[Zubir]

I agree with this article 100%.

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...9932_tc056.htm

[Sporty G]

So do I.

He makes two particularly good points. a) the Mac OS X environment remains largely virus/spyware/adware free and b) Macs are simply to expensive.

[york28]

From the front page.

Takes apart the Business Week article.

[eddiecatflap]

if the pre steve era apple could do it with the lc , classic and IIsi , why on earth can't they do the same now ?

headless imac anyone ?

the emac simply doesnt cut it compared to cheap pcs

[reader50]

Good thing this is a solidly PowerMac topic or it might get moved to the Lounge.

[polendo]

I wonder how do that writer got into Business Week? Hello.. wake up! we live in a world with limited resources!

[gunnar]

I second the headless iMac idea. It might not change the world or bring Apple to 5% of the market but it would sell better than the iMac and please the core Mac user base. That's good enough for me. I'll buy one too. I wanted a cube but at $500 less.

[ChadC]

most of the ideas are great and i did enjoy the article, but my negative comment(opinion) is that I don't want Apple to gain any market share when it comes to computers. Why? It's my opinion that this won't drive down prices like we all think it will. And, the more people using Macs the more potential people to start developing some of those nasty viruses that plague PC's.

Just my opinion.

[Link]

Originally posted by ChadC:
Just my opinion.

Sorry to burst your bubble man but your sig exceeds the sig guidelines (140x40).

[macaddict0001]

that article was bad. why doesn't anyone see it.

Originally posted by some guy who thinks he's smart:
Yes, Apple's operating system has some ease-of-use advantages compared to Windows XP. But Windows offers enough convenience for most people at a lower price. That's why it holds such a dominant market share.

maybe its just a grammatical error but it seems to me that he is comparing operating systems, and that he says that apples is easier to use, but windows is more convienient and costs less.

Originally posted by some guy who thinks he's smart:
Yet, Apple's list price for iMacs started at $1,300 before production was halted. And the iBook remains listed at $1,100 on Apple's Web site. First Albany Capital analyst Joel Wagonfeld says taking into consideration discounts by resellers, the average price of an iMac in the first quarter was $1,161, with PowerBooks at $2,140 and iBooks at $1,109. Sure, Apple flogs low-grade eMacs to schools at bargain-basement prices -- but they have big, fat CRT monitors. Ugh.

didn't he just say that emacs were "lower grade" when compared to ibooks even though ibooks are slower(just because an ibook can withstand a four foot drop and an emac can't doesn't make it lower grade)

Originally posted by some guy who thinks he's smart:
I know this may be hard to admit for a guy as innovative and design-conscious as you. But Apple charges too much for its computers. The PC market's benchmark price level is sinking quickly below the $1,000 mark -- turf where Apple has been loath to tread. Even laptops are moving down into a similar range.

Apple is already below the $1,000 mark and near in laptops.

Originally posted by some guy who thinks he's smart:
You've been to Target (TGT ), right? You probably seen the terrific product designs such as well-known architect Michael Graves' line of stylish housewares -- offered a budget prices. Heck, Blue Light Specials at Kmart (KMRT ) haven't been the same since Martha Stewart's line of kitchen gear, sheets, and towels hit the aisles several years ago. Dumpster-diving debutantes can't get enough of them. Even sportswear designer Mossimo makes great threads for fiscal lightweights.

We're in the era of cheap chic, Steve. And I have no doubt that Apple can play that game with the best of them. Give us a really cheap, really cool PC, and watch them fly off the shelves.

comparing apple to kmart isn't even funny. nuff said.

originally posted by some guy who thinks he's smart:
Why not offer all Mac buyers a try-and-buy program much like what some Apple resellers are offering to purchasers of high-end Xserve units. The geeks who fork over $3,000 or so for the Xserve can have a couple of weeks to test-drive these babies, depending on the vendor. If they aren't satisfied, they can return them and get a full refund. That's unheard of in the computer business.

That already exists its called the apple store.

Originally posted by someone who thinks he's smart
I have yet to see an Apple ad campaign playing up the fact that Macs remain largely virus-free. As each week brings us yet another Microsoft (MSFT ) critical alert, the computing masses have grown weary of updating, updating, and updating again their operating systems, browsers, and any other software vulnerable to hackers. Most don't want to have to think about their computers being violated, let alone navigate the arcana of security software, firewalls, and antivirus systems.

