Many would argue that market share is not the same as user base. But it doesn’t ultimately matter. What really matters is to have as many users as possible, so it will attract more developers and create an actual “market” around the platform. Less users, less money flowing, less third party development, which ultimately leads to the death of a platform. I was reading today this and this editorials, even journalists now buy the “cheap PCs with Linux” deal. Apple has to wake up before is too late and should offer a cheap solution. Apple should learn from NeXT’s mistakes, not duplicate them. Update: Look inside for one more idea by some of our readers.The Mac fanatics will hurry up to say how negative to Apple I sound, but that’s not the case. The very reason I type this article right now [in this so hot day here in the Bay Area], is because I care. At the end of the day, more OSes, more OS news. 😉
It is my belief, that Apple should fire back in this new trend of the $199 PC (+monitor) running Linux. Sure, right now, this trend is very small, most people still buy Windows PCs. In fact, Gateway and Dell and eMachines are now offering full-featured PCs with Windows for less than $450 USD. So the day that most Windows PC brands will also offer very-very cheap PCs is not far, because Microsoft will fight for this trend too, even if they have to give Windows XP for free to their OEMs. Apple should act as well, or it will find itself beaten by all sides from both Windows and Linux.
The past few years we see a big decline in Apple’s sales. The year 1995 was the best for Apple, as they sold a few million units. Today, these numbers are in the marks of 750,000 units per quarter, while the market share is down also, between 2% and 3% from a 10% Apple had a few years ago (and continues to decline according to some analysts).
Apple needs to do something about its userbase/market share. What they need, is not even more margins just so they can serve us over-expensive hardware. What they currently need is more new users. More fresh blood. More developers. More cash flowing in their own market. And to get that, you need to lower the prices in general and offer at least one desktop model and one laptop model in the dirt cheap.
I believe that the eMac is suitable for such a discount. Please find below a comparison of a cheap eMac and a current $199 cheap PC that can be found to a number of retail outlets around US today.
Please note that I suggest a 1 GHz G4 and not a 933 Mhz one, because the “1 GHz” is more catchy and it is in compliance with the 1 GHz Duron (even if the G4 might or might not be faster – doesn’t really matter to a not-so-clueful buyer, especially when Intel now offers 3.2 GHz as its maximum).
eMac
====
1 GHz G4 (no L3 cache)
256 MB SDRAM, 1 DIMM
32 MB ATi Radeon AGP 7500
17″ monitor 1152×864@80
DVD/CD-RW combo drive
40 GB IDE 5400 RPM
on board sound, NIC, modem
2 firewire, 5 USB (2 on keyboard)
keyboard, mouse, speakers
airport-ready
Target price: $499
Cheap PC
========
1 GHz AMD Duron
128 MB RAM
On board Savage/Trident/SiS 8-64 MB shared
CD-ROM
10 GB IDE
on board AC97 sound, NIC, modem
2 USB
keyboard, mouse, speakers
Current Price: $199
Now, to make the above $199 cheap PC in compliance with eMac’s more rich feature-set, we add the following (prices as found on Pricegrabber and Pricewatch):
+$20 for 128 MB more RAM
+$40 for combo drive
+$20 for 40 GB hdd
+$10 for firewire card
+$120 for 17″ monitor ~1152×864@80Hz
New price: $409
And don’t forget that this $409 price still offers profit! Now, Apple has 90 more bucks to spend to make the case beautiful, R&D, or whatever else (just don’t tell me that Apple uses “expensive high quality material”, cause I don’t buy that). Sure, I… confess, this strategy won’t make Apple rich. But I don’t think that it be will a product sold in a loss either. There are still margins for profit. The suggestion was not made to give Apple big profits. This suggestion was done so Apple can increase its user base, to save the company for the future. It is a sacrifice Apple has to do today, in order to keep the company still competitive.
I won’t talk about an iBook strategy here, because a lot of things might change soon in the laptop line of Apple, as the G5 has been announced. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the middle-model of the current iBook for $799. For this strategy to succeed, you do need both a cheap desktop and a cheap laptop. Cheap, but powerful. I wish someone from Apple listens though, and sees the danger and the trap Apple has put itself into, and fight back before it’s too late.
If Apple can deliver such a machine as the eMac suggestion above, for $499, you will literally have no excuse to not own a Mac in the future!
Update: Another good idea, started by some readers, “the headless box”. Scroll down the page here.
I don’t think that Apple can really be considered in the same class of computer as Windows PC’s are given their present pricing structure. I think there are a lot of PC users who would be open to an Apple as a second computer if they were priced competitively with Windows PC’s
Not on Apple’s part but rather computer buyers.
Most consumers will buy whichever’s cheapest, and yes, end up regretting it. It doesn’t matter what the cost of the feature-lacking box is, or how much morre impressive a package the Mac offers. If a consumer is shopping for a $199 computer they’re not going to consider a $499 computer. I think that would hold true even for x86 PCs.
Thus I don’t think Apple should try to compete in that market. They might be able to get an eMac down to $599 or so, and keep some profit margin, and frankly, with the extra features and included software that’s a pretty good offering compared to other brand names.
LINUX is an OS XP is an OS APPLE isbuilds HARDWARE with an OS. You can run LINUX on you MAC.
So I think these editorials went down the wrong path in some respect.
No, it doesn’t have to be a distinction. It just _happens_ that Apple does both the hardware and the OS. For the buyer, doesn’t matter, what matters is what the buyer gets for 500 bucks.
Apple release quality products. I know a number of converts from Linux and BSD. They tell me not to even try an iBook and Mac OS X, because once I’ve tried it I’ll see everything else as inferior and will brood for one until I have it.
What still baffles me that you get an Apple notebook cheaper than any Mac without a screen.
Apple needs an affordable headless box, not an eMac. Chances are that people want to buy a Mac as a 2nd or computer or a replacement for their preivous PC, where in both cases they already own a monitor and don’t want to have another one.
The cheapest eMac is $799, but a lot people don’t consider it because they prefer expandabilty over integration. Apple could easily build a computer based on the eMac, without monitor but with one or two PCI slots instead.
” I think there are a lot of PC users who would be open to an Apple as a second computer if they were priced competitively with Windows PC’s”
They already are. Compare the computer spec for spec in both hardware and software and Apple is typically slightly over, at the same price point or sometimes less than a name brand PC.
This wasn’t true for the towers before last week because the G4 didn;t match the speed, but now everything has changed with the G5. Apple prices their computers VERY competatively.
We are talking of the hardware and OS price combos. You must lump in the all OS dealers including Linux because the Lindows, Lycoris and Xandros folks are all making money selling the hardware and software combo.
So I think the editorial is heading down the right path.
They already are. Compare the computer spec for spec in both hardware and software and Apple is typically slightly over, at the same price point or sometimes less than a name brand PC.
Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can’t get right now anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know don’t want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. When you compare in that price range, Apple loses big time, G5 or not. Anyone will sell you a 2GHz Athlon for less than an eMac.
> The cheapest eMac is $799, but a lot people don’t consider it because they prefer expandabilty over integration.
I don’t think you need much expandability with a Mac, because you an hook up whatever you want on its Firewire and USB ports. From floppy drives, to hard drives, to superdrives, to DV cameras, to usb speakers, even TV cards and these days… sound cards!
