synp said:
Because we need to get the market share up.
As a lone buyer, I don't care about market-share. But small market-share makes software companies (like the one I work for) uninterested in the Mac as a market, and that means less software available. It also means that some websites (online banking is a common example) don't bother to make their websites compatible with the Mac, because that's such a small (but vocal) minority.
Yeah, yeah, I know. You're going to tell me that if my online bank requires Windows (or IE) then I should drop them. That is false. Online banking is nice, but their Mac compatability is not the most important consideration in choosing a bank. I wrote them email, got a standard reply ("appreciate your input") and that's as far as I'm going to take the issue.
...
If Apple can get the Mac market share to above 5%, software vendors will come. Right now, for desktop applications the order of precedence is 1. Windows. 2. Linux. 3. Mac.
FINALLY someone seems to understand!
Getting "switchers" over the Mac, even if its on a headless sub-$800 box does NOT dilute the brand! In the conf call, Pete wants to concentrate on those markets that make money and as a shareholder, so do I. But lets understand some seemingly basic truths about things.
We can all agree on the apparent truth of the old saying "the only certain things in life are death and taxes" right? Simplistic I know, but work with me. The same sort of truth applies to the statement "Once a Mac user, almost always a Mac user" as well as "Mac users almost always UPGRADE".
If Peter wants to make money, then maybe he's right that he won't make any IMMEDIATE cash on a sub-$800 headless box. But the long term value of having that user on the Mac platform in term of software sales, add-on sales of upgrades and peripherals, and future upgrades to larger, more expensive Macs is almost a dead certainty.
To get a sizeable chunk of the PC using world to make the "switch" we have to, in a sense, treat them like infants. Those of you who are parents of infants can understand what I'm talking about. PC users have bought and paid for certain things and they feel "safe" (lets leave the virus question alone for a moment) with those hardware choices. But like an infant, we can't try take away both their security blanket and their pacifier at the same time, otherwise they scream and hold on to both. So we give them a sub-$800 box, let them re-use their monitor, their 3-button USB mouse, maybe even their USB keyboard so that they don't feel so totally stripped of their security blanket when they give up their PC/Windows pacifier. They're more willing to try something new if it isn't too expensive in terms of both initial $$ and their "security blanket" feeling of being able to re-use some components.
Once they get comfortable on the Mac, its almost guaranteed they'll upgrade and start buying the software, hardware, and higher-end machines that Peter would like them to. And at that point, they're generally Mac users for life.
We get enough of those to get the Mac platform back into the 10% marketshare range, and the "marginalization" of the Mac will likely slide to a halt and things like Online banking, software availability, etc will be taken care of, which will make the whole Mac community more vibrant and viable.
Frankly, it doesn't have to be a powerhouse, expensive to produce unit either. Look at the eMac and the iBooks. The unit could easily be a headless eMac with a G4 processor. Given the sales numbers for both the eMac and the iBook, the G4 is still a very viable alternative to the G5 for alot of users. If Apple can make money on an eMac now, removing the CRT only lowers the manufacturing cost. If you could take the eMac capabilities, put them in a small headless box and sell it for $699, I'd be willing to bet you a very expensive lunch that the Mac platform would get _piles_ of switchers to try it and then be hooked for life.
Ronnie
