iPod’s runaway success virtually transformed the firm. Revenues up; Jobs’ big job now is to outrun competition. Both TheStar and NYTimes are discussing an apparent “focus shift” of Apple away from the personal computers market and towards the digital music business.Please note that these articles don’t claim that Apple is “abandoning” their computer business, just that the main focus of the company and the development is now elsewhere.
Apple already said that they don’t want to compete with the low-end desktop market (not even in the corporate desktop market according to Jobs) but instead to focus primarily on the iPod/music business and then in the high-end workstation market. In fact, Apple has being clear about this more than once when Apple VP Rob Schoeben said recently that “music is our No. 1 priority“.
Since Jobs doesn’t care about PC hardware anymore can he go ahead and release OSX for x86.
i doubt it
John Markoff.. anyone remember him??? He’s been known in the past to skip the research phase of jouranlism, and write something that looks nice… Remember Mitnick??
I really don’t get this. Just because Apple has a single successful consumer electronic device that is nowhere near the majority of sales, they are ditching their massive investment in hardware? Of course the iPod gets the bulk of marketing; it’s a product that targets nearly everybody in a market where people go through devices fast. That does not mean they are not going for other markets, take the announcements at NAB for example. Apple is a big enough company, they can go after the digital music market and continue to develop their traditional markets.
>they are ditching their massive investment in hardware?
NO ONE said that they are “ditching” their computer business. What IS being said is that the FOCUS is now different. This means that engineering time, R&D and money mostly go to the music business instead of the computer business. But that doesn’t mean that their computer business is dead, it is just downgraded. This is what these articles say.
And stops developing MacOS X, I can tell you, for an absolute 110% certainty, I will be abandoning the Mac platform for something like AmigaOne. And just as fast and as certain as the day I first saw my very first Atari 1040ST ad in a Compute! magazine inside of Thrifty’s in Pasadena, CA back in 1986.
The iPod is stupid to me. It’s an over-priced .MP3/.AAC music player. It’s a fad-device. When everyone has one, no one will care anymore. But I will NEVER own one. It’s pointless to me.
Yes, great and wonderful that it’s booming business for Apple and helping them gain big bucks, but I am an Apple *COMPUTER* user, not an Apple iPod user.
I love Apple for their computers, not their iPod. If all they sold were the iPod and/or iTunes music for it, I’d never give them a second thought. If I wasn’t an Apple computer user to begin with, I’d take one look at one of their iPod ads and turn the page, neither caring about what I just saw nor remembering it after I turned the page. The iPod is simply an irrelevant waste of money to me.
And I absolutely hate, HATE, H A T E !!! … their iPod TV commercials. They are the most rediculous, garish, rap-related video trash I’ve ever had the displeasure to watch.
If Apple wants to leave their computers behind in favor of a Be, Inc.-like iPod “fuck us shift”, they’ll be leaving me behind as well.
’nuff said.
Luposian
Apple is focusing on the “Digital Lifestyle”.
The iPod is a component, there will be additional components in the future, this is a no-brainer. The iPod alone does not generate enough top line nor does it provide enough margin for Apple to center it’s business around this product.
The iTMS is a great service, but it is a support system for the iPod. It does not generate much PROFIT in and of itself.
The Macs are the Hub for the “Digital Lifestyle” as presented by Apple. They are the real revenue stream and the primary driver for the solid gross margins.
Apple is morphing into more than a computer company, but the computer will still be central to their strategy. While the iPod may outsell the Macs on a per-unit basis, this is really no surprise. The per-unit cost being around $250-$500 for the iPod is going to have a larger available market than devices that cost $1000-$5000.
– Kelson
…. and nothing more. Apple makes a lot more money with their Macs than with their iPods. So why should they cancel their (computer) hardware business??
The big problem with their line of computers is that they are a line of luxury computers that give most people sticker shock. If you want a monitor-less Mac, you have to get something on the ultra high end of the line. The much cheaper eMac comes with a 17 inch CRT built in. If it weren’t for that dang built-in CRT, I would own a Macintosh. Why not just introduce eMac level hardware as a box without a monitor? I don’t want any CRTs in my life, I hate them. But I don’t want to have to buy an expensive G4 or G5 tower just to use my existing flat panel with my Macintosh. They should use what they have learned turning the iPod into a low-priced consumer device success story and apply that to their Macintosh line of personal computers. Geeks have been clamoring for a low-end, monitorless Mac for a long, long time. If Steve obliged, the only problem they would have is keeping them in stock. If you could get the hardware specs of an eMac without the dorky CRT for something like $500 or $600, they would fly off the shelves.
