PDA

View Full Version : Apple Marketshare and 'Sales Guys'


MacRumors
Jan 26, 2004, 07:55 AM
As part of the Macintosh's 20th anniversary, Newsweek's Steven Levy recaps the Mac's origins and discusses with Jobs about the Mac's (lack of) marketshare. Jobs is openly critical of the management of Apple during his absense:

Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. "The Mac-user interface was a 10-year monopoly," says Jobs. "Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late '80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."

dennis88
Jan 26, 2004, 07:56 AM
interesting

jrv3034
Jan 26, 2004, 08:00 AM
"They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."


That's a very wise observation on Jobs' part. I would hope they don't repeat the same mistakes again, should they ever have some sort of monopoly again. I think their work with the iPod has been great, and they don't stop innovating it due to it's success.

johnnyjibbs
Jan 26, 2004, 08:02 AM
So Jobbs is predicting Microsoft becoming complacent...:D

fred815
Jan 26, 2004, 08:03 AM
maybe jobs' viewpoint is also shown through the new hp ipod

DanUk2003
Jan 26, 2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by fred815
maybe jobs' viewpoint is also shown through the new hp ipod

Exactly. Apple's move to allow HP (and maybe others) to licence the iPod and install iTunes and the default media player on their PC's can only help Apple keep the marketshare on MP3 players / downloadable music.

varmit
Jan 26, 2004, 08:13 AM
If I catch onto what he is saying. Apple wont stop making new things. Just because they have a good market share with the iPod, doesn't mean they will be focusing all on just digital music. Lets take into account the rumors that have been posted: iBox, which probably wont come soon, but will. The projector, no name yet but hopefully compatable with any laptop with video output or regular computer. We have great computers and OS, iPod, which might become color and able to view the photos that you imported from your camera for storage, this is one feature that should come.

Apple still has space to move, and they are getting people to switch platforms. Maybe not as fast to show a spike, but a gradual slop is happening. I say this because after I got my iBook 2 years ago. About half my friends around me got one after seeing how easy it is and how happy I am with it. Personal Note: I'm and IT major at my school, which gives people confidence to switch, because I have.

lindmar
Jan 26, 2004, 08:18 AM
Jobs will never stop innovating and hopefully will never leave his company again, either fired or retired.
I am just happy to be a mac user right now..

I don't think the innovation will ever stop, look at the mini ipod, ti-books relativley new, g5's.....
it must be on going, but the product must remain as quality...

I am still not sure about the HP deal thingy...

cubist
Jan 26, 2004, 08:20 AM
Very perceptive statements IMHO. Good for a CEO to be able to stand back and see a big picture like that.

As for Microsoft being complacent, they have been complacent for some time. The last time the technical side had any primacy was in the IE4 days, but that was only a brief resurgence. Other than that, it's been all sales and marketing since Win95... the products are essentially unchanged.

bensisko
Jan 26, 2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
So Jobbs is predicting Microsoft becoming complacent...:D

Not sure if this was a sarcastic response or not (my sarcasem meter is in the shop...), but Microsoft has been complacent for years. When's the last time there were any REAL breakthroughs in Office or Windows? Even though there have been improvements, XP and 2000 are still the same clunky Mac-knock-off they were in Windows 95.

Anyway...

Wendy_Rebecca
Jan 26, 2004, 08:29 AM
Apple has lost market share EVERY YEAR since Jobs' return. Where does he get off preaching the gospel of lower margins and increased market share?

1.88 percent. Just remember that number. It's damn near insignificant.

Tulse
Jan 26, 2004, 08:32 AM
It's a bit ironic that Jobs speaks so disparagingly of "protecting turf" when one of the earliest acts he took on his return as CEO was to kill the Mac OS clones. I think that was a smart move on his part, but there's no doubt that it was about protecting turf, and not innovation (some of the fastest machines of that era weren't made by Apple).

ipiloot
Jan 26, 2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
Apple has lost market share EVERY YEAR since Jobs' return. Where does he get off preaching the gospel of lower margins and increased market share?

1.88 percent. Just remember that number. It's damn near insignificant.

1.99% to be exact. And the company is profitable by that market share, what is not the claim a lot of PC-makers can make. Call it cost control if you will.

I personally think that even 1% of the global market share is way better than extinct company that Apple would have been without Jobs returning in 1997.

Knute5
Jan 26, 2004, 08:37 AM
Jerry Kaplan, president of the ill-fated GO Corporation (the first PDA) recounts in his book, "Start Up", his experiences with Apple during the time that Jobs was gone and Jean Louis Gassee was the chief technical dude.

Gassee believed Windows would never catch up, that Apple could continue to charge "obscenely" high prices, and that the profits would continue to roll in with no need to ever consider licensing. So yeah, Jobs was probably quoting a well-known policy when he referred to Apple's "salesmen" era.

Ironically, without Gassee, Jobs would never have returned to Apple. Had Gassee not left and founded Be and the BeBox which fired the imagination of Mac users with its smooth multiprocessor performance, Apple wouldn't have made overtures to buy them. JLG could have netted hundreds of millions of dollars had he not held out for more money.

In the end, Apple opted to instead buy NeXT, which wasn't even being considered until a NeXT underling contacted Apple. And when all was said and done, Jobs' company and Jobs found their way back to Apple after over ten years away. And the changes he's made have pretty much rescued the company and the Mac platform.

DanUk2003
Jan 26, 2004, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
Apple has lost market share EVERY YEAR since Jobs' return. Where does he get off preaching the gospel of lower margins and increased market share?

1.88 percent. Just remember that number. It's damn near insignificant.


Let's not forget that before Jobs came back to Apple, the company's situation was pretty poor. So many different and confusing product lines, numerous (and failed) attempts to create a modern OS that would eventually replace what become OS9 - not to mention the finances.

To be fair to Jobs, since his return Apple's product lines have become fairly streamlined (albeit pricey...) and he is a great visionary - case in point with the longer-term view he and Apple took with their digital-hub strategy, which has now formed the basis for iPod and iTunes Music Store.

I would agree that Jobs doesn't always live in the real world and is often arrogant. However, I personally could not see a (very profitable) Apple that is successful in the 21st Century without him.

Besides, you gotta love his turtlenecks...!

wchamlet
Jan 26, 2004, 08:38 AM
Well, if Microsoft was just a Windows only software developer I'd agree that they haven't innovated, a whole lot. But they do develop other things, such as DirectX, which is not just something for marketing.

I've always wondered about the marketshare numbers. Are those numbers based on all PC's and Macs sold, add infinitum? Or is it just the PC's and Macs sold for this current time period, i.e just this quarter? Because if it's based on what has been sold from the beginning, than that is absolutely stupid! I would assume that 95% (I like to make up bold statistics, it's good for the soul) of all the old machines are not even used!

cripdyke
Jan 26, 2004, 08:40 AM
so, what exactly does 1.88 represent.

And I thought that market share increased last year (up to over 7 percent in portables)?

And I also thought they increased market share for awhile when the first imac came out.

Are you saying that more old macs went dead that year than new macs got bought so there was a decrease in their share of Installed User Base - which is different from Market Share, (MS represents the % of current sales going to a given company - or segment, or whatever...).

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 08:42 AM
Why does Jobs talk so blasted much. Sheesh, where is the innovation at. Since when does taking an idea that's already there and making it better innovation. If that's the case, Dell would be king of innovation, which it is not.

And where is the hype behind the Mac turning 20. Where are the tv ADs (besides the ipods). I haven't seen a commercial for a G5/imac/emac since the G5 was first released. I guess they expect ipods and itunes to carry to company.

ervinocus
Jan 26, 2004, 08:44 AM
A somewhat strange comment, the one about the primary need for innovation, coming from the guy who abruptly slaughtered the NewtonOS, one of the best OS ever concieved, even considered the venial sins of its first implementations (till the MP2x00 serie, I mean) dued only to the limitations of the hardware usable in that years (1993-1998).

Anybody who used (or programmed for) a Newton MP2x00 with NewtOs 2.x will remeber forever the incredible quality of that experience, years ahead in power respect to any other OS and GUI available, both then and now.

The people that never used that OS are *not* entitled to comment on the iusse with the typical third-hand negatively biased comments already heard a zillion times.

crees!
Jan 26, 2004, 08:44 AM
A wicked smile cracks the bearded, crinkly Steve Jobs's visage, and for a moment he could be the playful upstart who shocked the world 20 years ago. "Hmm, look who's running Microsoft now," he says, referring to former Procter & Gamble marketer Steve Ballmer. "A sales guy!" The smile gets broader. "I wonder ..." he says.

It's Balmer! Look out! :D

Sabenth
Jan 26, 2004, 08:46 AM
Ok iam a semi sort of reacent switcher. ive had a mac for going on 7 months now maybe a bit longer. in this time frame i have seen the following..


Jag move to Panther
New G Chip
new iMacs bigger screen etc
new Apps.

Hell if this aint a company thats moving around.

Oh and of course iTunes not that i can use it yet..

Jobs is a how can i put this without upsetiing a few people. Bigg headed git who by all rights has changed apple.

But dont mean hes a god dose it dose he design any of this gear. all i hear is an idea is formed and then he takes over not much more than that. seems hes the head honcho because he knows how to become number one.

What i do know is this i like these productts and hope they dont stop making them ...

And by far Panther rules over windows and linux any day sorry i just feel that way ok....

wish i bought one of these sooner thats all :D

Knute5
Jan 26, 2004, 08:48 AM
It's a bit ironic that Jobs speaks so disparagingly of "protecting turf" when one of the earliest acts he took on his return as CEO was to kill the Mac OS clones.

As the owner of a Starmax, a Radius 81/110, a Umax S900 and a Power Computing box (all gone now), I hoped clones would revive Apple. They didn't, and Power in particular was doing a better job advertising and innovating, making Apple look like a stodgy old chump in comparison.

Jobs killed clones because they were a bad deal for Apple. They didn't provide enough revenue for the marketshare they cannibalized. Apple was in crisis and people, projects and policies had to be cut.

Consider that the first no-compromise Apple computer is the G5, finally liberated from the Motorola G4 millstone. It took Jobs over SIX YEARS to wriggle free from the legacy of Apple's blunders to finally define a platform good enough that it *might* be able to coexist with cloners.

We'll see what happens in future regarding this. But as for his initial decision to kill cloning - that, and other hard decisions like it, are probably why Apple is still around today.

Fukui
Jan 26, 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by ipiloot
1.99% to be exact. And the company is profitable by that market share, what is not the claim a lot of PC-makers can make. Call it cost control if you will.

I personally think that even 1% of the global market share is way better than extinct company that Apple would have been without Jobs returning in 1997.
Hmm, how much market share does acer have?? Oh no! They must also be going out of business!!

mhouse
Jan 26, 2004, 09:11 AM
While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the marketshare numbers that people usually mention for Apple (2-5 percent), they really do baffle me.

I live in a (relative to others which have apple stores) small market but we do have an Apple store here and let's just say I am pretty familiar with it. That store sells Macs all day everyday. Really. At a pace that is pretty amazing and that can't possibly be explained by existing Mac users simply upgrading.

I'm not sure how long this marketshare data takes to surface but I would be shocked if the numbers don't improve pretty significantly in the next year... because the sales rate I've seen are not those of a 2% marketshare.

xtekdiver
Jan 26, 2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
So Jobbs is predicting Microsoft becoming complacent...:D

I think it's more of an observation than a prediction.

Fukui
Jan 26, 2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by mhouse
While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the marketshare numbers that people usually mention for Apple (2-5 percent), they really do baffle me.

I live in a (relative to others which have apple stores) small market but we do have an Apple store here and let's just say I am pretty familiar with it. That store sells Macs all day everyday. Really. At a pace that is pretty amazing and that can't possibly be explained by existing Mac users simply upgrading.

I'm not sure how long this marketshare data takes to surface but I would be shocked if the numbers don't improve pretty significantly in the next year... because the sales rate I've seen are not those of a 2% marketshare.
The consumer market and business market are added together to give those results you see every time. Apple's consumer market share is somewhere around 10% last time heard...(in U.S at least)

Photorun
Jan 26, 2004, 09:19 AM
I'm not seeing it as some are perceiving, it's not so much about market share but rather innovation. Microshaft doesn't never has and never will make superior products, just champion mediocrity to the masses who consume the bile on the plate and ask for seconds. How'd they succeed? Sales sales sales, they marketed the hell out of their craptacular product Windblows in 95, snake oil yes, but one the easily swayed masses could latch onto. They also did it through price as Apple's prices were really high at the time. I remember a friend at an agency I worked at buying a Apple laptop (5300?) for five grand, FIVE GRAND! You could get a clunky junky peecee laptop for half that. And yeah, it was clunky ugly stupid and incredibly inferior but many people when there's a huge price difference go cheap, there's no accounting for taste. Point being that Apple should never do the sales guy route but they still need to stay competetive price-wise.

And whomever/wherever those numbers, the whole 1.88 or 1.99, uh, yeah, okay, right. Just remember figures dont lie but their liars sure figure.

MorganX
Jan 26, 2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by xtekdiver
I think it's more of an observation than a prediction.

Anyone who really, and I mean really thinks Microsoft has been complacent is living in a reality distortion field and like Apple, they can't see beyone their own desktop.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that though. Close knit groups tend to share a tighter bond when they share a common enemy. It's a sociological phoenomenon. Microsoft will always be the bad guy to some groups.

I personally thought that the comments were from a guy who is very scared. I have no opinion on whether or not he should be. But, if you took a good look a everything happening at CES, it's a good time to be a consumer, technology is enabling a lot of cool stuff, there's lots of opportunity for innovation and new markets.

I would find these comments troubling if I were an Apple shareholder. Now's not the time to worry about what Gates and Co are doing. You can't control that, and they are doing quite a bit. Nor is it the time to make excuses for past failures. Now is the time to charge ahead and prove to everyone that you and your company are the best at whatever it is you claim you're the best at.

JM2Cts

rundevilrun
Jan 26, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by wchamlet
Well, if Microsoft was just a Windows only software developer I'd agree that they haven't innovated, a whole lot. But they do develop other things, such as DirectX, which is not just something for marketing.


Actually DirectX wasn't really a Microsoft idea. Way back around '92-93 in the heyday of OS/2 IBM came up with an api called DIVE (direct interface video extension) which allowed games and multimedia apps direct access to video hardware. Microsoft came up with Direct X shortly afterwards.

Qunchuy
Jan 26, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
So Jobbs is predicting Microsoft becoming complacent...:D

Depending on which angle you view Microsoft from, they're anywhere between complacent and scared out of their wits.

Windows XP was expected to milk a bit more out of the market, but people aren't upgrading in numbers large enough to let MS stay complacent about its old cash cow. Windows in its current incarnation is getting a bit long in the horn...

rjrufo
Jan 26, 2004, 09:36 AM
"I wonder ..."

I wonder what the future holds for Apple. If Apple keeps up the current track with regards to innovation, why couldn't they gain market share? I believe that Microsucks will still be around for a long time, but not hold the monopoly like they have now. I have seen a lot of migration from Windblows to "alternative" OS's, such as Linux. The Mac may never be the dominant OS, but I don't believe that it will ever go away.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 09:40 AM
the number1 reason they arent gaining marketshare is a very poor performing consumer line(old & slow G4s) bottom tier video chips and forcing monitors on consumers.
reason number2 they dont have the product on the shelf in any store but those Kaliifornia Apple stores.
To fix these poor marketing decisions they have to have a fast consumer line and they have to have them where people will see em. Its that simple.

Qunchuy
Jan 26, 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by wchamlet
Well, if Microsoft was just a Windows only software developer I'd agree that they haven't innovated, a whole lot. But they do develop other things, such as DirectX, which is not just something for marketing.

DirectX was a reaction, not an innovation. After Microsoft abandoned the OS/2 partnership with IBM, they copied the DIVE concept. (I'm only superficially familiar with both, but the DIVE API looks a whole lot cleaner than the DirectX one. It looks like an example of MS doing what they appear to do best -- creating and promoting clunky clones of other people's ideas.)

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 09:51 AM
I agree 100%
Originally posted by MorganX
Anyone who really, and I mean really thinks Microsoft has been complacent is living in a reality distortion field and like Apple, they can't see beyone their own desktop.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that though. Close knit groups tend to share a tighter bond when they share a common enemy. It's a sociological phoenomenon. Microsoft will always be the bad guy to some groups.

I personally thought that the comments were from a guy who is very scared. I have no opinion on whether or not he should be. But, if you took a good look a everything happening at CES, it's a good time to be a consumer, technology is enabling a lot of cool stuff, there's lots of opportunity for innovation and new markets.

I would find these comments troubling if I were an Apple shareholder. Now's not the time to worry about what Gates and Co are doing. You can't control that, and they are doing quite a bit. Nor is it the time to make excuses for past failures. Now is the time to charge ahead and prove to everyone that you and your company are the best at whatever it is you claim you're the best at.

JM2Cts

El Tritoma
Jan 26, 2004, 09:54 AM
Some companies buy hundreds or more Wintel PCs at a time to be used as barely more than dumb terminals. It takes a lot of people going into a store buying a Mac one at a time to equal this. You never see these purchases because they just show up at the loading dock of the company. When these cheap computers start to fail they buy more new ones. As long as they don't fail too much faster than the depreciation schedule no one cares too much.

Also, there "per unit" market share and "$" market share. I think the value most often quoted is "per unit" so that a single $500 el cheapo counts the same as a dual 2GHz G5.

Lumping everything called "a computer" into the same market is patently stupid. A lot of these are used as little more than smart typewriters and calculators. There is office equipment and there are computers. Apple doesn't sell much office equipment.

Fukui
Jan 26, 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
Anyone who really, and I mean really thinks Microsoft has been complacent is living in a reality distortion field and like Apple, they can't see beyone their own desktop.

Well, of course, thats how they have always stayed on top, is that they are such great salesmen they always have some way to extract money out of thier monopoly. They definitely are not complacent on that front (just witness thier barrage against linux..), but on the other hand, most of what they have been doing is simply extending thier monopoly or finding new ways to lock in their customers with new licencing deals ect, they are maybe complacent in the area of "new ideas," IOW Linux is comming, and theres not much they can do short of assimilating it.

Trekkie
Jan 26, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
Apple has lost market share EVERY YEAR since Jobs' return. Where does he get off preaching the gospel of lower margins and increased market share?

1.88 percent. Just remember that number. It's damn near insignificant.

as per this article on MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/2004/02/features/themacturns20jobs/)

and I quote:

Over the years, the media and analysts have always focused on market share. But although Mac market share is relatively small, Apple is profitable and is making products that affect the entire industry.

Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes?

In the grand scheme of things, he's got a point. Do you want to half ass your way into a huge market share or do it right for people who appreciate high quality, at a higher cost, systems?

This is coming from a switcher mind you - and not just any switcher but a guy who makes his money off of Intel based hardware and is dang good at it. I've owned Compaq Presarios, HP Pavillions, and then stuff I built as well. I've held/do hold certifications on every major operating system (Novell, Linux, Windows Nt/2K) for them as well. So I would like to think I know a few things about them.

no matter who I got it from, and whether or not I built it or bought it built my daily experience with the machine on Windows *or* linux on Intel has not been as pleasant as it has been on my wife's iMac or my Powerbook. It's not that one set of hardware is more reliable. it's that one set of software is more reliable (except maybe Quicken) than the other. The OS 'just works' on Mac. (OS X in my experience) and Windows 95/98/NT/2k/XP always has something go goofy on you in that requires you either find new drivers, find a patch, do something and it suddenly breaks with no warning leaving you no clue as to what caused it.

I've not had that happen on my Macs - even the 10.2.x update debacle of a while back didn't bother me.

my $0.02.

