Applitisation of the world!
...
Apple needs to capitalise on the Mac Mini by more than just tossing it out there for the wolves to feed on.
This is one of the greatest oppotunities Apple has ever undertaken.
...
Friday, January 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments (click to read or make your own):
Job's genius of the Apple Mac Mini is that by placing its initial price point at $500, the heretofor criticism that Macs are too expensive is eviscerated. When the mummering finally subsides, the more objective testing organizations will be compelled to test the Mini against comparably priced PC's.
The contest will turn on user satisfaction and security.
Unless MS's Longhorn - if and when it is ever released, fully addresses and meets the virulent security problems infecting the PC majority,* and, assuming the plague of worms and virii remains without adequate and effective countermeasures, OSX's inherent security will be the feature that determines which is best. Odds are OSX will prevail.
Mac users, advocates and maniacs will be vindicated. Grudging resentment and admissions from the PC community will be met with generous graciousness by the Mac faithful. The controversies over which is better will fade and we can all get on with the really important issues.
* Often cited but infrequently examined, the 95: <5 ratio of PC to Mac sales consistently ignores the fact that people use and keep Macs longer. Macs just keep on working. A PC's useful life, whether because of lower build quality or user frustration-motivated destruction, is notably shorter than a Mac's. A better measure would be the total number of PC's to Macs in productive use on a day to day basis. I daresay the ratio would be dramatically different.
I honestly wish the Mac Mini were $399. I feel Apple could afford to take a 5% margin on ONE product. As I have explained here - I see the MacMini as a typical product margin - about 25%.
I don't. I think the $100 price difference will make very little difference. If Apple can afford to cut $100 off the price, I'd rather they continue to keep the device at $500 and include 802.11 support as standard.But... but... I'd rather they did neither. It can sell exceedingly well for $500. Pricing it lower almost certainly will not gain any more sales, but it will cut Apple's profits. And I want Apple to have profitable lines. Whatever my misgivings about some of their current business practices, selling goods at above cost price is a great, decent, honourable price model and I'd rather see that than the usual razor blades/upselling/etc lock-em-in build-monopolies kind of BS that passes for "legitimate business" these days.
It's also safer. At its heart, Apple sells a proprietary system (albeit open in a few areas, moreso than in the past.) Whether you approve of such things or not, it's nice for customers if they can be sure if Apple will still be around in five years to support them if Apple's going to make it impossible for users or third parties to support them. Apple's profit margins must be protected. It must see Macs as an ongoing business, not as something to periodically gamble with.
I'm just sayin' - I would have stunned everyone with a $399 - possibly even a $449 price tag. Just to show everyone there's NO PC that is less. I might have even considered a gimmicky rebate - even though I hate rebates. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that are SO Apple obsessed that they would forgo the rebate to "donate to Apple"Are you seriously saying that $499 didn't stun the market? I mean, I'm baffled here. I know $399 is lower than $499, but it's hard to see what price level would have really been genuinely, significantly, more stunning than the $499. Maybe $150? I don't know. I doubt it can be done for $150. As for PCs, you have to beat $199 if you want to make sure there is no PC available for the same price. So it's not something Apple can do. What it can do is say "Look at the budget PC end, let's produce something better than all of the budget PCs for a budget price", and that's what they did.
If Apple is smart - they will hook all the "must have's" and then hook all the "well I'll bite's" and then about August - lower the price to $449 for Christmas and bump it up to 1.5 and 1.75 OR add in Airport Extreme and Bluetooth and an Svideo out. I think they missed the boat of a TV as a monitorGiven 1024x768 tends, in my experience, to be a little cramped for running OS X (I have to reduce Finder font sizes a little from the default every time I create a new directory at that size), I think running it on a TV would be horrible. I see the advantage in TV output, but only in terms of being able to replace the DVD player with this. With DVD players costing around $50 for something reasonable and small, and with an S-Video adapter likely to cost the same for this box, I agree it'd have been nice for Apple to support it directly, but I don't think they're missing the boat of TVs as monitors.