I believe that a cheap but feature-rich eMac is all is needed. Mac is about integration, so that would fair better against an ugly PC box.
sorry, you do (very often) sound negative about Apple. not so here. i agree _very_ much with you, and hope apple has the same idea.
with a very fast G5 machine out, the G4 in the emac is no longer so impressive. the flat panel imac is a whole other beast due to the panel, especially the 17″. so we are left with the emac, that apple seems to think should be trapped in education situations only. that is just silly! Apple makes good margins, and they should. they make great machines. but with the advertising that the G5 brings, they need to offer a machine for those who go to take a look at the G5 but can’t blow that much on a box.
bring in the emac. at a loss.
if apple offered the emac for as low as possible, maybe even a loss, they just create future imac, powerbook, ibook, G5 customers. one of the biggest selling points for a mac is OS X and there “i” software. and who cares if nobody ever uses it. i don’t mean try out in an apple store, i mean actually use it. spend some time on it. weeks. it will pay off.
with OS X finally at nearly full power, and things like ipod, isight, itunes music store, etc. they are in a position to show people what a great platform can be like. but if they don’t bring people in the door so to speak, it won’t matter.
<disclaimer> if you you disagree with things like the “great platform” comment, either you have a closed mind, and can keep your windows, or you haven’t used a mac, and are the proof of the argument. it is a great platform. it may not be the one for you, but it is good. </disclaimer>
What really matters is to have as many users as possible, so it will attract more developers and create an actual “market” around the platform. Less users, less money flowing, less third party development, which ultimately leads to the death of a platform.
I didn’t read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Ok, you don’t have allot of users. But there are users. A relatively large number of users, that shows increase in numbers, not decrease. They have a demand, and they have allot of money. They are willing to pay a small premium for hard or software that works on the mac.
The cost for developing on the mac is comparable to the windows platform. (slightly more expensive hardware, free developer tools) So a developer can easily supply without making huge expenses. There is a low cost in marketing expenses and a low number of competitors. If I make a really good GraphicViewer application for Windows, it’s pretty hard to get windows users to notice my application. It’s allot easier on the mac platform.
Point is, that there is no reason that a system with a low number of users, will die. There is also no reason that low price will mean that you get a lot of users. Look at BeOS. Cheap, and easy to program for developers, and easy to use. Yet no users. I doubt that those Walmarkt – Lindows machines have captured any significant market share either.
Fact is, that people have declared Apple to be dead since 1990. Was that a zombie I saw on stage last monday?
“Apple needs an affordable headless box, not an eMac. Chances are that people want to buy a Mac as a 2nd or computer or a replacement for their previous PC, where in both cases they already own a monitor and don’t want to have another one.”
The PC industry has collapsed under the weight of its own business model… “COMPETE ON PRICE, COMPETE ON PRICE, COMPETE ON PRICE”. Because every PC manufacturer has access to the same technologies that his competitor does, these companies can ONLY compete on price.
Don’t get me wrong, i want an inexpensive computer like anybody else, but it is important that we support the companies that create this technologies less they fall under their own weight. With companies like HP and Compaq having to merge and Gateway on the verge of bankruptcy, We’re likely to only have one name brand PC vendor to build our hardware. if thats the case, you should have bought a Mac anyways.
Apple doesn’t compete in the ultra low-end range because it would mean that they would be forced to get margins in the “less than 1% range” Hence the reason why apple makes you buy a screen as well if you want to buy a low end Mac.
The reason why Apple can not only survive but also thrive in this world is because it differentiates itself from the competition. If they compete on price and accept margins that are less than 1% we’ll simply end up with a boring PC because they will no longer have the budget to differentiate themselves as they have been.
“Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can’t get right now anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know don’t want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. “
Get a G4
>I didn’t read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Too bad for you. Because you took the wrong impression of the article. You should read it all before commenting.
I know that I would buy a (very?)low end Mac in a hearbeat if the price was <=$1000. The absolute only thing that is preventing me from getting an Apple to COMPLETELY replace the PC that I custom built are the high prices of Apple computers. I know that I may sound like an extremist, and I probably am, but I know that many people would also love an Apple, think that it is the ‘savior of the common beige box’, and know that it will save them time and frustration, but will not buy one because they are too expensive. If Apple could just lower their prices…….
I don’t think you need much expandability with a Mac, because you an hook up whatever you want on its Firewire and USB ports. From floppy drives, to hard drives, to superdrives, to DV cameras, to usb speakers, even TV cards and these days… sound cards!
And it’s getting very very messy, wanna see my desk?
I believe that a cheap but feature-rich eMac is all is needed. Mac is about integration, so that would fair better against an ugly PC box.
Still, I think a cheaper headless box is needed. If they can build $799 eMacs, why do I have to pay extra ($1299) when I want a Mac without a monitor?
Apple positions itself as the Lexus or BMW of the personal computing world. That’s their niche for better or worse. When they try to compete with Dell and the others on price, like that fiasco with Power Computing, it only puts pressure on its own high end margins. Besides, Jobs’ business model is based on tightly controlling the combined hardware+OS+application software user experience.
The falling prices of personal computers may actually help Apple because they’ll be easily affordable to more consumers. Back when an entry-level machine cost $2000, people could barely afford to pay that, let alone the premium for a Mac. Now that the PC is dirt cheap, people might stretch to buy a Mac.
But seriously, the claim is: that Apple cannot sustain a developer community therefore marketshare/user base DOES matter.
Can anyone point to a decline in the community since the release of OS X?
It seems like the dev community continues to grow. That Apple has locked up the Pro Audio market. Has miraculously gotten quite a bit of steam in the animation/rendering market. Has the lead in the video segment. Has the attention and respect of the scientific community. Is a joy for the OS community (they get to have the best of both worlds). They are wooing the CAD market. And despite all the odds have enterprise companies like Sybase, HP, Oracle, and others porting enterprise-class software to the environment. The biggest whole in their dev community is games, and I think that’s too difficult to attempt to change.
So… unless you can show that the dev community is diminishing (and I think all the evidence points to it growing), why jump the gun?
After all, if you appeal to the low end, the users who make their decision either solely or primarily on price, they are just inviting problems. These people (the low-ballers) are going to encounter problems and differences from what they are used to. They are going to cry that Apple lied to them.
I think Apple should only attract the people to the Mac that can see the Mac as the right tool for them.
Not the cheapest.
If you think the benchmarking incidence was a nightmare, what happens when you have 2 or 3 million people buying Macs because these are the people that like cheap games and cheesy software and are happy with a $200 box?
Consider.
“I know that I would buy a (very?)low end Mac in a hearbeat if the price was <=$1000.”
here you go: Starting at $799: http://www.apple.com/emac/
Let me correct something: I would definitely buy an apple if a respectable Apple was around(like with at least a cd burner and good video card) for <=$1000.
“Apple positions itself as the Lexus or BMW of the personal computing world. That’s their niche for better or worse.”
Except for the fact that Apple makes some nice hyndai-priced Mac as well
Get a G4
$1299 for a 1.25GHz computer…so much for competetive pricing. I’ll have the 2400 Athlon for $800, thank you.
Let me correct something: I would definitely buy an apple if a respectable Apple was around(like with at least a cd burner and good video card) for <=$1000.
