I have to friendly argue about the OSNews article about Apple: “Could an eMac Strategy Bring More Market Share to Apple?“ That article is written from the Computer enthusiast point of view rather from the business man point of view, which usually diverges from the hobbyist, because it considers things that nobody that is not in the Marketing business is aware of. I understand Marketing as defined by Kotler: the right mix of Price, Product, Place and Promotion.Of course everbody wants to buy an Apple for 10$, I would like to buy a Mercedes CLK for 1.000$, but I have not yet found the dealer who wants to make me this price, this is the typical little man complaint. Everyone normal out there, thinks that the goal of each company is to sell as many units as possible, well, this is not the goal. The only goal is to make the biggest profit at the end of the year WITHOUT hurting your brand, your most valuable asset, bigger than the technology of your product.
You argue that economies of scale is the way to go, well, think about Gucci, Giorgio Armani, Prada, etc. are they interested in economies of scale ? I don´t know any american big shopping chain, but think about the german cheap Lidl or Aldi, they sell cheap products at cheap prices, they are interested in economies of scale, sell as much as possible in order to sum all the very little
margins and make a profit as well as investing the cash they get and make a few more cash before the have to pay for the products they have already sold. In esence, two completely different business models, both work, but both target different segments of the population, this is quite hard, but so it is. And no, I am not in the Gucci segment, I am in the cheap no-name PC brand, I would like to buy an Apple but I cannot afford it. And I want to repeat,
if you are not in the economies of scale business, your brand is your biggest asset, take care of it as if it is your own child.
But coming to the Apple case:
– Branding
Apple has been building up a very big reputation and a very strong brand,
I suppose that Apple is within the most expensive brands on earth.
Everybody associates automatically Apple with innovation, design, quality,
being different, etc. Apple cannot deliver products that are not
innovative, well designed or top-notch quality, they would only destroy their
own brand and reduce sales figures dramatically. Innovation and quality
are related with high price, the high price guarantees the customer that
he is buying an excellent product, this is psychologically as well as from the
business side, a typical business model. The human psychology says that
the higher the price, the better the product and otherwise. Cheap Apple
boxes would mean low quality and a desperate need for cash, which would
hurt the Apple brand in good times and maybe in a long term, be more
dangerous than just trying to survive the hard times. If your break the
association of Apple and quality, which is been given by the price, you ruin
your segment and deposition yourself, a catastrophic failure.
– Positioning
Apple has positioned itself to a certain type of customer, wealthy people,
innovators, people with good jobs, good lifestyle, etc. If Apple targets the
poor man type, the trendy guys will stop buying Apples, because everybody
can and Apple is not the Porsche of the computers anymore, this would
hurt more the brand than maybe the increasing sales because of lower prices,
and in good times, where everybody has more money, Apple would have the
problem that they cannot rise prices, because everybody expects a cheap
Apple (the macroeconomics deflation problem).
– The Smart Paradigma
Smart is a car designed by Swatch and manufactured by Mercedes targeted
to a wealthy segment that already owns a first or even second car. It is the
Apple of the road, designed for the same people, urban people with a trendy
lifestyle. I personally think it is expensive for what you get so I don´t buy
it, but, I am conscious that I am not yet in the segment of Smart buyers. From
the view of a Smart potential buyer it is a nice and trendy car, the price is
secondary because you don´t talk about money, you just have it.
– Snob Product
A Snob Product is the product that when it is sold cheap, the sales figures
drop absolutely down, it´s the Ferrari dilemma, sell a Porsche for 10.000 $ and
nobody will buy more, even for the low price. If Apple decreases prices, related
to the branding issue, figures will fall down.
– The Decision
Well, who at Apple wants to make the experiment to decrease prices (if costs
allow it, of course) ? I wouldn´t have the necessary put-your-favourite-word-here
to make this experiment, if it goes wrong… it may be the end of Apple. I suppose
this is also a big argument for letting things as they are. Pricing is a complex
science and if you are in doubt “let things as they are” or “if it isn´t (very) broken, don´t fix
it”.
– Substition Products
On the other hand, there are no really substitution products, there are no similar machines
than we can buy to have the same user experience, PCs are the same competition to Apple
as Ford is to Mercedes. The higher price is in these case allowed because of the lack of
existance of a Banana Brand or a Coconut Brand which similar high tech machines. PCs
are the everyday workhorse for the masses, Apple is the elegance for the minority. I don´t
think that it is possible to directly compare PCs and Apples. A Ford and a Jaguar are also
cars.
I don´t know the COST STRUCTURE of Apple but cheap achines will only put the Apple brand in danger, rather than help them to make more profit, cheaper doesn´t always help to increase sales figures on a long term view.
– Environment
I absolutely agree that there is one issue in the article that is not comparable to other sector. In the car world, it doesn´t matter what car you buy, you can go to every gas station, use every road, so the “platform” is common. Or, buying a Ford doesn´t mean that you only can drive on Ford roads and use Ford fuel. This is different in the world of computing. I agree that if third party developers want and have to create software, they need a big audience to buy their products. A big audience means cheaper machines… and the circle goes round. I don´t have
a clue or solution for the Apple dilemma, but I would appreciate if other Marketing aspects are also brought to the spotlight, as the “lower the prices, sell more machines” argument is very simple and not well thought for my understading, there are lots more issues that have to be
taken consideration of, for sure, enough to write a few books.
Excellent article.
This board is full of ‘enthusiasts’ and ‘computer geeks’ who do understand technology, but tend to be much more lacking in business sense.
Is the stainless steel rolex really worth $4000 more than the fossil watch? Absolutely not, EXCEPT for branding. Is it that ‘superior’ of a product, absolutely not. Before anyone complains about how my watch analogy is wrong, or the car analogies are all wrong, keep in mind that ALL ANALOGIES BREAK DOWN. All of them, so don’t beat that dead horse.
The Apple from a price/performance standpoint may not be better than the PC. We understand this. Also, Windows has more software and runs on more computers. We understand this. Linux may be much faster. We understand this also.
However, it is with the Apple and OS X where we get so many of the best features from the rest of the OS’s combined into one. Yeah, many of the features that OS X has exist in other OS’s, but OS X is the one that has them all. Which is better value for my money? Which is faster? I don’t care. I want what OS X offers and I do not want the hassles that I have experienced with other OS’s. <Insert laundry list here>
I absolutely agree that Apple should NOT lower prices.
If you do not want to run OS X, then don’t worry about Apple. We do not care how much better your system is, we are happy with ours. Go play with Longhorn or Linux, or FBSD, or whatever it is you like. Have fun.
If you do want to run OS X, understand that there is a barrier to entry. There is a minimum price to pay if you want to play. If you have the money, step right up and play. If not, don’t whine about it, but go save up some money. It was not that long ago that all x86 computers cost a few thousand dollars. I know from personal experience that it was quite possible to save up the money even making minimum wage of $3.80/hr. It just takes a while.
Fact is, if you want an Apple, you can afford it. It is just a question of what you will choose to sacrifice until you have the money saved up.
If you don’t want an Apple, why do you care about the whole Mac argument?
Personally, I don’t care which is better. I know which is best for me.
– Kelson
I agree to some extent but you’re neglecting one very important factor:
APPLE DOES NOT OVER-PRICE THIER HARDWARE-SOFTWARE IN RELATION TO PC COMPETITION.
Apple may in fact appeal to the elitist group of consumers, but not because their approach to computing is more expensive, but because it offers a better solution.
As far as price is concerned, when comparing prices, compare both systems with the same hardware AND software, making sure to include the SAME (or as close as possible) technologies that come bundled with each competing system. When you do this, typically, you will be able to get a Mac for only slightly more, the same price or sometimes slightly less. (On some configurations will will be able to get a computer for significantly less)
It is only the ultra low-end market which Apple doesn’t compete in and yet doesn’t produce a system at a comparative price. However, few consumers buy $300 systems. Yes, they may be lured in by them, but they tend to work as a bait and switch mechanism. When the consumers sees that they can’t do everything that they want with that bare bones system, they typically upgrade it, and end up getting a system that is around $1000. At that price, they could have got a decently-equipped Mac anyways.
Apple, through the years, has only managed to gain market share from PC vendors when it managed to come out with something that was indeed revolutionary in marketing terms. The original iMac was one such example. The original PowerBook (way back when) was another. The introduction of OSX was another case.
However, most of Apple’s market share gains were small enough that many once-PC-to-Mac converts eventually switched back to a Wintel box. Loyal Mac users, of course, kept on buying Macs.
(Note that my main computer is a Mac, and has been since the mid 90’s.. I also own a PC with Gentoo/Linux on it)
> When the consumers sees that they can’t do everything that they want with that bare bones system, they typically upgrade it, and end up getting a system that is around $1000. At that price, they could have got a decently-equipped Mac anyways.
I hate to say this, but that “decently-equipped Mac” for $1000 (an eMac), is often comparable with that #300 PC.
This article was written by a guy in the Netherlands. English is probably not his first language.
This article was relevent because of the constant arguments that occur on the discussion boards here about Apple and their strategy.
Troll…
– Kelson
You make a lot of good points about Apple pricing and branding and I agree with it a lot. But there is a differance. The mercedes uses the same gas as the Ford, so you can drive the Mercedes anywhere you can a ford. Imagine if the only gas the mercedes could run was AV-A or AV-B (general aviation fuels 100+ octane). You would only use it if you lived near the airport. That is the problem with the Mac’s market share – the gas (software) is not compatible.
I use the Apple, but I still have an aging PC sitting on my desk for the three programs I can’t get anywhere else. Most of my Wintel friends would gladly pay the premium for an apple if it would run everything they needed/wanted (oddly enough games seem to be a big issue for them).
If Virtual PC (or Real PC, or one of the open source alternatives) could get up to that kind of speed most people would switch, but to do that they are going to have to beat intel machines by a factor of 300% not just a little bit.
