I gues tomorrow during the keynote and the products released (if any) the directions Apple's going.
I'm hoping for the Mac midrange tower...
I'm hoping for the Mac midrange tower...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Getting Snobbish???
- Thread starter gkarris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's see:
A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?
What's up?
I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...
no they don't make cheap products.
you get a lot of value out of these products though.
Go ahead and rub it in.
Pounds are awesome and dollars are only worth half as much.
Don't worry though, we usually pay exactly double for everything.
Let's see:
A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?
What's up?
I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...
Now what does Safari do when you type the word "snobish"? You can see a red squiggly line below it. That means you have misspelt it. Call me snobbish, but please don't call me snobish when I correct your spelling.
There, fixed that for you.
Joke, joke, not looking to get into a style flamewar. In all seriousness, though, Apple has been a pretty snobbish outfit since the time of the Lisa -- and the drive to make all competing products look obsolete and useless is part of what makes Apple's hardware great.
In short, as Steve often says, Microsoft doesn't need to lose for Apple to win, it just has to look bad.
Was using IE on a wonderful Dehli Dell...
But, people were soooo happy they can now get a Mac under $1000. The same for the Mini at under $500.
Prices are creeping back up...
Maybe we can get one and on the way home in our new Mercedez with an Apple GPS???
It's the snobbish feel of the mac that makes it so appealing to me.
I think the general arguement on this board is that we (the mac user community) are willing to pay a premium for both what is a superior functioning product, with the added feel of a luxury product.
I bought two computers 8 or 9 years ago ---
a PII with 400 mhz and a g4 with 400 mhz
I rearly used the PC and the G4 was my work horse - rendering video, editing photos
guess which one is STILL ticking? -- only in the last few weeks has it started acting up -- AND I've been looking for an excuse to buy a new computer -- so BRING on the updates to the 24inch iMac -- I've got my credit card waiting, and I am willing to pay for my snobbish ways.
I think the general arguement on this board is that we (the mac user community) are willing to pay a premium for both what is a superior functioning product, with the added feel of a luxury product.
I bought two computers 8 or 9 years ago ---
a PII with 400 mhz and a g4 with 400 mhz
I rearly used the PC and the G4 was my work horse - rendering video, editing photos
guess which one is STILL ticking? -- only in the last few weeks has it started acting up -- AND I've been looking for an excuse to buy a new computer -- so BRING on the updates to the 24inch iMac -- I've got my credit card waiting, and I am willing to pay for my snobbish ways.
Interestingly enough, one of Ballmer's arguments against Apple is the expensive iPhone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo
I think what Apple ends up doing with the Mini and the iMac will seal its image...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo
I think what Apple ends up doing with the Mini and the iMac will seal its image...
Actually, spelt is an accepted past participle of "spell."
As for snobbish, I kind of see the OP's point. However, Apple is not a Dell or HP or Gateway. It's on a different level. Apple competes with Sony and IBM (Lenovo now). No one claims Lenovo is snobby because its notebooks are pricey. Apple does charge more, but one gets more features and better designs as a result. Frankly, I'd rather pay for better design than save 10% and have a bad looking computer.
I agree, but I think the problem in general is that Apple has broadened its market base so much in the last few years with the iPod that many people are looking to switch, but don't want to drop that much cash. The common PC user looking to switch doesn't know the difference between CD, C2D, SR, ect. and they wonder "why doesn't Apple have a notebook for $600 like gateway blah blah blah" and they don't know the difference between Lenovo and Compaq except for the name "they both make computers don't they?". Apple could make a lot of money in this cheapy category, but it looks like they don't care.
iPhone for $600.
With its other products like the iPod, who's popular competitor the Zune, is forcing Microsoft to sell the product AT A LOSS in coming up with a similarly valued product that does the same thing with hardware/software, it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices. While I'd love a cheaper iPhone, Apple knows its internal costs, and when it'll be ready to start stripping out accessories and cutting costs.
I was on Nextel/Sprint, and I have to say, I paid $250 each for my last two phones, and they were somewhat dissappointing, and never played music, used a REAL web browser or synced with my computer. They offered "deals" for signing a contract, but when I went to get my phones, those "promotions" were never available.
It's one thing to say, objectively that $600 is a lot of money. It is. It's something else to say that iPhone is charging $600 and its not worth $600 because the ONLY difference between it, and its competitors is an Apple logo. God as my witness, if there was a competing product that cost less and delivered on the same features... I'd have just gotten that. Such a product doesn't exist. I've been browsing the web for the past week with only my thumb. 700,000 sales and going strong.
I also think the $1999 iMac is a truly amazing value for the money. No one has announced anything about getting rid of the mini. Until they do, you can't use it in an argument. Apple knows what they're doing.
~ CB
With its other products like the iPod, who's popular competitor the Zune, is forcing Microsoft to sell the product AT A LOSS in coming up with a similarly valued product that does the same thing with hardware/software, it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices. While I'd love a cheaper iPhone, Apple knows its internal costs, and when it'll be ready to start stripping out accessories and cutting costs.