Again: here you go: Starting at $999 with a CD burner: http://www.apple.com/emac/
“$1299 for a 1.25GHz computer…so much for competetive pricing. I’ll have the 2400 Athlon for $800, thank you.”
I see you learned nothing from the MHz myth
I’de like to see Apple produce a product that made it really easy to write OSX/Linux Apps. They could base it around free software like they did with Safari. I think that would help them keep developers because the combined market share of Linux/OSX is large enough to attract developers.
Since OSX can run a lot of Linux apps, Linux ppl (and developers) with a little more money could opt to get OSX…
Just my .02…
>I didn’t read the entire article, because I was stuck here.
Too bad for you. Because you took the wrong impression of the article. You should read it all before commenting.
I read the article now, and it is pretty much built on the very fact I countered in my comment. Namely:
1) You can get more users to your platform by competing on price.
2) If you don’t have allot of users, there will be no developers.
I see you learned nothing from the MHz myth
You obviously “learned” a lot from Apple’s marketing: A 2GHz Athlon is at least equal in performance to a 1.25GHz G4, but is $500 cheaper. Especially if the G4 ships with only 128MB RAM.
I like your idea, but I would add more memory. Memory costs almost nothing. You can get 256mbs of DDR for 20 dollars at best buy when it’s on sale. I’m sure apple pays atlease that little, if not less, for their memory.
“I’de like to see Apple produce a product that made it really easy to write OSX/Linux Apps.”
For me, I’d like a Mac that really made itself dependant on Microsoft Windows.
Also, like you, I want a Mac that makes it easy to program for OTHER platforms. That would be great. Ya, Apple should built that. THAT would be a great business model.
After thinking about it for a while, I realized…”wait a second, why dont they make a great platform thats good at everything, something that is good at software development period.
Then I realized, “WAIT, they’re doing that right now”
” You obviously “learned” a lot from Apple’s marketing: A 2GHz Athlon is at least equal in performance to a 1.25GHz G4, but is $500 cheaper. Especially if the G4 ships with only 128MB RAM.”
And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
>I like your idea, but I would add more memory.
Currently, eMac low-end model comes with 128 MB. 256 MB is ok for starters, especially because the Apple resellers are not allowed to pull the price down, but instead give freebies like memory or printers. Trust me, Apple wouldn’t go with more than 256 MB if they would go for this plan, they can’t really.
buy your amd box, the 1.25 G4 will blow it away in most ways, and OS X alone is worth the price difference!
i guess you are the “clueless user” other posters were saying apple should stay away from…….
Apple offers a lot of value beyond the cheap boxes but they have to narrow the “pricing gap.” They have to be closer to the range of bargain prices.
i guess you are the “clueless user” other posters were saying apple should stay away from…….
Yes, must be the reason why I’m typing this on my iBook.
And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
Like what? In contrast to the entry-level Macs, the PowerMac G4 doesn’t even come with AppleWorks.
“Apple offers a lot of value beyond the cheap boxes but they have to narrow the “pricing gap.” They have to be closer to the range of bargain prices.”
Asside from the ultra low-end machines, Apple has computers that are comperable in price to PCs in every area… (again except for the ultra low end), but contrary to popular opinion, consumers don;t buy these machines. yes, they get lured in by them, but once they realize that you can’t do much with them, they typically upgrade accordingly… to the specs that they would have got had they purchased a Mac anyways.
Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform.
There are only 7 million OS X users, making Apple’s OS X market share less than 1%.
While a cheaper eMac would be a move in the right direction, an iBox would be strategically smarter.
First, the iBox would be at a lower price point.
Second, being small and with a ADC/DVI output, people could buy a DVI switcher and use an existing Apple or other DVI monitor. If the iBox includes an analog output, then it could be used by many monitors would include dual inputs.
Third, the iBox could be stackable, allowing for a vertical stack of little computers that could be video-switched to some good monitors. The little stack would give Apple developers enough machines to build great apps on — not just client apps but also server apps and client/server/internet apps.
I agree the machine needs a 1Ghz G4 processor. This speed is the Panther performance baseline so it needs to be in the iBox.
When I walked out of the WWDC keynote I was very impressed by the G5. But I saw Apple’s strategic failure in not making a cheap entry level G4 machine that doesn’t have a monitor.
If Apple could sell iBox bricks for $500, they would sell out immediately. And that would be far more stunning to the world than a workstation.
“>>>And yet the software that comes with that computer would cost at LEAST $500 on a PC.
“Like what? In contrast to the entry-level Macs, the PowerMac G4 doesn’t even come with AppleWorks.
iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto just to name a few.
I really like what Derrick Story from O’reilly macdevcenter wrote in his editorial about this:
Regardless of how Apple corporate wants to portray its products, the Mac isn’t a machine for the masses any more than red wine is the preferred beverage at baseball games. To be honest, the masses don’t have the capability to appreciate the elegance and depth of this platform.
In reality, the Mac is a computer for developers, geeks, power users, risk takers, visionaries, lunatics, scientists, musicians, photographers, educators, and entrepreneurs. When you consider that half of the PC world is still running Windows 95 and 98, you understand why Mac OS X is often overlooked. Many of these people think that an operating system is some type of medical procedure.
So who cares about ubiquity anyway? Once you have 10 to 15 percent of the market, you have enough momentum to keep the best developers employed and paying taxes. This audience in San Francisco gets that. And more importantly, so does Apple.
the “Editorial at MacDevCenter” is a good read, but do they have 10-15%?
there is the trouble.
yes, i know about the market share/install base stuff. but does apple have more than 6-8%? i wonder……..
“Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform.”
Its a good thing that they do and that developers are moving to the Macintosh faster than ever before
“There are only 7 million OS X users, making Apple’s OS X market share less than 1%.
And growing rapidly.
“While a cheaper eMac would be a move in the right direction, an iBox would be strategically smarter.”
You mean something that gets Apple less than 1% margins? if you want that, you can kiss all the R7D that Apple invests into their products goodbye, and you would end up with… well, just another PC.
“When I walked out of the WWDC keynote I was very impressed by the G5. But I saw Apple’s strategic failure in not making a cheap entry level G4 machine that doesn’t have a monitor.
Its the inclusion of a monitor that allows them to get slightly more than 1% margins. Its a necessary evil.
“If Apple could sell iBox bricks for $500, they would sell out immediately. And that would be far more stunning to the world than a workstation.”
I guarantee you they would sell like crazy, but considering the fact that Apple would be selling the machines at a loss, I’m not so sure its such a great idea. (Selling at a loss is done because Apple still invests more R&D into the boxes than the average PC manufacturer… who is content with less than 1% margins)
” yes, i know about the market share/install base stuff. but does apple have more than 6-8%? i wonder…….
I’ve read a few places that Apple’s install base is somewhere in the 10-12% range.
I agree with Eugenia’s article. And this is particularly true because of one thing – Steve Jobs has always had a blind spot when it comes to this issue. The Lisa cost over $7000 and bombed, the original Macs cost a fortune, NeXT cost a fortune…this is an area he does not see. I think he looks at Sony and sees they aren’t offering cheap PC’s and figures that’s the best way to go.
I think the Switch campaign pretty much failed because there was no really low priced entry level Mac. I really believe Apple will again miss the boat unless they do this.
