These needless shots against Vista really damage your credibility. Please try to keep to the issues at hand.
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 Still Involved in Apple, Still Expected to Return in June
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These needless shots against Vista really damage your credibility. Please try to keep to the issues at hand.
Walmart is the largest, profitable retailer out there because they sell the most high margin stuff. Sure.
If Apple makes $150 off of each mac mini sold and sells 1M of them or makes $100 off of each mac mini sold and sells 2M of them, which ones of those leads to greater profitability? [ This also completely ignores the secondary effects of providing a better ecosystem for the Mac OS X developer and partner community to sell into. ]
If moving the price gets a higher percentage changed in units sold than the percentage decrease in margins (and it is still a quality product) then it would lead to great profitability.
Now would buy into some arguments that says that Apple stays out of delivering as full spectrum of products for every possible market segment. However, in the segments they do compete in, going with a lower number of units shipped just to dogmatically stick to some 'fixed in stone' margin number that is pegged higher than there competitors "just because it is part of our 'brand'" is economically misguided long term. Short term it may appear to work. Longer term though, the number of units will shrink being limited to the folks who stick with it just for the label (not the value). It is a pricing approach that is just out for customers who want to get stroked.
Citing facts is a shot ?
At least I didn't claim Microsoft was a "buggy whip maker" whining about "horseless carriages" (which would be saying Apple fails to innovate, pretty far from reality).Sheesh. Don't buy an Apple product if you are not ready to buy into the Kool-aid. Steve Jobs is all knowing and all seeing. Make it sound like buying an Apple is like joining a cult.
A Mac is a tool. Period. It isn't a philosophy to buy into or an experience (as in some ride at Disneyland or a Pixar movie.). Nobody primarily uses the OS or hardware directly. They utilize the applications that sit on top.
Apple doesn't provide everything it users need. Nor should it. That is silly approach. No way, no how Apple is going to build all the software that it users need to effectively turn their tool in the wide variations of the tools they need to get their work done. The notion that Apple is going to sell me everything I need is an even bigger glass of Kool-aid.
Apple does some things that are only in Apple's interests at times. For instance this 3 bracket non-overlapping price breakdown for desktops.
The mini is left comatose for a very long time. The mini is marginally a good deal for folks now that it has been updated. For a long while there it sucked as a value proposition. Similarly, the single Quad Pros stayed about the same in price while Apple moved to a lower tier Xeon chip for those (dropping by a couple $100 in unit costs).
Apple does make moves that don't deliver customer value from time to time. They seem to be making more of them as bank account grows larger rapidly.
Just because Apple has lots of money in the bank doesn't necessarily mean they are going to make good decisions going forward or that they have a good plan going forward. Two years ago Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. had alot of money too. They don't exist anymore.
A vertically integrated tool, sold as entire experience out of the box and supported by a brand image making sure that from one model to the next, this tool has the same experience.
You don't understand Apple. No need to be a fanboy or a cult member or anything. You just need to understand that Apple always was about this integration and when did they try to go beyond it, it almost resulted in them disappearing.
Why is it that so many people want Apple to be this big market player ? Do you really want Apple to be something you need just because you want it ? If you don't need an Apple product, then buy something else. No one is special because they buy Apple.
I dismissed your supposition because I don't agree with it - and for good reason. Before "I'm a Mac", there was "Think Different." Before that, there were all those iMac ads. Before that, cheesy infomercials. Before that, PC lemmings falling off a cliff. Before that, 1984. Etc. Apple has ALWAYS marketed their products as a better alternative to the PC. Always. Vista just gave them more ammo. And the "I'm a Mac" ads started before Vista's release, if I'm not mistaken?
Apple didn't suddenly decide to advertise the Mac because they were "hurting for profits." They've always advertised the Mac. Some campaigns have been more successful than others. The "I'm a Mac" campaign has worked so well because it finally struck a chord with consumers. It simplified the platform differences in an easy to comprehend, yet very pointed way. It took advantage of Microsoft's inability to stop all of the malware and viruses plaguing PC users. It poked fun at the blue screen of death. Etc.
Aggressive and smart advertising doesn't equate to "hurting for customers", especially when Apple has a clear history of advertising the Mac's advantages. Furthermore, they're a business. Do you expect them NOT to try to sell more products whenever possible???
Apple actually supports and utilitizes Open Source quite a bit. Darwin is open source. Ever heard of WebKit? Apple has a far superior record where open source, net neutrality, etc. is concerned. With WebKit, Apple is pushing STANDARDS, not ActiveX, ASP, and other proprietary technologies. Apple has NEVER tried to OWN the Internet as some other company has (repeatedly).
Brazen disregard for innovative, inclusive change? What are you smoking??? Please share! What change will return decent profit? Please enlighten us.