The latest round of attacks on Microsoft software is terrifying. If using a Mac means servers in Russia are less likely to harvest my passwords and offer my identity to the highest bidder, I think that's an offer I'd like to hear more about.

So there you have it. I can't say my prescription is guaranteed to flip the switch. But I might suggest you enact my plan at around the same time you launch your much anticipated new iMac line. If you want me to head your marketing department or even do a guest consulting gig in exchange for some autographed T-shirts, you know where to find me. In the meantime, I'll just keep writing columns.

first paragraph: hackers would see it as a challenge.
second paragraph: encrypted passwords.
third paragraph:that is not how you apply for a job.



hello macaddict0001 what claim can I debunk for you today

[Graymalkin]

I read this article this morning and find it so full of logical problems I'm wondering if it was written as a joke. You know the article is on its way downhill when IDC is quoted for Apple market share figures. IDC has horrible reporting of market share statistics for every computer manufacturer because they count both consumer and professional systems, including servers, in their market share figures. Server sales figures are of little value to makers of products intended for use on consumer and professional desktops or laptops.

Next is the good old "price is more important than everything" fallacy. Design involves a lot more than simply having a nice looking case. Salkever makes the argument that Windows XP simply comes too cheap for the Mac to compete. A bottom rung Dell Dimension costs about $500. It looks like an awesome price until you realize you can't burn CDs, watch DVD, listen to anything, or run more than a single application. Once the Dell is beefed up to the point where it is a modern PC it costs as much as an eMac and still has a crappier video card and no Firewire port. The design aspect of the eMac isn't the stylish white case, it is the components inside that make it a useful computer out of the box.

Salkever's second point is absurd. Those stylish yet cheap products sold at Target and K-Mart are made by denziens of the third world out of the cheapest of the cheap materials. The only difference between the Martha Stewart branded products at K-Mart and the Sam's Choice products at Wal�Mart is the marketing. The K-Mart products have nicer patterns and better packaging than the Wal�Mart products. Apple tried building cheap-ass Macs in the 90s and the plan backfired horribly. The Performa 5200, 5300, and 6200-6320 series Macs were excellent examples of this bonehead strategy. These systems were crippled in an effort to keep their costs down in order to sell more of them. Their performance was absolutely horrible and as such anyone who used them had a really bad impression of Macs.

The all-in-one mantra is a good one. There is a good case to be built around the need for another Cube but there's also a strong case for keeping all-in-one systems. All-in-one designs fit just about anywhere you can manage to run a power cord without much hassle. An iMac needs a keyboard and power cable plugged in to be up and running. A traditional desktop needs a power cable, keyboard, monitor cable, and a power cord for the monitor to be up and running. Arranging 25 iMacs in a lab is a lot easier than 25 regular desktops.

Point four is really silly. Point five has some merit but isn't really practical. It isn't really the smartest of all ideas to hand someone a $2000 computer to take home to "try out". Besides the first few weeks for Windows switchers are often the hardest. The first couple of weeks are spent bumbling around the new interface and applications. No one is going to stick with switching if they don't have a monetary investment in the process. A lot of people will take Macs home, get frustrated because they don't know how to do something, and return the Mac thinking that it is incapable of doing what they want. That's not a good way to try to sell computers.

[HeatherEcsedi]

I don't. I don't see any reason why Apple should not reverse the trend. The switch campaign did not yield the expected results. Last time I heard Steve Jobs talk about CPU market shares, he said Apple had 5 percent of the market and it would only take another 5 percent to reach 10 percent. No kidding !? Today, Steve Jobs often talks about market shares. MP3 player and online music sales, not CPU anymore. I sincerely hope this helps Apple regain some shares but I doubt this is going to happen any time soon. But of course, I only ask to be pleasantly surprised. Sure we as Mac users know how cool Apple products are. BTW, what's taking so long for PC users to figure that out ?

I don't say what lies in that article would help Apple but why not give it a shot ? Anyway, instead of complaining about this article, please try to be a little more constructive. I used to dislike Steve Jobs. I've changed my opinion about him except for one thing, Apple is too elitist to me.

[amsalpemkcus]

Simple solution. Get Dell to do the selling for you.

[TailsToo]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
Simple solution. Get Dell to do the selling for you.

No, it would be get Dell to build them for you. They are the Wal-Marts of computers - squeeze every dime out of your production cost so that you can undercut everyone else.

Dell marketing came up with the "Dude you're getting a Dell...." enough said!

