A few days ago we published an editorial suggesting that Apple should be selling the eMac for 500 bucks or a bare-bones G3-based machine for $200-300 USD, in order to compete with the “cheap PCs” trend today. I was wrong. Creating such price differentation between the G5 and the G3 or eMac would cannibalize the sales of the high-end machines (where more margin for profit exists) and even worse, it would destroy the Apple brand name. But hey, you know me, I am as stubborn as it goes. I discussed the situation with some more people around me and we came up with an alternative plan, which in my opinion, makes more sense business-wise and it has some good potential.Note: Please excuse the bad grammar and syntax. It is 2 AM as I type this editorial quickly, a result of a stormy discussion we had this afternoon here…
So, the idea is to not cheapen the Macintoshes. Apple-heads in our forums are trying very hard to convince us about the fact that Apple is a premium company and they do have a point. Dragging the prices of Macs down to the ones found in the PC world, will only destroy the Apple brand. And the brand is all Apple has today, it is what keeps the Mac market together. The brand has to be kept and enhanced, not commoditized.
So, how do we bring Macs closer to these PC price-concious consumers you ask? Well, Apple will have to spin off a new brand. A completely new brand of computers that has nothing to do with the Mac brand. The new brand, let’s call it BrandX, will be G3-based, as all Macs would in the meantime be moved to G4/G5s, so there would be no direct competition. It is important to remember that this won’t be a Mac. It will still run Mac OS X and all its third party apps just fine (more on this later), but it will be a beast of its own. It won’t be called “BrandX by Apple Computer, Inc.”, but more something like “BrandX by Strawberry Inc.”. I am not even sure that it would make sense to sell this on Apple Stores instead of just retailers around the world! There should be enough differentiation between the two Apple products, otherwise kiss the Mac brand goodbye. Here’s how the differentiation will work:
1. BrandX is only based on G3s, while Macs are based on G4/G5s. When all Macs are moved to G4s, only then BrandX will see an upgrade to G4s.
2. The overall design of the case and peripherals doesn’t have to be expensive. A cheap modified taiwanese keyboard, a cheap usb mouse and a normal case are to be included. Not very fancy Apple stuff here, but not garbage either.
3. The mouse will be a 2 button mouse, plus a wheel+button. Remember, BrandX is not a Mac, and we don’t want people to think that it is a Mac. It is an Apple PC in essense, a cheap way to run Mac OS X and introduce users to the OSX world (just like Lexus is Toyota, but not exactly Toyota) and a way to be able to compete in the low-end market with the AMD/Cyrix-based PCs. Also, this BrandX machine is the introduction to the Macs for the consumer, the “middle step” during a user’s switch, therefore, the machine should have things that PC users love, e.g. some expandability (two PCI slots, additional hard drive space) while keeping a small form factor in the case and a mouse with more buttons and a wheel.
4. The box would be something between a Power Mac and a Shuttle PC. It will look like a Shuttle, so that will make it “cute” and manageable (even easily portable). There would be space for one more hard drive in the box. Think of it as a more expandable Apple Cube (everyone loved the Apple Cube, but people were not happy of its restrictions to expandability — more so the PC users that we try to capture here).
5. Graphics card is soldiered to the mobo, no AGP slot provided. Cheaper this way. If users want more 3D power, that would be a good incentive to buy a Mac instead (remember, we want to offer features on BrandX, but on the same time “cripple” it in a way that would drive users to condider the Mac brand instead of BrandX). It is not a rip-off, it is keeping the company out of a possible risk.
6. The external speakers would be cheap PC speakers, the ones that cost about 6 or 7 bucks. Nothing fancy, but usable nevertheless, same as the ones that come in the cheap PC line. But with a coloring that would match the case, keyboard and mouse. BrandX will be plain, but it will still have the Apple touch on it looks-wise. It won’t be garbage, but not as elegant as a PowerMac either, for example.
7. The Ultimate model as seen below, will offer two more USBs, one FireWire 400 and one 800, all on the back of the case (the other two USBs and the audio jacks should be in the front of the case).
8. Monitor is not included in the price, but a 17″ $149 CRT monitor would be available for purchase, or an Apple LCD.
9. Choice of Yellow Dog Linux 3.x or OSX Lite. The new company would be in interest in paying 2-3 bucks per copy the TerraSoftSolutions guys to sell an unsupported copy of their Linux with these machines. This way, the OSX Lite operating system would go against the Windows XP OEM PCs, while YDL would battle the raising Red Hat, SuSE or Lindows. Now, you ask, what is this OSX Lite. Read carefully, because the real meat of the differentiation follows:
BrandX won’t be running Mac OS X. It will be running a crippled version of Mac OS X instead, dubbed ‘OSX Lite’ (note that the word “Mac” is missing). Essentially, it will be the same OS, and it would be 100% binary compatible, so you could run all Mac OS X applications on your OSX Lite. But a few things will be missing from the Lite version of the OS. Premium things mostly, things that would be available only on a Mac or if you actually buy the upgrade OS box to upgrade your OSX Lite to Mac OS X. The special upgrade box (a vanilla Mac OS X CD won’t work on these machines) should cost between $150 and $200 USD. You of course now think “what? But, if I go and buy a Mac OS X box it only costs $130, not $200”. Yes, but you have already paid the difference when you bought your Mac. Or, if you bought your Mac second hand, the previous owner has already paid the Mac OS X premium in the Mac’s price. With BrandX, you haven’t. It is a cheap machine. Besides, if we make it too easy for BrandX users to upgrade to a full Mac OS X, we lose the differentiation between BrandX and a Mac. We lose the whole game.
So, what features will be missed from OSX Lite? Here is what will not be included by default:
OS features that are not included: Classic support, Rendezvous, Inkwell, FileVault, multi-processing, multi-monitor support, ColorSync, Speech recognition, ability to make a basestation out of an airport card.
Non-core applications that are not included: iSync, iChat AV, iMovie, iPhoto, DVD player, Sherlock, iCal.
All the other applications (Safari, FontBook, Mail, Address Book, iTunes (and its profitable Music Store), QuickTime Player, Chess, TextEdit, Preview, Grab, X11, developer tools, Calculator and all other Mac OS X Utilities etc etc) will be included. And all other third party Mac OS X applications will work as they are supposed to. All the basic functionality to run a modern OS will be there. At the end of the day, Windows XP doesn’t come with more functionality than that either! As for the users who can’t live without the non-core applications listed above, there are always good alternatives, often for free: VideoLAN, mplayer, Watson, photo management, Fire, AIM, Proteus, MSN, ICQ, scheduling apps etc., all to be found at VersionTracker.com. Charging for the iApps is not even a new idea, Apple already does it with iLife (and in fact, they wanted to charge for iMovie too but public outcry made them only charge for iDVD, literally at the last minute last January). And if some users just want the “real” thing, they just shave off the 200 bucks and they buy the upgrade to full Mac OS X. That’s a good and fair price to turn your cheap BrandX into –pretty much– a ‘real and premium’ Mac.
By having a Lite version of OSX, the product differentiates from the Macs without losing much value (as most needed functionality is still there and there are a lot of freeware to fill up the holes), and also, Apple makes money out of it, compensating for the low price of the BrandX products. Think of it as Windows XP Home and PRO. There is $100 difference between these two products, so why not pay this extra $200 to get all these OS features back, plus all the non-core Mac OS X applications?
In the meantime, the Mac line will have to be simplified. The iBook should be moved to the BrandX brand, but it is not clear if it should change its name or keep it. You see, from one side is good to not make any assumptions that this iBook is a Mac, but on the other hand, it is a good marketing “push” for the new BrandX that was just created. The lowest-end Mac should be the $999 flat panel iMac (today is $799). The eMac should go back to education-only, as BrandX will be filling up its product range and we don’t want products to overlap here. Powerbooks will be the only laptops for Macs, with the 12″ one be the most affordable one, for $1500. As you can see, Macs are increasing their prices slightly, going back to be a true premium brand, while BrandX will take care of the price-consious market segment, competing with the cheap PCs.
See below a mockup of the BrandX product with some configuration information.
then start a company and write a business plan to Apple and try to get real money behind it. Instead of talking about it here on OsNews, do it.
Personally I think that you’ll have a hard time finding the production capibility to make these computers for cheap as you say. But if you can, and still want to sell them and people still want to buy them then go for it.
You said: “You must be either lying or stole that hardware.”
No, I got the parts from Fry’s Electronics Sale and Newegg.com. I usually build very high end machines, get the best desktop components I can find and build a monster that has no rival for the next few months, but this time I decided to try the cheap market. I got the cheapest possible components I could find and built me a nice machine, and it runs fine, with FreeBSD. I also tried Windows XP and is plenty fast.