Fukui
Jan 26, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by El Tritoma


Lumping everything called "a computer" into the same market is patently stupid. A lot of these are used as little more than smart typewriters and calculators. There is office equipment and there are computers. Apple doesn't sell much office equipment.
Servers are also lumped into this category.

Wendy_Rebecca
Jan 26, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by cripdyke
so, what exactly does 1.88 represent.

And I thought that market share increased last year (up to over 7 percent in portables)?

From http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2004/tc20040126_9608_tc055.htm :

"According to Gartner's preliminary market-share data, Apple held just 1.8% of the worldwide PC market in the fourth quarter of 2003. And some think Apple's share will fall further, if it can't keep pace with surging overall PC demand. Salomon Smith Barney analyst Rich Gardner expects Apple to post PC unit growth of 6% in 2004 this year, vs. 11% for the entire PC industry. One reason is price. Gardner says the average price of a Mac is $900, although half of PC buyers now spend less than $600."

But here's my real problem with Jobs. First, he says (in the article that leads into this thread) that Apple made the critical mistake of focusing on profits instead of Market Share during his absence. Then, in this Business Week article, he says exactly the opposite:

"Judging from Jobs's comments, he has no intention of letting Wall Street down. But he wouldn't mind if those analysts would start measuring the Mac by the profits it produces, rather than by its market share. "We've got 25 million customers that want the best computers in the world. If our market share grows, we're thrilled. But we've held our own, while our rivals were losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year," he says. "We're in pretty good shape." "

So which is it, Steve? You can't have it both ways.

greenstork
Jan 26, 2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by cripdyke
so, what exactly does 1.88 represent.

And I thought that market share increased last year (up to over 7 percent in portables)?

And I also thought they increased market share for awhile when the first imac came out.

Are you saying that more old macs went dead that year than new macs got bought so there was a decrease in their share of Installed User Base - which is different from Market Share, (MS represents the % of current sales going to a given company - or segment, or whatever...).

Market share is usually an indication of new products sold, not to be confused with user base.

Trekkie
Jan 26, 2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
Anyone who really, and I mean really thinks Microsoft has been complacent is living in a reality distortion field and like Apple, they can't see beyone their own desktop.



Speaking as someone whos daily income is affected by Intel Server sales and Intel systems in general.

Windows XP and Windows 2003 are not the driving marketing force (at least in 2003) that say Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 were.

People are not rushing to upgrade to Windows 2003. They're just now getting around to Windows 2000.

What drives our market right now is Linux and it's adoption. lots of people buying systems to kick the tires, not near as many doing that for Windows.

From our perspective as an Intel server provider Microsoft has become complacent and was expecting to 'ride the wave' of upgrades to 2k3 - and that didn't happen. Same can be said about Office 2k3 or whatever it's called. The 'versionitis' that people used to suffer in the MS world has worn off.

El Tritoma
Jan 26, 2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
Servers are also lumped into this category.

You are exactly right. And I'll bet companies that primarily depend on server sales don't like being lumped in with $500 "things" either since it makes their market share look even worse than Apple's.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the number1 reason they arent gaining marketshare is a very poor performing consumer line(old & slow G4s) bottom tier video chips and forcing monitors on consumers.
reason number2 they dont have the product on the shelf in any store but those Kaliifornia Apple stores.
To fix these poor marketing decisions they have to have a fast consumer line and they have to have them where people will see em. Its that simple. Everyone is dreaming up all kinds of things except the fact that Apple's consumer line is selling like crap. why is that? why such meager sales of what should be the strongest segment. the above poster is 100% correct.

X-Baz
Jan 26, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by greenstork
Market share is usually an indication of new products sold, not to be confused with user base.
And don't forget (although I don't have figures to hand) that the number of computers sold in total has risen massively even taking account of the .com crash.

So if your unit sales are increasing by 10% a quarter you can still have a falling (percentage) market share.

eazyway
Jan 26, 2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by cripdyke
so, what exactly does 1.88 represent. or 1.99

.

This number represents the current sales % of Apple of all new computers. Their installed base % is of course higher but over time this is also drawing down.


As for Jobs losing market share. In the first few years it actually went up with the intro of the iMac. Then the motorola PPC fiasco and Apple got bogged down so then again share started to fall as the PC vendors again caught up to and passed the PPC chip productivity.

Now with the G5 chips coming on line and the production and innovation by IBM and the maturing of MAC OS X we will see an upsurge again in the mac sales. Especially when all the systems run with G5's .

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
From [url]But here's my real problem with Jobs. First, he says (in the article that leads into this thread) that Apple made the critical mistake of focusing on profits instead of Market Share during his absence. Then, in this Business Week article, he says exactly the opposite:

"Judging from Jobs's comments, he has no intention of letting Wall Street down. But he wouldn't mind if those analysts would start measuring the Mac by the profits it produces, rather than by its market share. "We've got 25 million customers that want the best computers in the world. If our market share grows, we're thrilled. But we've held our own, while our rivals were losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year," he says. "We're in pretty good shape." "

So which is it, Steve? You can't have it both ways.

There's a difference between overcharging for your products and not having products in the categories that are best-sellers. That's pretty much Apple's problem right now. They need to find a way to make money on a $750 box with no screen. That's the only way for them to grab marketshare of any significant size.

This lack of a <$1000 machine was even commented on (by Apple) during their recent conference call. I hope that was a hint of things to come.

machinehien
Jan 26, 2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Everyone is dreaming up all kinds of things except the fact that Apple's consumer line is selling like crap. why is that? why such meager sales of what should be the strongest segment. the above poster is 100% correct.

jkhanson
Jan 26, 2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
I personally thought that the comments were from a guy who is very scared. I have no opinion on whether or not he should be. But, if you took a good look a everything happening at CES, it's a good time to be a consumer, technology is enabling a lot of cool stuff, there's lots of opportunity for innovation and new markets.

I would find these comments troubling if I were an Apple shareholder.

Although I agree that Microsoft is not "complacent" -- they will do what they always do to maintain profits without any doing anything truly innovative -- the claim that Jobs is "scared" seems odd. Anyone who has paid attention to Apple since the time Jobs returned to the company knows that it is in a far stronger position today. Last year was incredible in terms of the momentum generated by new products. Apple's mindshare is growing again. Six or seven years ago, the media were reporting that Apple was dead. No longer.

Keeping this momentum going is the big challenge. I am optimistic that it will happen.

eazyway
Jan 26, 2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
Anyone who really, and I mean really thinks Microsoft has been complacent is living in a reality distortion field and like Apple, they can't see beyone their own desktop.

JM2Cts

MS has changed it focus in the last ten years as the move by Gates shows. They have become a very diversified company and it may well be that their OS will be slowly replaced in the next 10 years. The server market is not dominated by MS software. IBM , INTL , SUNW and others still control the server market.
IBM is slowly removing Windows OS from all its client systems.

Longhorn will bring about a large and very difficult change within microsoft especially when Linux and MAC OS and Solaris are well established and don't need all the extra effort to bring in the change. This is actually a great opportunity for Apple to spread their system to consumers.

Apple is publicly not saying to much about it but the OS is becoming more and more compatible with the other OS's as a client.

Any sales of their servers will make the macs instantly compatible in those environments.

As for MS complacency it is hard to really know or see. They have not taken over as many companies as in the past for new technology. But then who has in these tough times of the last 3 years.

MS has worked hard to keep their products up to date but when did they release their last great new product that has had an impact. I cannot think of one in the last few years.

Maybe the move to PPC in the xbox will be groundbreaking ..

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 10:31 AM
I disagree, keep the same price points they have now but give the consumer something at those price points. Emac can be running a lot faster we know that by the overclocking threads on it. It should at least have been 1.25 6 months ago. Imac cant go much faster because they got that cpu covered up by harddrive and burner so apple is letting a slow imac hold back the Emac. Stupid.For some stupid reason Imac is being held behind laptops. again stupid. speed sells in the consumer world as does video cards. To say to the consumer you have to have our monitor, you have to have a slower G4, you cant up the video and then want the consumer to hand over 2 grand. to top it off the consumer cant even walk into a nearby store to check out this slow hardware. Consumers are voting with their dollars and combined Imac/Emac sales were only 200,000 this qtr. They sold as many Protowers as these 2 combined.

lord_flash
Jan 26, 2004, 10:42 AM
Being the embittered owner of a PowerBook 15" with a dodgy screen - the machine I chose as a switcher - I am starting to wonder just how innovative Apple actually are.

Some things a windows user is used to include a little intelligence in the recycle bin - I don't have to throw everything away at once. Littles things, but significant.

But what I really mean is that the iPod isn't so very new now. all that's happeened to is it is that it's got a little smaller. These things happen with consumer electronics.

And Apple's laptops are less than innovative when it comes to power v weight. Try one of the higher end Sony Vaios for that. Elegant, yes, but that shouldn't be confused.

If I didn't like the software so much, and the User Interface, which is suspiciously similar to Acorn's RISC OS (from 1987), then I'd be pretty annoyed about switching.

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 10:46 AM
What reasoning do you have to say that Longhorn will bring about a large and difficult change with microsoft. If you think Mac OS is better established than Windows, you must be kidding. Linux is still years away from being accepted widespread. And Solaris is just a pain to work with.
Originally posted by eazyway

Longhorn will bring about a large and very difficult change within microsoft especially when Linux and MAC OS and Solaris are well established and don't need all the extra effort to bring in the change. This is actually a great opportunity for Apple to spread their system to consumers.

gorkonapple
Jan 26, 2004, 10:51 AM
Market share will soon be irrelevant. It is now for the most part. Someone at work derided me for purchasing my first Mac, but I ask you this....what other platform can I buy both off the shelf software and toy with open source software and not hear the userbase balk when I load that program I spent money on? I can also communicate with Windows, TCP/IP of course, Appletalk, and many other protocols. When I want the commandline...it's there. When I don't, it's not. AppleScript lets me script actions within the Aqua UI. Does Windows have the same? I setup a printer and attached a dvcamcamcorder. One of these needed a driver on Windows. The mac needed drivers for nothing. When I plug in the cam on my windows machine, there's a lag (on a 2.5 GHz machine!). My Mac, a 1 GHz, 12 inch PowerBook made the cam available in less then one second in iMovie. My point is, in the very near future, if you can't play nice with other platforms, you'll be gone. Market shares matters not. Whether you make money or not DOES matter.

What Apple is doing with the iPod is smart. Eventually, the windows users who do buy a iPod will say that since the iPod is so good, why don't I look to a Mac? Maybe it's a good machine too. The iPod may be about making money off of music, but it's an excellent way to get converts as well.

cubist
Jan 26, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
... the above poster is 100% correct.

It's not kosher to quote yourself and then say the post is 100% correct. (As an aside, DHM, I agree with you.)

wilco
Jan 26, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Qunchuy
Windows in its current incarnation is getting a bit long in the horn...

The phrase you're thinking of is "long in the tooth."

manu chao
Jan 26, 2004, 10:53 AM
Apart from the price, one of the biggest reasons holding down the market share is lacking personal support.

I've been asked several times by other people whether I would recommend them a Mac, and looking for an honest answer I mostly ended up with saying no.

If you are the only one in your office with a Mac (we know how low the market share is for business environements) you mostly likely get no support from anybody, if something does not work you cannot ask anybody. Most people will know some Windows stuff, but no Win-user will even touch your Mac.
The same is true in private life, with a 10% consumer market share, you are ten times less likely to have somebody among your tech-savy aquaintences who is into Macs than into PCs.

scat999999
Jan 26, 2004, 10:53 AM
MW: "Over the years, the media and analysts have always focused on market share. But although Mac market share is relatively small, Apple is profitable and is making products that affect the entire industry.


Jobs: Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes?"

Pretty much sums it up for me.

cubist
Jan 26, 2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
... Linux is still years away from being accepted widespread. And Solaris is just a pain to work with.

This year will be a year of upheaval. All kinds of new products will be coming out. Perhaps PCs will finally shed their legacy ports and floppies and get flexible LCD screens. Linux GUIs will be improving; buyers will test the waters.

But by the end of 2004, the new picture will be clear. 2005 will be the year of landslide Linux adoption. Apple should pick up some marketshare in 2004; let's hope they can hold onto it in 2005.

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 10:55 AM
I dont see how owing an iPod would drive a person to buying a Mac. When I bought my iMac a year ago, i was stunned by the look, feel, and quality of the machine. And i liked os X. Apple hasn't done much to stun me as of late. It seems like all their new products are just things to yawn about.

BishopInBog
Jan 26, 2004, 10:57 AM
Im glad Apples consumer market share is reasonably high, up in the 10%+ region. Its non-consumer market share must be appallingly low, which hopefully means people will come to associate Windows PC's with work and drudgery, and Apples with fun and play.

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 11:02 AM
Didn't apple lose market share in the educational area last year. I think this is where they need to focus on. They are counting on people to switch, which I dont think is a good idea. Most people are raised using Windows, and know nothing else but Windows. If apple was to move it's focus on the very young market, I think they will see their consumer share go out of the roof down the road. If the kids are raised using Macs, then they'll end up buying Macs.

ipiloot
Jan 26, 2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by DGFan
There's a difference between overcharging for your products and not having products in the categories that are best-sellers. That's pretty much Apple's problem right now. They need to find a way to make money on a $750 box with no screen. That's the only way for them to grab marketshare of any significant size.

This lack of a <$1000 machine was even commented on (by Apple) during their recent conference call. I hope that was a hint of things to come.

eMac is $799 WITH screen. The market where Apple is missing from is sub $700 machines.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by cubist
It's not kosher to quote yourself and then say the post is 100% correct. (As an aside, DHM, I agree with you.) It was a small joke. perhaps very small. but i agree with you agreeing with me.;)

mrsebastian
Jan 26, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
I dont see how owing an iPod would drive a person to buying a Mac. When I bought my iMac a year ago, i was stunned by the look, feel, and quality of the machine. And i liked os X. Apple hasn't done much to stun me as of late. It seems like all their new products are just things to yawn about.

i agree that an ipod may not drive someone to go purchase a mac, but have you used a g5 yet? i'd say it's nothing to yawn at :)

1macker1
Jan 26, 2004, 11:08 AM
Yes i've use a G5, we have 2 here at WORK, i have no need for 64 bit processing at home. It's a great looking maching inside and out, but just not practial for the average consumer.
Originally posted by mrsebastian
i agree that an ipod may not drive someone to go purchase a mac, but have you used a g5 yet? i'd say it's nothing to yawn at :)

takao
Jan 26, 2004, 11:14 AM
hmm marketshare...maybe not a big problem in the us or. uk but what about the rest of the world ? 5% sounds good to me but thats just the US.... here the marketshare is going all the way down ... no shop is selling them ... no advertising either... I want to switch spring 2005 but i won't buy a product which i can't see somewhere before i buy it...but this is not possbile here ... so what shall somebody do here ? come on i asked somebody who just bought a HP-computer why he haven't bought a mac : the answer: "apple is still in business ? "

apple germany/austria behaves in the same arrogant way here in europe like they did before steve jobs came back...... if apple doenst change this they will lose their _complete_ marketshare here .... (which is perhaps 0,5% for new machines)

"hey apple, what about us ?"

sigamy
Jan 26, 2004, 11:36 AM
I love Steve but he's poking fun at "sales guys"? What exactly does he consider himself? An engineer? A designer?

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 11:40 AM
steve is a enthusiest and visionary as opposed to sales guys/bean counters. what Takao says holds true in the U.S. unless you live in california seeing a mac and anything to go with it is very very rare. Apple has gotten some of those Pro's but consumers well thats a different story.

sedarby
Jan 26, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
Yes i've use a G5, we have 2 here at WORK, i have no need for 64 bit processing at home. It's a great looking maching inside and out, but just not practial for the average consumer.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! :) You must be kidding? Since when does the home market deserve less computing power than an office?
Son, you can never have enough money, computing power, memory, hard disk space, etc. etc.

Speak for yourself. I wonder how many here bought a G5 for home. I know I will when they are updated, hopefully soon. :)

singletrack
Jan 26, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by rundevilrun
Actually DirectX wasn't really a Microsoft idea. Way back around '92-93 in the heyday of OS/2 IBM came up with an api called DIVE (direct interface video extension) which allowed games and multimedia apps direct access to video hardware. Microsoft came up with Direct X shortly afterwards.

And most of the developers came from BlueRibbon Soundworks IIRC, an Amiga software company that Microsoft bought.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by ipiloot
eMac is $799 WITH screen. The market where Apple is missing from is sub $700 machines.

When I said a $750 box I meant one that is usable. OS X is horrible with under 512MB of RAM and I wouldn't want to do anything serious on it with under 1GB.

I can get a PC with usable hardware from HP for $600. By the time you upgrade the HD and RAM on that eMac you're looking at closer to $950 (assuming you buy and install the RAM yourself otherwise it's over $1000). So we're looking at about a $400 difference for machines thare are comparable. It's no contest. That's 2/3 more for the Mac. Sure, you get a monitor with the Mac but if you dont need one (and lots of people don't) why would you ever buy the Apple?

That's the market Apple is missing. All it needs to do is come out with a headless iMac and squeeze the profit margin down a bit.

If they hadn't been motivated to do this before I am sure last quarter's numbers for the iMac/eMac (which were downright pathetic) will light the fire under them. They can't afford to lose the consumer market.

sedarby
Jan 26, 2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
steve is a enthusiest and visionary as opposed to sales guys/bean counters. what Takao says holds true in the U.S. unless you live in california seeing a mac and anything to go with it is very very rare. Apple has gotten some of those Pro's but consumers well thats a different story.

Really? CompUSA and Guitar Center both display Apple computers and accessories. Apple does not only sell through their stores.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 11:50 AM
Guitar center? never heard of it. CompUsa? not any in this city and this just goes to show what a poor job they are doing in putting the consumer line anywhere where consumers can see them.

sedarby
Jan 26, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by DGFan
When I said a $750 box I meant one that is usable. OS X is horrible with under 512MB of RAM and I wouldn't want to do anything serious on it with under 1GB.

I can get a PC with usable hardware from HP for $600. By the time you upgrade the HD and RAM on that eMac you're looking at closer to $950 (assuming you buy and install the RAM yourself otherwise it's over $1000). So we're looking at about a $400 difference for machines thare are comparable. It's no contest. That's 2/3 more for the Mac. Sure, you get a monitor with the Mac but if you dont need one (and lots of people don't) why would you ever buy the Apple?

That's the market Apple is missing. All it needs to do is come out with a headless iMac and squeeze the profit margin down a bit.

If they hadn't been motivated to do this before I am sure last quarter's numbers for the iMac/eMac (which were downright pathetic) will light the fire under them. They can't afford to lose the consumer market.

Thinking like a salesman. Look, Apple is not a commodity item. It has always been for more money better user experience and this does cost more than what Billy Bob can through together or pick up at Walmart. Apple has not been in the business of producing junk and I respect them for that.

I for one appreciate a fine automobile and yes I will pay extra. Apple is not the Ford Escort of the computing world nor should it ever be. Elitist? No, just willing to pay for the best computing environment available.

Trekkie
Jan 26, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by DGFan
When I said a $750 box I meant one that is usable. OS X is horrible with under 512MB of RAM and I wouldn't want to do anything serious on it with under 1GB.

Used windows with 128MB or 256MB those sub $700 PCs come with lately? They make Mac OS X on 256MB seem fast.

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 11:59 AM
i find it ironic that this thread is in response to a Jobs quote that says basically, "while i was gone, they worried about profits and not market share, so they almost failed" and then most of these threads are saying "Well, they may not have marketshare now, but at least they have profits!"

Microsoft is nothing close to complacent. They are just huge. I've seen in the last 6 months 4 separate "builds" of longhorn's GUI, and some of the underlying features look potentially pretty revolutionary.

