PDA

View Full Version : CNN/Money: Apple's iTunes store 'doesn't matter'


groovebuster
Apr 10, 2004, 05:35 AM
Apple may be the undisputed heavyweight champ of online music. But its market share in the computer business, which still accounts for nearly two-thirds of the company's total sales, remains Hobbit-like small.

Apple is clearly an innovative and cool company but in the grand scheme of things, its results are only significant for Mac junkies and/or Apple shareholders. Investors looking for clues about what's happening in the broader tech world would be better off digging through the reports from Intel and IBM.

Link to article... (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/markets/earningsmatter/#aapl)

:rolleyes:

groovebuster

Abstract
Apr 10, 2004, 08:56 AM
Most of what was said there was true.

Try being objective. It's marketshare in computer sales IS hobbit-like small.

Other than that, it has iPod and iTMS. He acknowledged these successes when he said "digital music". But they don't really venture into much else, so they're not indicative of what is going on in the broader scope of the electronics industry. Basically: They're not Sony, which is true.

groovebuster
Apr 10, 2004, 10:39 AM
I know it's true, I was just curious what other people would say about it... ;-)

~Shard~
Apr 10, 2004, 05:03 PM
Good article - can't really disagree with any of it...

Krizoitz
Apr 10, 2004, 05:54 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Their own analogy should be the first give away. Hobbit small? Yeah well it was two hobbits that saved all of Middle Earth.

Apple is clearly an innovative and cool company but in the grand scheme of things, its results are only significant for Mac junkies and/or Apple shareholders.

Only significant to Mac junkies? Apples inovations set the standard that all other companies try to copy. The did it with the Mac OS, they have done it with technologies like USB and Firewire. The iApps. And of course the iPod and iTMS. They may not be big, but they have big results and definitely impact the industry as a whole. Who would have thought 5 years ago that it would be Apple who dominated the digital music scene, got the record companies on board to actually allow reasonable use downloaded music and created the holy grail of digital music players. Who would have thought 5 years ago that Apple technology would lead to the #3 supercomputer in the world, built at a dramaticly low cost. In this case the little guy DOES matter.

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 10, 2004, 06:56 PM
I saw this article and it should raise alarms at Apple. how low can you go before people and developers leave the platform. Adobe has moved in that direction and only ATI makes any aftermarketcards for Mac. Noticed more ATI products being sold in the macs? I think Apple was forced to this or risk loosing the only card maker for them. There does come a point when market reaches critical. we are there now. The questions is what is Apple going to do about it. The board was asked this last time. Sure Mac junkies cant look past Steve Jobs ass but there are plenty of us Mac users who are wondering what the heck is going on and how do you get billions in the bank but let your market get to such a small number. #9 computermaker and sinking..instead of focus on pods & music i would focus on computers. 98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

building a #3 supercomputer did nothing for me nor most consumers but making a computer that the masses can buy that meets or exceeds the other guys PCs would. this is where Imac crt won the war 5 years ago and this is where Imac LCD has lost it. One day Apple will either remember the consumer or they will be gone. Consumer is King and we vote with our purchase. Apple thinks its King and lemmings follow. where are your lemmings going Mr Steve Jobs?

wdlove
Apr 10, 2004, 07:04 PM
I think that you stated your case very well Dont Hurt Me. Now if Steve Jobs and the other power to be at Apple would listen. I just hope they do something before they do lose more ground. They have a golden opportunity this year and near term by WWDC.

Krizoitz
Apr 10, 2004, 07:05 PM
I saw this article and it should raise alarms at Apple. how low can you go before people and developers leave the platform. Adobe has moved in that direction and only ATI makes any aftermarketcards for Mac. Noticed more ATI products being sold in the macs? I think Apple was forced to this or risk loosing the only card maker for them. There does come a point when market reaches critical. we are there now. The questions is what is Apple going to do about it. The board was asked this last time. Sure Mac junkies cant look past Steve Jobs ass but there are plenty of us Mac users who are wondering what the heck is going on and how do you get billions in the bank but let your market get to such a small number. #9 computermaker and sinking..instead of focus on pods & music i would focus on computers. 98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

building a #3 supercomputer did nothing for me nor most consumers but making a computer that the masses can buy that meets or exceeds the other guys PCs would. this is where Imac crt won the war 5 years ago and this is where Imac LCD has lost it. One day Apple will either remember the consumer or they will be gone. Consumer is King and we vote with our purchase. Apple thinks its King and lemmings follow. where are your lemmings going Mr Steve Jobs?

You remind me of the old priest we used to have at our church. Everything he said was negative. Honestly I wonder what has caused you so much bitterness in your life.

Consumer is king? Apple sales revenues are UP. Apples profits are UP. Apples stock price is UP. The iMac LCD lost it? Are you one of those people who just doesn't get that the iMac LCD isn't supposed to be the end all/be all computer? Look at the G5 its one of the best computers ever made.

Honestly people are NEVER HAPPY. Nothing Apple does will please some of you, ever, so why do you bother? Steve Jobs could release a Quad Proccesor G5 4.0 Ghz tommorow and you would complain about the price, lack of software, and lack of the 4.0 GHZ G5 in the eMac. Try realistic expectations once and a while. Apple makes great machines, they are consistently rated in the top echelons in terms of customer satisfaction, sales are up, numbers are up. Apple is pumping out fantastic free/cheap software and making amazing inroads into the music industry as well. They can't very well ship updated computers if IBM doesn't have enough updated chips. They can't magically wave their hand and make them appear out of no-where. They can't keep the iMac/eMac line at lower costs if they are putting the highest end parts into it. In short, they ain't miracle workers. Why don't you give them a chance. Apple has been "dying" for the best 20 years according to naysayers, and yet here they are.

bennetsaysargh
Apr 10, 2004, 07:39 PM
this is where Imac crt won the war 5 years ago and this is where Imac LCD has lost it.
i completely agree with you. although cool looking, it never had the same effect as the crt did. consumers decide, not pros, because of the reasons you said.

krizoitz-nice comeback with 2 hobbits saving all of middle earth :p

groovebuster
Apr 11, 2004, 01:49 AM
Consumer is king?
That's right! ;)

Apple sales revenues are UP. Apples profits are UP. Apples stock price is UP.
You are kidding, right? The worlwide computer market is growing a lot more than Apples revenues and profits! Which means that Apples market share is shrinking. Subtract the iPod's part from the profits and Apples numbers would be written in shiny deep red ink!

The iMac LCD lost it? Are you one of those people who just doesn't get that the iMac LCD isn't supposed to be the end all/be all computer? Look at the G5 its one of the best computers ever made.
You are just forgetting one thing... Apple needs to get a higher market share to survive on the long run. The iMac LCD is not the machine to gain market share with consumers, since it is too expensive. Do I really have to repeat everything about how market share is related to the survival of a company in the computer industry? Apple IS insignificant for the computer industry as a whole. Of course Microsoft is taking ideas from Apple once in a while, but be realistic! Do you really believe that Apple influenced only one significant development in the computer idustry the last 5 years? Please tell me just one. You won't find any! It wouldn't make a difference if Apple is there or not, nothing would be different today for 98% of the market...