Regards,
FreeBSDer.
I am sorry, but your poll isn’t statistically interesting. It is targeted to people who actually give a fuck about computers. Polls on osnews are fun, but they don’t mean squat.
Yeah, I have to laugh every time I see a linux user here say that they would buy into an idea – as if that alone were evidence that a large market exists for the product.
Hi all,
Does any one know where can i find some thing like this;
max 1Ghz G3
no vga
9 pin console
2 or more ethernet 10/100
2.5″ ata controler
SODIMM
Some thing like a Soekris.com but faster with G3 ?
-Fanny
Apple does need to get into the business market. My dad’s company used to have all macs for every employee, but they switched over to PCs probably around 10 years ago. Probably because Macs were too expensive and they needed to upgrade their hardware.
“I also tried Windows XP and is plenty fast.”
Is FreeBSDer actually GWB?
Oh, and the prices you quoted DONT EXIST OUT SIDE THE UNITED STATES! and half these bone held, shit-box operations don’t ship outside the US. In otherwords, the idea of a cheap PC is bullcrap.
Such a low-end Mac will not run OS X with reasonable performance.
I assume such a machine would be targeting existing Windows users? If so, then OS X performance will disappoint the majority of such users. Windows performance on low end PC hardware (which these days is Celeron or Duron machines running at >1.5 GHz) is very good compared to OS X running on a low-end G3.
If it were OS 9.2.2 instead of OS X, then I’d say performance wouldn’t be an issue, but it definately is with OS X.
The hardware specs are OK, no problem with that. I think it will cater to the masses who shop at CostCo, Winco, Fry’s and other no-frills shops. Mac users probably don’t shop at these places anyway so they won’t see them on display.
One thing about software though, ship the OS with only the basic accessories. No MS-Word or Excel type-of app installed. Instead, sell the tools as add-ons packaged separately, off-the-shelf boxed apps costing 25 to 50 each.
Add a PS2 or XBOX emulation software so kids can play their favorite console games on these as well.
> The specs listed are, no offense, pretty stupid. the whole point of making an integrated machine is that you don’t want different mobos. The “ultimate” would require a different mobo because of the firewire800 (??) and USB.
That’s where you are wrong. YOU DO NOT need another mobo design. You design the mobo to have the space for the FW and USB chips, but you just don’t add them for cheaper models. It takes no time/money to just add these chips for the high end model. As for the case, you just need to change the plastic back end, not the whole case. And the price of the Ultimate is that high that it is paid to be able to different.
I’ll leave it to others to dispute the merits of this idea — but I think an important cost issue needs to be addressed for the purposes of discussion.
The problem with the proposed G3 clone pricing is that it may be impossible to attain. G3/G4 Macs are filled with custom ASICs, designed in-house by Apple and manufactured in (relatively) low volume. Apple’s custom components are a significant factor in overall system cost, and perhaps the only way to drive prices down is to manufacture them in much greater volume. This represents a catch-22: Apple could gamble the farm on a huge run of chipsets to power Strawberry clones, hoping that volume sales will cover their investment. This is risky, and has an “opportunity cost” in that it ties up financial resources that Apple could otherwise use elsewhere.
One possible solution might be a “FrakenBerry” platform. A FrakenBerry would be an Intel-powered PC with an Apple ROM, running the rumored “Marklar” port of OSX. This box could be farmed out to a myriad of Asian OEMs, who would compete for Apple’s business solely on price. No custom chipsets, and minimal hardware R&D costs for Apple (i.e. – the ROM).
This may not completely meet Eugenia’s binary compatability requirement, but thanks to OSX’s Mach microkernel and Marklar’s (theoretically) compatible libraries, a recompile of code might be all that is required to port apps to the FrakenBerry.
Of course, “Count Chocula” is arguably a better name for this box… 😉
c0mpil3r
>No.
Yes.
>PC users aren’t going to fork over the cash unless there’s a real benefit involved.
With the same logic, why wanna try out Linux? Windows XP can do everything for you too. This machine is targetting switchers. And PC users who were “that close” to switch but price made them step back.
>> Although this machine is targeting “switchers”, when they install linux, they can dual boot, or if they don’t like, go right back to Windows as they are on an Intel based system. What are they going to do with a G3-Based system if they decide they don’t like it? And do not say go back and get a refund, we all know that doesn’t work very well.
Plus, PC users are not the only customers here. Old G3 Mac users will want to upgrade too.
> Why would I want a Brand X machine if I can’t do all the things I could do with a Mac and OS X?
Because it is a cheaper machine. Why do you ask for the full monty when you are not ready to pay for it?? Software is not cheap to create you know. Engineers are paid $$ to wtite it.
>> Again, Linux can free and both aspects of the word.
If you don’t want to pay for a Mac, you will get OSX Lite.
>> Or you can get Linux for a lot less and have multitudes of applications over OSX Lite.
And as I said in the article, you STILL can do EVERYTHING you can do with a Mac. OSX Lite is 100% compatible with Mac OS X, so all third party apps will work (e.g. VideoLAN or Fire) if you are not willing to upgrade to MacOSX.
>> I actually admire you for trying to get new ideas into the mix and help out Apple, but I just don’t see what value this idea could bring to an end user.
This just doesn’t make sense, an apple that’s not an apple?
Look, the reason I don’t want an appl…beside its price, I don’t want to be control by just one company on softwares as well as HARDWARE.
My thoughts have always been around making it difficult but not impossible to join Apple to x86 but making it more of a developer unit (a crappy PC no special look). It would work as followed…
You buy x86 Mac OSX thats $199, it supports one computer out of the box thats Mac x86 developer center. No programs made for it but ones apple makes. Like iTunes, and so on.
Next you are forced to join a developer unit group with Apple. Which cost #199 dollars, so no a total of $400’s, and it allows you to access more source code, and so on. They have a website up that doesn’t have anything thing to do with them but they fund it. It has the best resources for programming tips, and sharing ideas and so on. Also of course it would be a way to get drivers that ‘people’ make, which still Apple never puts them into MacOS x86 OSX.
It would get people programming for MacOSX, it would bring people together,and force people to shutup about not having MacOS X x86. IF you want MacOS X x86 fine right a driver for it and learn to program for it and so on. And watch your development grow into MacOS X PPC.
It would force you to learn something about MacOS X and of course the benefits of MacOS X PPC, it would bring more people together programming for MacOS X PPC, and so on. The biggest thing is buzz and developers. Thats why Linux got so big.
I have been close in the last year to buying an apple. I run Gentoo on workstations, and OpenBSD on my firewall/router. I have a windows partition around just for gaming. I would use an apple box for a desktop, and it would be able to run the types of games I usually play (strategy). When my laptop screen died, I almost bought a powerbook instead of fixing it. Costs keeps holding me back. So what would I do with this proposal?
I probably wouldn’t buy one. Why? The G3. All my mac-head friends tell me it’s too crippled for OSX. With G5’s being released it’s too far behind the curve. Especially the $900 model. You’d be crazy not to get a G4 for that kind of money. Besides, why intro people to OS X on a crippled machine?
I still like something close to the first idea. A headless Emac. Let it work with a standard VGA monitor. I have 3 spare sitting around home. A headless Emac at 499. I would have bought one 2 months ago. Sure, an Emac comes with a 128MB of ram, but at http://www.pricewatch.com, I can buy 512 of mac Ram for $62. And If I want to add a DVD/CDRW driver later, I just get an external one.
This doesn’t kill Apple’s elite base. You want a pretty mac? Get an Imac. You want a powerful one? Get the workstation.
-b
> The thing you forgot is that the G3 runs OSX like my Grandma’s P-233 runs WinXP
what a massive overstating lie. i have an ibook, and a win2k. the winders machine is twice the ibooks speed if you buy into myth, but the ibook responds faster, encodes to mp3 faster, encodes video faster (a lot fast. windows has yet to encode jack for me) and my wife argues with me every time i tell her to give me my laptop and use the windows machine. she hates it. i hate it. my 4 year old complains it is too slow. but we fight over the “slow” ibook!
the good news? if i keep fighting with my wife on the ibook, she might let me get a 12″ powerbook!
take your weak, old, often disproved “slow” argument to zdnet, where the trolls care.
lets get this outta way again. x86 OS X _will_not_happen_!
why is it so hard for people to understand that a company that makes their money on hardware, and makes sales based on “user experience” will never sell a version of their software that runs on someone else’s hardware and where they can’t promise the slick apple user experience?
just let it go. if you want OS X so much, buy the damn mac already. you won’t get it on x86. ever.
How would this not devalue the Apple name even more? I don’t care if it doesn’t SAY apple anywhere, it still will.