Steve Jobs is an interesting person. He can take a company turn it around and make it interesting. THEN he believes it and things go bonkers. Remember the LAST time Jobs was at Apple? Remember why he had to leave? Well I think this is the start of that again….
What Steve Jobs does not understand is that the digital lifestyle is not an upgrade lifestyle. Like a previous poster was referencing you buy a TV, radio or VCR once and ONLY replace it when it breaks or you have some loose changing dangling around.
here is a real news about Apple, that don’t show up on OSNews for whatwver reason:
Apple has released XCode 1.2 to all its developers. The packages are downloadable via the ADC-Account.
No, the focus shift is not pure speculation. Jobs said it very clear last week on the shareholder’s meeting. Read the link from inside the story.
they have a couple of good products which they are trying to use to sell more computers. I don’t call that a focus shift.
That said, i don’t agree with apple’s decision to put off an inexpensive desktop.
Apple/PIxar is taking ownership of many aspects of the digital media landscape. The iPod will springboard them into more consumer friendly media devices. Whats next? iTivo? iCellPhone? iDigicam? Sony used to be the company that could tie this stuff together in a meaningful fashion but they seem to be dropping the ball – Sony should have been the company to develop the iPod were they on top of their game.
“That said, i don’t agree with apple’s decision to put off an inexpensive desktop.”
Well, they’ve already got an inexpensive desktop. It’s called eMac.
“iDigicam”
Been there done that. Don’t expect Apple to go down that road again anytime soon.
Jobs needs to hire 5-10 guys to quietly work on OpenOffice, and he needs to get a team working on making Mono a mature development runtime for OSX. With a stable, Aquafied version of OpenOffice, Apple would have a good plan B for if and when Microsoft discontinues support of Microsoft Office for Mac. As I said, it would have to be a very stealthy support. No doubt though that someone with his kinda of connections could easily find a friend to funnel the money through to hire a team for that purpose.
As for Mono, well, Apple should take every opportunity it can to make sure that Windows won’t leave OSX behind in any area. .NET is pretty damn slick and Apple could only benefit from having support for it officially in OSX.
This whole concept of “focus” seems sort of moronic to me. I doubt Jobs feels burdened to choose one product and decide hes going to persue that one above all others. I think he would be more inclined to go after each product or market as much as it needed be gone after.
/rant
Alex
“Jobs needs to hire 5-10 guys to quietly work on OpenOffice, and he needs to get a team working on making Mono a mature development runtime for OSX.
Why work on OpenOffice when Apple can/should develop a sucessful office Appleication with Apple’s unique capabilities in software development.
With a stable, Aquafied version of OpenOffice, Apple would have a good plan B for if and when Microsoft discontinues support of Microsoft Office for Mac.
Why would microsoft ever drop a very profitable application? microsoft makes a LOT of money on Office for Mac.
As for Mono, well, Apple should take every opportunity it can to make sure that Windows won’t leave OSX behind in any area. .NET is pretty damn slick and Apple could only benefit from having support for it officially in OSX.
Your argument is no different than those that argued that Its important for Apple to have a Microsoft’s exchange e-mail application. The problem with that argument is that Apple is still a potential victim to Microsoft’s whims. A better solution would be for Apple to develop a product that defuses Microsoft’s .net effort.
The Toronto Star reprinted the NY Times story… but without the file photo of Jobs.
Quack! Go Leafs Go!
“iDigicam”
Been there done that. Don’t expect Apple to go down that road again anytime soon.
If you’re referring to the first digital camera… Apple developed it… then I would ask, “why is that an example of a product that should be made an example not to follow…”
If you’re referring to Apple’s iSight… I ask again, “why is that an example of a product that should be made an example not to follow…”
Both of these were/are sucessful products.
“Jobs needs to hire 5-10 guys to quietly work on OpenOffice, and he needs to get a team working on making Mono a mature development runtime for OSX.
Why work on OpenOffice when Apple can/should develop a sucessful office Appleication with Apple’s unique capabilities in software development.
With a stable, Aquafied version of OpenOffice, Apple would have a good plan B for if and when Microsoft discontinues support of Microsoft Office for Mac.
Why would microsoft ever drop a very profitable application? microsoft makes a LOT of money on Office for Mac.
