Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs, Apple and Innovation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dell R&D
It costs a lot of research effort and money to find ways of offering more for less. Dell is always looking at ways to make their computers cheaper. R&D doesn't always have to equate to innovation.
It costs a lot of research effort and money to find ways of offering more for less. Dell is always looking at ways to make their computers cheaper. R&D doesn't always have to equate to innovation.
Apple is a Jaguar in a Chevrolet world
Apple makes beautiful, well-crafted, refined, highly functional -- occasionally eccentric -- machines that catch the eye and stir the imagination.
Then there's the sticker shock.
And that, my friends, is the core issue.
Innovate all you want. Manage all that you can. But if consumers can't -- or choose not to -- afford the goods, then Apple has a choice. Compromise its standards. Sacrifice artistic integrity for market share.
We here love Macs. We see the quality and the "value," even as we can acknowledge that Macs are overpriced vs. the competition.
Fortunately, there's a place for Apple in this world -- just as Jaguar doesn't have to sell as many cars as Chevrolet to be profitable and relevant -- even a leader -- in its industry. What matters is that Apple keeps making excellent products and we all are smart enough to recognize them and well-funded enough to buy them.
Apple makes beautiful, well-crafted, refined, highly functional -- occasionally eccentric -- machines that catch the eye and stir the imagination.
Then there's the sticker shock.
And that, my friends, is the core issue.
Innovate all you want. Manage all that you can. But if consumers can't -- or choose not to -- afford the goods, then Apple has a choice. Compromise its standards. Sacrifice artistic integrity for market share.
We here love Macs. We see the quality and the "value," even as we can acknowledge that Macs are overpriced vs. the competition.
Fortunately, there's a place for Apple in this world -- just as Jaguar doesn't have to sell as many cars as Chevrolet to be profitable and relevant -- even a leader -- in its industry. What matters is that Apple keeps making excellent products and we all are smart enough to recognize them and well-funded enough to buy them.
Hopefully NEVER.
There's nothing that Apple needs to do more suicidal than to come up with cheap junk. The after effects of that on their high end gear would, by what would become a rapidly growing public perception, would be that ALL of Apple's gear was overpriced and that the prudent course of action for the prospective buyer would be to sit on the fence before buying any more products from the company, waiting for major price drops. The only sensible thing I have seen in this regard is the suggestion that Apple comes up with a headless box that only runs off a secure server: quite a model of innovation this could be but it does not fit the 'el cheapo' box model that would really be the final nail in that otherwise elusive Apple coffin. Quite simply, Apple cannot start turning out cheap boxes anymore than they can put OS X on Windows boxes... at least, not for now.
There's nothing that Apple needs to do more suicidal than to come up with cheap junk. The after effects of that on their high end gear would, by what would become a rapidly growing public perception, would be that ALL of Apple's gear was overpriced and that the prudent course of action for the prospective buyer would be to sit on the fence before buying any more products from the company, waiting for major price drops. The only sensible thing I have seen in this regard is the suggestion that Apple comes up with a headless box that only runs off a secure server: quite a model of innovation this could be but it does not fit the 'el cheapo' box model that would really be the final nail in that otherwise elusive Apple coffin. Quite simply, Apple cannot start turning out cheap boxes anymore than they can put OS X on Windows boxes... at least, not for now.
Apple lost when they stopped innovating....
People seem to forget that when Jobs was ousted from the company in 1986 (basically due to investors having this backwards thinking about innovation) and Sculley and Spindler and Amelio took over until 97, this was when Apple started to lose share. At one point in the late 80's Apple had 30% marketshare of personal computers. It was during this time that they thought they could just sit on their butts and act like a clone company and still sell computers. Perhaps in a clone market Howard Andersen's article applies. But Apple has always driven itself by innovation and has created a market that cares about it. Apple's customer base is one that wants more than just something new, we want something better as well.
People seem to forget that when Jobs was ousted from the company in 1986 (basically due to investors having this backwards thinking about innovation) and Sculley and Spindler and Amelio took over until 97, this was when Apple started to lose share. At one point in the late 80's Apple had 30% marketshare of personal computers. It was during this time that they thought they could just sit on their butts and act like a clone company and still sell computers. Perhaps in a clone market Howard Andersen's article applies. But Apple has always driven itself by innovation and has created a market that cares about it. Apple's customer base is one that wants more than just something new, we want something better as well.