I was on Nextel/Sprint, and I have to say, I paid $250 each for my last two phones, and they were somewhat dissappointing, and never played music, used a REAL web browser or synced with my computer. They offered "deals" for signing a contract, but when I went to get my phones, those "promotions" were never available.
It's one thing to say, objectively that $600 is a lot of money. It is. It's something else to say that iPhone is charging $600 and its not worth $600 because the ONLY difference between it, and its competitors is an Apple logo. God as my witness, if there was a competing product that cost less and delivered on the same features... I'd have just gotten that. Such a product doesn't exist. I've been browsing the web for the past week with only my thumb. 700,000 sales and going strong.
I also think the $1999 iMac is a truly amazing value for the money. No one has announced anything about getting rid of the mini. Until they do, you can't use it in an argument. Apple knows what they're doing.
~ CB
I think it would be bad for Apple to go into the "cheap" category. Those computers would be slower, prone to more problems, and would ruin the experience of owning a Mac.
Let's face it, those who are looking for a $500 laptop have no idea what is important in computer comparison shopping, and probably don't really care much about it. The Mini can attract their attention well enough (when it sees an update!!!).
Apple should be seeking to switch those PC buyers who know what is important in computer comparison, and that seems to be working well. I know two college professors who are currently using Thinkpads, and both have told me that they're very interested in getting MBPs. In fact, after one saw mine, he's almost set on getting one.
Apple might make a lot of money in the short term, but like I said, that would ruin their product image. Do you see BMW or Mercedes make a "middle class" model? No. They've chosen their target demographic, and they seem to be doing just fine (as is Apple. $100 billion in market cap. is impressive).
Who said that? Do you have a link or source? I knew that the first XBox was sold at a loss (as was the PS3) but who said the Zune was sold at a loss? It's the same price as an iPod.
Also, there's no reason to be a loss leader unless you can make your money in another way. For example, if Apple sold iPods at a much lower price (a loss even) and then made all its money through iTunes, then loss-selling would make sense. Your statement about Apple not being a loss leader doesn't make any sense.
Why would Apple even think about making an iPod, and selling it for a lose? Apple is in a spot, were they really don't need to worry about making a market, only keeping the one they have.
Why both risking taking a lose, when you can be sure to make a profit, by upping the price a little? Apple doesn't need to make inroads in the portable music player world.
I was just giving an example of where loss-leading would make sense. If (heaven forbid) the Zune somehow begins to take a bite out of the massive iPod market share, then loss-leading would make a little more sense. I guess a better example would be something like TiVo. TiVo doesn't need to make money off of the unit itself, instead, all of their revenues can be generated from the monthly fee. Either way, you prove my point: loss-leadind doesn't make sense for Apple.
I don't know if I agree. I don't think it would be bad for Apple to expand into a cheaper market. The experience of owning a Mac is not about hardware, it is about the OS. If it were about hardware, then MBP owners and my friends with BBs would be purchasing highly spec'd alienware type computers for raw power with the incredible VISTA
I know many users who use G4 PB macs which are god awfully slow in comparison to SR MBPs, but they still love them b/c of the stability and the OS. That being said, generalizing that people who purchase 500 dollar computers are ignorant tech consumers is just wrong. Some people would LOVE to have a mac, but they just can't afford it. Yet in a similar way like your analogy, I know lots of people who would LOVE a BMW/Mercedes but they just can't afford it either. Yet computers are different than cars because the difference between a toyota and a mercedes is in the tens of thousands, while the difference between an HP and a Macbook is in the hundreds.
If Apple truly wishes to expand further into the computer market then they must introduce more solutions to fill their price gaps. But it doesn't look like they are interested with this anymore especially if they drop the mini. But this would still be fine and satisfy investors if they continue to be successful with the iPod, continue to convince current Apple Users to upgrade every couple of years, and steal market cap in the cell phone market with their iPhone.
So in general, I don't think that Apple is snobbish at all. They are in the business to make money, plain and simple, revolutionizing the markets is what they need to do to do that. Apple users though do have a stereotype of being snobbish, which I must say is not always a good thing. The genius behind Apple, I have to argue, hasn't always been exclusive and great technology, it has been a unique user experience paired with incredible marketing.
Imagine...
Imagine someone over at a friend's or neighbor's and seeing the Mac Mini G4. "How much was it?" "$499 - I just hooked it up to the monitor I had."
Now, the person shows up at the Apple store and finds out the cheapest Apple computing device is only "a phone with internet" at $499. MacBooks start at $1,099, and iMacs start at $1,199.
"Where's the Minis?" "Apple doesn't have those anymore."
"What about a desktop without the monitor?" "MacPros start at $2,499"
The person ends up at Wal-Mart with a Dell...
If Apple wants the OS X and iLife experience out there - they need go down from their loft a bit...
Keep the Minis (or have a direct replacement).
Imagine someone over at a friend's or neighbor's and seeing the Mac Mini G4. "How much was it?" "$499 - I just hooked it up to the monitor I had."
