Actually, all Jobs has done is shift the company back in "pretty things" mode, and sell iPods. All the important stuff that analysts and investors look at (profits, units sold, market share, etc) are unchanged.
See above.
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
It's only a deal until he gets the latest virus or worm and has to spend hours dealing with it himself or (much more likely) spend hundreds of dollars getting a professional to do it. Or any number of other problems that come with the PC. If he had spent the extra money up front he wouldn't be spending it again and again every time something went wrong.
After all, wouldn't you spend $200 on a radar detector if it saved you from two $120 speeding tickets?
-desdomg
No, he's not really.
-iPC
I would have to disagree with your points save one. First off, design is far more that "pretty things", and it's actually laughable when a stiff-collar financial analyst tries to make sense of that.
Profits have changed: They have them. In 1997, they didn't.
Revenues are way up.
Visibility is up.
Market share, I agree, is down. But that relevance is less and less every day. Only the analysts care about market share - it's an old premise from other markets they cling to. Share in the computer industry can change very rapidly.
I for one appreciate Apple's stability and upward impetus they have.
Apple is always 'dying' because noone can make sense of how they do what they do - and neither do I for that matter, I just hope they keep doing it.
Problems with some arguemnts.
#1 is quality. Apple quality is falling - plummeting even. ibooks with broken motherboards. All sorts of teething problems in every system release. This reminds me of the Dodge Neon - a terrific car in every way that sold at a premium when new, but enough people had enough problems with the early models that the reputation was permanently destroyed, even when all those problems had been fixed and quality was above average (1998+). Chrysler's 1957 models had the same effect and damaged sales for years afterwards. So did the Volare/Aspen of 1976-77, to the point where even after quality was recovered, they had to rename and restyle.
#2 is market share. Apple needs at least triple their current market share to gain and retain support. I think a lot of developers are going with Apple because the owners are vociferous and because they see the OS X and G5 as being drivers of market share. But with nothing but crippled machines at reasonable prices - and by reasonable I mean about $900, which will buy a dandy PC to run Linux or Windows - Apple's going to suffer with a 2-5% share indefinitely. Look through a software catalog - e.g. at Journeyed.com - and see how many things are PC only.
#3 is ease of use. OS X isn't System 6. Since System 6, Apple's operating systems have been getting sluggish and hard to manage. 10.3 is admittedly fast on current systems, BUT it's ten times harder to manage, and they are screwing up the simple things - for example, having cron tasks that ONLY run when few people have their computers on, having tens of thousands of tiny files that aren't needed (Fink 10.2 unstable on a 10.3 install?), making upgrades that break the machines, and of course not having a simple cron tasks (and pre/post install) to fix preferences. I mean, really, how hard can it be to have some Apple employees watching how ordinary people use their computers and adjust the systems to match?
#4. This is kinda irrelevant in some ways to the article, but Apple really needs to work on getting a decent replacement for GoLive/Dreamweaver which isn't incredibly buggy and sluggish, and they also need to stop being pissy with their loyalists who want system 9 features moved into system x.
#1 is quality. Apple quality is falling - plummeting even. ibooks with broken motherboards. All sorts of teething problems in every system release. This reminds me of the Dodge Neon - a terrific car in every way that sold at a premium when new, but enough people had enough problems with the early models that the reputation was permanently destroyed, even when all those problems had been fixed and quality was above average (1998+). Chrysler's 1957 models had the same effect and damaged sales for years afterwards. So did the Volare/Aspen of 1976-77, to the point where even after quality was recovered, they had to rename and restyle.
#2 is market share. Apple needs at least triple their current market share to gain and retain support. I think a lot of developers are going with Apple because the owners are vociferous and because they see the OS X and G5 as being drivers of market share. But with nothing but crippled machines at reasonable prices - and by reasonable I mean about $900, which will buy a dandy PC to run Linux or Windows - Apple's going to suffer with a 2-5% share indefinitely. Look through a software catalog - e.g. at Journeyed.com - and see how many things are PC only.
#3 is ease of use. OS X isn't System 6. Since System 6, Apple's operating systems have been getting sluggish and hard to manage. 10.3 is admittedly fast on current systems, BUT it's ten times harder to manage, and they are screwing up the simple things - for example, having cron tasks that ONLY run when few people have their computers on, having tens of thousands of tiny files that aren't needed (Fink 10.2 unstable on a 10.3 install?), making upgrades that break the machines, and of course not having a simple cron tasks (and pre/post install) to fix preferences. I mean, really, how hard can it be to have some Apple employees watching how ordinary people use their computers and adjust the systems to match?
#4. This is kinda irrelevant in some ways to the article, but Apple really needs to work on getting a decent replacement for GoLive/Dreamweaver which isn't incredibly buggy and sluggish, and they also need to stop being pissy with their loyalists who want system 9 features moved into system x.
True enough, but I figure that most users out there follow the "parents" test - and if they are anything like my parents with computers then they are in for a long annoying time with that computer...
Re: Apple is a Jaguar in a Chevrolet world
They they aren't Jaguar, they're some other company. Jaguar made beautiful, awful quality cars, until they were bought by Ford, when they made some "real" Jaguars and some Fords with Jaguar sheet metal. Perhaps you meant to use the usual BMW comparison, except BMW tries to be faster than everyone else in their segment. Perhaps you meant Mercedes, which is also low quality - oops, I mean perhaps you meant Lexus? Wait, they don't stir the imagination. Maybe you meant, wait, help me out here...maybe car analogies don't work.
Jaguar was bought by Ford because they were not a leader in their industry, not for many decades, and because they lost gobs of money on their overpriced, wonderfully styled rolling rubbish.