Honestly people are NEVER HAPPY. Nothing Apple does will please some of you, ever, so why do you bother? Steve Jobs could release a Quad Proccesor G5 4.0 Ghz tommorow and you would complain about the price, lack of software, and lack of the 4.0 GHZ G5 in the eMac.
Maybe that's just because the price WOULD BE too high? And maybe because the day the eMac would see a 4GHz G5, Intels entry-level processor would be a 10GHz Celeron VII. You get the picture?

Try realistic expectations once and a while. Apple makes great machines, they are consistently rated in the top echelons in terms of customer satisfaction, sales are up, numbers are up.
Numbers go down in relation to the rest of the worldwide industry. And even in case Apple has "stable" numbers in the US. A computer company can't survive just on the US market. I live in Germany and if you would just have a clue how Apple neglects the european market and rips off the customers here, you would start crying! Just take the strong Euro. Apple charges 20% more for their products compared to US prices at the moment! That's how they keep their balance sheet clean. They make a lot of extra bucks at the moment, since more than a quarter of their revenues are made in Europe! Numbers are up? Just because they don't adjust prices to the strong Euro. It is artificial!

Apple is pumping out fantastic free/cheap software and making amazing inroads into the music industry as well.
This software isn't for free! I pay it with every computer or OS update I buy from Apple! Or do you think those programmers donate their work force? ;)

They can't very well ship updated computers if IBM doesn't have enough updated chips. They can't magically wave their hand and make them appear out of no-where.
Which raises the question, why the PPC is still utilized after years of struggeling...

They can't keep the iMac/eMac line at lower costs if they are putting the highest end parts into it.
High-End? Now you start to amuse me! Both lines are far from being High-End! Every ****ty Dell computer for half the money is more High-end than these totally outdated doorstops. A "High-End" designer enclosure doesn't make a High-End computer, especially not in the consumer market! Features are as important as design there.

In short, they ain't miracle workers. Why don't you give them a chance. Apple has been "dying" for the best 20 years according to naysayers, and yet here they are.
Apple got tons of chances so far! And they always dropped the ball. One day it will be the last chance. You are right, Apple is dying since 20 years. That Apple is still there doesn't mean that they are not dying! They are just dying very slowly a very painful death...

groovebuster

Les Kern
Apr 11, 2004, 08:03 AM
Keep in mind where the report is coming from: Money. I've never met anyone in the business of making money that was truly impressed with "small", no matter the possibility for "large". Folks in the money business want more money, and want it now. Their job isn't growing Apple's market share, and it isn't touting the OS, it's simply making money. That is what the article is about. I'm an investor myself, and though I have a few Apple shares, the MONEY is to be made elsewhere.

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 11, 2004, 09:03 AM
Grovebuster all i can say WOW :eek: nice dissection! every point you shed light.
I think a big problem with large compnaies is they become out of touch with the King meaning the consumer/public. they start taking their own path with ideas instead of focusing on the consumer and the public. This was evident with the Superbowl halftime show. CBS/MTV/Viacom clueless about a halftime show that was so out of touch with the mainstream ideals and taste.
Apple is sort of doing the same with the consumer line. its just out of touch with mainstream. pushing for the most part optionless and crippled hardware. So focused on the pro line that they made sure the only thing going into the consumer line was hardware from 2-3 years. CPU,Video & Memory. Yet when imac came out it was given almost everything that was current only held back slightly. Consumers have been heard and the consumer line sales numbers prove that.
How many times do we hear people say i love the imac but would never buy because of G4 or poor video chip or that they have a monitor? Yes i fit into this category. All Apple has to do is sell to the consumer. Do that and they will make a path to Apples door. Continue the we do as we please and you will take what we give you philosophy and market will only get smaller.

switcheroo
Apr 11, 2004, 10:00 AM
The article is pretty useless, yes apple's stock has performed well recently and yes itunes music store has been sucessful and yes its quite obvious that "investors looking for clues about what's happening in the broader tech world would be better off digging through the reports from Intel and IBM." Its quite apparent Apple is not a part of the "broader tech world" of market giants like IBM and Intel.


You are just forgetting one thing... Apple needs to get a higher market share to survive on the long run. The iMac LCD is not the machine to gain market share with consumers, since it is too expensive. Do I really have to repeat everything about how market share is related to the survival of a company in the computer industry? Apple IS insignificant for the computer industry as a whole. Of course Microsoft is taking ideas from Apple once in a while, but be realistic! Do you really believe that Apple influenced only one significant development in the computer idustry the last 5 years? Please tell me just one. You won't find any! It wouldn't make a difference if Apple is there or not, nothing would be different today for 98% of the market...


Apple does not need greater market share in order to survive, they do not sell commodity hardware! The way they sell and market their products is very different than other computer manufacturers. There are many examples in other industries of smaller companies that survive among much larger ones. Incredible growth is not crucial for the success of Apple. As far as apple not making signifigant developments in the computer industry, its all relative. No computer or software entitiy has been truly innovative in the last 15 years, especially in the sense of paradigm changing products or services. Things move forward very gradually -- but you can't say that Apple has not had an impact -- its incredibly important that microsoft has competion in order to keep the industry from remaining stagnant and therefore the market would be quite different without apple.


Apple is sort of doing the same with the consumer line. its just out of touch with mainstream. pushing for the most part optionless and crippled hardware. So focused on the pro line that they made sure the only thing going into the consumer line was hardware from 2-3 years. CPU,Video & Memory. How many times do we hear people say i love the imac but would never buy because of G4 or poor video chip or that they have a monitor? Yes i fit into this category. All Apple has to do is sell to the consumer.

I disagree, I think Apple is in touch with it's consumers. It's been said many times before, but you have to look at the whole package of what apple provides. The average computer user cares very little about specs -- they just want a machine that reliable and easy to use. When you look at the majority of apple's potential customers most will not care if their machine has the fastest processor or graphics chip and if it did, they probably couldn't tell much of a difference. Nowadays it doesn't matter, there is no "killer app" for the mac that requires a supercomputer. So therefore updates have been slow lately, a speed bump is not going to radically drive sales -- so why should Apple do it?

musicpyrite
Apr 11, 2004, 11:32 AM
I don't listen to anything CNN says, their too far on the left side.

groovebuster
Apr 11, 2004, 12:16 PM
Apple does not need greater market share in order to survive, they do not sell commodity hardware! The way they sell and market their products is very different than other computer manufacturers. There are many examples in other industries of smaller companies that survive among much larger ones. Incredible growth is not crucial for the success of Apple.
They don't need market share? :D OK... if you think so! ;) A platform that only runs Photoshop and the iApps is pretty useless for the average computer user. Do you really think Apple would last another 6 months if Microsoft would stop MS Office for the Mac? I don't think I have to elaborate... And I agree with the many analysts who say that Apple needs a market share of at least 10% on the long run in order to survive... I am working a lot for software companies and almost always I hear: "Developing for the Mac? Why? No ROI ever, it would be just a marketing stunt! Who cares for a platform that has 2% of the market...?" That's reality.

Look at SGI! They had a niche market (like Apple now) for high-end graphics and video production. Where are they now? You can survive in a niche market for a while, but it makes you very vulnerable, because when a competitor succeeds to get a foot into the same market your days are counted. May SGI rest in peace! Next candidate will be SUN (or Apple?)!