The author was very much right on most everything. I am one to who would like to see a more entry level apple. Not so much in removing features or making ti cheaper. I just want to see an eMac or iMac without a screen. They can keap their profit margin, but the computer would be much more appealling to people. People are definitly right about elitisim in people in that they want to keap apples expensive so as to keap the riff raff out. On the other hand most the people who own Apples are not this kind of people. Personaly I would care less about making some snobs mad because now middle class people own makes, and like more that the market is expanding. Its not like these people are going to go anywhere else for their computers right now.
Apple definitly doesn’t need to go for the super cheap end and make boxes for everyone. But there is a hole in their market where people can’t aford a good performing G5 and don’t need all the expandibility and don’t need or want a built in monitor. Don’t say they tried it with the cube and it fail, the cube failed because it was such a computer, an entry computer and they sold it as the high end model.
One of the reasons I want an apple is simple there isn’t as much stuff out there, there isn’t 50 million apps for the same thing. Its one nice unified package. Also it’s time for something differant for me.
If you have any decent job and manage your money in any sensible way buying a mac is no big deal at all. Apple just needs to have models that people want. The G5 is solving some of the problems, a smaller headless setup would make up the rest.
It seems that Apple has some good deals and bad ones. It depends on what you’re looking for.
Their “high end” models aren’t worth the insane prices they want for them. $3,274 for a PowerMac G4??
There’s also their entry level PowerMac G5 for $1,999 which is missing a lot of features compared to the two higher priced models. And we’re not just talking about processor speed here, the $1,999 does a lot less than the $2,399 one… and why does it only ship with 256mb of ram??
Then there are good deals…
The entry level ibook for $999 is a great deal. It’s a computer I’d consider buying for myself at that price.
I also think the $799 eMac is a good buy as well. Bascially a G4 version of the “classic” iMac. Would have to bump the memory up a bit, but when buying from a third party, it’s still comes out cheap.
And I love the new single processor 1.25 Ghz G4 for $1,299. That looks like a good price on a nice system.
So it depends on what you want to do with your Mac. Really I think the low end Macs are very fairly priced. Sure the processors are bit slower than x86 based systems. But think about this, is the average computer user going to notice the difference between a 1Ghz and a 2 Ghz processor?? I think not…
On the other hand… Some Macs are just way over priced when compared to other Macs. You don’t even need to compare them to PCs. lol
But the same holds true in the PC world as well. I’m sure if you went to Dell or IBM for a system, they’d have good deals and bad ones.
And for the record, I’m not even a Mac user. I’m crtical of both Macs are PCs when needed.
As a geek, I’d just rather build my own system.
but sometimes we have to put ourselves into the minds of an “average” computer user.
I don’t think gradma is going to notice the difference if her processor runs at 1 Ghz or 2 Ghz.
Fine, I agree that apples might be priced higher because they are better. But excluding people from ownership because of economic situation doesn’t seem to jive with the left wing sentiment I get from a lot of Apple people. And if Apple users really feel they are so special then please NEVER EVER whine again about the competition Microsoft gives you. After all you are riding the luxury class in computing and since your systems are priced for the computer elite then x86 machines are irrevelant. I really doubt that people buy apples for the ‘poseur factor’ though. They buy them to get a job done.
If Positioning for snobs is so important then why did the mac clones back in the day eat apples lunch?
Well thought out and explained article. I like Macs. I like Apple products. I pay more for them willingly because you get what you pay for: a rock solid platform, with hardware that works in harmony and software that keeps the user in mind. Simple and conistent. No viruses, either, natch.
I am not wealthy or well off but I know a $20 wallet at Wal-Mart is not going to last very long in comparison to my $150 wallet from Coach. Coach products actually get better looking with age and last forever.
That is what some people fail to grasp. 90% of the time you do get what you pay for.
I used to think the car analogy had the “different road and gas” problem but I don’t anymore.
I think an accurate gas comparison would be like diesel fuel vs unleaded gasoline. Some gas stations have both some only unleaded. Both computer platforms run on the same roads: the web, email, MS Office Suite, java (hmm perhaps a problem with the recent ruling), CD/DVD Burners, printers, cameras, DV cameras, etc.; but like diesel gas, there are some gas stations (e.g. specialized applications) that are only available for one car or another (platform): On the mac -iPhoto, AV iChat, iPod (oops, not any longer) iTunes (soon to be not any longer) iMovie, iDVD. On the pc MovieMaker, tons of game software, old specialized software not ported to web (I’m sure the list goes on and on.)
Besides the image that Apple has created, MS OS users are increasingly looking at overall lower “cost of ownership” in Apple products because they don’t need as much configuring and troubleshooting. XP gives you “one shot” to get its I/O to recognize a new peripheral device and then its off to downloading drivers and running wizards. You plug in a camera an it is always recognized. Same for a new FireWire DVD burner, scanner, DV Camera and printer. Windows users are tired of having one new device screw up all the others. Honestly these conflicts don’t exist in an Apple environment.
Someone made a point the other day that computers cannot be contrasted to cars simply for the fact that cars are not as heavily reliant on 3rd party production to keep the interest of their buyers. Apple used to garner some 15% of the desktop market, now they have been widdled away to just 2%. Companies that make software for the Mac will eventually see that the money spent on porting and R&D is better spent on platforms with a consumer base large enough to raise sales. Why would Macromedia, Adobe, Quark etc continue to market software on a quickly dying platform!?
Linux is quickly gaining the support needed to run windows software. Soon, even crossover office will be available for FreeBSD. If I want a powerful machine with UNIX based stability and bang for my buck, I am going x86. I love what apple has done over the past few years, BUT, I think anyone who thinks an apple is a porche as opposed to my ford escort Athlon 2200, they are complete Idiots, and I would love to sell them a bridge.
Repeat after me: Macs are cheaper than PCs.
Repeat after me: Macs are cheaper than PCs.
Repeat after me: Macs are cheaper than PCs.
They cost more up front. They are cheaper to operate and they resell for a much higher portion of the purchase price.
Repeat after me: Macs are cheaper than PCs.
Please show a single objective study that shows otherwise. Just one. It doesn’t exist.
This author does not understand how luxury good businesses actually work. Haute couture fashion houses make almost all their money from selling relatively inexpensive licensed merchandise such as sunglasses, hosiery, perfumes,acessories and cosmetics. Major fashion houses are not exclusive boutique manufacturers but multibillion dollar corporations that make their products in third world sweat shops. Far more women can afford some $50 Dior perfume than a $10 000 Dior original dress (I use a Christian Dior eu de toilette for men that costs around US$60). The dresses are to sell perfume not the other way around.
The Apple analogy here would be using G5s to sell Apple t-shirts, sunglasses and US$50 Apple branded pocket calculators.
All luxury vehicles such as Ferrari (Fiat), Jaguar (Ford), Bentley (VW), Lexus (Toyota) and Lamborghini (VW) are manufactured by mainstream manufacturers. An entry level BMW is a motorcycle not a 7 series. In fact BMW is one of the worlds largest motorcycle manufacturers. DaimlerChrysler is the worlds largest builder of commercial vehicles. DaimlerChrysler brands include Mercedes Benz, MBB (helicopters), Chrysler, JEEP, Mitsubishi and Freightliner (heavy trucks)
The Apple analogy would be fashionable (standard x86 hardware) machines being manufactured and sold by Dell or HP as Apple branded boxes.
Exclusivity is a myth perpetuated by marketing types. Diamonds are so common and cheap to mine that DeBeers invented the phrase “Diamonds are Forever” and the concept of the the diamond engagement ring to unload their glut of diamonds. In fact several hundred tonnes of gem grade diamonds are mined worldwide every year. General Electric is a major producer of synthetic diamonds.
Rolex manufactures hundreds of thousands of watches every year. Rolex, Tissot, Omega, Longines and nearly all Swiss watches are manufactured by the same Swiss corporation. In Swiss watch terms Rolex is a mid range brand. The most exclusive Swiss brands sell less than 100 watches a year.
Apple computers are not rare or exclusive or made by elves in the black forest. Apple makes a more expensive than average product with a great deal of customer loyalty backed by powerful marketing. Apple machines are still made in the same Chinese factories as other other PCs using mostly industry standard components.
A similar company is Tag Heuer.I once asked a watchmaker who specialised in (better than Rolex) exclusive Swiss brands including Piaget, Audemars and IWC what he thought of TAG Heuer watches. He said “absolute junk – they have cheap quartz movements”. Inside that expensive titanium TAG case beats a $25 quartz heart.
Apple is a marketing company first and foremost – like Nike.
Why would Macromedia, Adobe, Quark etc continue to market software on a quickly dying platform!?
Because they make money hand over fist on the Mac? Because the vast majority of creative professionals, graphic artists and publishers use a Mac?
IMHO (as i’m not an expert or anything and I don’t claim to have all the answers)
The real reason people want a lower cost Apple is because they want choice. If apple doesn’t realize this soon they will have big problems later.
Linux has come VERY far in the last 2 years towards giving users a great desktop OS. People want choice and with Linux they will get it.
It’s not that they will lose users to Linux. The people who will go to Linux are people who wouldn’t have bought an apple computer in the first place. Where Apple will lose out is that companies might start dropping mac support if Linux starts making up 5% of the desktop marketshare as opposed to Apple’s say 2% or less.
Apple isn’t going to die any time soon.. but the choices they make now could lead them there.
Apple has only 7 million people using OS X. This is Apple’s #1 problem.
So in terms of overall computer market share, they are less than 1%. In fact, the OS X market share probably rounds down to zero.
Apple’s base of computers (over 50 million) was built on affordable hardware running a version of MacOS, not OS X.
If Apple doesn’t come out with affordable machines that run OS X, Apple will be in trouble.
That is why the G5 must be used to help sell cheaper computers. Such as a very cool perforated aluminum 1+Ghz brick “iBox”.
Apple has killed themselves by only having one computer available without a monitor and that being their high-end “desktop/workstation” model.
