Many would argue that market share is not the same as user base. But it doesn’t ultimately matter. What really matters is to have as many users as possible, so it will attract more developers and create an actual “market” around the platform. Less users, less money flowing, less third party development, which ultimately leads to the death of a platform. I was reading today this and this editorials, even journalists now buy the “cheap PCs with Linux” deal. Apple has to wake up before is too late and should offer a cheap solution. Apple should learn from NeXT’s mistakes, not duplicate them. Update: Look inside for one more idea by some of our readers.The Mac fanatics will hurry up to say how negative to Apple I sound, but that’s not the case. The very reason I type this article right now [in this so hot day here in the Bay Area], is because I care. At the end of the day, more OSes, more OS news. 😉
It is my belief, that Apple should fire back in this new trend of the $199 PC (+monitor) running Linux. Sure, right now, this trend is very small, most people still buy Windows PCs. In fact, Gateway and Dell and eMachines are now offering full-featured PCs with Windows for less than $450 USD. So the day that most Windows PC brands will also offer very-very cheap PCs is not far, because Microsoft will fight for this trend too, even if they have to give Windows XP for free to their OEMs. Apple should act as well, or it will find itself beaten by all sides from both Windows and Linux.
The past few years we see a big decline in Apple’s sales. The year 1995 was the best for Apple, as they sold a few million units. Today, these numbers are in the marks of 750,000 units per quarter, while the market share is down also, between 2% and 3% from a 10% Apple had a few years ago (and continues to decline according to some analysts).
Apple needs to do something about its userbase/market share. What they need, is not even more margins just so they can serve us over-expensive hardware. What they currently need is more new users. More fresh blood. More developers. More cash flowing in their own market. And to get that, you need to lower the prices in general and offer at least one desktop model and one laptop model in the dirt cheap.
I believe that the eMac is suitable for such a discount. Please find below a comparison of a cheap eMac and a current $199 cheap PC that can be found to a number of retail outlets around US today.
Please note that I suggest a 1 GHz G4 and not a 933 Mhz one, because the “1 GHz” is more catchy and it is in compliance with the 1 GHz Duron (even if the G4 might or might not be faster – doesn’t really matter to a not-so-clueful buyer, especially when Intel now offers 3.2 GHz as its maximum).
eMac
====
1 GHz G4 (no L3 cache)
256 MB SDRAM, 1 DIMM
32 MB ATi Radeon AGP 7500
17″ monitor 1152×864@80
DVD/CD-RW combo drive
40 GB IDE 5400 RPM
on board sound, NIC, modem
2 firewire, 5 USB (2 on keyboard)
keyboard, mouse, speakers
airport-ready
Target price: $499
Cheap PC
========
1 GHz AMD Duron
128 MB RAM
On board Savage/Trident/SiS 8-64 MB shared
CD-ROM
10 GB IDE
on board AC97 sound, NIC, modem
2 USB
keyboard, mouse, speakers
Current Price: $199
Now, to make the above $199 cheap PC in compliance with eMac’s more rich feature-set, we add the following (prices as found on Pricegrabber and Pricewatch):
+$20 for 128 MB more RAM
+$40 for combo drive
+$20 for 40 GB hdd
+$10 for firewire card
+$120 for 17″ monitor ~1152×864@80Hz
New price: $409
And don’t forget that this $409 price still offers profit! Now, Apple has 90 more bucks to spend to make the case beautiful, R&D, or whatever else (just don’t tell me that Apple uses “expensive high quality material”, cause I don’t buy that). Sure, I… confess, this strategy won’t make Apple rich. But I don’t think that it be will a product sold in a loss either. There are still margins for profit. The suggestion was not made to give Apple big profits. This suggestion was done so Apple can increase its user base, to save the company for the future. It is a sacrifice Apple has to do today, in order to keep the company still competitive.
I won’t talk about an iBook strategy here, because a lot of things might change soon in the laptop line of Apple, as the G5 has been announced. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the middle-model of the current iBook for $799. For this strategy to succeed, you do need both a cheap desktop and a cheap laptop. Cheap, but powerful. I wish someone from Apple listens though, and sees the danger and the trap Apple has put itself into, and fight back before it’s too late.
If Apple can deliver such a machine as the eMac suggestion above, for $499, you will literally have no excuse to not own a Mac in the future!
Update: Another good idea, started by some readers, “the headless box”. Scroll down the page here.
Would really give MS a run for its money. You maybe be able to buy cheapish Mac in the states, but in other parts of the world, there a dear as all hell
> These machines would defeat the purpose, as they would be too slow to be useful
For that price, they would be fine. Heck, even iBooks and eMacs still sell at 700 and 800 Mhz today. And we even suggested 1 GHz G3.
I agree with Eugenia (which doesn’t happen much) mostly because I think a low cost entry level machine fits in well with Apple’s strategy and the realities of the market.
Apple has put a lot of effort and energy into the “SWITCH” ad campaign, and I think they’ve generated a lot of interest. Their cheapest computer, however, is about $800 which, while it’s a decent value, is still a big chunk of money. That price means they have to convince new consumers (who, with penetration in the US being as high as it is are probably buying a second machine) that it’s worth an $800 risk to change from what they are familiar with (most people recognize Windows from work/school)
A $400 entry level machine makes this transition much less risky, and would I think do a good job of encouraging people to “gamble” on switching platforms, or maybe getting a second computer just for Apple’s great media apps.
