well, well, well, debate - this is good!
KID RED
Firstly I take offence to your comments, this is a forum for rumors, news, discussions, debate, etc. - not for personal attacks. Stop seeing red.
I stand by my comments for the following reasons:
Market adaption is a good thing, adapting to a market which is outside your core mission and product offerings is a shakey move, Apple, as you rightly point out has ridden this wave succesfully. The iPod and the iMac are of course interesting lines and position themselves nicely within each particular category and their product design have of course opened Apples exposure. The only problem is, is that a lower priced item requires larger volumes of sales to make money. Without checking figures (perhaps you could do this for me in your rebuttle) I'd like to see a contrast of Apples overall performance based on the iMac compared to other PC models at that level. While we're on the subject, I'd like to see an analysis between sales of Apples iPod and other .mp3 manufacturers, compared against costs, return and profit - leading a market does not necessarily mean you are making money.
Apples previous mission has been to produce professional level computers for the creative industries. Since realising the iMac etc. their focus has wandered from one market level to another, the retail level computers (iMac & eMac) performing well yet were idle for a long time because of an unsure market. My arguement is, whilst Apple has attempted to break further with their retail products through the iMac and the follow-up 'switch' campaign they need to do something large to truely crack the PC market, whether it be a new line, pricing, or whatever, the time is now b4 the tech. momentum begins to take off, or alternatively they need more ammo to fight if the market continues to remain stagnate, but it all must have a core focus of being true to the brands reputation and image - to offer what we have come to expect from Apple, whatever that may be.
What governs your argument about a PC 'switcher'?
A switch a day may make the doctor go away, but in reality a dozen 'switchers' won't add value to the bottomline. Again show me stats. and I'll get off my soap box. Every computer user is 'switching' to a digital lifestyle, or (at least that's what manufacturers want you to do) and of course Apples line from iPod to iMac demonstrates a good offering for the PC user to switch to Apples lifestyle, this is 'innovation and strategy' which I have pointed out b4, which Apple needs to do more of. My argument is, is that Apple needs to continue to innovate to increase performance. They need to be 2 steps ahead not one step fwd. and one back. A good example is the introduction of OSX and the "i" problem. OSX has been too slow to take off or at least the OS 9 platform should have been cut sooner. The "i" problem, a good name strategy but it is fast becoming a 'generic term' which has the potential to backfire on the brand.
Which brings me onto price:
Pricing again is a contentious issue. When Apple competes with a PC at a price difference which is almost two-fold to a competitor they are automatically ruling out opportunities in the market. Of course thay need to make money and I am unsure of Apples mark-up, but if they were to capture a bigger slice of the pie, costs such as manufacture may need to be looked at to reduce prices which are passed on to the end-user. Of course a price war has been happenning over the past few years, and an over inflated tech. industry hasn't helped, but tell me which market has not had a price war since free "markets" have been established. The difference is, is that if Apple is trying to 'switch' PC users they must meet them on middle ground - they are missing some of the P's from their marketing plan - notably PRICE. Yes, we all want a Ferrari (and the die-hards will purchase one) but at the end of the day its all economies of scale.
The Burton issue, yes I wear Apple on my sleeve too, and yes an iPod on the sleeve is a nifty idea, but again this is open to who may purchase one. The point is, is that Apples brand alone, its product design, and its offerings are already cool, why try to 'appear' to be cool or offer something which doesn't add value to the bottomline? Yes it is different, but it really only serves Burtons brand, and in time will become a gimmick.
Coca-Cola - I'm unsure of your argument. Coca-Cola is a Masterbrand company. All aspects of the brand affect the company and vice versa. The performance of a holding company such as Simplot for example, is generally affected by their brands at a retail level. Corporate movements and overall company performance affect the companys stock price. A Masterbrand company such as Coca-Cola and Apple are affected by both the positive and negative consumer sentiment of their brands at both corporate and retail brand levels.
The point is, is why go outside this umbrella and risk upsetting the Apple cart - yeah dude its cool, but I thought a FlowerPower iMac was cool for the first 5 seconds as well. If a brand image is to last, why flower it up with gimmicks which MAY serve to hurt the brand one day, oh and I wonder how sales of the FlowerPower model affected sales performance?
Oh, and .03 percent return compared to .11percent a year ago is a good thing?
I wonder what the restructuring costs were for. In business as I'm sure you are aware, hindsight and 'would have beens' are for the birds. I just hope it's another blip in an upwardly moving graph, not one which will lay flat for a while as it has over the past 6 months.
PATRICK
I see and equally agree with your market share points, but you can only justify a stat so much.
The ATO (Australian Taxation Office) rules that the effective life for a laptop is 3 yrs. whilst a desktop is 4. Yes, Apples life is longer than this, but technology has no life. A laptop which is 3 yrs. old and doubled gives it 6 years of life - with technology moving so fast the only thing I will be doing with a 6 yr. old Mac is to use it as a boat anchor (sorry I am a Mac loyalist too u know but the classics don't make money).
Yes you're right, Apples 'Mind Share' is large, but I hope you're not basing your argument on Interbrands MVBrands surveys. Apple needs more than 'Mind Share' to be profitable, they need to instill the correct values based on the marketing P's to the 'switchers.'
YES, Apple as a company is sustainable and a survivor and its brand presence is extremely strong. But we have seen the tech. boom and crash, now its a level playing field, and Apple needs to position itself now to not only leverage performance but to create shareholder value.
Oh, and one more thing on a personal note: Kid Red I won't even entertain the thought of answering your question or asking what you do for a living.
Ahhh, it's all conjecture don't you love it - settle down now and stop seeing Red, you're only Kidding yourself.
PS - I just can't wait to get my 17" PowerBook.
Oh, one more thing I'm tired, that's the last thing I have to say. Alex, are u there...?