Re: Apple is a Jaguar in a Chevrolet world
Seeing as how Jaguar is owned by Ford and a lot of it's technology is subsidized in part by Ford I think Jaguar is a poor analogy to Apple Computers.
Even without Ford, Jaguar would be a poor analogy. I was never partial to the Jaguar mystique. If anything I think Apple has always been closer in spirit to VW or BMW. They are both still independent companies and emphasize quality and inovation over mass apeal.
Seeing as how Jaguar is owned by Ford and a lot of it's technology is subsidized in part by Ford I think Jaguar is a poor analogy to Apple Computers.
Even without Ford, Jaguar would be a poor analogy. I was never partial to the Jaguar mystique. If anything I think Apple has always been closer in spirit to VW or BMW. They are both still independent companies and emphasize quality and inovation over mass apeal.
Nice little article...
The author makes some valid observations, but in the end it reads like an undergrad term paper. There is nothing like reading history backwards to make you *seem* smarter. The worst part of the article, though, is the end where the author feels obligated to offer us a summary of the top-5 most brilliant things I wrote in this article - just in case we missed them the first time.
Innovation for its own sake is not a good long-term business strategy - yeah, I get it. I'd hope the target market of Fast Company would have figured out that simple concept before leaving high school.
If this article is a representation of the magazine, I am glad I have resisted the urge to subscribe.
The author makes some valid observations, but in the end it reads like an undergrad term paper. There is nothing like reading history backwards to make you *seem* smarter. The worst part of the article, though, is the end where the author feels obligated to offer us a summary of the top-5 most brilliant things I wrote in this article - just in case we missed them the first time.
Innovation for its own sake is not a good long-term business strategy - yeah, I get it. I'd hope the target market of Fast Company would have figured out that simple concept before leaving high school.
If this article is a representation of the magazine, I am glad I have resisted the urge to subscribe.
Re: Hopefully NEVER.
Too right. I may have struggled to afford my PowerBook but it is quality and the perception of quality gives me "oohs" and "aahhs" wherever I go with it. Sony, for example, makes high quality products that are genreally a little more expensive than its competitors. But if Sony were to bring out a really cheap version, or undercut their competitors, their perception of quality would drop and they would lose out (i.e. people would stop buying their products!). It sounds stupid, but a lot of people would pay more for a Sony over, say a Philips, even if they were told it was *the same camcorder/TV/whatever* with a different name badge on it.
Re: Re: Apple is a Jaguar in a Chevrolet world
Exactly. This "Jaguar" analogy keeps on getting trotted out in the case of apple but it is flawed in another sense. Jaguars actually are sold at a very high margin so that the company does not have to move as many units to get good shareholder returns.
In the case of Apple, if you read the article, you'll see that their operating profits are at 0.4% when the industry standard is 2%. I imagine this is due to the high R&D costs as well as not being able to lower production costs sufficiently. This is definitely news to me, and if true, shockingly bad news. If Apple has a low market share _and_ it is not doing a good job getting high returns on the units that they do sell, then it's no Jaguar. This really is something to be worried about.
Like someone else said in an earlier thread, we need a blend of Jobs and Sculley. Sculley knew how to get operating profits up. Apple right now needs to keep the Jobs mentality but inject itself with a good dose of Sculley too.
Exactly. This "Jaguar" analogy keeps on getting trotted out in the case of apple but it is flawed in another sense. Jaguars actually are sold at a very high margin so that the company does not have to move as many units to get good shareholder returns.
In the case of Apple, if you read the article, you'll see that their operating profits are at 0.4% when the industry standard is 2%. I imagine this is due to the high R&D costs as well as not being able to lower production costs sufficiently. This is definitely news to me, and if true, shockingly bad news. If Apple has a low market share _and_ it is not doing a good job getting high returns on the units that they do sell, then it's no Jaguar. This really is something to be worried about.
Like someone else said in an earlier thread, we need a blend of Jobs and Sculley. Sculley knew how to get operating profits up. Apple right now needs to keep the Jobs mentality but inject itself with a good dose of Sculley too.
Apple: Different?
One of the things that has always fascinated me, and perhaps is a good reason why there's such a devoted crowd of Mac users, is their unfailing ability to ignore analysts and just keep doing what they do best: making awesome products.