Just a thought. People react well to positive momentum in the market place, and I think it would be a good way for Apple to drive it’s Switch campaign.
Mac hardware is beautiful and extremely well designed. But it does not have to be inordinately expensive (like a BMW does) to be highly profitable. Remember, Eugenia said let’s hit the $500 price point, not the $200 price point. And I would sell it with the minimum memory possible (a reseller can add RAM at a discount as a sales inducement).
Mac OS X is the key. It is simply the best overall OS available at any price.
Maybe in addition to debating whether or not it’s a good idea for Apple to build a cheap, headless machine(because that’s what people seem to want), we should also pool our creative and technical talents to figuring out the best way to make it happen.
But back to debating the reasons for and against it.
Maybe instead of home consumers we should be thinking about places a cheap Mac might fare even better – namely the education and corporate markets. Tech specs could be cut back even further if whisperings about network transparent Aqua are true. Inexpensive terminals all hooked into an Xserve cluster could be an attractive package for schools and businesses. After all, the goal there is to keep the expensive stuff behind lock and key.
As for the terminals themselves, one of the G3s IBM has been holding back, or a low-clocked G5 could serve as an ideal low-heat processor. Of course, the Motorola 7457 couldn’t be ruled out as a potential option. The usual connnectivity options. An optical drive as an option(systems available without on demand). A DVI/VGA graphics card in an AGP slot and one PCI slot. I rather like the idea of a case composed of a single piece of aluminum bent around into shape. I’m wondering if it’s cheaper to do things that way than with plastic, and if it coould work well in a small form factor.
Anyway, just a few musings.
This is not true – more people buy the most expensive Linux available. Think how many people use SUSE that is commerical or Lycoris which is totally commercial or even Lindows. Opera has a higher percentage of sales from Linux users than Windows users. And Linux already has a wide variety of very good browsers – ie Konquerer which Safari is built on. Linux comes with free PDF viewers but people are still interested in Adobe Acrobat Reader. Linux has a wider variety of free development environments than any other platform and many companies are running the proprietary Java. Most people don’t care what license they get for a product as long as they get value for what they are paying. And for the quality you get with Windows, it isn’t worth the hardware that it is required to run it on. And although XP may not be stable enough to do word processing it isn’t secure enough for the web and does not network well with other computers. Macs work great for design and home use, but for running one custom application, word processing or browsing the net, Linux is much more productive. When you save even a hundred dollars on each machine then multiply that by tens of thousands for large companies, and you really save.
NOT.
Some people in this world value things of…value. A lousy 2% market share is still 20 million Mac users. The number of Apple software developers has increased at an incredible rate since the introduction of OSX replacing the stale and tired old classic Mac OS.
Flame not. I used that “tired old…etc.” for a good many years as I also struggled to use the inane and dumb getting dumber windows and now I have to use to not so friendly as advertised (but *not* inexpensive) Linux box. It’s good to put those things the rest of the retarded world has gathered to their bosom for fear of (you fill in the blank).
Steve Jobs will die before Apple Computer changes its name to Chicken Coop Computer Company. Die you heathens. 🙂
I would never want Apple to be like Dell. But, Apple needs to do something to attract the attention of the average user. Attract attention in the same way they did with the original iMac. If headless, i think they should come out with a new version of the Cube.
It doesn’t have to be rock bottom pricing either. I think $699 or $799 with a monitor (or $699 for an eMac) would do the job. But, it has to catch people’s attention. Apple got the attention of the high, that’s for sure. It can do the same at the low end without being like Dell.
I have one of these Shuttle SK41G’s I am using as a server. It takes up less than one square foot of desk space. Right now it is sitting between my 2 headed G4 and my Linux workstation. Fully assembled with an Athlon XP 2100+, 256MB RAM, 80 GB HDD, and a CD-RW cost less than $500.
If I didn’t want to buid it myself, I could have bought a $500 server from IBM, HP, Dell, or even Gateway. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted a Mac but Apple didn’t have anything comperable. An iMac occupies way too much space, and used G4 Cubes still cost more than $1000.
I think Apple could only benefit from selling a line of super low cost Macs based on a 1GHz G3. Add in 256 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, and a CD-RW. I would lower the costs even more and sell them with out a monitor. Apple would have my $400.
For that price, they would be fine. Heck, even iBooks and eMacs still sell at 700 and 800 Mhz today. And we even suggested 1 GHz G3.
And *they’re* too slow as well. The eMacs also have *G4s* in them, and are thus a lot faster than the G3 based iBooks.
Walmart can get away with “only” a 1.1Ghz Duron in their cheapo machines because for Windows, that’s more than adequate. OS X requires a _lot_ more grunt.