OS X Lite would be the biggest mistake. If you want to attract people to OS X, you don’t do it by cutting out the things that make it cool. Give the user a DVD, but don’t include DVD Player? oi oi. I agree some things aren’t needed such as multi-proc, multi-mon, colo(u)r-sync. If you want to compete with XP you have to include the things that XP includes.
Cheap PCs sold three or four years ago were crippled. They aren’t as bad now and many even include AGP and other fancy expandability options. It was often said that if one wanted to see the state of the Wintel industry three or four years into the future, one need only look at the state of Macintosh today. Let’s not make Macintosh the same as Wintel was three or four years ago.
In 5 years, going by the steady trend in market share, apple will cease to exist as the computer computer we know today except they:
1. Offer OSX on Intel platform.
2. Make OSX on Intel freely downloadble and available as Free BSD/Linux is today.
3. Offer free emulators that will let all Mac software run
at reasonable speeds on all flavors/Platforms of Unix/Linux.(Intel,Sparc,RISC etc.)
4. Re-position themselves as the vanguard for quality, affordable, pre-installed desktops and small servers for Unix, Linux and all who dare to think outside
the Microsoft box.
Selling to 50% of 50%(companies and institutions that use
different variants of Unix/Linux/Mac) is a better business
model than selling to 100% of nothing.
Apple’s problem is not the low-end, the eMac at 799 is a better value than any Dell out there when you consider all you get in a eMac that actually makes it a usable PC right out of the box.
Apple’s real problem is their is no product in between. The iMac is not what I am referring to. I’m talking about a Mac PC that has slots and where you can change the display. Any small business, medium business and Enterprise wants this type of PC. Apple basically needs to release a desktop version of the G5, single processor, AGP 8X and up to 4GB RAM, three PCI slots. They should have an onboard GPU chip-set, couple of USB2.0 and couple of FireWire ports, display sold separately, Firewire and bluetooth adapters sold separately and why not include a SATA drive and a combo drive to start.
It would be a computer for the SMB, enterprise, and government. it would start at 599 and peak at $1199. Apple will have all the accessories at the store, such as their displays, AGP graphics cards for the gamers, bluetooth adapter with bluetooth mice and Keyboard upgrades, Wi-fi adapter and airport extreme. Ipod’s, iLife, Keynote, Digital cameras, etc. Apple would significantly increase their sales overall even if some of their other lines were cannibalized.
It takes no time/money to just add these chips for the high end model.
It takes little money to produce them but you’re forgetting about inventory (or maybe you just didn’t read my note earlier in the thread). Apple would be foolish to make 3 new low-end models that retailers would have to carry. In retail inventory is the enemy.
As for the case, you just need to change the plastic back end, not the whole case. And the price of the Ultimate is that high that it is paid to be able to different.
The iMac and PowerMac are there to be “different”. The iJunk is there to be cheap. It’s an entry point. We don’t need to have a whole line with differentiation between the models.
Your idea is a recipe for disaster. Thankfully one that Apple shows no signs of adopting. Rumors have pointed to them considering a single Apple branded headless model costing $500. That would be a smart business move.
What would I have to pay now (today) to buy new or used a Mac with the main features that I like in Eugenia’s proposed new computer, namely:
1. At least one free PCI slot
2. USB 2.0
3. Headless design that supports standard PC monitor
4. Graphics card that fully supports latest version of OSX
5. Enough CPU to run latest version of OSX well
6. Enough RAM to run latest version of OSX efficiently
7. And a copy of the latest version of OSX.
I can add my own multi-button mouse. 🙂
I disagree completely with her idea of spinning off a new brand, however. This would cheapen the Mac brand and confuse shoppers.
I just want to know the thriftiest way, new or used, to get what I want today — and her proposed design had it, or most of it.
BTW I do not want a Mac with built-in monitor. The video circuitry is what seems to fail in one-piece Macs. I want a monitor of my own choosing — and I want a PCI slot so that I can use SCSI peripherials.
Why would Apple even do such a thing? With their lower priced units, they are currently tempting people that are already VERY tempted to buy a Mac into buying a Mac. Once those people become hooked, they end up getting sucked into the Mac Mantra…
Besides, that isn’t going to change the Mac target audience, which is typically people that either…
A) Don’t give a patooty about needing to know how to do anything on their computer.
B) “Creative” types that like to sneer an lear at the “lesser” people that use that Linux thing or that vile despicable Windows thing. (Don’t get me started on this.)
C) UNIX Geeks/Admins that think that MacOSX is the panacea to all of their dreams and desires… (Meaning an excellent dekstop environment laying on top of a UNIX core.)
Hey that’s all great for those people. For the most part the needs of those people are handled with a Mac Computer. For everyone else, that is not the case…
For Engineers, (Automotive, Architectural, Electrical, Chemical) they need something that will run, not only the business apps they need to interact with the rest of the company, but also will run the applications they need to do their job. Hint: Those apps typically only run on some flavor of Microsoft Windows or on one of the BIG “Indusrial” UNIX OSs like AIX, IRIX, Solaris and HP-UX.
Some of the more scientific applications, like chemical analysis and others are beginning or have always had decent open source versions available, which will run on Linux and also, with the right libraries, on MacOSX these days.
Other then that, the other VERY powerful demographic are the computer game playing demographic. Hardcore computer gamers don’t buy Macs, they buy PCs. They do this because just about all the computer games are released for MS Windows or some other x86 compatible OS (Linux) while only a small number of those games make it to the Apple platform. Sure, that increases the noise level on the PC platform, but it also increases the chances of getting some really “wicked” games on the PC platform.
I have not and likely never will, hear of MacOSX versions of the following games… (Just as a for instance.)
Freelancer
Mechwarrior 4
Mech Commander 1 and 2
ANY of the Star Trek games
Star Wars; Knights of the Old Republic
Planetside
Anarchy Online
There are many more… but I don’t have all day…
Perhaps a few of the above titles will make it to the Mac in a year or two or maybe 4 years, like Everquest took…
Face the facts, Apple is a VERY niche computer manufacturer that doesn’t exactly do much to break their mold besides prettying up their computers and making things seem so “modern”, “artistic” and “posh”. If they start beating the streets and get some game producers to whip out MacOSX ‘Exclusives’ of some destined to be killer titles then perhaps more people would be interested in buying Macs.
Creating a substandard line to a VERY niche positioned computing platform isn’t going to do ANYTHING to help that platform grow…
Show me Catia running on a Mac. Show me Unigraphics running on a Mac. Show me MasterCAM running on a Mac. Show me some killer BRAND SPANKING new gaming titles on the Mac, like Star Wars Galaxies and then maybe… Just maybe the Mac will be able to expand outside of its expensive niche market.
Why not just bring back the clones and liscensing? If you sell a bargain-basement box, and make little to no profit off of it, why not just liscense it out, and skim the profit with liscenses?
as it was in the olden days, liscensees were not allowed to ship a box without apples’ final stamp of approval. They could keep those terms, and restart the liscensing. Except. after the way the last round got halted, I think we’d see a much slower uptake – I’d be afraid to liscense from apple. They’re worse than M$ with respect to you never know when they’ll yank the liscense out from under you.
Amen.
Where is the market? Cheap slow computer with minimal software and gimped functionality vs midpriced fast computer with lots of software (windows). You also confuse the market place.
What Apple needs to do is create a cheap computer with the Mac name, but make it non-expandable so that it doesn’t compete with the high end. Imagine one of the 15″ flat-panel iMacs ($1,294.00) without the flatpanel display (-$450.00) or the latest version of the iLife software (-$49) the Apple Pro Speakers (-$59) or the internal modem (-$29). That gets it to $707 right there. Use the previous generation of chips and you can shave even more off of the price.
or the internal modem (-$29)
I always thought it was weird that Apple still puts modems in it’s computers. It’s like putting a tape deck in a new Mercedes.
-b
hmm, what about the old Performa and LC series aka the pizza box macs?
performas were horrible (for apple)!
They fragmented the market, and companies could not get rid of the inventory fast enough as soon as the new ones came in!!!
for the os x on x86 guys, PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS (and historical note), and learn something.
Finally, modems are good! Not everyone has DSL//cable (I dont) and this is especially true in non North American countries. Modems are not obsolete yet
Not everyone has DSL//cable (I dont) and this is especially true in non North American countries.
And just how many of those people who don’t have or can’t afford broadband are part of apples market? They could sell a USB modem, or someone else would.
-b
Everybody recognizes Mac OS X as a good operating system with an excellent GUI. Max OS X is a unix based system, so is Linux.
Why is the Linux community not able to create such a
pleasant GUI? (and not a kde, a gnome, a ximian, a bluecurve or xxx)
Creating an OS X Lite for x86, is not recognizing a Linux fail?
How about this:
Port MacOSX to x86!!