Now that Apple has “over 300,000” developers (nearly 5% of the OS X user base, a figure that doesn’t even make sense), Apple needs to do something that will really fire up those developers. And that is stylish, affordable, inter-connectable iBox computers.
Could we not compare apple to companies with their own armies defending their factories from their cheap labor stealing their shoes, or companies who created a massive monopoly and supported the apartheid in South Africa?
😉
Someone should create a new computer company to compete with apple.
Someone should create a new computer company to compete with apple.
Someone did. Microsoft.
If Positioning for snobs is so important then why did the mac clones back in the day eat apples lunch?
That’s a good question. First, I don’t buy the whole positioning argument. I don’t think Apple’s have to be expensive to maintain an aura. However, I do think that there is a certain amount of branding involved and I do believe that the appearance of the machines (for instance) ties into that.
Back when clones were introduced the Macs were very different. Sure, they were media machines and used widely in business but in the home market they were dying – quickly. There was absolutely no reason to buy one. The clones didn’t really hurt Apple’s marketing, though, because there wasn’t any. Still, clones would have killed Apple dead if they had continued.
Today, with OS X and the whole digital media tie-in it is vastly different. Imagine if a clone maker shipped a Mac without Firewire. There goes the digital hub. I suppose Apple could put certain things like that into the license agreement. But then why bother to have clones? Think Different just doesn’t go very far when it’s running on a beige box. Macs have to be special looking. It’s how they are branded.
Apple is a marketing company first and foremost – like Nike.
Every consumer-oriented company that wants to be successful has to be first and foremost a marketing company.
It is true that OS X users are a small number. But it is just as true that Windows XP users are a small number out of the total Windows installed base. I know of very few people who have actually upgraded their machines. I am still running 2000 at work (unfortunately) and most of the home users I know are still running 98 or ME on machines a few years old.
I love your comment, it looks well documented. And you are right about many things. The same thing happens in the trucking business ( you mentioned Freightliner). There are a couple of brands in the US trucking industry: Freightliner, Kenworth, International, Volvo, Peterbilt, Sterling, and others. Basicly they all use a Caterpilar, Cummins or Detroit Diesel engine and one of the same transmissions, mostly a 13 spd, but then again there is the super 10 or the 18 speed Eaton&Fuller. Peterbilt is the most expansive of all (and yes, it still uses the cab from mid ’70). They have now borrowed a model from Kenworth (century class). Most old truck-drivers buy a Peterbilt after long years of hard work, just to look better. The cheaper Freighliner does the same job, offering the same power and confort. Actually the Freightliner Coronado is one of the trucks that jumps forward technologically. The same goes for any other industry, its all about money.
Apple has higher priced machines without a compeling reason. Noone can tell me that a $3K powerbook is made of a better material than my Toshiba or that the battery will last any longer. On my Toshiba Satellite the baterry lasts 4 hours, has a CD/RW, 15″ screen and 40GB hdd, 2Ghz CPU, 512 MB RAM. Performance wise it also performs excelent, its black, and its high-quality. Its also light. It was under $1k US.
So, please don’t jump all over me, I’ve worked on Apple machines, but the price is to high. I expect the opteron to com out for desktop and to build a 64 bit desktop running Linux. Price doesn’t always bring customers, in most cases it scares them away. Look at VW when they came up with the Beatle, it was cheap, good, had a cool boxer engine, and everyone buyed it. Same goes for VW vans. People look for quality at decent price, not at overprized products. Apple is NOT! cheap.
Rather than attract new users, the clones cannibalized Apple’s existing customer base, the people in the market for upgrades for their existing Macs.
Re positioning, the original Ries and Trout book is (as usual) very relevant. IIRC it explains why GM’s effort to market an inexpensive Cadillac in the ’80s was doomed to failure.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071373586/qid=105694…
It’s inexpensive and a very quick read.
I’d buy an Apple. I’ve been waiting for used iMacs to get cheaper, or maybe just “splurge” and buy a eMac. It should be noted that I’m by no means rich, I’m a college student. He’s my take on the whole Apple thing.
I first got hooked on computers on Macs back around 10 or 12 years ago. I love ’em. I used my little LC II for years, untill I got a 386 clone. Apple’s hardware and software seems so much more “polished” than PC hardware.
But like I said, I got a 386 and I’ve been using PCs ever since. Why? Games is a big part of it. But these days I tend to use 2 machines. I have a machine I use for gaming, and then I have my laptop that I use for everything else. As the years went on, I never really thought about buying a new Mac, other than an old one to put Linux PPC on it (man I’m a geek). It’s only recently that I’ve thought of buying a Mac to use it as a Mac.
These thoughts have always been dashed by the fact that ever since I’ve been able to buy a computer myself, PCs have been faster. Combine that with the games and when I only had one PC, the choice was obvious. Add the fact that I could build my dream PC and save a ton of money and the deal was sealed. But I still longed for an Apple. The simplicity, the polish.
Then my brother got a Titanium Powerbook, and put OS X on it. OS X was the thing that got me looking at Apples again. By this time I had fallen in love with Linux and the idea of a Unix core and that Apple polish has got me lured. I’ve used his PB a few times and I absolutly LOVE OS X. If they made a version for x86 PCs, I’d pay $400 for it. The biggest stumbling block has been the cost though. Apples still are, for the money, behind PCs in the power department.
But with the new G5s, there is a VERY good chance that the next desktop that I build/buy will be an Apple. If I don’t buy an Apple, I will build an Athlon 64 or Opteron system. I realize that Apples “cost more” but I think it’s worth it. Now that the two (PC and Mac) are relativly equal in power, I’m drawn to an Apple again. It’s the difference between having a car that works great but has no body pannels, and paying extra to get that sleek smooth look and design engineering. Sure I can build a good car myself, but it just won’t have that something that an Apple brand car has.
So I guess this is my take on the brand/price thing. I respect the brand, and if it cost less I wouldn’t respect it any less. There are Macheads who would, but I think it would be worth losing some brand value in their eyes if it meant more people buying computers would get Macs. Just using a Mac with OS X for a while will do more for the brand that a “premium” price ever will, at least in my eyes.
Then why apple bother to do that switch campaign?
If the Apple brand is all about style and class, why not create a spin-off brand to produce cheaper boxes that still run OS X?
If it was we would not see so much stupid american riding SUV. The problem is that most user in the 80’s started to buy IBM PC compatable so they could “work” at home (silly idea). That was after the c64 because in the c64 company did not used computer much at thing other than inventory and administration.
Then app have been made that way, for IBM PC and compatable, coder learned this, user learned PC app, user got used to some “brand name” utility.
When the Mac and the amiga came up, even the ST it was already late. Mind share was already in a whirlpool of sheep mentality mixed with chicken and egg paradox. Of course M$ going rampage in the middle of this prevented any fluctuation that could have reversed the trend.
Where does this leave us now, i freaking don’t care!!
i prefer orange juice to apple juice, and i don’t “fly” into any fruit forum to battle what is the most tasty or nutricious. Buy what you like, use what you need, end of story.
I use BeOS 100% now, a dead OS. You can say OSX this and XP that, in my mind computer for the so called 2000 year is crap. Even my young nephew of 5 year come up with better computer concept than the entire billion dollard industry. And user are not better, talking about GUI apearance as a criteria to choose an OS is so frivolous that the picture of leguizamo dressed as toulouse lautrec come to mind.
A few posts back, Anonymous said, in part:
“…Macs are cheaper.
…
Please show a single objective study that shows otherwise. Just one. It doesn’t exist.”
Curious how nobody has yet refuted that claim. Why has nobody made any attempt at all to refute this claim? Because they can’t.
This individual makes a very pointed, accurate statement. Macs _are_ less expensive than Windows/PCs. Throw Linux or one of the free BSDs into the mix and things get hazy. However, for the whole the price difference between Windows/PC and Mac debate, I refer people to http://macvspc.info/ and specifically to the “Windows/PCs are cheaper…” section. Granted, most of the links are a little dated, but the arguments are still valid.
Point of Fact: Macs stay in use an average 18mos longer than a Windows/PC (usually longer in an institutional or business environment.)
Point of Fact: Macs are easier to troubleshoot if and/or when they have a problem. In fact, most problems are solved by the user, without needing to call tech support (thus, saving money on tech support personnel and shorter periods of nonproductive downtime.)
Point of Fact: Properly maintained Macs suffer from less downtime than Windows/PCs (this may be different with Unix and Linux.) Less downtime means less money spent on tech support salaries in getting the machines back up. It also means less money lost due to unproductive personnel.
Point of Fact: MacOS (X or otherwise) is more compatible with any other operating system in the world than any other operating system in the world; out of the box; without the need for extensive documentation and setup (again, saving money on tech support personnel.) I got my iBook authenticated in my school’s Active Directory network in less than five minutes and without a reboot. Do that with a Windows/PC or even with Linux. I dare you.
> The entry level ibook for $999 is a great deal.
> It’s a computer I’d consider buying for myself at that price.
That model only has a 12.1″ screen…
“I hate to say this, but that “decently-equipped Mac” for $1000 (an eMac), is often comparable with that #300 PC.”
My mom bought an eMac and she paid $600 for it, but it crashed on her 1/3 of the time. The $500 monitor died on her after 2 years and the mouse din’t work most of the time (we replaced the mouse and she still had the same problem). It also made a very load noise, so that she had to turn it off all the time and could barely stand to work on it.
When we were going to replace it, we asked what a bare bone system would cost to build for her with quality parts, although not very fast. The guy said a thousand dollars and that was without the monitor. Now she has an eMac and everything works fine for her as well as she has never experienced a crash in 6 months (ever yet).
The reason why I use an eMac (with 1 gb ram) is that my work is more valuable than the computer. I was concrened with security and data integrity as well as quality of graphics.
$1000 is not a lot to pay for a quality computer.
I think that the author of this article is correct in that Apple does capitalize on various “intangibles” and subtle advantages in order to price itself higher and that the mass market is definitely not really the market that Steve Jobs is seriously interested in (anymore?).