I want a _useful_ Mac w/o an included monitor, built to the same standards as other Macs, not a slow and crappy bargain box. I’d prefer to see Apple stay out of the US$200 PC business and instead aim around the typical consumer market of about US$600 – $1000. And, as I said, I’d also like to see a top-end headless machine with a 1.6Ghz 970 in it under the US$1500 mark. If Dell can sell a small box like the Dimension 4600 with a 2.6Ghz P4/HT, 256MB, 256MB, 60G, Combo drive for around US$1000, Apple should certainly be able to sell a similar machine with a 1.6Ghz 970 for not much more.
Thanks to the massive performance boost of the 970, Apple has suddenly become price competitive at the higher end (although I doubt that will be as good as it is for long). In the mid range and bottom end though, they’re still very expensive (and for a large chunk of the market, don’t even have a product).
Personally, I think the best way for Apple to address this would to be make the screen on the next iMacs (which can’t be far away – hopefully with 1.4Ghz and 1.6Ghz 970s in them) a modular option. It would be simple to do this with a neat and elegant hardware design (just have the screen+arm detach where it meets the main body). Then they kill two birds with one stone – they still have a very nice all-in-one machine _and_ a cheaper, *useful*, headless box for people like me.
i believe it was supposed to be a cheapie powermac.
perhaps a $199 mac os 9 product is what we need with an all-in one integrated powerpc chip like the cyrix media GX chip.
os 9 so it doesn’t take away os x’s market share.
It’ll never happen, their marketing people are wary.
Remember the G4 Cube? It was hundreds of dollars more expensive that the more expandible low-end tower but it looked nice. No wonder it didn’t sell well.
My interpretation of the headless concept is an iMac without an LCD screen. After all, with no expansion slots and built-in everything, it is what you’re asking for.
By contrast, the eMac without the CRT is useless, it uses obsolete DDR RAM. Anyone buying a computer today with SDRAM is foolish. Here in Australia at least, DDR is far cheaper.
[i]I<i/> wouldn’t buy a computer from Apple which compromised on such elementary areas. So the 17″ iMac without the 17″ it is. It currently sells for $US1799. The 17″ Apple LCD (non widescreen) is $US699. Let’s say the widescreen equivalent were to sell for $US899 (corresponding WS markup)
Cost 1799-899=$US900 with Superdrive.
17″ iMac specs:
1GHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Ready
Replace the superdrive with a combo drive and downgrade to a 40GB HD and you’d have a pretty capable headless iMac for ~ $US700
So, does this represent value for money?
I’d wait for them to discontinue the iBook in favour of the 12″ powerbook once the G5 portables emerge.
Provided enough quantities of g5 chips are shipped, this should happen within 12 months, possibly by Christmas.
A cheap nicely styled headless black or beige box with VGA connectors for US$300 would hit the mark. Businesses don’t want unconventional looking computers. RAM and CPUs are dirt cheap so don’t skimp.
Brand dilution is nonsense. I see Mercedes-Benz commercial vans and trucks every day wearing the three pointed star but it doesn’t make an S600 less appealing or less exclusive. European cities are full of diesel Mercedes taxis. That doesn’t stop fat cats and dignitaries buying MB limousines.
…it’s honestly pretty silly. I think I described my idea for the $600 “iBox” elsewhere on OSNews, but the same basic idea has been repeated in this thread, i.e., an inexpensive headless box. (I’d go even farther and make a $399 version with no hard drive, video card or RAM, basically competing with the $299 Shuttle “bare bones” PCs, to be sold only online or at third-party dealers like Fry’s.)
Having said that, I think the reason that Apple hasn’t done a “cheap PC” yet is because from a marketing/sales perspective, they couldn’t do it until the PowerMac G5s were ready. You can’t sell a $500-700 1 GHz machine and sell a $1500-2000 1.25 GHz machine simultaneously, no matter how different you make the two cases look. Apple may be many things, but ignorant of consumer trends just ain’t one of them; as paradoxical as it sounds, they’ve had to keep prices inflated to protect their bottom line. And there’s a reason they’ve been focusing so much on their portables the last few months.
I think it’s significant that the “consumer” lines haven’t been substantially updated by Apple in over a year. It’s time for another big revamping. I don’t know if we’ll see G5s pushed into that space–but I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if IBM makes the PPC 970 in 1 GHz speeds. And in any case, I suspect we’ll see a very different iMac/iBook lineup in time for Christmas sales.
“I am so sick of the comparison of Macs to BMWs. People buy luxury cars for one reason (weather they believe it or not): an expensive car screams “I am wealthy and successful”. In a sense the high cost of a BMW is an attractive feature – it keeps the common folk away and makes its statement about your status all the more powerful. Having a low end BMW devalues the whole line, you don’t want people driving them to Walmart. Macs are great computers, but they are just that “computers” – tools. Having a low end computer doesn’t hurt the high end. I really hope that other Mac owners don’t sit around feeling cool because there are people that can’t afford the computing experience they enjoy.”
Well if you went to Germany you would see plenty of (relatively) cheap BMW316is parked outside Aldi (the German equivalent of Walmart). BMW competes directly with vehicles like the Ford Focus in the home market. In Sweden the Ikea carpark is full of Saabs.