I’m a Linux and before that MS, PC user. I just bought my second Apple laptop (G4 15″ 1Ghz) (First that was stollen (hey I guess sombody wants them) was a Lombard 400Mhz).
If Aqua, OsX, Jaguar, Panther, whatever would run on PCs, people would buy (or steal) it. Once you have people running your software, then you sell them the hardware where it runs better.
Actually, I think rather than create a “Brand X” company, it would be more to the point to create a “Mac OS X Lite” for licensing to 3rd party white-box PPC vendors. That is, license an OS that has some, but not all, of the features Mac OS X has. This would encourage 3rd parties to persue different, specialty markets that wouldn’t be cost effective for Apple to persue on their own. It would also create an incentive for 3rd parties to grow the Mac market, while still leaving Apple with the full featured “Cadillac” of the platform.
Well as long as they are in the same price range they are comparable. If you believe that there is no market for a low-cost SFF Mac compatible, consider this saying…
A shoe company sent 2 scouts to Kenya to evaluate possibility of a market for their product. After a few days since their arrival, both reported back to the company with their findings.
First scout: “Bad news boss, the natives don’t wear shoes.”
Second scout: “Good news boss, the natives don’t wear shoes!”
Which one of these guys are you?
this idea is well meaning, but if it was so good, why not just keep selling old OS 9 imacs forever and ever (which might have been the smart thing to do).
I agree, Eugenia, that Apple could use a new low end system to satisfy two markets; those people who just want to do really basic functions – a bit of WP, some email, some web searching plus music, and maybe digital photography – and need a really usable UI that doesn’t take forever to remember; and enterprise desktop usage with a constrained set of applications.
What was described reminded me of the old Intel/Microsoft 3 tier model still embodied to some extent in the multiple Office offerings (Works+Word, Office, Office Pro). The Works+Word entry point is a give-away sucking people in until they find that it doesn’t really meet the need. Then you move up the chain. But Apple needs sensible profits from software even at the low end from the get-go and can’t afford this type of give away.
I’d prefer Apple to put up a $500 Mac package based on the eMac without a tube – still lots of life in 17 inch CRTs. This plus a sizable effort in marketing the advantages of Apple’s attention to detail especially with the UI. $200 for the software, $300 for the hardware, very little expansion capability (but be generous with RAM), no support – it has to be a white goods commodity item.
The reason why Apple is so “popular” is Apple’s PR and that is good. But I don’t think that current Apple’s offerings are so interesting for desktop users. There is not so much in terms of quality to convince an ordinary user to switch. Because Mac users like the comparison to the cars I would suggest thinking not about German but rather Japan cars. They won US market because they offered better quality for less or equal amount of money. This happened when US auto market was really weak. Unfortunately PC market is in pretty good shape today. So to win the battle Apple should offer much better product for the same price (definitely not less), and that is why Eugenia’s proposal will not succeed as it offers barebones systems only, without any incentive to switch. Yes, I did use Mac before and it is very nice machine. If I would be owner of G4 with latest OS X installed and someone would try to convince me to buy a PC I would laugh… as I would laugh if someone would suggest to switch from PC to Mac. See the problem is that both systems offers equally good experience so neither for Mac nor for PC user there is not enough reasons to switch.
So, Eugenia, design system that will offer “more for less” and will justify learning curve (change habits, learn new software) and that is hmm… quite impossible today. I would like to emphasize that price although important is not decisive (people are buying very cheap and very expensive PC, with for example, video card that cost more than $1000 – 3DLabs WILDCAT4 7110 256MB, SCSI HD and so on. By the way this video card will not work under OS X as most of 3DLabs offerings)
Needs fleshing out, but it has potential.
For every G4 or eMac that Apple sells I think that a PC vendor would have to sell at least 2 or three PCs to approach the amount of profit that Apple generates from one unit. When you start talking about a high end G5 I bet Apple stretches that number to five or six.
PCs will continue to go down in price. The thing is as prices get lower the margins for PC vendors get thinner, for Apple they stay the same or get better. Their business model allows them to sell less units and still be profitable in a bad economy. Other companies have to move volume to have the profit like Apple does, who moves a low volume of machines.
Companies like Gateway are loss leaders, lowering prices has not and will not help them. SGI selling PC clones did not help them and that decision damages them to this day. Companies that continue to refine, focus, innovate and improve on things they do BEST will do well but part of what a company is is its brand. When people are asked to name computer companies Apple always comes up despite the fact that they control 3% or less of the market. They still have the same brand recognition as companies 10X its size.
Apple would not succeed in creating a “cheap brand” and it would only serve to dilute the quality of the brand.
I don’t see the point of MacOSX Lite. You buy a brandx mac compatible and you get a MacOSX that is not feature complete and it runs on a G3. This platform may do more to actually turn people off from using a Mac or could give people a bad impression of MacOSX from using the Lite version.
I think Apple should consider selling a mintower G4 with only one 5.25″ drive bay, one 3.5″ drive bay and using a standard/modified ATX power supply. The 5.25″ combo drive will define the max width of the device. 4-USB 2.0 ports, a single FW 400 port and video that will support ADC or VGA. 2 memory slots and no PCI slots.
The idea is to build this system with as many off the shelf components that Apple already uses. The motherboard can come from the Powerbook G4 12″ The R&D for the enclosure is the current G4 case minus the additional 5.25″, 3.5″ bays and room for PCI slots.
You will basically have a machine that has already been built by Apple but the R&D came from different product lines like they did with the PowerBook and the iMac G4.
The most important thing is that the end product is still a Macintosh and not an “almost but not quite a Mac” machine.
You will have a low cost system with a good processor using standard PC components and components that ALREADY exist in Apple’s product line in some fashion. Expandability will be limited but the intent of this mini-G4 is to introduce people to a Mac while still allowing them to use their PC monitor, LCD annd printer.
Everybody say that Macs and PCs are equivalent but this is not the case as you can see from the number of responses to this article from mostly people who use PCs. If you have used both they are not the same. The same can be said for the driving experience of a BMW and a Honda. Unless you have driven both you will not know. Just because you’ve driven the Honda doesn’t mean that you’ve driven the BMW or even know what it is like.
Hey I love my Shuttle SN41, I like your photoshop job, looks almost more like i want it, ala less front ports, still I did a double take on it. But in concept i think you nailed it. Thats the mac….errr brandX I have been looking for.
On a side note, the Shuttles, mainly the G2 cases as shown are beautiful. When ever I hear mac people talk of Wintels being boring ugly grey boxes i look over at my shuttle and scratch my head. And Soldam of japan who works with shuttle makes some of the most beautiful computers ever made.
I think your idea is right on the money. No matter how some mac people see it, apple needs to grow. The auto maker stratgey of differant makes, while still all the same company, ala Ford Mo Co and GM is the way to go. Lincoln makes a damn fine luxcury car, but its brand isn’t hurt by Ford Mo Co making Fords, and Lincoln doesn’t hurt Jaguar and Aston Martin sales. Most people don’t even make the connection between those 4 brands. But it’s all one company and Ford Mo Co makes money off them all and gets to cut cost by resource and component sharing.
I think Apple could remake the whole eMac, iMac, and iBook side of things into the low end company, and the power books and powermac into the Apple line. It’s not like one things high end, superior or luxcury when they see the iMac and iBook, they see them as cheap, but they arn’t do to the pricing structures.
Did you send your idea to Steve?
>Did you send your idea to Steve?
Nope. Email?
I don’t see the point of MacOSX Lite. You buy a brandx mac compatible and you get a MacOSX that is not feature complete and it runs on a G3. This platform may do more to actually turn people off from using a Mac or could give people a bad impression of MacOSX from using the Lite version.
But I didn’t say that Mac OS X Lite should be restricted to G3s. That would negate the point of doing it.
The idea is to encourage 3rd parties to develop markets not already served by Apple. They wouldn’t compete head to head with Apple, because they would be selling a less functional product. That would force them to look elsewhere than the typical Mac market for customers.
Conversely, if a 3rd party developed a profitable niche, Apple could design and sell full featured products into that market as well. They can let the 3rd parties take the risk of developing new markets at no risk to themselves.
” The idea is to encourage 3rd parties to develop markets not already served by Apple. They wouldn’t compete head to head with Apple, because they would be selling a less functional product.”
Bruno I understand your point but this was exactly what the Mac clones were suppose to do for Apple. Instead they started competing directly with Apple and were in fact cannabalizing their sales. They did not broaden Apples market and basically took buyers away from Apple. Apple does not need a repeat of this.
Apple has to take a cautious approach in serving the low end. Macs are not the “be all end all, everything to everyone computers”. They never will be. I think that Apple can create a low end machine that can reach out to a wider range of people but at the same time it will not be price competitive with WalMart PCs.
