[lbj]

Ding, Ding, Ding ... Round 3

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Like MP3 players... smartphones... wireless routers... yet Apple was not the company that "started out" with these -- they waited and entered a mature market. They were not the first, just the best. Apple brings technology to the masses -- they don't come out with the first of a certain kind of product -- they take an existing, mature market, and revolutionize it.

I personally don't feel they entered any of your examples when the market was mature. Developed? Yes. Proven? Yes. But not mature. And that is precisely why they were so successful on these fronts. No one had yet gotten them quite right...until Apple put the final tweaks in place. And nothing is "first" about a netbook so this doesn't break your paradigm.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

My point exactly... Apple has admitted that the AppleTV is more of an experiment than anything. Still, it was marketed to the masses -- an easy way to bring your digital lifestyle (which just about everyone has one of those now) to the living room. Still: marketed to a large population, not a niche market.

I'm confused. Why would the MacNet not be marketed to a large population? I don't think Apple could build enough $650 MacNets <<provided>> they get the keyboard right. And notice I'm starting the MacNet at double the price of the "competition".

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Everyone watches TV -- not everyone wants something "more than a phone, but less than a laptop."

Who wants less than a laptop? I just want a smaller one.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Whoa -- I understand that statistics can be used to "bend the truth" somewhat, but now you're mixing two totally different statistics -- market share vs. whom a company markets to -- and you can't do that.

Huh? Who brought up marketing share?? As a stockholder, I don't care about marketING share, I care about market share. Who is doing the mixing here? Apple didn't squirrel away 15 billion dollars cash by marketing. They did it by selling.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Do you think that because Apple only holds 6.5% of the market that their products and ad campaigns are only intended for 6.5% of the population's eyes? Apple may hold only 6.5% of the market, but they market (read: advertise and develop for) to a very broad range of the population -- much, much, much more than 6.5%.........Two, completely different kinds of percentages and statistics that cannot be interchanged freely.

So quit with the slight of hand already! (honestly said with respect) I never for one second inferred that Apple is only interested in, caters towards, develops for, or markets to only 6.5% of the market. My intent was to point out that while you are poo-pooing 18 million units or 6.5% of something as irrelevant or "niche", I'm trying to point out that those exact same sales represent the lifeblood of very mainstream products and very mainstream companies. Why do you have the idea that I think Apple should only market the MacNet to a very narrow spectrum? I think they should market it to the masses. And this may be a source of underlying disagreement; I feel the potential MacNet market is huge and growing...and you may not.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Being a "niche brand" is something totally different than a "niche market."

You missed my point entirely or I did a poor job of communicating. I'm not calling any of the companies a niche brand. And I don't feel any of their products are aimed squarely at a niche market. Just the opposite. They are mainstream. And I feel the netbook market has slipped outside the confines of niche.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

No, not unreasonable at all. Many more flat-panel TVs were sold than that -- should Apple make TVs? Just because something sells well doesn't mean Apple should automatically jump on board with an Apple-branded version of it.

Um...ok...Let me try this another way: A netbook is a portable computer and Apple is in the business of portable computing. I'm not seeing the stretch you're implying...

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I will agree with the many people who think an Apple-branded, optionally touchscreen "netbook" (whatever that comes out meaning) would be cool. But "cool" doesn't mean it will sell well, nor does "cool" mean it will have wide-range appeal. iPods have wide-range appeal -- toddlers to grandmothers are fascinated by them, can afford them, and can use them with relative ease. Laptop computers have wide-range appeal: students, mothers, businesspeople, travelers, etc. iPhones have wide-range appeal: you don't see soccer moms toting about their Acer-branded netbooks, but you'd be hard-pressed to find one without an iPod or iPhone.

I don't think I ever used the word "cool". Yes, iPods and iPhone are popular in a way that netbooks have yet to achieve. Maybe that's because Apple has yet to introduce one?

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

They revolutionize entire segments of the technology sector by creating products that simplify the technology to a point where one doesn't need a degree to understand how to use them.

I'm a huge fanboy. Have been since 1991. But I don't agree. Nothing revolutionary about the PowerMac, iMac, or MacBooks. Nothing revolutionary about the iPod. Absolute best in class? Yes! But until the iPhone, nothing else changed the entire playing field in a way that <<I>> would define as "revolutionary". (Ok, I will also grant iTunes Music Store and OSX as huge game changers). But the hardware?

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

...it's just a smaller laptop without as many features and power.

You just described the entire iPod line. I'm not asking for a brand spanking new concept, just a smaller version of what they already have. Mini-iMac-PowerMac. Shuffle-Nano-Classic-Touch. MacNet-MacBook-MacBook Pro.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

If (and when) Apple makes their "netbook," I would be willing to bet my left nut that it doesn't resemble current netbooks in the sense of being a computer that folds in half, one half containing a screen, and the other half containing a keyboard. That's too... plain and done.

Why does it have to be so exotic? Yes, I get punch drunk looking at Apple's current products. And I love the way each of them look, feel, and operate. But past the rose colored glasses, all their products (again, iPhone is a rule breaker) have similar form factors to their competition.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I'm sure Apple will all teach us a lesson in the ease of use and the usefulness of a portable, tiny computer.

Agreed. And I think that lesson is sooner versus later and feel it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary. Especially to keep it in line with the current global economic climate. The time is right in more ways than one.