Re: Apple does NOT know what consumers want
Originally posted by SonnyCA
I was shopping for a laptop the other day, comparing iBooks to Dells to Compaqs to IBMs. Why would anybody in his right mind buy an iBook?? You get so much more on the PC side, and the difference in software quality and case construction is trivial to consumers.
I hereby challenge you to find me a 12.1" laptop with a combo drive, 30GB hard drive, 384MB of RAM, 32MB ATI Radeon 7500 or equivalent, and 5 hours battery life, all for $1300 (what this iBook configuration costs when buying from any Apple reseller). Similar offerings from Dell, Sony, and Fujitsu cost anywhere from $1500 to $2000. The iBook is all about mobility, as reflected in its smaller size and battery life. If you want an 8 to 10 pound "desktop replacement monster, then that's your choice, but don't mock us iBook buyers because we want to *gasp* actually carry around our laptops to work, school, airplanes, etc.
There IS a market for portable laptops, and actually I think Dell, Sony and Fujitsu are selling quite a few of their ultra-portables to consumers who unfortunately did not even consider the iBook, which is a much better value. To give you an idea of what these iBook competitors offer, they normally have an 800MHz to 1.2 GHz Pentium III (in the case of Dell and Sony), or a 933MHz Transmeta Crusoe (in the case of the Fujitsu). So it's not even like they have faster CPUs. Instead, they chose to (correctly, in my opinion), use a slower CPU that consumes much less power, so they can get a battery life of 4+ hours. And the cost of these computers? Hundreds more than my iBook! This has already been rehashed to death in other threads, but there is just no reason I need a Pentium 4 that will get a 2 hour battery life and burn my unmentionables like that sorry scientist in the U.K. I use my iBook for web browsing, MP3 listening, DVD viewing, the occasional game (like Baldur's Gate or Civ III), and yes, even development (granted, I'm a database developer, so the code actually runs on high-powered servers, and I just use my iBook for CVS, Ant, BBEdit, FTP, and JDBC/SQL connectivity).
Even when comparing the 14" iBook (which is less competitive in my opinion), you have to make sure you're comparing similar machines. For example, the 14" only weighs 6 pounds and has a 6 hour battery life. So this would be comparable to the Dell "Thin and Light" models. I think you'll find the price differential is much smaller than you might think, probably from $100-$200 dollars, but normally won't have a battery life longer than 2 Hours anyway, so you'd have to get an extra high-capacity battery for at least another $100.
Sure, Apple does not compete at the very low end, but so what? Apple will never make a computer that will sell for $200 at Wal-Mart. Is BMW a lesser company just because they don't sell as many cars Toyota or Honda? Ah, but a low-end BMW will still outperform and have more style than an Acura or Lexus that is aiming for the same target market.
There will always be room in any market for a higher-end product. I think Apple is wise not to aim for the mass market - those products just become commodities, profits fall to zero, and all but a handful of companies get weeded out. By staying out of the low-end price wars, they ensured that they would not be one of those companies weeded out. Apple cannot and should not compete with Dell at the low end (though as I mentioned above, they compete quite well in the mid to high end with Dell, offering an even better value than the supposed value leader in the PC market). Realistically, the best Apple can ever hope for is to gain 20% to 30% market share - and that's if they capture the bulk of the people that are willing to spend a little more than the minimum so that they can get a higher quality product and/or more features. And that's just fine with me.