The xBox is holding a LOT of their attention, and the whole Media PC thing (where is apple on this market???), not to mention MS is waiting patiently for 3rd party developers to flesh out the latest stuff on DirectX so they can see safely where to focus in DX9. They are waiting for BTX and PCI X-16 and 64-bit to all become truly standardized and to gain some marketshare of their own.

Demanding users drive the market. The most demanding computer users are Creative professionals and gamers. "Serious" gamers outnumber the creative professionals (i am both) about 10 to 1, and as a result, the competition and hardware innovation in PCs (because mac gaming is, let's face it, pretty sad), is extremely aggressive by comparison. My home box (a hand-built 800 dollar PC) had 240GB of SATA RAID 0 and 7.1 surround, dual 100/T, the REAL 9600 Pro (128mb), 1.5GB of PC 3200 (overclocked to ~3800), and a load of other crap when I built it in May of last year. My benchmarks in every single dual-platform game are consistently 20-200% higher than those posted by Dual G5 players.

I appreciate OS X a great deal, and I'm glad it is finally working properly, but why did I have to pay for Jaguar? 10.1 was to put it mildly, beta software.

The most useful thing about Panther is Expose, which is about 6 years overdue (the windows button that shows the desktop appeared in Win98). The only other useful change is that they made the Finder windows less friggin' retarded. hardly 130 dollars worth of innovation.

Apple has a good chip with the G5, but they need to let go of the reigns. If you let the 3rd party hardware world get their hands on a mobo schematic and give them free reign to work on the G5, you'd see 1.6 Ghz boxes that could actually keep up with P4 gaming machines. And if you want to know the truth, all the system resources that graphic designers and professional musicians use are the same ones that gamers use. We need constant, reliable through-put, quick access times and fast drive read/write, and we need flexible, fast, and consistent data processing, and we need a stable environment. We also need the cutting edge, and Apple is currently at the mercy of 2 companies when it comes to that. ATI and IBM. So far, they have held up the deal pretty well, but i question how much true support a 2% market is going to maintain for ATI, when they are chipping heavily into nVidia's market on the PC side. They secured the next xBox already, and the 9X00 series has dominated the FX5 series across the price-board. If ATI decided that the ACD display connection was too much trouble, what would Apple do? They can't really force their hand with a 2% marketshare, now can they?

AMD is pushing fast, and whatever Apple's selected benchmark test may say, the FX single processor is on par with the G5 dual, and it's cheaper if you get it anywhere other than Alienware (the world's most overpriced PCs). Commercially available overclocking solutions already have the 2.2 GHz FX-51 running at a stable 2.8 GHz, which figures in at about a Pentium 4.5 Ghz in 32 bit mode and God-knows-how-fast in 64 bit mode.

In short, I wish I could run OS X on a PC, because I could do some incredible things for a lot less money than Apple wants to force me to pay.

My 8,000 dollar UMAX scanner (the PL 3000) still doesn't work with OS X as of Panther, even though it's worked in windows XP for almost 3 years now...I must keep an old G3 booting 9.2.2 just to get a decent scan done.

By the way, last week I bought a great new cordless mouse and keyboard, and to check it out i plugged it in on my PC at home, and it worked (even all the "extra" buttons on the keyboard) without even needing a restart or inserting a driver disc or anything. It just started working.

I took it here to work, and found myself needing to not only install drivers for OS X, but also to download additional drivers for the scroll wheel on the mouse to work. I don't want to hear about that crap ever again. I use a Mac every day, and I want to, but I'm making so many concessions with it that I shouldn't be. I'm "right down Apple's ally" because I spend all day in Adobe programs building pages and graphics, even cutting some music on the side, but I need to use my PC for the audio stuff because none of my cards work in a G5.

kwtneo
Jan 26, 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by mhouse
While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the marketshare numbers that people usually mention for Apple (2-5 percent), they really do baffle me.

I live in a (relative to others which have apple stores) small market but we do have an Apple store here and let's just say I am pretty familiar with it. That store sells Macs all day everyday. Really. At a pace that is pretty amazing and that can't possibly be explained by existing Mac users simply upgrading.

I'm not sure how long this marketshare data takes to surface but I would be shocked if the numbers don't improve pretty significantly in the next year... because the sales rate I've seen are not those of a 2% marketshare.



yeah i hear you. it's the same here in new york. everytime i'm in the SoHo store, the line snakes all the way to the back of the store and i see so many people making purchases its mind boggling...

sethypoo
Jan 26, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
So Jobbs is predicting Microsoft becoming complacent...:D

Exactly. This is beautiful!

Wait.....say Apple, by some miracle, surpasses Microsoft (someday) in terms of market share. Would this be that great for consumers, or woudl Apple become the new Microsoft? Interesting.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
Thinking like a salesman. Look, Apple is not a commodity item. It has always been for more money better user experience and this does cost more than what Billy Bob can through together or pick up at Walmart. Apple has not been in the business of producing junk and I respect them for that.

I for one appreciate a fine automobile and yes I will pay extra. Apple is not the Ford Escort of the computing world nor should it ever be. Elitist? No, just willing to pay for the best computing environment available.

LOL
Jobs said the original Apple execs were thinking like salesmen because they valued profit margin over expanding their marketshare. So I explain how Apple can expand their marketshare at the expense of a little profit margin and you call me a salesman. Perhaps you ought to take it up with Jobs since your beef is obviously with him!

Now, to your actual points:

Computers are commodity items. And as long as Apple pretends they aren't they will continue to lose marketshare. Very few people actually want to buy luxury computers.

It's funny that comparisons are often made to luxury car makers. Isn't it ironic then that most of the luxury car makers (Porsche, BMW, Mercedes) that Apple is compared to are actually releasing cheaper vehicles to try and expand their marketshare?

Apple can build a high quality usable system that still sells for more than their competitors and gain marketshare in the process. The problem is Apple is too far from the sweet spot. I realize this. Apple realizes this (I just don't know what they are planning to do about it). When are you going to realize this? Stop thinking like a salesman!!!

csimmons
Jan 26, 2004, 12:08 PM
Can anyone here say what Apple's consumer market share is compared to it's enterprise market share? Is the education market considered enterprise or consumer ?

takao
Jan 26, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
Elitist? No, just willing to pay for the best computing environment available.

yeah
939 $ (without tax ) for the cheapest emac with 128 mb ram here ... what would you call that ? i call it elitist.... my athlon xp (with twice the HD, 1GB RAM , Geforce Ti 4200: a_lot_ faster than those emac graphics, 6 usb 2.0, sony cd writer,)..paid 850...nearly 2 years ago... sure without a monitor but i get a new monitor for free every 2 years ...(pretty decent compaqs the last time)

there a lot of people which would switch for a small _headless_ mac for 1000 $ with upgradable graphics card,HD and ram....

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
Used windows with 128MB or 256MB those sub $700 PCs come with lately? They make Mac OS X on 256MB seem fast.

Actually the $600 HP I configured for my mom came with an Athlon XP2200, 512MB RAM, 80 GB HD, and a 64MB Geforce4 MX.

And yes I have used XP on a PC with that much RAM and it is comparable in responsiveness (or maybe a little faster) to Max OS X on a system with similar RAM.

This mantra that a $600 PC must be junk just has to stop. It's simply not true people!!!!!

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Guitar center? never heard of it. CompUsa? not any in this city and this just goes to show what a poor job they are doing in putting the consumer line anywhere where consumers can see them.


http://www.compusa.com/locations/default.asp

http://www.guitarcenter.com/locations/

Check the links out. Seems to be in more areas than you may imagine.;)

Trekkie
Jan 26, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
Sure, you get a monitor with the Mac but if you dont need one (and lots of people don't) why would you ever buy the Apple?

That's the market Apple is missing. All it needs to do is come out with a headless iMac and squeeze the profit margin down a bit.

If they hadn't been motivated to do this before I am sure last quarter's numbers for the iMac/eMac (which were downright pathetic) will light the fire under them. They can't afford to lose the consumer market.

You're thinking like a person that has owned a lot of computers, not a person who wants a new one.

Let me tell you what I've seen in the consumer market.

1) Computer is pushing 2 - 3 years of age. Games are starting to be slow, monitor is fading, or they have a CRT and want a LCD because it 'looks cool'

2) Compatibility isn't as big of a concern as it used to be. most of their apps either came for free (MS Works, MS Word) and they don't care about them too much.

3) Educational titles such as the Jumpstart things for the little ones run on both Mac and Windows.

4) High speed internet or regular internet plugs in and works.

My sister is my example. She had a Compaq Presario they bought in mid 90s and then another one they bought in late 90s. She has since gotten a nice video camera and had nothing but grief with trying to send her husband DVDs of her boys (he is in Afghanistan) for about 4 months. I told her about iMovie (she asked me where my videos were coming from we sent the family) and iDVD.

She got her 17" iMac yesterday. You want to know something funny? First words out of her mouth was God this is fast! (She had a AMD Athlon 1900XP I put together for her).

The problem with the market share numbers that I have being tossed around in this thread is that they are

1) WW numbers. If Apple doesn't sell into one or two regions it skews this number way down

2) include every freaking intel chip machine ever sold from one for $499 with 1 low cost low power chip to one with 32 of the $4000 ea chips in it.

3) Apple is making a huge profit compared to the rest of the makers. Some of those folks would dry up and blow away if business downturned for maybe a quarter. Apple obviously won't because their margins are higher and they can whether storms.


My other big beef with the thread is that people here seem to want to turn Apple into a PC company.

Whens the last time something cool came out of a PC company? The best thing a PC company could say is 'we came out with this model first' because shortly afterwords everyone else has the same gadget.

Dell has variety, they can sell you a 18", 23" or 30" Television now. woo hoo. Guess what makes them money, not their computers that is for sure.

The thing about a game changing technology companies is that [b] THEY DON'T DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES, THAT'S HOW THEY CHANGE THE GAME[b]

My $0.02

Trekkie
Jan 26, 2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
I dont see how owing an iPod would drive a person to buying a Mac. When I bought my iMac a year ago, i was stunned by the look, feel, and quality of the machine. And i liked os X. Apple hasn't done much to stun me as of late. It seems like all their new products are just things to yawn about.

I bought an iPod, then I bought a Powerbook g4 12". Worked for me, and if it works for oh - 10% to 15% of the user base of the iPod it's a success.

As far as yawning, have you *looked* at a PC recently? Show me one that isn't expensive & looks different other than the color the case is painted?

sonicbaz
Jan 26, 2004, 12:16 PM
Why did I get into computers?

Gaming......actually Doom on PC to start with, but I was an ATARI ST user before that, mostly using Notator. I grew up playing pong Galaxia, Frogger, Space Invaders, Pacman, Mrs Pacman (hotty), that centerpede game with the ball.....sigh the memories.

So what is my choice of gaming platform? W2K. What is the machine I produce and compose music on? Well that is my G4 OSX 1.25 and LAP6.3.3.

Now I don't want to mention the obvious, but until you can buy games on a Mac (yeah ok you can buy SOME) forget getting more of a market share.

Look at all the games coming out, and I can think of only one BIG game that will be on Mac - Doom3. Now just to remind that you will NOT be able to play HL2, Far Cry, STALKER et el. At this point the fact that you have a great OS, means nothing to the gamer.

Microsoft have recognised and support the gaming community, they have released the Xbox, (which I too own) and have placed a great deal of importance on developing and improving Directx etc. Lets face up to the fact that many many people buy computers to ENTERTAIN themselves. People however that have more of a critical task or specalist task buy Macs, which is great but stupid too.

So basically it's not what OS you have it's what OS you need to run your apps. Of the games I recently bought NONE were available for OSX.

BTW I see a few pathetic comments regarding windows 2000 or XP, as a seasoned OSX, W2K and XP user, I just want to say that they ALL have good AND bad points.

The reality is that Apple needs to get with the current and growing trend of increasingly wealthy gamers who like myslef spend buckets of money on hardware and software each year. How can you expect users to support a platform that doesn't offer the same software...duh... it's so simple, even I get it. :rolleyes:

sonicbaz

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
My sister is my example. She had a Compaq Presario they bought in mid 90s and then another one they bought in late 90s. She has since gotten a nice video camera and had nothing but grief with trying to send her husband DVDs of her boys (he is in Afghanistan) for about 4 months. I told her about iMovie (she asked me where my videos were coming from we sent the family) and iDVD.


The fact is that if more people were like your sister iMac sales wouldn't be in the toilet.....which they are.

iMac/eMac sales: 227k units
Year-over-year: -24%
Quarter-to-quarter: -10%

So you can make all the arguments you want, but the market has already spoken.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by junior
http://www.compusa.com/locations/default.asp

http://www.guitarcenter.com/locations/

Check the links out. Seems to be in more areas than you may imagine.;) actually not 1 guitar center in my state and the one comp usa is a 4-5 hour drive. again Apple has forgotten consumers going to consumer stores. consumers out number all those otherthings everyone is talking about. they are not interested in selling computers to consumers.

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by DGFan


It's funny that comparisons are often made to luxury car makers. Isn't it ironic then that most of the luxury car makers (Porsche, BMW, Mercedes) that Apple is compared to are actually releasing cheaper vehicles to try and expand their marketshare?




Yeah, these car manufacturers are releasing cheaper cars. But how much cheaper? Can you buy the cheapest BMW for the price of the cheapest Nissan? I don't think so. Why? Quality and premium (the latter really important for public image). If Apple starts selling certain Macs at the same price as the cheapest PCs, they will no longer give out the image that their product quality is superior to that of Dell's, for example, accross the line (whether it's true or not is a different issue!). And that would put the religous followers of Apple off to no end. And those followers are, after all, what kept Apple in the business.
So doesn't that suggest that Apple is infact comparable to a company like BMW?

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
actually not 1 guitar center in my state and the one comp usa is a 4-5 hour drive. again Apple has forgotten consumers going to consumer stores. consumers out number all those otherthings everyone is talking about. they are not interested in selling computers to consumers.

Could you clarify that? I don't quuite understand. Are you saying that Apple has no interest in selling computers to consumers?
If that is the case, who have they been selling to? I thought their sales figures for corporations was what was always low, and that the consumer market was doing better all the time.

reyesmac
Jan 26, 2004, 12:41 PM
Jobs statement contradicts what the company is doing in some ways. They sell most of their products at the highest profit margins and they don't advertise anything but the iPod, their least expensive product with the highest profit margin. And it is not even a computer so that means no real increase in marketshare.

You can't argue that they don't innovate, but it doesn't look to me like they are trying hard to gain marketshare. Not in the way I usually think a business would try to gain marketshare, like advertising their products. They think that free publicity is the only advertising they need.

The days where most people would pay thousands of dollars for a computer are over. When is Apple going to see that. I guess if they have problems keeping up with demand now imagine how hard it would be for them if they sold as many Macs as Dell does PC's every year.

pdrayton
Jan 26, 2004, 12:41 PM
But here's my real problem with Jobs. First, he says (in the article that leads into this thread) that Apple made the critical mistake of focusing on profits instead of Market Share during his absence. Then, in this Business Week article, he says exactly the opposite:

"Judging from Jobs's comments, he has no intention of letting Wall Street down.But he wouldn't mind if those analysts would start measuring the Mac by the profits it produces, rather than by its market share. "We've got 25 million customers that want the best computers in the world. If our market share grows, we're thrilled. But we've held our own, while our rivals were losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year," he says. "We're in pretty good shape." "

So which is it, Steve? You can't have it both ways.
I think Steve Jobs' first quote (the one that started this thread) is being misunderstood. For a company to be successful over the long term it needs to ensure that its profit margin is in line with consumers' perceived value of the product. I don't think Steve meant that Apple should have gone for marketshare by competing on price. I take Steve's comments to mean that Apple's profit margin on products was too high comparison to the value consumers placed on Apple products, and that the profit margin should have been adjusted downward somewhat to meet consumers' expectation of the value.

Today, consumers are extraordinarily frustrated with cumbersome Microsoft products that frequently fail, are costly to maintain, and cause severe headaches for both consumers and businesses. In this changed environment it's easier for consumers to see the value of switching to Apple, and Apple is maintaining a profit margin in line with that value. Apple can slowly grow its marketshare AND make a reasonable profit.

I don't expect to see Apple competing on price (hence, an iPod mini that turns out to be quite popular despite its $249 price tag), but rather shrewdly determining price points based on consumers' needs and desires.

I think the BMW/Mercedes analogy is pretty good... although I think Apple's goal is to be more accessible to consumers. BMW's and Mercedes' aren't overpriced... people get what they pay for and the market is "big enough" to be sustainable. Today I think we're seeing Apple reposition itself to do the same thing, but for a moderate price.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
actually not 1 guitar center in my state and the one comp usa is a 4-5 hour drive. again Apple has forgotten consumers going to consumer stores. consumers out number all those otherthings everyone is talking about. they are not interested in selling computers to consumers.

You do realize that they are opening up Apple stores in some places, right? And that they are trying out a program in some Best Buy stores (before deciding whether to expand it), right?

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by junior
Yeah, these car manufacturers are releasing cheaper cars. But how much cheaper? Can you buy the cheapest BMW for the price of the cheapest Nissan? I don't think so. Why? Quality and premium (the latter really important for public image). If Apple starts selling certain Macs at the same price as the cheapest PCs, they will no longer give out the image that their product quality is superior to that of Dell's, for example, accross the line (whether it's true or not is a different issue!). And that would put the religous followers of Apple off to no end. And those followers are, after all, what kept Apple in the business.
So doesn't that suggest that Apple is infact comparable to a company like BMW?

How convenient that you left out the next part of my post.

Apple can build a high quality usable system that still sells for more than their competitors and gain marketshare in the process. The problem is Apple is too far from the sweet spot.

Did you not read that far? Something tells me it would be more constructive to read the post as a whole instead of picking on piece and responding to it.

See, the difference between a $50k Mercedes and a $20k Honda or Ford was too much. So Mercedes has worked its way into the sub-$30k market. They are still a premium brand but at least they have offerings in the same price-range now. Apple isn't in the same price-range yet for the consumer desktop.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by reyesmac
Jobs statement contradicts what the company is doing in some ways. They sell most of their products at the highest profit margins and they don't advertise anything but the iPod, their least expensive product with the highest profit margin. And it is not even a computer so that means no real increase in marketshare.


This is true. Several Apple spokespersons have now made statements indicating their current product-line needs to be expanded toward the lower end. So the question is, are the statements just marketing fluff to make people think Apple has (or is) changing? Or are they a real portent of things to come? I guess only the insiders know for sure....

corey
Jan 26, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by sonicbaz
The reality is that Apple needs to get with the current and growing trend of increasingly wealthy gamers who like myslef spend buckets of money on hardware and software each year. How can you expect users to support a platform that doesn't offer the same software...duh... it's so simple, even I get it. :rolleyes: the reality is that apple is not responsible for the fact that software companies are not doing the coding quickly. its slighlty catch 22 actually. they wont code quicker until there is more market share, and there wont be more market share until they code quicker.

howard
Jan 26, 2004, 12:55 PM
it seems like balance is the key. Yes his statements contradict...marketshare is better, no sales, no profits, no innovation...they really are all important at the same time. each are vital and balance between then seems to make a successful company. if company is all marketshare it can go under cause they can lose money to an upcoming company that is more innovative...or vice versa. also if you have poor marketshare but good sales and profits your doing well and consequently your company will experience small BUT healthy growth in marketshare

johnnyjibbs
Jan 26, 2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
The fact is that if more people were like your sister iMac sales wouldn't be in the toilet.....which they are.

iMac/eMac sales: 227k units
Year-over-year: -24%
Quarter-to-quarter: -10%

So you can make all the arguments you want, but the market has already spoken.
The iMac is a nice machine but it is far too expensive considering you're stuck with the screen attached to it and it can't really be upgraded. The 20" iMac was a mistake in my eyes - solely there for bragging rights. The screen on that Mac costs more than the computer that's attached to (and stuck with) it. It's a bold investment, considering you can't uncouple the screen.

reyesmac
Jan 26, 2004, 01:01 PM
Back when the clones where sold and Steve was out of the picture, Mac compatibles sold from $1,500 to $4,000 give or take a few hundred. That is not much different than how we have it today. How come? Would you buy a PC at late 90's prices? If they have not figured out how to make a cheaper system by now that means they are not looking to make one, period. They are trying to find a different way of selling more than the competition.
If Apple is charging high end PC prices on their lowest end systems, those systems need to offer high end PC hardware features, not just a bunch of free iApps. But they can't because it would make Apples high end machines look less powerful. I really don't know what Apple can do to gain market share if they keep these price/power gaps between their lines. They should offer the same speed all around in different upgradable/design configurations.

synp
Jan 26, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
You're thinking like a person that has owned a lot of computers, not a person who wants a new one.