Low prices are a losing battle. Gateway is familiar with this with an expected loss of 24 cents per share. It is also likely that they MOVED MORE UNITS than Apple and still lost money.
I would like to see a low cost Mac but I DO NOT want it to be equivalent in quality, looks or feel to a WalMart PC.
Also when people say the Shuttle PC is nice, it looks OK. The G4 Cube has much cleaner lines and is actually smaller. The Shuttle PC is also an exception in the PC world as far as looks go, its not the norm.
This editorial is well thought out. While my own conclusions would have been different (not much though) these are all very agreeable. I strongly suspect by giving it a generic name that it will not cannibalize the present apple customer base, most apple users seem to take pride in the ownership of their ‘apple’ computer or they know enough about what hardware to buy that they would tend to avoid these machines. But by putting a computer in the retail channel next to PC’s on a large visible basis makes MacOS based machines appear to be a real windows competitor and much less of a risky proposition. I suspect that many people buying these generic machines would be much more compelled to make the greter investment in a real apple a year or two later. This idea seems to be a very well thought out way to grow the MacOS base.
“Also when people say the Shuttle PC is nice, it looks OK. The G4 Cube has much cleaner lines and is actually smaller. The Shuttle PC is also an exception in the PC world as far as looks go, its not the norm.”
First, there is lots of nice PC’s in the wintel world, even the oems are looking good, sony’s, HPs are pretty slick looking anymore. My one HP is 4.5 years old and still looks pretty nice, granted it was one of the first to not be a grey box.
I don’t think the G1 shuttles look supergreat, but the G2s look very nice.
The cube was not that great. In pictures it looked great. In person it was a massive let down. It was much bigger then they make it look in person, by this sites specs for dimensions http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/apple-cube.html
the Apple cube was 1.5 inches shorter then the shuttle in one direction and 1 inch longer in another and the same in the third. So basicly the same size nearly to a tee, 4 cubic inches differant, 644 vs 640.
The cube was plastic which doesn’t go over well with many. Also in ads it was shown with no wires, but when you see it with the wires it makes it look messy since they don’t nicely hide away, since with all the clear plastic and it’s front and center concept on a desk they stand out. I loved the cube till I saw one, then i didn’t like it at all.
More then anything it just bugs the hell out of me when people call wintels ugly big grey boxes made from cheap parts. Most look very nice any more, remember for many apple styling is not so great. The G4 case was very dated and everyone seams to have mixed feelings on the G5. The iLamp iMacs are like the cube and look nice in pictures, look awful in person. So to each there own.
” I would like to see a low cost Mac but I DO NOT want it to be equivalent in quality, looks or feel to a WalMart PC.”
I don’t think anyone is thinking that cheap. But really the wal mart ones aren’t to bad. The thing so many in the mac world get lost on is thinking wintel boxes are cheap parts. Well simple, yes the cost of most parts is cheap, but to find actual cheap parts as in quality is pretty hard. Even no name stuff holds up great. You can have a great motherboard with all the features one would ever want for 75 bucks and it will be rock solid, the cpu, well thats a given to be solid, and cheap, most people who build pick their CPUs up for around a 100 bucks since they avoid the latest and upgrade later. The big guys like dell get the stuff for cheap as well. Yes wintel box parts are cheap, nice cheaply priced high quality parts. There is no reason apple could not do the same. All other parts out there are the same for both.
You can put together a high quality machince for 500 bucks. Mine cost me about 600 with shipping for all high solid parts, and could be built for 200 less now that the case is much cheaper. An OEM could build my computer for 300 bucks no problem.
This is where the apple disparity hits, Few people buy high end dells that people often want to compair with, most people buy sub 1000 dollar dells since they have no reason for more. In this range apple has nothing. What they do have is stuff people don’t want. Also though it doesn’t matter much with how cheap wintel boxes have gotten, a good number of people are building their computers. More and more as time goes since the bulk of the computing world is moving onto their 2nd or 3rd computer and have made upgrades to their computers along the way. To build one is easy for them. I have freinds and relitives with zero computer skills that have or are thinking of building one. It’s an idiot proof process, you don’t need to do much research really. It’s a good 99.9 % plug and play world with building them and most issues are solved with a call to freinds. This is the hurdle apple needs to clear. They want to gain market share. But currently cannont and will not. It’s understandable they don’t want to mess with their price structure. That’t why the BrandX apple plan is perfect. I could sell of enough computer stuff in my room to buy such a machine. If i don’t like it i could sell it. To buy anything I would want and to be worth my money I would not be able to aford right now.
“>Did you send your idea to Steve?
Nope. Email?
”
figured you knew it, maybe [email protected] , one could always put up a billboard by his house or work with a add with your idea
“Think Differant Steve: Strawberry”
on a side note, it has to be a fruit or very that looks good from a silhouette veiw. The stawberry works, though is long and the short verys or Straw sounds odd, remember machontash (sp) is a type of apple, so open up the name ideas.
I think Orange sounds good and would fit nicely but the logo would be hard.
@Brad
I was at compUSA today and saw a Sony VAIO all in one unit which looked very slick. I didn’t care for the keyboard but the specs and cosmetically it looked very good. the same can be said for the VAIO laptops. I didn’t care for the VAIO towers or other PCs from HP and Compaq.
The Cube is a mess once it is assembled. The cords run along the botton and can be cleaned up but Apple should not show the Cube next to a display with no wires attached to it. its not real. Regardless I still prefer the looks of the Cube over the Shuttle. The Shuttle has it beat on power and expandability.
Contrary to what you migh think the majority of inexpensive PCs in peoples homes looks awful. They are beige boxes for the most part or some kind of crazy color scheme. We are jut talking the looks here. I have a plain jane PC right next to me built from very good parts but no one will mistake it for a high end PC or a G4.
I personally do not care to have a “low end” or “beginners” brand that was mentioned in the article. Most people who purchase Macs for the first time but have used Windows or Linux in the past and have the intention of moving away from those systems if they consider a Mac. Purchasing a Mac is not cheap so they tend to ask around and consider what they gain and what they give up. Like it or not a decent Mac today runs you at least $1000. Its a big ticket item for a lot of people so people don’t jump into it blindly. With that said, the people who I have known to purchase a Mac for the first time are happy with their selection regardless of the MHZ.
Actually if it is to be a low-budget machine it should be called something more like “Collard Greens” or “potato” 😛
I agree with what others are saying, they could simply reintroduce the cube. That should bring down the cost to somewhere in the vicinity of 500 bux.
Apple has done well for itself in recent years to avoid the commoditization of its products and therefore the cheapening of its brand. IMHO Apple is on the right track and simply lacks the killer office suite required to deflate MS market share. Keynote is a step in the right direction but I think a replacement for word and excel are must haves before apple gains corporate ground and high volume sales numbers on par with Dell and HP
Apple has done well for itself in recent years to avoid the commoditization of its products and therefore the cheapening of its brand. IMHO Apple is on the right track and simply lacks the killer office suite required to deflate MS market share. Keynote is a step in the right direction but I think a replacement for word and excel are must haves before apple gains corporate ground and high volume sales numbers on par with Dell and HP
In response to an earlier reply to my post regarding the Performa and LC series Macs – you are correct, the move to low cost Mac was at the time very bad for Apple, its customers and its customers I would certainly hate to see Apple return to this type of tactic in hopes of reaching out to the bargain shopper. With apple the adage you get what you pay for has almost always been true and I would like to see this remain part of the apple brand.
I’m glad people recognize there is a problem with Mac pricing, however this isn’t the solution.
You can get all the hardware for an essentialy top of the line X86 PC computer for under $350 (prices from Price Watch, Circuit City, and Best Buy…some after mail-in rebate):
Athlon XP 2400 with Motherboard $114
512 MB PC2100 DDR Ram $35
160 GB 7200 rpm hard drive $100
400 watt ATX Mid tower case $22
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128 mb Video Card $61
Soundblaster Audigy Platinum $17
Your solution of buying outdated slow hardware for the same price as relatively new PC hardware makes no sense. Why would I do that? That’s not gonna draw me to Apple.
Also…my scenario leaves me with a very cheap upgrade solution. If I want a faster machine…all I gotta do is replace my motherboard and cpu (for a measly $115) and possibly the memory (for $35).
In my oppinion, a better solution for exposing OSX to the masses is releasing the OSX Lite that you mentioned, onto the X86 platform, but then not offering an upgrade to standard OSX. If you want standard OSX, you gotta buy a Mac.
I’ll personally never pay over $1000 for a desktop computer, and will also never pay $300 for a slow PC.