Some people think it should be headless (ala bring back the Cube), but I think the eMac does make a good choice for this area. I keep saying they will lose money on it and have to bite the bullet so this “market” will grow around them. People will not switch or become new Mac users for the old reasons. Those are all gone now. It has to be something else now to compel people who are not Mac users to try a Mac.
Steve Jobs is CEO…
He liked the slab enough to sell them while at NeXT…
Everyone seems to agree a low-priced slab would be a big seller for Apple…
3rd parties are even trying to make them (e.g. iBox)
Yet Apple hasn’t made one yet…
*sigh*
I have a hard time agreeing with Eugenia.
1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer – people will pass by your desk and have a bad 1st impression if it’s not. Price competition can come later!
2) Apple can’t cannibalize its high end. It doesn’t need to yet. Maybe one day it will.
3) Apple has enough differentiation with the music store, ipod, etc. This justifies high price.
4) lowering price is a signal – this signal must stand for something.
Of course, I would need a lot of financial data on Apple for a truly informed opinion. But this is what I currently think. Thanks to Eugenia for starting an interesting debate.
“I agree with Eugenia’s article. And this is particularly true because of one thing – Steve Jobs has always had a blind spot when it comes to this issue. The Lisa cost over $7000 and bombed, the original Macs cost a fortune, NeXT cost a fortune…this is an area he does not see. I think he looks at Sony and sees they aren’t offering cheap PC’s and figures that’s the best way to go.”
Considering the fact that all of Apple’s hardware is comparitively priced to PCs of similar hardware and software specs… this is not an issue anymore.
” I think the Switch campaign pretty much failed because there was no really low priced entry level Mac. I really believe Apple will again miss the boat unless they do this. “
Not at all. As long as Apple can diferente their hardware… as they have been doing, thir market share WILL increase… ESPECIALLY in a market where most PC manufacturers are cutting R&D and this all posability to diferentate their hardware. Consumers do need some time to be re-educated…. Slowly but surely they are, and people are makeing the transition.
“People will not switch or become new Mac users for the old reasons. Those are all gone now. It has to be something else now to compel people who are not Mac users to try a Mac.”
Like the ilife software apps, OS X, and REALLY fast computers
Subject says it all. Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic…whatever. Will it work?
I have no experience with Macs though I’m very intrigued by them. I’d love to take one of the dual G5s for a test drive (when released)…though I’d have to make some big $ to be able to get on that ship for the long haul. Being a student working weekends kind of sucks for someone who wants to dabble in Apple products.
>1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer –
An eMac at 1 GHz is enough to run OSX. I have a Cube at 450 Mhz G4 and a 867 Mhz Powerbook.
>2) Apple can’t cannibalize its high end. It doesn’t need to yet. Maybe one day it will.
I suggested that all prices of all products should go down, but the eMac one should be really low. The rest don’t have to go down as much price-wise.
>3) Apple has enough differentiation with the music store, ipod, etc. This justifies high price.
I don’t think so. There are already two online stores like Real’s for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99.
>4) lowering price is a signal – this signal must stand for something.
yeah, competition!
Eugenia
” Steve Jobs is CEO…
He liked the slab enough to sell them while at NeXT…”
And knows better than to try it again as both attempts were not well received.
“Everyone seems to agree a low-priced slab would be a big seller for Apple…”
Ofcourse they want the slap, because they want the Mac with all its R&D but at the same margins that PC manufacturers sell computers. (IE without the R&D) Essentially what it boils down to is that these individuals want Apple to sell their computers at a loss.
iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto just to name a few.
iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac.
For the other ones, there are free or cheap equivalents on Windows.
“Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic…whatever. Will it work?”
Yep.
I don’t think so. There are already two online stores like Real’s for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99.
Actually, it’s .79$ a burn plus a monthly fee if you want to keep listening to the original digital version on your computer.
“iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac.
True. However, when you buy a superdrive it does.
“For the other ones, there are free or cheap equivalents on Windows.”
And there were free and cheap solutions 6 years ago, yet few (if any) are able to take advantage of much of todays technologies.
Apple’s iLife software is best of breed consumer software. This type of software development would cost a pretty penny if bought seperately and made by a third party developer..
If Apple can’t convince people to actually pay for their OS they should get out of the business. Mac OS X shouldn’t command a $1000 premium but something in the $80 range is not unreasonable when packaged with a computer.
That said, I do expect Apple to at least consider this. There was a rumor of a market analysis of such a machine at Apple and the (rumored) analysis pointed to it being a good decision for Apple to come out with such a machine.
But, again, it won’t be the eMac. It won’t have a monitor. People buying cheap-ass computers are looking to save as much money as possible. Forcing them to buy a monitor is defeating the point.
Apple doesn’t need to enter the $199 space. But they need something in the $499 space to fight the perception that Macs are expensive.
Ok, the topend G5’s are finally full blown Unix workstations.
Apple’s got nice Industrial Design G4s.
What it _might_ need is a lowend / loss-leader headless box….
Here’s an idea – open up the G3 motherboards for cloners!Somebody might be able to figure out a volume/profit way of selling MacOSX boxes built around the G3… and leave Apple the high margin / low volume work station market.
Just a thought.
“If Apple can’t convince people to actually pay for their OS they should get out of the business.”
Agreed, but you must also understand that Apple is the largest reseller of boxed operating systems… even ahead of Microsoft.
Microsoft manages to make so many Windows sales by bundling them with the hardware that PC manufacturers sell… not by selling box copies.
Thankfully, Apple is VERY good at convincing consumers to buy their OS.
“Mac OS X shouldn’t command a $1000 premium but something in the $80 range is not unreasonable when packaged with a computer.”
But Apple does NOT command a $1000 premium for their computers. If you’re going to compare prices, you must compare them EXACTLY spec for spec… including software hardware warenty etc. When you do this, Apple’s prices are typically only sligtly over (well within the $80 range you mention) sometimes at the same price and yet even less than the PC competion.
“That said, I do expect Apple to at least consider this. There was a rumor of a market analysis of such a machine at Apple and the (rumored) analysis pointed to it being a good decision for Apple to come out with such a machine.”
Whichever market analysis you’re refering to is based on the assumption that Apple can continue to incorporate huge amounts of R&D while selling their hardware with margins that equal less than 1%. PC manufacturerrs can do it because they have no means of diferentiating themselves other that price.
“But, again, it won’t be the eMac. It won’t have a monitor. People buying cheap-ass computers are looking to save as much money as possible. Forcing them to buy a monitor is defeating the point.”
If people want a “cheap ass computer” let them continue buying a PC.
“Apple doesn’t need to enter the $199 space. But they need something in the $499 space to fight the perception that Macs are expensive.”
A more appropriate mark would be to compete in the $800 range. (Wait a second, Apple already does!)
>A more appropriate mark would be to compete in the $800 range. (Wait a second, Apple already does!)
I am sorry, but that is not “appriopriate”. It is not 1995 anymore.
“What [Apple] _might_ need is a lowend / loss-leader headless box….”
Thats rediculios. Apple can gain market share without having to loos money.
“Here’s an idea – open up the G3 motherboards for cloners!Somebody might be able to figure out a volume/profit way of selling MacOSX boxes built around the G3… and leave Apple the high margin / low volume work station market.”