As for Mono, well, Apple should take every opportunity it can to make sure that Windows won’t leave OSX behind in any area. .NET is pretty damn slick and Apple could only benefit from having support for it officially in OSX.
Your argument is no different than those that argued that Its important for Apple to have a Microsoft’s exchange e-mail application. The problem with that argument is that Apple is still a potential victim to Microsoft’s whims. A better solution would be for Apple to develop a product that defuses Microsoft’s .net effort.
Why work on OpenOffice when Apple can/should develop a sucessful office Appleication with Apple’s unique capabilities in software development.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to re-invent the wheel and spend millions and millions of dollars on writing a new office suite from scratch. NOT! Obviously, you’re not a developer and don’t understand what goes into developing a modern office suite.
Why would microsoft ever drop a very profitable application? microsoft makes a LOT of money on Office for Mac.
As Apple’s market share continues to shrink there will come a time when there is absolutely no way Microsoft can justify the cost of a Mac version of office. In fact, Microsoft would probably rather not even mess with Mac Office except for the fact that there was some kind of deal years ago with that $150 million infusion into Apple by Microsoft. It almost looks like goodwill to me, considering Jobs and Gates (at least in the past) have had some kind of strained relationship. You got any references to back up how much money Microsoft makes on Mac Office?
Your argument is no different than those that argued that Its important for Apple to have a Microsoft’s exchange e-mail application. The problem with that argument is that Apple is still a potential victim to Microsoft’s whims. A better solution would be for Apple to develop a product that defuses Microsoft’s .net effort.
A product that defuses Microsoft’s .net effort? Hmmm…..are they supposed to pull it out of their ass? Once again, it shows that you’re not a developer and don’t understand large-scale software development. They’ve already got Java and Objective-C(which is largely ignored by the vast majority of developers). Mono is just another tool in the belt of developers thinking of targetting the Mac.
Knowing the Jobs is, he’ll easily screw up this strategy and be out the door once again. I give it three years before the Apple board gives Jobs the boot. I’m sure the Pixar people will enjoy having a major league asshole like Jobs around 5 days a week.
stop trying to turn Apple into another Be.
They seem to being doing a good enough job on their own. What do they need her help for?
“The big problem with their line of computers is that they are a line of luxury computers that give most people sticker shock.”
Huh? How do you figure that? A comperably equipped PC costs the same (or more). Apple does tie you to buying other items when buying their product. That does not make it more expensive (than a PC), but rather, less configurable.
<i.”If you want a monitor-less Mac, you have to get something on the ultra high end of the line.”[/i]
Woah… how do you figure that? Apple still sells their G4 towers. Low-end towers are included with those as well.
“The much cheaper eMac comes with a 17 inch CRT built in. If it weren’t for that dang built-in CRT, I would own a Macintosh. Why not just introduce eMac level hardware as a box without a monitor?”
because Apple doesn’t make any money on low-end monitor-less computers.
“I don’t want any CRTs in my life, I hate them.”
Then it looks like you’re in the market for an imac.
“But I don’t want to have to buy an expensive G4 or G5 tower just to use my existing flat panel with my Macintosh.”,/i>
Then a mac isn’t for you if you insist on allowing your monitor to dictate your computer purchases.
[i]”They should use what they have learned turning the iPod into a low-priced consumer device success story and apply that to their Macintosh line of personal computers.”
They already do. Apple’s computers are VERYcompetively priced to comperably equipped PCs.
“Geeks have been clamoring for a low-end, monitorless Mac for a long, long time.”
Geeks also love free software and pirated music. That does not mean that it will help Apple’s business model.
“If Steve obliged, the only problem they would have is keeping them in stock.”
While at the same time canibalizing their other computer sales. I’m sure that Apple has done the many and has concluded that the volume would not make up the difference.
“If you could get the hardware specs of an eMac without the dorky CRT for something like $500 or $600, they would fly off the shelves.”
And Apple would probably start having unprofitable quarters like every other PC manufacturer today.
<i.”Steve Jobs is an interesting person. He can take a company turn it around and make it interesting. THEN he believes it and things go bonkers.”[/i]
Apple is going bonkers?
<i.”Remember the LAST time Jobs was at Apple? Remember why he had to leave?”[/i]
Ya, John Scully made an unwise business decision and forced him out. What’s your point?
“What Steve Jobs does not understand is that the digital lifestyle is not an upgrade lifestyle.”
Could have fooled me. I’ve upgraded my iLife software at every release… and have done the same with my .Mac account.
