read more about the idea of a cheap, headless mac, it has been discussed in the past on www.lowendmac.com and www.macnightowl.com, to name a couple of sites. Check their archives. I recall the articles being interesting and well informed. 2 links I found easily follow:
http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2003/03/week2.htm
http://www.lowendmac.com/lab/02/1205.html
Mac is not an option for me on the desktop, but I might buy a laptop from Apple
The one (and only) thing that stops me is the price
Price was found at http://www.applestore.com/ (used the U.S version)
The cheapest laptop costs $999.00! And that's with a 12.1" screen!
> "Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can't get right now
> anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know
> don't want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. "
> Get a G4
They are not $1000, and the most expensive G4 costs even more than the most expensive G5!
I totally agree with the cheap headless box idea. Its a device that will get ppl buying and using OSX. Hopefully in volumes. Better still apple could simply market a generic cheap motherboard and allow distributors to box them up.
Apples current approach to go further up market (relatively) is doomed in the sense that many here have argued - diminished market share less development etc etc. They might continue to make money but the sky will fall one day.
Frankly OSX is hardly worth the money, and going OSX means buying a bunch of other proprietary hardware and software - all of this is what ultimately makes buying Apple so expensive. In terms of bang for the buck Intel linux is the King. I think Apple and Microsoft are duking it out to milk as much from a market that has been sold on the idea that hardware needs constant updates and software has to be sold to be any good.
The world might wake up but I reckon pigs will fly first.
david
"Anon,
Macs have a disproportianate amount of mindshare relative to their market share. Why do you think Panther and G5 has gotten so much press. Same with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. I would bet the largest amount of influence Apple has is on Microsoft. Why are you posting on a Mac topic?"
Ferrari has enormous mindshare too. Glossy motoring magazines with Ferraris on the cover can be found in any newsagent. Ferrari are the current Formula One champions. Ferrari sells less than 10,000 vehicles a year and spends at least $100 million a year on its F1 team. Ferrari, of course, is owned by Fiat - makers of some of the worlds lowest quality vehicles.
Hello, I've been eyeing off the new Apple store (Next Byte) near me lately, but I've been wary of going in there because I have no intention of buying anything, I just wanted to try out a Mac.
Anyway, I was playing with this G4 box today, it had a beautiful widescreen LCD display and a very stylish tower case. I must say I was extremely impressed with it. It's performance was very good (app load time, etc), and the eyecandy was unmatched in anything I've ever seen. It really makes MS look pathetic in their lame attempt with Windows XP (Luna, ugh, yuck).
The File Manager app (Finder I think it's called) is quite different to anything I've ever used before. However, it is quite intuitive. I liked Safari also, a very nice browser. The whole system is in fact quite intuitive, and the button naming convention makes absolute certainty what you are doing with a dialog box.
One thing that confused me was I couldn't tell what applications I had open, there is no "task bar". Some apps would show up on the dock, but others wouldn't (is it only when they're minimised they show up there??). Also, the file menu being permanently up the top instead of each app having their own was kind of strange, I didn't really like that. The mouse that was connected to this box only had one button, and so no scroll wheel. It made browsing the web difficult, but I guess if I bought one I'd order it with a decent mouse.
It took me ages to find a terminal (I guess Mac users don't use a command line), but once I was in there it was great! I loaded up emacs and was coding some python and perl stuff straight away The marriage of the power of Unix with the beautiful Apple GUI is something to behold.
They are selling ibook's for $1846AUS, if I was in the market for a laptop, I'd seriously consider getting it. A cheap desktop machine to replace my G/F's aging p200 would be sweet too (she's likely to get my current box when I upgrade).
I think I've been bitten by the Apple bug...
Disclaimer: I use GNU/Linux as my main operating system with the KDE environment on top.
Linux is not an OS.. it's a kernel.
> One thing that confused me was I couldn't tell what applications I had open, there is no "task bar".
The open apps are showing in the Dock with a black arrow next to them.
> Also, the file menu being permanently up the top instead of each app having their own was kind of strange, I didn't really like that.