As far as apple not making signifigant developments in the computer industry, its all relative. No computer or software entitiy has been truly innovative in the last 15 years, especially in the sense of paradigm changing products or services. Things move forward very gradually -- but you can't say that Apple has not had an impact -- its incredibly important that microsoft has competion in order to keep the industry from remaining stagnant and therefore the market would be quite different without apple.
Wow! So Apples innovation is to be the artificial competition (kept alive by MS Office) of Microsoft! You see me impressed! :rolleyes:

So actually you do agree that there is no real impact on the industry by Apple anymore. OK, that's all I wanted to hear.

Nobody should get me wrong, I am a Mac-User since more than 15 years and I would hate to see Apple vanish. But what's going on lately really makes me wonder. Quo vadis, Apple?

Happy Easter! :)

groovebuster

groovebuster
Apr 11, 2004, 12:31 PM
Sorry... I totally forgot! ;)

The average computer user cares very little about specs -- they just want a machine that reliable and easy to use.
Wrong! They also care about the Specs! Because that's the only thing they can relate to when they don't know anything about computers! 10GB must be better than 5GB, because it's bigger! Why do you think the Megahertz Myth was born? Not because of some IT geeks who wet their pants over them, it was the consumers!

So what cosumers care about in first place are the specs and then reliability and usability... and when all the neighbours use the same thing (Wintel) it can't be that bad, right??? ;)

When you look at the majority of apple's potential customers most will not care if their machine has the fastest processor or graphics chip and if it did, they probably couldn't tell much of a difference.
That's a pretty courageous statement. How do you know? Numbers? A potential customer stays a potential customer as long as he doesn't buy and therefore means zero revenue. If Apples package is so outstanding, why doesn't everybody have an Apple by now?

Nowadays it doesn't matter, there is no "killer app" for the mac that requires a supercomputer.
You are kidding, right? The killer apps are games, 3D Graphics, video and audio production... you can't have enough processor power for these!

So therefore updates have been slow lately, a speed bump is not going to radically drive sales -- so why should Apple do it?
Because as long as Apple is just as fast as the others, why would people consider a switch to the Mac? Only if Apple could outperform the other platforms by far for the same price, it would have an impact on buying decisions.

Happy Easter again.

groovebuster

MacNut
Apr 11, 2004, 01:27 PM
So could we say a big problem with Apple over the years has been Motorola? If Apple had put its foot down sooner and told Motorola you need to give us better and faster chips or else, instead of just saying its ok dont worry take as long as you need, we can live with .25mhz updates every 6 months.

ingenious
Apr 11, 2004, 01:57 PM
I saw this article and it should raise alarms at Apple. how low can you go before people and developers leave the platform. Adobe has moved in that direction and only ATI makes any aftermarketcards for Mac. Noticed more ATI products being sold in the macs? I think Apple was forced to this or risk loosing the only card maker for them. There does come a point when market reaches critical. we are there now. The questions is what is Apple going to do about it. The board was asked this last time. Sure Mac junkies cant look past Steve Jobs ass but there are plenty of us Mac users who are wondering what the heck is going on and how do you get billions in the bank but let your market get to such a small number. #9 computermaker and sinking..instead of focus on pods & music i would focus on computers. 98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

building a #3 supercomputer did nothing for me nor most consumers but making a computer that the masses can buy that meets or exceeds the other guys PCs would. this is where Imac crt won the war 5 years ago and this is where Imac LCD has lost it. One day Apple will either remember the consumer or they will be gone. Consumer is King and we vote with our purchase. Apple thinks its King and lemmings follow. where are your lemmings going Mr Steve Jobs?


are you ALWAYS soo pessimistic? it seems every post of yours i read, you're attacking apple, saying apple is going down hill, bashing apple in some other way, or flaming someone else for a stupid fight.

MoparShaha
Apr 11, 2004, 02:51 PM
are you ALWAYS soo pessimistic? it seems every post of yours i read, you're attacking apple, saying apple is going down hill, bashing apple in some other way, or flaming someone else for a stupid fight.In my opinion, the situation is getting fairly dire, and a pessimistic attitude is a healthy one. Apple deserves to be flamed. They just don't get it. It's the same story over and over again. A great idea that is being marketed by an short-sighted, stubborn company. I've been a mac user for about 13 years now, and will defend Apple to the bitter end, but they're not making it easy.

The consumer line this year has been downright pathetic. What if the G5 hadn't come out this year? What would have been remarkable or memorable this year? The iTunes Music Store? Sure, that's nice, but Apple is a computer company first and foremost, and they have seem to have forgotten that, once again. So many people here have said it: if Apple just came out with a cheap, headless eMac/iMac computer, it would sell huge. Apple really came back from the verge of oblivion with the original iMac, and I think many are still riding that high. It's time to wake up, Apple is not doing well, and needs to take some serious action to prevent a complete market loss.

groovebuster
Apr 11, 2004, 03:30 PM
So could we say a big problem with Apple over the years has been Motorola? If Apple had put its foot down sooner and told Motorola you need to give us better and faster chips or else, instead of just saying its ok dont worry take as long as you need, we can live with .25mhz updates every 6 months.
No, the problem is more complex than that and the chip problem is just one little part.

groovebuster

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 11, 2004, 03:39 PM
are you ALWAYS soo pessimistic? it seems every post of yours i read, you're attacking apple, saying apple is going down hill, bashing apple in some other way, or flaming someone else for a stupid fight.I guess the years of paying more then my PC buddies for less able hardware, years i have allways had to wait for that favorite program to come to mac if it even did, the years of waiting for that next Mac hoping it would at least match the PC in something more then a blur and the almost year of waiting for a rev B G5 has taken its toll. Apple has removed most my optimism. :mad:

Inspector Lee
Apr 11, 2004, 05:27 PM
its incredibly important that microsoft has competion in order to keep the industry from remaining stagnant and therefore the market would be quite different without apple.

It is also incredibly important to have choices in operating systems whether it be OS X, XP or some company that may debut in the years to come. We, as a society, are moving dangerously close to a technological monoculture because of this mass proliferation of Windows.

I read this article Friday afternoon and it hit me like an open-hand chop to the throat. I asked myself why they would take a shot at Apple like this and what ever happened to rooting for the underdog? However, this article is an objective financial analysis and accurate.

and when all the neighbours use the same thing (Wintel) it can't be that bad, right???

I cannot tell you how dead-on this statement is. Apple can drop prices across the board, release a headless eMac/iMac, match Dell price for price but it will not magically increase marketshare. Xenophobia is the biggest obstacle. They should be advertising OS X, informing people that yes you can have PC/Mac households, etc.

Darwin
Apr 11, 2004, 06:36 PM
I cannot tell you how dead-on this statement is. Apple can drop prices across the board, release a headless eMac/iMac, match Dell price for price but it will not magically increase marketshare. Xenophobia is the biggest obstacle. They should be advertising OS X, informing people that yes you can have PC/Mac households, etc.

I also don't think a headless mac would really help, in fact that might just kill Apple altogether IMO, its with any business, if you sell something cheap you will need more customers to make sure you stay on top of your costs and if that doesn't work out then say bye bye, come on if people were not willing to pay more then Apple would have put the price down by now

Also this thing about market share, maybe Apple should do more but I don't think it's really a problem......yet, Oh yes lets get a high market share like the Wintel world, could it be that the same customers are replacing their boxes year after year? isn't that what the market share reflects, sales, not number of customers?

More advertising should be done, it has worked for the iPod as now alot of people know what one is, if it can work for the iPod why can't it work for the Macs and OS X, people need to know it exists and im sure that some people would run out and buy. For those who want games then stay with the PC, the choice of games for the mac is better then in the past but for now it is still behind.

