A six-step plan for Apple...

[gerbick]

Nope, not my article, or even verbiage. But I will say it's an opposing view to many "patron" here... and before the typical responses of "people have been saying that Apple's been going out of business for years" or "this doesn't fit into Apple's culture" (reminder: most here "bought" into, and don't really add anything but the bottom line to Apple, at best) or that "this is speculation" - yeah right, there's a lot of this already around here - I do feel that an outsider's scope of the importance of the iMac delay is an important one to hear.

Anyway, I'll probably be considered flamebait by the usuals... but just thought I'd share this small find and just how it speculates on how to turn things around slightly for Apple in terms of market share. Personally, I'm still hopeful for a headless unit.

No doubt you were disheartened by Apple's (AAPL ) delay from July to September in introducing the new iMac -- especially given the decision to stop production of the second-generation model. But honestly, did you have any choice? Let's face it. They haven't been selling like hot cakes -- even with the iMac's nifty swiveling flat-panel display and stylishly compact footprint. Sales peaked at 448,000 units a quarter after its release in January, 2002. It has been downhill ever since, with sales in Apple's second fiscal quarter ending Mar. 27, 2004, totaling just 252,000 units.

read the rest Business Week.

[bobbo]

hmm, some good ideas there. i think apple should do more of that but i don't want them to lose their high quality and great designs trying to attract more users.

[powermac]

Step 6: Security. If Apple were make security a huge issue, they may open to flood gate for virus writers and the like. It is my opinion the security issue is well known, to computer users, that Macintosh is more stable and secure.
The headless iMac concept has been discussed before. I somewhat agree, although, I don't believe the price is that off base. For example, a similar configuration from a competitor, with a flat screen will cost you as much.
The iMac's problem is expandability after a years use or so. That is the reason it does not attract a lot of people, in my experience.

[kendall]

The headless iMac concept has been discussed before. I somewhat agree, although, I don't believe the price is that off base. For example, a similar configuration from a competitor, with a flat screen will cost you as much.
The iMac's problem is expandability after a years use or so. That is the reason it does not attract a lot of people, in my experience.

the problem is PRICE, PRICE, PRICE!
i just configured a DELL desktop online for $763 with 17" LCD. that is HALF of what a 17" iMac would cost.

ok, so it doesnt have a superdrive or as much ram or whatever but WHO CARES. some people want the bare minimum. you can customize EVERYTHING on a DELL but only a handful of things on a Mac.

if Apple gave a crap about marketshare and expanding their user base they would have at least ONE, modern, not all in one, affordable, competitive computer. honestly, is this so unthinkable?

unfortunately, apple is too proud.

[Ripcord]

I read this article a couple of days ago when it first came out. I'd have to say I agree nearly 100% with the author. Apple needs market share to survive. OS X (and other things) are all "killer apps", and quite worthwhile for users to switch to. The roadblock? price of entry. Most computer users I know at this point have gotten past the antiquated perception that "Mac sucks" - most of them want one. Bad. But most of them also don't drive BMWs and Porches. They know it's better, but the Honda will get them to and from work.

I've said it before (repeatedly) - 2.8% market share is unsustainable. We're already seeing the downward spiral of apps and developers disappearing, how much more obvious does it have to BE to people?

I think a nice little headless box for $450-$500, perhaps with a combo drive and 1.25ghz G4 would be PERFECT for most people. I can think of 15 people off the top of my head that I could convince to buy into it. You'd see unit sales skyrocket (assuming Apple can actually SUPPLY the product, another one of their big problems). But for some reason Apple has been extremely resistant to doing this, and I think a large enough percentage of us users are getting frustrated that hopefully they'll sit up and take notice.

[Ripcord]

hmm, some good ideas there. i think apple should do more of that but i don't want them to lose their high quality and great designs trying to attract more users.

Why would Apple have to eliminate its current mid-range and high-end products by simultaneously pursuing a lower-end market?

Besides, I think the eMac is a decent deal (pricewise), but still a BIT too pricey, and the integrated monitor doesn't appeal to the majority of people. However, Apple's been able to put out a very nice, very good-quality product. Why would that change by putting out a product that's $150 cheaper but simply eliminates the built-in monitor?

[powermac]

I don't believe Apple will survive in a low-end market. A person can get an entry-level iBook for around $1000, or an emac. How much cheaper would one want a computer? Apple would not survive in a sub $800 computer system.
I been using Apples for almost 20 years. It does not bother me that they are not the dominate OS or company. That is not a bench mark of success in my book.
Sure, it would be nice if they sold more computers, and the prices came down a bit. The market dictates professional use, and some what education. More and more people are using them in the home because of the iApps. Apple is making gains, it takes time, it is not going to happen over night. My opinion is marketing Apple in a cheap market is not the answer. They are innovating, and develop products that work. Press forward.

[gerbick]

but an eMac is for a person that doesn't have a monitor. I have two extra ones at my house. My own mother has two, excluding the one that's on her iMac.

the lower end mac doesn't need to sacrifice anything, imho. It just needs to be mass marketed via the same routes they have with Target and Best Buy.

Sending out the message that Tiger is tons more stable, secure, and useable than WinXP, and it's got features that will inevitably be "bitten" by Longhorn, would get people thinking. And show them that your browser isn't attacked - I'm thinking marketing here - not as much as IE... they got the makings of a campaign.

But do it not in competition with the iMac in any form, and do it a bit more controlled than, say a Dell.