They they aren't Jaguar, they're some other company. Jaguar made beautiful, awful quality cars, until they were bought by Ford, when they made some "real" Jaguars and some Fords with Jaguar sheet metal. Perhaps you meant to use the usual BMW comparison, except BMW tries to be faster than everyone else in their segment. Perhaps you meant Mercedes, which is also low quality - oops, I mean perhaps you meant Lexus? Wait, they don't stir the imagination. Maybe you meant, wait, help me out here...maybe car analogies don't work.
Jaguar was bought by Ford because they were not a leader in their industry, not for many decades, and because they lost gobs of money on their overpriced, wonderfully styled rolling rubbish.
Perhaps that's because Porsche makes a profit. Or more likely because they make sports cars. Ferrari doesn't make a profit. Neither does Lambo. Or as I recall Maserati. People keep the companies alive for status.
Porsche runs on the same gasoline as Chevrolet. They probably use the same spark plugs, starters, headlights, etc. as VW... they don't have to worry about when the only maker of headlights in the world decides not to make any for Porsches.
PS> Computer companies generally can't be compared to car companies. And I know this because (see my tagline).
Re: Economic Growth
Look at Apple's brand loyalty.
Never seen this type of loyalty on the PC side.
Seems most folks go for the cheapest route when it comes time to buy/upgrade their PC.
Sushi
It is much cheaper to keep a current customer than to gain a new one.
Look at Apple's brand loyalty.
Never seen this type of loyalty on the PC side.
Seems most folks go for the cheapest route when it comes time to buy/upgrade their PC.
Sushi
Does anyone else forsee this?
At some point in the future computers are going to reach a point where they simply can't go too much faster save a major technical breathrough (which will happen too and open a new can of worms). A point where if they did go faster it wouldn't matter though for what we currently view and require of computers. 500mhz to 1 gighz is a big jump. But 100ghz to 130ghz isn't. Same goes for RAM hardrive space. Like if you have 200 billion dollars what is another 5 going to matter. The "comfort" level at which modern web browsing and basic word processing/business software operates is quite low. A $500 PC. What application is paramount to daily home computing that will eventually require more machine or can't be better solved with a proprietary device (DVR, iPod)? I see a gap that will grow between government/research/hi end and consumer computing. All of us can purchase a hemi but few require it. At this point when the guts/horses of a computer becomes so transparent and seamless then the GUI, usability, and software applications, aesthetics, or screen size come to the forefront (think televisions, video game machines, dvdplayers). I think we have basically reached the first stages of this. There is still some ground to be covered in appeasing hobbyists in terms of raw horses on computers but for the most part i think the decline in computers is that bell curve middle of the road consumers have reached a saetity that doesn't require them to upgrade like they did going through 3-4 (packard bell
)computers in the 90s. More sales will be a second or third machine or portable devices that interface with the computer. The people are realizing that a super fast processor and tons of RAM doesn't make up for a blue screen of death or virus threats but well engineered software does. Apple has positioned itself well in both the consumer and professional areas. Provided the theory comes true and we reach a point of transparency then apple has the clear advantage for the surface level variables like gui, usabilty etc. Take the ipod for example...eventually all mp3 players will be nearly identical in features but lack the interface. They also have the advantage by making inroads into the pro world with software that creates avast amount of the media we consume. Eventually these things will become more transparent as well but hopefully apple will continue to innovate and find ways to make the competition look ridiculous by comparison.
Christmas ramble! Whew. Happy Holidays!
At some point in the future computers are going to reach a point where they simply can't go too much faster save a major technical breathrough (which will happen too and open a new can of worms). A point where if they did go faster it wouldn't matter though for what we currently view and require of computers. 500mhz to 1 gighz is a big jump. But 100ghz to 130ghz isn't. Same goes for RAM hardrive space. Like if you have 200 billion dollars what is another 5 going to matter. The "comfort" level at which modern web browsing and basic word processing/business software operates is quite low. A $500 PC. What application is paramount to daily home computing that will eventually require more machine or can't be better solved with a proprietary device (DVR, iPod)? I see a gap that will grow between government/research/hi end and consumer computing. All of us can purchase a hemi but few require it. At this point when the guts/horses of a computer becomes so transparent and seamless then the GUI, usability, and software applications, aesthetics, or screen size come to the forefront (think televisions, video game machines, dvdplayers). I think we have basically reached the first stages of this. There is still some ground to be covered in appeasing hobbyists in terms of raw horses on computers but for the most part i think the decline in computers is that bell curve middle of the road consumers have reached a saetity that doesn't require them to upgrade like they did going through 3-4 (packard bell
)computers in the 90s. More sales will be a second or third machine or portable devices that interface with the computer. The people are realizing that a super fast processor and tons of RAM doesn't make up for a blue screen of death or virus threats but well engineered software does. Apple has positioned itself well in both the consumer and professional areas. Provided the theory comes true and we reach a point of transparency then apple has the clear advantage for the surface level variables like gui, usabilty etc. Take the ipod for example...eventually all mp3 players will be nearly identical in features but lack the interface. They also have the advantage by making inroads into the pro world with software that creates avast amount of the media we consume. Eventually these things will become more transparent as well but hopefully apple will continue to innovate and find ways to make the competition look ridiculous by comparison.Christmas ramble! Whew. Happy Holidays!
eMac: thoughts
I might be in the minority here, but I find the eMac to be a very unattractive machine. For starters, it looks too much like a rehash of the colored, original style iMacs - which are a little dated-looking by now. They're fine as "utilitarian" machines for school computer labs and the like, but they aren't going to win over many of today's PC users with their styling OR features. (The integrated display screen is a negative for folks who want the ability to upgrade to larger screens or sharper LCD flat panels in the future.)