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
he says that apples is easier to use, but windows is more convienient and costs less.

Enough (which is what he wrote) doesn't equal more.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Zubir:
I agree with this article 100%.

I agree with this article 15%

Yet another "I know more than what Apple knows about marketshare" mindless article

[Switched2Mac]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
I agree with this article 15%

Yet another "I know more than what Apple knows about marketshare" mindless article

Given Apple's less than 5% marketshare, it would appear that just about anyone knows more about it than Apple does.

[Krypton]

Originally posted by Switched2Mac:
Given Apple's less than 5% marketshare, it would appear that just about anyone knows more about it than Apple does.

I'm tempted to agree with you

Whatever Apple is doing, isn't working all that well... 2% meh

[Link]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Enough (which is what he wrote) doesn't equal more.

Windows is more convinient, in the fact that you can walk into any electronics store and buy most of the programs you'd want/need, and generally for less too! Then there's more abundancy of parts (ATA133 cards don't cost you >100, you have more than one place to go to for CPU upgrades, OS updates are far less often, and just about anything will work with windows).

That doesn't mean it's better though.. Thanks to many corporate or otherwise decisions though, there are only a handful of OSes more mature, ready for the desktop should I say.

[Switched2Mac]

Get rid of the visionary (Jobs)!

Bring back the businessman to regain marketshare (Sculley)!

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Switched2Mac:
Given Apple's less than 5% marketshare, it would appear that just about anyone knows more about it than Apple does.

That mentality is just sad. Just because the marketshare is small doesn't necessarily mean it's not doing good.

5% marketshare is outdated. More realistic percentage of current Mac marketshare is around 9-11%

Users of Mac OS X increased from 5 millions to 12 millions in two years and that's quite a feat.

Enough with 5% = not good statement. It's as old as saying Apple is dying.

[Superchicken]

Apple really should offer a box, just call it, the Box. Give it no other name. Just Box.

1.5Ghz G5, Firewire, USB, 2 PCI slots, a few RAM slots (more than two) Small, stackable, able to be built into a cluster using Xgrid.

If Apple could leverage multiple Macs for more than distributed compiling, they could really do something with this strategy. Take Sun's the network is the computer, and bring it to the home. If I could have one box, and know in a year I could buy a newer faster one I but still use it in tandem with the old one, for certain tasks, use the two both for storage and all kinds of stuff, and use them with my PowerBook, I would probably buy one one year, and then in two years buy another one, then maybe an iMac, then another Box, and so on. Apple really needs to give people a reason to buy new Macs. The problem is nobody ever feels they NEED a new Mac. I had my Rev D iMac for four years before I decided to buy an iBook. I will probably have this PowerBook for at least two years before I even consider another Mac.
If Apple wants to sell more they need to come up with ways to make Macs more useful than PCs in more creative ways. Think about this sorta thing in a video editing studio? Have a few PM G5s, a few PowerBooks, and "boxes" If you could cause seamless integration (what Apple is known for) you could do some really sweet stuff. Or Audio work.

I think Tiger is heading in this sort of direction with it's sync stuff they showed, but they need to bring it up beyond this in X.5, and unvail a new Mac product that would be useful to add on to any PowerBook or Power Mac or iBook or iMac.

[Switched2Mac]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
That mentality is just sad. Just because the marketshare is small doesn't necessarily mean it's not doing good.

5% marketshare is outdated. More realistic percentage of current Mac marketshare is around 9-11%

Users of Mac OS X increased from 5 millions to 12 millions in two years and that's quite a feat.

Enough with 5% = not good statement. It's as old as saying Apple is dying.

I never said Apple was doing bad, per se. They are profitable, which is the single most important thing for any public company.

I was merely stating that if they want to increase their marketshare, more needs to be done.

Of course, Apple blundered again. No product in the channel (i.e. no iMacs for 90 days or more, mini-ipod fulfillment problems). These are things that literally kill companies. Obviously, not for Apple, but they folks involved with that blunder need to be FIRED.

That is intolerable in a corporate environment.

[Krypton]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam Betts:
[B]Users of Mac OS X increased from 5 millions to 12 millions in two years and that's quite a feat.
QUOTE]

It is, but those were mostly existing customers, not new ones.

5% marketshare is outdated. More realistic percentage of current Mac marketshare is around 9-11%

Depends who you ask. % of new sales that are Macs lies at around 2%.