When the last version of iLife was recently released… i had to wait in a long line to get it. It seems that I’m not alone.
“Like a previous poster was referencing you buy a TV, radio or VCR once and ONLY replace it when it breaks or you have some loose changing dangling around.
Hence the reason why Apple is not selling TVs Radios or VCRs like so many other unprofitable computer companies these days.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to re-invent the wheel and spend millions and millions of dollars on writing a new office suite from scratch. NOT! Obviously, you’re not a developer and don’t understand what goes into developing a modern office suite.
Obviously you don’t understand what goes into porting the current OO.o codebase to something native to OS X. Apple would be better off beginning from scratch…
agreed. which is why killing the clones was a BAD idea.
If i want to buy a cheapie power computing machine, which uses industry standard ATX box (as ugly as it is) and ATX PSU, standard cooling and heat sinks, and pass those savings on, i should be able to do so.
killing the clones kills choice.
<i.”Knowing the Jobs is, he’ll easily screw up this strategy and be out the door once again.”[/i]
If we have history to gauge things by… Apple will make an incredible product… market it very well, another company will steal the idea, sell it for much less but give you much less, people will buy it anyways, the market will be confused, and the market will be ruined as a result when competitors are forced to accept less than 1% margins.
“I give it three years before the Apple board gives Jobs the boot.”
Really? I give it three years before the Apple board decides to buy Steve another jet.
Anyone use NeoOffice? Not exactly native, but at least you don’t need to use X11…
http://www.planamesa.com/neojava/en/index.php
Apparently people aren’t paying attention to Apple’s “digital hub” strategy…
Apple’s engineering abilities are often overlooked by many because they get distracted by the eye candy interfaces. These guys ARE capable of putting .net to shame and the person/entity that understands this more than anyone is MS.
Many of the highly touted features of ASP.net that Java is rushing to duplicate with JSF have been in Webobjects for several years going back to the late 90’s. Thats why it won awards for best app server several times.
That’s just one example of many but I will end with this. Bill gates is noted to have said that in the long term (2010 and beyond) alot of software and solutions will be built visually(no, not the primitive MDD/UML tsuff you have today).
Now I ask you, who do you think is in a better position to achieve this goal first and doing it well. Compare what MS has in VStudio + MS Office
with what apple is doing with these
http://www.apple.com/software/pro/
And before anybody shouts that these are pro/multimedia apps and they do not see what they have to do with development of everyday apps and solutions – to this my response is everything… you just don’t see it yet.
think on the following points as spelling it out in black and white is boring and less fun;
1. a computer is a multimedia device
2. ms office pro+entourage/outlook (+wmp) is now way more than just a productivity app and is starting to look more like a plaform in itself. the version that ships with longhorn will make this more obvious but for those that are futuristic in mindset will see what i am talking about. compare this to wordperfect for dos, etc. now project the same type of thinking 10 years from now and see what your mind tells you
3. adding on two, the “desktop” IS becoming a platform – way more than its gui shell origins. witness longhorn/mono/mozilla/xul, etc
i could go on and on but i’ll end on this note – just as final cut pro 4 was the “real” beginning of things for apple’s multimedia strategy, Xcode 3 (2005/6) should bring the competition to another level. in the mean time you will have to rely on your imagination :->
“Well, they’ve already got an inexpensive desktop. It’s called eMac.”
I was referring to the some public statements made by apple recently. I don’t remember if it was jobs or the CFO who said that they decided to pursue ipod instead of going after the low-end desktop. That suggests they were taking about activity in addition to the imac/emac. They were apple’s words not mine.
Remembers me of the time that BeOS had a shift from PC’s to internet devices.
Basically the rule of economy is stick to what you are good at. For Apple it’s making nice looking and functional PC’s and devices. Not music industry.
The much cheaper eMac comes with a 17 inch CRT built in. If it weren’t for that dang built-in CRT, I would own a Macintosh. Why not just introduce eMac level hardware as a box without a monitor?
I agree with you except that the headless low-end Apple PC’s must be at most mini-itx size (www.mini-itx.com)
Which is exactly what I suggested a year ago in order to attract more PC users: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4037
Sony used to be the company that could tie this stuff together in a meaningful fashion but they seem to be dropping the ball – Sony should have been the company to develop the iPod were they on top of their game.
Remember being the first doesn’t mean being the last standing. Just look at the consoles and home computers e.g. Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Commordore, Amiga, Sony Playstation, MS Xbox and what ever is next.
