Alas I feel that point only solidifies my thinking. If Microsoft owned Apple that wouldn't concern me. So long as the virtues of Apple remained in the products they produced.
The Fiat/Ferrari situation is proof of Fiat's knowledge that Ferrari is successful because it is the best at what is does. Apple computers are a premium brand. I like it that way. I don't want them becoming a Fiat.
As has been pointed out on other threads. By NOT chasing the market prices (everyone was hoping for a cheap Macbook and they went the opposite direction) and doing 'what they do' they have remained profitable. By pandering to the masses it would both lessen their brand value and ultimately erode their profits.
Their profitabiltiy is not only a function of their computer hardware. By selling computer hardware that is a step back from the newest edge, they do protect themselves from possible unforseen circumstances, but they charge a LOT of money.
The car analogy falls down on one point. A Ferrari, or a less expensive BMW or Fiat, or even Fiat's other house brands, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati...
All drive on the same roads, with the same steering wheel and pedal arrangment.
Imagine if Ferrari came up with some new way of controlling a car that was inherently better, and then said no one else could use it, even though it is better in many ways.
But it is a Ferrari, and if you want better, but can't afford $150K plus for a car, sod off.
As long as Apple keeps Mac OS closed to anything but their own hardware, then it is fair game to roundly criticize them for not offering hardware options that do make common sense, and are affordable to the majority of the computer buying public.
I understand not making junk to cater to the "fast and loose" crowd. I understand having standards of design and component quality. Apple can do better than they are doing.
Inflation is going to take a really BIG bite out of people's discretionary spending soon. Profit taking (charging the maximum possible because people can afford to part with more money for your product over other products) cannot be a permanent strategy. Any economic indicator over the last quarter supports this. Apple's sales figures may be a lagging indicator, but it will catch up to them.
Plus, their premiums for portable devices like iPhone and iPod may make them very good money, but those devices don't cost over 1000$, and their profit margins are still healthy despite being closer to the average for portable devices of the type, and the Apple devices sell themselves on qualitative grounds.
The Apple computers have a couple of qualitative differences, but almost all of the differentiation is Mac OS or pricing. The hardware inside the pretty aluminum cases are pretty much standard, compared to other comparable offerings. And you pay to play. People are losing their purchasing power, and won't always be able to pay, and they will go elsewhere to play.
Elitism doesn't sell for very long. Look at how other companies get vilified for lavish spending and salaries while going down the tubes. Apple isn't going down the tubes, granted. But they need to be realistic in order to stay that way.
nobody is asking for fast and loose junk with an apple logo. People are asking for rational products that make good sense, and carry a reasonable pricetag. REASONABLE. Not cheap, but not crazy expensive, either. A 3000$ server-grade workstation to run dual monitors, or carry a desktop sized hard-drive and RAM, is crazy expensive overkill. Paying for a big built-in monitor when you don't want or need that monitor to be built in is unnecessary, and uncalled for. It works for some, but not for people willing to buy an alternative Apple product that doesn't exist.