The analogy that I would attempt to apply to the situation would be that Apple is similar to Ducati motorcycle. Ducatis are very well made and have lots of horsepower, but I could buy something like a Suzuki or Honda that is probably on par engineering-wise and performance-wise that costs half as much. I don’t know a lot about motorcycles really (so correct me if I’m wrong), but Ducati seems to have a certain “mystique” and other intangible factors that it takes advantage of the same way that Apple does. In terms of raw tangible factors (like RAM, MIPS performamce, component features, etc.) it is commonly argued that Wintel PCs price/perform better than Macs do and I find this very hard to dispute.
However, Apple has a lot of intangible advantages in that its user experience is generally better than other platforms, in a wide variety of mostly subtle ways. Apple relies on this to differentiate itself from Wintel boxes somehow, and I would say that it is working, considering that they have 4 or 5 Billion in cash in the bank (about exactly the same amount that Sun Microsystems does, believe it or not).
As far as the argument that software developers will abandon the Mac for the more populous Wintel world, I am not yet convinced that this is true. Consider, if I were going to develop a new and innovative software application, would I want to compete in the highly saturated world of Windows where there would be tons of competitors to deal with, or would I want to target the Mac because it is a smaller world where it would be easier to find my niche and exploit it successfully simply because the big dogs aren’t necessarily as interested in Apple as a platform? As a small shop, a user base of 7 million could be sufficient for me.
As for the argument that users will have problems finding Mac equivelents of Windows software that they rely on (or can’t play their PC games), I think this will be solved fairly easily when things like virtualPC improve to the point where they perform well enough to be convenient and reliable. Also, I heard someone say here that he has a Sun Blade 100 that has a PC-card residing in an expansion slot that runs all of his ‘legacy’ Windows software just fine and he had no complaints. Eventually (if not now, then soon) a fairly powerful PC will be runnable through an expansion board as a sub-system and small form-factor mainboards like Mini-ITX are clear proof of this. I predict that it won’t be long before everyone is running multiple OSes concurrently on a regular basis (using VMware or other), like they run applications now, as Moore’s law makes our hardware fast enough to do so transparently, and our perception of the limitations of hardware platforms will change for the better.
Just my $0.02. And thanks for posting this insightful article – it brought up some very interesting points that geeks all too often ignore.
Freudian slip – I meant eMachine for the first machine.
“…I predict that it won’t be long before everyone is running multiple OSes concurrently on a regular basis…”
Well, not ‘everyone’ I guess, but lots of people… 😉
Now maybe you Marketing duffs and mac people agree on something, but that doesnt’ change the fact that you’re wrong.
Yes I have gradiated college and I took a good number of marketing classes and such. Here’s the deal. Yes mac will be around for awhile. Yes it does a good job at what it does. But here’s the big thing. It’s not targetted at Businesses for general purpose use. You have to buy the whole package, there’s no white-box or dell selling Macs real cheap for businesses. So guess what? Joe Shmoe uses a PC at work, that’s the first computer he’s used, well guess which computer he’s going to buy for home? A Mac? No, a PC because that’s what he’s used at work. It’s true, and it’s what ultimately drives the desktop market. And this is why Linux will become the home computer of choice. Because it IS easy to configure it for widespread general purpose business desktop use. And once people are used to it at work, they’ll start using it at home. And this is inversely why Macs have never taken off. more then 15% market share.
I want a clean looking Black box with a ppc 970 inside and the IBM logo on the outside. If IBM could pull that off, I’d be a convert in a second, especially if they had an alternate much more minimal and simplistic interface for MacOS X. I just don’t trust Apple.
I’d have to disagree that MacOS is the most compatible OS in the world.
I have a Mac OS X book that recommends using a third party application to get full integration with a Windows network. Don’t even try to get MacOS 9 or earlier to talk with Windows machines, and any version of MacOS does Not like Direct Jet boxes.
Any properly maintained machine will run forever, maintained meaning locked down. I’ve found that if the users don’t get to install software, mechanical failure is the leading cause of downtime, assuming the machine has something like Win2k or later on it.
A Linux box would probably be able to “authenticate” into a Windows domain without having to reboot. Althought its “authentication” is just password caching. As far as I know every *nix, including MacOS X, just password caches as a bypass to not being able to truely authenticate in a Windows domain.
>This individual makes a very pointed, accurate statement. >Macs _are_ less expensive than Windows/PCs.
I don’t believe they are.
>Point of Fact: Macs stay in use an average 18mos longer than >a Windows/PC
That might be because of the Apple brand. I find that Mac users are much more attachted to their computers than PC users. Apple isn’t just the equipment, it’s a “lifestyle”.
>Point of Fact: Macs are easier to troubleshoot if and/or >when they have a problem. In fact, most problems are solved >by the user, without needing to call tech support
And what proof do you have of this? If it’s a fact, there must be proof?
>Point of Fact: Properly maintained Macs suffer from less >downtime than Windows/PCs
My PC running Windows is “properly maintained” and I have yet to suffer from any “downtime”.
>Point of Fact: MacOS (X or otherwise) is more compatible >with any other operating system in the world than any other >operating system in the world; out of the box; without the >need for extensive documentation and setup
It is? How is it more compatible with any other operating system in the world? Please enlighten us.
> I got my iBook authenticated in my school’s Active >Directory network in less than five minutes and without a >reboot. Do that with a Windows/PC or even with Linux. I >dare you.
I don’t seem to have any problems getting my Windows PCs talking on Windows based networks. But yes, sadly I do have to reboot. rebooting is just such a horrible thing. darn…
I have nothing against Mac’s, Apple, or anything. But Mac users who go on, and on, and on about how much better Mac’s and Mac OS is, that just drives me batty. It’s just like the Linux people who go on about Linux all the time.
I do think Mac’s are great computers… However I also think the same of PCs. As for choice of operating system, there is no “best OS”. It just doesn’t exist.
I run various operating systems here, Windows, Linux, BSD, DOS, OS/2, MacOS. and really I haven’t found a “best” one.
They all have a learning curve. And I have yet to see how MacOS is so much easier to learn than Windows.
Can we just stop the wars? There’s no need to fight over operating systems and platforms. It’s silly to do so… It’s like fighting over what model of car is the best.
In the end… It depends on what you want to use your computer for, how much you want to spend, and what your personal preferences are.
We should rejoice that we are in this situation, we have so many choices.
So c’mon everybody… Use the platform you love, or the operating system you love, and just let everyone do the same.
For my primary OS I prefer Windows, but I’m no Microsoft fan, I hate them and Gates. But it works the best for me.
And for the Mac guys, MacOS works best for them, and for the Linux guys, Linux works best for them.
So let’s all learn to embrace all the different platforms and operating systems out there. The more the better I say!
Is having two different brands. One Dell-like brand, the other an exclusive brand (Apple). Make three different divisions within Apple – the new company (for argument sake CheapMac), the existing hardware division (Apple) and a new division holding Mac OS (for argument sack, MacCorp). So Apple can continue pursuing a higher, better exclusive brand. MacCheap can make Macs that are cheap (low end markets) while MacCorp makes Mac OS X for both divisions. The look doesn’t have to be the same, MacCheap can adopt a different look besides Aqua – theming in OS X?
Or another solution, first move to x86. Then move to Windows. Compatiblity problem solved.
Speaking of Ford, under the same company, there are many different car brands, like Jaguar, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin. Fords may be the lowest end, Mazda appeals for the higher class blue-collar, Land Rover for well, Land Rovers, Aston Martin the highest of the market, Jaguar for high-end sports car.
Not many people know this. In other words, Ford is providing for the whole spectrum of market with different brands.
You know I cringe everything people use Nazis to describe, well, just about everything. Apple users may be fanatical about their Macs, they certainly don’t send PCs to concertration camps and kill off a big population of it therefore, now do they?
Geez, this is osnews.com, while people compare Mac purely on the hardware basis, as if Apple manufactures the boxes only.
Assuming OS X function basically the same as WinXP (which can be argued), or equal to your effort to get your Linux CD and install it:
For developers, the whole development tool chain is free. With the Unix underpinning, different shells and all the scripting languages just work. The tool chain also includes IDE for objective-C Cocoa development.
For end users, the iApps are really nice. I challenge anyone to find a music app on Windows or Linux better designed than iTunes for instance. Simple, consistent, powerful, and beautiful. Yes, this is subjective. But at least you can sense Mac people’s consensus here – they’re even willing to pay a little higher price for that.
“Is having two different brands…Or another solution, first move to x86. Then move to Windows.”
Yeah, but Steve Jobs clearly isn’t really in this just for the money anymore, and probably hasn’t been for a very, very long time. He does not want to be a clone of Michael Dell, although he easily could be if he wanted to. His motivations are totally different.
Apple has no reason to exist in the world other than to comfortably occupy its chosen niche, which is all it does. Under this “two brands” solution you propose Apple would probably still end up just cannibalizing itself anyway (exactly as it did with the clones).
Disclaimer: I have never owned a Mac. I am just calling it as I see it.
“is having two different brands. One Dell-like brand, the other an exclusive brand (Apple). Make three different divisions within Apple – the new company (for argument sake CheapMac), the existing hardware division (Apple) and a new division holding Mac OS (for argument sack, MacCorp). So Apple can continue pursuing a higher, better exclusive brand. MacCheap can make Macs that are cheap (low end markets) while MacCorp makes Mac OS X for both divisions. The look doesn’t have to be the same, MacCheap can adopt a different look besides Aqua – theming in OS X?”
They used to have ’em they were made by Umax and Motorola. St Steve of Cupertino killed them off because they were too fast, too cheap and too useful (standard PC as well as Apple ports).
Too late now. I think the real appeal of Apple is the style and cachet of the brand. Cheap Mac clones would probably cannablize the Apple brand rather than take x86 sales. Possibly a small form factor very low end machine to sell in the Via C3 market may suceed. Unfortunately Apple is now suffering from decisions made 10-20 years ago that may be impossible to overcome.