You know, I am a pretty devoted Mac user, I started with a Quadra 840AV and that was the beginning (or should I say during) the “Dark Period” Post-Steve Jobs. I loved Apple and the Mac and I really learned on the thing after only briefly experiencing DOS and Windows 3.1. The Windows interface just wasn’t “clean” to me.
At the time of the PowerPC chips I was really excited about the clone posibilities and almost bought a Power Computing in it’s hey day. Their computers offered many great incentives to Apple itself. Well, that, was the well-documented problem with the whole clone thing – addressed here previously ad nauseum.
I bring it up, because while I looked at clones seriously, I really wanted something from Apple in the end. I know brand had a lot to do with it, but I think it was also the unkown and uncertainty with going with one of the clone makers. Obviously, since Apple’s situation changed drastically after that and the clones were killed, it was a good choice, but a well-established brand is a powerful thing.
Is it rediculous to prefer a brand? Eh, maybe, but more it’s usually a comfort and trust thing. I mean, I certainly buy what I want and need. It’s just I want Apple’s OS experience. I’m not rich, but i run a business and have many Macs that have never let me down and are very easy to set up. Could I do this with Windows PC’s? Yeah, I’m sure, though I’m constantly reminded of problems that friends with other businesses have. Seemingly little things from my perspective.
But what I do believe is that what you know – be it grown up with, or use everyday at work – is as powerful as the brand, and that is the biggest stumbling block for Apple: Marketing.
Now that their pro line is back on track with G5,the only thing Apple should do is to slap faster G4’s or new rebranded IBM G3’s into iMac eMac for consumers and to keep line of cheaper towers with new G4’s. Prices should come down a bit as there is more stuff that apple sells these days(Pro-stuff,iPods,music store,software)to offset lower margins. With computers is almost like with cars.There will always be pepople who’d be willing to pay more, for coolest looking computer with trouble-free operation.
“or new rebranded IBM G3’s”
what would that be?
New G3’s(Gobi and up) from IBM that include 1MB L2 cache,200 Mhz FSB. It is also rumored that these may include Altivec soon. When i said re-branded it was just my speculation because despite all these changes to G3 CPU,people would still percieve them as being generation behind current G4’s, which of course isn’t quite true.
This problem comes from fact that IBM never manufactured G4’s and kept improving G3.
Hope that answers your question.
“Is it rediculous to prefer a brand? Eh, maybe, but more it’s usually a comfort and trust thing. I mean, I certainly buy what I want and need. It’s just I want Apple’s OS experience. “
Exactly! And that’s whole problem with making the switch to Apple. As much as you trust the products that Apple makes (and I’m sure I would too), I trust the products that Intel, AMD, Maxtor…Creative makes. But the thing is, I can get the products made by those companies for a much cheaper price than I could get the products from Apple.
Let’s face it. They could put OSX inside a pretty box all they want, but in the end, the only reason I’d really be buying an Apple is for the operating system. There is no real performance gain in Apple computers, so I’m obviously not buying it for the hardware either. And, as I stated before, I’m not buying it for the Apple brand name as I have equivalent X86 brand names which I trust too. I’m just getting it for the operating system. OSX, that’s it.
An Apple computer is on average at least $1,200 more expensive than any PC I could make at similar speeds and memory. So, since I’m not buying it for the hardware, to me buying an Apple truly means spending an extra $1,200 on a computer just for OSX. Impossible. I would never do that.
Not only that, but I’d also be asking for much more expensive future upgrades.
If Apple wants to truly compete, they need to drop the power pc architecture and go X86. That’s the only way they’ll gain true Market Share.
Eugenia, great idea, but it is only part of the story. Let me explained below.
Why does Apple have a small market share, or rather, why does Windows have high market share? There are lots of issues, but these are the only one that I can think of right now. Let us discuss each point in detail below.
First the bad news for Apple:
1. Cheap PC’s
2. Windows PC’s have no hardware vendor lock-in
3. Windows has business productivity emphasis, Macintosh doesn’t
4. Windows is now the defacto standard
Gee, maybe by becoming more “standard” than Windows, apple could also have advantage over Windows?
5. Windows PC’s (used to) have better price-performance ratio
Windows used to be the winner here, but with Apple’s G5, that is not necessarily true any more. Intel and IBM might play leap frog with CPU’s, but I think Apple has caught up, and then some. Windows users (including me) – accept it and live with it!
6. Lots of users’ home computers are intentionally the same type as their work computer
Most of us use Windows in the office, we need our home computer to interoperate with office PC. One might need to take work home, for example. Also, some users might have a Mac at home, but still keeps a Windows PC to keep up with job skill.
However, if Macintosh gains enough market share so that there’s enough Mac-related jobs out there, then those users would have less reason to keep a computer with Windows.
7. Windows sneaked into IT through the back door
Remember (or maybe you’re too young to remember) that Windows/DOS used to be banned from IT (then called MIS) shops. Some brave souls sneaked in DOS and then Windows PC’s through the backdoor. Why did they do that? If you ask the mainframe guys to do a report program to calculate some month-end totals, it takes a few weeks and Change Management meetings and some paperwork. But with Lotus 123 on a PC, you could accomplish the same job in minutes.
Then it begs the question: why didn’t Apple get sneaked in through the backdoors of corporations as well? At that time, when people thought of productivity and Lotus 123, they thought of IBM compatible PC’s with DOS or Windows, not Apple computers. I don’t want to delve into the history further, because it is moot, for this subject.
How about today? Can Macs “sneak into” stodgy corporate departments? What would compel me to be so brave to “sneak in” a Mac into my office (creative shops aside)? Well, in order to do that, I’ve gotta fight off expected criticisms and have compelling reasons so that my immediate supervisor can “look the other way” (and maybe hide the fact from the IT guys). Maybe these are some small reasons that I might:
* It fixes the “/” vs. “” annoyance
* Mac gives me UNIX prompt like our UNIX servers
But there are also reasons that I might not:
* Macintosh doesn’t run some of our critical groupwares (I could run it in Virtual PC, but there is slight overhead)
* IT controls everything… and they prefer Windows – ooooh, scary
Creative shops have their Final Cut Pro and others. Genome research companies have their DNA modeling apps on the Mac. For others like my office, I am sorry to say that right now there is no killer office app that compels me to fight the odds and put a Mac on my office desktop. But, who knows, maybe there will be a Mac-only killer office app that turns that around?
8. Macintosh counter-culture image is too cute for the stodgier offices (really, I’m not joking)
Apple has a “counter-culture” image, as shown in the classic 1980’s TV ad showing a woman throwing a hammer into a auditorium screen in a “big-brother-looking” world. That image is great for creative types, but the stodgy corporate types are “not moved”.
When I suggested: “how about migrating to Mac OS X” to my coworker (I was talking about migrating a UNIX server), he kinda gave me a glassy stare (this is not a “creative professional” type shop that I am talking about, at least not mainly). Macs still doesn’t have the attractiveness as UNIX servers, which is probably expected, because Apple is not pushing OS X Server as a general purpose UNIX server, but maybe as render farms. On the desktop, I myself would use a Mac, but my workplace is not even considering Macs, even though it is *NIX. And Macs don’t natively run some groupwares that are critical to my workplace.
I can’t say that it is because our office managers and tech workers consciously think that Macs have a counter-culture that is only good for artists and rock-and-roll at home, but apple doesn’t even enter their minds as a choice. This has gotta change if Apple is going to make any headway in the mainstream corporate market. Steve Jobs understands the psychology of iSight being at the eye level, he probably knows what I am talking about here.
If Apple has x86 version, maybe it could have the “corporate” image: competent and “consistent with the corporate image”, then again, it might not. It doesn’t need to be ugly, mind you, especially since Windows is getting prettier, too.
9. (Stodgy) Employers don’t want employees playing with digital media stuff on Macintosh
Now how about some things in Apple’s favor:
1. There are anti-Microsoft feeling that Linux is benefitting from, maybe Mac too
2. As mentioned above, Macs have more than caught up in price-performance competition, with the introduction of G5
3. OS X attracts UNIX-lovers
4. Digital media is growing in homes
People are still using more and more digital cameras and DVD’s. And the iSight is greate for video chatting with your best friend and boy/girl friend. No question, Mac is the far superior platform for that.
I read someone wrote that Apple is catering to smaller and smaller segment of population, I respectfully differ, unless the numbers prove me wrong. Few people are artistic, I give you that, but I think digital media in homes are becoming the mainstream – like digital photo, some elementary digital video editing. People do collect music and videos on their computers, and that seems to be growing as it gets easier. With Windows PC, there is a lot of learning curve in putting a digital media station together, but with the Mac, everything just works, right off the box.
In Conclusion:
Finally, for Macs to grow in the (huge) corporate world outside creative shops, it needs a different product image (maybe even a product line that goes with it). And it needs killer office productivity apps that are more compelling than Windows me-toos.
