... what is frustrating is that one cannot get the Mac OS X on other computers than the one Apple makes. Because, aside from being nice and good machines, what people really care for is the OS, I daresay.
It is all very fine that Apple do not want to enter the lower price segment in this market, but still, we are certainly hundreds of thousands and maybe milliones who would wish for one or two models more aggressively priced. If the answer to that is that we should rather buy a Windows-PC or install Linux on such a machine, it is rather arrogant.

Myself, I am a professional illustrator but since I am not working in the USA, my income is probably lower than it might have been, working there. Which means that I cannot afford the pro models but have to purchase the consumer models. And I know others who cannot afford even those, because outside USA, the prices are not 1299 or 999 (and yes, I know you have sales tax, but also that they are not that high compared to VAT in most European countries), but more like 1750 and 1300. When you know that for that price, you get laptops with much better specs overall, if you go for a Windows-PC, it is no wonder that Apple?s global market share is lagging behind that of the US. Somehow, I have my doubts that the total cost of ownership-calculations I have seen, would have had the same result outside of the US. Without having solid proof for it, I have the impression that PCs remain at the same price level as you find them in the US, while Macs actually are much more expensive, also if you include the sales tax.

It is of course an American company, but the problem is that the MS-monopoly is global and Apple is the only alternative along with Linux. I also understand that Apple cannot set the price in Europe and other markets just as they would like. There are fees and you have the consider the fluctuations of different currencies, exchange rates etc., but I often do wonder if it would not have been a better strategy to go for a lesser revenue, looking at the individual product and that way lower the prices to boost the sales and thus, earn much more in the end.

I know of many illustrators who charge more than I do, but I still make more than they on a yearly basis. Because customers order more. There is a balance there, of course. It doesnʼt pay off to become too cheap, either:)

But I am quite convinced that Apple could increase their global market share a lot if they would have a couple of models which would be more aggressively priced outside the US. And again, not cheap, but reasonably priced. And with good specs, of course.

It is really frustrating that if you want a good computing experience, you have to squeeze your wallet more than is healthy - and also to know that it is outside the economic range of so many who really would have loved a Mac.

But I guess that is the way it will have to be but the day the Linux-camp will be able to produce a really user-friendly OS and environment, I am one who might have to wave Apple good bye. In spite of Ubuntu, we are still not there, though...

I think the overall point of the article is good. Apple is in the best position to know if it's needs to cut the cost of it's machines. It has one of the best growth rates of all PC manufacturers. That suggests to me that there is no need to adjust prices lower unless APple is presented with evidence of a slow down.

On a different topic, I hate when authors try to tie a particular Apple announcement to the rise or fall of the stock especially in today's market. Apple's last few quarters have been the best in it's history. However, after the news, the stock has tanked. It is Classic buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Apple's announcement of price likely had nothing to do with the tank in stock price especially considering the overall downward trend of the whole market.

Moreover, analysts making financial decisions based on rumors shouldn't be analysts. Never in Apple's history has it suggested it would be willing to cut margins.

What I find arrogant is your suggestion that a successful company should conduct an experiment and throw out it's proven business model to appease you. Apple is a hardware company. One of the few that are actually making money. OSX is the carrot Apple uses to get you to buy it's hardware.

As far as people only caring about OSX, speak for yourself. I care about the careful integration between the OS and hardware. Having that means a better user experience. I would use Windows if Apple abandoned it's hardware, which it would have to do if it's switched to your business model.

Quote

wilf53 wrote:
... what is frustrating is that one cannot get the Mac OS X on other computers than the one Apple makes. Because, aside from being nice and good machines, what people really care for is the OS, I daresay.
It is all very fine that Apple do not want to enter the lower price segment in this market, but still, we are certainly hundreds of thousands and maybe milliones who would wish for one or two models more aggressively priced. If the answer to that is that we should rather buy a Windows-PC or install Linux on such a machine, it is rather arrogant.