The original poster is correct, IMHO, about the need to get the prices down on the current iMacs. They're unique-looking, in a good way, to most people - and the LCD panels on them are good enough to stop people who worry about needing a better display down the road. Being rather "non-expandable", by nature, they're not going to appeal to the "power users", but would to many other PC users, *if* they didn't cost any more than the average PC + LCD panel combo. Right now, a cheap P4 class system with CD burner and 15" LCD panel is often under $600. I don't see the 15" iMac going for $599 and under yet. Do you?
I might be in the minority here, but I find the eMac to be a very unattractive machine. For starters, it looks too much like a rehash of the colored, original style iMacs - which are a little dated-looking by now. They're fine as "utilitarian" machines for school computer labs and the like, but they aren't going to win over many of today's PC users with their styling OR features. (The integrated display screen is a negative for folks who want the ability to upgrade to larger screens or sharper LCD flat panels in the future.)
The original poster is correct, IMHO, about the need to get the prices down on the current iMacs. They're unique-looking, in a good way, to most people - and the LCD panels on them are good enough to stop people who worry about needing a better display down the road. Being rather "non-expandable", by nature, they're not going to appeal to the "power users", but would to many other PC users, *if* they didn't cost any more than the average PC + LCD panel combo. Right now, a cheap P4 class system with CD burner and 15" LCD panel is often under $600. I don't see the 15" iMac going for $599 and under yet. Do you?
Debatable points.....
Apple quality needs some work, yes. But I think it's inaccurate to claim it's "plummeting" or even "falling". They're simply following their long-standing trend of screwing up whenever they first release entirely new products.
Anyone remember the Powerbook line that could catch on fire? How about the infamous problems with the logic and power boards dying in the original iMacs, causing no screen display/boot? The whole series of Performa towers around the 6400/6500 line were garbage. (Only 2MB of video RAM soldered onto the board and non-expandable? On a system primarily being purchased by *graphic artists*??!)
It's pretty easy to observe that in most cases, you're smart not to ever buy a "first revision" of something Apple releases. Whether it's the folks who got the first generation iPods and now wish they had that dock connector, or it's the people who didn't wait and get the extra 50Mhz or so of speed in a "speed bump" of a PowerMac desktop - this holds true.
As for your 2nd. point, I don't know if Apple needs to "triple their market share" to remain viable. It wouldn't hurt, obviously, but part of their charm is found in the fact they're not all that common. Lots of folks buy Macs precisely because they like having something that's not "run of the mill". I.T. people who work on PCs all day long for a living often buy a Mac for home use, just so they can escape looking at the same stuff they deal with at work. If Apple succeeded in selling enough systems, I fear it would be their undoing - actually. The "coolness factor" would vanish, and authors of virii and spyware/ad-ware would become motivated to target the Mac platform - eliminating some of that advantage too.
I love OS X, my G5 and my new Powerbook 15", but if everyone owned and used these things - a Dell running Windows XP would probably start looking interesting to me. It's all about where you're at in the overall marketplace, really.
Apple quality needs some work, yes. But I think it's inaccurate to claim it's "plummeting" or even "falling". They're simply following their long-standing trend of screwing up whenever they first release entirely new products.
Anyone remember the Powerbook line that could catch on fire? How about the infamous problems with the logic and power boards dying in the original iMacs, causing no screen display/boot? The whole series of Performa towers around the 6400/6500 line were garbage. (Only 2MB of video RAM soldered onto the board and non-expandable? On a system primarily being purchased by *graphic artists*??!)
It's pretty easy to observe that in most cases, you're smart not to ever buy a "first revision" of something Apple releases. Whether it's the folks who got the first generation iPods and now wish they had that dock connector, or it's the people who didn't wait and get the extra 50Mhz or so of speed in a "speed bump" of a PowerMac desktop - this holds true.
As for your 2nd. point, I don't know if Apple needs to "triple their market share" to remain viable. It wouldn't hurt, obviously, but part of their charm is found in the fact they're not all that common. Lots of folks buy Macs precisely because they like having something that's not "run of the mill". I.T. people who work on PCs all day long for a living often buy a Mac for home use, just so they can escape looking at the same stuff they deal with at work. If Apple succeeded in selling enough systems, I fear it would be their undoing - actually. The "coolness factor" would vanish, and authors of virii and spyware/ad-ware would become motivated to target the Mac platform - eliminating some of that advantage too.
I love OS X, my G5 and my new Powerbook 15", but if everyone owned and used these things - a Dell running Windows XP would probably start looking interesting to me. It's all about where you're at in the overall marketplace, really.
I think a lot of Mac development is "on spec" assuming market share WILL increase.
I think making it easier to run Linux software on the Mac would be a tremendous breakthrough. We're getting there, slowly. Then as Linux triumphs, we would triumph too.
Problem with the Mac elitism factor is that you end up without support on popular Web sites, streams, etc; without specialized software; and without people who can help you if you're not totally literate. You should not be out on your own if you buy a Mac.
As for quality, yes,there have been disasters before. However, the run of the mill Mac seems to have been very well made in the past - my wife's SE is still in use, and a bunch of LC IIs that someone gave to me after years of clasroom use, were then stored in a garage attic through an entire year because I couldn't get them, and are now being set up to donate are still working JUST FINE. Amazing, no? I'm not totally confident a current iMac or such could do that.