It seems in this world today that this a concept that is getting more and more lost as low-cost becomes the only thing that means anything. Although this hits the computer industry harder than most industries. People do still pay a premium for a better built car, or a nicer stereo, or things like that.
But the point is, why can't Apple survive with their method. Part of their charm and their ability to maintain their innovative status is how they *don't* act like all the other companies out there. They aren't SO concerned with the bottom line that they'll never take a risk. They're willing to push the boundaries farther than any company with "business sense" would ever do, but that's exactly what makes them appealing.
I guess I just don't understand why Apple has to turn into a generic company in order to survive, as the article suggests. Somehow I feel like that would either a) spell the end of Apple entirely or b) spell the end of Apple as we know it, and, while surviving, would not longer truly be the company we know -- and the quality and innovation would be lost.
One of the things that has always fascinated me, and perhaps is a good reason why there's such a devoted crowd of Mac users, is their unfailing ability to ignore analysts and just keep doing what they do best: making awesome products.
It seems in this world today that this a concept that is getting more and more lost as low-cost becomes the only thing that means anything. Although this hits the computer industry harder than most industries. People do still pay a premium for a better built car, or a nicer stereo, or things like that.
But the point is, why can't Apple survive with their method. Part of their charm and their ability to maintain their innovative status is how they *don't* act like all the other companies out there. They aren't SO concerned with the bottom line that they'll never take a risk. They're willing to push the boundaries farther than any company with "business sense" would ever do, but that's exactly what makes them appealing.
I guess I just don't understand why Apple has to turn into a generic company in order to survive, as the article suggests. Somehow I feel like that would either a) spell the end of Apple entirely or b) spell the end of Apple as we know it, and, while surviving, would not longer truly be the company we know -- and the quality and innovation would be lost.
Re: Apple: Different?
For me, an equally good question is why people assume that if Apple were to focus a little more on gaining market share and cutting costs and making a bigger profit, it would no longer be "Apple as we know it." The challenge is to figure out a way to innovate as well as milk that innovation for money. Just because no one so far has figured out a way to do both in the same company doesn't mean it can't be done.
For me, an equally good question is why people assume that if Apple were to focus a little more on gaining market share and cutting costs and making a bigger profit, it would no longer be "Apple as we know it." The challenge is to figure out a way to innovate as well as milk that innovation for money. Just because no one so far has figured out a way to do both in the same company doesn't mean it can't be done.
Market share, well duh means a bigger share of the market which means more revenue for Apple. The more money you make, the better your chances of survival in a really tough economy.
If another great depression were to happen tomorrow, Apple would not survive.
Apple was once on the razor edge of going insolvent, and even a misstep like the Cube would put Apple on the chopping block so it's always important for Apple to always try to gain marketshare, and honestly the only way I see them doing that is making computers cheaper so more people can buy them.
No one has ribbed Apple about releasing cheaper iPods, but to get to their rumored $99 price point, expect to see reduced features or even a lower level of craftsmanship. Only on Jan 6 will we see what he has, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see how the iPod is built. You can tell Apple is serious about dominating the music market with their aggressive advertising, and now aggressive pricing.
Yet somehow, when it comes to computers, we are so adamant that they be built like swiss watches (and priced to match ~ yes I know that is debatable too). That's great and all, but the mass of employees working at their computer stations could care less if their CD is slot or tray loading, or if its made of plastic or forged aluminum. Apple isn't going to make any headway selling to already converted Apple fanatics, they need to appeal to an employer's bottom line. Apple doesn't have to build really junky machines to achieve a lower price point, just innovate on Dell's strength of logistics.
Apple sold some 6.4 billion dollars worth of hardware and software, yet their net profits are only in the millions. I don't know about you but that is staggeringly bad. Even though they are making money, they are not thriving. I'd like to see Apple prosper.
If another great depression were to happen tomorrow, Apple would not survive.
Apple was once on the razor edge of going insolvent, and even a misstep like the Cube would put Apple on the chopping block so it's always important for Apple to always try to gain marketshare, and honestly the only way I see them doing that is making computers cheaper so more people can buy them.
No one has ribbed Apple about releasing cheaper iPods, but to get to their rumored $99 price point, expect to see reduced features or even a lower level of craftsmanship. Only on Jan 6 will we see what he has, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see how the iPod is built. You can tell Apple is serious about dominating the music market with their aggressive advertising, and now aggressive pricing.