For the creative world, Macs are doing a darn impressive job. Applauds and keep “pushing the envelope”, guys.
For the home market, Macs are on the right track. Keep going.
For Eugenia’s Strawberry computer segment, I defer to her.
And computers are not everything — witness iTunes.
Tony,
Ok I was just checking, I had no clue what you ment by that, it sounded more like you meant rebranded as if you where thinking motorala G3 rebranded to IBM. This of course is not the case, since IBM always made them.
Too many ppl think that users are idiots.. point in case last night.. “maybe u should show your dad how to make a slide show in xp”.. “its ok he allready knows”..
Perhaps its not allways worth paying 4k for a g5 mac (that u cant even buy yet).. just to do multimedia.
Perhaps real ppl with normal brains can do it in XP or even shock horror.. linux.
If ya need MAc osx to open a photo or to use photoshop.. your a very inexperienced computer user.
This is the essential problem for apple.. 1 set of its users buy it becuase they think its easier (ie they arent very good at computers) .. and the other set buy it because they think a translucent cube will make them cool amoungs there friends with beige boxes.
You will never “join” the mac communities.. and it will never be mainstream.
Hasnt anyone ever thought that 4-6% of the pc market is the proper amount apple should have and and allways will have.
If u want a cheap computer ya buy a PC.
If ya want a fast computer (fastest computers in the world are intel/amd as well as the best bang per buck) ya buy a pc.
If ya want to run all the common applications and games ya buy a pc.
If ya want a translucent box or belive itunes invented mp3s.. ya buy a mac.
I think you need to look past initial cost when considering “cheapness” – there is enough data out there to show that PCs cost more in the long run
There are lots of “common” apps for Macs, in fact over 16,000 of them and they cover all areas from consumer, through prosumer to high end
We’ll have to wait and see real world tests re speed of the G5s
I don’t know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and best friend included).
Nice to have two multimillionaires in the family!
I live in Australia. My brother, my parents and my aunt all own Macs. My brother is a Vet, my parents run a farm and teach professionally, and my aunt (who has two Macs) manages a global not-for-profit organisation and studies part time. I’m a full-time developer and own both a Mac and a PC (the PC never gets turned on anymore). I have many friends who own Macs. You must have a very sheltered life.
Look at Mercedes Benz for example.
A Smart or an A-class car apeals to a different kind of customer than the E-Class.
BTW, as they intoduced the SMART or A-Class it didn’t have any negative impact on the sales of their top of the range cars. A Merc is a Merc. It stands for a quality, longlasting product.
Apple can do the same, even with keeping their logo on every product they put on the market. What they would have to do is improve their marketing strategies to target the right people for the right product.
Ya know thats been thrown around alot. I have yet to see it. I am thinking that might have been the case a few years ago but not now. We are working on computers that are faster and cheaper then ever before. I have a Mac. I have many PC’s. Some of the older PC’s are firewalls and Web servers. The Mac I have is broken. Re-read the fist post, my clients 1 yr old TiTanium powerbook is a doorstop.
It should be of no shock to this crowd that Apple used to overclock ram instead of buying the right part for the job.
PC’s are easy to upgrade, my 750mhz is now a 1.4 Gig and cost me all of $40 to make it that way. Added 128 Megs more of ram for $9.
My basic problem with Apple is that they treat their customers like crap, sell them off the shelf PC parts for way too much, and make mistakes they wont own up to in hardware design.
If you bought a Rolls Royce in the past, if it broke down, they fixed it and picked you up.
I say if Apple wants to be the elite computer, thats fine, but lets have some GREAT customer service for the cost.
..but rather Pegasos/MorphOS doing this.
I don’t want pay $1000 more for an apple logo on a box.
1 set of its users buy it becuase they think its easier (ie they arent very good at computers) .. and the other set buy it because they think a translucent cube will make them cool amoungs there friends with beige boxes.
Good lord. Yeah, and when you’re done making sweeping generalizations, there’s people (like myself) that choose Macs for objectively-informed and productive reasons. I’ve never owned a cube and I bought Macs back when they were beige like the rest of the PC world AND I could make most computer OSes do what I need, AND I still prefer a Mac. I’m not afraid of the extra steps in Windows and Linux, I just value my time enough to want to get done my work and do something away from the computer.
Try these for a start
1. I work in a cross platform school: the PCs take about twice as much time to maintain as the Macs.
2. Reliability and service references follow. Do you have any Glenn?
PC Magazine Service and Reliability Survey July 2003
Apple desktops, laptops and servers in top category.
Macs rates best in setup experience, never freezing and first year satisfaction.
“The stability of Linux and Mac OS may have also helped with the rise of overall user satisfaction. These OSs, our readers say, crash even less often than Windows XP”.
Desktop computers: Readers report (June 2003) CONSUMER REPORTS .ORG
Apple rated most reliable and best for technical support
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3C~*~@…
162693&bmUID=1052484936384
The consumer organization ConsumerAffairs.com has only two computer manufacturers rated as “good guys” : ” companies who do well by providing great products and good service”. One was Hitachi, the other was Apple. Here’s what they write about Apple:
Surely there’s no product that enjoys greater customer loyalty than Apple’s Macintosh line of computers. Apple remains the gold standard in building brand loyalty. Apple users … are loyal to the core, and rightly so. … user reports below tells why — Apple machines work right out of the box and when there’s a problem Apple fixes it … pronto. Can’t beat that. We think the Mac deserves all these accolades and we would recommend Apple to anyone but most especially to those who are new to the world of personal computers or who want one for their children.
You Call This Service? 30,000 readers speak out: PC support remains shaky, and reliability is slipping. And the best-backed computer may not be a PC. Brad Grimes From the December 2002 issue of PC World magazine
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,105854,00.a…
“Last year, PC World readers told us they were unhappy with technical support. This year’s survey shows little–if any–improvement. Dell, for example, tumbled in service overall–especially in hold times. The other big news: Apple rated higher than any other computer maker. …Apple topped every system maker in the desktop arena. The company’s customers said they received especially good service. ”
Australian Consumers’ Association finds Apple most reliable computer – 99% brand loyalty – September 2002
http://www.choice.com.au – membership fee required to view this report
“Apple computers stood out for reliability ….”
Consumers unhappy with PC support By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 8, 2002.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-949018.html?tag=cd_mh 1
While consumers are paying less for their computers, a new survey shows they are also increasingly unhappy with the level of customer support they are getting with those PCs. … The lone bright spot in the survey was Apple Computer, which grabbed the top spot in the survey with a score of 74 out of 100 and was the only company to earn higher marks this year than it did last year.
Original report from consumereports.org
Apple laptops get A from PC Magazine in 15th Annual Service and Reliability Survey (July 2002)
Which? Magazine
http://www.which.net/media/pr/nov00/which/compsurv.html
Results out today (2.11.00) from the largest ever Which? computer survey, consistently rate Apple, … as top brands for reliability, user satisfaction and speed of support helplines. …Apple was the clear winner for laptops – four out of five owners would definitely recommend them, way ahead of the other brands in the survey.
Apple Computer: Winner of ZDNet’s Support Star Award Satisfaction
Apple Computer successfully makes its customers happy with courteous and prompt technical support service. By Wendy Dittamore, October 16, 2000
http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2635820,00.html
>In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia
>areas.
>I don’t know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money
> thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even
>multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and
>best friend included).
>My next door neighbour teaches multimedia at a university -even he
>doesn’t own a Mac.
>Most universities in Australia are OSX/Mac-free zones except for very
>limited life sciences (mostly os9) and multimedia use.
This is completely untrue. Most major universities in Australia use Apple extensively. I’ve worked at several (WA, SA, NSW) and all major universities use macs in several departments (including mathematics and hard sciences). See the Apple Edu Mag “Wheels of the Mind” to see how many Aus Universities are members of AUC!
“Apple machines work right out of the box and when there’s a problem Apple fixes it … pronto.”
Maybe. I stopped recommending Macs to my friends after one of them had their new iMac in the shop for 6 weeks — mainly waiting for parts for a lemon video sub-system.
And this subsystem failed again after the year warranty was up. Fortunately they had shelled out extra $$ for the AppleCare extended warranty.
During the time that this friend’s iMac was in the shop, Apple repeatedly removed from their support forums people’s comments about this wide-spread problem. And as far as I could tell, Apple never officially ‘came clean’ and admitted what the problem was.
This friend’s iMac has now spent at least 3 months in the shop for the same video problems. So much for “pronto”.
“This is completely untrue. Most major universities in Australia use Apple extensively. I’ve worked at several (WA, SA, NSW) and all major universities use macs in several departments (including mathematics and hard sciences). See the Apple Edu Mag “Wheels of the Mind” to see how many Aus Universities are members of AUC!”