Also, the boxes are increasingly impractical in many ways. Try replacing a ribbon calbe in a MDD G4. THe mirrored drive doors are absurd - they block off the eject buttons...and you have to remove the drive doors before installing new drives. The G5s are limiting in expandability ... the G4s admittedly will take a huge number of hard drives here and there, but only two optical drives, and you have to work to get 'em in. Want an internal zip? Not in the cards...though that DOES remind me of my beloved Plus!
I think making it easier to run Linux software on the Mac would be a tremendous breakthrough. We're getting there, slowly. Then as Linux triumphs, we would triumph too.
Problem with the Mac elitism factor is that you end up without support on popular Web sites, streams, etc; without specialized software; and without people who can help you if you're not totally literate. You should not be out on your own if you buy a Mac.
As for quality, yes,there have been disasters before. However, the run of the mill Mac seems to have been very well made in the past - my wife's SE is still in use, and a bunch of LC IIs that someone gave to me after years of clasroom use, were then stored in a garage attic through an entire year because I couldn't get them, and are now being set up to donate are still working JUST FINE. Amazing, no? I'm not totally confident a current iMac or such could do that.
Also, the boxes are increasingly impractical in many ways. Try replacing a ribbon calbe in a MDD G4. THe mirrored drive doors are absurd - they block off the eject buttons...and you have to remove the drive doors before installing new drives. The G5s are limiting in expandability ... the G4s admittedly will take a huge number of hard drives here and there, but only two optical drives, and you have to work to get 'em in. Want an internal zip? Not in the cards...though that DOES remind me of my beloved Plus!
Older Macs, etc.
Yep! I agree 110% about Linux support. I'm hoping that at some point, somebody will design a tool or support layer of some sort that allows a Linux binary to execute inside OS X. I believe Linux already does this with BSD code, so it seems feasible.
When comparing quality of the older machines, I think it's important to recognize that it's a whole different "can of worms" than what you've got today (or in the more recent past). Just as I can very likely pull an old Mac SE or LC from a closet, power it up, and have it work just fine - so can I pull an old IBM XT or 286 AT from a closet with good results. This wasn't so much a "Mac thing" as it was a testament to the higher standards of build quality put into the early personal computers, plus the fact that they just weren't as complex.
When you open up a Mac LC and look closely at the insides, there's really not much to it. You've got a pretty basic motherboard with less than half the components on it that you find on boards today. The cooling is quite basic too. Certainly nothing like today's G5's with multiple, processor controlled "cooling zones".
But ultimately, I think folks wouldn't be willing to pay the prices it would cost to build systems as complicated as we've got today - if we still constructed them with the same quality standards used in the 80's and early 90's. People have learned that they really don't WANT to keep using their same computer for 10+ years straight, so they're not being built to last this long anymore.
I briefly owned the MDD G4 tower, and I agree that the mirrored drive doors themselves were impractical. But by contrast, I've had several folks comment that it was a better looking system than the new G5's (which are often accused of looking too "industrial" or "like a portable space heater"). It was fairly easy to get inside of and work on, really. A VAST improvement from Apple's early PowerMac towers like the 8150 Workgroup Server or 8500! The lack of drive bays in the G5 is almost certainly just an attempt to keep the heat down inside. I believe you'll see more drive bays in the next revision, when IBM starts providing G5 CPUs with lower power requirements.
Yep! I agree 110% about Linux support. I'm hoping that at some point, somebody will design a tool or support layer of some sort that allows a Linux binary to execute inside OS X. I believe Linux already does this with BSD code, so it seems feasible.
When comparing quality of the older machines, I think it's important to recognize that it's a whole different "can of worms" than what you've got today (or in the more recent past). Just as I can very likely pull an old Mac SE or LC from a closet, power it up, and have it work just fine - so can I pull an old IBM XT or 286 AT from a closet with good results. This wasn't so much a "Mac thing" as it was a testament to the higher standards of build quality put into the early personal computers, plus the fact that they just weren't as complex.
When you open up a Mac LC and look closely at the insides, there's really not much to it. You've got a pretty basic motherboard with less than half the components on it that you find on boards today. The cooling is quite basic too. Certainly nothing like today's G5's with multiple, processor controlled "cooling zones".
But ultimately, I think folks wouldn't be willing to pay the prices it would cost to build systems as complicated as we've got today - if we still constructed them with the same quality standards used in the 80's and early 90's. People have learned that they really don't WANT to keep using their same computer for 10+ years straight, so they're not being built to last this long anymore.
I briefly owned the MDD G4 tower, and I agree that the mirrored drive doors themselves were impractical. But by contrast, I've had several folks comment that it was a better looking system than the new G5's (which are often accused of looking too "industrial" or "like a portable space heater"). It was fairly easy to get inside of and work on, really. A VAST improvement from Apple's early PowerMac towers like the 8150 Workgroup Server or 8500! The lack of drive bays in the G5 is almost certainly just an attempt to keep the heat down inside. I believe you'll see more drive bays in the next revision, when IBM starts providing G5 CPUs with lower power requirements.
Agreed on the looks of the G4. It really is a pain to work on the inside, though, and you have to have a LOT of space to open it uip. The G5's removable sides make more sense, as do those of my bargain-basement PC - $40 case has two removable sides, and fits something like four CD-ROMs/Zip drives, three hard drives, and yes! a floppy drive. The motherboard ($100 as I recall) has something like five full length PCI slots. Nice and easily upgradeable. What drives me crazy, of course, is the connectors and cables, all set up wtihout any thought at all. So some good, some bad. I miss the ease of the old sled system from machines like the Quadra 605/LC 475, which was simple, durable, and easy. But of course the 68000 series was incredibly cool, while the G5...isn't. As you pointed out.