Yet somehow, when it comes to computers, we are so adamant that they be built like swiss watches (and priced to match ~ yes I know that is debatable too). That's great and all, but the mass of employees working at their computer stations could care less if their CD is slot or tray loading, or if its made of plastic or forged aluminum. Apple isn't going to make any headway selling to already converted Apple fanatics, they need to appeal to an employer's bottom line. Apple doesn't have to build really junky machines to achieve a lower price point, just innovate on Dell's strength of logistics.
Apple sold some 6.4 billion dollars worth of hardware and software, yet their net profits are only in the millions. I don't know about you but that is staggeringly bad. Even though they are making money, they are not thriving. I'd like to see Apple prosper.
Apple's got a boatload amount of money in the bank - that's a fact.
There will never be another "great depression". The U.S. government would intervene much more than it did 74 years ago - hell, today, they close the markets whenever the Dow's at a loss of more than 5%. There are simply too many controls and international ties and dependencies which would make Adam Smith puke. Obviously anything's possible, but one thing is for certain: it's not happening any time soon, and in my view, it's entirely unrealistic in the lifetime of the current incarnation of the personal computer!
Great article, but inaccurate. First 64 machine? Only on a consumer level. First legal music download service? No, first successful service. Blah blah, I could go on.... But the article is very flattering and insightful in many areas. Fun read.
Dan
Dan
All car analogies are wrong Re: Apple is a Jaguar in a Chevrolet world
The whole car analogy is wrong. Whether I buy the cheapest Hyundai or the most expensive Bentley, they both run on pump gas and can use the same roads. I don't care if Bentley has a trivial market share because as long as Bentley can make money selling cars, I can buy one and it will work just fine. I do not need anyone else to be profitable.
Computers do not work that way. If Apple's market share becomes trivial, it becomes harder and harder to get the software that I want. It also becomes harder for them to spend money on R&D to keep up. Making a car go faster is not the capital intensive process that making a computer go faster is.
The whole car analogy is wrong. Whether I buy the cheapest Hyundai or the most expensive Bentley, they both run on pump gas and can use the same roads. I don't care if Bentley has a trivial market share because as long as Bentley can make money selling cars, I can buy one and it will work just fine. I do not need anyone else to be profitable.
Computers do not work that way. If Apple's market share becomes trivial, it becomes harder and harder to get the software that I want. It also becomes harder for them to spend money on R&D to keep up. Making a car go faster is not the capital intensive process that making a computer go faster is.
Re: Re: Apple: Different?
If Apple changed into a one-dimensional company of having the computer #1 in households, Apple would spend it's way to death. The fact is Apple has other interests, and is finding newer and creative ways to make money. Market share, although somewhat important, is not the holy grail that many people speak of.
Also, nothing happens overnight anymore. Progress of any type takes time, for anything. We all know this - there is no "right" answer - business is not that easy.
It's hard to do 3 things at once, isn't it:
- Innovate
- Gain Market Share
- Make Money
If Apple changed into a one-dimensional company of having the computer #1 in households, Apple would spend it's way to death. The fact is Apple has other interests, and is finding newer and creative ways to make money. Market share, although somewhat important, is not the holy grail that many people speak of.
Also, nothing happens overnight anymore. Progress of any type takes time, for anything. We all know this - there is no "right" answer - business is not that easy.
Not many analysts agree with you on the thriving bit. Apple has a problem that is unique in the computer industry. It's an all-in-one company with an OS that is not THE standard. This whole scenario means that, by conventional wisdom, they should have died long ago. I share your sentiment about seeing them do better. I wish that they WERE the world standard OS, but they aren't. Unlike John Dvorak though, I still can see where, over time, they can make some major inroads into enterprise, if they can get reasonably priced boxes on the average clerks' desktops and have a fast speed interconnect to the servers housing all the applications (as just one example). It would be stunning if they could get cheaper home computers that did not make the iMac line and desktop line seem to be absurdly overpriced. This is very risky for Apple as they might end up doing 3 to 4 times more in volume and still have profits in the millions or hundreds of thousands --and plummeting.