To do that would mean that these companies wouldn;t have to pay for OS R&D. It was THIS reason why Mac cloning was cancled.
if you want an inexpensive Mac… buy one from Apple. I don;t know what the problem is.
“I am sorry, but that is not “appriopriate”. It is not 1995 anymore.
it is when you consider the fact that you’re also getting a monitor.
I found this part:
David then dropped a disk into the CD drive and after following a few on-screen instructions – some of which aren’t exactly intuitive. <– This reads to me like someone who hates using his brain or something. You are not allowed to make me think cause it hurts…
Anonymous, I agree with your last point – OS X and iLife are great. But, people have to know about them.
it is when you consider the fact that you’re also getting a monitor.
Err, that’s the problem percisely. I’d encourage a headless box. Listen: People don’t give a shit about “Oooh, a monitor too!” They don’t pay much attention to that on average. On average they see “$799” and say “Too expensive”. They then see the headless box at $500 and say “ooooh.”
And in their current state Macs are too fucking expensive. I’m sorry, I own an iBook, and it’s true. I just bought a PC, P4 2.4ghz, Monitor, et all for $699. $699. Let’s see: It includes everything that the eMac does, is $100 less, and is 1.6ghz faster.
Apple needs to drop their prices, and need to do it fast. I’ll keep buying Macs, but they don’t need me. They need the masses, and the masses will not pay what Apple is asking of them.
I’m sorry, but to continue the mantra: The price:perfomance ratio is way off. While it may only be on paper, guess what people look at when buying a computer?
The one thing I think you’re missing is that the sub $500 market are not good customers. These users generally have cheap machines loaded with pirated software. I know several people like this who have NEVER bought any software(other than a game or 2).
I really think Linux has the lowend covered. Any good apps that are developed for it will get ported to the Mac.
Focusing on the hardware is silly.
Software drives the hardware. Apple needs a killer app. It needs one now. They already have so many good ones with iMovie, iPhoto and what not, they juat need better advertising.
Apple needs a Mac only application that can’t be easily duplicated on a PC and they need it yesterday. OSX won’t cut it. They need something along the lines of a Spreadsheet, yes we all take them for granted but when the first spreadsheets came out they were nothing short of amazing.
>Focusing on the hardware is silly.
I don’t think so. People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more. And generally, hardware costs more than software in a PC/home solution (the opposite is true in the enterprise/workstation market).
Also, Apple is a hardware company, remember. 😉
People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more.
Err, what?
>1) the OS X experience requires a fast computer –
An eMac at 1 GHz is enough to run OSX. I have a Cube at 450 Mhz G4 and a 867 Mhz Powerbook.
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Good editorial. It doesn’t take a lot of excuse for me to look into a new box, but I can’t get over Apple prices. I’ve had my I out for old G3 imacs. I don’t mind being a little behind the curve, but with G5’s coming out, that’s too far. But the G4 at 799 is a lot.
Agreed on the headless comments too. I have monitors out the wazoo, I don’t need to pay 799 to have one included…
-b
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Right on! My iBook 600mhz is damn snappy, and it beats the piss out of my p4 1.5ghz. Whatever Apple does to their OS, they do it right. =p
Oh, and to back that up..
I’d like to point to the Maya PLE icon in my dock. It works very well
Same for Quake 3 (yea, so it’s old, so what?) running a bunch of mods. Urban Terror, True Combat, Bid For Power…all of em run unbelievably well.
I run Red Hat 9 in VPC6 too, and while it’s slow as far as app boot-ups, the actual responsiveness is damn good. Same for X11 running OOo.
YES, the OS does run damn well on slow machines (My G3 600mhz…). The only issue is that on paper…
There’s a couple issues I would like to address in the claims you made:
1) “What really matters is to have as many users as possible”
I don’t agree, as a consumer. I agree that it would be more profitable from a business point of view, however I think one of Apple’s *strengths* is a smaller marketshare. The combination of being vertically integrated and a smaller marketshare allow it to be more controversial, and therefore more innovative. As a consumer I benefit from this in a very direct way. Compare that to Microsoft who is stuck supporting so many users that migrating to a new technology is a decade long struggle (Microsoft still requires floppy disks despite industry pressure, has struggled to change architectures and file systems, and it makes it difficult to change chip architecture).
Apple is the only company in the industry to successfully survive (and even prosper) after changing chip architecture (68k to PPC), killed the floppy in 1997, has the first *desktop* computer to support both 64-bit and 32-bit seamlessly, introduced USB to the industry with the first iMac (and spurred a much more rapid adoption of the technology), etc.
If it had an 80% marketshare I don’t think it could have done this… or at least would have been as motivated to take the chances.
2) Your pricing scheme.
While using Pricewatch.com works for individuals, it isn’t really an accurate way to measure the cost of components in bulk. Yes, Apple has enough buying power to get price breaks, although one thing that Apple prides itself on and is not willing to do is buy substandard or lower quality parts. For example, there is a set minimum standard for RAM that can be used with MacOS X. This means that you pay a bit of a premium for RAM, but also get better quality RAM (RAM is actually one of the leading causes of system crashes in computers). The samething goes for the monitor. Have you ever seen the *quality* of a screen Apple sells? It’s so much crisper and brighter compared to screens sold by Dell or HP, and is also viewable from high angles without picture degradation (Apple only sells LCDs remember). $120 for a 17″ monitor is not compatible with Apple standards (even for the eMac line with their CRT monitors).
Now, a lot of technology from Apple’s higher end machines works its way down into the eMac. So the eMac is a more expensive machine that’s trying to be made cheap. If Apple wanted a low end machine, they would have to develop cheaper motherboards, use a cheaper processor, etc. And they’ve still got to remember that MacOS X has certain minimums for a graphics card and RAM to be a useable OS.
I could actually see Apple migrating the G5 to the eMac, at speeds of 1GHz or 1.2GHz. It’s actually cheaper than the G4, and dissipates less heat at those speeds (less than 19W). It also helps running OS X and whatever games may be run on it, since it is faster, still supports AltiVec, and would support the new 64-bit OS. The RAM would stay at 256MB, and I’m not sure how much of a hit Apple would take here… what’s compatible with the G5. They would also want to fabricate a new System Controller, based on the G5 System Controller… but essentially make it as cheap as possible. Stick with the 40GB ATA HD. Standard CD-ROM drive. Cheap motherboard… maybe 1 FireWire port, 2 USB. Possibly not even include a monitor.
If it was expected to sell in massive bulk, Apple might be able to bring it down to the $499 range without a monitor… $699 with the monitor. I can’t see Apple dipping lower than that though.
Whichever market analysis you’re refering to is based on the assumption that Apple can continue to incorporate huge amounts of R&D while selling their hardware with margins that equal less than 1%. PC manufacturerrs can do it because they have no means of diferentiating themselves other that price.
Actually, the rumored market analysis included an estimate as to how many of Apple’s other system sales would be canibalized by the introduction of the new product (any good market analysis does this). The guess was that it would by rather low.
So, you see, Apple would continue to sell high margin machines. They would just be including new lower margin machines in their lineup. It’s not like photoshop users are going to see a $499 machine and dump their dual G5’s to go buy one.
it is when you consider the fact that you’re also getting a monitor.