As for the hardware lineup I agree that something must be done, Im sure Apple is aware of it, they have to be since they may not be selling as many iMacs as before but when we still have Moto in charge of the Processors then that might be a bit difficult. But somehing must happen this year and I will be watching out for something at the time of WWDC

Counterfit
Apr 11, 2004, 06:48 PM
I guess the years of paying more then my PC buddies for less able hardware, years i have allways had to wait for that favorite program to come to mac if it even did, the years of waiting for that next Mac hoping it would at least match the PC in something more then a blur and the almost year of waiting for a rev B G5 has taken its toll. Apple has removed most my optimism. :mad: Well you know what? I think you should switch. It's obvious that you will NEVER be happy with what Apple sells, unless they release a 10THz G11 this tuesday, at $400. Oh, and with a Radeon 10000 Pro XT.

orangedv
Apr 11, 2004, 06:58 PM
groovebuster & dont hurt me, very worthy comments. I dared to post a topic on macuser.co.uk asking 'G5 updates, where are they?' and basicly got insulted by bigots. Below 3% market share is a very very dangerous position to be in for this reason; at that level software companies will not see a return on development costs for software. Apple will have to rely on the hardwork being done for PC versions, and hope the development costs of a quick and painless port can be recovered from its tiny marketshare. The practicle upshot of that is do NOT expect any cool software coming out for the mac before the PC unless Apple have made it. For a company that is a byword for innovation, this ain't good. As a small example, AOL delayed porting its browser to OSX for the UK market for a long time because it couldnt recoup development costs to localise the English it was written in to start with. Once Apple reach a tipping point, Adobe will walk and so will Microsoft, then its game over, simple as that. If Adobe abandon Apple, and Apples iApps are fuel on the fire, I leave Apple, I need Adobe more than Apple.

I am desperate for a G5 update for business use, and these delays are disturbing. That machine has to last 4 years for me, and if Apple go belly up before then, I waste many thousands of pounds.

One HUGE mistake with Apple is treating consumers like inferior beings, no cool CPU's for you riff raff, that's for pros only. That just gets on peoples tits. A consumer into video and games will nuke a G5 far faster than the average pro. The lack of updates is their other HUGE mistake. You cannot do this in this industry. The third big mistake is its pricing.

They got everything right with the original iMac, in particular the iMac 4OO dv. It was damn fast, did everything the PC could do and more, had technology most PC's didnt have at the time, ie ethernet, firewire and good use of USB, it look stunning and (and it is a HUGE and) it was CHEAP.

groovebuster
Apr 12, 2004, 12:29 AM
@orangedv:

Thanks, we think alike it seems.

Greetings,

groovebuster

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 01:30 AM
Over the past year, we've been working our way out of a recession. So, I can understand if Apple did not target consumers before then, since computer sales were down. But now they have no excuse. All the software ducks are lined up. Now is the time to strike with hardware.

Hopefully they won't repeat the idiocy of last September, when they did not upgrade notebooks before people went off to school.

mj_1903
Apr 12, 2004, 08:27 AM
I suspect in the next few years Apple will either wow everyone (and thereby gain marketshare) or vanish completely.

My hoping right now is that this lull Apple is going through with product updates is to release a slew of perfect consumer and pro models.

There is always hope I suppose, but I know the software guys are working very, very hard.

LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 2004, 01:47 PM
Yes you have to pay attention to what consumers want, but at the same time you can't let the inmates run the asylum. There are people that want Apple to offer a $499 machine because Dell offers a $499 machine and that's not feasible<sp?> at all for any computer company except Dell. I do agree that the current iMacs are either underpowered or overpriced.

Groovebuster, SGI's problem isn't that it works in a niche market, its problem is that it didn't pay attention to changes in that niche market. Same thing, though not as severe, with Avid (which is one reason FCP took off like it did).


Lethal

rueyeet
Apr 12, 2004, 05:07 PM
Wrong! [Consumers] also care about the Specs! Because that's the only thing they can relate to when they don't know anything about computers! 10GB must be better than 5GB, because it's bigger! Why do you think the Megahertz Myth was born? Not because of some IT geeks who wet their pants over them, it was the consumers!

So what cosumers care about in first place are the specs and then reliability and usability... and when all the neighbours use the same thing (Wintel) it can't be that bad, right??? ;)Where one number is clearly bigger than another in a comparable measurement, yes, the consumers want the bigger number. But to figure out whether a Pentium is a better processor than an AMD or a Celeron, or to figure out which graphics card is faster, or whatever else, they rely on the tech press: PC Magazine and the like. And those publications have simply never given the Mac more than minimal coverage, much less fair coverage. This has changed a little with the advent of OS X, but by then, the damage to mindshare was done, and marketshare follows mindshare.

Consumers don't know what they want, except that they want bigger, better, faster, and more. They rely on advertising and tech publications to tell them what that is. And those publications always say that's Wintel, and that's what the general consumers have at work, and that's what the Joneses have next door, and so John Q. Public doesn't really know a Mac from a Golden Delicious. And they're not going to choose something they don't know about.
All Apple has to do is sell to the consumer. Do that and they will make a path to Apples door. Not without a heck of a lot more advertising and positive coverage in the mainstream technical press, they won't.

Now, I'd agree that Apple needs to increase marketshare at least somewhat. But I don't think cheaper computers, or more configurability, is the miracle panacea to Apple's marketshare problem. Power-users and pro-sumers know and care about components. The mass-market consumers just need to read in their favorite PC magazine that the Mac's specs are good. (From the sound of it, Dont Hurt Me, you're not really a typical mass-market consumer, whatever your budget may be).

In other words, people need to know more about the Mac. Apple needs to get an advertising campaign that works, and do more to promote the Mac to the mainstream tech press instead of relying on outlets like Macworld, which is already specific to the Mac audience. The iPod has already demonstrated that people will pay more if the product is well-known--and well-hyped--enough.

Someone asked to name one innovation by Apple that has had any real influence on the industry. The funny thing is, Apple has done something really huge: put a real, usable, graphical interface over Unix. Linux, despite all its advances, has yet to get anywhere close to the sheer out-of-box usability of OS X. And all this on a platform that you can run the almighty MS Office on! Yet no one gives this achievement much credit outside some of the geekier publications. Why? What gives? I see all these continuing reports on "is Linux ready for prime time" and yet no mention of how Apple's OS X already is.

If I was more conspiracy-minded, I'd swear that Microsoft was buying the good will of some (or most!) of these magazines..... :confused:

applebum
Apr 12, 2004, 05:25 PM
98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

This just isn't the correct way to examine market share. You cannot translate 2% marketshare into 98 out of 100 don't buy Apple. This is just too simplistic and doesn't tell the whole story. For example, you have 3 buyers - 1 is a business and the other 2 are individuals. The business buys 98 inexpensive Windows computers while the 2 individuals both buy Macs. Now, 2 out of 3 buyers have bought Macs, but Apple's marketshare is still just 2 percent. I am not saying this is how it really is in the computer market, just pointing out that marketshare isn't and end all be all number.