Yawn. Great, then stick to your 90%. We don't care. Your sarcasm is boring. Apple has made it clear time and again that they're happy to grow their market share slowly and deliberately and that market share alone is not their primary motivator. If you don't like this, you and your 90% can keep on doing what you're doing. It doesn't effect me (or Apple) one bit.
I could say the same to you: don't take it so personally.
I still don't know what you're arguing, nor what point you're trying to make. And I don't say that to be offensive. Perhaps I'm just an idiot.My point has been that Apple is growing by leaps and bounds, that they are very successful, and that their strategy is sound. What ideas do you wish to share? This is hardly a "gated community." Everyone is welcome. But you must accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about certain product segments or certain markets. I feel like a broken record, but I'll say it again: Apple is never going to deliver a low-cost, upgradeable computer. It's just not part of their philosophy. Apple cares about margins. Period. They offer a low cost Mac, the Mini. For $500, you get a super compact and speedy little box with 5 USB ports, FireWire800, Nvidia graphics, WiFi, Bluetooth, a Gig of RAM, a DVD burner, etc. It's a very nice, affordable Mac. And Apple maintains their 30% margin.
What you and others seem to argue for is a cheap, low-margin box. This doesn't benefit Apple one bit. It drains resources while doing nothing but simply adding market share. Each of these new users costs Apple in terms of support, etc. if they're only making 5% on the box, how is this smart?
The Apple world isn't the elitist, close-minded one you paint. But it is a world with clear boundaries. These boundaries have always existed and part of being an Apple customer is accepting them. Apple is VERY successful. And nothing I've seen argued in this thread is going to make them more successful. So, I'll ask you, point blank, what is it you think Apple should do and how do you think it will benefit them as a company?
Some would argue that it is!
It is very much a philosophy. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Apple at all.
Who said that Apple is going to sell you everything? They have a thriving developer community and wide third party peripheral support. They're just not going to compete in certain market segments because it is not in their best interest. That's all.
Trust me, we've heard it all before. Time and again. And, guess what, Apple is still thriving and everyone else is still playing catch up. It's a tired refrain.
No, they sell low margin crap that doesn't require support. You can't even begin to compare Walmart to Apple. Quite frankly, doing so completely invalidates anything you have to say, in my opinion. But, I can't resist responding anyway!
Well, they have 1M more customers to support and they've made $50 less on each customer. I'm not sure how that equates to more profitability. Apple knows how much it need to make on each machine to provide their start to finish experience, to offer free training at their stores, to offer industry leading telephone support, to offer no hassle repairs, etc. I think they understand this stuff quite a bit better than either you or I.
If you conveniently - and foolishly - toss out all of the extras that come with the Apple experience. It's about support. It's about the stores. Something has to pay for all of that and your bargain basement PC pricing mentality doesn't take any of that into account.
Yeah, the numbers are shrinking.
That's why Apple continues to sell more and more Macs quarter over quarter. Because what they're doing isn't working, right? If you really believe that people buy and stick with Apple because of some perceived brand cachet and not the inherent superiority of the user experience, you're more out of touch than I already believe. Seriously, what's your point?
Wow, so you don't get it at all.
I like paying a lot for stuff that was expensive to make.
You like paying a lot for stuff that was cheap to make. I don't.
If the world's economy really goes into the tank I have some things so say about this, but that goes into the Politics, Religion and Social Issues forum section here, so....
The biggest reason why Apple survives is the iPod and iPhone line (sales of Macs have actually gone flat in recent months). Because both the iPod and iPhone will work with Macs and PCs (thanks to iTunes), this means iPod and iPhone sales aren't just limited to the Mac market, but also covers PC users running Windows XP, Windows Vista, and soon Windows 7. Apple was very lucky that the USB 2.0 spec was finalized shortly before the first iPod was released, and as such Apple could offer iPods with USB 2.0 connections, which was fast enough to copy large numbers of audio files and larger movie files into the player in reasonably short times. I expect the future generation of iPods coming out in September 2010 to be among the first widely available devices to take advantage of USB 3.0 spec, which will finally appear in hardware form in the first half to 2010.
By the way, there were two big problems with Windows Vista:
1) There were a lot of mistakes made during its development process. In fact, they pretty much scrapped everything developed for it in 2005 and started over again for what became the first release at the end of 2006.
2) Vista's hardware requirements were just too much for computer hardware at the time, especially since it needed a dual-core CPU to do anything reasonably fast. It wasn't until the late winter of 2008 when there were enough dual-core computers out there that Vista finally became viable, especially with the release of Service Pack 1 in February 2008.
Windows 7, which is coming probably late fall 2009, takes essentially the Vista code base and does two things: 1) clean up the interface and 2) highly optimize the code for much faster operation. Indeed, Windows 7 is even fast enough to run on the new netbook class of computers.