The usable life of a monitor is typically longer than that of a computer. The point I was making was that if Apple wanted to be inexpensive they could sell a headless device. This would be at a very low price point like $499. Then, the Apple resellers can combine it with a monitor that Apple doesn’t sell (like a low end CRT) and everyone’s happy….
Eugenia,
I think your article is too focused on what you “feel” and not on what Apple’s business model is. As in any business, making money is the primary objective. Your logic train is: lower price -> sell more machines -> attract more developers -> have more software available -> therefore sell more machines. I don’t think this logic holds up. I can’t think of a single time I couldn’t find software for the Mac that I needed. Sure, my choices were sometimes limited but in general the choice available was as good as the better Windows’ offerings. So attracting developers won’t necessarily improve the attractiveness of buying a Mac (of course I don’t have any data to support either case). So lowering prices only reduces margin. To break even, they have to sell a lot more to make an equivalent profit. How low would they have to go to increase the attractiveness enough to break even? Only Apple knows.
Now for developers. they will go where they can make money. Apple has enough of a user base for that to happen. would more market share increase a developer’s chance of making money? Possibly. But bigger market share will also increase competition and could reduce a developer’s chance of making money. All you really need is a large enough customer base to make a decent profit year over year.
I would like to see a more serious business case made for your hypothesis (with assumed numbers if you like). It would be interesting to see, even with assumed numbers, how low Apple would need to go and how many users they would need to add to break even.
twocents
Osnews should do a survey of the cheap lindows/linux platforms
I would bet that at least 50% of the machines have been reformated and are now running Windows 98. I do agree with
your article and would buy a cheap emac for my children. Most of the kids games are hybrid mac/Pc programs and I end up installing Windows 98 every three months. And yes, I have tried XP, quite a few of the games will not run and are not supported under XP. Legos software anyone?
>making money is the objective not market share
I totally agree. But when you put the company’s future at risk and don’t think about the tomorrow, then bankrupsy strikes. The whole point of selling so low, is so you can create a bigger market that will later purchase more gimmicks from you and drive others to do the same too.
If Apple finds that there is no money to be making in the PC/OS business, then they might want to change focus altogether, I would find this acceptable for a company that tries to stay profitable, no matter what they are selling each time.
“I think that would help them keep developers…”
Keep? Again, show me they are losing developers.
“Apple definitely needs a cheap machine to get developers and users on the platform.”
Again, show a lack of developers.
“I don’t think so. There are already two online stores like Real’s for the PC, that you download for free. And in fact, it costs $.79 per song, not $.99.”
No, Eugenia, the Real service requires a subscription, and you can only download by paying an additional $.79 per track.
“iDVD does not come with the $1299 PowerMac.” Every SuperDrive-equipped Mac comes with iDVD. Add $200 for the drive, get the software. If you buy a machine without a DVD burner, what’s the point of the software?
“Subject says it all. Can you use off-the-shelf DDR SDRAM in a Mac? Micron, Corsair, Infineon, generic…whatever. Will it work?” Of course. If it’s a DDR SDRAM computer. PC users are so restricted in their worldviews. They jump all over Apple for using marketing text but publishing the tech details of everything, but they don’t realize that they are living in narrwo, smallminded lies about the Mac fed to them by their own community. I buy all my hardware without even looking for Mac compatibility. It usually works.
“and is 1.6ghz faster” THere’s a complete lack of understanding. Can you imagine if Apple had an option for ignorant lowballers with this level of ignorance trying to figure things out? Not pretty.
“I don’t think so. People focusing and nitpicking on what costs more. And generally, hardware costs more than software in a PC/home solution (the opposite is true in the enterprise/workstation market).” I thought it was about developers, not attracting cheap consumers?
If the argument is that Apple’s future is threatened you have to show that developers are leaving. They are currently attracting MORE developers. Why? Not because of price.
Pleas, please, please–Anyway, please, step up and make the claim that Apple is not currently attracting more developers now than they have in an extremely long time.
“But when you put the company’s future at risk and don’t think about the tomorrow, then bankrupsy strikes.”
Really? It’s your thesis and now you are throwing around words like “Bankruptcy.” Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Do you agree that more developers are coming to the community now?
Would you agree this is the crux of your thesis?
Do you think this level of interest is due to price?
Or do to technology and newly competitive hardware (no matter what the price is)?
Simple questions.
>Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Not today. But in 3-4 years, if they continue the same policies, someone will buy them…
How about a $289 ATX mainboard with a fast G4, an Apple BIOS and a licensed OS X CD? and a $489 model with a G5?
Honestly Eugenia, I think Apple can make a lot more money on this market than with your idea of a $499 eMac. The present eMac already stretches Apple´s cost structure, and also last time I checked it was competitively priced compared with similar offerings from Dell.
I think your idea that Apple should compete in an even lower price bracket is good, but why not go all the way and create something really different?
BTW if I want a cheap iMac I can get one on eBay for a couple of hundred bucks.
I think Eugenia has a good idea for two reasons
1) cheap will drive market share and make the developers happy.
2) It would give apple an entry product, an easy way for PC users to migrate to apple and then to upgrade to more expensive machins
Some comparisons
Palm introduced a $100 zire to attract first time users, to gain share, and to get customers who’ll one day upgrade to pricier palm. Looks like it is working
Japanese car makers started out selling inexpensive cars in the US. What did that do? gave them share and a legion of followers who are now paying $25K-$30K for an accord or camry that is twice the size of the old.
Apple has to be careful though. they don’t have all the worlds gold like MS. They just offered a G4 powermac for $1299 and that is a first step. They keep bringing out more attractive price points and i think they’ll continue but they’ll probably implement it in their own way.
But did I really need to be modded down for saying I would buy a Macintosh if it ran BeOS?
http://www.bedoper.com
I think that simply saying that the cheapest PCs are less than $500 and Apple must meet that price is too simplistic. If price was the only consideration then eMachines, not Dell, would be the world’s largest computer maker. Yes Apple’s prices are high compared to x86 (Intel and AMD) devices and should come down some. However the lowest price is not the answer either. Any solution that is successful should include creative product design and integration. Apple must win over customers because the feel they are getting superior product at a reasonable price. Otherwise Apple loses out as soon as someone figures out how to build a lower cost unit. A good example of this is the iPod. It holds significant market share in the music player market. It isn’t the cheapest product in that market, but people are willing to pay more for it because they feel they are getting more.
Apple has just finish refreshing the high end. Now they can start looking at the lower end. I think you will see lower cost systems being introduced by the end of the year. However I hope this includes new categories of machines that offer innovation like the iPod has.
Cheap Linux PCs are GARBAGE! People ballyhoo having all of these “choices” on the PC platform, slam Apple for having under-performing hardware, and THEN yap about how awesome a $199 computer with Linux is. INCREDIBLE! I wouldn’t use one of those “PCs” to crap on. I have a ton of respect for the Linux community and their effort but Linux is neither fish nor foul, neither UNIX nor Windows, and is a pretty good imitation of one and a poor imitation of the other. The ONLY reason Linux has any traction is because IBM and Intel needed it as a hedge against Microsoft; the majority of new enterprise-wide Linux deployments are still as bundles with hardware. Very few companies are running to it as strictly a software solution and almost NOBODY wants it on the desktop. Having used Linux, Mac OS, and Windows, Linux is a distant fourth on my list (I’d rather use an old copy of BeOS than Linux)
That being said, I like the idea of a $499 eMac; that’s a great price point if you can offer a PC that won’t be a paperweight in a matter of months. The Mac OS is PERFECT for casual users, just the type of neophytes that pay $199 for the dreck that is a cheap Linux PC. Apple’s software would more than compensate for the computing experience. i hope they will move in that direction.
