Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- From: me4@xxxxxxxxxxx (Wayne Stuart)
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:04:58 GMT
zara <zspook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Now, you may argue this super-cheap, probably Celeron based lappy will
be sluggish, flimsy, disposable cack. And you may be right. But the
thing is, by the time the clueless newbie finds this out, he'll have
already bought it. So when he's dropped it in the trash a little over a
year later, comes round to the realisation that cheap is usually cheap
for a reason, and starts looking for something with a bit more umph and
quality, will he then consider a Mac laptop? Maybe. Or maybe not...
What makes you think that a 300 - 500 mac will be of higher quality as the
competition?? Answer: it won't be. In a year, that too will wind up on the
trash heap.
Do bear in mind I'm not taking about 300-500 *dollar* stuff here. I'm
talking $700 stuff. This level *can* be disposable flimsy crap, but is
just as likely to be perfectly sturdy, albeit just slow and lacking in
'toys'. If Apple could lean towards the latter, I think that would be
the preferable option.
<snip>
Yes, there is the risk of such a thing devaluing the brand. And yes,
I've heard all the usual argument that they're doing fine without
pursuing further marketshare. But I disagree. From observations such
as the one above, Apple should be doing more to appeal to these pricetag
obsessive masses, to get more of them onboard to the brand right off the
bat, and thereby hopefully keep them. They're going to be a lot more
difficult to attact afterwards. And after all, the iPod might not be
able to prop up the margins forever.
one of you maccies posted only today, that the "cheap" machines, do not have
a viable profit margin. Are you in agreement, with that very provocative
statement?
Again I remind you, in my scenario, I'm not talking about the
'super-cheap' stuff. Of that sort of stuff, yes, I'd probably be
inclined to agree. You do have to sell a whole load of them to make the
same sort of margin as the kind of stuff Apple shifts. The further up
the line you go, the bigger the margin you can take. I guess Apple has
drawn a line in the sand where most other OEMs line is somewhat further
back.
But that's not the point. My point is that there's a price to pay for
such a decision. Newbies *think* that a cheap box will suffice, when
unbeknown to them, it can a false economy. But while ever such things
are offered, they'll still continue to buy them. That's a reality. Yet
by Apple refusing to play ball, they're effectively cutting themselves
off from this newbie market. Clearly they don't think this market is
important - no money in it etc - but appealing to this market is an
investment. Get a foot in their door right from the start, and you may
just keep them as customers forever.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- From: Josh McKee
- Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- From: zara
- Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- References:
- Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- From: Wayne Stuart
- Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- From: zara
- Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- Prev by Date: Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- Next by Date: Re: Macs no longer overpriced - InfoWorld
- Previous by thread: Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- Next by thread: Re: Need for a budget sub-MacBook?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
