Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today

George Graves wrote: 
In article <11ir7fjpsgm165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Donald McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote: 
In article <11inj1n4aov7v4f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Donald McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Snit wrote: 
"ed" <news_test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
o3LWe.2506$Op3.1515@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/16/05 7:20 PM:

In news:nowhere-471BA6.21143516092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Travelinman <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> typed:
<snip>

How much higher? Apple's 10Q only says that software has higher GM.

But since hardware sales outweigh software sales by 9:1, there's no
way for the software sales to be high enough to make up for losing the
hardware
why do you think there's "no way" for the software sales to be high enough
to make up for losing sales on hardware? do you think people would not pay
for os x over windows if they could do it on their current hardware? and
these things feed on themselves as well- if you have more os x sales, you're
going to have more sales from iwork, .mac, ilife upgrades, etc.
If I were in charge of Apple I would not bet on people buying enough copies
of OS X to make up for lost hardware sales - at least not now. Maybe if OS
X gains significant market share.
OSX will NEVER gain "significant market share" as long as it is tied to the expensive hardware currently associated with it.

$499 is NOT expensive hardware. OSX will never reach the corporate market share levels that Wintel enjoys for the simple reason that Mac doesn't have the breadth and depth of enterprise software that Windows has. Apple doesn't even court that market. It has little to do with price.
"$499". Yeh, right. Dude, that's the price of a MAC Mini, not a normal Mac. It's totally under-powered and non-expandable. My brother considered purchasing a Mac Mini, so I could have an entry into Macs. But he reconsidered and bought another G5 instead. He paid through the nose, but I got his year-old G5 out of the bargain. At least my G5 is equal to the Pentium 4 3.20gHZ he built last year for me in bus speed, expandability, and memory. However, he paid almost $3000 to purchase it last year. He could have built an equal or better P4 for less than a grand. It wouldn't have had a Power Mac's solid engineering and sexy styling, but it would've performed as well or better. After all, isn't that what it is all about? Performance?

Not necessarily. There's a concept called "adequate performance" and for a vast number of computer users, it's all they'll ever need or use.
Down here among the worker bees, Macs are HUGE luxury items, once-in-a-lifetime purchases. Not to be made lightly, since many times such a purchase would replace other possibly more necessary budget items.

That's ridiculous. Macs aren't THAT expensive. There are four models under a grand, for crissake.

PC users don't want cheap, frivolous computers like the Mac Mini.

No, they want cheap, frivolous machines like the Dell loss-leaders, which have shared memory, and PCI expansion slots that 99.5% of the mamsers never use.

Well, I will grant you that the $699 Dell is not as good as the MUCH BETTER $899 Dell, but even THAT price is lower than the cheapest equally-outfitted PowerMac.


We want powerful, expandable machines, which won't take a huge bite out of our cash-flow. To date, PC manufacturers have provided these machines.

Cheap is cheap, and usually for a reason. You simply cannot get a decent PC below $700, and if that's too much money for you "worker bees" then that's too bad. It's nice that places like Dell and Ikea exist to give you poor folks the illusion of a lifestyle.

Now, you are showing your true colors, dude: You are an ELITIST, not a normal human being like the the rest of us.


Until Apple can provide such a machine, users (especially corporations, who are the bread-and-butter of ANY computer manufacturer) will continue to use and purchase PCs.

Corporations are FAR from the bread-and-butter of Apple. They sell so few into the corporate space, as to be, virtually, a non player.

OH, Gee, I wonder why! Use your noggin, dude. Apple has a non-existent market share of corporate desktops for the SIMPLE REASON that they are TOO EXPENSIVE, not because Apple hasn't TRIED.


I do admit that Apple turned down the right path when they began producing the eMacs and iMacs. But iMacs still have a huge price premium when compared to an equal or better $699 Dell.

Except that the $699 Dell is neither equal to nor better than any Mac.

They sure are equal to eMacs in memory and CPU speed (which you really need to run Windows XP well). Most stock iMacs come with 256meg of memory, not 512mb, as you will find in many cheaper PCs if you are honest with yourself. In addition, they have equal or BETTER Pentiums (at least speed-wise. Maybe also in manufacturing.) In addition, those $699 Dells can be EXPANDED, whereas the MacMini cannot be. Maybe Apple should make the MacMini a little bigger, so a few PCI or PCI-X cards can be inserted, and give it more memory. But the MacMini is NOT REALLY a serious computer anyway. It's just a frou-frou to put on hobbyist's desks to experiment with the OS. No serious computer user (much less a corporate IT exec) would put one on their desks, beautiful OS not withstanding, for anything other than to fool around. It would be much like Joe Beercan from down the street fooling around with a distribution of Linux. Just a play-toy.