'Course the AMD Athlon XP in my PC generates MORE heat than a G5, yet I can have a terribly expandable box that's smaller than a Mac G5. And lighter. I won't say it'll last as long, because it probably won't, but if I had spent more, it would. (PCs don't last nearly as long as Macs in terms of useful life so I didn't get the best parts. Also, replacements are dirt cheap, unlike Mac parts!)
Anyhoo, to the point, I would love to see Apple come up with a cheap dual G4 or low-end G5 at under $1,000. I think they really need to reduce their premium to the point where ordinary people can afford their machines. I personally got a dual G4 with edu discount at $1,400 because I could not afford a G5...certainly not a DUAL G5.
Some say that having a really slow machine is OK for those without as much cash, but that just marginalizes the Mac even more. How many computer labs do you want where everything runs dead slow on Macs, but fast on PCs? How many students will buy Macs if that's their only experience? Too many have that idea already...from their experience with those awful 601- and 603-based Performas. (Not the 603e or 604 or 68040 models...!).
Market share is indeed important...partly because it spreads development costs over a much larger base. That's why Chevy can sell their Cavaliers so cheap, while Subaru charges a real premium for the Impreza. That's one reason why Toyota makes a profit off the Corolla and Camry, while Chrysler has a hard time making one off the Neon and Sebring. That's also why you find luxury cars cost so much - lower production. (Cars cost $500 million [for a variant of an existing model] to $6 billion [for a whole new line at an inefficient company] to develop...you really need to sell a LOT to get the cost per vehicle down to a manageable amount! I imagine that the computer industry is similar - so if Apple builds a LOT more computers, their R&D will be MUCH less per machine.)
Saying market share doesn't matter is the argument of someone without market share!
'Course the AMD Athlon XP in my PC generates MORE heat than a G5, yet I can have a terribly expandable box that's smaller than a Mac G5. And lighter. I won't say it'll last as long, because it probably won't, but if I had spent more, it would. (PCs don't last nearly as long as Macs in terms of useful life so I didn't get the best parts. Also, replacements are dirt cheap, unlike Mac parts!)
Anyhoo, to the point, I would love to see Apple come up with a cheap dual G4 or low-end G5 at under $1,000. I think they really need to reduce their premium to the point where ordinary people can afford their machines. I personally got a dual G4 with edu discount at $1,400 because I could not afford a G5...certainly not a DUAL G5.
Some say that having a really slow machine is OK for those without as much cash, but that just marginalizes the Mac even more. How many computer labs do you want where everything runs dead slow on Macs, but fast on PCs? How many students will buy Macs if that's their only experience? Too many have that idea already...from their experience with those awful 601- and 603-based Performas. (Not the 603e or 604 or 68040 models...!).
Market share is indeed important...partly because it spreads development costs over a much larger base. That's why Chevy can sell their Cavaliers so cheap, while Subaru charges a real premium for the Impreza. That's one reason why Toyota makes a profit off the Corolla and Camry, while Chrysler has a hard time making one off the Neon and Sebring. That's also why you find luxury cars cost so much - lower production. (Cars cost $500 million [for a variant of an existing model] to $6 billion [for a whole new line at an inefficient company] to develop...you really need to sell a LOT to get the cost per vehicle down to a manageable amount! I imagine that the computer industry is similar - so if Apple builds a LOT more computers, their R&D will be MUCH less per machine.)
Saying market share doesn't matter is the argument of someone without market share!
Regarding "market share", it's very over-stated, IMHO. Yes, selling more units brings the price down - but at some point, the sheer quantity of similar items flooding a marketplace automatically drops the product's perceived quality and the public's desire for it.
I can guarantee you that most folks I know would perceive the Subaru Imprezza to be a "more desirable" car to own than a Chevy Cavalier - regardless of facts about reliability, build-quality, and so on.
In fact, people I know who recently did purchase a Cavalier have to go around making excuses and apologies for their purchase - because they automatically assume they'll be attacked or questioned for buying such a vehicle! (And before you think I'm somehow biased, I own and drive an '87 Cavalier wagon!)
Also, the U.S. government and general public seems to have a "double standard" when it comes to success in the marketplace. We want to see companies become successful, but not TOO successful. If you succeed in becoming a very dominant seller in a market, you suddenly become the enemy, accused of being monopolistic (or at the very least, "the man" that we're supposed to fight against for injustices done to the average worker). Look at all the lawsuits against McDonalds. Why not so many against all the other fast food joints like Dairy Queen or Arby's? Seems like it's always McDonalds. Well, they're perceived as among the most successful.
If Apple continues to truly innovate, people who like their products will pay more - knowing the money is going towards useful R&D. Most clone vendors spend their R&D dollars on copycatting innovations of others, or finding ways to cut corners without things breaking before the warranty ends.
I can't really afford Apple's products, but I bought a G5 dual 2Ghz tower anyway - and will be paying it off on my credit card for quite a while.... It's by far the most I *ever* spent on a computer, but it's also the computer I have the most respect for of any I've owned in the last 7 or 8 years. As a guy who works in I.T. for a living, I don't see why I shouldn't put my money where my mouth is - and own a product from a company I believe in.
At least Apple's tech. support isn't answering the phones from India.....
I can guarantee you that most folks I know would perceive the Subaru Imprezza to be a "more desirable" car to own than a Chevy Cavalier - regardless of facts about reliability, build-quality, and so on.
In fact, people I know who recently did purchase a Cavalier have to go around making excuses and apologies for their purchase - because they automatically assume they'll be attacked or questioned for buying such a vehicle! (And before you think I'm somehow biased, I own and drive an '87 Cavalier wagon!)