This isn't the 1980s any more. 640x200 is not an obscene amount of screen space as it was then.
As for the others, I think Apple would be best off keeping the price the same but adding the odd feature. Airport and bluetooth are the most obvious improvements. Maybe they should, but only for the $599 model. I'll leave it to Apple to decide what they can afford.
Lastly. It's time for the iPod to converge or grow - the iPod Photo was a step in the right direction - but Apple really needs a camera. I say slap one on to an iPod or buy/merge with ... wait for this ... Kodak! Imagine the AMAZING opportunity this would be for Apple! Apple iPhoto kiosks everywhere! Rescue of a still great company! The effects of this could turn Apple around in an amazing way!I think taking over a company to help you launch one little
I honestly wish the Mac Mini were $399. I feel Apple could afford to take a 5% margin on ONE product. As I have explained here - I see the MacMini as a typical product margin - about 25%.
I don't. I think the $100 price difference will make very little difference. If Apple can afford to cut $100 off the price, I'd rather they continue to keep the device at $500 and include 802.11 support as standard.But... but... I'd rather they did neither. It can sell exceedingly well for $500. Pricing it lower almost certainly will not gain any more sales, but it will cut Apple's profits. And I want Apple to have profitable lines. Whatever my misgivings about some of their current business practices, selling goods at above cost price is a great, decent, honourable price model and I'd rather see that than the usual razor blades/upselling/etc lock-em-in build-monopolies kind of BS that passes for "legitimate business" these days.
It's also safer. At its heart, Apple sells a proprietary system (albeit open in a few areas, moreso than in the past.) Whether you approve of such things or not, it's nice for customers if they can be sure if Apple will still be around in five years to support them if Apple's going to make it impossible for users or third parties to support them. Apple's profit margins must be protected. It must see Macs as an ongoing business, not as something to periodically gamble with.
I'm just sayin' - I would have stunned everyone with a $399 - possibly even a $449 price tag. Just to show everyone there's NO PC that is less. I might have even considered a gimmicky rebate - even though I hate rebates. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that are SO Apple obsessed that they would forgo the rebate to "donate to Apple"Are you seriously saying that $499 didn't stun the market? I mean, I'm baffled here. I know $399 is lower than $499, but it's hard to see what price level would have really been genuinely, significantly, more stunning than the $499. Maybe $150? I don't know. I doubt it can be done for $150. As for PCs, you have to beat $199 if you want to make sure there is no PC available for the same price. So it's not something Apple can do. What it can do is say "Look at the budget PC end, let's produce something better than all of the budget PCs for a budget price", and that's what they did.
If Apple is smart - they will hook all the "must have's" and then hook all the "well I'll bite's" and then about August - lower the price to $449 for Christmas and bump it up to 1.5 and 1.75 OR add in Airport Extreme and Bluetooth and an Svideo out. I think they missed the boat of a TV as a monitorGiven 1024x768 tends, in my experience, to be a little cramped for running OS X (I have to reduce Finder font sizes a little from the default every time I create a new directory at that size), I think running it on a TV would be horrible. I see the advantage in TV output, but only in terms of being able to replace the DVD player with this. With DVD players costing around $50 for something reasonable and small, and with an S-Video adapter likely to cost the same for this box, I agree it'd have been nice for Apple to support it directly, but I don't think they're missing the boat of TVs as monitors.
This isn't the 1980s any more. 640x200 is not an obscene amount of screen space as it was then.
As for the others, I think Apple would be best off keeping the price the same but adding the odd feature. Airport and bluetooth are the most obvious improvements. Maybe they should, but only for the $599 model. I'll leave it to Apple to decide what they can afford.
Lastly. It's time for the iPod to converge or grow - the iPod Photo was a step in the right direction - but Apple really needs a camera. I say slap one on to an iPod or buy/merge with ... wait for this ... Kodak! Imagine the AMAZING opportunity this would be for Apple! Apple iPhoto kiosks everywhere! Rescue of a still great company! The effects of this could turn Apple around in an amazing way!I think taking over a company to help you launch one little
Post a Comment