Apple Marketshare and 'Sales Guys'

[takao]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Market Share, stupid. No, profits. No, Market Share.

Originally posted by blueBomber
yeah, but does it run osX?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Market Share, stupid. No, profits. No, Mark

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]

Headless, baby!

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]

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]

ummm...

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]

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]

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]

Re: Give me a break

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?


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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Market Share, stupid. No, profits. No, Market Sh

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]

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

 

[benpatient]

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]

False competition.

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]

Re: It's Market Share, stupid. No, profits. No, Market Share.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Re: Re: It's Market Share, stupid. No, profits. No, Market Share.

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]

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]

.3 cents

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]

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]

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]

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.