From that list 4 companies that where one of the earliest and innovators don’t excist anymore. Except maybe in some other legal form (only in name).
Which is exactly what I suggested a year ago in order to attract more PC users: http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-120.asp Or maybe even compared to the Ipod. Ok some what bigger but not a lot.
Now that would be something to put next to an Ipod. A pc that fits in one hand!
Ooh small doesn’t mean expensive, just look at the mini itx boards from VIA.
Something like this would be nice for the home user (for internet, document writing and printing, simple image handling) next to his/hers xbox2 or playstation3 (games is why you (as a home user) need those CPU and GPU cycles).
>Yeah but you know modern computers can be a lot smaller then the one you put forward.
Mr. Nobody, don’t forget that this article is 1 year old. Technology has moved on since then, you should take this under consideration before reading that article.
>For example the “900 Mhz Entry” from your list can be just a tiny bit bigger than this device:
You are missing the point. If you make such a computer that small, the cost directly goes high-high up. The whole point of that article was to suggest a cheap headless Mac. If you make it as small as you suggest, it CAN’T be cheap anymore. It just can’t.
Apple should become a company that develops products and sell them to other companies to make, market and sell. They have proven they can develop products that blow the competition away but over time they lose out.
I’m happy for Apple that it’s making tons of money with iPod, but it still looks to me like a product that can be commoditized and disappear tomorrow into the cut-throat margin world of all old electonics.
(of course, being on OSNews reader, OS is what seems important to me, and I hope Apple pursues OS X to greater excellence.)
I’m one of those agitating for Apple to build a headless unit, too. We can argue details all we want, but lots of people seem to argue one of the following:
1) If you REALLY were part of Apple’s demographic, buying an eMac, or an iMac or a full tower wouldn’t be a problem. This is strangely arrogant. The “premium car nameplate” argument is also soundly falze — BMW and Mercedes both sell EU20K entry-level vehicles all over Europe.. and they’ve both been working to get their units into the US (hello, the Smart is coming!).
2) Building a headless unit would cannibalize upscale sales. While Apple has been moving more units each quarter, their market share has suffered. For those who claim Apple doesn’t care about marketshare, that’s patently false by their own admission.
Headless units would open up sales and create opportunities for lots of people to eventually buy a second Apple tower or somesuch item. Lots of people have more than one computer (I have too many myself), and squeezing in a “starter” box would probably lead to full-on conversions, over the period of time people are likely to replace most of their hardware.
I myself haven’t thrown away a machine in a longtime. I still use my Athlon 550Mhz machine (home fileserver) and don’t see it going away soon.
I haven’t used OS X yet, and won’t commit my wife’s box to an expensive OS X machine until I really know I’m ready to switch over. A properly priced machine would give me a start on that — their current offerings don’t.
Just look at xSan, xServe and xServe RAID. These are products that are up to half the cost of the nearest competitor and are opening new roads for the company in Scientific computing and eventually the enterprise. They are growing their share in the high-margin pro-video/film market (which they already hold strongly). They’ve gained share in education. They’ve possibly gained share in the consumer market. Their laptop share is pretty strong (7% or so) and that’s the #1 growth market. Overall marketshare numbers are watered down by the thousands of corporate and government office-drone boxes that are bought to run office and outlook. Clearly they are putting ALOT of effort into ALOT of fronts. Journalists and geeks alike just seem to mis-interpret their current marketing focus for a company focus.
I totally agree that Apple should release a headless emac at <$600. Definitely. Make it $499. Give it an AGP slot. Put it in a small box that you can carry out of the store with a handle, like an ibook. It’ll drive volume like crazy.
The ipod is GREAT because it is re-aquainting the world with Apple as a brand that makes GREAT products, instead of a computer company that’s going out of business. Most geeks just don’t take into account the value and importance of mindshare and brand awareness. That’s the iPod’s most crucial strategic objective. People think Apple is cool again, and that will move machines eventually.
It takes time to overcome all the prejudices out there. Remember most people think the following:
1. Macs are only good for graphic artists (duh)
2. Macs can’t open PC files, run Office, or network with PCs (all false)
3. Macs are more expensive than comparable PCs. (used to be true, but nolonger)
4. Macs don’t have enough software (untrue, unless you’re a gamer)
5. Isn’t Apple dead or dying? (Hardly, they’re the only profitable PC maker besides Dell)
When those things are no longer the belief of most Joe-sixpacks, Apple will be ready to claim that 10% of the market they should own.