Let me tell you what I've seen in the consumer market.

1) Computer is pushing 2 - 3 years of age. Games are starting to be slow, monitor is fading, or they have a CRT and want a LCD because it 'looks cool'

My other big beef with the thread is that people here seem to want to turn Apple into a PC company.

Whens the last time something cool came out of a PC company? The best thing a PC company could say is 'we came out with this model first' because shortly afterwords everyone else has the same gadget.

Dell has variety, they can sell you a 18", 23" or 30" Television now. woo hoo. Guess what makes them money, not their computers that is for sure.


I'm not looking to turn Apple into a PC company. But consider my situation:
- In 1999 I bought my first Mac. At the time USB film scanners were not available, and digital cameras were still either $20,000 machines or 1MP toys. I bought a 300 MHz B&W G3 and a used screen.
- In 2000 I replaced the screen with a 19" CRT that can do 1600x1200 very well. I love resolution.
- In 2002 it was time to upgrade. I really loved the way the iMac looked, but the 17" model cost $400 more than a dual 867MHz G4. I would be getting less resolution and less speed for more money. I bought the tower, even though I don't need the expandability any more.

- In late 2004 or in 2005 I'll probably want a new computer. What should I buy? The 20" iMac looks like what I'm looking for, but will it be fast enough to justify replacing my dual? The resolution will still be less than I'm used to, so why replace the screen that works so well? The low-end PM would probably still be cheaper, althogh I need neither the extra speed nor the expandability.
If I buy the iMac, 3 years later I would want to replace the computer, but have to spring for a new screen too?

Between the iMac and the PM, it doesn't look like Apple has something that's right for me. I don't believe I'm that unique.

A headless iMac (cube? hemisphere?) plus a 20" LCD all for say $100 more than the 20" iMac would be a much better fit for me, even if it entails having one more cable on the desk.

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
How convenient that you left out the next part of my post.



Did you not read that far? Something tells me it would be more constructive to read the post as a whole instead of picking on piece and responding to it.

See, the difference between a $50k Mercedes and a $20k Honda or Ford was too much. So Mercedes has worked its way into the sub-$30k market. They are still a premium brand but at least they have offerings in the same price-range now. Apple isn't in the same price-range yet for the consumer desktop.


In that case, you're contradicting yourself. What you describe Mercedes as doing is exactly what Apple has done with eMacs, and not too far off, the cheaper one of the iMacs.
I'm sorry I didn't finish reading your post, but the fact that you said that the BMW/Mercedes analogy made you laugh and started arguing against it, yet your description of those companies matching exactly that of Apple made me completely disregard the rest of your point, which, after reading now, was as worthless as I had imagined. Honestly, think about it.

winmacguy
Jan 26, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
Speaking as someone whos daily income is affected by Intel Server sales and Intel systems in general.

Windows XP and Windows 2003 are not the driving marketing force (at least in 2003) that say Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 were.

People are not rushing to upgrade to Windows 2003. They're just now getting around to Windows 2000.

What drives our market right now is Linux and it's adoption. lots of people buying systems to kick the tires, not near as many doing that for Windows.

From our perspective as an Intel server provider Microsoft has become complacent and was expecting to 'ride the wave' of upgrades to 2k3 - and that didn't happen. Same can be said about Office 2k3 or whatever it's called. The 'versionitis' that people used to suffer in the MS world has worn off.

I think the same thing is going to be happening down here in NZ from this year onwards as companies and corporates start to upgrade and seek to replace their IT systems. A lot of them are going to be looking at ALL their options in terms of price and licensing agreements and many wont necessarily be replaceing their Windows systems with newer Windows systems.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
You do realize that they are opening up Apple stores in some places, right? And that they are trying out a program in some Best Buy stores (before deciding whether to expand it), right? this a start. they have to have the product so the consumer can see it,touch it and get otherthings for it. keep this stuff up and clean up those so called consumer models i mean really how many millions of monitors are outhere that still work fine. Think different on that consumer line Apple.

Selecter
Jan 26, 2004, 01:28 PM
Windows will have to be in it's present form until 2006 (!) before the next gen Windows appears. Exactly how out of date will Windows XP be in 3 years? Where will Apple be in that time?

Unless they (MS) can graft something onto Win XP to extend it a bit, even if nothing more than fancy eye candy, they are going to be far behind OS X.

Panther is so good now. Imagine 10.5.

I use both platforms but I dont see anything coming up for Wintel but stagnation.

blueBomber
Jan 26, 2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by takao
.... my athlon xp (with twice the HD, 1GB RAM , Geforce Ti 4200: a_lot_ faster than those emac graphics, 6 usb 2.0, sony cd writer,)..paid 850...nearly 2 years ago... sure without a monitor but i get a new monitor for free every 2 years ...(pretty decent compaqs the last time)


yeah, but does it run osX? :D

LethalWolfe
Jan 26, 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by reyesmac
Back when the clones where sold and Steve was out of the picture, Mac compatibles sold from $1,500 to $4,000 give or take a few hundred. That is not much different than how we have it today. How come? Would you buy a PC at late 90's prices? If they have not figured out how to make a cheaper system by now that means they are not looking to make one, period. They are trying to find a different way of selling more than the competition.
If Apple is charging high end PC prices on their lowest end systems, those systems need to offer high end PC hardware features, not just a bunch of free iApps. But they can't because it would make Apples high end machines look less powerful. I really don't know what Apple can do to gain market share if they keep these price/power gaps between their lines. They should offer the same speed all around in different upgradable/design configurations.

How is $799 for an eMac a hi-end PC price? Dell has lower-end computers that sell for less than eMacs, but their hi-end computers, computers that are comparible to the top end G5, sell at a comparible cost to the dual 2gig G5.

If you only look at hardware specs alone Apple is not going to ever be the cheapest (speaking in generalities). Heck, Gateway ran itself into the ground by getting into a "low-ball" war w/Dell. But if you look at the complete computer you are buying, hardware + software that's a different story. The "stock" software bunlde on an "off the shelf" Mac is miles ahead of what you'll get on an off the shelf PC. But clock speed, RAM, and HDD all get shoved in consumers face because they are easily digestable numbers. I mean, the faster the CPU speed, the more RAM, and the bigger the HDD the better the computer is right?

That being said, Apple does need to overhaul its consumer and portable machines (the iMac especially)


Lethal

MacQuest
Jan 26, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by mhouse
...That store sells Macs all day everyday. Really. At a pace that is pretty amazing and that can't possibly be explained by existing Mac users simply upgrading....

BINGO!!!:D

It's interesting to me that lots of people don't think that the "Switch" ad campaign of '02 was effective. Not only was it effective then, it's been picking up steam at a steady pace ever since.

For the past year and a half I've witnessed the switch process get at least 50% easier. Meaning that the time that it took someone to make the decision to switch back then [2-4 hours if made that same day, now down to under 2 hours, or 2-3 visits down to 1st visit/same day decisions] is significantly reduced because lots of these people have seen other people that they know switch recently, or their curious why the iMac was named Editor's Choice in PC Magazine ['02], or they've read the Consumer Reports articles showing Apple to be far superior than the top ranked Windows computer manufacturer [Dell], or they've finally had the chance to speak to a Mac knowledgeable person [Apple Specialist] at CompUSA, or even had an Apple Store open up locally.

Whatever the reason, switching has, and continues to occur.

I witness an average of [at least] 3 former Windows computer customers switch, DAILY!. That's just me. Multiply that by [at least] the number of CompUSA Apple Specialists, Apple Store Mac Specialists, and anyone else who's in this mix and the numbers are pretty staggering. True, the numbers aren't enough [yet] to show a spike in increased marketshare, but they're steadily increasing.

This isn't a race folks, it's a marathon. Apple will go the distance.

ionas
Jan 26, 2004, 02:04 PM
apple needs to refresh iMac, eMac, iBook and PowerBook.

the G5 - even if I want to see updates, is a nice machine.

ogminlo
Jan 26, 2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by wilco
The phrase you're thinking of is "long in the tooth."

No, he meant long in the horn. In reference to the code name for the next revision of Windows, Longhorn. You got the jist though, it was meant to be a play on long in the tooth.

stingerman
Jan 26, 2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by El Tritoma
Some companies buy hundreds or more Wintel PCs at a time to be used as barely more than dumb terminals. It takes a lot of people going into a store buying a Mac one at a time to equal this. You never see these purchases because they just show up at the loading dock of the company. When these cheap computers start to fail they buy more new ones. As long as they don't fail too much faster than the depreciation schedule no one cares too much.

Also, there "per unit" market share and "$" market share. I think the value most often quoted is "per unit" so that a single $500 el cheapo counts the same as a dual 2GHz G5.

Lumping everything called "a computer" into the same market is patently stupid. A lot of these are used as little more than smart typewriters and calculators. There is office equipment and there are computers. Apple doesn't sell much office equipment.

What you are saying is so obvious, nobody gets it. Apple makes a profit selling computers. They do NOT take a loss selling commodity PCs like the other 9 out of 10 PC makers.

xStep
Jan 26, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Tulse
It's a bit ironic that Jobs speaks so disparagingly of "protecting turf" when one of the earliest acts he took on his return as CEO was to kill the Mac OS clones. I think that was a smart move on his part, but there's no doubt that it was about protecting turf, and not innovation (some of the fastest machines of that era weren't made by Apple).

It had little to do with turf. Jobs argued that Apple simply was losing too much money. It was an economic decision. The clones were eating away at Apples profits. Remember, most of Apples sales come from their hardware.

Personally I was sad to see the clones disappear. My brothers clone has served him well for years in the music production business. They were quality machines.

reyesmac
Jan 26, 2004, 02:23 PM
People say the eMac is a good deal at $799. Well, how much better a deal would it be if it didn't have a monitor and was as expandable as a powermac in a cheap but nice looking box? Powermac power from two years ago at around $500. THAT would be a good deal and cheap enough for people to stop complaining. Especially since you would be able to run all software that runs on the mac, including games. Why doesn't Apple come out with that? It just might, but until the G5 came out, something like this would have shown just how overpriced the powermacs were/are.

Apple can make cheaper systems, it just isn't ready to do so yet. Even if they did I would still get the more expensive systems, but I would recommend the cheap ones for people like my mom or novices. Heck, I would even help her pay for it if not buy it outright for her.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by junior
In that case, you're contradicting yourself. What you describe Mercedes as doing is exactly what Apple has done with eMacs, and not too far off, the cheaper one of the iMacs.
I'm sorry I didn't finish reading your post, but the fact that you said that the BMW/Mercedes analogy made you laugh and started arguing against it, yet your description of those companies matching exactly that of Apple made me completely disregard the rest of your point, which, after reading now, was as worthless as I had imagined. Honestly, think about it.

True, the eMacs fill that role to an extent. But the problem is that most people who are looking for a budget computer are *gasp* trying to save money. And one way to save money is to reuse a monitor that still works (monitors have a productive life much longer than a computer typically does). So Apple is offering a low-end product that ignores the buying habits of a significant portion of the consumers in that market.

And this is where the analogy is less useful. People tend to replace whole cars at once. They don't buy a new Ford and reuse the tires from their old car.

What I pointed out in another post is just how nice a useful computer you can get for so much cheaper from a good PC manufacturer. Apple is still the $50k Mercedes. Why? Because PCs have gotten that cheap. That's why.

A large part of it is a marketing game. Apple can say "starting at $799" but other companies can say "starting at $299". Simply by removing the monitor and making it an option Apple can lower their perceived starting price.

It's obvious if you think about it (you seem to be still waiting...)

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by xStep
It had little to do with turf. Jobs argued that Apple simply was losing too much money. It was an economic decision. The clones were eating away at Apples profits. Remember, most of Apples sales come from their hardware.

Personally I was sad to see the clones disappear. My brothers clone has served him well for years in the music production business. They were quality machines.

If it makes you feel any better, Apple is certainly positioning itself to be able to survive with clones in the future. A lot more of their revenue and profits come from software and peripherals (iPod). But it will take many years of steady growth of both the platform and the software sales to make clones at all viable.

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
True, the eMacs fill that role to an extent. But the problem is that most people who are looking for a budget computer are *gasp* trying to save money. And one way to save money is to reuse a monitor that still works (monitors have a productive life much longer than a computer typically does). So Apple is offering a low-end product that ignores the buying habits of a significant portion of the consumers in that market.

And this is where the analogy is less useful. People tend to replace whole cars at once. They don't buy a new Ford and reuse the tires from their old car.

What I pointed out in another post is just how nice a useful computer you can get for so much cheaper from a good PC manufacturer. Apple is still the $50k Mercedes. Why? Because PCs have gotten that cheap. That's why.

A large part of it is a marketing game. Apple can say "starting at $799" but other companies can say "starting at $299". Simply by removing the monitor and making it an option Apple can lower their perceived starting price.

It's obvious if you think about it (you seem to be still waiting...)


Again, the point is that Apple doesn't want to lower the perceived starting price as low as the low end PC, whether it be with a monitor or not, just like the Mercedes and BMWs don't want to, as I had explained previously.
You say most people who are buying a budget PC are there to *gasp* save money. Well, what about those that buy the cheap cars that are priced well below the cheap BMW range? Don't they want to save money as well? Apple stuck the monitors on their consumer lines just so they have the excuse to charge higher prices than PCs. And they want to keep it that way.
As you say, a large part of it is a marketing game indeed. Just like it is for those car manufacturers to not come out with $10k cars.
Think about it;) .

ogminlo
Jan 26, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by synp
- In late 2004 or in 2005 I'll probably want a new computer. What should I buy? The 20" iMac looks like what I'm looking for, but will it be fast enough to justify replacing my dual? The resolution will still be less than I'm used to, so why replace the screen that works so well? The low-end PM would probably still be cheaper, althogh I need neither the extra speed nor the expandability.
If I buy the iMac, 3 years later I would want to replace the computer, but have to spring for a new screen too?

I for one will never, ever buy another computer with less than two processors in it. Therefore, unless Apple starts going DP in their consumer machines (unlikely- gotta keep those costs down), I will be a Power Mac man henceforth!

And buying anything with a G4 in it? No thanks. The difference between the G4 and the G5 is so huge... Why people are clawing for a 1.42GHz G4 PowerBook is beyond me... The G4 is dead, man!

I want a Dual 65nm G5 PB! Liquid cooled! HD display in the 17" FF!

Ah, I can dream...

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by junior
Again, the point is that Apple doesn't want to lower the perceived starting price as low as the low end PC, whether it be with a monitor or not, just like the Mercedes and BMWs don't want to, as I had explained previously.
You say most people who are buying a budget PC are there to *gasp* save money. Well, what about those that buy the cheap cars that are priced well below the cheap BMW range? Don't they want to save money as well? Apple stuck the monitors on their consumer lines just so they have the excuse to charge higher prices than PCs. And they want to keep it that way.
As you say, a large part of it is a marketing game indeed. Just like it is for those car manufacturers to not come out with $10k cars.
Think about it;) .

So the starting price for PCs is $299 and the starting price for a Mac is $599. Where's the problem? You keep ignoring the fact that I openly advocated Apple keeping their price point above their competitors. But Apple isn't even close right now.

And if you don't believe me perhaps you will believe Apple CFO Fred Anderson:

On the lower end of Apple's desktop spectrum, Anderson said that the 29% drop in sales for the iMac product was because the computer's price of $1,299 remains above the "sweet spot" of under $1,000 for other brands.

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040114/1914001478_3.html

Apple will be doing something about it. I think it's just a matter of when.

areyouwishing
Jan 26, 2004, 02:51 PM
A couple of thoughts for the people "arguing."

i see a lot of arguing about the wintel platform being cheaper than the mac platform, this predicament is going to be around for a while. PC's are cheaper because they make more of them, the high the quantity the lower per unit cost...this is not quantum physics. This is why buying stuff at costco is cheaper than the grocery store.

The reason why most people don't switch to the Mac platform now is the "good enough" syndrome and its the same reason every isn't upgrading from win98 to XP or Server 2000 to 2003. ilife BLOWS the PC competition out of the water, XP is a much more stable os than 95/98/me but people can't really justify everything in their mind because their current setup is "good enough."

The battle nowadays is 50/50 between cost and familiarity, where as in the mid/early 90's it was HEAVILY based on cost because most people were making their first computer purchasing decisions and those people didn't know the difference. But now those people who bought a PC the first time around are familiar with that platform, so they will always lean towards that brand.

Jobs is RIGHT on with most of his statements.

wilco
Jan 26, 2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by ogminlo
No, he meant long in the horn. In reference to the code name for the next revision of Windows, Longhorn. You got the jist though, it was meant to be a play on long in the tooth.

I'm aware of Longhorn. I got the "play on".

"Long in the horn" doesn't make sense.

the_dalex
Jan 26, 2004, 02:58 PM
Wow, this has turned into an interesting thread.

Apple offers a good sub-$1000 machine in the eMac. I use one at work, and am typing on it now. It's 700Mhz, with 256MB of Ram and a 40GB hard drive, and is one of the first models released. It runs very well, but does slow down when I run Classic, Filemaker, Illustrator, and the Office programs all at once, but that's to be expected. I firmly believe this machine compares directly to your basic PC, but it is an all-in-one unit, making it easier to set up and with a smaller overall footprint. Does your basic PC have firewire standard?

You can now buy a 1Ghz G4 machine with a combodrive for $799 retail, toss in some cheap RAM and you have a nice system, very clean (no excess wires), nice-looking and easy to use, with a software bundle that blows away any PC offerings.

I personally believe that Apple has low-cost offerings comparable to the PC world, considering what you can do with it out of the box, and its ease-of-use. The problem isn't price, it's awareness and perception. Making the system $200 cheaper is really not going to increase sales volume to where the system is profitable. Dell is not making money by selling a desktop system cheap, they are buying marketshare. Apple doesn't buy marketshare, they prefer to earn it in a way that keeps the accountants and stockholders happy, while ensuring that there is still an Apple computer company in ten years.

Quit whining and go buy the PC, if price is your most important specification. Or, be fair and go complain to BMW that they don't sell a sub-$15,000 car like so many other companies.

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
So the starting price for PCs is $299 and the starting price for a Mac is $599. Where's the problem? You keep ignoring the fact that I openly advocated Apple keeping their price point above their competitors. But Apple isn't even close right now.

And if you don't believe me perhaps you will believe Apple CFO Fred Anderson:



http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040114/1914001478_3.html

Apple will be doing something about it. I think it's just a matter of when.

Yes!!! Finally he admits it!!
Not once did I say what Apple could, or should be doing at this time, but in fact what they actually ARE doing. And what they actually are doing, and have been doing was very much comparable to the likes of BMW. That is what you were arguing about, yet having lost the argument, you've changed the subject to what you feel Apple should be doing, when in fact you know damn well it's got nothing to do with the argument.
Let me quote your last couple of lines again:

Apple will be doing something about it. I think it's just a matter of when.