Make sure you close apps either via Apple+Q from the keyboard or from the menu on the top. If you just close their window, the app is still running and consumes RAM, even if it has no visible windows. Yeah, I don't like that either...
>The mouse that was connected to this box only had one button, and so no scroll wheel.
Indeed, Macs are more keyboard oriented than PCs... But you can always add a new mouse.
> It took me ages to find a terminal
Yup, it is kinda hidden under /Applications/Utilities
>Linux is not an OS.. it's a kernel.
Oh, don't say. We didn't know! 
" Ferrari has enormous mindshare too. Glossy motoring magazines with Ferraris on the cover can be found in any newsagent. Ferrari are the current Formula One champions. Ferrari sells less than 10,000 vehicles a year and spends at least $100 million a year on its F1 team. Ferrari, of course, is owned by Fiat - makers of some of the worlds lowest quality vehicles."
You can say that Apple and Ferrari are alike but no one owns Apple so what is your point?
"You can say that Apple and Ferrari are alike but no one owns Apple so what is your point?"
I wasn't claiming that Apple and Ferrar were alike. I was simply pointing out that mindshare, marketshare and profitability are very different things.
"All analysts seem to agree: Apple needs to grow its' market share if it is to remain credible in the long term."
This has been repeated so many times for so many years it's now taken as gospel. But Apple now has down to 2-4% market share and the damn company is still around. And the amazing thing is it would still be around and just as relevant if it's market share went down to 1%. Market share is a red herring - read The Myth of Market Share by Richard Miniter sometime (see http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?N=35&R=544650&act=A03&Item=9... ).
Apple could increase it's market share by releasing a USD$499 or $599 system, yes. But remember, not only would their average margin drop sharply, but these would substantially eat into their sales of their other systems. They would therefore run a loss every quarter, resulting in unending and damaging speculation of when they will go out of business. They also run the risk of being identified as a glorified eMachines if the cheap $599 systems became common enough but were recognized as meatless - this would be the kiss of death for them.
Overall, I'm not sure competing in the low end of the market is worthwhile for them - it may bring holy market share, but at the price of mindshare, profitability, and elite positioning in the marketplace. The way for them to increase market share is with specialized market segments as they are doing (digital music & video creation, science, architecture, open source development, web content creation, etc) that need higer-end systems.
let say, there is a cheap pizza box, nice, handy, powerfull enough...
what would happen ?
No one (means a worthy amount of customers of apple products today) would buy the bigger boxes....
oftenly, its enaugh to run photoshop and quark on it. not everyone is doning very complex things on this apps which needs a lot of cpu-power.
I've seen canibalism within small companies in the PR branches. they switched to the iMac (TFT, not this plastic-.bubble) and some of them use also the eMac (OK, not for their core-work, but secretaries work, office works).
what will happen if there is a cheap, headless box ? they will switch.
could this be dangerous to apples survive ?
krgds,
frank
the update procedure 199 to 409$ shows the advantage:
whenever i want or i got the money, i can switch to 18" TFT, a larger Disk, more RAM, a better Graphic board or whatsoever. Try that on emac (espacially changing the monitor (hehe))... >8-
Don't blame me, but this niche market is already taken & lost by Apple, no if's no but's in here.
My take:
Apple HAS to sell their best part of software on the x86 - Platform to keep well alive.
Things like Final Cu Pro for example would be a bestseller (as long they understand supporting HT, SSE, SSE2, etc...).
Money that the can use in producing/developing top hardware & future technologies...
It's just a thought.
For now they still keep being inventor of the "1-2-3-4-Finder-soon-opens" - OS for me (man, any 200MHz-K6 BeOS-PC is faster in opening Tracker)...
1.Eugenia's figures for annual sales are way off. Apple sells 750,000 to 1,000,000 Macs per quarter.
2. Today's New York Times article on "Trusted Computing" going into PC hardware and Windows should help drive people to X. The stuff they plan on building into the hardware will probably interfere with Linux.