Seriously guys, I'm starting to wonder about MacRumors. I've been reading from the sidelines for years, and lately I've noticed a huge influx of anti-Apple people running around the forums. Now I've noticed the "ratings" are 1/4-1/3 and even 1/2 negative on many posts. In scrolling down the front page I was surprised to see 64 negative votes concerning the health of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs and his eventual return to Apple. Why would anyone vote this down, even if you don't like Steve Jobs, he's been in seriously critical health for a while? First the ridiculous 3000+ comments on Microsoft versus Apple, and now this trend? I don't get it.
Seriously people, IF YOU DON'T LIKE APPLE, STOP TROLLING AN APPLE FAN SITE.*
*and please, do not tell me just because you own an iPod you like Apple but are simply being critical because it's "best for the company". BULLS#^T. When you make EVERY SINGLE THREAD a battle between Microsoft and Apple it wreaks of bias and agenda. GET A LIFE, go visit a Microsoft blog, and LEAVE US ALONE.
Then don't. If others want to because it meets their needs, let them do it. You don't need to educate them, you do not hold any truths that are hidden from anyone.
Bear and Lehman? Terrible examples. And who said Bear and Lehman ever had anything more than a lot of balls in the air. And certainly not @$30B in cash, and zero debt.
And if a Mac is "a tool, period", it's the tool I want to use.
Conficker worm hits University of Utah computers
The Associated Press
Sunday, April 12, 2009; 8:11 AM
SALT LAKE CITY -- University of Utah officials say a computer virus has infected more than 700 campus computers, including those at the school's three hospitals.
University health sciences spokesman Chris Nelson said the outbreak of the Conficker worm, which can slow computers and steal personal information, was first detected Thursday. By Friday, the virus had infiltrated computers at the hospitals, medical school, and colleges of nursing, pharmacy and health.
Nelson says patient data and medical records have not been compromised.
"That's secured in a much deeper way because of the implications," he said.
Nelson said the virus is mainly attacking personal computers and could be siphoning login and password data, credit card numbers and banking information.
Directions for purging the virus from personal computers and equipment like thumb drives, digital cameras and smart phones has been distributed to staff and students.
Information technology staff shut of Internet access for up to six hours at some campus locations Friday so they could isolate the virus. They were expected to work through the weekend to eradicate it from the system.
Mindy Tueller of the university's office of information technology said all faculty and students should take steps to make sure they are protected. The virus does not infect Macs.
"It can do a lot of bad things," Tueller said. "Every university member should be concerned about this if they're using Windows-based devices."
Exactly. And what the tired PC apologists can't seem to get through their thick skulls is that we buy Macs for the OS more than anything else. If I could buy a generic PC and run OS X with the same seamless experience I get today on Apple hardware, I'd consider one, sure. But that's not the case - and never will be.
It may be expensive, relatively-speaking, but I happen to like Apple hardware and appreciate their industrial design and attention to detail. The little things add up quickly. And, even more, I appreciate the level of service they offer EVERY customer.
People who obsess over hardware price and nothing else don't take OS development, R&D, industrial design, retail stores, Apple Care, etc. into account. I'm not suggesting that Apple couldn't lower it's prices some, but they're never going to be able to deliver a bargain basement priced Mac with all the bells and whistles AND provide the total experience they do today.
It's not that hard to understand. Well, I guess for some it is.
Seriously guys, I'm starting to wonder about MacRumors. I've been reading from the sidelines for years, and lately I've noticed a huge influx of anti-Apple people running around the forums. Now I've noticed the "ratings" are 1/4-1/3 and even 1/2 negative on many posts. In scrolling down the front page I was surprised to see 64 negative votes concerning the health of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs and his eventual return to Apple. Why would anyone vote this down, even if you don't like Steve Jobs, he's been in seriously critical health for a while? First the ridiculous 3000+ comments on Microsoft versus Apple, and now this trend? I don't get it.
Seriously people, IF YOU DON'T LIKE APPLE, STOP TROLLING AN APPLE FAN SITE.*
*and please, do not tell me just because you own an iPod you like Apple but are simply being critical because it's "best for the company". BULLS#^T. When you make EVERY SINGLE THREAD a battle between Microsoft and Apple it wreaks of bias and agenda. GET A LIFE, go visit a Microsoft blog, and LEAVE US ALONE.
Its not trolling. I don't even rate the news stories but some people may not care if Jobs is still involved with Apple or not at this point (hence the negative ratings). Apple hasn't moved on necessarily, but its definitely got a new direction with the focus on developers and designers more than Jobs himself. Rating the articles doesn't necessarily mean they dislike the message of the content (i.e. Jobs' health improving) they would just prefer an alternative Apple-related article.
