Apple 1st Quarter Results and Conference Call

[groovebuster]

I am not complaining about paying more for a Mac. I am complaining about paying more for a Mac than other people for no good reason.

If a Porsche costs 100,000 ? at place a and 120,000 ? at place b it can't be about quality or user experience, since we talk about exactly the same product.

And these days there are no import taxes for computer products to the EU. The "more" goes directly to Apple's bank account...

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

its actually interesting you used cars as an example as cars do cost different prices depending on where you buy them. i know a lot of people who buy cars in nevada instead of california because the cost of new cars is so much lower outside CA.

 

[oldMac]

Re: Keep your politcal views to yourself...please.

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
"I would say "indirectly" and I agree with the poster.

>>>>>>>>>>

What a stretch! You have some imagination. Tell it to Rush Limbaugh.....

Where's the stretch? Everything I said is logical.

5) A bad economy will hurt Apple's sales.
- Try to refute that one, buddy.

4) Higher oil prices will hurt the economy.
- Again, this is logical.

3) If we go to war with Iraq, oil prices will rise.
- This is *highly* likely. In fact, oil prices are already on the way up.

2) If we go to war, people will die and people will be upset.
- Show me a war where this hasn't happened.

1) George is probably upset about Saddam trying to kill his dad. (In fact, he said so several months ago.)
- Wouldn't you be upset if Saddam tried to kill your dad?

Finally, you neglected to say *anything* relevant to this thread. (Which I did in my post.)

I'm not saying that Apple will do worse than anyone else if the economy goes further south, but it will certainly hurt sales.

Fact is, we're in a survival market right now. The companies that will survive are the ones that:

a) Don't lose money
b) Have enough cash on hand to generate interest revenue and outlast the other guys who are bleeding

 

[Sonofhaig]

Saddam hurting Mac sales from Baghdad

"I'm not saying that Apple will do worse than anyone else if the economy goes further south, but it will certainly hurt sales."

>>>>>>>>>>

This is the most logical thing you've said.
If you want to blame anyone, blame someone other than Bush.
Nobody wants this war or any war. And besides, you're taking yourself way too seriously on this issue. Lets put it to bed now, and talk about real Mac stuff. Which is why we're all here. OK?

 

[oldMac]

When will Apple break out?

Originally posted by Sonofhaig

If you want to blame anyone, blame someone other than Bush.

You mean like Rumsfeld? Just Kidding...

Okay... So Apple's dumping all this money into R&D and trying to push the envelope. I see great things happening with OS X, but the big disappointment is the professional-level hardware, or the lack thereof...

Is it a reasonable assumption to see OS X.3 and G5-based PowerMacs arriving at the same time? Assuming that the G5 has some different performance attributes, it would make sense that they would be released together.

I'm going to predict that will happen in October and that Apple will have HUGE Q4 revenue. The only question is how bad things will get on the sales front before then.

 

[artistry]

Originally posted by Redhorse


A big YES!

We need a Power Mac G4 for home users and switchers. The iMac TFT ist great, but a desktop or tower about 1000 ? (incl. tax) will push up the market share!

I agree a cheaper Mac and more equitable prices would be welcome, but increased sales at a lower margin is, believe it or not, a poor strategy. Better to have low sales/high margin because each sale incurs costs... oh it's too complicated to go into.

I remember my previous life when I did design for a firm that supplied house builders. The low volume high margin sales were the ones that got everybody cheering while the poor guys who spent 50 hours a week selling thousands of low margin bits and bobs were always the poorest. I never quite understood why, but it makes sense in the way that the Uncertainty Principle makes sense
Anyway, getting a bigger market share isn't the answer to Apple's problems, particularly if it is at the cost of margin. A lower share with a high margin puts them in a stronger position. I know, I know...

 

[tgrundke]

All of the arguments are valid - but the underlying point is that Apple has a fundamental problem with the PRICE/PERFORMANCE RATIO in the industry that it is in.

Each industry is ruled by different dynamics and forces, some are alterable variables - some are not. Again, we're not in the car industry, where customers generally look for a nice balance of performance and features.

Computers are more like commodities whereby people believe in several dynamics:

1) As performance increases, price decreases;
2) There are several set standards, Windows (for better or worse) is one of them;
3) etc.

Now, changing these consumer beliefs is quite difficult when they are set in stone.

While Apple may be able to move a portion of the public into understanding that performance isn't everything (I agree) and that functionality is an important variable - it won't do it for everyone.

For the vast majority, it's a commodity item, much like a television and a radio today. Some are better than others, and a few will pay the extra for the better design and functionality, but the mass market will take the cheapest and fastest because it's "good enough".

Now combine this with the "S" vairable (software) and the issue is greatly complicated. If Apple didn't rely on software vendors, they'd be solid and happy. But unlike TVs and radios, Macs require specialized data streams.

So while I agree that the Quark issue is one that is holding back many a publisher, the price/performance ratio is so out of whack at the moment that it is not even funny any more.

Granted, in Maclandia and our own utopias, every application would be optimized for Altivec and Dual Processors. But sadly, they're not. So Apple is left in the position it finds itself at the moment. The name of the game for the majority is "Fastest for the cheapest." Apple doesn't have to be the cheapest - and we know they never will be. But they do need to be speed competitive.

 

[MacKid]

Originally posted by artistry


I agree a cheaper Mac and more equitable prices would be welcome, but increased sales at a lower margin is, believe it or not, a poor strategy. Better to have low sales/high margin because each sale incurs costs... oh it's too complicated to go into.

I remember my previous life when I did design for a firm that supplied house builders. The low volume high margin sales were the ones that got everybody cheering while the poor guys who spent 50 hours a week selling thousands of low margin bits and bobs were always the poorest. I never quite understood why, but it makes sense in the way that the Uncertainty Principle makes sense
Anyway, getting a bigger market share isn't the answer to Apple's problems, particularly if it is at the cost of margin. A lower share with a high margin puts them in a stronger position. I know, I know...

I agree. Although a consumer mini-tower would be very welcome, I think $999 is just unreasonable. The most they can squeeze out for $999 is a 700mhz G3 laptop, so I think Apple is doing great appealing to each defined user category, instead of filling the gaps at this point (which they do so well ).