I understand the concept of Apple being a premium brand. But why can't they license OSX to one or 2 other mfg's to cover the low end of the market where Apple doesn't want to go?

There's never been greater weakness in the windows monopoly than now. I'm sure Microsoft won't repeat the same gaffs they have been guilty of in recent history. Apple is non-existent on a worldwide basis and that's telling. They simply are not hitting on a world wide basis a large enough cross section of the market.

They are highly profitable, I understand, but the Platform is not as relevant as it could or should be. And, unless they continue to innovate at a very very high level, the Platform will become irrelevant almost overnight. That's why investors are kept awake at night worrying about Steve Jobs health. Steve's in the final leg of his career, it's time he built up Apple to survive a pause in innovation that every company goes through sooner or later. It's really really hard to be right all the time, but given how Apple plays its markets, thats the situation they are in. I know Steve has confidence in himself and his team, and that the pressure they are under keeps Apple razor sharp, but I can't help wonder how the computing world would be if Apple had a 20% worldwide share. My guess is it would be alot better, a lot more standards compliant, and a lot more fun for Mac users.

Where's my $20,000 Porsche? Are they stupid?

The media has got to resist publishing quotes from these "analysts" whose glib quotes only make for good headlines, or are just flat out clueless, like our old friend Enderle.

Quote

Chaz wrote:
I understand the concept of Apple being a premium brand. But why can't they license OSX to one or 2 other mfg's to cover the low end of the market where Apple doesn't want to go?

Two words--brand dilution. If Apple were to license their OS, and those other manufacturers were to produce junk, it would still be the Apple brand that suffered. Furthermore, in the past, having other manufacturers only undercut Apple at all ends--Apple soaked the costs of R&D, and the other companies benefited by charging less. Not a good strategy.

As to the question of market share, Apple doesn't need market share. Or rather, Apple isn't seeking market share. They don't need a certain percentage of the market, they just need a certain number of sales--quantity. They want to make money, not make numbers. They need the numbers to make Apple known and desired, but more importantly, to attract developers--good developers who can charge premiums for their software. If you could make the same profit selling 1,000 copies of your software vs. selling 100,000 copies, which would you do? Right, sell the thousand--far fewer hassles, and far greater freedom to innovate and code. There are many benefits of being "small" on a global sale. Of course, everybody wants to sell more, etc. but Apple isn't throwing everything out, just to gain market share. They are going about it the right way. Whether I can afford their stuff or not isn't even a consideration, so long as enough people can. BTW, the fact that more people _want_ to buy their stuff than can is a rather sneaky way of marketing. It's an object of desire. If Apple tried the Dell way, they would have been gone long ago...

Well, enough rambling.

-Jon

The facts that Macs maintain their value.
That used and refurbished Macs though are cheaper and still quite capable machines in most cases:

http://www.macmaps.com/usedrefurbished.html

The only reason to buy new is you find software that only works on the newest machines. Very few titles are that way. Practically any Mac made since January 2006 as new will be functional. And you can get many quite cheaply.

Licensing doesn't have to dilute the brand, by mandating a certain level of quality and componentry un your licensing agreement you can deal with protecting the brand.

Numbers of installed base attract developers, not great hardware. That's why mac software comes out YEARS after the windows version. I like my Mac, a lot, but I really really hate great software that windows users get to use weeks, months, and years before I do.

Quicken for the Mac anyone? It's such a step down from the PC version it's incredible.

It rocks, worth the money. Anyone who doesn't think it is shouldn't buy one. DUH!

Sony, a quality provider of electrical equipment has posted a downturn in profits of 72%. This used to be the brand everyone wanted.

In reality Apple at some point will have to reduce prices, if a full recession kicks in, or bring in the much talked about $800 notebook.

In the case of Barclay Capital's Ben Reitzes, I would be interested if he thought Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch were good bets before the recent run of takeovers!!!
Dont believe a word any banker says, they have proven they know f*ck all about the economy so how can they state how well a company will do!!