I think a 500 headless mac would be great. Actually I would like to see it in a tiny case (cube maybe) and have no legacy support. Even no VGA, just DVI and Apple Digital dispay. Apple might not even have to include a CD-rom. Except for memory and Airport cards the system would be a closed box. If the user wants any type of expansion he will have to go firewire or USB. I don’t see regular consumers as a target audience though. Instead Apple could use them to regain the education market share and make inroads to the enterprise market. These people have been sucking up $500 dollar Dells like hotcakes. A small, quiet, low power consumption Unix PC with a very user friendly interface is just what the doctor ordered. The bonus is that Apple could move more X-servers in the process.
Just a thought
Um, you are essentially saying that Apple is in a downward spiral of losing users and developers. However, Jobs stated at WWDC that Apple now has over 300,000 developers, triple the number of developers on hte platform last year. I would say that OS X is driving plenty of developers to Apple. It has also driven over 7 million users to switch from OS 9 or Windows. It looks to me like the numbers are going up just fine.
As for the price argument, Apple’s prices are just fine and compare favorably with most Windows PC’s. Why? Because you have to add the cost of programs to compete with iApps on the PC. Apple offers a solution of software and hardware, not just a box. I think more and more people are shying away from the “cheapest box” strategy.
If you really want a cheap mac, try buying a two year old Powermac. Those are in the $500 range and compare favorably with your test case machine (A 500mhz G4 should perform similar to a 1Ghz Duron).
I think the G3 does not perform bad speedwise. The 750FX should even be faster than the G4 at the same clock speed when not using Altivec! And IBM has two more G3 products in the pipeline, the next at 1+ GHz with 1 MB L2 cache and then a model with Atlivec (so its more like a G4). And they have also increased the front side bus on the 750FX, it can run at upto 200 MHz. I would think that this should be enough to run all the standard apps and even decent graphics card.
I am running OSX on my AmigaOne (800MHz 750FX) at the moment, via Mac-On-Linux, and it is quite fast (could be faster though). But the graphics is non accelerated and DMA for IDE is switched off atm, so the CPU has to do a lot more work than normal.
And you should consider that IBMs 750 models draw a lot less power than Motorolas G4s. No need to use fans in a computer can even make it more cheaper, but the best thing is more quiet 🙂
But why wait for Apple to make that move!? You can buy an AmigaOne now 😉
I think Apple can get away with slower processors as long as the internal bandwidth is high. The G4 is still a serviceable processor for the low end as long as its not saddled to a friggin’ 133 Mhz front-side bus. The G5 kicks as because it has the 970 AND HyperTransport; Apple’s architecture was archaic and that is why the platform performed so poorly. If Apple can attach a decent processor and graphic chip in some type of high-bandwidth manner, they should get a system that performs pretty well for a good price.
Although I don’t think Apple should involve itself in the “race to the bottom” strategy that has been adopted by PC manufacturers( principally Dell); I do believe that Apple should produce a lower-cost machine that will attract the majority of PC buyers in the $600-$750 range.
As someone pointed out Dell is not the cheapest manufacturer. Consumers recognize quality and are willing to pay for it(to a point). It is my opinion(totally unsupported by facts) that the majority of PC buyers pay $600-$900 for their machine. Apple should make sure that they have a product that targets this market aside from the eMac. Something that could serve as a nice second machine for a geek or a primary machine for an ordinary user.
My first foray into Macs has been an eMac, however, I would have probably been better served with a headless model. The integrated CRT is a negative for me since it takes up desk space and can’t be attached to a KVM. My eMac has been sort of a test machine to go along with the other linux and windows boxes that I own and has been become my principal box. Although, I believe the eMac could use some more ram out the box, I absolutely love it.
Anyways, the market for those looking for $600-$750 range is different that those likely to be attracted to the $3000 Power Mac and in some sense even the $1800 iMac. A headless option for the iMac might just be the key. The response that I hear most often to Apples product offering “is that the Mac is expensive. I would buy one but I can’t afford it.” Apple should take heed of this and put a product together that meets this need. The reality is that Apple can not(because it is impossible) put together a product that is so compelling that a user who only has $800 will spend $1800. With the plethora of chip options available for the PowerPC architecure(G3, G4, and now G5). Apple should be able to find a suitable chip with 1GHz that can fit the bill. My guess is that they would choose a G3 in order to keep the differentiation between the product lines. It is my guess that a headless $600-$750 machine would expaned the market for Apple products and could probably bring in a healthy profit margin.
Although Apple is probably weary of supporting too many product lines they have to be careful to support enough so that they are attractive to the broadest range of users. I get the sense that Apple is leaving money and market share on the table by not having a headless machine that competes with your typical PC. With the introduction of the G5 on the high end and the price reductions in G4 boxes, the time seems to be right to produce an “cheaper” box that showcases what OS X can do for the masses.
>Are you claiming Apple is being threatened out of existence?
Not today. But in 3-4 years, if they continue the same policies, someone will buy them…
People have been saying that for the last 3 or 4 years..
Amen.
If the G5’s benchmarks indicate the real deal, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple starts gaining marketshare at a decnt clip.
arschlesinger-
I say put your money where your mouth is. Want a cheap “low end” Mac??? Check out eBay. Someone would be more than happy to sell you last years model for a new G5 today.