Why doesn’t Apple just make standard x86 Wintel hardware and make it look sexy? Plenty of people want a great looking machine and will pay a premium for it. Margins of 10-20% are still possible as it would cost no more than $20-50 to make a nice case, KB etc.
BTW Steve Jobs is legally obliged to maximise profits as a company director not persue his own goals.
No.
“Why doesn’t Apple just make standard x86 Wintel hardware and make it look sexy?…BTW Steve Jobs is legally obliged to maximise profits as a company director not pursue his own goals.”
Why not? Because Voodoo, AlienWare and dozens of others are already doing this and filling this role quite nicely. Why would Apple want to essentially destroy itself as it exists now in order to transform into doing the same thing AlienWare does and try to compete with them on their own turf? Why not just start a whole new company from scratch to do this if that’s what you want? It would be far, far easier that way, maybe even possible.
Steve Jobs IS totally maximizing the profits of AAPL based on the reality that the company cannot possibly be transformed along the lines being proposed in this thread, any more than MSFT is likely to buy BeOS and scrap Windows because it would make a few geeks happier, while defying reality and destroying the company completely. Apple is being taken as far as Apple can go without being destroyed in some bizarre attempt to turn it into something that could seriously compete with Wintel, like that other Apple CEO (John whats-his-name?) tried to do, once upon a time, and failed so miserably.
Jobs is in the driver’s seat and Apple is his baby. If the AAPL board (in some strange fantasy) tried to defy him and prevent him from having 100% control, he would just quit in less than a second and then AAPL would be fucked (again) because no-one else knows how to run it successfully using some different strategy. Simple as that.
Again, I am not an Apple or Jobs “fan” and have barely ever even used a Mac, much less owned one.
I like macs around, I like choices. I have one at home.
But to think they are better quality? What are you smoking? Apple uses off the shelf pc parts just like everyone else, with the exception of the motherboard design and the processor. The RAM, the busses and the drives are just pc parts. Often the are inferior to what you could put into your machine. Doesnt anyone remember when apple was caught overclocking RAM to get it to perform to their spec as opposed to buying quality ram in the first place?
MAC’s are a percieved better quality with no basis in fact.
I’m not sure if your comment was aimed at me (I don’t think I could have said anything to provoke you), but I will answer anyway.
No, I don’t think Apple hardware is really “better quality”, and I agree that this is more perception than fact, especially with the more modern PC case designs.
Maybe this was more true during the early Mac PowerPC era years ago. That I could probably believe, but I don’t really know one way or the other.
OS X, however, is another story. I stand by any comments I made comparing OS X to other OSes.
Apple may be innovative but right now they offer machines with 3 generations of CPU : G3, G4, G5 ! There are also the only ones to sell machines with basic SDRAM. That’s the only company out there who do that.
In the end, yes it’s all about marketing.
Did anyone ever count the hours sitting in front of their computer? For many people it is a huge amount of time every year. It could be up to 2000hrs or even more.
I must say, even if I had to pay a little more for an apple,to me it would be worth it, since I am looking at the damn machine thousands of hours every year. A lot of people buy other things (car, bike, phone, etc.) that look neat, BUT they hardly look at it.
Nice article, but as you mention, it doesn’t even come close to point out the whole situaiton that Apple is in.
I have a bachelor of computer science and one in Business Administration, so I’m supposed to see the techonological aspects aswell as the economical ones. At least that’s what tell my boss.
You seem to emphasize BRAND as the only capability that Apple posseses. If Apples only capability is it’s BRAND, then it might as well close it’s doors now. No company can survive (long term) on it’s brand. Fx. Ferrari makes cars with speed, comfort, design. Rolex adds precious metals, solid clockwork (no Rolex “Quartz inside” etc.).
To further analyze what Apple should do, you need to find it’s ressources and capabilities (the simple way is to construct a SWOT, the best way is to make a complete ressoucesbased analysis (duh!).
On the top of my head some of Apples CORE capabilities (not to be confused with ressources) are:
BRAND
EASE OF USE (!) (APPLES HUMAN INTERFACE)
CONTROL OF BOTH SOFT- AND HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT
“OPEN SOURCE” DEVELOPMENT (maybe this is a ressource).
Hmm..maybe this should be an article (or my next paper) to get to the bottom of this…
and yes, I’m not from the USA (or any other English speaking country.
mojn!
>This individual makes a very pointed, accurate statement. >Macs _are_ less expensive than Windows/PCs.
>I don’t believe they are.
Beliefs are fine. But I didn’t ask for beliefs. All I asked for was a single study showing PCs are cheaper than Macs. Nobody has provided one yet (yet being the year I’ve been asking for one).
A simple glance at eBay will show you how much more of their value Macs hold than a PC. PCs depreciate to a value of nearly $0 in alarmingly rapid fashion. They probably lose close to half their value in the first 12 months alone. This is a product of the same thing that makes them less expensive to buy in the first place – the numerous PC manufacturers.
So once again, can anyone produce any study at all that shows PCs cheaper than Macs for TCO?
For the record, I’m a Linux person myself.
As for the “wars”, this is not a war, this is in response to an article about the cost of Macs and how they’re expensive yadda yadda yadda. This is a *myth*. They are marginally more expensive to purchase up front than a similarly equipped PC. But they are cheaper to actually own.
If you think I’m blowing smoke, *prove me wrong* with a single piece of evidence that proves otherwise. surely there must be ONE study out there showing how much cheaper it is to own a PC. Yet there isn’t. Because it’s not cheaper at all.
With all the clever analogies to cars and shoes and diamonds, I think it’s understated how unique a situation Apple is in. It is in a very tricky market space and I think Steve Jobs has done a considerable job taking the controls of a plane that was once pointing towards the ground with several engines out. The company is a wonderful, bizarre and unclassifiable enigma at best. It does, undeniably, influence quite a bit of the personal computer industry and always has.
The brand is very strong, and I would say even stronger these days in a much larger audience’s mind. But, It’s a slow burn here and there was the unfortunate interruption when Motorola stalled the next gen processors.
I, of course, only really use macs. Love them, but not because I’m brainwashed into thinking they’re the best computer (as if anyone could seriously decide that one), but because I really can get comfortable in the environment and just get to work. Something I’ve just never been able to do with a Windows machine. That’s something I personally don’t mind paying a little more up front for. Go figure.
Oh, and Gil Bates, you make some good points – well said.
A nice presentation. Though, I notice that you did not mention the Apple “Europe” tax. Not VAT but the fact that In Europe the base price is about 10 to 15% higher than the US in $
For Example the new G5 Dual 2GHz $2999 that = 2550 Euros but the base price on Apple.de is 2799 Euros. Also, what no one seems to think about is that the Mac sold in the US has US Customs (VAT) included in the price. That is not and should not be included in the price of the product (product never goes into the US) in Europe as VAT is added later. That is to say that in Europe not only do we pay 10% more but we also give Apple the amount of US customs as additional
profit.
It is no small wonder that market share in Europe is shrinking.
Curious how nobody has yet refuted that claim. Why has nobody made any attempt at all to refute this claim? Because they can’t.
Eh? He wrote this mantra three times: “Repeat after me: Macs are cheaper than PCs.” No thank you, I don’t want to get infected by his simple thought processes. He didn’t do any work to get evidence and I’m not wasting my time on every random zealot who can say whatever he wants.
If I were to throw him a bone, I’d tell him not to compare to Apples and Dells, but AMD+Asus. Apple still hasn’t a track record on keeping up with innovation, but now with IBM’s help we’ll soon be able to make real studies.
westyvw: But to think they are better quality? What are you smoking? Apple uses off the shelf pc parts just like everyone else, with the exception of the motherboard design and the processor.
Yes, and apparently these are components you wish to simply ignore.
So apparently the fact that Apple is selling desktops with HyperTransport-based interconnect should be completely disregarded? The 1GHz FSB? I guess these things aren’t important.
And I guess since PCs are available with a dual channel DDR400 memory controller that makes the one in the PowerMac “off-the-shelf” eh?
So, given that, let me ask you something, what PC OEM is shipping Serial ATA drives per default in their desktop line?
The RAM, the busses and the drives are just pc parts.
News flash buddy… HyperTransport isn’t a “pc part”, it was originally SGI’s interconnect for its supercomputers, NUMA. As for Serial ATA drives, sure the same technology can be used with PCs, just like any other high bandwidth drive interface such as Fiber Channel. But what desktop PCs have you seen coming out of an OEM with Serial ATA? Are they low end systems, or are they top of the line?
Often the are inferior to what you could put into your machine.
Yes, you could put a Fiber Channel drive in your desktop, and that would be superior to Serial ATA. But wouldn’t it also be… overkill?
And I’m sure the memory is from some supplier that you consider worse than some other supplier. Well here’s another news flash… dual channel DDR400 is about as good as it gets at the present time, so unless you’re encountering memory errors what difference does the manufacturer make?
And regarless, all of this is moot. The issues are with the construction of Macs in general, specifically the laptops. There are few portables manufacturers making products of the same construction quality as the PowerBooks. The iBooks are also an excellent design as well. If you are looking to buy a laptop that won’t disintegrate from wear and tear, Apple is certainly the way to go.
robUx4: Apple may be innovative but right now they offer machines with 3 generations of CPU : G3, G4, G5 ! There are also the only ones to sell machines with basic SDRAM. That’s the only company out there who do that.
Give Apple a break… they’ve been waiting a long time for a new processor. Now that they have it they will begin transitioning their product lines. We can expect G5 PowerBooks and G4 iBooks in the future, with the G3-based product line completely eliminated.
Miguel, thank you for writing this interesting editorial! I mostly disagree with it, but it is totally devoid of viteral and anger and was a pleasure to read.