Thank you very much.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 03:01 PM
what people keep missing is out of new computers sold apple went from 3.5 to 3.2. we arent concerned about who where or why the fact of the matter is apples sales was this portion of the pie of all new machines sold. so though sales of all pc's went up 10% this year apples portion of this pie is getting smaller.
As DGfan pointed out Imac sales declined 29%. when apple counts Imac they are counting Imac/Emac together. another game trying to protect Imac. Instead of debating numbers we should be asking why are people buying less and less Imacs. I mean Imac/Emac. Apple needs to address this with a new consumer line and make up.

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 03:08 PM
you're forgetting something in your comparison of cars to computers:

A 2000 dollar iMac comes with an underpowered 3 year old graphics card, at "top of the line" hard drive from 1999, RAM from before that, and zero future potential.

A 500 dollar PC can easily DOUBLE all those numbers, mostly with the SAME components (same hard drives, same RAM, same graphics card), minus the monitor. I happen to have 2 extra monitors just sitting around waiting for something to do.

Apple doesn't need to work on their "perceived value" they need to work on their actual value. There is no reason why they couldn't ship with the amount of memory you actually need to run OS X. There's no reason why the Dual G5's 9600 pro would come with 1/2 the memory of the 120 dollar PC version of that card.

Where the analogy falls apart is when you compare the actual product. A Mercedes isn't just priced higher than a Kia Rio, it is a great deal more car. They still make a profit, but it isn't like they are taking an outdated machine—a Kia, or the G4, the RAM, the HDD, the mobo bus speeds—and slapping on a really great transmission (the shell, monitor, and OS X). No, they are making a no-compromises vehicle. The Mac is FULL of compromises.

You guys all talk about how apple innovates and the PCs follow. Why then did it take them so long to bring out SATA? Pixel Shading? DDR? USB 2.0? A FREAKING TWO BUTTON MOUSE?!?

I'm sorry, I just got really ticked when i got the dual 2.0 and it came with a POS keyboard and one button mouse. I had to go get a real set.

All i hear on this site is defense for apple's heavyhanded price-controlling and their love of the dollar. The consumer is supposed to be in charge!

Honestly, i get really sick of this elitist crap from them. Nobody else forces distributors to say within 5 dollars of MSRP. Nobody else waits until the day a product is "available" for sale before they announce it. Nobody else acts like they are God's gift to the computer world. I use these machines as part of my business. indeed, it relies on them. I don't care about apple wanting to build suspense over their next computer. i don't care what the next mp3 player is going to be or how much it is going to cost. I want to know right now what my options are going to be in 3 months when we have another purchase budgeted so that i can plan the production schedule accordingly. I can't sit on my butt and wait for apple to tell me things that they've known for 6 months and kept quiet just for "effect."

the community plays into their hands willingly. You wait on this site and on the apple website and think secret and all these places, just dying to see what's new, what's next, when they will bump the processor speed for the first time since LAST SUMMER. If their customers didn't take so much [self-edit] stuff from them, then they would stop dishing it out. They would be forced to treat their buyers with respect.

Can you imagine if you were a college, spending once-every-4 years funding on new graphics lab computers, and you figured out that you could get 30 G5 1.8 single processor computers and come 3rd party displays and still have enough money to buy a nice couple of scanners/printers for the lab, and you made your order for all of that stuff, and then apple "surprised" everyone with the dual 1.8s at the same price line? It's not supposed to be the lottery. it's business, and screwing your clients in the name of higher profits is BAD business.

junior
Jan 26, 2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by benpatient
you're forgetting something in your comparison of cars to computers:

A 2000 dollar iMac comes with an underpowered 3 year old graphics card, at "top of the line" hard drive from 1999, RAM from before that, and zero future potential.

A 500 dollar PC can easily DOUBLE all those numbers, mostly with the SAME components (same hard drives, same RAM, same graphics card), minus the monitor. I happen to have 2 extra monitors just sitting around waiting for something to do.

Apple doesn't need to work on their "perceived value" they need to work on their actual value. There is no reason why they couldn't ship with the amount of memory you actually need to run OS X. There's no reason why the Dual G5's 9600 pro would come with 1/2 the memory of the 120 dollar PC version of that card.

Where the analogy falls apart is when you compare the actual product. A Mercedes isn't just priced higher than a Kia Rio, it is a great deal more car. They still make a profit, but it isn't like they are taking an outdated machine—a Kia, or the G4, the RAM, the HDD, the mobo bus speeds—and slapping on a really great transmission (the shell, monitor, and OS X). No, they are making a no-compromises vehicle. The Mac is FULL of compromises.

You guys all talk about how apple innovates and the PCs follow. Why then did it take them so long to bring out SATA? Pixel Shading? DDR? USB 2.0? A FREAKING TWO BUTTON MOUSE?!?

I'm sorry, I just got really ticked when i got the dual 2.0 and it came with a POS keyboard and one button mouse. I had to go get a real set.

All i hear on this site is defense for apple's heavyhanded price-controlling and their love of the dollar. The consumer is supposed to be in charge!

Honestly, i get really sick of this elitist crap from them. Nobody else forces distributors to say within 5 dollars of MSRP. Nobody else waits until the day a product is "available" for sale before they announce it. Nobody else acts like they are God's gift to the computer world. I use these machines as part of my business. indeed, it relies on them. I don't care about apple wanting to build suspense over their next computer. i don't care what the next mp3 player is going to be or how much it is going to cost. I want to know right now what my options are going to be in 3 months when we have another purchase budgeted so that i can plan the production schedule accordingly. I can't sit on my butt and wait for apple to tell me things that they've known for 6 months and kept quiet just for "effect."

the community plays into their hands willingly. You wait on this site and on the apple website and think secret and all these places, just dying to see what's new, what's next, when they will bump the processor speed for the first time since LAST SUMMER. If their customers didn't take so much [self-edit] stuff from them, then they would stop dishing it out. They would be forced to treat their buyers with respect.

Can you imagine if you were a college, spending once-every-4 years funding on new graphics lab computers, and you figured out that you could get 30 G5 1.8 single processor computers and come 3rd party displays and still have enough money to buy a nice couple of scanners/printers for the lab, and you made your order for all of that stuff, and then apple "surprised" everyone with the dual 1.8s at the same price line? It's not supposed to be the lottery. it's business, and screwing your clients in the name of higher profits is BAD business.

Actually, since Daimler Chrysler basically took over Mercedes, they've been forced to really cut down on all sorts of costs to maximize profits, such as different components and little parts (even screws for eg), and since then, their quality has gone right down. They've actually been spending more money fixing cars sent back because of this than the money they'd saved on cost-cutting.
Anyway, point being that Mercedes ain't the company you make them out to be, and yes, they too are making lots of compromise, and over charging while they're at it. But it works.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 03:18 PM
benpatient is right and he forgot to mention a old and slow cpu. 1.25 G4:rolleyes: now we get to hear from those that say they dont need a fast cpu and yada yada yada.

takao
Jan 26, 2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by blueBomber
yeah, but does it run osX? :D

hm how _fast_ is the 939 $ emac running os x with its 128 mb ?

i am going to switch in 2005 because of os X but i don't think 128 mb are enough (im going for a ibook)

apple should add a headless machien between iMac and emac ... thats it ... i would buy 2 of them ...

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by junior
Yes!!! Finally he admits it!!
Not once did I say what Apple could, or should be doing at this time, but in fact what they actually ARE doing. And what they actually are doing, and have been doing was very much comparable to the likes of BMW. That is what you were arguing about, yet having lost the argument, you've changed the subject to what you feel Apple should be doing, when in fact you know damn well it's got nothing to do with the argument.
Let me quote your last couple of lines again:

Apple will be doing something about it. I think it's just a matter of when.

Thank you very much.

You seem so focused on "winning" the argument that you seem willing to distort or ignore things I have said at your pleasure. Whatever.

mhouse
Jan 26, 2004, 03:40 PM
Wherever you come down on this thread, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that Apple needs a headless 500 dollar machine (or something like it) in their line up.

A machine like this would appeal to cost-minded consumers as well as businesses. And I think Apple could still eke out a little profit from such a machine.

Apple gained market share when then the (original) iMac came out because (as many posters have pointed out) it was within shouting distance (price-wise) of similarly outfitted PCs.

Apple can easily say "we will charge 150 dollars more for our base machine than Dell does for theirs" and I think consumers and businesses would happily pay it for the difference in quality.

I believe the real issue here isn't that Macs are too expensive, its that the consumer desktops (specifically the iMac) have just gotten too far away from the least expensive PCs.

As I said, Apple can certainly charge a premium just not *as much* of one as they do now.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by junior
Actually, since Daimler Chrysler basically took over Mercedes, they've been forced to really cut down on all sorts of costs to maximize profits, such as different components and little parts (even screws for eg), and since then, their quality has gone right down. They've actually been spending more money fixing cars sent back because of this than the money they'd saved on cost-cutting.
Anyway, point being that Mercedes ain't the company you make them out to be, and yes, they too are making lots of compromise, and over charging while they're at it. But it works.

What? Daimler-Benz owned Mercedes (you know, Mercedes-Benz) for a long time so I am not sure what you meant on that.

Chrysler was the one that got taken over....

I can't tell you why Mercedes quality has gone down. Some of it has to do with the C-series (trying to come out with a Mercedes on the cheap). It's really kind of embarassing that Chrysler has now surpassed Mercedes in quality.

technocoy
Jan 26, 2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by ogminlo
No, he meant long in the horn. In reference to the code name for the next revision of Windows, Longhorn. You got the jist though, it was meant to be a play on long in the tooth.


I'm aware of Longhorn. I got the "play on".

"Long in the horn" doesn't make sense.

actually, not to be a jerk, but to knock down a little of the literary "snobbery", ogminlo's "long in the horn" does make sense. Growing up with a rodeo family and a professional bullrider for a little brother, i have heard "long in the horn many times in refering to bulls or steers that are meant for junior rodeos or non-sport existence (i.e. beef). this means they have to trim down the horn and file it smooth so that there is less danger of harming someone.

my point is don't be an elitest ass. we are all friends in this forum and to call someone out on something when you clearly knew what they meant just makes you look like a jerk. don't be an intellectual bully. I'm sure there are things that anyone could flex their "superiority muscles" at you about as well. noone likes to be made to feel stupid. don't be a jerk.

i thought it was humorous for what it was.


okay i'm sorry. i'll stop before i get on a real rant.

all im saying is just respect each other and treat each other as friends.

peace,
technocoy

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 04:00 PM
fine, then let's go with a real comparison and use Porsche as an example. No compromises, expensive, but when you buy one, you get what you expect.

Porsche is, after all, an actual independent company. Mercedes is not.

They have stuck to their guns since reviving their company a few years ago, and despite the "demand" for a cheaper car, they refuse to make a cheaper, more fun, less luxurious Boxster. They set their price brackets and they have stayed in them. The difference is that there isn't anything to compare between the Toyota spider and the Boxster. the spider tried to steal the styling and the basic form functionality of the mid-engine RWD sports convertible, but ask anybody who's driven both, and you'll find that the extra 15 K for the base boxster isn't lost on "image." Porsche delivers. The 911 makes ZERO compromises. A lot of porsche fanatics got upset about the Cayenne, but the truth is, it's already their best-selling vehicle because it thoroughly trounces everything else in the SUV category. The off-road capabilities are on par with an H2, but the Cayenne Turbo will run well under 6 second 0-60 and 14 seconds to a quarter mile on the way to 170mph. It weighs three tons and will take corners almost like the 959 did. It is the ultimate, and it's not even the most expensive.

The 911 is the ultimate. There are people who prefer ferrari styling, and those who prefer lambo styling, but the 911 has changed visually almost zero in 40 years. That's an amazing testament to what is, to me, the perfect vehicle. If Apple wants to be the Porsche of the computer world, they need to quit cutting corners on their 911s.

takao
Jan 26, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
What? Daimler-Benz owned Mercedes (you know, Mercedes-Benz) for a long time so I am not sure what you meant on that.

Chrysler was the one that got taken over....

I can't tell you why Mercedes quality has gone down. Some of it has to do with the C-series (trying to come out with a Mercedes on the cheap). It's really kind of embarassing that Chrysler has now surpassed Mercedes in quality.

yeah thx that somebody made that clear

daimler <-> chrysler was a FUSION not a take over
many new chrysler are using parts from mercedes and vis versa

and yeah you _can't_ compare mercedes/bmw with apple ... i don't think apple has so much marketshare in the US as mercedes has in germany ( >30% of all taxis are mercedes ) : 11,5 percent only beaten by volkswagen
BMW has >7 percent here ...

apple would be very pleased with those market shares in the US

Peej
Jan 26, 2004, 04:09 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
[B]Apple has lost market share EVERY YEAR since Jobs' return. Where does he get off preaching the gospel of lower margins and increased market share?


It seems to me that any business as big as Apple is kind of like a big ship, it takes a while to turn it around, especially when the rudder's broken and most of the crew has abandoned it.

In other thoughts, I'm glad Steve's speaking frankly, it's refreshing. In my own experience, I'm seeing a lot of people buy Macs for the first time and loving them. In time, the share will increase but I'm hoping not so much that I have to start worrying about email viruses and crappy third-party software.

peej

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by benpatient
Porsche is, after all, an actual independent company. Mercedes is not.


Actually Porsche is a division of Volkswagon. It always has been. I was surprised to learn this a year ago!

A car company can survive with tiny marketshare though. A computer platform needs the support of developers. Right now there is enough going on in the Mac space to make it profitable for developers. And I really don't see that changing. But it does show a limitation of the car analogy.

Originally posted by takao

daimler <-> chrysler was a FUSION not a take over
many new chrysler are using parts from mercedes and vis versa


I don't know about the vice-versa. Any examples?

And, really, it was a takeover. A stealth takeover but nonetheless a takeover. There is some litigation pending on that very subject right now :)

blueBomber
Jan 26, 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by takao
hm how _fast_ is the 939 $ emac running os x with its 128 mb ?

i am going to switch in 2005 because of os X but i don't think 128 mb are enough (im going for a ibook)

apple should add a headless machien between iMac and emac ... thats it ... i would buy 2 of them ...

umm... and exactly how fast do you think a budget pc with 128 megs of ram is in windows xp? It's sluggish and unresponsive, IF you exceed the 128 megs intended purpose. Example, I have a 1.2 ghz Celeron with 128 megs of ram with a copy of Windows XP on it. Now, I can open IE, surf the internet, close that, open Works, write a text document, all at a VERY usable pace. The same can be said for the emac. The market that the emac is intended for is a BASIC user (rarely having more than 2 programs open at once). The option for adding more memory exists if that user so desires to improve performance as their demands increase. Also, your forgeting the overall idea behind the Mac; out of the box and running in less than 10 minutes. The imac and emac are true to this spirit; an all in one design, that allows users an integrated and stable, and dare I say fun, experience. The powermac is the machine that is intended for users that demand performance. The people that will actually USE the power a G5 has to offer. If you truly want to be a mac gamer, you need to buy the best hardware to keep up. It is the same way as the pc world; how many hardcore gamers keep the same system configuration for more than 6 months? Not many.

All in all, if you really aren't satisfied with the performance of the emac/imac, then do not buy one. It obviously isn't intended for you. Perhaps the Powermac would better suit your needs.

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 05:15 PM
actually, Porsche is and has always been its own company. It's 100% independent, but shares a close working relationship with the VW corps.

It is NOT a VW company.

VW Brands and their relationship to Porsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#Relationship_with_Porsche)

:)

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 05:34 PM
If you truly want to be a mac gamer, you need to buy the best hardware to keep up. It is the same way as the pc world; how many hardcore gamers keep the same system configuration for more than 6 months? Not many.

it's been that long since Apple updated their fastest products.

The problem is that there are so many things that change QUICKLY in the gaming world. One day, a 9600 is plenty, and 2 months later, you might need a 9800 XT or something, just to get games to play at your LCD's native resolution with most of the features turned on. There are how many options for mac gamers? almost zero.

I could look right now at pricewatch.com and pull up 20 different versions of the 9600 and 30 different versions of the 9800 that all have different features and target markets. There are those with overclocked cores built in, those with passive cooling for silent operation, those with huge gaming bundles, those with dual DVI out, those with TV cards built in, those that have less ram, those with double the standard ram, and they all come in at a variety of price points. Serious gamers often want multiple hard drives and multiple optical drives. The G5 case seriously deters this.

You have to understand that, as a serious gamer, I do spend a lot of money on gaming stuff, but i spend it in small chunks. The only viable "gaming" upgrade I could buy aftermarket for a G5 is the 9800 Mac SE, and it's 500 dollars. that's how much my whole computer cost before the graphics card.

I spent 700 and got a 9600 Pro 128, 2x120GB SATA drives, a 500 watt powersupply in a slick annodized black aluminum case (with some custom lighting effects that aren't even tacky), a MOBO with 7.1 surround, digital audio input, 6 UBS 2.0 ports, 3 FW 400 ports, overclocking protection, 6 ultra-quiet fans, 2x512 MB Geil Golden Dragon PC 3200 RAM, and an Athlon XP 2500+ overclocked safely and without any "tinkering" to just short of XP 3200+ speeds. For 700 dollars.

I've since added another stick of golden dragon and a wireless MX kb/mouse combo. I'm considering upgrading to the 9800 XT whenever the next card is released, depending on what the benchmarks show me.

The fact of the matter is, I have a KILLER gaming rig that runs evverything I throw at it full speed for well under the entry point on an iMac. I've tried some photoshop filters on huge files, and thanks in part to the RAID 0, it performs just slightly behind my dual 2.0 G5 in practical everyday editing of a 100-200mb layered image.

I have no doubts that you could force a Mac to play some games, and that you could have fun doing so, but until the hardware market opens up for them, I'm sorry, progress will always be slower and more careful.

I must say, though, that i find it ironic that IBM has for all intents and purposes saved the macintosh.

Sorry for the ranting. I just want to be able to pop the hood on my 3000 dollar G5 and make it run Halo to a comparable level that my 700 dollar XP2500+ does.

Swift
Jan 26, 2004, 05:50 PM
Sigh. Why is it that the comparison is made anymore about games? Games are optimized for the PC, and for DirectX 9, not Open GL. They will never run as fast with any Mac, because the programmers do not optimize their code for us. There's not much Mac could do except give us iGame, a shell that could emulate DirectX, but that's pretty much impossible. So, if it's a game machine you want, buy an Xbox.

jettredmont
Jan 26, 2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Wendy_Rebecca
From http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2004/tc20040126_9608_tc055.htm :

"According to Gartner's preliminary market-share data, Apple held just 1.8% of the worldwide PC market in the fourth quarter of 2003. And some think Apple's share will fall further, if it can't keep pace with surging overall PC demand. Salomon Smith Barney analyst Rich Gardner expects Apple to post PC unit growth of 6% in 2004 this year, vs. 11% for the entire PC industry. One reason is price. Gardner says the average price of a Mac is $900, although half of PC buyers now spend less than $600."


Those are some odd and surprising numbers.

First, how many eMacs have to sell to get the average price of Macs down to $900? Even factorring in educational discounts (10-15% max), that seems really low.

Second, though, how may $399 eMachines have to be sold to get the average price of the PC down below $600? I've seen sub-$600 PCs, and they're absolute crap! That's the majority of the market?

Very odd numbers. Something's got to be wrong with them. If it isn't, I'm going to have to re-evaluate my assessment of the resilience of the human spirit. Surely the US population is rife for a violent upheaval after a year of subjugation and torture with $600 PCs ...