Also, the U.S. government and general public seems to have a "double standard" when it comes to success in the marketplace. We want to see companies become successful, but not TOO successful. If you succeed in becoming a very dominant seller in a market, you suddenly become the enemy, accused of being monopolistic (or at the very least, "the man" that we're supposed to fight against for injustices done to the average worker). Look at all the lawsuits against McDonalds. Why not so many against all the other fast food joints like Dairy Queen or Arby's? Seems like it's always McDonalds. Well, they're perceived as among the most successful.
If Apple continues to truly innovate, people who like their products will pay more - knowing the money is going towards useful R&D. Most clone vendors spend their R&D dollars on copycatting innovations of others, or finding ways to cut corners without things breaking before the warranty ends.
I can't really afford Apple's products, but I bought a G5 dual 2Ghz tower anyway - and will be paying it off on my credit card for quite a while.... It's by far the most I *ever* spent on a computer, but it's also the computer I have the most respect for of any I've owned in the last 7 or 8 years. As a guy who works in I.T. for a living, I don't see why I shouldn't put my money where my mouth is - and own a product from a company I believe in.
At least Apple's tech. support isn't answering the phones from India.....
Oh, yes, like the way the best selling cars - Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Toyota Corolla - have a low perceived quality...! Not to mention the public's lack of desire for the best selling vehicle in the US, the Ford F-series pickup. (I never understand how that thing stays on top, the Chevy and Dodge pickups both beat it...) Lots more people think popularity MEANS quality. That's why Ford used to harp on their "five of the ten best sellers are Fords" before Jacques Nasser realized that Ford was selling so many cars to its own divisions...!
Yes, but it also costs $10,000 more.
Cavaliers are fine cars with a bad rap. Americans almost all have an idea that ALL American cars are rubbish and ALL Japanese cars are superb. I have had experience with a Dodge Neon and Toyota Corolla, and both were in the shop an equal amount during itheir first three years, though the Neon saw more severe service. Still have the Neon eight-nine years later.
Regaridng your idea that the government automatically accuses companies that are "too big" of being monopolies, I think you're confusing real monopolies like Microsoft which abuse their power with companies that are merely big. GM was attacked because it used underhanded tactics to stifle competition - remember Tucker? Standard Oil for the same reason. Microsoft for the same reason. AT&T, I don't remember why...regarding lawsuits against McDonald's, I think they have all now been dismissed on appeal. Yes, it's because MD is successful. Are you saying Apple, currently the subject of TWO class action suits, would get more if they sold more? Maybe, I guess. But how many people are suing Dell?
I am glad APple isn't using India for its phone support, but you know, that's another argument. We're talking about increasing market share back to 10%, not making it 90%.
car comparisons, etc.
Well, the Toyota Camry has also been called the "world's most generic vehicle" by some reviewers. Sure, they all rate it as top-notch for quality - but it offers nothing unique in the styling department. Toyota and Honda are generally regarded as building the most reliable cars around - whether or not that's actually the case. (From what I've seen and experienced personally, it's somewhat accurate - but like everything, has exceptions. In particular, I've seen a number of older Corollas that develop serious cases of body rust, and then the trim panels and controls/levers start breaking off. The engine may keep on going and going, but there's not much else left you want to drive around.)
As you said yourself though, many people equate popularity with quality - and that's a ridiculous notion. If that were true, the best food you could get would be from fast food chains, and sitcoms and soap operas would be the best television you could watch!
That, again, leads back to my original point about market share. It's necessary for a business, only insofar as they sell enough units to be profitable. Plenty of "mom and pop" shops run for 50 years or more selling far less than 1/4th. of 1 percent of a market share. (As just one "off the cuff" example, we have several local stores that do nothing but sell and repair clocks. I'm certain they'll never achieve anything like even a 1% market share in clock sales around the country - much less the rest of the world. But they do enough business to remain very viable in our area.)
If you offer something unique (and I think we can all agree that Apple does - especially since you can't just go running OS X on a PC), you have the potential to survive. Magazines like "Fast Company" that want to accuse Apple of basically "wasting too much time and energy on innovation instead of on building market share/sales" don't really get it. Steve Jobs has said he never wants to be "the next Microsoft". I have my doubts he'd be able to successfully manage a business that size - and deep down, he's probably afraid of becoming another Bill Gates, forced to take a completely "hands off" attitude to the company he founded.
That said though, you're right that at the present, we're really talking about getting Apple back to maybe 10% market share - not something like 30% or 40%. I think Apple's on track to earn back the market share they've enjoyed in the past. It's going to take time to undo years of damage though. Fans of the original MacOS won't like it when I say this - but all that sticking to MacOS 9.x and earlier didn't do Apple any favors at all. The classic MacOS was becoming dated even in the mid 90's, when Apple was still hawking it to everyone on Performas at OfficeMax and Staples stores. It takes years to change the public's perceptions, and many still equate Apple with that older MacOS that "crashed with unhelpful numerical error messages and cutsie pictures of bombs", "had limited networking support" and "only supported Apple branded printers". (Yeah, yeah - I know it supported more than that, but we're talking what's seen in the "Chooser" on a default install here.)
If there's one thing I think Apple could do to improve their sales at this point, it's probably putting out more informative commercials. Up till now, they're relied on making very generalized statements in their advertising - but getting people's attention with the cleverness of the ad itself. (EG. Look at the recent ads for the 12" and 17" Powerbooks. What did that commercial really tell anyone, except "Hey - look at this! We've got both this really small new laptop, and this really big new laptop. And here's a cute way to illustrate their relative sizes!)