What percentage of the desktops in Australian tertiary institutions are current) OSX machines? Has any Australian university replaced large numbers of PCs with Macs in the last two years? Sure most Australian unis have Macs…but very few of them have thousands of OSX machines.
I doubt greatly whether there are even 20,000 OSX equipped Macs in the entire Australian tertiary system. A 10,000 PC rollout is barely newsworthy but Apple Australia goes all ga-ga over a school that has 100 Macs.
Total OSX sales have finally reached 7 million after almost 3 years. It took MS less than two months after the launch to sell the same number of copies of XP.
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm?/news/top/2000/t00110_e….
“DaimlerChrysler is one of the world’s leading automotive companies. Its passenger car brands include Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler, Jeep®,
Dodge and smart. Commercial vehicle brands include Mercedes-Benz, Freightliner, Sterling, Western Star and Setra. It offers financial and other automotive services through DaimlerChrysler Services. With 365,600 employees, DaimlerChrysler achieved revenues of EUR 149.6 billion ($158.8 billion*) in 2002.”
4.05 million units Passenger Cars
485,400 units Commercial Vehicles
(in 2002)
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm?/news/top/2000/t00110_e….
I like the comparisons…DaimlerChrysler sold more cars last year than Apple sold computers.
More than 1 million Mercedes branded passenger vehicles were sold in 2002
Re-reading some of the comments, I’m getting the impression that dirt-cheap PC-pricing makes sense if the PC is thought of as a disposable, consumable item like a video player — while Mac pricing makes sense if thought of as an automobile, i.e. something that has re-sale value. You re-sell (trade in) your old Mac and apply that towards a new one.
If you choose the right moment to sell, maybe this works out well for some folks — but it certainly imposes a high barrier-to-entry for first-timers.
My problem is that I generally can only afford the end-of-life Mac models, and these have little re-sale value when it’s time to buy another Mac. But people who buy $2000-$3000 Macs and trade-up every 8 months, probably make out ok.
“Re-reading some of the comments, I’m getting the impression that dirt-cheap PC-pricing makes sense if the PC is thought of as a disposable, consumable item like a video player — while Mac pricing makes sense if thought of as an automobile, i.e. something that has re-sale value. You re-sell (trade in) your old Mac and apply that towards a new one.
If you choose the right moment to sell, maybe this works out well for some folks — but it certainly imposes a high barrier-to-entry for first-timers.”
My problem is that I generally can only afford the end-of-life Mac models, and these have little re-sale value when it’s time to buy another Mac. But people who buy $2000-$3000 Macs and trade-up every 8 months, probably make out ok.”
People also know that a much better PC will be available for less money in six months.
I bought a multizone DVD player last week for AUD$98 (about $60 US). It is much smaller and has a better picture than the AUD$500 Pioneer purchased two years ago. Even if the new DVD only lasts a year it will still be a good buy.
Lots of you guys are way off base here. First thing; this is OSNews.com, which makes you guys/gals not the typical pc user. An average user is my girlfriend or sister. My sister has a Compaq Presario 2800 laptop. This is what she uses her laptop for: listen to music, surf the web, talk on aim, edit pictures and write some word docs. My girlfriend does the exact same thing expect she also uses kazaa to download mp3s. My dad does the same thing as well except he also uses it do our taxes every year. That’s it that is the average user (some of the apps may change). The average user only uses a couple of apps and some games. The average user does not build a power spec box for $300-$500.The average user pays $700-$1000 for their pc. Macs are within the average users price range. So all this talk about Macs being so expensive is rubbish. Also the average user is not a power user. I upgraded my gf’s computer from a 1ghz Duron to a 1.6ghz Athlon. Was is faster? Yes it was and she noticed the increase in speed. Did it make her do anything faster nope? Did she need the speed upgrade? Nope. Why does the average user by these new powerful machines? Because that’s what they are sold, what they are told to buy, and believe they should buy. So this performance difference between Macs and PCs is hogwash. I don’t know what Apple needs to do to gain market share, but here are some of my ideas:
First, they need to get in the business community. Reason for such is that selling to corporations is more profitable then selling to a home consumer and also getting into business will lead to the consumer. How do they get into business/corporate market? They need to play up the power of the G5s and the Unix aspect of OSX. Most importantly, then need to erase the stigma/view that IT depts. have of Apple and it’s Macs. On my desk at work I have a PC and Mac. Whenever someone passes by they make a negative comment about the Mac. Apple has to break down that barrier. They need to push the X-Serves. Also, I think Apple missed an opportunity with Virtual PC. Microsoft now owns it, and if done right they will do a lot of big things with it. I think Apple should have bought Connectix and bundled Virtual PC with the Macs (or just those they plan to sell to businesses). Since many people get accustomed to PCs at work. If they work with just Macs, when it comes to time to get a computer at home, they may get a Mac.
Second, they need to get back into education, like they once were. When I was in the grammar school, the first computers they introduced us to were Macs. In high school I didn’t know how to use the PCs well. In college, I first started using the Macs, especially as I was learning to do web dev. Eventually I began using the PC as everyone else was using it and it had more apps to use for what I needed. Apple needs to get more Macs into schools. Train them when they are young on the Mac and as they get older, they will want to use the Mac in college and in the workplace.
Advertising. A lot of young people see Macs as cool. But not useable. Apple needs to push the power of the G5, the great advantages of the iApps. They need to push the built in AIM and iChat. IMing is HUGE and Apple should jump on it. People need to be informed that the main apps they use are on the Mac and that they can use virtual pc for apps they must have but that only work on the pc.
Unix/Linux. Apple need to play up that OSX is built atop UNIX. Play this to the corporate world and to the unix/linux geeks. As a geek, if I had a choice of Redhat on a homebrew box or OSX on a G5, I’d pick G5 all the way! I’m surprised more geeks haven’t gotten on the OSX and G5 bandwagon. After seeing Steve Jobs presentation in SF and seeing the G5 specs I’m considering getting a G5 at the end of the year.
Upgradeability. If I get a Mac, I want to be able to upgrade the video card (even if I have to buy it from apple), the ram, etc. For the past 5 years I’ve built every pc I’ve owned/used. Now I’ve come to realize that it’s better off to buy a pc from dell as the cost is not much different and it’s less of a hassle as I can get dell to build and support it. My one concern has been upgradeability. If able to lay my fears to rest, then I will skip Dell and go Apple.
Accessories. First the iPod and now the iSight. They next need to get a PDA. I know some people who’ve gotten an iPod and loved it. So when it came time to get a new computer, they got a Mac. Apple should build more products around the Mac.
Media. Apple key strength will pay off for them. Everyone is getting into media these days, whether it be MP3s (iStore), digital cameras, DVD, camcorders, etc. A lot of people I know have digital cameras. And now that stores like CVS and Riteaid are offering free digital prints at stores, I’m sure more people will be open to the digital media experience.
These things will not help Apple take over MS or even be on the same level as them or some of the PC manufacturers like Dell, but it will increase their market share and keep Apple around for even longer.
As I was pondering the new G5 while booting up my newly purchased used G3 mini tower that I got for 95.00$ to network with my original desktop G3 and my ibook, I was wondering what will I do in two years to upgrade the new digital music server I am buiding with several large hard drives and the new MP4 codec, I thought to myself that Apple for all it has done, and it has done amazing things now that we have a Unix based OS, needs to have a cheap deaktop machine. I dont want an imac or another laptop, I have a beautiful 17 inch LCD screen that has inputs for two computers. I dont want a machine that runs ultra fast SCSI drives, IDE drives are getting cheaper by the minute and I can swap them in and out of my two G3s. What I want is a basic machine, with a small footprine that can I can network into my system and run a few applications like itunes and a web browser. Surely, I shouldn’t have to pay 2000.00 for that. Without a machine like the one describe in this article, my next Mac will probably be a used G4. How does Apple profit from that? But with this nice little box, I can have a new one, hopefuly a G4 for 350.00$ and Apple gets my money, not some nameless dude on Ebay.
Couldn’t you do that with an EMac?
Maybe. I stopped recommending Macs to my friends after one of them had their new iMac in the shop for 6 weeks — mainly waiting for parts for a lemon video sub-system.
Not to take away from an obviously ill-handled manufacturing problem by Apple, but I think that you’ll occasionally find problems with anything here and there. Even really high end tech gear (which the iMac isn’t). When you’re around someone that has such a problem, it tends to skew your perception a bit. I mean, you’re in a great restaurant and someone gets a hair in their food. You may avoid the place. Things happen. These systems have to move around in trucks and get stocked by some guy that could care less about handling them with care.
Occasionally things need to be repaired. When it happens out of the box, that sucks. But then you complain your ass off and get it taken care of.