I think most of us way overestimate the "average" computer user. I think the average user doesn't want much more than internet, e-mail, and maybe some word processing. Maybe some games, or some other play around with software - photo editing, greeting cards, etc. While I think the Mac is perfect for all of this, particularly if the customer has no computer experience at all, there is the thought that Macs are too expensive. Unfortunately, once these people talk with a sales person, they are buying the "biggest hd, the best video card, a cd/dvd burner" and they have spent as much on the PC as they would have on the comparable eMac. There is also the concern that "no one they know has a Mac", and thus they won't be able to get help with something when they need it. I think the only thing Apple could do to get this "average" customer would be to have a $300 machine, and that won't happen. Gaining market share is an uphill climb and I doubt that Apple could do anything today that would change market share inside of a year. I believe they will gain marketshare by outlasting some of these competitors that aren't turning a profit. If they can be one of 5 or so major brands, they will gain share.

Also, software companies aren't going to stop making stuff for Apple, unless Apple just starts making something better. Their are plenty of independant developers that will make software - can you say Version Tracker. Also, look at different markets. Hollywood uses a lot of Macs - an article I saw today read "In Hollywood, Even the Writers use Macs" (something along those lines). Also the music industry is a big Mac supporter. Software companies don't care about overall marketshare, they care about how many people will be able to use/buy their software. Marketshare will keep some companies away from Apple, but others will be there to make an effort.

Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 05:32 PM
Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.

Yes, but that guy, the CFO, has left.

groovebuster
Apr 12, 2004, 11:46 PM
Groovebuster, SGI's problem isn't that it works in a niche market, its problem is that it didn't pay attention to changes in that niche market. Same thing, though not as severe, with Avid (which is one reason FCP took off like it did).
Dude, exactly what I said...

The reasons why exactly a company fails in a niche market are manifold. "Not paying attention" is just one of them... But it doesn't change the fact that a niche market is a very dangerous place on the long run. If I fail in that niche market, I'm dead! That's why every company (that has a good management) tries to diversify into other markets. And no, I don't think the iPod is the right strategy for Apple to do so...

groovebuster

groovebuster
Apr 13, 2004, 01:25 AM
Where one number is clearly bigger than another in a comparable measurement, yes, the consumers want the bigger number. But to figure out whether a Pentium is a better processor than an AMD or a Celeron, or to figure out which graphics card is faster, or whatever else, they rely on the tech press: PC Magazine and the like. And those publications have simply never given the Mac more than minimal coverage, much less fair coverage. This has changed a little with the advent of OS X, but by then, the damage to mindshare was done, and marketshare follows mindshare.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Professional PC magazines always wrote about the Mac. That consumer magazines didn't and still don't has one simple reason... The Mac is not really comparable to a Wintel machine. A Windows PC always runs Windows, runs the same programs. Benchmarks can be compared directly. How do you compare Benchmarks between different platforms in an objective way? Software is not optimized or available and even the parts of the computer are not really comparable (CPU, Motherboard, special version of the graphic card, etc...) Believe me, if they would have a Mac with every comparing test they are doing, they would have to double the length of the articles to explain the Mac for Dummies again and again. And in the end the numbers are not even comparable just like that. What is the benefit for giving free advertisement to Apple all the time, when it only has 2% of the market?

Consumers don't know what they want, except that they want bigger, better, faster, and more.
Exactly! And if there is something that is exotic and the numbers are not really comparable, they don't give a **** about it!

The mass-market consumers just need to read in their favorite PC magazine that the Mac's specs are good.
Wrong again. They also compare prizes. And Mac is more expensive. You get more bang for the buck with a Windows machine. Like it or not, but consumers are influenced by two things: prize and specs. A thing has to be cheap and has to have good specs. They don't mind to pay more for a good item when the specs are also outstanding. But they don't pay double the prize for something just because it's "different".

The iPod has already demonstrated that people will pay more if the product is well-known--and well-hyped--enough.
The (young) mp3-player market is something totally different and not comparable to the computer market.

Someone asked to name one innovation by Apple that has had any real influence on the industry.
That someone was me! :D

The funny thing is, Apple has done something really huge: put a real, usable, graphical interface over Unix.
Yup, really nice... :rolleyes: And what was the big impact on the industry? That's right! There wasn't any!

Linux, despite all its advances, has yet to get anywhere close to the sheer out-of-box usability of OS X. And all this on a platform that you can run the almighty MS Office on! Yet no one gives this achievement much credit outside some of the geekier publications. Why? What gives? I see all these continuing reports on "is Linux ready for prime time" and yet no mention of how Apple's OS X already is.
Again... Comparing features is one thing. The question was, if Apple MOVED anything in the industry. And it didn't! I find it funny that, when I raise that question, people always start to tell me about the features of Mac OS X. History is full of cool inventions or developments that never had an impact on anything.

Cheers,

groovebuster


P.S.: Did it ever cross your mind, that Mac OS X is not mentioned in publications, because it's running on proprietary hardware? Standard hardware is x86 compatible, like it or not.

groovebuster
Apr 13, 2004, 01:45 AM
98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

This just isn't the correct way to examine market share. You cannot translate 2% marketshare into 98 out of 100 don't buy Apple. This is just too simplistic and doesn't tell the whole story. For example, you have 3 buyers - 1 is a business and the other 2 are individuals. The business buys 98 inexpensive Windows computers while the 2 individuals both buy Macs. Now, 2 out of 3 buyers have bought Macs, but Apple's marketshare is still just 2 percent. I am not saying this is how it really is in the computer market, just pointing out that marketshare isn't and end all be all number.
:confused:

Your point is???

I think most of us way overestimate the "average" computer user. I think the average user doesn't want much more than internet, e-mail, and maybe some word processing. Maybe some games, or some other play around with software - photo editing, greeting cards, etc.
I think most if us totally overestimate the "average" car driver. I think the average driver doesn't want much more than...

Get the point? ;)

While I think the Mac is perfect for all of this, particularly if the customer has no computer experience at all, there is the thought that Macs are too expensive.
1. Macs are not perfect for all this
2. Macs ARE too expensive

Unfortunately, once these people talk with a sales person, they are buying the "biggest hd, the best video card, a cd/dvd burner" and they have spent as much on the PC as they would have on the comparable eMac.
The eMac isn't comparable to any current PC Hardware anymore. It's totally outdated and it is an all-in-one machine. Find me one PC that has bad specs like the eMac and costs as much.

I believe they will gain marketshare by outlasting some of these competitors that aren't turning a profit. If they can be one of 5 or so major brands, they will gain share.
Wrong! Because the "competitors" are selling Wintel machines. So actually Apple has just one competitor: all the PC manufacturers together. And it doesn't matter if there are 20 or only 5 of them. If a Wintel PC manufacturer dies doesn't help Apple at all.

Also, software companies aren't going to stop making stuff for Apple, unless Apple just starts making something better.
Companies make software for the Mac when there is an ROI. Period! Only exception is MS Office for Mac, since MS needs Apple alive.

Their are plenty of independant developers that will make software - can you say Version Tracker. Also, look at different markets. Hollywood uses a lot of Macs - an article I saw today read "In Hollywood, Even the Writers use Macs" (something along those lines). Also the music industry is a big Mac supporter. Software companies don't care about overall marketshare, they care about how many people will be able to use/buy their software.
Exactly! And in most cases that means lots of work for 2% of the market with no ROI. You were talking about niche markets again...

Marketshare will keep some companies away from Apple, but others will be there to make an effort.
It keeps most of them away.

Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.
In Jobs we trust, huh? :rolleyes:

Gre,

groovebuster

Krizoitz
Apr 13, 2004, 02:18 AM
First. Marketshare doesn't equal total users. Studies have shown that Macs last longer. Also Apple market share numbers are probably much higher in the consumer market, as unfortunately a lot of buisness for various reasons, including inertia.

Second, feature for feature Macs ARE competative, there is however PC's on the cheaper end.

Third. I'm sick of hearing everyone and there mother say that Steve Jobs is intentionally not putting out new Macs. Are you kidding me? He is actually NOT puting out computers that will sell well?

Fourth. What is everyones problem with the iPod. First they say apple needs to expand its markets, then they get pissed when they do. And I'm pretty sure that they aren't taking money away from the computer side to focus only on iPods.

groovebuster
Apr 13, 2004, 02:47 AM
First. Marketshare doesn't equal total users. Studies have shown that Macs last longer.
So what? Even if some people are still using an LCII (like my step-father) as a "type-writer", they are not in the market for buying a brand new MS Office, because they just don't need it or it won't run on their hardware. I know so many Macs that were never upgraded after the purchase years ago. They are just used! The people who are really buying new software are those who don't have a Mac longer than the average PC user. They need power! I don't wonder that so many had to stick with their Macs for such a long time... Apple just didn't release really faster machines (G4 anyone?) for about 2 years! ;)

Also Apple market share numbers are probably much higher in the consumer market, as unfortunately a lot of buisness for various reasons, including inertia.
Probably...? :rolleyes:

Second, feature for feature Macs ARE competative, there is however PC's on the cheaper end.
You mean the G5s? They are not too bad, that's right. At least they are not too far from a Wintel PC. But all the other lines are a joke! You don't even find a piece of junk like the eMac in the Wintel world anymore, especially not for that price...

Fourth. What is everyones problem with the iPod. First they say apple needs to expand its markets, then they get pissed when they do. And I'm pretty sure that they aren't taking money away from the computer side to focus only on iPods.
The problem is, that the iPod is making the profits for Apple at the moment. Without the iPod Apple would be dead by now. Apple is a computer company in first place but is failing in that regard since years. THAT is what people are pissed about. Try to see the big picture. Apple only survives at the moment because it has the iPod... And that is pretty bad for a computer company calling itself "innovative". Mac OS X is out since 3 years and it still doesn't have any impact on the rest of the computer market, because Apple can't offer an outstanding software/hardware package. 3 years is enough time to reorganize the product matrix and to do aggressive marketing (and succesful) marketing. But Apple is dropping the ball again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again...

It's always fun to read how Mac fanatics defend "holy" Apple no matter what! ;) Of course I like the Mac as a tool, but why wouldn't I be critical about what they are doing nevertheless? I earn money with my computers and for me it is a crucial business decision, if I stick with a computer platform... and like that it is for most other business people as well.

groovebuster

LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 2004, 12:53 PM
Dude, exactly what I said...

The reasons why exactly a company fails in a niche market are manifold. "Not paying attention" is just one of them... But it doesn't change the fact that a niche market is a very dangerous place on the long run. If I fail in that niche market, I'm dead! That's why every company (that has a good management) tries to diversify into other markets. And no, I don't think the iPod is the right strategy for Apple to do so...

groovebuster

From your original post it sounded like you were saying SGI had problems becuase it was in a niche market, not because of poor management. If you have poor management it doesn't matter if you have a niche market or a broad market you are going to have problems. There are plently of niche market companies that are doing fine. For example, Canopus, Pinnalce, AJA, Decklink, and Avid.

SGI's problem wasn't that it was a niche market, but that it was poorly managed.

In some cases diversifing<sp?> into other markets isn't the right solution (jack of all trades, master of none). That's one reason why Apple's success w/FCP is so note worthy. Apple is gaining a lot of ground in a market tradionaly held by niche companies. But many people are wondering what direction Apple is going to take FCP. Are they going to make it jack-of-all-trades type program or are they going to really refine it as an editor? I know the release of FCP 4 dissapointed many editors in a way because it leaned more towards "jack-of-all-trades" than it did "refined editor." Anyway, now I'm just ranting.


Lethal

Edot
Apr 13, 2004, 02:04 PM
It is funny everyone talking about Apple going under. Did you know about the company in the 90's. If they were able to survive then than they are in really really great shape now. They have been able to expand there products and make profits during a very bad economic cycle. The 90's were booming and Apple was in very very bad shape. I don't understand how you justify saying the will be gone shortly. Just the opposite. I don't think they will have more than 2-5% market share for awhile, but when Longhorn comes out and consumers start to mass upgrade, if Apple has a good solution they are in a position to gain marketshare. Again, I don't think that staying within 2-5% is bad for them anyways. 27 year old companies usually don't just disappear. Especially when they are making money.

transistor
Apr 13, 2004, 02:10 PM
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but some of you seem to forget that computer market is a monopoly.
Please don't start flaming me about passing all Apple's griefs to Microsoft, but we should not ignore the fact that the computer market is controlled by Microsoft. Only Microsoft, not Intel. What would happen if Microsoft decided to drop the Intel architecture and go PPC?

I don't think Apple can increase their marketshare significantly based on their pricing or specs in the current market conditions.

Don't get me wrong! I love Apple and Macs, I have a bunch of them and I'll keep buying them as long as they exist and I wish they can find a way to increase their marketshare anytime.

Koodauw
Apr 13, 2004, 04:13 PM
Jeez. Everyone here is a critic. You all think you know what is best for Apple.*Maybe you don't.* I know this may be hard for alot of you to swallow, but it is true. Let Steve run Apple the way he sees fit.

Darwin
Apr 13, 2004, 06:31 PM
Market Share = No. of sales

This comes out every year right?

Wintel have 95%+ every year

Macs have something like 1.7% but we have ~25 million users now

Even if we had 10x more users, if the Macs still last longer you go back to the 1.7% again so it is the users we really want, not the market share

If Apple is in trouble Apple will know, at the end of the day if they mess up they will be the ones who pay the price, are they gonna kill themselfs just to annoy you people? To be honest I think they have done well to stay up and running.

applebum
Apr 13, 2004, 07:35 PM
While a bit old, this article speaks to most of what has been argued here. Very interesting read.

Link (http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/01/06/15/)

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 12:00 AM
Sorry, but I think this article is BS... that guy is just twisting the numbers and bending the facts so that everything looks as rosy as he wants it to be.

This guy really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I really don't feel like discussing the details here over and over again. I just find it interesting that almost everything he said is the opposite of my personal experience in the IT business. Sad enough that he really thinks he is smart and figured it all out... Poor guy! How embarassing for him! He should do himself a favour by not writing anymore...

groovebuster

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 12:26 AM
SGI's problem wasn't that it was a niche market, but that it was poorly managed.
When you are losing a niche market it is always because of bad management in some way... Apple lost a huge chunk of the DTP market the last few years and still is. And that is the part of the market where Apple was always strong, because they invented it.

In some cases diversifing<sp?> into other markets isn't the right solution (jack of all trades, master of none).
A computer company like Apple needs to be present in all markets. Actually they build an OS and the hardware needed for it. The OS isn't specialized for anything, it is just the platform to run some specialized software. I never heard that Windows XP runs only Office apps well. That's exactly why people use it and it is still so succesful, because they know they can use it for anything (that's the theory at least). There is no benefit for Apple to be the hero of a niche market and to promote that to the potential customers.