Did they ever mention any of the really innovative stuff those Powerbooks do? People need to know the 17" Powerbooks have built-in backlit keyboards, for example. PC laptops don't really offer that. Maybe show how the integrated Bluetooth allows people's cellphones to automatically synchronize address books with the laptop? Instead of being content to show folks that a PowerMac G5 will blow them through the walls of their house, they could follow up with a "part 2" commercial that tells people why it's better. The ability to upgrade to 8GB of RAM is worth noting, since 32-bit desktop PCs can't address more than 2GB. At least show someone opening one up, so people can marvel at the ease of access to the insides, and the advanced cooling design in it.
Well, the Toyota Camry has also been called the "world's most generic vehicle" by some reviewers. Sure, they all rate it as top-notch for quality - but it offers nothing unique in the styling department. Toyota and Honda are generally regarded as building the most reliable cars around - whether or not that's actually the case. (From what I've seen and experienced personally, it's somewhat accurate - but like everything, has exceptions. In particular, I've seen a number of older Corollas that develop serious cases of body rust, and then the trim panels and controls/levers start breaking off. The engine may keep on going and going, but there's not much else left you want to drive around.)
As you said yourself though, many people equate popularity with quality - and that's a ridiculous notion. If that were true, the best food you could get would be from fast food chains, and sitcoms and soap operas would be the best television you could watch!
That, again, leads back to my original point about market share. It's necessary for a business, only insofar as they sell enough units to be profitable. Plenty of "mom and pop" shops run for 50 years or more selling far less than 1/4th. of 1 percent of a market share. (As just one "off the cuff" example, we have several local stores that do nothing but sell and repair clocks. I'm certain they'll never achieve anything like even a 1% market share in clock sales around the country - much less the rest of the world. But they do enough business to remain very viable in our area.)
If you offer something unique (and I think we can all agree that Apple does - especially since you can't just go running OS X on a PC), you have the potential to survive. Magazines like "Fast Company" that want to accuse Apple of basically "wasting too much time and energy on innovation instead of on building market share/sales" don't really get it. Steve Jobs has said he never wants to be "the next Microsoft". I have my doubts he'd be able to successfully manage a business that size - and deep down, he's probably afraid of becoming another Bill Gates, forced to take a completely "hands off" attitude to the company he founded.
That said though, you're right that at the present, we're really talking about getting Apple back to maybe 10% market share - not something like 30% or 40%. I think Apple's on track to earn back the market share they've enjoyed in the past. It's going to take time to undo years of damage though. Fans of the original MacOS won't like it when I say this - but all that sticking to MacOS 9.x and earlier didn't do Apple any favors at all. The classic MacOS was becoming dated even in the mid 90's, when Apple was still hawking it to everyone on Performas at OfficeMax and Staples stores. It takes years to change the public's perceptions, and many still equate Apple with that older MacOS that "crashed with unhelpful numerical error messages and cutsie pictures of bombs", "had limited networking support" and "only supported Apple branded printers". (Yeah, yeah - I know it supported more than that, but we're talking what's seen in the "Chooser" on a default install here.)
If there's one thing I think Apple could do to improve their sales at this point, it's probably putting out more informative commercials. Up till now, they're relied on making very generalized statements in their advertising - but getting people's attention with the cleverness of the ad itself. (EG. Look at the recent ads for the 12" and 17" Powerbooks. What did that commercial really tell anyone, except "Hey - look at this! We've got both this really small new laptop, and this really big new laptop. And here's a cute way to illustrate their relative sizes!)
Did they ever mention any of the really innovative stuff those Powerbooks do? People need to know the 17" Powerbooks have built-in backlit keyboards, for example. PC laptops don't really offer that. Maybe show how the integrated Bluetooth allows people's cellphones to automatically synchronize address books with the laptop? Instead of being content to show folks that a PowerMac G5 will blow them through the walls of their house, they could follow up with a "part 2" commercial that tells people why it's better. The ability to upgrade to 8GB of RAM is worth noting, since 32-bit desktop PCs can't address more than 2GB. At least show someone opening one up, so people can marvel at the ease of access to the insides, and the advanced cooling design in it.
I found this to be very interesting, Wired Magazine from 1997 "101 Ways to save Apple" Steve Jobs came back and managed to accomplish the save Apple.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.06/apple.html
Here is the cover of that magazine. For those without broadband it happens to be very large.
http://homepage.mac.com/jlatour/.Pictures/Pray.jpg
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.06/apple.html
Here is the cover of that magazine. For those without broadband it happens to be very large.
http://homepage.mac.com/jlatour/.Pictures/Pray.jpg
Ways to save Apple - from Wired
Yeah, I remember reading that issue when it first came out - but at the time, I recall not really caring if Apple made it or not. (I was already freshly recovering from being burned on my purchase of a Performa tower that didn't do half of what my less expensive PC setup did!)
Looking at the list now, one can see that Steve Jobs really did take at least a handful of Wired's suggestions to heart. (EG. The suggestion to dump/outsource the digital cameras, scanners, Newton, and eMate, or the suggestion to offer an "Apple Loan" program.)
Of course, in other ways, Wired was dead wrong. (EG. The suggestion at the top of their list to quit building the hardware, and focus on the OS/software instead.) Of course, this is also the suggestion Bill Gates had for Steve before he left Apple the first time - when he asked Bill "What should I do to increase market share?" As long as Apple does a good job creatively designing unique machines, I think they're right to keep on selling them. The best way to ensure the OS behaves like you want is to control the hardware it runs on.
Yeah, I remember reading that issue when it first came out - but at the time, I recall not really caring if Apple made it or not. (I was already freshly recovering from being burned on my purchase of a Performa tower that didn't do half of what my less expensive PC setup did!)