The problem is that these developers aren’t writing “killer apps”, they are simply rewriting all the software that a brand new OS doesn’t have – chat programs, IRC clients, simple utilities etc.
I also suspect that the “developers” figure includes people porting Linux software to MacOS, which isn’t really the point.
It’s misleading to assume that because Apples death has been wrongly predicted before, it couldn’t happen. With Jobs on the throne, they are spending money like never before. I read somewhere they have got through over a quarter of their cash pile – that’s over a billion dollars! We’ll see how things turn out, but I expect the old catch 22 that prevented anybody else realistically competing with Windows will hurt Apple just the same.
OT: That writeup by the “IT Editor” was a bit disturbing. It contained so many basic errors! I mean, since when is Quanta Plus a web browser?
What i dont understand is, why havent we seen mac clones?
Is it un the OSX ELUA that you can only run it on apple ]-only hardware?
and if so you could still simply buy a mac clone and buy a boxed set of osx.
i do see companies selling mac compatible parts, even one guy managed to build a box that was capable of running osx, it used a ppc chip and mobo, all of the rest of the hardware is pc stuff
=========
Um, hate to break it to you Blake, but other than the mobo just about every other piece in a Mac is a PC standard part. What did you think? Macs run on pixie dust?
>>Um, you are essentially saying that Apple is in a downward spiral of losing users and developers. However, Jobs stated at WWDC that Apple now has over 300,000 developers, triple the number of developers on hte platform last year.
<sarcasm>Um, Ian, you forgot one thing… Apple lied about their specs, what’s to keep them from lying about the number of developers for the platform.</sarcasm>
That I agree with but still think a headless box w/vga out would be great. There may be a lot of people that want to try a mac but already have a nice monitor from their existing PC.
Apple would never release such a machine. It would cannibalize their higher end sales. If Apple sells a lower end box it will likely have specs similar to the eMac. It will probably not be available in multiple CPU configurations and will in now way come close to a PowerMac. If people can buy an “almost PowerMac” for under $1000 why would they pay $2000 for one? A pretty case and extra slots? No. It will never happen.
IBMs were copied because the entire motherboard (except the BIOS I believe) was off-the-shelf parts. So all Compaq had to do was reverse-engineer one chip.
Apple has a complete motherboard design. Certainly some parts are probably licensed technology. But the fact is there is (and always has been) just so much more to reverse-engineer. That’s why there are no Apple clones.
“Apple has a complete motherboard design. Certainly some parts are probably licensed technology. But the fact is there is (and always has been) just so much more to reverse-engineer. That’s why there are no Apple clones.”
There are no Apple clones because no one wants to build them.
Apple has virtually no mindshare outside the graphics and multimedia businesses. The 95% of the world outside the USA has almost no interest in Macs or Apple technology period.
Apple would probably need to offer 30-50% better price/performance to gain significant share.
The low end will probably be taken by small form factor machines such as the Via Eden ITX. Within 18 months a basic computer could sell for as little as US$100 without a monitor.
ISPs will probably start bundling ultra-cheap PCs with broadband services similar to mobile phone plans.
Not one poster has made a business case that a lower end Mac would increase Apple’s profit or long term viability. Please someone show me how a low end machine will do this. From what I see, people who buy low end machines don’t buy software and don’t buy upgrades. They will be happy with the apps that come with the machine.
XnetZero,
Apple didn’t lie abou their benchmarks. In fact, they documented it better than any other benchmark I’ve seen. You may not like the way they did the benchmark but they didn’t lie.
Anon,
Macs have a disproportianate amount of mindshare relative to their market share. Why do you think Panther and G5 has gotten so much press. Same with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. I would bet the largest amount of influence Apple has is on Microsoft. Why are you posting on a Mac topic?
twocents
The first step for Apple to really increase marketshare is to increase it’s presence in the marketplace. I hope the rumors are true and Apple is trying to once again get into Best Buy. That would give Apple another 533 outlets in which to sell it’s computers. If the rumors are true and Apple hires it’s own employees to man the Best Buy stores then sales should be nice.
Apple also needs to expand it’s own Apple stores. How many stores can you put in California? The mid-major cities also need some love. Apple also needs to make a nice push overseas. Tokyo is a nice start, but they also need London and Paris.
I agree that Apple needs to drop the price of the eMac..to $599 (A little more realistic) I also think that they could drop the iMac another $150-$200 as well. I would also keep the G4 towers (that now start at $1299) That offers a nice bridge to the G5.
Competing on price is going to be hard for Apple. If they can agument some of the loss of profits with iTMS, the iPod, iSight, and whatever else they may have a shot.
Like I said..getting in Best Buy with their own Apple store sales staff is the Key. Apple needs more outlets.
Buy a used one…! I bought a mint condition G4 Cube for $700 US. Gave it a 1GB of RAM for next to nothing, plopped in a 40GB 7200RPM ultra quite drive, and found a 17″ LCD Studio Display on eBay for $500. So, for around $1400, I have a very nice/cool/trendy machine to muck about with OS X.
Since no one posting on this site has access to the kind of information that would be necessary to produce a cohesive intelligent business plan for a cheap PC all the opinions on this site have been conjecture.
However, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that Apple doesn’t have enough products on the lower end to appeal to people. I’m probably one of the few folks who believe that their pricing in laptops, high-end machines(with the G5), etc is very competitive(if you choose the right competitors on the PC side, ie. IBM thinkpads and Alienware desktops). More anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of users purchase headless machines in the $600 – $900 range. If this is the case then it can safely be assumed that Apple can enter this market without causing significant negative impact to their other product offerings. I will be the first to agree that my opinions are not based on facts but just that opinions. However, Apple needs to try to turn the mindshare that they receive into marketshare. I don’t believe that there is any harm in doing that. A revamped cube or headless iMac might go a long way towards making that happen. Strategically I believe they would probably go with a sped up G3 produced by IBM to power the machine. This has the added benefit of allowing some differntiation between this product and the iMac/eMac. Based off of my experience with my wifes iBook, my feeling is that at equal speeds a G4 doesn’t provide much value for simple web browsing, running Word, iTunes and instant messaging(ram is the key). The iLife apps are best of breed and at the right price point could convince some folks to purchase a Mac as a no-hassle second machine or a primary machine playing mp3’s, web browsing, dvds etc is all that you are interested in.
I am not sure what Apple is doing, but I hope that they are looking into the possiblity of producing such a machine. If my hunches are correct then there is a large market for folks who would consider a Mac purchase but don’t see a product that is attractive enough at their price point. Personally I think that market will pay more than $500 but less than $900 for a headless machine. Producing said product should help expand the market of Mac users without cannibilzing existing sales.
i am glad someone told us this! we had no idea! i guess those polls that place it in the top 3 most recognized companies are all apple marketing……..
what bull.
A vague feeling can’t quite form into a thought as I read this forum on a site filled with Open Source/BeOS/Amiga alums. Today’s developers are not just “write for the largest audience” capitalists; there are plenty of quality coders that will write for ‘nix. If Eugenia’s (a popular view) was correct and small market share would have killed Apple and Linux long ago.
I believe Amiga support diminished because Commodore did not practice good business; they tried to chase an unprofitable cheap computer model.
I also note comments mentioning Apple is desirable because they fight the beige box syndrome…but they are too expensive. R&D, stand-alone engineering, Ive all combine to give the raspberry its seeds: you might want to stick to jello if you don’t like those seeds. Wishing Apple would make a loss leader diverts limited energy from, ah, seed production(?).
As I said, I feel there’s something wrong with the cheap box argument, but I can’t grip exactly what it is.
Apple has been decreasing their pricing and making their product more price competitive, based on features.
I personally suspect that apple will produce a $500-$900 device. However, i think their energies today are going towards capturing more of the high-end SGI, Sun type of users, software, and upon expanding the product line via consumer electronic devices (ipod, isight).
This may be the better strategy in the short term because it gives nice margins and a potential increase in revenues. The $500-$900 apple is a necessary step, at least i think it is. But i don’t think it will be an immediate step. Apple is limited by resources. I beleive that apple’s existing actions will in fact increase apple’s market share but not by a major amount.
The next step might be a $500-$900 product.
There are no Apple clones because no one wants to build them.
That may be true now. However that wasn’t the case 10 years ago. And the technical limitations I outlined were the reason why clones were not made (although back then it was worse because more of their system was proprietary).
I’ve seen many post where people say Apple needs a headless Mac…why not bring back a slightly larger (more upgradeable perhaps) Cube for about the price of the current eMac?
It probably would be nice to see some data displayed on charts like bar and pie charts showing relations and corellations about low priced Macs on the market.
For example, below is a fictitious narrative of it…
“The generated data compiled by Doctor-PC-Trends Inc. show there is a high probability using Poisson method that an increase in sales of Mac boxes priced within the range of 400 to 500 bucks have influence of developer marketshare, it also shows an increase in sales of off-the-shelf apps written exclusively for the Mac (see figure 1.b)”
I don’t know the technical details, but Apple should make their OS run on current Intel/AMD chips. This, and this alone, is the alternative to MS, and dare i say it Linux.
They want to keep making boxes? let ’em. Their position of making an OS, on their hardware, on their chip is why they are stuck–not that greedy pig Jobs is hurting–this is all a defensive, uncreative posture, ward off any and all threats by making a total proprietary system.
Computers (unfortunately not notebooks) have become close to commodities. Apple can enter this hugh user base–those who only buy computers at a commodity price–if OS Apple runs on commodity computers. Reason why Apple is so far behind the market is because of its insistance on using oddball chips. It’s a defensive posture, to repeat myself. Enough with these silly specialty chips!
Oh puhlease.. The reason Apple still exists today is because they are able to create a nice integrated package. If they put osx on intel clones, they will be bankrupt faster than you can say “apple on an intel?”
So don’t be stupid and say bullshit like that..
>> 4) lowering price is a signal – this signal must stand for
>> something.
> yeah, competition!
This is the point that I wonder about. What would Apple get but a Pyrrhic victory? They’ll win many of the 98% who don’t want to pay a lot for their computer.
In fact, the price drop would send a message to the market that they’re not that different from PCs. Right now they’re in a different market — high quality and luxury. If they had lowcost machines, they’d start looking more like Dell.