But I think we are running in circles now... There are those who are sceptical about where Apple is going the next few years and those who claim the Titanic is unsinkable and go on partying. We'll see who's gonna be right. I don't have a problem to stand corrected when the time has come... ;)

groovebuster

JamesDPS
Apr 14, 2004, 12:58 AM
Below 3% market share is a very very dangerous position to be in for this reason; at that level software companies will not see a return on development costs for software. Apple will have to rely on the hardwork being done for PC versions, and hope the development costs of a quick and painless port can be recovered from its tiny marketshare. The practicle upshot of that is do NOT expect any cool software coming out for the mac before the PC unless Apple have made it. For a company that is a byword for innovation, this ain't good. As a small example, AOL delayed porting its browser to OSX for the UK market for a long time because it couldnt recoup development costs to localise the English it was written in to start with. Once Apple reach a tipping point, Adobe will walk and so will Microsoft, then its game over, simple as that. If Adobe abandon Apple, and Apples iApps are fuel on the fire, I leave Apple, I need Adobe more than Apple.

Not to beat on a dead horse, but market share and install base are different things, and when it comes to software development, install base (Apple has around 10%) is the important factor. And before you start saying that a low market share will lower install base, which is theoretically correct all other things being equal, remember that all other things are NOT equal. Just think of the longevity of Macs -- right now I'm using a 400 MHz G3 laptop (Pismo) that I've had for 4 YEARS, and it totally keeps up with my roommate's brand new Dell laptop (not to mention OS X is just a little better than winxp). Yeah, so he paid about half what I did, but I don't even want to start listing the ways my laptop is still better they are too many.

Another factor is that one mac can (in some lines of work) do the job of several PeeCees. I plan to get a rev. b PM G5 the morning they're introduced (yes, that has been a VERY frustrating wait, so I'm not defending Apple COMPLETELY :( ) to use with Logic Pro 6 (which, btw is VERY well made software -- it actually runs REALLY WELL on my measly G3 400!). The only halfway decent sequencer on windows is Cubase, which I dislike intensely (and it's so UGLY, which is kind of distracting in a creative field), and you would easily need 3 dual-xeons or 3.2GHz P4s to do the job of one mac. Not to mention you'd be paying an arm and a leg to upgrade the PeeCees to support high-end audio needs. To those complaining that macs are not "high-end" enough, consider that you would need to spend at LEAST $150 on a sound card to even APPROACH the kind of low latency macs acheive with their built-in sound and Core Audio.

As for Adobe, I find it hard to imagine them leaving Apple, they would be shooting themselves in the foot (I assume you're talking mainly about Photoshop and Illustrator). I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but in my experience, the majority of professional graphic designers and illustrators that I know are on Mac, and I know quite a few. I know Apple probably doesn't have a majority install base in that field, but they certainly have enough for software development to remain profitable for a long time to come. MS stopping Office for Mac would bring down Apple, but clearly they're making money on it still, even with the dire year that we've had, not to mention the anti-trust issues if they were to discontinue mac development; of course, then I suppose OpenOffice or something would come to OS X... (and besides, TextEdit is so much better than Word, anyway!) And who cares about AOL? Their software totally sucks regardless of the platform.... to force mac users to look elsewhere for an ISP would be doing them a huge favor.

Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 01:58 AM
Not to beat on a dead horse, but market share and install base are different things, and when it comes to software development, install base (Apple has around 10%) is the important factor.
Too bad, that Adobe for example only releases MacOS X software anymore. Someone who has an old old Mac isn't in the market for new software. The installed base doesn't mean you sell your software to 10% of computer users. The people who buy the new software in most cases are these who also buy the new computers, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense for them. I know so many graphic artists who still have an old Mac, like a PowerMac B&W and they are still running Freehand 9, XPress 3.32 and Photoshop 6.0, because it just works, they couldn't even install Photshop CS on their machine... So the truth is that install base doesn't mean anything.

And before you start saying that a low market share will lower install base, which is theoretically correct all other things being equal, remember that all other things are NOT equal. Just think of the longevity of Macs
I really wonder who invented the myth, that PCs become slower when they get older. Dude, PCs last as long as Macs, there is no difference! That people are using their Macs longer is a totally different subject. But I know many people with 4 or 5 y.o. PCs or Laptops that are still running fine and they are still using them on a daily basis...

-- right now I'm using a 400 MHz G3 laptop (Pismo) that I've had for 4 YEARS, and it totally keeps up with my roommate's brand new Dell laptop (not to mention OS X is just a little better than winxp). Yeah, so he paid about half what I did, but I don't even want to start listing the ways my laptop is still better they are too many.
Your Pismo running OS X is keeping up with a brand new Dell Laptop? :rolleyes: I don't think so... That Mac OS X is better than XP is no question, but the hardware? C'mon, stop that biased babbling.

Another factor is that one mac can (in some lines of work) do the job of several PeeCees.
:D ... examples? Now it is starting to become interesting...

I plan to get a rev. b PM G5 the morning they're introduced (yes, that has been a VERY frustrating wait, so I'm not defending Apple COMPLETELY :( )
Why not buying the current G5? Since it is soooooooo superior it will still blow any PC out of the water for the next 8 years, since Macs last so much longer. :rolleyes:

to use with Logic Pro 6 (which, btw is VERY well made software -- it actually runs REALLY WELL on my measly G3 400!).
That's another myth and I wonder if you ever really used Logic. As soon as you start to use some effects or more than 4 tracks (let's just call it "serious work"), your pismo will fail in every way possible. So far about "really well"...

The only halfway decent sequencer on windows is Cubase, which I dislike intensely (and it's so UGLY, which is kind of distracting in a creative field), and you would easily need 3 dual-xeons or 3.2GHz P4s to do the job of one mac.
Man... Logic was also available for the PC until Apple bought emagic and dumped the PC version. Ugliness is something totally subjective and can't be discussed. I know quit some people doing a good job with Cubase SX on a PC. And that you don't know any other music production software than Logic and Cubase tells already the whole story...

Not to mention you'd be paying an arm and a leg to upgrade the PeeCees to support high-end audio needs. To those complaining that macs are not "high-end" enough, consider that you would need to spend at LEAST $150 on a sound card to even APPROACH the kind of low latency macs acheive with their built-in sound and Core Audio.
Even more BS! The onboard sound of the Macs is far from high-end. Low latency doesn't help, when it sounds like crap. If you want to record music with a computer you always need a good sound card with pro A/D & D/A converters. And those cards cost the same for Mac and PC...

As for Adobe, I find it hard to imagine them leaving Apple, they would be shooting themselves in the foot (I assume you're talking mainly about Photoshop and Illustrator).
Adobe sticks with Apple as long as they can make a profit by doing so. They already abandonned Premiere and FrameMaker. They are a business and that's what they are basing their decisions on.

I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but in my experience, the majority of professional graphic designers and illustrators that I know are on Mac, and I know quite a few.
Good for you! I know many that are using Windows as well and it works pretty good. I would say about 50% of the "creative" people I know are working on PCs by now... and the funny part is, that they don't encounter all the problems they are supposed to have considering what you hear from die-hard Mac-fans.

(and besides, TextEdit is so much better than Word, anyway!)
*lol* :D

Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...
Weird... I never had to tinker with the guts of my PCs. Well, at least not more than with the guts of my Macs... Maybe you shouldn't have tried to build a computer yourself. Sounds as if you didn't know what you were doing! ;) ... and you still don't.

