Of course they do. And "plenty" of those plenty of systems are $399 computers that probably cost more in customer support than they bring in. Again, that's not the business I'd want to be in.
Yes, and Dell also sells plenty of XPS and Alienware systems, and plenty of <$100 but >$400 systems, and plenty of >$1000 but <$1000 systems.
Exactly. Their market share is increasing because they're making better quality products. Hyundai didn't decide they were going to make market share their priority. They decided to make product quality their priority. And a pleasant result of that approach has been rising market share.
Their market share isn't increasing *just* because they're making higher quality products. It's a combination of making higher quality products, and still selling cars at very affordable levels. And they still are making marketshare gain a priority. Check out this link:
http://www.bnet.com/2403-13241_23-309290.html
Notice this quote from their head of sales:
"Everybody is trying to figure out how to gain market share. At the end of the last year we had 3 percent market share, so we believe theres 97 percent out there that we can go after."
I think Jobs actually said it's hard or difficult to raise them again. Apparently not so difficult that they couldn't do it.
So first it's that it never happens, now it's that it's hard/difficult. Where's this quote?
(And don't take that as me calling you out. He probably did say something along those lines. Then again, it's not the first time Steve put his foot in his mouth).
I miss the days of the $1500 Power Mac.
So do I
WRONG. Just because they're making money on each console sold now doesn't mean they've repaid the billions they've dumped into the effort since day one (including the hardware's horrific failure rate). Because they haven't. Not even close. High attach rate or not, Xbox will be in the red for a long time to come.
As mentioned in an earlier post, if I recall correctly (and I may be very much incorrect on this), they've spent something like $8 billion total in investment in the "XBox project" (XBOX and XBOX360). If they continue to make a profit each quarter, it'll eventually pay itself back.
I don't think that's much different from quite a few companies. I'm sure some of Intel's developments have taken quite a bit of time to pay back.
Exactly. Nintendo took the right approach. Make a great product that people would want, price it at a profit. Sell lots of product, make lots of money, take a commanding market share. Business 101.
Sony and Microsoft did not follow Business 101 with their console strategies.
Well, Nintendo took that approach more because they couldn't keep up in the game of constantly trying to develop and release the most advanced gaming console. Remember how long it took for the N64 and Gamecube to appear. Nintendo's track record for developing top-of-the-line console hardware had become fairly bad with the last few products. It had nothing to do with thinking it was the best approach to go. It was simply the best approach for them. And it has paid off handsomely (although lately Wii sales are starting to drop quite a bit, and Nintendo's profits are considerably down).
Look at all of the free services Google provides to educational institutions. Most of those free services aren't bringing in much if any money, but it's certainly not hurting Google, as they know that a) it attaches people to their other product offerings, and b) ultimately they're likely to remain users of Google's services even once removed from the educational environment, thus increasing Google's market share in the long term.
Wrong. I'm saying selling at a big loss now and hoping you'll make up for it down the road is a mistake. Microsoft & Sony = stupid approach. Nintendo = smart approach. See above.
I'll agree that short-term big losses are risky. Short-term small losses though? Not so much. Look at the PS2, and how that turned out for Sony.
I don't think it's necessarily the best approach, but it's one approach, and sometimes you can hit it big.
Then again, you can say the same for when a company prices a product at a high cost to get a high margin, without regard for growing marketshare. That's a risk too. If the product(s) fail, that company is essentially going to have to either lower prices enough that people will buy it (thus eroding that margin) or ultimately face going out of business if they refuse to.
Wow, you must not follow automotive news. I'm not saying Toyota isn't a quality company, but the quality of their products took a marked dive when they started pushing for volume and anyone who follows car news knows it. Read any review and they'll gripe about the cheap interior quality - definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. And their recalls have been huge. Definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. The interior of my mother-in-law's 2004 Camry is far crappier than the quality of the 1992 Camry she had before it, and that's an observable fact.
Yes, Toyota is certainly doing bad in the reliability department:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/honda-and-toyota-top-reliability-survey-but-ford-closes-gap/
If anything, the complaint I've heard about Toyota's recent cars is that they're fairly plain insane (compared to the stylized interiors a lot of other companies are putting out). However, plain interior =/= low quality interior.
And I'm sorry to hear about your mother-in-law's 2004 Camry, but does that mean all of Toyota's products are? I'm sure there are people who've received defective Apple products, and complained about how Apple's QA "isn't up to the quality of years past" (or what about the issue years ago with the iPod batteries, or the first generation iPhone screen problems). Does their experience mean Apple is putting out crappy products all around? I don't think so.
I think you've completely missed the point of my argument.
No, I think you're just looking at it from a narrow view point. Apple's way =/= the only way, no matter what Steve Jobs preaches
Yes, I've been using it since RC. Better than XP? Definitely. But "very, very good?" Not really. I'd say it's "less crappy" than any version of Windows I've used before, but I certainly wouldn't give it any trophies for software design.
How is it not a very good OS? It's stable, far more secure than XP and Vista. Device compatibility hasn't been much of an issue so far. It can run on systems that even Vista had troubles with at times.
Sure, there are a number of areas where it's clear that they took the idea from OS X (such as the taskbar redesign and Aero), but if anything people should see that as a good thing for both camps: it means Apple did a tremendous job with their GUI design (so much so, MS wanted to copy it), and at the same time, it improves the computing experience for millions of more people.
I'd honestly love to hear why exactly you feel like Windows is still bad.
I guess when you specialize in mediocre products like Microsoft it's easy to keep your customers happy. They're the GM or McDonalds of the technology world. Nothing special, yet everyone buys their stuff. "Baffling" really.
I don't think "everyone" buys GM's products. Remember, GM's marketshare has been declining by a considerable margin for several years now.
And not "everything" Microsoft produces is "mediocre". Just because you don't like Microsoft or its management doesn't mean you have to discredit everything MS puts out.
I don't like Steve Jobs at all, but I don't let that sour my viewpoint of Apple.