Again, this is what I think without the help of market research.
I have one of these Shuttle SK41G’s I am using as a server. It takes up less than one square foot of desk space. Right now it is sitting between my 2 headed G4 and my Linux workstation. Fully assembled with an Athlon XP 2100+, 256MB RAM, 80 GB HDD, and a CD-RW cost less than $500.
If I didn’t want to buid it myself, I could have bought a $500 server from IBM, HP, Dell, or even Gateway. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted a Mac but Apple didn’t have anything comperable. An iMac occupies way too much space, and used G4 Cubes still cost more than $1000.
I think Apple could only benefit from selling a line of super low cost Macs based on a 1GHz G3. Add in 256 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, and a CD-RW. I would lower the costs even more and sell them with out a monitor. Apple would have my $400.
The idea of a $499 eMac seems a good idea to me. When there was a Mac priced like that, I would consider buying one, because I have heard good stories about OS X, because our old Performa 6400 has never broken (my PC has had a broken cd-rom drive, broken power supply, speakers smelling like smoke, and yesterday I found out one of my memory modules has went bad)… But now I only want to buy a PC because they are simply much more affordable.
I would have to partly agree woth you on your assessment of Apple. Apple needs to reduce prices to draw more customers. I was a Winblows user, i finally got fed up with it a bought an iBook. I will never have a PC running Winblows in my home again!
I believe that Apple can drastically lower their prices on the lower models to attract new users.
This is just too silly. Why are all these people so concerned with Mac Pricing? Everytime I go to these websites, I see people talking about how expensive the Mac is. Well – It is superior, it is better, if you want it, pay it. If you don’t stick with windows. Mac users don’t have a problem with it, they have a mac, and they realise that all in all they are good value – they get the job done. If you are a consumer buy the cheap consumer macs (you cant moan about an eMac price), but don’t go moaning about the cost of professional TOOLS like the powermac.
Forget about cost – value is much more important. And if you windows people really want a mac that badly just bloody buy one! Dont moan and moan about how you would really like to have one. Just get one, and shut up with your moaning!
If you wan to read more about the idea of a cheap, headless mac, it has been discussed in the past on http://www.lowendmac.com and http://www.macnightowl.com, to name a couple of sites. Check their archives. I recall the articles being interesting and well informed. 2 links I found easily follow:
http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2003/03/week2.htm
http://www.lowendmac.com/lab/02/1205.html
Mac is not an option for me on the desktop, but I might buy a laptop from Apple
The one (and only) thing that stops me is the price
Price was found at http://www.applestore.com/ (used the U.S version)
The cheapest laptop costs $999.00! And that’s with a 12.1″ screen!
> “Who cares about the G5 specs (which you can’t get right now
> anyway) when restricted to a budget? Most people I know
> don’t want to spend more than $1000 for a computer. ”
> Get a G4
They are not $1000, and the most expensive G4 costs even more than the most expensive G5!
I totally agree with the cheap headless box idea. Its a device that will get ppl buying and using OSX. Hopefully in volumes. Better still apple could simply market a generic cheap motherboard and allow distributors to box them up.
Apples current approach to go further up market (relatively) is doomed in the sense that many here have argued – diminished market share less development etc etc. They might continue to make money but the sky will fall one day.
Frankly OSX is hardly worth the money, and going OSX means buying a bunch of other proprietary hardware and software – all of this is what ultimately makes buying Apple so expensive. In terms of bang for the buck Intel linux is the King. I think Apple and Microsoft are duking it out to milk as much from a market that has been sold on the idea that hardware needs constant updates and software has to be sold to be any good.
The world might wake up but I reckon pigs will fly first.
david
“Anon,
Macs have a disproportianate amount of mindshare relative to their market share. Why do you think Panther and G5 has gotten so much press. Same with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. I would bet the largest amount of influence Apple has is on Microsoft. Why are you posting on a Mac topic?”
Ferrari has enormous mindshare too. Glossy motoring magazines with Ferraris on the cover can be found in any newsagent. Ferrari are the current Formula One champions. Ferrari sells less than 10,000 vehicles a year and spends at least $100 million a year on its F1 team. Ferrari, of course, is owned by Fiat – makers of some of the worlds lowest quality vehicles.
Hello, I’ve been eyeing off the new Apple store (Next Byte) near me lately, but I’ve been wary of going in there because I have no intention of buying anything, I just wanted to try out a Mac.
Anyway, I was playing with this G4 box today, it had a beautiful widescreen LCD display and a very stylish tower case. I must say I was extremely impressed with it. It’s performance was very good (app load time, etc), and the eyecandy was unmatched in anything I’ve ever seen. It really makes MS look pathetic in their lame attempt with Windows XP (Luna, ugh, yuck).
The File Manager app (Finder I think it’s called) is quite different to anything I’ve ever used before. However, it is quite intuitive. I liked Safari also, a very nice browser. The whole system is in fact quite intuitive, and the button naming convention makes absolute certainty what you are doing with a dialog box.