My comment was pointed at certain individuals who have been actively instigating fights with MacRumors commentators, so I meant no offense to the general community. I just find it interesting that the ratings on articles have been steadily leaning towards "negative", and I was especially alarmed that any one would vote negative on a story regarding the general health of an individual (this article pertains to Steve Jobs' health and thus his eventual full-time return).
The negative ratings notwithstanding, this thread has been turned into yet another "Macs are more expensive than PCs" thread. We already have 2 of those ongoing, did we really need a third one ?
Yes, I know. So next time, instead of feigning ignorance, maybe you should try just disagreeing with a point right away. It would save a little time and eyestrain.
I have. Others here have. Apparently change that you disagree with is not really change at all. It's a coy, circular argument used a lot around here.
So I guess that "my way or the highway" mantra is a bit more exhilarating for you? Are you so sure of yourself and Apple? Is your genius so resolute, so black and white brilliant, that that is no room in your head for anything else but the word no? Not even a "maybe"?
... I could say the same to you: don't take it so personally.
I don't think so. You feel strongly about Apple's business model and apparently have for years. It's not easy for some folks to accept change. I just wish I had met you sooner - like maybe around June 2005, to witness the conniption fits I suspect you and many other enthusiasts experienced when Apple announced a serious change (to the Intel processors).
Quite a load of supposition in your premise here. In short, you're wrong. I think a less expensive, mid-range machine doesn't need to be "cheap" (read: inferior) to be profitable. To clarify, I would like to see prices come down across the board, yes. I think if Apple offered more choices (of computers built for a wider cross section of budgets), & offered more options for upgrade, they could easily sell enough units to cover the overhead, support, and still make profit, & increase market share. All this while providing the holistic, vertical Apple experience to many folks who would otherwise choose a "cheap, low margin box".
The last I checked, Apple Care plans weren't free - so I have some difficulty understanding all of the FUD regarding the opportunity cost of the support of Apple products if they "just work".
The iPod and iPhone success can't shore up profit returns forever. Many feel Apple should make some changes to other products or introduce new, brilliant ones to keep profit margins where they are. I'm disappointed that the only ones allowed to "Think Different" around here are Steve Jobs and a handful of his disciples in Mac forums.
Yes, you're right. Most folks I know who use Macs are reasonable, respectful people who share knowledge and an enthusiasm for the experience that is Apple with me. Only a small handful of the most zealous fans could care less what anyone else thinks.
I think I've made my opinions clear enough - so in deference to good form and respect for you and others, I'm done repeating them and chasing your tail here ... at least for a while.
You suspect wrong. As I've said before, this was an obvious move to anyone who knew anything about NeXT.
Apple already offers a low cost machine, the Mini. I'd like to see it come down a bit in price, but $500 still strikes me as quite reasonable for all that's packed into the box. But this goes back to what I said originally. When you buy Apple, you accept certain limitations. Back before Jobs returned to Apple, they did offer machines with more upgradability. And, guess what? Not many people bought the upgrades. All those early PPC Macs and the various II series before them offered expansion slots, etc. Some had upgradable processors. In all my time as an Apple customer, I never ran into anyone who took advantage of those expansion/upgrade options. Why offer it if no one is going to use it?
I'm not suggesting that upgradability is a bad idea. However, too much upgradability can also work against you, especially when said upgrades conflict or don't work properly. Then you have disgruntled and unhappy customers on your hands and that negates the entire "it just works" experience. By keeping the box closed, Apple eliminates a lot of headaches for both itself and its users. It's a trade-off. Furthermore, Apple isn't just another PC company. They approach computers differently (surprise, surprise). They view the computer as an appliance and they've made the buying experience easy and simple. Look at how confusing the entire purchasing experience can be on the PC side simply because of how MANY choices one has. While "nerds" like this, the rest of the public, generally speaking, does not. Yes, Apple limits choice, but there's a method to the madness. Clearly you don't agree, and that's fine, but Apple hasn't really changed much since I've been a customer and I don't imagine they're going to suddenly rethink their philosophy now.
In short, you're not saying anything that hasn't been said many times before, usually by PC pundits and users who don't really understand Apple. Apple could take the path you suggest at any time, but they don't - and they've made their reasons quite clear (time and again). It's not that you're wrong to believe what you do, but it just isn't the Apple way.
At least you didn't suggest they license the OS to Dell!
I'd like to see a 'low cost mini tower' or whatever, upgradability is a bonus but you rarely see value for money in slow incremental changes. Mainly the fact that the machine could be faster, 'more features', easier to service, longer lasting components and....cost less - with no disadvantages other than an increase in size?
I'm a customer, I don't care about apple or their 'way of doing things', I don't care if exactly this didn't work in the past, couldn't care less about their finances or their future.
I'd like them to license their OS though
I'm a customer, I don't care about apple or their 'way of doing things', I don't care if exactly this didn't work in the past, couldn't care less about their finances or their future.
I'd like them to license their OS though