Apple is seriously EVIL in getting PC users hungry for a Mac with a MacMini (really, PC users who buy MacMinis want the OS, not necessarily the machine), then destroying their new-found love for OSX by trying to charge them an arm and a leg for a Mac. I guarantee you, MOST PC users would take to OSX like a duck to water immediately. OSX is SERIOUSLY an OUTSTANDING OS.

But I guarantee you, when you get to the $1000-$1200 level, there is NO Mac which will be outfitted with more (or even the SAME) memory, faster CPU, more expandability, or CHEAPER upgradeability than a PC. Even Mac memory is too expensive. Wereas PC users can purchase a GIG of memory for around $100.

As long as Windows machines run Windows, they'll always be inferior.

Here I partly agree with you. I have to admit that after having used a PowerMac G5 that I certainly never want to go back to the Windows platform. However, I would not use the word "inferior", just "different but more stable and elegant". Since I have not tried an eMac, iMac, or MacMini, I can't honestly give an opinion about them other than price.

So if Apple wants to tap the HUGE PC market for itself,

What makes you think that's Apple's goal? Is it HP's? Sony's? Amongst PC makers, Apple is already one of the top five. What makes you think that they're really focused on getting much bigger than that?

I guarantee you, there is not ONE computer manufacturer which wouldn't like to gain more market share, especially among corporations. Since Apple's is so LOW, and Apple fanatics (including the staff in Cupertino) want to put an Apple on EVERY desk, they too want to increase market share, whether slowly (which is the best way) or quickly.

A flat sales projection is EVIL in business. Healthy businesses are on an upward growth curve, not flat. If Apple has ANY rise in sales, it is because of their frou-frous like the iPod. Maybe Apple is going to become the leader in this area, but as long as their prices for DECENT desktops are so HIGH as compared to PCs, they will NEVER gain market share in sales of computers, because corporations and individuals just can't afford them.

And Apple's computer sales projection is FLAT AS A PANCAKE. Their current market is elementary and high schools, universities, and a smattering of artists and scientists here and there. PERIOD. I guarantee you, those numbers are NOT going to increase in the coming years. And MANY of those are still using their old 512k Apples which their daddies bought them when they went to college (which IS a testimony to the solid manufacturing of Apples, I admit). However, MANY smaller companies are STILL using their old MSDOS-based "green-screen" machines, which they purchased for $3000 in 1993. I see them here and there, just as I see those 512k Apples here and there.


they are going to have to lower prices drastically (by at least $500 per machine.)

Mac Mini - $499.

Man, I could put together a better computer than the MacMINI for $500. And I'm a poor excuse as a hardware guru. Memory, CPU, motherboards...ALL are cheap as dirt in the PC world. "Cheap" does NOT necessarily mean "worst". Mass-manufacturing of untold millions of CPUs and other components has LOWERED their prices, not RAISED them. And they STILL have the SAME quality OR BETTER than they had when they were $500 per CPU instead of $99 per CPU.

And I guarantee you, there is not ONE corporate IT exec who wouldn't consider putting a Mac on every desk, if they could afford them. Macs are superior product (well, at least the G5s are superior), after all.

Your lower-end Macs are JUST AS "cheap" (in quality if not in price) and under-provisioned as those $699 Dells.

Increasing the prices of software to make up for the decrease of machine prices would not bother us a bit. After all, it's easier on cash-flow to buy an OS for $299 (let's face it, XP Home is seriously crippled and not nearly as stable as Pro) and a good machine at $699 than buying a machine with a $500 (or more) price premium, even though the OS is only $129.

Because that's what it's all about: Cash-flow, not sexy good looks and quality engineering. Those may be qualities foo-foo artists look for in a machine, but Wintel users certainly don't. Oh, don't get them wrong: they like the art those foo-foo artists create as much as Mac users, and they probably look out their windows to the neighbor's desk and see the beautiful G5 and OSX desktops and admire to their hearts content. But $500 or more for the same machine? Never!


That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I think that you're wrong. Apple's past forays into the world of the ubber-cheap has not yielded significant increase in market share, and that includes the Mini.

And no wonder. In Apple's way of thinking, "cheap" means "under-powered and under-provisioned", not cheaper in the pocket book, as it does in the PC market. Who wants to buy a "cheap" Mac for $1200 when one can get a TOP-OF-THE-LINE PC clone for the same price? Not Joe Beercan or Phil-the-IT-exec.

==
Donald
===============================================================================
.

Quantcast