Here’s a few thoughts:
What percentage of iPod purchasers have bought >$50 goods from iTunes Music Store?
What percentage of $599 halfMac purchasers are likely to buy a $120 OS X upgrade within two years?
To me, it’s insane that the cheapest desktop box (sans monitor) from Apple is $1299. For that, you should be able to buy the box and an iPod..
As a BeOS user, the words “focus shift” make my skin crawl…
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5199227.html
july 2003 apple had 63% (861,000 of 1.4 million) of online music sales market
march 2004 they have 36% (4.9 mil of 13.6 million downloads).
walmart is catching them in a hurry.
see the pattern in computers? pssst….less than 2% of worldwide pc sales.
follow the pattern in music…..
samo samo.
I’ve working in the printing industry for 3 years and worked for two companies using macs. One company used old Apple hardware running OS 9 and the other company had about 7 or 8 fairly new macs running OS X.
I’m currently back in school and was on a field trip to a high-end top of the line commercial printer, one of the best printers in the philly area gross $10,000,000 a year. As I look around in their preproduction area all I saw about 6 OLD G3 and 1 MMD G4 all running OS 9, which I thought was a little bit of a shocker. The company had all kinds of new state of the art printing/proofing hardware. They even have a quad processor AIX machine using powerpcs. I did see a few new crappie Dells around, too.
My point is I love apple and own two macs myself, I do think a lot of the creative industry seems stretching the out of their macs. Like the saying goes, “If it anit broke, don’t fix it”. I think this is a problem for Apple because their hardware last so long unlike PC needing to be replaced every 2 to 3 years.
a large portion are choosing xp over x.
x is an abandonment for the tried and true old school print designer.
edu and even print folks are leaving. they will ride those 9 machines as long as they can still walk and talk quark 4.
I’ve working in the printing industry for 3 years and worked for two companies using macs. One company used old Apple hardware running OS 9 and the other company had about 7 or 8 fairly new macs running OS X.
I’m currently back in school and was on a field trip to a high-end top of the line commercial printer, one of the best printers in the philly area gross $10,000,000 a year. As I look around in their preproduction area all I saw about 6 OLD G3 and 1 MD G4 all running OS 9, which I thought was a little bit of a shocker. The company had all kinds of new state of the art printing/proofing hardware. They even have a quad processor AIX machine using powerpcs. I did see a few new crappie Dells around, too.
My point is I love apple and own two macs myself, I do think a lot of the creative industry seems stretching the life out of their macs. Like the saying goes, “If it anit broke, don’t fix it”. I think this is a problem for Apple because their hardware last so long unlike PC needing to be replaced every 2 to 3 years.
>>”I don’t want any CRTs in my life, I hate them.”
>Then it looks like you’re in the market for an imac.
No, I stated that I already have a flat panel monitor. I don’t want to have to buy another one to use a macintosh, especially not one that’s stuck to that one computer.
>because Apple doesn’t make any money on low-end monitor-less computers.
Of course not, seeing as how the don’t sell one. I’m sure they could just subtract the cost of the CRT off the low-end eMac unit and move a lot more of those than eMacs at the same while making the same profit margin AND moving more units.
>>”Geeks have been clamoring for a low-end, monitorless Mac for a long, long time.”
>Geeks also love free software and pirated music. That does not mean that it will help Apple’s business model.
That is so irrelevant. You can’t build your own Mac, you can’t “pirate” one. So if Apple introduced one that didn’t come with hardware you don’t want/need (the monitor!) at a price point well under $1,299 (their current lowest-priced desktop unit that ships with no monitor), I know I would have one. Right now there’s just a huge gap in that product segment.
And I agree with you that when you compare a Mac to a PC feature-for-feature the Mac is not more expensive, but that doesn’t mean that Apple competes with PCs in every market segment. Even if the headless eMac everyone wants costs a couple hundred more than one of those $299 linux pc’s at wal-mart.com, they will still fly off the shelves faster than Apple can produce them I’m sure, and I don’t think it would cheapen the brand at all. It would open up the door for eveyone who wants to try a Mac to grab one and add it to their home network and see what OSX and the iLife applications are all about. What they lose on the per-machine profit margin they could easily make up for in the volume of machines sold. And more of those machines sold means more $129 OSX upgrades (which actually come a lot sooner than two years apart), and more iSights, and more iTunes users. If there were ever an absolutely perfect, golden time for Apple to drop a headless Mac into the low-end PC segment, that time is NOW. All the pieces are there.