There are aspects I do agree with. Apple had an iPod ad on their site not long ago that looked like an ad from Tiffeny’s. Our Michael here has made hilarious remarks about Apple and its New Age sort of aura.
But, I think Apple is missing an opportunity here. Apple is really the Stave Jobs machine. Jobs is brilliant, but no human being is perfect. I think he has a blind spot about the low end that has haunted him wherever he goes.
I’ve been saying this, but Apple really should come out with a cool low end Mac. It could be the Cube. All the R&D has already been done on it. No cost there. They would plan to lose money on it, but will have decided to bite the bullit on that, in order to bring in new customers. The Cube would be the coolest entry level computer in history. And Jobs will have fooled everyone again. As Eugenia has said, Apple could begin to grow a market around a product like that and would lead people not only to Apple’s higher end, but also their other producrs – iPod, iSight, etc.
I am hoping that one day sanity will return to the economy and markets. A company’s first obligations are to its customers and employess. Any obligation to the shareholers comes last – they are the ones rolling the dice with their money. They are responsible only to themselves.
Why not make Wintel computers? Then what competitive egde would Apple have?
The main competitive edge all through the years without fail for the Mac has always been the software. The OS. That would all fly out the window with Apple going for Wintel. What advantage is there buying a Mac then over AlienWare or Voodoo or Sony or something of that sort? Nothing.
Proof? Remember the time SGI tried Wintel (with Windows NT)? What happen? Lost a whole lot of millions.
“The reason why I use an eMac (with 1 gb ram) is that my work is more valuable than the computer. I was concrened with security and data integrity as well as quality of graphics.”
The eMac graphics/screen combo is mediocre at best… don’t talk yourself into such nonsense.
Then why apple bother to do that switch campaign?
What do you think? they’re aiming their products are those willing to pay the price and wanting to use something that is superior to Windows. Apple is out there like every other company trying to pull customers over and prove why people should buy their product over their competitors.
As for the cost arguments, how about this, get a bloody job! I’m a student and I accept that to buy a computer I just might have to save up some money. SHOCK! HORROR! the thought that the johnny-cheap-skates of teh world can’t get instant gratification certainly doesn’t break my heart for moment.
You stick with your home baked machines running a half baked operating system with shoddy components and I’ll keep with my machine that I know will worth nicely with everything I load onto it.
Personally, I think Apple is the best OEM since… Apple? My choice of platform has nothing to do with price, and I cant see it ever will be.
As a graphic designer, the platform is much better suited to my needs – I can get to work without having to worry about all the shit that comes with running a Wintel box. It seems every time I try to work on a Wintel box, 50% of the time -it takes more time fucking around with this and that, trying to solve various software / hardware problems, and then by the time I get things working- my creative energy has been spent on trouble shooting… which is frustrating and inefficient. The reason? too many factors on the PC platform. (I’m not going to waste time listing them
That’s good and bad depending on how you look at it. For me it’s a pain in the ass. For geeks I’m sure its heaven.
With Apple products, 99% of the time I switch em on- and I’m ready to rock. Streamlined software / hardware means productivity, and more importantly- personal satisfaction when working
The point- Buy according to what your needs are.
Price point is but one element of a computer:)
“A simple glance at eBay will show you how much more of their value Macs hold than a PC. PCs depreciate to a value of nearly $0 in alarmingly rapid fashion. They probably lose close to half their value in the first 12 months alone. This is a product of the same thing that makes them less expensive to buy in the first place – the numerous PC manufacturers.”
A total misunderstanding of depreciation. The total depreciation in dollars is what counts not the percentage.
Joe Gulliblet buys a new Mercedes for $100,000 and sells it two years later for $80,000 – a depreciation of 25%. Bill Sensible buys a Toyota and sells it two years later for $10,000 – a 50% depreciation.
Joe has lost 20,000 on his Merc. Bill has lost only $10,000 on his Toyota. Bill is $10,000 ahead despite a much higher (50% vs 25%)rate of depreciation.
That is one reason why companies buy cheap PCs. The total cost is written off over 3-5 years. Depreciation is tax deductable and is actually desirable for tax purposes to have a residual value of a computer of close to zero when it is replaced. In Australia you can buy ex-business computers at public auctions for virtually nothing.
Bill Sesible buys a $20,000 Toyota and sells it for $10,000.
Highly interesting article, but somewhat subjective. My own experience would have led to totally different conclusions: rich people I know buy expensive PCs; the many Macs I see around are all for work (editing/publishing).
Am I stupid, or is there a big contradiction in that post?
well your porsche statement is not completely true. Porsche made a lot of money with their entry level “boxter” Porsche.
http://www2.us.porsche.com/english/usa/home.htm
It was the first Porsche around ~38000€ which is to say quite cheap. I think eugenia’s right that apple should release a cheap entry level emac. It should not try to compete with the 199€ PC but the 499€ pc as eugenia said.
flo
RE: bigmaC (IP: —.d.002.hob.iprimus.net.au) – Posted on 2003-06-30 10:53:01
Personally, I think Apple is the best OEM since… Apple? My choice of platform has nothing to do with price, and I cant see it ever will be.
I agree. When I bought this PC, I didn’t say, “wow, it only costs $3500!”, I had a look at the specs and what my requirements were, and the two married quite nicely.
I’ve now decided to move to a PowerMac G5, I’ve compared what my requirements are, what the PowerMac provides me and they two again marry up quite nicely. If anyone was assuming, yes, I do a little graphical work and no, I don’t use Adobe or Quark, I’m a Corel man 😉
Btw, I see you’re in Australia, I’ve just contacted Apple Australia and the expected delivery date for the G5 is around August and should be roughly around the same price as the, however, I do have a feeling with the favourable exchange rate, it maybe slightly different.
As a graphic designer, the platform is much better suited to my needs – I can get to work without having to worry about all the shit that comes with running a Wintel box. It seems every time I try to work on a Wintel box, 50% of the time -it takes more time fucking around with this and that, trying to solve various software / hardware problems, and then by the time I get things working- my creative energy has been spent on trouble shooting… which is frustrating and inefficient. The reason? too many factors on the PC platform. (I’m not going to waste time listing them
That’s good and bad depending on how you look at it. For me it’s a pain in the ass. For geeks I’m sure its heaven.
I wouldn’t call my self a geek by I certainly don’t like fucking around with IRQ’s and DMA conflicts here there and every bloody where. Heck, I re-installed Windows 2000 with service pack 4, loaded the Cannon printing software and guess what? my printer wasn’t found. I then had to spend the next 2-3 days trouble shooting WHY it wasn’t detecting. I eventually gave up and installed it manually via the printer control panel, which I shouldn’t need to do.
With Apple products, 99% of the time I switch em on- and I’m ready to rock. Streamlined software / hardware means productivity, and more importantly- personal satisfaction when working
The point- Buy according to what your needs are.
Having used an iMac, I know exactly what you mean, flick them on, throw in some information and voila, you’re on the net surfing, sending email writting documents and doing what ever.
Price point is but one element of a computer:)
Unfortunately osnews.com is full of Johnny Cheapskates unwilling to do a bit of hardwork, save up their pennies and pounds and buy a computer. They expect instant gratification and consider that saving up for 4 weeks is a hard task.
I’m certainly no millionaire, however, I certainly remember what my parents taught me about saving up for something and the satisfaction one gets once you get it. My old man is the same, he doesn’t mind paying a premium for something that is worthwhile. An Apple PowerMac G5 is a worthwhile investment and if these Johnny Cheapskates don’t like it, then they can zip their mouths, cruise off to their local dodgy PC vendor and trying to hack bits of computers parts together in the hope of producing something that is productively useful.
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.tpgi.com.au)
Bill sensible wouldn’t go around constantly reselling his cars. Bill sensible would buy a quality car and keep for longer than 2 years. Infact, he would keep it until it completely falls to pieces or becomes totally unreliable, approximately 10-12years. Yes, I am a New Zealander and I am a tightass.
The problem with branding a different Apple machine is that competition does not exist right now in the Mac market. There is one supplier: Apple.
Competition has always existed in the auto market and many buyers don’t pay attention to who owns whom.
It’s also interesting on eBay that there are almost always approximately the same number of Macs and PC’s up for auction. Amazing, considering Apple’s market share. However, there’s another aspect to it. Many of these Apple desktops are Apple II’s and early Macs. People are still using these for various reasons.
They used to have ’em they were made by Umax and Motorola. St Steve of Cupertino killed them off because they were too fast, too cheap and too useful (standard PC as well as Apple ports).
LOL. Too useful? Yeah, Jobs took a look and said “damn this computer is useful – I’ll have to kill it.”
No, the clones were killed because Apple makes money on hardware. Every clone sold was money lost for Apple. It made a small amount on the OS license but all the hardware profit was gone.
Don’t be silly. The PC market is “full.” Every possible category of manufacturer already has half a dozen players.
Also, considering the prices the PowerMacs where back in 1997/1998, the prices now are a bargin.
If in 1997/98 we had people saying, “Macs are too expensive”, I would have agreed, however, today Macs are moderately priced and are marketed not to every tom, dick and harry, they are marketed to those who are willing to pay a premium for a quality product.
The PowerMac G5 is a moderately priced product and for the length of time I’ll keep it for, most likely 4-5 years, I will get my moneys worth out of it.
Again, where are all the so-called “PC experrts” who can’t afford a Mac? if these were such PC-Experts, they should be swimming in money and able to buy a Mac in 5minutes.
Apple spends significantly more money on R&D, product design and marketing than most PC manufacturers.
Another thing that Apple has over other PC manufacturers is strong brand recognition and mindshare. Its one of the most recognized brands in the world and judging just by the popularity of Apple news threads the mindshare it has among PC users is apparent.
I like apple. I am considering buying a powerbook since my laptop display just died. But I’m tired of this idea that mac is the rolex of computers.
Wake up. For years, you were known as the workstation of choice for graphics people. Geeks weren’t raving about any mac os before 10. Not making a cheap model doesn’t make you elite. High end pc’s compete with high end macs. Mac just doesn’t exist in the low end.
