A six-step plan for Apple...

G

gerbick

poptart villain
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.
Click to expand...

read the rest Business Week.
 
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.
 
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.
 
powermac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
bobbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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. :) :)
 
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.
 
I dunno, it just really bugged me when I saw 3.0ghz (or so) Sony Vaio (decent little machines) and HP Pavilions with 120GB hard drives at Best Buy for $450... Why can't I get a 1Ghz Mac with a 40GB hard drive for even $150 (33%) more??

This wasn't the "low-end", either, this was in the mid-range for the consumer machines being sold.

...Then I remembered it was running Windows XP, but still... Come on, guys!
 
Guys.... Sony is Sony, Dell is Dell. But Apple...... Apple is like a high end fashion lable. Like a lady's Hand bag how much would you be willing to pay for an Apple Computer? Many lady's by the droves are buying these incredibly expensive handbags by the truckloads: Louie VuittonSee here. Now that is supposed to be a cheap one.

I know lots of them saving every dollar for the image to have one of these bags, hell they could have bought an Apple G4 PowerBook or G5 PowerMac.

Buy a Porsche, or a Tuscan villa next to the ocean, buy an Apple, Who cares if you can't afford one, save up! like lady's passion for that hand bag, that she needs to be seen, by the boy's, or the competition. To have one over the other.

Its a game a way of saying " i'm cool, and your not" you need an Apple. Heck go buy a $745 Dell with WINDOWS and see if i care. I own an APPLE PowerBook with MAC OS X Tiger, what about you? Thats what its all about, FASHION its cool but expensive, to be cool you need to pay.

Welcome to the game of playing hard to get.


Thats how i like to think of it. Then when i look at my girlies little hand bag that does nothing... I can say "Well im glad i have my Apple PowerBook for $????.
 
It is a mighty steep hill to climb to get marketshare these days.It would be interesting to see where Apple would be now if it weren't for those "dark years"of the '90s.How would it look without all these other guys who jumped on the bandwagon?Really I think Apple should start to show the masses how it's different from Windows.The ads I remember never said anything about being your "digital hub".Apple invented the GUI why not show'em how far it's come!As good as the hardware looks on TV it's time to show why we like to use it.
 
Apple has one fact to back up the claim that cheap models won't bring much more market share: The time of the clones. They were cheaper, beige boxes, and did NOT extend the Mac's market share. Same goes for the Performa towers Apple produced to compete with the clones (!) back then. While such a cheap Mac would appeal to some, it would ALSO eat into their iMac/eMac/cheapest PowerMac sales. _That's_ why they don't do it, not because of pride.
 
Price is like any competition, only the first one wins. So if you want to compete on price, low price is not enough, you need lowest price. The lowest price wins the price competition. They rarely wins the business competition (BTW Dell is no1 in sales and it is not low price).
 
fryke said:
Apple has one fact to back up the claim that cheap models won't bring much more market share: The time of the clones. They were cheaper, beige boxes, and did NOT extend the Mac's market share. Same goes for the Performa towers Apple produced to compete with the clones (!) back then. While such a cheap Mac would appeal to some, it would ALSO eat into their iMac/eMac/cheapest PowerMac sales. _That's_ why they don't do it, not because of pride.
Click to expand...
Those clones used IDE when Apple was still using SCSI. Those clones were not exactly what I'd call high quality - more like the early eMachines or Packard-Bell machines... cheap to the core.

All of this comparing an Apple to a Ferrari... nope. A Ferrari can actually outrun a Ford. Apple's can't outpace most PC's in a lot of things - Photoshop, AfterEffects being one. And you have to step up to a pricey G5 for the other options that are competitive in terms of speed. But they still carry that premium price.

Sorry, I just don't buy into the whole "save up" mentality either. I'm not bemoaning their pricing, I have a distinct problem with their product line. High-end G5's are great in price, ability, and options... and expandability. Not the iMac - again, most households who's ever had a PC before, still has the monitor - nor eMac are "fit like a glove" replacements for people that don't want to get rid of their keyboard, mouse, monitor... you get the idea.
 
gerbick said:
Those clones used IDE when Apple was still using SCSI. Those clones were not exactly what I'd call high quality - more like the early eMachines or Packard-Bell machines... cheap to the core.

All of this comparing an Apple to a Ferrari... nope. A Ferrari can actually outrun a Ford. Apple's can't outpace most PC's in a lot of things - Photoshop, AfterEffects being one. And you have to step up to a pricey G5 for the other options that are competitive in terms of speed. But they still carry that premium price.

Sorry, I just don't buy into the whole "save up" mentality either. I'm not bemoaning their pricing, I have a distinct problem with their product line. High-end G5's are great in price, ability, and options... and expandability. Not the iMac - again, most households who's ever had a PC before, still has the monitor - nor eMac are "fit like a glove" replacements for people that don't want to get rid of their keyboard, mouse, monitor... you get the idea.
Click to expand...

For the life of me I don't get the whole monitor thing. So what if you have a spare monitor or two. I have 3 sitting around. WTF is the big deal?

If you don't like Apples product line, then don't buy one. I don't like Dells and would never buy one. An HP? Maybe. If you are to lame or lazy to be able to save up buy the higher end G5, then just don't buy one. Apparently I don't "get" the idea...

:rolleyes:
 
baggss said:
For the life of me I don't get the whole monitor thing. So what if you have a spare monitor or two. I have 3 sitting around. WTF is the big deal?
Click to expand...
erm, dude. glad you crawled out to post your vitriol. makes me feel special.

for your information, I just paid 1100.00 USD for a monitor. I'm in no rush to replace it with an iMac.

And besides, I wasn't talking about myself... unfortunately, I actually have the ability to think outside of myself, and know that a lot of people that are in the process of switching over to Apple, or contemplating buying one, can't afford a G5 off the bat, they find the lower resolutions - sorry dude, I need my 1600x1200 - an issue, and above all, they have way too many monitors, parts, et al in the house.

I just don't get what part of that fact actually made you so angry...

bah, nevermind. don't feed the trolls.
 
That is the point, it appears that Apple does not provide the solution you seek. You are looking for specific things like screen resolution, etc. You should be looking at other computers if you have specific needs Apple can't solve. Not a negative dig against you or anything, just come to the realization that your needs are not met by Apple products.
 
powermac said:
That is the point, it appears that Apple does not provide the solution you seek. You are looking for specific things like screen resolution, etc. You should be looking at other computers if you have specific needs Apple can't solve. Not a negative dig against you or anything, just come to the realization that your needs are not met by Apple products.
Click to expand...
and with that mentality, I see why they're at 2.8% and slipping in terms of share. isn't it about time that they stop offering what they think you should want/need, and offer what is a more custom fit to a wider audience? I mean, that's what's it's all about... pleasing the masses.

And no... I don't want to hear that Apple/Ferrari comparison again. Apple ain't no friggin' Ferrari. More like a limited edition Volkswagen that's sold in a only a few places, only in white, with a bigger sticker price, an exotic header over the base engine - if that.

Am I the only person that's sorta amazed that my needs outpace the majority of Apple's inventory and offerings?

that's sad. oh well, I'll keep my Apple G4 Cube - ironic, I actually enjoy an Apple "flop". It's served me rather well... still does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top