One thing that confused me was I couldn’t tell what applications I had open, there is no “task bar”. Some apps would show up on the dock, but others wouldn’t (is it only when they’re minimised they show up there??). Also, the file menu being permanently up the top instead of each app having their own was kind of strange, I didn’t really like that. The mouse that was connected to this box only had one button, and so no scroll wheel. It made browsing the web difficult, but I guess if I bought one I’d order it with a decent mouse.
It took me ages to find a terminal (I guess Mac users don’t use a command line), but once I was in there it was great! I loaded up emacs and was coding some python and perl stuff straight away
The marriage of the power of Unix with the beautiful Apple GUI is something to behold.
They are selling ibook’s for $1846AUS, if I was in the market for a laptop, I’d seriously consider getting it. A cheap desktop machine to replace my G/F’s aging p200 would be sweet too (she’s likely to get my current box when I upgrade).
I think I’ve been bitten by the Apple bug…
Disclaimer: I use GNU/Linux as my main operating system with the KDE environment on top.
Linux is not an OS.. it’s a kernel.
> One thing that confused me was I couldn’t tell what applications I had open, there is no “task bar”.
The open apps are showing in the Dock with a black arrow next to them.
> Also, the file menu being permanently up the top instead of each app having their own was kind of strange, I didn’t really like that.
Make sure you close apps either via Apple+Q from the keyboard or from the menu on the top. If you just close their window, the app is still running and consumes RAM, even if it has no visible windows. Yeah, I don’t like that either…
>The mouse that was connected to this box only had one button, and so no scroll wheel.
Indeed, Macs are more keyboard oriented than PCs… But you can always add a new mouse.
> It took me ages to find a terminal
Yup, it is kinda hidden under /Applications/Utilities
>Linux is not an OS.. it’s a kernel.
Oh, don’t say. We didn’t know!
” Ferrari has enormous mindshare too. Glossy motoring magazines with Ferraris on the cover can be found in any newsagent. Ferrari are the current Formula One champions. Ferrari sells less than 10,000 vehicles a year and spends at least $100 million a year on its F1 team. Ferrari, of course, is owned by Fiat – makers of some of the worlds lowest quality vehicles.”
You can say that Apple and Ferrari are alike but no one owns Apple so what is your point?
“You can say that Apple and Ferrari are alike but no one owns Apple so what is your point?”
I wasn’t claiming that Apple and Ferrar were alike. I was simply pointing out that mindshare, marketshare and profitability are very different things.
“All analysts seem to agree: Apple needs to grow its’ market share if it is to remain credible in the long term.”
This has been repeated so many times for so many years it’s now taken as gospel. But Apple now has down to 2-4% market share and the damn company is still around. And the amazing thing is it would still be around and just as relevant if it’s market share went down to 1%. Market share is a red herring – read The Myth of Market Share by Richard Miniter sometime (see http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?N=35&R=544650&act=A03&Item=9… ).
Apple could increase it’s market share by releasing a USD$499 or $599 system, yes. But remember, not only would their average margin drop sharply, but these would substantially eat into their sales of their other systems. They would therefore run a loss every quarter, resulting in unending and damaging speculation of when they will go out of business. They also run the risk of being identified as a glorified eMachines if the cheap $599 systems became common enough but were recognized as meatless – this would be the kiss of death for them.
Overall, I’m not sure competing in the low end of the market is worthwhile for them – it may bring holy market share, but at the price of mindshare, profitability, and elite positioning in the marketplace. The way for them to increase market share is with specialized market segments as they are doing (digital music & video creation, science, architecture, open source development, web content creation, etc) that need higer-end systems.
let say, there is a cheap pizza box, nice, handy, powerfull enough…
what would happen ?
No one (means a worthy amount of customers of apple products today) would buy the bigger boxes….
oftenly, its enaugh to run photoshop and quark on it. not everyone is doning very complex things on this apps which needs a lot of cpu-power.
I’ve seen canibalism within small companies in the PR branches. they switched to the iMac (TFT, not this plastic-.bubble) and some of them use also the eMac (OK, not for their core-work, but secretaries work, office works).
what will happen if there is a cheap, headless box ? they will switch.
could this be dangerous to apples survive ?
krgds,
frank
the update procedure 199 to 409$ shows the advantage:
whenever i want or i got the money, i can switch to 18″ TFT, a larger Disk, more RAM, a better Graphic board or whatsoever. Try that on emac (espacially changing the monitor (hehe))… >8-
Don’t blame me, but this niche market is already taken & lost by Apple, no if’s no but’s in here.
My take:
Apple HAS to sell their best part of software on the x86 – Platform to keep well alive.
Things like Final Cu Pro for example would be a bestseller (as long they understand supporting HT, SSE, SSE2, etc…).
Money that the can use in producing/developing top hardware & future technologies…
It’s just a thought.
For now they still keep being inventor of the “1-2-3-4-Finder-soon-opens” – OS for me (man, any 200MHz-K6 BeOS-PC is faster in opening Tracker)…
1.Eugenia’s figures for annual sales are way off. Apple sells 750,000 to 1,000,000 Macs per quarter.
2. Today’s New York Times article on “Trusted Computing” going into PC hardware and Windows should help drive people to X. The stuff they plan on building into the hardware will probably interfere with Linux.