Japanese car makers started out selling inexpensive cars in the US. What did that do? gave them share and a legion of followers who are now paying $25K-$30K for an accord or camry that is twice the size of the old.
Don’t mistatke “the way things worked out” for “a plan”.
G4?!? hell i have a G3 at 800 and my brother bitches that his 2.whatever box seems slow compared to my laptop. you fill the RAM slots and OS X is a great ride!
Right on! My iBook 600mhz is damn snappy, and it beats the piss out of my p4 1.5ghz. Whatever Apple does to their OS, they do it right. =p
You people have a weird idea of “slow” and “snappy”. I’ve used OS X on a whole swathe of Macs all the way from a G3/233 to a dual 1.25Ghz G4 and not one of them has ever been even remotely close to “snappy”. Either the PCs you and your friends are using are severely crippled, or you’ve got the fastest iBooks in the world.
OS X is _slow_. It’s chunky and unresponsive to use, even under trivial load. Gobs of RAM help a lot to take from “glacial” to merely “slow” (as does QE), but even a dual 1.25Ghz G4 with a GB of RAM wasn’t as responsive as my dual P3/733 running XP – let alone a box running something really fast, like BeOS. Heck, the main reason I sold my old PB667 was because it was simply too unresponsive to be used frustration-free all day, every day – everything else about it was great.
This is the best editorial I’ve read about Apple in a long time.
The high end of the market — developers, scientists, video people, publishers, etc. — are not going to stop buying the high end hardware.
But more users of the OS will increase the “network effect” on the software supply side.
And OS X is just so cool. In my view, it is the best OS thus far for the broadest range of computer tasks:
* desktop;
* server;
* unix;
* modern GUI (Cocoa Frameworks);
* X11;
* traditional computing tasks of every kind;
* digital hub;
* graphics and video;
* etc.
No other platform comes close. Apple is the best computer for so many things that people want to do with computers.
I only hope the Apple will get a clue on this and do it. Or at least come closer.
My mom and I both have eMacs with the same graphic cards (hers is 600 mhz and mine is 700) and we both have Jaguar – 10.2.0. The only real difference is that I have 3 times the memory she has. Her computer runs fine for simple tasks with 384 mb ram. Mine runs blazing fast at 1 gb ram. Think free office (all java) loads in a couple seconds. It takes 20 seconds to load x windows or classic. Photoshop filters happen in seconds. Safari takes a second to load. Even Mozilla only takes a few seconds to load. The ram is the key for performance with UNIX – they all work on realtively slow processors compared to PCs but they require much more ram. I increased ram on my toshiba from 128 to 384 with windows me and there is no difference in performance or free memory.
One point I haven’t seen yet is the fact that many tech-type people are interested in a Mac, would love to be able to try out Mac OS X for an extended period of time, but don’t want to spend $800 for a brand new computer. I think this is why we see so many commentaries along the lines of “Apple should release Mac OS X for Intel computers”.
If Apple released a mini, headless Mac for less than $300 say, I suspect that they would sell like hotcakes. They wouldn’t even have to be as powerful as the current eMacs – I find my 700MHz G3 iBook fast enough for common tasks. Apple could sell it without a keyboard and mouse, and limit upgrading to memory. I bet a lot of tech-types would consider buying one.
Heck, I’d buy one of those for my mom.
What i dont understand is, why havent we seen mac clones?
Is it un the OSX ELUA that you can only run it on apple ]-only hardware?
and if so you could still simply buy a mac clone and buy a boxed set of osx.
i do see companies selling mac compatible parts, even one guy managed to build a box that was capable of running osx, it used a ppc chip and mobo, all of the rest of the hardware is pc stuff
>If Apple released a mini, headless Mac for less than $300 say, I suspect that they would sell like hotcakes.
I think this is a great idea to get more userbase. When Apple is move ALL its products to G4/G5s, including the iBooks, then, they could offer the new Motorola 1 GHz G3 in a small mini-case (doesn’t have to be beautiful, but it could have the ‘Apple touch’) without a monitor, like this:
G3 1 GHz (for 900 Mhz, subtract $40)
128 MB RAM (up to 768 MB)
ATI radeon 7500 32 MB
CD-rom
20 MB disk
on board sound, nic, modem
2 usb
keyoboard, mouse, speaker
3 free pci slots
$259 or $299 (depending on the CPU selected)
and then, users could be able to customize it via the apple store for more disk, combo drive or memory. Or, Apple could limit the machine to only allow more memory but not upgrade to other items via the apple stores but only via manual user upgrade (cheaper this way for apple)
I believe that such a plan could work well, but it is not the most powerful way to get into new users who want “this something else” to really switch.
If Apple released a $499-$699 Mac without a monitor I’d buy one in a second. Tower case Mac’s aren’t overpriced considering what you get, but I just don’t need a computer that expensive. I spent less than $1000 on my last PC and I regret spending so much money on it, a slower system would meet my needs just as well.
But one thing I can’t live with is a tiny 17″ monitor, I’d feel claustrophobic using it for light web browsing. I would also want an upgradeable graphics card and preferably a free PCI slot. Basically what I want is a machine half way between the eMac/iMac and a tower case Mac.
But I expect if there was a big enough market for such a system Apple would have already created one. Maybe I’ll start looking around for a second hand G4 after the G5s have been available for a while.
BMW needs to make a shitty car as a loss leader too, everyone will hate it because of it’s poor quality and it will undermine peoples confidence in the rest of their products. GG!
Hellooooooo, clue to stew. 95% of people DON’T upgrade their computer. The most a user MAY do is upgrade the memory, anything more intensive than that they simply put up with the slow speed and decide to upgrade later. That is the fact of the matter.
Why don’t people chose Macs? because there is a perception that if you buy a Mac you will make yourself completely incompatible with the rest of the world. Apple needs to first of all stop being so bloody US centric. There is 5.99billion other people in the world and the VAST majority don’t have PC’s. Heck, even in Australia the PC penitration isn’t as high as it is in the US. There is MARKET SHARE they can grab without even competing head on with the PC.
Secondly, they need to embark on a mass re-education programme via mainstream media that if you do buy a Mac you not only get a better “user eXPerience” but still able to communicate and share with PC users.
As for who they target, they should target those who are WILLING to pay for hardware and WILLING to pay for software. People look at Apples market and can’t work out why Adobe still produces products. Here is a reason, Adobe KNOW that the vast majority of Mac users are professionals and WILLING to pay for software. Just compare that to PC users and the large, IMHO, majority who pirate software under the pre-tense of “oh, I’m only borrowing my friends copy of Office”.