Now, the person shows up at the Apple store and finds out the cheapest Apple computing device is only "a phone with internet" at $499. MacBooks start at $1,099, and iMacs start at $1,199.
"Where's the Minis?" "Apple doesn't have those anymore."
"What about a desktop without the monitor?" "MacPros start at $2,499"
The person ends up at Wal-Mart with a Dell...
If Apple wants the OS X and iLife experience out there - they need go down from their loft a bit...
Keep the Minis (or have a direct replacement).
Of course Apple is snobbish that's the whole point. Do you really thing we would even think about spending this kind of money and get a PC.
I think some people here are thinking low end computers are only for cheap people.....there are people who have $$$$ but don't need a 2k computer....apple should have a market for them, an updated Mini is needed
They aren't snobbish. They are better. In the end there cheaper too.
Quality is always cheaper, though more expensive. If you cannot
understand this, please go to http://www.dell.com immediately!
Quality is always cheaper, though more expensive. If you cannot
understand this, please go to http://www.dell.com immediately!
He has a name, it's Steve Jobs.
Since when does the word "elite" stand for making fabulous products and the different people who buys them?
Loss Leaders vs Leading Losers
And, as reported by Mac Rumors as well, you can make some solid assumptions based on the fuller quote from the Reuters article:
"We had to look at what was in the market and offer a competitive price," said Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune. "We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy." The company also added in the original article that the investment "may take years to bear fruit." Google the quote, and you'll find numerous references drawing the same conclusion, including this one from the Online Reporter:
iPhone Profits: Did You Know?
Over time, iPhone/AppleTV/iPod will represent significant recurring software revenue for Apple alongside its Macintosh development, with the remarkeable concept that they will all be the same basic OS platform with different user-interfaces. If securing this paradigm is not a highly important and long-term goal for Apple, --worth being a loss-leader, I'm not sure what is.
But again... the funny thing is, Apple doesn't need to lose money to get where it needs to go.
He's such a poker player. They've got time.
~ CB
Gimme a minute, I'll tell ya. Google, google, google, google. Ah, here we are (sorting through the mounds upon mounds of references).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7853.htmlPosted on ars technica by Ken Fisher
There will be plenty of talk about what Microsoft is losing on each player sold. Microsoft doesn't have the buying power Apple has, and the device has a larger screen and built-in wireless. Apple is presumably turning a profit on the 30GB iPod, but Microsoft is losing a bit on the Zune player. Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune, told Reuters that that effort is "not going to be profitable this holiday, but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."
And, as reported by Mac Rumors as well, you can make some solid assumptions based on the fuller quote from the Reuters article:
"We had to look at what was in the market and offer a competitive price," said Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune. "We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy." The company also added in the original article that the investment "may take years to bear fruit." Google the quote, and you'll find numerous references drawing the same conclusion, including this one from the Online Reporter:
http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7805Posted on The Online Reporter
Microsoft admits that Zune will be a money-losing product and service for a long period - at least through the first generation of Zunes. It calls its approach "a multiyear strategy," and that, as with the Xbox gaming console on which it still loses money, it's in for the long haul.
Of course it makes sense. What makes you think Apple only has one way to make money from the iPhone and one reason to sell them? Let's be clear though, I DISAGREE that it would be a GOOD IDEA if they had decided to do it... because it would be UNNECESSARY. But it would certainly make sense. As such, the following is just playing Devil's Advocate.
My statement was: "--it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices". If Apple DID decide to use a "loss leader" strategy (just for argument sake), do you think Apple will ONLY make its money from an iPhone through iTunes (presumeably referring to content sales)? Moreover would those content sales alone be the ONLY justification? Well, for other ways Apple is making money hand-over-fist on the iPhone, let's play a quick game of "Did You Know"?
iPhone Profits: Did You Know?
- Apple receives a portion of the recurring cellular subscription fees?
- Apple's "Made for iPod" licensing program brings Apple a $4 per accessory fee from third-party manufacturers, and that its new "Made for iPhone" program isn't likely to be much different?
- Aside from music, movies, and tv shows, Apple intends to sell software applications and ringtones through its iTunes store (both of which represent popular categories for the sector and uniquely appealing prospects for its customers)?
- Nintendo and Apple may be planning to sell iPhone compatible Nintendo game titles for $29 through iTunes (something previously less than feasible given the iPods far more limited controls)?
Over time, iPhone/AppleTV/iPod will represent significant recurring software revenue for Apple alongside its Macintosh development, with the remarkeable concept that they will all be the same basic OS platform with different user-interfaces. If securing this paradigm is not a highly important and long-term goal for Apple, --worth being a loss-leader, I'm not sure what is.
But again... the funny thing is, Apple doesn't need to lose money to get where it needs to go.
Steve Jobs broadcast on CNBC via YouTube
"As far as this goes, y'know... this is the future. And, its' not... Y'know... I wish we could sell it for $100 today, we can't. It's a little more expensive than that. But, as we bring the cost down, year over year, and can appeal to more and more people, I don't see why everybody wouldn't want one of these."
He's such a poker player. They've got time.
~ CB