Every one seems at one time or another to have offered some thoughts on how Apple is going to make it. I wonder too. It is absolutely clear that there are a few people (30 to 50 million-- who knows the real number) of computer users who demand the Apple experience. But the vast majority of computer users want cheap/mediocre machines that just get them by. They have no other aspirations. Dell et al. can offer what they want because they sell billions of dollars worth of machines to enterprise and thus they have a broad and solid base. Apple doesn't. Will they ever? Who knows? It's not altogether impossible as OS X plays reasonably well on Windows networks and it is thus NOT improbable to see Apple servers and boxes eventually make their appearance in enterprises. This, it seems to me, is the fuel for the fire. There may be other ways too. The fact that Apple continues to hold on, ebbing and flowing, is at least a testament to good moves lately and shows what a dingbat the author of this article is... but he is true to type: let's have cheap mediocrity, full of holes, unsafe as hell but jeez if it's cheap, really cheap, I'll still be happy waiting for my next worm/virus and other nasty waiting to take me out. But then I have come to rely on patching, erasing, reformatting and installing as something to look forward to in an otherwise Dull world. Who wants great? is the question posed by this article. Not most people, that's for sure, and America has really sold out to one of its former greatest ideals... to strive for the best. Now, cynicism and penny-pinching have made mediocrity the gold standard and unless this attitude changes Apple may well be in trouble in the long run. If it does fail, the computers I own will indeed be the last ones I own! Pad and pen are much more palatable than living with that monstrosity called Windows, the noose of MS ever tightening and the bitterness that is the gall of Dell.
0.4% Really?
"Where Apple was once one of the most profitable companies in the category, its operating profit margins have declined precipitously from 20% in 1981 to a meager 0.4% today"
How can this be true? 0.4%?? I've always read how Apple maintained high profit margins even recently. Can anybody confirm that number?
"Where Apple was once one of the most profitable companies in the category, its operating profit margins have declined precipitously from 20% in 1981 to a meager 0.4% today"
How can this be true? 0.4%?? I've always read how Apple maintained high profit margins even recently. Can anybody confirm that number?
Re: Re: Re: Apple: Different?
Agreed. But it is frustrating to me to see Apple spending all this money on the retail stores and not being able to move the market share needle in two years. The article quotes an analyst as saying "they are probably losing as many people to the WinTel world as they are gaining." That is alarming to me.
Two years seems long enough to see if such a strategy is working, and I don't see Apple coming up with new ways to make the Apple Stores move more units. Maybe it's time to try something else.
Here's hoping that the $100 mini iPods are cheaply made and work "well enough" (they just have to work as well as the Dell laptops, which are crappy and fail all the time, but Dell sure sells a lot of them). Maybe Apple will really solidify itself in this market for digital music players and outcompete Dell.
Agreed. But it is frustrating to me to see Apple spending all this money on the retail stores and not being able to move the market share needle in two years. The article quotes an analyst as saying "they are probably losing as many people to the WinTel world as they are gaining." That is alarming to me.
Two years seems long enough to see if such a strategy is working, and I don't see Apple coming up with new ways to make the Apple Stores move more units. Maybe it's time to try something else.
Here's hoping that the $100 mini iPods are cheaply made and work "well enough" (they just have to work as well as the Dell laptops, which are crappy and fail all the time, but Dell sure sells a lot of them). Maybe Apple will really solidify itself in this market for digital music players and outcompete Dell.
That sounds nice but lets get real, Lotus 1-2-3, Dbase, and WordPerfect had something to do with that.
Windows was a miserable failure for a long time until Excel and Word for Windows matured.
The single biggest reason other than the software, is that no one at Apple envisioned an Apple computer on every desktop. As a matter of fact, I believe Jobs said he didn't want everyone to own a Mac, didn't he? He was satisfied with high margin, low volume, small market willing to worship him and make him rich.
edit: I give him, credit. He got exactly what he aimed for.
But the whole point of a mac is to be a high quality - high price - low matenence computer that is easy on the eyes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple: Different?
Good god I hope not. The one thing that creates the Mac fanaticism above all else is Apple's overarching strive for top-notch quality computers and equipment. If Apple started breaking this trend with cheap mini iPods, and they broke all the time, you can be sure that many Apple fanatics would be disgusted.
The way Apple dealt with white spots on the Powerbooks shows that Apple is committed to delivering quality products, because they quickly (as well as can be expected from a computer company) fixed the problem and also repaired the problems with existing PowerBooks, whereas they could've just said it's a "normal" condition. Although it was a widespread problem, Apple didn't hesitate to correct it.