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 05:52 PM
i would look at it this way, the G5 is running a G4 OS, which again is running a G4 Game so in other words there isnt any software yet that knows how to make full use of that G5. that G5 isnt being used to its fullest yet. After we get a 64 bit OS and stuff written for G5 it is going to blow everything away.;)

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 05:58 PM
except that if you know what you're doing, you can get your hands on WinXP-64 already, and if you have an FX chip, or so I'm told, UT 2003 with the 64 bit code path BLAZES no matter how many bots you put in it.

Apple's time frame for a true 64 bit OS is at least a year away. By that time it's likely that the Athlon 64 and FX will have higher % of the marketshare than all Macs combined...

Photorun
Jan 26, 2004, 05:59 PM
Wow, this has devolutionized into the Microsoft Apologists and the cry baby "Apple didn't give me a $1.98 G6 Powerbook and a pony" thread. Some of you should find a "I hate Apple" peecee forum to go do your cryin' in as you clearly don't belong here.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by benpatient
actually, Porsche is and has always been its own company. It's 100% independent, but shares a close working relationship with the VW corps.

It is NOT a VW company.

VW Brands and their relationship to Porsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#Relationship_with_Porsche)

:)

My apologies. I was told this by a coworker who has owned something like 4 or 5 Porsches. I'll have to send him that link :)

blueBomber
Jan 26, 2004, 06:02 PM
in response to benpatient,

I totally understand where you're coming from. I also built a top end gaming machine for FAR less than my fastest mac. My 3200xp screams through everything faster than my g4. But, I enjoy the mac os, alot. So I guess it kind of comes down to the fact that macs should not be the optimum choice for gamers. Your setting yourself up for serious dissapointment if you do. Play games on your pc, live your life on your mac. That's the way I look at it.

DGFan
Jan 26, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Those are some odd and surprising numbers.

First, how many eMacs have to sell to get the average price of Macs down to $900? Even factorring in educational discounts (10-15% max), that seems really low.

Second, though, how may $399 eMachines have to be sold to get the average price of the PC down below $600? I've seen sub-$600 PCs, and they're absolute crap! That's the majority of the market?

Very odd numbers. Something's got to be wrong with them. If it isn't, I'm going to have to re-evaluate my assessment of the resilience of the human spirit. Surely the US population is rife for a violent upheaval after a year of subjugation and torture with $600 PCs ...

According to the latest quarter's numbers Apple sold 829,000 computers for revenue of $1,269,000,000.

That gives us $1530.76 per computer. Gartner is way, way off.

But they didn't say the average price of a PC was < $600. They said that half of PCs cost less than that. Considering the junk they keep putting on my desk at work it's not surprising.

benpatient
Jan 26, 2004, 06:34 PM
DG Fan, no prob. sorry for the unintentional brush of hostility. Porsche is like the one company i get defensive about. In any market.

Wonderful machines.

Anyway,
Some of you should find a "I hate Apple" peecee forum to go do your cryin' in as you clearly don't belong here.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that there are no apple-hating PC forums on the internet, because the PC world is 90% oblivious to the mac world, and to be flat-out honest, the only people who give a crap about Macs are those of us on forums like these. There may be an occasional PC thread making fun of the iMac or something, but by-and-large, windows users really are happy with their machines, and they get excited about the new version of MS word, or the new version of windows, or a new graphics card, or the new Pentium, just the same way that we get excited about the next wild animal OS from mac.

I'm itching at the ears for OS X Puma.
Actually, has there been any sort of betting going on as to what animal skin 10.4 will be coated in? I'm thinking Cougar.

I use both PCs and Macs every single day, and I honestly wish that I could run OS X on my PC...that would solve all of my problems.

SiliconAddict
Jan 26, 2004, 06:45 PM
nd then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."

*Puts on his Reality Distortion Field proof suite* Ahhh better. Hmmm then again I’m probably going to be baked into the wall with the flamage so *Puts on his flame retardant suite*

Jobs speaks as if Microsoft isn't a monopoly, doesn't own greater then 90% of the computing market, and is on the ropes. If you fly past the FUD you will see just the opposite. In fact we aren't exactly seeing the masses flock to OS X is droves now are we? (Admittedly Apple has a major opportunity to catch some market share in the next 3-4 years where MS will have a dry spell when it comes to Windows releases.) And for those who say market share doesn’t matter I would kindly suggest that you take a look a some of the apps that have been dropped in the last year and are now being exclusively developed for Windows. Market share makes a customer feel that a long term investment in something isn’t going to pull a dodo on them. Market shares makes developers sit up and take notice of a platform.
Someone please show me some actual figures that clearly demonstrate that Apple's market share is improving and not slipping further into the hole. I’ve read that the G5’s are being eaten up but I question by whom. New Mac users or existing ones? Anyone? As the article plainly stated detractors have been predicting the death of Apple for years. But this death hasn’t happened. Why? Because of the few, the proud, the loyal Mac users. But even rabidly loyal Mac users can only keep a company going so long. In the long run Apple may be suffering from a slow, 20 year long, death. IMHO, Apple NEEDS to start attracting fresh blood in mass. Otherwise I believe MS Longhorn could be a major blow to Apple. Here me out before you rant on me.

Some threads I’ve read on Macrumors people have noticed there are more then a few PC users that “put up” with the crashes, the instability of 9x, the sometimes PITA “experience” of Windows. Why? Because it’s “good enough”. Now imagine if Microsoft comes out with not only a secure platform (Do a Google search of Win XP Service Pack 2 and see what they are adding to “secure the parameter” of Windows. It’s a taste of Longhorn.) but a robust backward compatible and graphically rich GUI. (I still believe that Apple will always have a better GUI but it falls back to the good enough excuse.) Users struggled through the 9x and, god help them, ME days. What happens when Windows moves from “good enough” to a “its not too bad” stage? The appeal of the Mac could seriously fade. That is why I believe that in the next 3-4 years it is critical for Apple to catch at least 5-10% market share. Even with the introduction of Longhorn there are going to be some bumpy times ahead for Windows (No massive OS revamp ever goes off without a hitch, something I’m sure converts of OS 9 to OS 10.0 can attest to.) which could even further boaster Apple’s market share. But that is for the short run. I think long term Longhorn is going to be huge for Microsoft. Granted there is always the possibility of them majorly fumbling but the more I see of Longhorn and the more prereleases they are planning (A beta is due out this Summer.) the more I’m convinced they are getting this right.
So where does this leave Apple? Right now it leaves them with an opportunity but that opportunity has an expiration date. But I firmly believe several things need to happen VERY soon at Apple.
1. Cleanup of customer service. I can’t begin to count the posts I’ve read here, on apple.com/support, and on livejournal which deal with crappy customer support. I’ve seen too many people complaining about Apple customer service for it to be a random occurrence. Customer service is the face of Apple. Its one of the first things a person encounters when they consider a purchase and are in the depths of despair when they have problems. It’s critical that Apple staff their support with people who aren’t complete ***holes. People that try and skirt around known issues with hardware. (iBook system boards anyone?) Some of you may have read my question on *book quality in the General Apple and Tech Discussion forum. The person there who has an iBook has sworn off Apple. Not because of the numerous problems that he’s had but because of the piss poor customer service he’s received and he’s been a Mac user for I’m thinking he told me 16 years. Apple can not be know as the company with crap support if they want to attract more people. Period.
2. Quality. Bad system boards in iBooks, bad monitors in 15” PowerBooks, replaced or repaired hardware that just failed again, software updates that crash people’s systems, patches that do the same, fresh OS rollouts that lose people’s data, the occasional lawsuit. I don’t know what is going on in Apple but this does not sound like the quality moniker that Apple is always being held to. Maybe it’s just me but this smells like things being rushed and if that is the case I have to question why. Also time and again I hear the same thing over and over. Stay away from rev A products. This is not a good sign when you have to shy away from a product until version 2 comes out. Again IMHO Apple needs to work on their quality control both in their hardware and their software.
3.Activly seek out popular software developers from Windows to sport their wares onto the Mac. Games are a good example. I’d ditch my Dell tomorrow if it weren’t for the fact that I’m addicted to more then a few games that aren’t on the Mac. If Apple can get the RIAA to open up they sure as heck can get a software developer to push their wares onto the G5. Finally Apple has a platform that can do justice to a game. Lets see some of that hardware do its thang.
4.More switch like advertising campaigns. NOW. Do not wait. With the rampant virus outbreaks on Windows 2K, and XP this is a prime time to get people to consider the Mac. They can’t sit around on this opportunity.
5. This is more of a wish list item more then anything but I would kill to see a low scale G5 (Scaled down 1Ghz G5 anyone?) in an all in one iMac that comes with 384MB of RAM, CD burner, and a 30GB hard drive that runs for $599. Such a beast would set the world ablaze and would fly off the shelves faster the Apple could produce them. I’d wager that Apple would capture 2-3% of the market within a year. People want Macs. I know. I’ve sent more then a few people into the Mac store at the Mall of America. All come back with the same answer. It’s too expensive. And sorry guys but the eMac is a dud when compared to a similarly priced $800 PC. Style is not enough. Style coupled with competitivly good performance slapped with a price that goes head to head with a low ranged PC is doable if Apple had the gumption.

*shrugs* That’s just my outlook on the current situation. You mileage will vary. *dives into the bunker and waits for the explosion*

rdowns
Jan 26, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by sigamy
I love Steve but he's poking fun at "sales guys"? What exactly does he consider himself? An engineer? A designer?

Nobody works til the sales guy sells.

rdowns
Jan 26, 2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by junior
http://www.compusa.com/locations/default.asp

http://www.guitarcenter.com/locations/

Check the links out. Seems to be in more areas than you may imagine.;)

Guitar Center (never heard of them either) can be in hundreds of locations but who, other than musicians, are going there to buy a computer?

MorganX
Jan 26, 2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Instead of debating numbers we should be asking why are people buying less and less Imacs. I mean Imac/Emac.

Well, I bought a 17" fully loaded. Being a PC user, it just wasn't fast enough. It did some things well enough, but far from everything. For the price, that just didn't cut it. That's basically it.

A 20" LCD is nice, but you better pop in a G5 and at least an ATI mobility 9600. With no upgrade options, sales are going to continue dropping until they put in best of class performance IMO.

rdowns
Jan 26, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
You do realize that they are opening up Apple stores in some places, right? And that they are trying out a program in some Best Buy stores (before deciding whether to expand it), right?

Apple Stores are great but there are only 74 of them. To reach the masses, Apple will need to at least triple that number which would probably kill their profitability.

I don't have any hard numbers but I'd bet that much of America buys PCs at Best Buy, Circuit City and the other large national and regional electronics stores. No Apple products there, no consumer is going to buy them.

If you want consumer market share, you need shelf space. That's pretty much retailing 101. Switchers don't buy from web sites, they want to tough and try out a Mac before comitting.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 07:37 PM
Thank you rdowns, for some reason we have a lot of people that ignore that. and MorganX has hit the nail on the head. You cant have best of class price with worst of class performance. Mac Zealots you may continue.

blueBomber
Jan 26, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thank you rdowns, for some reason we have a lot of people that ignore that. and MorganX has hit the nail on the head. You cant have best of class price with worst of class performance. Mac Zealots you may continue.

Just to let you know, alot of these so called "mac zealots" rely on macs for their profession. Myself included. In my line of work, Windows users are the outsiders. And I do not consider the Macintosh line to have worst of class performance. At least all of Apple's computers come with at least half-competent graphic cards. Alot of pcs have integrated intel extreme chips that can't even match the most entry level video card.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 08:14 PM
I use my mac for work but if Apple is screwing up ill say so. Apple is and has been screwing up the consumer line for awhile and i dont mind telling you that just as they are screwing up by not having product in consumer stores across the U.S. if the shoe fits.

rdowns
Jan 26, 2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thank you rdowns, for some reason we have a lot of people that ignore that. and MorganX has hit the nail on the head. You cant have best of class price with worst of class performance. Mac Zealots you may continue.

My Mac "zealot" credential are as good as anyone's. User since the SE and a big evangelist even though my sermons are poorly attended. Worked for a large NYC/Long Island reseller for almost 8 years and sold thousands of Macs. (Having some really big Mac accounts didn't hurt- Avis, Barnes & Noble, Canon USA to name a few but pushed them into companies of all sizes) Hey, Apple recognized me for my efforts with 2 trips. Not so much a zealot that I can't see Apple's flaws.

Despite all that, I can see the emporer is almost naked. Someone posted Apple's mission statement here recently (also used in all Apple press releases) and they are failing it big time. They are just not making PCs that people want, G5 excepted although there are/were bastardized models (how Apple).

As a user, I am disappointed with their efforts of late. As a shareholder (about 1,200 shares) I am also disappointed. I feel they have taken the consumer market for granted since the original iMac. I'd love a modern iMac (even willing to pay for a beautiful LCD that I can't use on my next Mac) but the poor excuse they try to foist on me today is pitiful (slow system bus, slow RAM, outdated processor, ***** graphics card, only 2 USB ports). I can afford a G5 but it is too big a beast for me. Not crazy about its looks either.

I want what I know a lot of consumers (prosumers as some here like to call them) want and it's a headless/small tower/whatever with a G5, upgradable video card, lots of USB ports, 512MB RAM with a free slot. I'm not asking for a $500 box (not that Apple couldn't use one of those too) but one that is relatively state of the art with soem room to grow. Why won't Apple do this? Must they sell a monitor with every system. Hell, I'd probably buy an Apple one anyway.

And please Apple, expand your distribution. There are people who want to buy your products who don't live within an hour of an Apple Store or CompUSA. Maybe of more people could actually see and feel them, some of the ubiquitous falsehoods of Apple and Macs would die.

Whew, rant off.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 26, 2004, 08:38 PM
rdowns i couldnt have said it better, I have used macs for years but the business model they are using is flawed when you look at what should be the biggest segment. The consumer line. they should be selling 10 times as many of these machines as the so called pro line but they are not. they are doing something wrong. marketshare and number of sales has proven this. its not even up for debate its a fact. Apple has to correct this and shareholders know it. Ill stop the rant like you but at least we see the problem. does Apple?

Supa_Fly
Jan 26, 2004, 08:59 PM
Ok regarding Apple into the future I don't think its lack of innovation or how much innovation is needed. Case in point, iMac versions 1&2, eMac, PowerMac G5, OS X (even though most die hard Mac users hated it and didn't like change, eventually are now loving it), iPod all versions, XServe a whole new category (yes its been tride before but not with this much gusto), XServe Raid, unlimited user licensing! (more on this later), iSight, PowerBooks, iTunes Music Store, iLife 04......just to name a few. Thus far I think Mr. Jobs & Apple are doing fine in innovation along with research & development.

MarketShare....although I do have some thoughts as to what that is can something clearly define it please, and define it with how its used ONLY in the broad computer market, not just Apple and with current specs PLEASE to help us nobodies.

Now if installed user base is going to increase....I think a few minor things will need & WILL change first. (A) new line of consumer desktops. (B) considerable revision to consumer laptops, (C) Major revision to prosumer laptops, and (D) client/consumer perseption of what an APPLE can do.

Majorly in 2004-2005 though, as someone already mentioned is the adoption rate of Linux. Linux is taking huge in Corporations adoption because of the licensing fees and force upgrades that weren't necessary of Microsoft. Yes indeed IBM is helping along with a huge new crop of Desktop clones and corporations of RedHat and Novell's new acquired intellectual OS. However, Apple does have a plan, "UNLIMITED USER LICENSING" along with "24/7" direct help representatives.

A serious paradime shift is also needed to happen. Consumers got to stop thinking computers are mostly for games/music juke boxes. Apple has helped with the iLife software but they really need to push it further out there (Television, SuperBowl, etc) get it out to the masses more. Just like they do when a major Mr. Jobs keynote is emmininet, you can see ads everywhere for 6 blocks plus around the keynote site. Do this more on a monthly basis and do this around high-schools, colleges/universities. Furthermore, push the unlimited licensing of your OS X Server with XServe & XServe RAID machines along with the feature set (dynamic synchronization, Rendezvous!!, Distributed builds) of OS X in PowerMacs & Laptops. DO the same ad campaigne as is always done at the keynotes once a month, but do it in walking distance of Universities (the top notch ones like Berkeley, Harvard, Miami, Virginia hehe well they already know the deal!) and around corporate America. I want to see ads explaining the major differences (accurately) between UNIX and Linux (why 2/3 of the net is on UNIX NOT Linux and for so long). I want to see ads of XServes and XServe RAIDs around SAP's, Adobe's, Cingular Wireless', and Aspyr's headquarters stomping grounds, and I want to see it near Wall street.

Hit em hard Apple, and create that paradigm where corporations & users alike can see servers run by Apple computers, can see client systems interacting with those servers running the same software without considerable cost of employees and development time to tweak them like I picture with Linux (RedHat servers with YellowDog client boxes). Show them the power of Rendezvous in regards to an intranet and the power of OS X's UNIX underpinnings with distributed builds handling computational power while still efficiently running MS Word.

Stop using slogans like "its the MS Office for the rest of your life". Please make a headless Mac for corporations at a cheap price to go along with your XServes in an environment where distributed builds help these clients do their work (picture 4 thousand clients linked to 500 Xserves and 1000 RAIDs) to make it cost effective for corporations to eat these up. Hire more staff for corporate on-site support. Hold more online training for those of us switchers to handle ourselves in a windows/linux world.

Thrawt of Linux and send the penguin north!@!;)

humantech
Jan 26, 2004, 09:35 PM
There are some extremely good points being made-
Let me add my thoughts-
First a bit of background
1) I am an Apple specialist reseller
2) I am a paid mac consultant
3) I too have been playing with macs since they were apples :-)
4) I Work ON and WITH macs every day ( as well as quite a few pc's in some of my cross platform offices)

Heres my perception.....Apples strategy is working. They are spending wisely, staying lean and growing their market. The market share #'s that get posted are WRONG.I have seen sales grow by over 100% year over year for the last three years running. I am Seeing pc switchers in droves and mac users who left returning. Their consumer models have what most consumers want. Simplicity. Respectable performace. Cool looks. Reasonable price. Only sold where they can be serviced, supported and staffed properly. The mindshare switch has already begun. No foolin gang. The old paradigm has left the building- its just taking awhile for the changes to become apparent enough for a lot of people to see-
I'm not alone- I belong to a nationwide consulting network and its happening everywhere. The growth is ALL over and accelerating. Its just a matter of time before people start to take notice-
I think the group here is Skewed when they talk of consumer lines and what they offer- most users here are seasoned computer users- We understand unix. Fonts. FPS in games and video. etc....
Face it folks- the VAST majority of the public doesnt care about this. They want computers to be more like consumer electronics. Thats where Apples going. The high tech underpinnings of the OS are much less important to most clients (yep- even the pros other than tech wannabes) than getting the work done quickly, efficiently and with some style and a feeling that they are using a quality product. As for the IT geeks who help make buying decisions, they are ALREADY in the know of a lot of Apples new tech and the word is already spreading- I have local colleges wanting me to train their IT staff so they can start migrating major systems to os x- large corporate clients also - again- I'm not alone....
Apple is repsonsible to three parties. Their customers, Their employees and their stockholders- They seem fairly balanced at this point amopngst the three. I think you'll see things get VERY interesting about mid-year when the ipod market begins to blow up ( that market is still in its infancy and will have apple logos in all the places they arent now. dont worry- there are good things getting ready to happen on the growth front)
As always, a pleasure and my 2 cents-

SurgeDude
Jan 26, 2004, 09:44 PM
Some of the people talking about Microsoft and their "innovations" have become quite used to using the Xbox as an example. Well I beg to differ that the Xbox is a sign of MS innovation. On the contrary the Xbox is singlehandedly destroying the console market and I would venture to say helping to gut a the soul from consoles in general. Obviously these are strong statements but I don't feel they are unfounded. First off MS has (reportedly) attempted for years to coax both Sega (Dreamcast years) and Nintendo (currently) into either a complete buyout or atleast a mutual console. This as anybody with half a wit or more knows is common of MS. Second as well all know the Xbox is basically just a crappy PC built with commondity parts. Another thing is that MS is just unloading them becouse they can afford to take MASSIVE losses. Why? Becouse they know by killing everybody else they can pull a screwy deal like the Windows licencing scheme and consumers will be forced. As for the character of the Xbox, it is souless. Its few good exclusives are mostly from purchised companies (IE Bungie and Rare in the future). But as a whole Xclusives are rare for the Xbox (bad pun) and those that are released are often not great. Xbox has no established Mascot like Nintendo or Sega (past tence). Though I could also rant about Sony. The only good news to report perhaps is that the Xbox has hardly been a success, with sales even surpassed by the GameCube. The problem is that real companies that care like Nintendo and Sega (past tence) are being push out of the game. Giving MS yet another market to dominate is a bad idea for all of us. Not to mention that at the moment Xbox is often not the best choice for casual gamers.