If you think apple makes you part of the elite, J.Crew yuppie world, wake up to this fact. Why do public schools use Macs? Classes are overcrowded, levy taxes are failing, buildings are in disrepair, but you think they can afford the “porsche of computing?” Wake up.
And yes, I would buy a $10 Ferrari, and I would laugh at anyone who wouldn’t because they were now considered cheap.
“And yes, I would buy a $10 Ferrari, and I would laugh at anyone who wouldn’t because they were now considered cheap.”
I agree totally!
I agree with most of what the author says. But i do believe that apple needs to gain share to keep its developers and partners (like IBM) happy.
Apple won’t tap into the larger market without lower prices but they can do it slowly. $1299 for a G4 power mac now. Perhaps it’ll be $1099 after and if the G5 gains traction. who knows maybe apple will come out with a $4500 or $5000 ultra high-end G5.
The point is that each time apple reduces its pricing, it has to compensate for that somewhere, like on the top end or via consumer electronics. Apple has been doing that slowly and cautiously. I believe that they will gain a small amount of share already. Just give it time. Apple is a profitable business. They have time.
Apple spends significantly more money on R&D, product design and marketing than most PC manufacturers.
Apple is not just a PC manufacturer. At various times they have manufactured most of the products that go into a computer, and they produce a number of other products (ie the iPod). Your average ‘PC manufacturer’ on the x86 side is just a system builder putting together other people’s parts. Apple AND x86 PC manufacturers benefit greatly from the vast amount of spending in R&D, marketing, and design done by PC hardware manufacturers, such as ATI, nVidia, hard drive manufacturers, and so on. Apple also does a great deal of the marketing that is done on the x86 side by Intel, marketing a platform more than a product. Intel makes money whether you buy a ‘Dell PC with Pentium IV processor’ or you go into your local computer store and buy a boxed (or OEM) Pentium IV processor. Apple doesn’t make money if you buy a boxed G5 processor, but then you can’t run OS X on a G5 processor if you don’t buy a computer from Apple, either.
Also, most of the system builders that actually put a great deal of money into their case design and picking the best products for their systems are simply not big OEMs. The reason for this is simple: the business market. Businesses are not going to buy $3000+ Alienware PCs when they can buy Dells that do the same thing for them. As an added bonus, Apple’s been around longer than Dell, and most of the other x86 OEMs that have been around as long as Apple can’t keep up in terms of market share (though it’s what they try to compete on much of the time).
Another thing that Apple has over other PC manufacturers is strong brand recognition and mindshare. Its one of the most recognized brands in the world and judging just by the popularity of Apple news threads the mindshare it has among PC users is apparent.
However, not all mindshare is good mindshare. If the brand is recognized as being more expensive than it’s worth, then you (the holder of that brand) have a lot of work to do. Hell, some of us remember when almost every single part in an Apple computer was superior to what you got in a standard PC, but those days are now in the past, Apple computers can (and do) use standard low-cost PC parts that some people wouldn’t even put in their x86 PCs. The cost has come down to the processor, motherboard, case, and name, and only some can justify it any more. The worst part, to many of the people here and elsewhere, is that people want Apple’s products, but can’t justify the cost vs. x86 systems that are viewed as equivalent or better.
To go back to the old flawed car analogies: I’d really like a Z06 Corvette, but I can’t afford one right now. At the same time, I can’t go out and buy something cheaper that’s just as good or better, in my view, either. On the other hand, the Apple looks more like that foreign car that costs $10,000 more with some slightly cool styling, but has less torque and a lower high speed than an American car with similar safety ratings, headroom, legroom, number of seats, and gas mileage.
I’m just waiting for an editorial that’s actually about an OS. This is OSnews right ?
We also have a site called OSopinion, that’s for these kinds of walhalla-suck-out-of-the-thumb stories 1st year marketing college kids like to spew out.
OK, enough for now, back to serious sites again.
What is your point, this is a hardware and operating system orientated site. If you don’t like it, bugger off to a website where l33t d00ds squeeze an extra 0.00000000001fps out of their video card by overclocking to the extreme and using an edothermic reactor to extract the heat from the GPU.
A bunch of PC people jumping up and down screaming “Nooooo, Macs are not cheaper!”, yet not a single one able to come up with a study that says the same.
As for the depreciation fella, you keep losing 90% of your money and I’ll keep losing 30% on my computer pruchasing and I’ll be much more comfortable at the meeting with my CFO. I love the inflated numbers too, because Macs costs several multiples of the price of an equivalent PC, yes? Nope. They cost about 15% more than a comparably equipped PC.
A SINGLE STUDY CAN NOT BE PRODUCED BY ANYONE SUPPORTING THE “PCS ARE CHEAPER” ARGUMENT BECUASE IT IS NOT TRUE. The larger initial outlay is offset by better resale and lower operating costs.
I’m afraid this whole analysis misses the mark. Regardless of “branding,” “image,” etc… a Mac is not a Porsche or a Rolex. A Porsche can still drive on the same roads and use the same fuel as a Ford, and a Rolex still displays the same time as a Casio (heck, the author repeats this discussion at the end of the article). But repeat after me folks, “Macs need Mac software.”
If Apple’s market share continues to decline, developers will continue to move away from it. To increase market share, Apple needs to do something about their pricing. Otherwise all that lovely “image” and “product placement” ain’t worth squat – and I’m a fan of Apple technology, I *want* them to succeed!
Macs _are_ less expensive than Windows/PCs. Throw Linux or one of the free BSDs into the mix and things get hazy. However, for the whole the price difference between Windows/PC and Mac debate, I refer people to http://macvspc.info/ and specifically to the “Windows/PCs are cheaper…” section. Granted, most of the links are a little dated, but the arguments are still valid.
The links aren’t a little dated. They are way way way dated. And have a lot of unproven “facts” and even a link to a old IDC report which Apple instantly misquoted (later made a non-apology apology). PCs move along much faster than Macs, and many of the comparisons here are done with PC models no longer shipping, which is unfair.
Point of Fact: Macs stay in use an average 18mos longer than a Windows/PC (usually longer in an institutional or business environment.)
So you mean my PC would *beep* *beep* *beep* and combust spotanously 18 months earlier than PCs by average? Wow. God would wonder how you compared. Look, I have a 120MHz Pentium MMX here working all fine. While you won’t see much new software on it (same with any Mac it’s age), it still works fine. Perfectly usable.
Then right next to me where my brother is playing GTA is a 5 year old machine (older if you don’t count from the time the processor and motherboard was changed). Works perfectly fine. And you heard it right – the computer have been upgraded many times, such a thing much harder – and more expensive – than the Mac.
And many times, I do use it.
Point of Fact: Macs are easier to troubleshoot if and/or when they have a problem.
Yeah, if you compare a $1000 Mac with a incomparable $400 PC from a shop down the street which have no crediblity whatsoever – yeah.
In fact, most problems are solved by the user, without needing to call tech support (thus, saving money on tech support personnel and shorter periods of nonproductive downtime.)
What happen if the problem have to do with the hardware? What happens if the most faulty part of Macs (the modem) goes out? What happens if your hard disk succumbs to fungus? How fast would it be replaced. Dell for example under warranty would come the next business day and fix it for you. And for businesses, they extend their warranties all the time until they feel like throwing them out in the dump.
Point of Fact: Properly maintained Macs suffer from less downtime than Windows/PCs (this may be different with Unix and Linux.)
Any scientific test to prove that? All Mac users I know personally would scoff at that statement. It really depends what kind of PC you use. If you have an el-cheapo computer by some unknown brand – tough luck.
Less downtime means less money spent on tech support salaries in getting the machines back up.
Most small businesses with less than 5 computers (like my neighbourhood’s grocer) don’t have sysadmins. They are perfectly fine with the PCs, from the looks of it.
Point of Fact: MacOS (X or otherwise) is more compatible with any other operating system in the world than any other operating system in the world; out of the box; without the need for extensive documentation and setup (again, saving money on tech support personnel.)
(I’m saying this against the fact that I set up my home network within 10-15 minutes). So? You say just say an hour after buying the machines. So? Would one *hour* justify the extensive cost Macs give? And mind you, unless the business is a fast expanding one (unlikely), they don’t change their entire network every week.
Do that with a Windows/PC or even with Linux.
Oh wow, you save some time, I save some few hundred bucks. I prefer the latter, if you don’t mind.
Since you intensely focus on the corporate market, consider these
Point to fact: They are way heck more custom software makers for Wintel and Linux. So, you may ask? Well, they are important in making custom applications that certain businesses would use. By comparison, there is relatively few for Macs (at least here in Malaysia and Singapore). Hiring your own programmer would be even more expensive, if you are a small business (like 95% of Malaysian businesses or about 85% of American businesses).
Point to fact: If your office use computer lightly, Linux thin clients are far more cheaper, more easier to manage and overall a smarter choice in comparison with a bunch of eMacs. Expanding your business would be faster, in addition to support cost being lower, far less hardware problems, etc.
Point to fact: I search around on Microsoft site: no Mac volume licensing. I searched on a number of other companies important for business, they don’t have such facilities for Macs. In other words, buying software like Office would be much cheaper for big business on PCs than on Macs.
I can go on and on, but bed is calling..
They used to have ’em they were made by Umax and Motorola. St Steve of Cupertino killed them off because they were too fast, too cheap and too useful (standard PC as well as Apple ports).
Neither Umax nor Motorola are part of Apple, Apple can’t control them in any way. They aren’t a brand of Apple. It goes completely against the entirely point.
Neither should customers care who owns who in the PC market – and they don’t. Apple can build a totally different brand that what it has now without hurting the current one any bit.
Pretend it’s all about greed … that “little guys” don’t understand business, and just want something for less.
Then go read this article from a few days ago:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914157…
There is a classic danger in going up-market. Apple seems to be accepting that risk with their computers, and yielding more and more sales to competetors. At the same time, they seem to be doing some distruptive strategies with music, etc.