Market share is NOT the only measure. Marketshare + number willing to pay IS the deciding factor hence the reason why Linux will never get mainstream applications. This is because the vast majority don’t want to pay for software. They simply expect a free ride just like their Windows counterparts. If you took all the business licenses out of the software market you would end up with a VERY unprofitable software market. The only reason why people DO write for Windows isn’t because of its market share, it is the number who are willing and able to buy their software.
“Apple killed off the clones.. They will surely go under now”
… never happened…
“Apple is losing market share… They will go under or be bought out”
… never happened…
We have been hearing this and other tripe for years. Apple has MORE users today then they ever did. Their market share has dropped, but that doesnt mean they are losing users. It means the other guys are selling faster and most likely this is due to the growth of global business (who almost all use Windows because they feel they “need” to).
Apple has more users today than ever. It has more developers than ever. For 99% of us, we have all the applications that we need. Apple may not have 40 different DVD rippers, or 20 3d applications or whatever… But all we need is one good app…not 20+ crappy applications.
Games are a different matter, but if I wanted to play games, I would play on my PS2.
Apple shouldn’t try to compete with the $199 Lindows PCs and other low cost personal computers. The PC market is fighting for scraps right now – which is why we have the $199, $299 computers.
Apple produces a quality product which includes hardware, software (OS and applications), and provides excellent support. No other pc manufacturer can say that.
Apples products cost more than the pressed steel case, high production, low quality crap from eMac, Gateway, etc. Apple customers recognize this and have always recognized this, just like BMW, Porsche customers recognize the quality of the products they buy.
It is amazing all the angst Apple/IBM have caused with the new G5 and OSX.3 in the Windows world. They must be doing something right.
I look forward to a G5 vs Opteron vs Athlon64 vs P4 vs Xeon vs Itanium application shoot-out (not benchmarking) once the G5 and the Athlon64 are released.
– John
on the Mac OS X UI responsiveness?
Too much apples today, might wanna read something else, than the
ussual apple stuff….flamewarz, Mac VS. PC, and so on. Well, lets post my comment here, a true troll:)
Appipcollak hajamac danzully mangully soluray delabagay in pizfulakama du paraday….
Don’t ask what it means, don’t know…its just how trolls sound to me…
About the other thing, Apple cutting prices, and so on: Well, Apple is the Rols Royce of desktops, so yes, they won’t cut prices. They don’t have any competition on theyr platform anyway, but they are targetting the right people. I won’t buy a Mac also because of the price, and another factor is the expansive games and software. I run my games trough WineX3 (yes, I’ve subscribed), and…. I enjoy playing Diablo II under Linux. On the other hand games are expansive for the Mac…the same ones as for the PC.
Maybe I’ll get one of those PPC boards when they come out with G4 CPUs, and try Linux on them. MacOSX is not so appealing for me…altough a while ago (a long while) I wished I had a Mac, but now I’ve realized that for me the platform doesn’t matter so much so long as it works.
Just my cheap troll and my 2 cents…
You basically need something that supports Quartz Extreme. For a low end machine that still works fine, Ati Radeon 7500 and GeForce2MX 32 MB AGP, is the absolute minimum requirements (they work well though).
Faster cards with more GRAM will do a bit better, but not a whole lot.
However, again, you’re forgetting that you didn’t get a degree in marketing or manage a billion dollar technology company in any lifetime of your reincarnations.
Do you think all companies have to become like dell to compete? I think apple has a great business model, quality products at a premium. Why don’t you toot them as the only alternative to windows if you’re a graphic designer or flash webpage designer? How about pre-press? Can linux run Quark Express? How about Macromedia flash in non-emulated mode? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I have a linux cluster in my house, it’s great for serving, but I wouldn’t want to create flash pages through wine on linux. I think the demand on apple is fairly high right now, they’ve got a lot of things to do still, so it’s not imperative that they supply to so many at this point. Bigger is not always better (in the case of non-anatomical human body parts, ohohoho), bigger is the source of bubbles and huge layoffs that rock company cultures. What do you do if the economy continues to weaken for the next 10 years?
Why is it so apparent to the hordes of you that quantity wins over quality? Apple’s going to continue to be expensive (relatively), yet their os x developer base is increasing, how many of your favorite open source applications don’t have a mac os x beta version or talk of one?
The technology is good, the vision is better, the management is superb, I wouldn’t say they’re in bad shape at all, especially once the economy takes off.
If apple really wanted to explode in terms of market share, they’d have done what ibm did years ago, and it’s plenty still possible–license their hardware so that anybody can create one (dell). But it’s not about domination (just yet), it’s about quality and innovation and branding strategy. Everyone here’s got to admit, apple has a great brand image, expensive or not. Sooner or later you youngsters can afford a nice bmw or porsche (i’m talking about quality parts, not engine performance) and it will dawn on you why there’s a business model shaped like that.
Just give apple/mac os x some time, they’ll start to retake market share, linux will also take share from windows so it’s all for the better. Steve Jobs is no idiot, despite the tons of you that think you can do a better job than him. I think BMW has a similar model, where at first they had their 3 models, now they’ve expanded into the mass market with mini’s, x3’s, and the 1 series due out soon.
The bottom line is that apple will take on the mass market when it’s good and ready, bmw took a few decades did they not? And they built their future on the quality of their airplane engines in world war 2, now the brand is about as largely adopted as any other luxury car maker in the world.
Shit doesn’t happen overnight.
I think this is a great idea to get more userbase. When Apple is move ALL its products to G4/G5s, including the iBooks, then, they could offer the new Motorola 1 GHz G3 in a small mini-case (doesn’t have to be beautiful, but it could have the ‘Apple touch’) without a monitor, like this:
These machines would defeat the purpose, as they would be too slow to be useful. They would not sell well to the target audience – people with multiple machines who want a Mac as well and people upgrading from an existing machine – for this very reason.
If Apple release a pizza box machine, it needs to have specs at _least_ on par with iMacs and ideally a top end model about equal to the bottom end PowerMac. The lower price tags needs to be justified by lack of expandability, not slower performance (bottom end Macs can barely run OS X fast enough now – heck, top end G4 Macs can only just scrape by).
What they need is a pizza box with:
* (Ideally) Up to 1.6Ghz G5
* (More realistically) Up to 1.4Ghz G4
* AGP mounted video card (needs to be replaceable).
* Superdrive option
* Capacity for at least 1G of RAM
* Firewire, 10/100 ethernet, etc (usual goodies).
Basically, they need an iMac/eMac without a screen, and with an upgraeable video card. The idea is to sacrifice expandability at the lower cost, not performance. I’d be reasonably happy with a headless iMac. I would _not_ be happy with a slow G3 based machine.
I am so sick of the comparison of Macs to BMWs. People buy luxury cars for one reason (weather they believe it or not): an expensive car screams “I am wealthy and successful”. In a sense the high cost of a BMW is an attractive feature – it keeps the common folk away and makes its statement about your status all the more powerful. Having a low end BMW devalues the whole line, you don’t want people driving them to Walmart. Macs are great computers, but they are just that “computers” – tools. Having a low end computer doesn’t hurt the high end. I really hope that other Mac owners don’t sit around feeling cool because there are people that can’t afford the computing experience they enjoy.
Someone posted a great idea about bringing back the G4 cube. There is no R & D cost and maybe they could mold it out of a white plastic so people wouldn’t cry about the little “crack” lines…