I don’t ever think the printing industry will switch to PCs. “That’s just retarted”. PC suck for printing. Trust me! I’ve pulled my hair out working with PC ptinting problems.
commenting on the market share of a nascent market is somewhat dangerous.
Anyone expecting a company to keep up 63% market share in a competitive market with few barriers to entry is optimistic to say the least.
Market share changes quickly in a rapidly growing market. You might also notice that apple’s sales grew by 400% in less than a year. this tells you the market is showing explosive growth. You can expect additional competition to rise in a market with that kind of growth.
Mr. Nobody, don’t forget that this article is 1 year old. Technology has moved on since then, you should take this under consideration before reading that article.
Ok, you are right but you know mini itx is also that age. But ok I’ll give you that one.
You are missing the point. If you make such a computer that small, the cost directly goes high-high up. The whole point of that article was to suggest a cheap headless Mac. If you make it as small as you suggest, it CAN’T be cheap anymore. It just can’t.
I agree and disagree. I didn’t actually mean an Ipod size PC but pretty close. Just look at the upcoming nano itx specs: 12cm x 12 cm : http://www.mini-itx.com/news/computex2003-1/
and basically as many features as the eMac has! Ok swap firewire for USB.
As for prices very cheap. Well below $400. But this is based on VIA CPU and not IBM / Motorola CPU. The bare bone (no case, HD, RAM, CDROM, PSU) is about $80. So small doesn’t always mean expensive. Design case and Apple logo is expensive. Makes me think about Lexus vs Mercedes Benz.
I know about the software that’s makes the difference. (e.g. OSX)
Disclaimer: Your cheap home PC (even brands like Apple and Dell) have been brought to you thanks to the grace of child labour and lack of human right in some far, far, far away country. We should thank them for this.
I think this is a problem for Apple because their hardware last so long unlike PC needing to be replaced every 2 to 3 years.
Thats simple so untrue, some years ago I wrote my intern documents on a Windows 3.11 computer. It was an 386 or 486, don’t know for sure, but I know it was ooold. But it worked and did what it was build to do. That is Word 2 (or something) and solitaire
Another point if you bought a PII some years ago. There is no reason to upgrade it at all. As it will work 100% as a multimedia station, internet, office and software development. The only and the only reason why people upgrade PC’s is games and offcourse people with to much money.
Windows XP runs fine on a PII with 256 MB of RAM. But why upgrade to XP if W2k worked fine with 128 MB RAM?
wow they went from $861,000 in sales in one month and then a yr later they had $4.9 million in sales in a month selling songs. this for a $6 billion dollar co. $60 million in sales with a $10 million dollar ad campaign?
all for a model they themselves say returns them no profit.
grow it ten million percent and if it returns no profit what does it matter?
what is the fuss over an industry that if factored out by current monthly sales will add to less than a $175 million dollar market per yr?
profit didn’t grow by 400%! and that is why apple continues its slide into …..
The reason Apple isn’t making a headless emac is unknown, though tiny profits is probably part of it. If such a machine would dramatically increase their marketshare and volume, it’s the right way to go. That’s the point. They do need the marketshare increase.
As for itunes marketshare… comparisons to the mac are meaningless. Music is music. Operating System marketshare influences 3rd party software support which is crucial to a platform because they extend the computer’s functionality. There is no 3rd party software equivolment for the MP3 market since music has a singular functionality. You buy an ipod to listen to music. It’s not a software platform. And unlike software, which take tremendous resources to port from one OS to another, music can be converted to different formats effortlessly.
Ignore these silly comparisons. Even if iTunes becomes 25% of the market, it won’t have any negative impact on ipod users and their ability to enjoy the full functionality of the device.
“I don’t ever think the printing industry will switch to PCs. “That’s just retarted”. PC suck for printing. Trust me! I’ve pulled my hair out working with PC ptinting problems.”
thats why both quark and adobe indesign sell more copies on windows than mac now.
windows users must just like collecting software.
most high end printers and rips are controlled by windows machines and have been for a few years. xp and win2k moved print to the desktop in a major way.
personal experience isnt what matters. look at the trade rags and stats and you will see that it is happening.
when faced with replacing software and old hardware to migrate to X, many designers are choosing to stay where they are. a large portion that feel compelled to modernize are in fact moving to all new software and hardware….but it is running on a pc powered by Windows.