Looking at the list now, one can see that Steve Jobs really did take at least a handful of Wired's suggestions to heart. (EG. The suggestion to dump/outsource the digital cameras, scanners, Newton, and eMate, or the suggestion to offer an "Apple Loan" program.)
Of course, in other ways, Wired was dead wrong. (EG. The suggestion at the top of their list to quit building the hardware, and focus on the OS/software instead.) Of course, this is also the suggestion Bill Gates had for Steve before he left Apple the first time - when he asked Bill "What should I do to increase market share?" As long as Apple does a good job creatively designing unique machines, I think they're right to keep on selling them. The best way to ensure the OS behaves like you want is to control the hardware it runs on.
Innovation Marketing Pricing Product Line
All interesting topics. Great thread to read.
As long as the computer market is changing then innovation will be important. Innovation is what drives the market forward. At least for the next several years we can expect big changes in hardware.
Marketing is what convinces the customer that they desire the innovations the factory creates. Creative Marketing creates a new experience for the customer, often with the same materials they had before.
When you talk about the "average Joe" using a computer for just "email and web surfing" you are draining all of the color out of the product. If you advertise that you sell something simple for just "email and web surfing" then the customer will never pay much for that. It is Apple's job to tell the customer "Buy an Apple and you will feel great", "With an Apple your life is enhanced", etc. Then they will pay $1,500 for the experience. It happens all over. You can buy decent athletic shoes for under $10, so why does Nike manage to get kids to line up to pay over $100 for the same thing?
The iPod is a great example of marketing and innovation. The designers and marketers decided on a musical experience implemented in hardware and software. Those who carp about gigabytes or battery life are totally missing the point. iPod sells well because the overall experience is great, it is not a nuts and bolts purchase based on gigabytes and watt-hours.
On the radio the other day I heard about a that in blind taste tests Pepsi always beats Coke. In another test they scanned people with an MRI while they drank unmarked colas. Pepsi did a better job of lighting the parts of people's brains related to taste and enjoyment. However, when they told people whether they were drinking Coke or Pepsi (truthfully) then the Coke drinker's brains lit up in other areas related to fulfillment and motivation and such, not just in the taste areas. Pepsi drinkers didn't have this reaction. The point is that somehow the Coke marketers have created an experience for their customers larger than the simple taste experience they get from sweet, fizzy water.
My point is that if Apple can continue to innovate technically (backlit keyboards, beautiful displays, good sounding speakers, fantastic OS, etc.) then they will have the tools for their designers and marketers to innovate in their sphere to create products that customers will desire and that competitors will not be able to copy easily.
All interesting topics. Great thread to read.
As long as the computer market is changing then innovation will be important. Innovation is what drives the market forward. At least for the next several years we can expect big changes in hardware.
Marketing is what convinces the customer that they desire the innovations the factory creates. Creative Marketing creates a new experience for the customer, often with the same materials they had before.
When you talk about the "average Joe" using a computer for just "email and web surfing" you are draining all of the color out of the product. If you advertise that you sell something simple for just "email and web surfing" then the customer will never pay much for that. It is Apple's job to tell the customer "Buy an Apple and you will feel great", "With an Apple your life is enhanced", etc. Then they will pay $1,500 for the experience. It happens all over. You can buy decent athletic shoes for under $10, so why does Nike manage to get kids to line up to pay over $100 for the same thing?
The iPod is a great example of marketing and innovation. The designers and marketers decided on a musical experience implemented in hardware and software. Those who carp about gigabytes or battery life are totally missing the point. iPod sells well because the overall experience is great, it is not a nuts and bolts purchase based on gigabytes and watt-hours.
On the radio the other day I heard about a that in blind taste tests Pepsi always beats Coke. In another test they scanned people with an MRI while they drank unmarked colas. Pepsi did a better job of lighting the parts of people's brains related to taste and enjoyment. However, when they told people whether they were drinking Coke or Pepsi (truthfully) then the Coke drinker's brains lit up in other areas related to fulfillment and motivation and such, not just in the taste areas. Pepsi drinkers didn't have this reaction. The point is that somehow the Coke marketers have created an experience for their customers larger than the simple taste experience they get from sweet, fizzy water.
My point is that if Apple can continue to innovate technically (backlit keyboards, beautiful displays, good sounding speakers, fantastic OS, etc.) then they will have the tools for their designers and marketers to innovate in their sphere to create products that customers will desire and that competitors will not be able to copy easily.
no, you wont be okay
@ kangaroo
if you installed all the patches and upgrades of windows and internet explorer you would still get more bugwholes and still some mayor issues would be there.
thats just the truth.
if you got a hardware (or pseudo hardware, like a netgear router) firewall infront of your system, use alternative browsers and APPS only (openoffice, mozilla, ifraview, footbar2000, and so on)
dont ever use ms PROGRAMs, just the basic OS, update every SERVICEPACK (but not every stupid hotpatch),
dont open any .exe/com/pif/lnk/vbs/whatever file if you dont 100%tly know what you are doing....
then you might be fine.
@ kangaroo
if you installed all the patches and upgrades of windows and internet explorer you would still get more bugwholes and still some mayor issues would be there
.thats just the truth.
if you got a hardware (or pseudo hardware, like a netgear router) firewall infront of your system, use alternative browsers and APPS only (openoffice, mozilla, ifraview, footbar2000, and so on)
dont ever use ms PROGRAMs, just the basic OS, update every SERVICEPACK (but not every stupid hotpatch),
dont open any .exe/com/pif/lnk/vbs/whatever file if you dont 100%tly know what you are doing....
then you might be fine.