Maybe they can open enough new business that they can survive a departure from the computer mainstream. _That_ seems to be the real question today
“I’m afraid this whole analysis misses the mark. Regardless of “branding,” “image,” etc… a Mac is not a Porsche or a Rolex. A Porsche can still drive on the same roads and use the same fuel as a Ford, and a Rolex still displays the same time as a Casio (heck, the author repeats this discussion at the end of the article). But repeat after me folks, “Macs need Mac software.”
Most people want to run certain software and will not change to other programs to do a task even if they are better. The majority of people find even tiny changes in the operation of programs very difficult. That is why people stick with Word, Final Cut Pro, Dreamweaver or whatever even if alternatives exist. I prefer PowerDVD to WinDVD and Mozilla to IE6 although I have all on my PC.
The fact that a single game is not available on a platform will deter some potential buyers.
Consumers can go to a department store and see hundreds of PC titles on display. Sure Mac titles are readily available by mail order but it isn’t the same.
Here’s how I’d suggest a solution to the problem. Wait for Linux, or some other competitor, to harm Microsoft. Then while Microsoft’s attention is elsewhere, attack. At this point, MS may have to do two strategically incompatible things.
That’s the main justification I see for Apple lowering price.
I haven’t heard anyone with a real study arguing that Macs are cheaper overall, so I guess PCs are cheaper.
It looks like one item supporting the thesis is flawed, the argument is shown below:
“Apple cannot deliver products that are not innovative, well designed or top-notch quality, they would only destroy their own brand and reduce sales figures dramatically.”
Reconstruct the paragraph into a logical diagram and you will the fallacy in this statement.
Another big difference between Apple computers and the average PC is build quality.
It is not unusual to find Mac users with machines older than 5 years who have NEVER had a single hardware problem with that machine and who continue to use these older Macs daily at home or at work.
Try to find more than a handful of PC users who could make a similar claim and we will have to do a serious credibility check on your sources. ;o)
The two user groups are obviously on different sides of the planet when it comes to mindsets.
I find most PC owners don’t value their personal time so they see no cost to them in the installation nightmares that are a standard feature of owning a Windows PC. (How many hours per year does the average PC user waste with such BS?) Do they consider this in the cost of ownership? Of course not!
They don’t value the cost of service problems with hardware either. Guess they just assume that EVERYONE’s computer needs to be serviced on a regular basis. WRONG! Macs don’t! ;o)
When you get right down to it, it all boils down to ignorance.
For every PC user complaining about reliability, there is a solution in the use of a Mac. For every PC user griping about Macs costing too much, there is common sense and a calculator to prove this to be a long standing fallacy.
Problem is, the average Joe Sixpack computer user is too lazy to think for themselves. They rely on the bigoted PC experts to make their computer buying decisions for them. (misery loves company). And what you are left with is a world in which 95% of the people who use computers uses PCs over Macs.
No wonder the planet is going down the tubes! ;o)
My old (4-5 years) GNU/Linux desktop is now an OpenBSD Fileserver. It was behind the curve technology when I bought it. My firewall/router is a 8-10 year old (I’ve lost track) pentium 1 100MHz running OpenBSD. And an 850MHz Duron Box that a friend abandoned for a new 2GHz machine serves as my Gentoo desktop. It runs the Quake III released for GNU/Linux at respectable framerate. How does that total cost of ownership and lifetime reliability compare?
MAC Myth #1: PC User = Windows User
-b
Goldengoose7, I found an error an in your argument shown below:
“Another big difference between Apple computers and the average PC is build quality. ”
You say there is a big difference but did not provide any support what that that difference is. All I can see that difference is just the plastic molding called case that is different. I don’t know about the chips, though. Maybe Mac chips are manufactured differently using a totally new doping process and that RAM/ROM chips were not made by same factories who produced memories for PCs.
Let’s agree the plastic or aluminum casing is different. Fine, I agree you are right but let’s leave it there because that is the only thing different with regards to build quality.
Neither should customers care who owns who in the PC market – and they don’t. Apple can build a totally different brand that what it has now without hurting the current one any bit.
Not entirely true. Right now there is no competition in the Mac market. Starting competition is going to draw attention from alot of people. If Dell secretly funded a new start-up computer manufacturer no one would notice. The PC market is not the Mac market.
wow started kinda ok then went wrong….
I am not any of those people you had there but I still use a mac. Hell I come from a poor imigrant family and used a black and white mac when 3-d graphic cards started coming around. And I’m still on a mac. I don’t want to be trendy or special. I like the OS and I know what to expect when I get an apple product. That is about it.
(and too many comments to read)
Yes, apple makes a quality product. A better product than the windows counter part. This is not just branding. It is attention to detail and quality software design. BUT!!!
Apple has always charged a premium for high-end machines and has not performed the regular price reductions that happen in the PC world. Both should probably be re-thought.
Does apple have to deliver a system that is dollar/mhz identical to the PC world HELL NO! But if they use a unified chip-set (which they do) and can make a system with 1Ghz G4 processor and all the trimmings with a 17 inch monitor for $700 Then they should be able to put out one that does not include the monitor for less than $600. There is no reason to pay a $600 premium for a tower case and 3 pci slots. Apple makes money selling the eMac and iMac. These are quality products that continue its brand name. An ultra-mini tower (cube like device) with processor options from 1Ghz to 1.4 Ghz dual should go for $800-$1800 with a combo drive.
1Ghz Combo 256Mb/80GB $800
1.25 dual combo $1100
1.4 dual $1500
I will admit that these prices are speculative based off what I can get from the emac and current tower designs, but they are not far off base. I have added a little more profit margin than the eMac (because that system is subsidized by the high end right now) but kept from the quick acceleration of profit that happens at the high end today.
Also, more frequent price drops are in order. When apple keeps it’s prices overly high too long it slows sales because nobody wants to walk away with a system that is $800 less expensive over night. Had apple dropped the prices of the high end G4 2-3 months ago by $400 how many more might they have sold vs the additional profit margin.
If apple charged a consistent %15 premium on all of it’s products, more people would buy systems and more would buy higher end systems. As apples share of the market grew the cost of R&D/System would fall making that %15 margin grow able to drop below %10 at similar profit margins (and higher sales which means more money). This would encourage developers to spend more time taking advantage of unique Apple technologies which would make more people interested in the product, which would make more sales.
Now I’m not saying that in a matter of a couple of years Bill would be looking for a new business but it would put apple in a better position to capitalize on it’s own technologies, like quicktime. If apple could get to 10% market again, few if any could question the decision to purchase simply because it is “non-standard”. That would be a happy place for apple to be.
P.S. NOW is the time to change things. The G5 has the worlds attention. Bring the tower price down and/or introduce that ultra-minitower. Get the price to $1300 with a combo drive and $1500 with a superdrive with plans to get those prices down below a grand ASAP.
I got a reply that the mac had this fast bus, and that pc parts were not used in it…more or less. Check again.
Any way I had a PC laptop, and then my girlfriend (and now my wife) got a MAC laptop. Hers was 2X faster in CPU speed then mine, but it was annoyingly slow. Much slower then mine in rendering web pages and the like. It now doesnt work, yet mine, much more abused and mistreated still does.
aren’t we wasting our lives discussing about pointles things like these?
is apple going to come in our grave with us?
life in this world is short and valuable.
I waste too much time sitting in front of computers…
First of all, I’m not a native english speaker.
What if I were Steve? Survival is No.1 on my priority list. Apple used to be a great company dominating whole PC world before microsoft+intel. But now world changes and I have to give up the day-dreaming before I think about what’s going on next day.
Let’s talk about biz instead of technology.
Accoding to Porter’s strategy model, a company has to select a strategy to compete on the market. Normally there are 3 options:
1. cost leadership
2. differentiation
3. niche
In terms of Apple’s current status, cost leadship is impossible because of its higher cost. Let’s take a look at what’s Apple’s cost structure:
Cost = prodcution cost + operation cost + etc.
Production cost= parts cost + assemble cost + Design cost + logistics + warranty
operation cost= sales/mkt + post sales maintenance + general management
etc.= noncore biz(herein means apple’s SW dev’t)
It’s very clear that apple can not get good price on production cost because of its low purchase volume on parts, non-economy of scle of factory, high design cost, poor logistics(compared to direct sale).
It’s also very clear that apple has no competitive advanteage becacuse of its good welfare on SW dev’t. No scientific work segmentation, no prodcutivity. It is the thery prived by many operation expert through many years.
Ok, let’s put cost leadship aside as I can’t acheive on this field. Let’s go to differentiation.
Computer is becoming a commodity or appliance in 21 century. Why we need it is just because we need it. No reason, it is like a toilet in your room. So, could apple survive based on some differentiation?
Take example with Sony, sony’s price is relative high compared to ordinary appliance. I am from China, most of TV set made in China is very cheap because of low cost on production. But sony still survive very well in this world because it differentiate itself with the leading disign, technology focused, and branding. asset light strategy, is that all the companies are pursuing right now. Branding will be the only most valuable asset of one company to survive in the world! You can employ the best design people, the best operation management. But, you can’t set up your reconized branding over night. Everyone knows the IBM notebook is produced in China, but we still buy IBM’s.
apple has leading design, good quality contol and the necessary branding-the mother of PC, the mother of GUI, the mother of graphic processing.
Apple could charge user more because of its differentiation. You can also get the same concept elsewhere. But it is not Apple! the slogan of Apple is:
Innovation
Innovation
and Innovation!
what consumer market need really? browsing? entertainment? or word processing? PC will be the multimedia center of home in the future. Apple could play a major role in this field.
so how about oridnary Biz user? It is not market for fashion, it need cost effective box. of course, It is Dell’s field to play.
So, differentiation is workable. how about niche? everyone knows Apple is the love of professional people. Apple already is the king in this specific niche. Apple should grasp these people with powerful machine and easy to use sw.