I agree with high end rip software being controlled by PCs, but running a print shop on windows is just laughable.
apple business is gettin bigger & bigger.
os x is still the best desktop os yet.
maybe someday ill get one for mysel
Read the fine print … it states “subscribers or downloads as appropriate”! You can’t calculate download marketshare from that. All you can do is compare the purely download services (i.e. Walmart and iTunes).
I’ll give you the following just to let you and anyone else who has your delusions of volume=better…
“(NYTimes, November 26, 1991):
Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use worldwide.
Macintosh fans on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form.”
Enjoy! :p
Obviously the people who make the comments on PC’s powering the Print industry have never worked in the Print industry.
The fact of the matter is PC’s of any kind are absolutely and utterly useless for such a purpose. Apple started the digital printing revolution back in the late 80’s and in turn have a much more mature platform for printing and desktop publishing. Just as the PC’s dominate the Corporate market, so Macintosh dominates the Press industry.
Windows is just a fledgling in comparison. Postscript errors, RIP problems and all sorts of little quirks that grind the process to a halt when using Windows. When you work in this industry you find that we don’t have time to fuck around with the Operating System just to get the computer to print.
So please- if you don’t know what your talking about don’t make a comment.
mac os from 1984 powers the print industry.
please dont use such lame reasoning.
as a matter of fact, mac os x is the newbie. though based on a 15yr old os of sorts, in fact it has been a shipping os for just about 3 years. many would argue that it has been in beta status for much of that 3 years as well. when it shipped, nearly all pro level print software was broken and needed to be rewritten. at several of its update points it likewise has had to have third party radically fixed in order to continue working.
on the windows side we have win2k, win2k3, and xp as currently sold and supported nt based oses. nt has been shipping for 11 years though heavily upgraded during that time.
this isn’t 1989 when all pro software was made for the mac and virtually no design or print software was made for dos.
what major workflow print software is not made for windows today?
framemaker?
illustrator and freehand
photoshop and photopaint
adobe type manager and suitcase and myriad other font managers
quark and indesign
windows fully supports opentype, postscript, truetype, and pdf technologies.
preflight software such as that from markzware
pantone color process software
highly optimized color calibrated crts ship with windows software and tools
short of working well with file formats generated on a mac, a well trained pro windows user can produce commercial grade print materials as well as any well trained mac print pro.
its the user not the machine. both work equally as well and in many ways the pc is now passing the mac for print design…especially if talking about os x.
if os x is such a winner, why arent we seeing a higher adoption rate? xp has been out less time and is the most distributed os ms makes.
the issues facing print houses when dealing with windows generated output are no different than when dealing with mac output: problems are generally caused by poorly trained users not the platform or the software.
i’m sorry.. last time i checked, the printing/photography/new media labs at my college, RIT, were so dominated by mac that it was funny. the top 3 labs, at least 300 computers, are all running os x. the other 2-3 labs downstairs are all mac as well accept for maybe one.
i’ve gone to conferences and talked to vendors. it’s almost ALL mac. a lot of it is still os 9 because the industry doesn’t change major platforms often (and lets face it os 9 to 10 is a big jump). however most of the industry has already got the software ported. quark’s was the last big one to port to os x.
and experience do not make anything any more real.
of those vendors you mention, which ones are not making the same software for windows? if the vendor is mac only, is the solution not duplicated by other vendors that have the same solution for windows?
im not quoting personal experience alone.
look at quarks sales figures
look at adobes. the two heavyweights ship more product on windows now. in fact the newest pcmagazine has the ceo of adobe saying apple is now down to betweene 22-25% of their sales.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1572013,00.asp
more printers and service bureaus are willing to accept windows generated files now.
the market has stats and figures we can all look at. 10 yrs ago windows in print was an afterthought. the industry today is using windows along the lines of 50% of the time.
there is no longer a compelling reason to use mac in printing and when you consider os x, in fact there is a compelling reason to go with windows. thats why such a high percentage of classic mac users arent moving to x. they dont want it.
It’s not total about the vendors. You can run the same software on both plate forms and 7/10 time windows applications will give you problems. Regardless of all these number %, windows in never going to take over printing. Service bureaus trust getting a mac job over pc job any-day of the week due to the fact pcs and pledged with problems due to viruses and other quarky problems.
The “High-end” workstation market isn’t where Apple needs to be. You only have to look at what Linux workstations have done to SGI and Sun for evidence of that. Focusing on software (iTunes) and digital media devices (iPod) is what they need to do. If you really love something you’ve got to let it go (PC hardware) Steve