Sabenth
Jan 26, 2004, 11:34 PM
xbox ?? market share? windows? apple? ---

Macantosh should have been a games console if i am not mistaken...

Apple beat MS to it again lmao..


More serious though Apples Market share or been seen share is a bit limited. Ok i live in Melbourne australia i do see a fair bit of apple stuff within Melbourne CBD (CITY BUISSINES DISTRICT) But i dont live there and were i do live. You dont see apple plain and simple. very fiew adverts tv or print... Nope got to say it apple australia just dosnt seem to exsist...

Also people keep going on about apples market share going down some say the following.

1.88percent others say 3.44percent which one is it.. anyone .. all that i know is i like the products and deffently the OS as in Panther..:D:D

takao
Jan 27, 2004, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by humantech

I'm not alone- I belong to a nationwide consulting network and its happening everywhere. The growth is ALL over and accelerating. Its just a matter of time before people start to take notice-


The growth is ALL over and accelerating.
^^
insert "america" here.

the people which are buying apple here are either musicians (DJs),professional graphic users or *gasp* students studying computer science .... sounds funny but those are 95% of all apple buyers..
even my sister said (for her a iBook would have been perfect) that "she would never buy a mac"...everytime i give somebody the advice to get a mac i hear exactly that sentence ...from people who have no idea about computers (if somethings goes wrong im ending up fixing those computers) ....for them "apple users are elitist snobs" ... apple has image problem here with the consumers the would like to attract

some of you called me "whiny" before ... take a look outside of your "big america" (there are more people living in europe than in the US) and you will see apple messing up with their customers (not talking about switchers ... there are none)

...i hope apple is still in business the end of the year when i planned to buy my first mac....

MacQuest
Jan 27, 2004, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
...Jobs speaks as if Microsoft isn't a monopoly...

What the FRICK are you talking about?!!! I hope this was a typo because that is exactly what Jobs is calling MS.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
In fact we aren't exactly seeing the masses flock to OS X is droves now are we?

Hold on, let me do the math.

2-5 individual customers a day, or 5-10 businesses a month [averaging 5-10 workstations and not including xServe/xRaid units sold that are replacing Windows NT 4.0 & 2000 servers]
x 5 days a week
x 1.5 years [and steadily increasing]
...well, why don't you do the math? If, of course, your calculator app doesn't crash your Windows OS.

Remember, these are only the numbers I've seen. Do you really think that I'm the only person seeing this? .

There's a momentum, a synergy, that is being developed here but that won't be witnessed for awhile yet... but it's there. Of course, you can choose not to believe me, that's your choice. You only have my word to go on and unfortunately only time will tell. At which time I'll tell you all that I told you so.

[i]Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Someone please show me some actual figures that clearly demonstrate that Apple's market share is improving and not slipping further into the hole.

The key to winning a war is the element of surprise. I'm sorry that you are not privy to the real world information that I am given and personally witnessing. Damn NDA's...

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I’ve read that the G5’s are being eaten up but I question by whom. New Mac users or existing ones?

What did Virginia Tech use before they installed their 1,100 node G5 cluster? I don't think they were G4's. Do you think that it might appeal to a few companies out there that it only cost them $5.2 million to build the world's third fastest supercomputer in under a month? I think that there are a lot of companies that could use a lot less than 1,100 computers and would be happy to be running a much more stable, reliable, cross platform compatible OS than Windows, even if it's Linux. Unlike Linux however, Mac OS X provides a well rounded solution for servers as well as end user workstations.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
IMHO, Apple NEEDS to start attracting fresh blood in mass.

Agreed. I sure hope this "starts" happening sometime soon ...;)

In response to your comments about Longhorn, I agree with a lot of it. Keep in mind however that Jaguar made a HUGE part of existing Mac users upgrade to OS X and made a large number of Windows users switch. Panther is carrying on that tradition nicely.

I'll only say one thing though, and this is the number one reason that users [individual or business] switch:

APPLE MAINTAINS QUALITY CONTROL BETWEEN THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF YOUR COMPUTER; THE HARDWARE AND THE OPERATING SYSTEM.

QUALITY CONTROL = RELIABILTY = PRODUCTIVITY.

My point being that you spend more time being productive on a Mac rather than fixing the inherent problems that arise from running a GENERIC OS like Windows on any given hardware manufacturers' product. People are realizing that it doesn't really matter whether you have a Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony, Toshiba, or Frankensteined PC.

You are only as strong as your weakest link, and the weak link is Windows, NOT the hardware.

SEAMLESS INTEGRATION BETWEEN SOFTWARE TITLES THEMSELVES [ex. iLife, FCP, etc.], AS WELL AS THE OS THAT THEY RUN ON, AND ULTIMATELY THE HARDWARE THAT THE OS AND THOSE SAME PROGRAMS UTILIZE IS WHY MACS ARE KNOWN FOR "EASE OF USE" AND "RELIABILTY".

MacQuest
Jan 27, 2004, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
1. Cleanup of customer service...

I agree that there have been a lot of complaints about this, but no more than I have had personally with my encounters with Dell and Gateway as a Windows network administrator for Xerox. Luckily, Consumer Reports' findings has shown this to be untrue for the past couple of years with Apple being a DISTANT first place over Dell, which are the majority of switchers I encounter [especially in the business sector].


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
2. Quality. Bad system boards in iBooks, bad monitors in 15” PowerBooks...

Yeah, I'll agree that there have been a few isolated incidents. I have a new 15" PB with white spots right now. I'll call Apple and probably get it back in the reported 2-3 day timeframe that everyone is reporting. Oh well...


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
...replaced or repaired hardware that just failed again, software updates that crash people’s systems, patches that do the same, fresh OS rollouts that lose people’s data, the occasional lawsuit.

I'm confused. When did we start describing perpetual Windows problems? Oh wait, "occasional lawsuit" as opposed to "neverending, mass amounts" that the criminally indicted Monopolysoft encounters. My bad, we are still talking about Apple.... .

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
[B]Also time and again I hear the same thing over and over. Stay away from rev A products. This is not a good sign when you have to shy away from a product until version 2 comes out.

I don't know how knew you are to computers, but during my 14 years of professional experience on both platforms, this has always been the "rule", even with software. Until this 15" PB issue that I'm encountering, Apple products have always worked regardless of rev. or version number. It's nice to know however that at least you can rely on Apple to work out it's bugs by the 2nd rev. as opposed to the continual DOA's and malfunctioning units from the Wintel world that make there way through the entire lifespan of a product line. Remember, Wintel is a tech's best friend.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
[B]3.Activly seek out popular software developers from Windows to sport their wares onto the Mac. Games are a good example.

Are you kidding me?!!! Have you been to Aspyrs' or InsideMacGames' website lately? Have you not noticed that A-list titles are getting released in a timely, if not simultaneous, manner. I can hardly wait for UT2004 Mac to come out at the same time as the Windows version, or that really nice looking "Abducted" to do the same. Battlefild 1942, Call of Duty, C&C: Generals, and the list goes on.

Which brings me to an interesting point. I think I've got a pretty good idea of your age now, or demographic, which is why I've always told people that if they don't expect their computer to be anything more than an overpriced gaming console or a glorified typewriter, and they place no emphasis on quality or reliability, then by all means get a Windows computer.

Fact is, that a big reason that existing Mac users who have always relied on their computers to be primarily productivity tools are starting to see these formerly Windows only titles, ranging from games all the way up to corporate and enterprise solutions, is because of one thing. Say it with me:

SWITCHERS!!!

That's right. Individuals are realizing that even though they have graduated to a Mac because they require quality, reliabilty, ease of use and productivity at a higher level such as iLife, they still want to be able to do the few things that their Wintels are good for, like playing games.

THANKS SWITCHERS!!! :D

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
[B] Lets see some of that hardware do its thang.

Agreed. If a personal computer like the dual 2Ghz G5 spanks a maxed out, server class dual 3.2 Xeon, can you imagine what kind of damage our Dual 3Ghz G5 will do in the next few months? Oh joy!!!

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
4.More switch like advertising campaigns. NOW. Do not wait. With the rampant virus outbreaks on Windows 2K, and XP this is a prime time to get people to consider the Mac. They can’t sit around on this opportunity.

Agreed. The silence is killing me too, but the best, and cheapest form of advertising is doing it's job very well at the moment; word of mouth. I'm torn between Apple being all flashy and "shoving it" in Windows' users faces, or if they should continue to invest their money into R&D and continue to release innovative, ground breaking, industry leading products.

Personally, I like the idea of Apple's partnership with Pepsi and HP. I know that those companies will advertise and Apple will get some exposure through them if they don't do something themselves.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
This is more of a wish list item more then anything but I would kill to see a low scale G5 (Scaled down 1Ghz G5 anyone?) in an all in one iMac that comes with 384MB of RAM, CD burner, and a 30GB hard drive that runs for $599. Such a beast would set the world ablaze and would fly off the shelves faster the Apple could produce them.

I agree that it would have that effect as well. I disagree that Apple would market itself that way. The 17" and 20" iMacs are selling CONSISTENTLY, to SWITCHERS at 3 - 4 times that price, thus keeping the iMac profitable.

No one is going to argue that volume economics, or that imitating Taco Dell with their cheap .99 menu like offerings is a way to do business. It's just not Apple's way. The people are moving up to us, we don't really need to drastically move down to them.

As long as Apple continues to "build it, "they will come".

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I’d wager that Apple would capture 2-3% of the market within a year.

I'd wager that we're already there despite the conflicting reports. I'd also wager that Apple won't make a lot of noise about it's marketshare until it doubles at [arguably, of course] 10%. Probably around the 5 year anniversary of OS X in early 2006. This will also steal thunder from the Longhorn unveiling which is now slated at about that time, assuming of course that MS doesn't postpone that date as well. [A couple of years ago, wasn't Longhorn slated to be released in late '04? :D ]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
People want Macs. I know. I’ve sent more then a few people into the Mac store at the Mall of America. All come back with the same answer. It’s too expensive. And sorry guys but the eMac is a dud when compared to a similarly priced $800 PC.

Really? The stories me and my co-workers have heard the past couple of years is "I used to own [or use] a Mac in [some point in the past]. I switched to Windows computers in the mid-90's [usually because their workplace did] or I switched to Windows in 97-98 when the Internet started becoming really popular. I've gone through [average] 3 computers since then [6-7 years] and I'm tired of buying new machines every [again, average] 2 years. I'm also tired of all the problems I have to deal with for the short time that I've owned those computers and they're not worth a dime if I try to sell them. Now I've got a digital [pick any of the following] ; digital still camera, digital video camera, mp3 player [usually iPod of course] and I know I can't trust a windows computer that can't work reliably on simple things to do more difficult things reliably like photo editing, video editing, dvd authoring, etc. I know Macs are more expensive, but if they work reliably, and are easier to use because of that reliability, then maybe it's worth it."

This is when they are told that Mac users keep their computers [on average] 2-3 times longer [4-6 years] than windows users keep theirs, and that they work reliably throughout their lifespan. Then they are shown the iLife applications and guess what?!

HELLO SWITCHER!!!:cool:

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Style is not enough.

You'd be surprised how much "power" the wife has nowadays in the computer buying process since they tend to be the most vocal when something doesn't work properly. Typical scenario: the wife finds the iMacs looks appealing, and they both are amazed at how easy it is to do things that they would otherwise have no idea how to do on a Windows computer because they don't know which applications to buy that are anywhere near as good as what Mac users get bundled with their computer [price justification?, I think so].

Even if they do, they know that the windows photo app that's made by "X" manufacturer isn't going to play nicely with their video app made by "Y" manufacturer, and even less with their un-user friendly dvd authoring software made by "Z" manufacturer.

As opposed to the Mac experience:

Software:
iTunes
iPhoto
iMovie
iDVD
* developed by Apple

Operating system:
Mac OS X
* developed by Apple

Hardware:
iLine, eLine, PowerLine
* developed by Apple

QUALITY CONTROL = RELIABILTY = PRODUCTIVITY.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
*dives into the bunker and waits for the explosion*

BOOM!;)

MacQuest
Jan 27, 2004, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by takao
The growth is ALL over and accelerating.
^^
insert "america" here.

Okay, we get it. You're apparently pissed off that Apple hasn't made it's way to Austria yet. :rolleyes:

In all fairness, they would naturally, as a business, need to focus on the larger markets first, like maybe Japan.

Here's an exerpt from an article:

Japan Sales Up 50% With 64% New Apple Customers

Apple has been scoring big in Japan with the iMac and Apple confirmed this with some hard numbers yesterday.

Apple's CFO Fred Anderson announced that Apple's sales have grown by 50% in Japan, compared with 27% around the world and 19% in the US.


In an even bigger bombshell, Apple said that 46% of Japanese iMac buyers were first time buyers with 18% being classified as PC converts! Those two figures are simply amazing! With a big increase in sales adding to Apple's clout, 64% of iMac purchasers are new to the Mac market greatly expanding Apple's installed user base.

ionas
Jan 27, 2004, 04:36 AM
daimler took over crysler not the other way around ;p.

takao
Jan 27, 2004, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by MacQuest
Okay, we get it. You're apparently pissed off that Apple hasn't made it's way to Austria yet. :rolleyes:


yeah those numbers spound great ... still hoping for mac stores in europe :D
that would be really great ...at least more apple selling retailers (just checked there are more than a few months ago) i guess we just have to be patient ...i hope for the best !!!

(german speaking market has about 80 million germany + 8 million austria + a few million in switzerland = sums up over 90 million thats not a small market ;-) )

edit: i forgot to mention that i am considering to buy a iBook in switzerland (VAT : 2,5%) and swim across the rhine with it to save those difference (VAT is here about 20%) ... ;-)

MacQuest
Jan 27, 2004, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by humantech
I am Seeing pc switchers in droves and mac users who left returning.

OOH, OOH, OOH!!! GOOD POINT humantech!!!

I've been so busy focusing on pointing out the full on switchers [those who have never used a mac, which is rare], that I've neglected to point out the far more common "RE-SWITCHER".

These are THE BEST!!!

Well, I actually kind of made mention of them in my post just above where I state that the conversation usually starts out with them saying, "I used to own [or use] a Mac in sometime in my past [usually late 80's to mid 90's]..."

I LOVE these people because they made the decision to switch to Windows, only to find out what a big mistake it was 6-7 years and 3 Wintels later, and now are re-introduced with Mac OS X, which is way better than the last time they used a Mac [usually Mac OS 7.5 or 8.6] in the mid-late 90's.

The best part being that Mac OS X makes Mac OS 9 [and prior] look like $h!t, and yet windows had never even caught up to Mac OS 9 in terms of stability [even though we Mac users know it wasn't really that stable unless you compared it to windows] in large part because of it's lack of quality control with any given hardware configuration.

LOL!!!:D ;) :cool:

takao
Jan 27, 2004, 05:45 AM
finally my prayers have been heard...
News From heise.de:

Apple-Germany Manger Frank Steinhoff announced this morning that Apple will be participating at the MacExpo 2004 17.-19. June after 6 years of absence. They will show "a broad pallet of solutions" and are helping to organise the Expo.


translatet fro mgerman (bad ..but better than me perhaps ;-):
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=/language_tools&u=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jes-27.01.04-000/

MacQuest
Jan 27, 2004, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
Apple Stores are great but there are only 74 of them.

:rolleyes: Yeah. "Only" 74 stores were opened in the past "only" 2.5 years, during a horrible economy that is just know starting to improve. On a related note [on the other end of the spectrum, but during the same time 03.18.03]:

"Gateway cuts jobs, closes stores

Poway-based PC maker Gateway Inc. says it's eliminating the jobs of 1,900 people and closing 80 of its retail stores [29%]."

That's just one example of how Apple manages to grow while others diminish.


QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
To reach the masses, Apple will need to at least triple that number which would probably kill their profitability.[/QUOTE]

Nah. Apple clearly stated when they launched their retail initiative that they were going to open 100 Apple stores. That number combined with CompUSA's Apple Shops [224 stores nationwide and now staff Apple employees], MicroCenter, Fry's Electronics, and everyone else including BestBuy [FutureShop in Canada] will be enough to increase Apple's presence for the time being IMO.


QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
I don't have any hard numbers but I'd bet that much of America buys PCs at Best Buy, Circuit City and the other large national and regional electronics stores.[/QUOTE]

Nope. As more people take their computers more seriously, they want to talk to actual computer knowledgeable staff, not some inexperienced, part-time high school kid who's just killing time to make a paycheck and happens to be working at a home appliance/electronics store. That's why CompUSA is required to staff Apple employees in their Apple Shops instead of generic windows only employees.


Originally posted by rdowns
If you want consumer market share, you need shelf space. That's pretty much retailing 101.

True to an extent, but largely depends on what is being sold. KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF and PROPER REPRESENTATION is COMPUTER retailing 101.

QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
Switchers don't buy from web sites, they want to tough and try out a Mac before comitting. [/QUOTE]

True. That's why every Apple Store opening has been met with huge crowds of just as many switchers as existing Mac users.

Paraphraing a comment by Steve Jobs recently, "every market that Apple has gone into, it maintains over 90% marketshare dominance".

Apple has only aggressively gone after the consumer market in the past 2.5 years, specifically with the iApps and the Apple Stores. I told people back then [mid 2001] not to expect any major marketshare increase until approx. 5 years from then, in '06] .

If you don't think that things are changing, then you will have to wait and see.

I, on the other hand, know otherwise.:cool:

Jonnod III
Jan 27, 2004, 06:39 AM
[QUOTE]You'd be surprised how much "power" the wife has nowadays in the computer buying process since they tend to be the most vocal when something doesn't work properly. Typical scenario: the wife finds the iMacs looks appealing, and they both are amazed at how easy it is to do things that they would otherwise have no idea how to do on a Windows computer because they don't know which applications to buy that are anywhere near as good as what Mac users get bundled with their computer [price justification?, I think so].[/QOUTE]

Gawd! What sexist tripe!

Jonnod III
Jan 27, 2004, 06:56 AM
Just a few thoughts...

Beware of percentage changes... the drop in market share from the peak may well be because the peak was unsustainable/artificially attained etc. etc.

No-one has mentioned cost of ownership - that's the mpg and service costs of your Porches and Beamers... in the motor analogy Apple leaves those guys behind because a Mac's cost of ownership is less than the Windows ones...

a large number of PC users have them foisted upon them by company policy. So their wishes don't ever feature on market share figures, as they don't buy. Would be interesting to get a view of what workstation users would PREFER.

If the Mac is not in the workstation market - then there is a case for these to be taken out of market share figures - I liked the MacUser UK suggestion that they be called 'WC's :p The Porchse market share averall may well be under 1% - but take out the salesmen's fleet cars the family cars etc and I'm sure they have a healthy marketshare...

Most of the readers of this forum are not normal people. You only have to look at the mentions of memory/display cards/headless pcs etc!!! You don't hear phrases like that on the Clapham Omnibus.