If making quality products means keeping the price of the entry-level iPod over $200, then so be it. I could care less if Apple had more marketshare, even in the digital music arena. The fact that the iPod and the iTMS are the market share leaders is just icing on the cake. In the end, the fanaticism of Mac users can carry Apple through more than you would think -- just look at the Performa years, or even the years where we were stuck at 500 MHz with the G4; by all accounts for a normal company, Apple shouldn't be alive after having gone through both of those times. But Mac users stuck by Apple's side, because they know that Apple is doing all that it can to make an excellent quality product.
Good god I hope not. The one thing that creates the Mac fanaticism above all else is Apple's overarching strive for top-notch quality computers and equipment. If Apple started breaking this trend with cheap mini iPods, and they broke all the time, you can be sure that many Apple fanatics would be disgusted.
The way Apple dealt with white spots on the Powerbooks shows that Apple is committed to delivering quality products, because they quickly (as well as can be expected from a computer company) fixed the problem and also repaired the problems with existing PowerBooks, whereas they could've just said it's a "normal" condition. Although it was a widespread problem, Apple didn't hesitate to correct it.
If making quality products means keeping the price of the entry-level iPod over $200, then so be it. I could care less if Apple had more marketshare, even in the digital music arena. The fact that the iPod and the iTMS are the market share leaders is just icing on the cake. In the end, the fanaticism of Mac users can carry Apple through more than you would think -- just look at the Performa years, or even the years where we were stuck at 500 MHz with the G4; by all accounts for a normal company, Apple shouldn't be alive after having gone through both of those times. But Mac users stuck by Apple's side, because they know that Apple is doing all that it can to make an excellent quality product.
Re: Re: If Dell spends that much on R&D
yes , DELL is number 1 right now and has been for a few years. Apple was no 1 for several years and Gateway was right there and Compaq was No 1 just before DELL.
Each got there by being inovative and they all then stood still or made huge mistakes and did not move on as other companies invaded their space. Dell was the first big time seller on line but now others are in the same space. Dell has the lead but their lead is not accelerating anymore and over the next few years they will slip unless they reinvent themselves.
Windows is on the verge of rewritting their operating system and it will bring with it problems to overcome. Computer makers no longer need to use MSFT's OS.
IBM for example is converting all their 75,000 in house computers to Linux. Linux , Apple and Sun(all thre are UNIX based) will gain some market share in the OS world as MSFT goes through Longhorn problems. The extent will depend on the marketing of each platform and the continuing use of UNIX.
The Power PC chip from IBM is showing huge potential and over the next 3-5 yrs it could have a huge impact on the market.
MSFT may lose a lot of its OS sales but it is so diversified now that other software will carry it on .
But right now Apple is has the opportunity to regain a lot of market share if the PPC road map takes of , if the new IBM compiler really does increase a programs speed by 50% , if MSFT has large OS problems , if a lot IT really do like UNIX , if the porduce more new products , if Apple develops a more of a business mentality...
yes , DELL is number 1 right now and has been for a few years. Apple was no 1 for several years and Gateway was right there and Compaq was No 1 just before DELL.
Each got there by being inovative and they all then stood still or made huge mistakes and did not move on as other companies invaded their space. Dell was the first big time seller on line but now others are in the same space. Dell has the lead but their lead is not accelerating anymore and over the next few years they will slip unless they reinvent themselves.
Windows is on the verge of rewritting their operating system and it will bring with it problems to overcome. Computer makers no longer need to use MSFT's OS.
IBM for example is converting all their 75,000 in house computers to Linux. Linux , Apple and Sun(all thre are UNIX based) will gain some market share in the OS world as MSFT goes through Longhorn problems. The extent will depend on the marketing of each platform and the continuing use of UNIX.
The Power PC chip from IBM is showing huge potential and over the next 3-5 yrs it could have a huge impact on the market.
MSFT may lose a lot of its OS sales but it is so diversified now that other software will carry it on .
But right now Apple is has the opportunity to regain a lot of market share if the PPC road map takes of , if the new IBM compiler really does increase a programs speed by 50% , if MSFT has large OS problems , if a lot IT really do like UNIX , if the porduce more new products , if Apple develops a more of a business mentality...