I still like the Mac better, but when I read BS like this, I really don't wonder about anything anymore...

groovebuster

LethalWolfe
Apr 14, 2004, 02:35 AM
When you are losing a niche market it is always because of bad management in some way... Apple lost a huge chunk of the DTP market the last few years and still is. And that is the part of the market where Apple was always strong, because they invented it.


A computer company like Apple needs to be present in all markets. Actually they build an OS and the hardware needed for it. The OS isn't specialized for anything, it is just the platform to run some specialized software. I never heard that Windows XP runs only Office apps well. That's exactly why people use it and it is still so succesful, because they know they can use it for anything (that's the theory at least). There is no benefit for Apple to be the hero of a niche market and to promote that to the potential customers.

But I think we are running in circles now... There are those who are sceptical about where Apple is going the next few years and those who claim the Titanic is unsinkable and go on partying. We'll see who's gonna be right. I don't have a problem to stand corrected when the time has come... ;)

groovebuster

I agree that Apple does need to be present in different markets, but my point was that having a diverse product line isn't right for every company. Just like having a niche product line isn't right for every company (I'd hate to see Apple drop everything else and just focus on FCP, DVD SP, and Shake).

I guess I'm giving Apple the benifit of the doubt because they have a habit of doing the right thing before people realize they are doing the right thing. Both iMacs (although more so the original CRT iMac), FCP, OS X, the iPod, the iPod mini, iTMS, iLife, the G5. Unfortunetly being a trailerblazer means you are gonna stumble more than the trail followers and thats the case w/some of Apple's hardware right now. I'm sure they want like all hell to fit a G5 in a laptop and into an iMac but I'm also sure there are a truck load of practical and logistical problems in the way right now. Hopefully Apple's diversity ( like the iPod/iPod mini) will be able to pick up most of the slack until they can jump over those technical hurrdles and finally say "bye-bye" to Moto.

And about the running in cirlces thing... *tag*... you're it. :D


Lethal

Mav451
Apr 14, 2004, 03:16 AM
....
Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...

Haha groove you beat me to it. This sounds like the disgruntled experience of an unsuccessful tweaker. Honestly, if you're going to build a system yourself, at least educate yourself beforehand so that your computer is not overheating (ask questions on forums--a PC forum that is :) )

*LethalWolfe: You make a good point about being the trailblazer. Many people have commented on how revolutionary the first iMacs were. The reason it was successful, however, was that it was at the consumer level (not the $3,000 level of the G5's). I think I was too young at the time to care about this, so I cannot really comment in detail about this, but from the impressions I am getting, if this "iMac 400 DV" success could be repeated, then maybe we'll see a bigger revival of Apple's computer sector.

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 03:19 AM
*tag*... you're it. :D
... always me!! http://www.kleberg.org/images/smiles/icon_river.gif

Darwin
Apr 14, 2004, 04:53 AM
I really wonder who invented the myth, that PCs become slower when they get older. Dude, PCs last as long as Macs, there is no difference! That people are using their Macs longer is a totally different subject. But I know many people with 4 or 5 y.o. PCs or Laptops that are still running fine and they are still using them on a daily basis...


True, PC hardware is capable of lasting just as long as Apple hardware, the problem is with a company for example like Dell they choose to use cheaper parts which may not last as long, well if you are selling stuff cheap you need to make sure your cost are low to so you can actually get a profit out of it :rolleyes:

As for the PCs getting slower I have a PC that works along side the Macs, it does get slower but this isn't because of the hardware but because of Windows XP which is installed on it, I have friends who use PCs and couldn't care less for the Mac, but they still end up reinstalling Windows just to try and speed it up again. This is also happening with my PC too, the games still run fine but the GUI of Windows is as slow as hell which means that a 800Mhz G3 iBook running OS X can appear more snappier than the PC

Adobe sticks with Apple as long as they can make a profit by doing so. They already abandonned Premiere and FrameMaker. They are a business and that's what they are basing their decisions on.


Adobe is here for business and with the artists using a Mac so it may be an idea to stick with them, as for those older products I know that they got rid of Premiere because it wasn't selling, because people were buying Final Cut Pro instead

Could somebody remind me what the topic was about in the first place?
Something about CNN and iTunes :D

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 05:09 AM
True, PC hardware is capable of lasting just as long as Apple hardware, the problem is with a company for example like Dell they choose to use cheaper parts which may not last as long, well if you are selling stuff cheap you need to make sure your cost are low to so you can actually get a profit out of it :rolleyes:
My Dell works since 3.5 years absolutely flawless...

As for the PCs getting slower I have a PC that works along side the Macs, it does get slower but this isn't because of the hardware but because of Windows XP which is installed on it, I have friends who use PCs and couldn't care less for the Mac, but they still end up reinstalling Windows just to try and speed it up again. This is also happening with my PC too, the games still run fine but the GUI of Windows is as slow as hell which means that a 800Mhz G3 iBook running OS X can appear more snappier than the PC
The same Dell I mentioned above never saw a reinstall of the OS (Windows2000) since I bought it 3.5 years ago. And it didn't get slower. I use it daily. There must be something I am doing wrong! ;)

groovebuster

Darwin
Apr 14, 2004, 05:23 AM
The same Dell I mentioned above never saw a reinstall of the OS (Windows2000) since I bought it 3.5 years ago. And it didn't get slower. I use it daily. There must be something I am doing wrong!


I did say XP, I know that Windows 2000 doesn't have a problem, and there was me thinking that upgrading to the lastest would be better :p

My Dell works since 3.5 years absolutely flawless...

I should have seen that coming :o

Desktop or Laptop?

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 06:20 AM
I did say XP, I know that Windows 2000 doesn't have a problem, and there was me thinking that upgrading to the lastest would be better :p
I always thought XP is just an "eye-candied" 2000? ;)

I should have seen that coming :o
Hehe... :D

Desktop or Laptop?
Desktop of course! You wouldn't find me ever using a Windows Laptop!!! :D :rolleyes:

See yourself: picture (http://www.k2000.de/bilder/office.jpg)

groovebuster

Darwin
Apr 14, 2004, 07:26 AM
Desktop of course! You wouldn't find me ever using a Windows Laptop!!!

Yes, I hear it is the Laptops having the problems, I don't hear much about the Desktops

I guess that the Desktops work fine, on my PC apart from XP (which counts for 95% of my problems) its not really that bad, both platforms have their purpose, for me the Macs help me with work and the PC is used for gaming

I always thought XP is just an "eye-candied" 2000?

All part of the eXPerience ;)

Which ever one works best for you, both have their pros and cons :)

Nice setup by the way :D

groovebuster
Apr 14, 2004, 09:51 AM
Nice setup by the way :D
Thanks. :)

But this is only my Home-Office... the set-up is good enough to do some work at home when there is no need to go to my "real" office/studio... :)

And sorry... no pictures from there. :o

groovebuster

JeffTL
Apr 14, 2004, 10:50 AM
If you think Macs are overpriced, have you looked any at laptops lately?


While researching a public speaking assignment, I found that the iBook G4, and even the PowerBook, are less expensive than anything truly comparable from Gateway (light, small, good battery). Yes, you can get a Dell for $800, but is it better value than the $1100 iBook? And how long will it last?