Who gives a damn if the machine is $200 more than a pc - it's gorgeous!!!!

SiliconAddict
Jan 27, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by MacQuest
What the FRICK are you talking about?!!! I hope this was a typo because that is exactly what Jobs is calling MS.


Quote from the article:

And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."

That sure sounds as if Jobs is claiming the monopoly is broken.


Hold on, let me do the math.

2-5 individual customers a day, or 5-10 businesses a month [averaging 5-10 workstations and not including xServe/xRaid units sold that are replacing Windows NT 4.0 & 2000 servers]


Where are you getting your numbers?
I've seen plenty of numbers being spit out but no hard facts on how many new customers are switching. And as a side note 2-5 customers per day won't sustain apple. Apple needs a few HUNDRED per day.



What did Virginia Tech use before they installed their 1,100 node G5 cluster?


As beautiful as the VT cluster is it does not make a damn bit of diff to the average consumer, most of which haven't even heard of the Big Mac, and even less so for businesses who need workstations not servers. The average desktop in the work world doesn't need a whole heck of alot of horsepower. My company is running 4 year old Dells that run perfectly fine. (As soon as I upgraded them above 128MB of RAM that is.)


Agreed. I sure hope this "starts" happening sometime soon ...;)

I love how people blow in here with the numbers and KNOW everything. I'll hold out a bit of hope that you aren't BSing me but frankly a lot of people use the NDA as an excuse. People are now using market share numbers of .xx% when you have to focus on such a thing that smells like desperation. When someone can claim that Apple's market share has jumped from x% to y% with some hard data backing that claim up I will believe.


In response to your comments about Longhorn, I agree with a lot of it. Keep in mind however that Jaguar made a HUGE part of existing Mac users upgrade to OS X and made a large number of Windows users switch. Panther is carrying on that tradition nicely.

APPLE MAINTAINS QUALITY CONTROL BETWEEN THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF YOUR COMPUTER; THE HARDWARE AND THE OPERATING SYSTEM.


QUALITY CONTROL = RELIABILTY = PRODUCTIVITY.




You mean like the QC used for 10.2.8 that killed a number of systems? You mean like the dreaded filevault data corruption issues? You mean like the corruption issues that occurred on some firewire harddrives? You mean like some of the security patches that have seriously degraded performance on some systems? You mean like those white spots on the LCD of more then a few 15" PowerBooks released last fall? You mean like the bad system boards on iBooks?
If you are talking QC of another sort I would really love to know what you are talking about because I do NOT see it.

As for your comment on Jaguar. Panther was a .x release. It wasn't a total revamp of the OS from the ground up like OS X.0 was. I've read more then a few posts and articles stating that 10.2 is what 10.0 should have been from the beginning. The main theme that seems to permeate almost all of these posts/articles was that 10.0 had “potential”. That potential is finally starting to be realized in 10.3.



You are only as strong as your weakest link, and the weak link is Windows, NOT the hardware.


Hence the reason for my concern. 9x was a nightmare. NT was a ray of light. 2K was hope. XP is frustrating but salvagable. Longhorn is [Fill in the blank in 2006-7] The ease of use and reliability reasons for using a Mac could be drastically diminished in the coming years.

benpatient
Jan 27, 2004, 10:51 AM
i guess i just expected a higher degree of intelligence here, but honestly most of you guys seem stuck up your own @sses and blind to reality. There are not "droves" of windows users switching to Mac. More windows users die of old age every day than switch to mac.

As to "cost of ownership" I'll just go based on personal experience. In the last 5 years, I've had 3 different Windows PCs at home, and 3 different Macs at work.

I can count zero fingers the number of major problems i've had with the PCs, and i built all but one of them. Between 3 machines, i had to re-install the OS 1 time in 5 years on one machine because something got hosed. I've never, ever, had a hardware failure with the exception of a 12 dollar 56K modem that got blasted by a storm, and it didn't even mess up anything else on the machine.

Now, at work, where instead of power gaming I do power graphics work, I've had the following problems:
OS 9: Corrupt system file that slowly ate away at what turned out to be a completely perfect hard drive.
OS 10.1 refusal to complete an install on a PM G4 tower unless i removed all of the apple-sourced RAM and used my own 3rd party RAM, which worked fine.
A 900 Mhz iMac (shudder) that destroyed 3, count them 3 hard drives in as many months before I took it back and demanded the money back.
4 OS 9 hosings that required a re-format and installation of the OS.

Now you are all going to tell me that i should have been on OS X the whole time and blah blah blah, but Quark didn't work at all in OS X till this past fall, and considering the number of quark users that are on a Mac, that's a terrible, terrible turn-around time for the most-used design program in the industry. The fact that OS X couldn't keep it's dot revisions together probably had a huge amount of impact on this.

Panther is the first revision of OS X that is actually worth paying for. I can actually WORK on it, which whatever the claims, was not really possible on jaguar or 10.1.

Most of you sound like you've never even been around when a dell or a compaq was taken out of the box.

You're on the internet in 5 minutes, tops. It's really not a deal at all. The plugs are all color coded, and you match the 4 different colors, you plug in the monitor and the box, and you hit the button on the front. Windows loads. you set up your ISP if you need to do that, and you're off. MS programs that you buy like Office or Works or whatever come pre-loaded, and they just work. It's not this big mystical, frustrating, techinical mess that you all seem to think it is.

I BUILT 2 computers in less time than you guys think it takes to unpack a PC.

The second one, I think it took me all of 2 hours from opening individual boxes to booting the OS install. Of course that takes 20-30 minutes, but again, it's painless with XP, and next thing you know, the little "welcome to windows" thing is popping up and it's just as annoying as the "register your mac" screen that pops up.

My last machine was built at home this past summer, and I installed XP Pro on it. I've not had to do a reinstall yet. I've had one bad driver, but it was an alpha leak, so that's what i deserve. even that rolled back after a quick trip to "safe mode."

If I wasn't a creative professional who worked in an industry that is 80% apple users, I probably wouldn't be typing this on a mac right now.

You guys scour the internet looking for a mac reseller that gives you a price lower than the apple store, and you think the average consumer is going to pick the "cute" machine even though it is a full 90% more than the non-cute machine that to their own eyes performs on the same level.

spullara
Jan 27, 2004, 01:07 PM
Read my rant about this very question:

http://homepage.mac.com/spullara/rants/

Sam

applebum
Jan 27, 2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
How is $799 for an eMac a hi-end PC price? Dell has lower-end computers that sell for less than eMacs, but their hi-end computers, computers that are comparible to the top end G5, sell at a comparible cost to the dual 2gig G5.

Lethal

Ok - I went to the Dell site. I found on their page a computer with monitor for $449. However, to make the comparison fair, I bumped the specs up to just what the eMac has - nothing more. It came out to be $835.

Should Apple try to compete in the sub $700 market? I don't think so. Most people who know anything about computers aren't going to go with the minimum specs that the el cheapo computers have. And once you bump up those specs just a bit, then Apple is priced right with them. Those real cheap computers are throw aways - people buy them and then almost immediately start looking at the next higher model. Mainly because they want to do more with their computers. I don't believe that Apple needs to be competing at the lowest level. If you want to try out an inexpensive Apple, then buy you a good used older model for $400 or so. As long as it has plenty of memory and OSX, you will get a taste for Macs.

These cheap computers are also where the market share gets skewed. Apple will never have great market share as long as there are $200 PC's running Windows. I wonder what the market share would look like if they did it by household? I know of many people that have 2 or 3 PC's and a Mac. Wouldn't it be interesting if they found that 25% of all households with computers had a Mac? That would certainly silence the marketshare critics.

And Jobs comments to me seem to be saying that a company cannot focus exclusively on profits. Profits today are not a good predictor of future success. You want to have a long term plan that keeps profitability but also raises marketshare. Itunes leads to Ipods leads to Mac computer purchase. And we all know there is no better salesperson for the Mac than a current Mac user. Profitability simply keeps you in the game - just ask Gateway how important profitability and marketshare are. I bet if they were honest, they are envious of where Apple is today.

MorganX
Jan 27, 2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by spullara
Read my rant about this very question:

http://homepage.mac.com/spullara/rants/

Sam

I agree that Apple's market share in Personal Computers doesn't matter. Mainly for two reasons:

1) 100x more young PC users, tomorrow's analysts and programmers prefer the modded case shown to sleek industrial design. As many users like building their own as there are Mac users. So they will always have limited market share without drastic changes which cater to the dominant market. This market also could care-less about Steve's turtleneck. So I don't see a change in this area coming any time soon.

2) Apple is about the proliferation and profit of, Apple. The tech industry would not support an Apple monopoly of a large portion of the market. There's no trickle-down with Apple.

Take the iPod, there's Apple, and now an Apple manuactured HP model with pricing restrictions. Now, take Portable Media Centers. There's already Viewsonic, iRiver, Creative, Samsung. They can all create their own value-added models and compete, for profit. PCs are the same.

Still, the two single most important acts after the creation of the original Apple by Woz and his "salesman" friend Jobs, was IBM creating the PC from non-proprietary components and the day Bill Gates "licensed" DOS to IBM. That created the industry we know today. And it has employed and enriched countless millions, not just Apple shareholders.

Apple will never have a dominant market share in personal computers again. They would have to completely change their business model and I don't think that will ever happen. As long as Apple is profitable, I don't think it is even desirable.

Something will have to be done though. With PCI Express (this fall) and Windows Media Center changing the form-factor of PCs and with the imminent arrival Portable Media Centers, Apple is going to have to fight to keep their niche pretty soon and to keep iPod relevant. With Apple, your eggs are always in one basket.

rdowns
Jan 27, 2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by MacQuest
:rolleyes: Yeah. "Only" 74 stores were opened in the past "only" 2.5 years, during a horrible economy that is just know starting to improve. On a related note [on the other end of the spectrum, but during the same time 03.18.03]:

"Gateway cuts jobs, closes stores

Poway-based PC maker Gateway Inc. says it's eliminating the jobs of 1,900 people and closing 80 of its retail stores [29%]."

That's just one example of how Apple manages to grow while others diminish.


QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
To reach the masses, Apple will need to at least triple that number which would probably kill their profitability.

Nah. Apple clearly stated when they launched their retail initiative that they were going to open 100 Apple stores. That number combined with CompUSA's Apple Shops [224 stores nationwide and now staff Apple employees], MicroCenter, Fry's Electronics, and everyone else including BestBuy [FutureShop in Canada] will be enough to increase Apple's presence for the time being IMO.


QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
I don't have any hard numbers but I'd bet that much of America buys PCs at Best Buy, Circuit City and the other large national and regional electronics stores.[/QUOTE]

Nope. As more people take their computers more seriously, they want to talk to actual computer knowledgeable staff, not some inexperienced, part-time high school kid who's just killing time to make a paycheck and happens to be working at a home appliance/electronics store. That's why CompUSA is required to staff Apple employees in their Apple Shops instead of generic windows only employees.




True to an extent, but largely depends on what is being sold. KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF and PROPER REPRESENTATION is COMPUTER retailing 101.

QUOTE]Originally posted by rdowns
Switchers don't buy from web sites, they want to tough and try out a Mac before comitting. [/QUOTE]

True. That's why every Apple Store opening has been met with huge crowds of just as many switchers as existing Mac users.

Paraphraing a comment by Steve Jobs recently, "every market that Apple has gone into, it maintains over 90% marketshare dominance".

Apple has only aggressively gone after the consumer market in the past 2.5 years, specifically with the iApps and the Apple Stores. I told people back then [mid 2001] not to expect any major marketshare increase until approx. 5 years from then, in '06] .

If you don't think that things are changing, then you will have to wait and see.

I, on the other hand, know otherwise.:cool: [/QUOTE]

You make very good arguments to my points. I still maintain that Apple needs more retail presence and 100 Apple stores and CompUSA's are not enough. No Fry's here in the NY area and the MicroCenter on Long Island is pathetic. They have a big room in the back of the store that is dirty and filled with outdated Apple product (sans CPUs) like ImageWriter II ribbons, ADB keyboards, old software and books etc. It is disgraceful. Some Apple rep should visit this place and condemn it.

Sure, people want to talk to knowledgabe staff but the masses still shop at big box discounters. That is why I maintain Apple needs shelf space in these stores. Maybe in addition to stand alone Apple Stores, Apple should lease space in these big box stores and run them like they do their own stores.

Apple's 90% share in its markets, that's fantastic but these are niches and haven't helped them grow market share.

Look, I love Apple as much as anyone but I'm not blinded by what I believe are missteps in growing. The agressiveness shown with the iPod should be done in the consumer market. Do a damn commercial showing a family using iPhoto and iMovie, working on Office files, show how good the Mail junk mail filter is, debunking the myths too many still have about Apple.

Rant off

MacQuest
Jan 28, 2004, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
Do a damn commercial showing a family using iPhoto and iMovie, working on Office files, show how good the Mail junk mail filter is, debunking the myths too many still have about Apple.

Agreed. Like I said before, the silence is killing me too. I know that Apple is aware of this and am sure that they will address it sooner or later [hopefully sooner].

I was just saying that things are drastically changing, despite a lack of expensive advertising, instead by simple and cheap word of mouth advertising. It's definately working, but unfortunately it is only being witnessed by people who are on the "frontline" of this war, like the retail sales floors or at the negotiation tables with company executives.

I hope that Apple doesn't wait too long to jump on it's own "swell" of opportunity, because there is definately a huge wave building up on the horizon.

MacQuest
Jan 28, 2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
That sure sounds as if Jobs is claiming the monopoly is broken.

OMFG!!! In that exerpt he is referring to Apple itself when it was being mismanaged and monopolistic/niche-ish. He is stating that Apple's "monopoly", while being run by "sales guys", ended when MS released windows 95 because they were focusing on profit instead of marketshare.

Did you even read the article?!
"Hmm, look who's running Microsoft now," he [Steve jobs] says, referring to former Procter & Gamble marketer Steve Ballmer. "A sales guy!" The smile gets broader. "I wonder ..." he says.

He's clearly commenting on MS's current position as a monopoly and that he feels that it is going down the same path that Apple did over a decade ago.

[i]Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Where are you getting your numbers?

Which part of "and that's just me" did you not understand? Those are MY numbers.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I've seen plenty of numbers being spit out but no hard facts on how many new customers are switching.

We're not too concerned with whether or not every individual who feels that they should know, knows. These numbers are revealed on a need to know basis. I need to know, therefore I do. You want to know, therefore you don't.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
And as a side note 2-5 customers per day won't sustain apple. Apple needs a few HUNDRED per day.

I went on to say that MY personal numbers [2-5 per day] need to be multiplied by the thousands of CompUSA Apple Specialists, Apple Store employees, and so on. I think that even you can figure out that this equates to the "few HUNDRED per day" that you feel is needed and that I know is being fulfilled.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
As beautiful as the VT cluster is it does not make a damn bit of diff to the average consumer...

Thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
As beautiful as the VT cluster is it does not make a damn bit of diff... for businesses who need workstations not servers.

Every business and it's exec's, employee's, etc., would like to believe that they will be bigger tomorrow than it is today. Big Mac, aka "X", represents how far any given business can grow for a minimal amount of money when compared to the cost of the world's top 2 supercomputers.

Proportionally, of course this may not be relevant. Even the smallest business likes to know that it is going to invest into a long term SOLUTION, rather than just making random purchases, that has room to grow.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The average desktop in the work world doesn't need a whole heck of alot of horsepower.

Agreed. However xServe/xRaid are going after the high end server market. It's nice to know that a small business can buy into this product line as well.

Volume economics worked for ms in the software market, let's see what happens to the corporate/enterprise market while Apple provides a low cost, high quality solution as opposed to the overpriced, low quality solutions found in a windows server/workstation problem... I mean, "solution".

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
My company is running 4 year old Dells that run perfectly fine. (As soon as I upgraded them above 128MB of RAM that is.)

Good for you. Of no consequence however to Mr. or Mrs. business owner who has had the opportunity to review their budgets over the past few years, only to find that they have had an absurd amount of downtime and spent an even more absurd amount of money in maintenance, network admin. and IT costs.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I'll hold out a bit of hope that you aren't BSing me but frankly a lot of people use the NDA as an excuse.

I'm not, I promise. Unfortunately that's all I can offer because the NDA is more than a written agreement. It's a moral gauge. Remember, a key to winning a war is the element of surprise. I want people within the Mac community and in these forums to know that things are changing. I don't want the people who could care less to suspect a thing.

The Art of War: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
People are now using market share numbers of .xx% when you have to focus on such a thing that smells like desperation.

Apple hasn't been "desperate" since '97. They certainly aren't now with $5 billion on hand, zero long term debt, and a bunch of innovative hardware and software products.

That licensing deal with HP won't hurt any either. I say that we'll see another major wintel manufacturer jump on that same bandwagon in the next 6-12 months, after HP rolls out their deal in June.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
When someone can claim that Apple's market share has jumped from x% to y% with some hard data backing that claim up I will believe.

Again, if you needed to know, you would. If you just want to know, you'll have to wait.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
You mean like the [bunch of Mac related issues]...

Ok, let's get this straight. We are talking proportianally here. Example: I have always found it amusing when a Switcher asked me why Macs are "crashproof", and this was prior to OS X. I found that Macs had gotten that reputation only because, even with it's problems, OS 9 crashed so much less than windows that people considered Macs to actually be crashproof.

In relation to your list of Mac issues, isn't nice to know that you can fit them all in a small paragraph? And that there is one company to account for these issues.

Can you imagine the enormity of a list of known issues that could be gathered for all the different windows OS's, and then add to that a list of known issues for all the different hardware manufacturers with all their different configurations?

It's this lack of quality control between the two most important parts of a computer, the hardware and the OS, that plagues windows computers.

Yes, Apple has it's QC problems like any other company in any industry, but when compared to wintels, their damn near perfect.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
As for your comment on Jaguar. Panther was a .x release.

Okay, I'm gonna have to ask you to remove your head from your a$$ at this time and "Just Say No" to drugs.

Panther was a .x release? Yes it is. Panther 10.3. Not 10.3.x If you're trying to tell me that Panther is only a "point" release, or update, and not an upgrade, then your sadly mistaken.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
It wasn't a total revamp of the OS from the ground up like OS X.0 was.

True, OS X.0 was the first major revamp to the Mac OS in 17 years [since 1984]. No, Panther isn't as ground breaking, nor will any 10.x release be .


[i]Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I've read more then a few posts and articles stating that 10.2 is what 10.0 should have been from the beginning.

That's a somewhat true, but very weak argument that can be used for any 1st generation product when compared to a later revision or generation of that same product. "Gee, windows '95 revision A is what windows '95 revision B should have been." Or, "windows '98 second edition is what windows '98 first edition should have been."

...next... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The main theme that seems to permeate almost all of these posts/articles was that 10.0 had “potential”.

Yeah it did, and still does. As proven in 10.1, 10.2, 10.3...


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
That potential is finally starting to be realized in 10.3.

Although 10.3 is definately worth the upgrade price, I see it's release being overshadowed by the G5.

You may want to do some research and find out how many formerly windows only hardware manufacturers and software developers jumped on the OS X bandwagon after August 24th, 2002 with the release of 10.2 Jaguar. Much more impressive.

That's why I keep saying that I've watched the number of Switchers increase dramatically in the past 1.5 years. It had already begun "snowballing" prior to 10.2 Jaguar. It's "avalanched" ever since.


Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The ease of use and reliability reasons for using a Mac could be drastically diminished in the coming years.

Yeah. I'm afraid that Apple is going to get too comfortable and stop innovating so that when ms's longhorn [which may be as good as OS 10.0, 5-6 years later of course] is released it will overshadow all of Apple's accomplishments up to Panther 10.3, which, again, is when Apple stopped innovating.