Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 151
  1. #101  
    *yawn*

    I know a lot more people today that own Mac's versus those that didn't > 3 years ago. Apple will never capture the market share from Microsoft given the cost factors and ability to easily pirate Windows. But Apple will remain heavily profitable, which I assume is all they care about in the PC market.

    They're more concerned about market saturation in the mobile sector.
  2. #102  
    I remember back in 1995, when everyone was saying the same thing you are now, barker. Apple couldn't fail, they didn't need to be on top of the world, they dominated the high end production market, their software was unstoppable, they were moving from strength to strength, they were highly profitable, etc.

    Until 12 months later, when they weren't.

    Apple will saturate the high-end smartphone business, just like they saturated the high-end PC business in 1994 and 1995. Competition got prices down, and suddenly Apple was being undercut by much cheaper devices.

    Their retort was the Performa line -- a MASSIVE failure.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by brmiller1976 View Post
    I remember back in 1995, when everyone was saying the same thing you are now, barker. Apple couldn't fail, they didn't need to be on top of the world, they dominated the high end production market, their software was unstoppable, they were moving from strength to strength, they were highly profitable, etc.

    Until 12 months later, when they weren't.

    Apple will saturate the high-end smartphone business, just like they saturated the high-end PC business in 1994 and 1995. Competition got prices down, and suddenly Apple was being undercut by much cheaper devices.

    Their retort was the Performa line -- a MASSIVE failure.
    Was that before or after Jobs was at the helm?
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Treiz View Post
    B/c they failed to compete against real competition in the market, which is my point entirely. Being labeled a "premium" brand didn't save Dell from being over taken by HP, and it won't save Apple from being crushed underfoot of Google, RIM, Nokia, Microsoft, HPalm etc. as they get serious in the smart phone market.
    In what alternative universe was Dell labeled a premium brand. Do you also consider Walmart a premium brand?
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Was that before or after Jobs was at the helm?
    ha ha - it was both before and after Jobs was there. More appropriately, it was while Jobs wasn't there. It was while Mr. "Pepsico" Scully was at the helm driving the ship up onto a reef.
  6. #106  
    In what alternative universe was Dell labeled a premium brand.
    Regardless of your opinion on the subject Dell WAS considered the premium brand of PCs, they dominated the made to order industry until that fell apart. Their failure to adjust their strategy quickly allowed HP to over take them, and so too will it be once again for Apple IF they don't see the writing on the wall.
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Treiz View Post
    Thanks to lack of initial competition, rampant piracy depressing the market, wishful thinking, and owning 90% of less than 5% of the world market is nothing to brag about.
    There was competition. Are you saying smart phones didn't exist before 2007? It's not Apple's fault that they have a higher standard when it comes to making products.

    What does piracy have to do for all the people that continued to buy songs legally? It's not like all the other legal avenues for buying music disappeared. Apple, again, provided an easier way to get music and people responded.

    It's not wishful thinking of the iPad's success. What other product(s) in the near future are going to compete with the iPad? I can't think of one. A market all for Apple for at least the next 6 months to a year.

    Dude, have you not seen my other posts about your ignorance about market share? Why do you insist on lumping Apple in markets in which it does not compete? Should Ford go make fun of BMW because they sold more pick up trucks than BMW when BMW doesn't even make a pickup truck? Or, maybe BMW should feel sad because Ford sold more $20,000 cars than BMW when BMW doesn't even make a car that costs $20,000. Pick up trucks and cheap cars are not the market that BMW competes in, just like Apple doesn't compete for enterprise sales in the business world. BMW is considered successful with it's small market share and what they sell, why can't Apple?

    Because that's the ONLY avenue left open to it!
    So, what you're saying is that Apple should waste it's time selling three computers for $300 each instead of it's current model where it sells one computer for $999 getting the same amount of money?

    Let me ask you, would you rather work 24 hours a day making $8.00 per hour and make $192.00 for the day. Or, work 8 hours a day making $24.00 per hour and make $192 for the day. So, why should Apple do the same dumb thing?

    In this chart that I have already shown:

    CHART OF THE DAY: Apple Is In The Middle Of The Pack On Revenue, But Crushing On Operating Profit

    Apple has 35% of the profit vs HP that only has 24%. BUT Apple only had 7% of the revenue vs HP has 17%. So, Apple makes way more profit than HP selling less stuff. That is an awesome return on revenue. HP wishes they made the profit Apple did.

    Furthermore, Apple has ALWAYS been a premium manufacturer. Their stuff was way more expensive in the late 80s and 90s vs the competition than it is today. They have always made that decision to be in the premium market, they were not pushed there.


    B/c they failed to compete against real competition in the market, which is my point entirely. Being labeled a "premium" brand didn't save Dell from being over taken by HP, and it won't save Apple from being crushed underfoot of Google, RIM, Nokia, Microsoft, HPalm etc. as they get serious in the smart phone market.
    Apple competes fine in the markets the actually COMPETE in. They don't compete in cheap PCs. I've already provided in previous posts the ACTUAL markets Apple competes in. Apple is all about making as much money as they possibly can and I've already shown you that they bring in more profits than HP. That's all that matters.

    Do you really think it's impossible for Apple to sell cheap PCs with Windows? It's not. They chose not to because they know that they will not make any money selling all those cheap computers when they can sell their PREMIUM Macs and make more profit than HP.

    Apple will still be around.

    When has Dell ever been called premium?


    I'm more interested in comparing laptops at equal price points, we ALL know which will be the better deal after the Apple tax.
    So, is there a Starbucks tax? Or a Coach purse tax? What about a Gucci tax? Or, if I buy a Rolex watch, is there a Rolex tax? Did someone just pay a Porsche tax on their new 911 turbo?

    See, how stupid that sounds? Exactly. So, why say an Apple tax. All these companies are premium products companies and their stuff costs more than the cheap stuff like cheap PCs.


    I can think of a couple, stock and earnings games, hype, lack of real competition, etc etc.
    What does stock and earning games have to do with cash in a bank account? So, you're saying that the money I have in my checking account left over after paying my living expenses is there because the results of how my 401K performs?

    The $41.7 billion that Apple has in the bank is real money that they earned from all the profits they make off their products. See, HP wouldn't know anything about that because they spend all their time selling ALL those computers but earning little money for it. But, according to you that's success in your eyes. LOL!

    All I can say is wow at your responses.
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Treiz View Post
    Regardless of your opinion on the subject Dell WAS considered the premium brand of PCs, they dominated the made to order industry until that fell apart. Their failure to adjust their strategy quickly allowed HP to over take them, and so too will it be once again for Apple IF they don't see the writing on the wall.
    The only PC manufacturer that was EVER considered premium is Sony.

    Dell's cheap crap is in the same category as HP's cheap crap.

    Just because they dominated the made to order business model does not make them premium.

    I think you should consult a dictionary and learn what the difference is between premium (Apple) and an efficient assembly line of commoditized components (Dell).
  9. #109  
    Wow, is there any technology forum out there free of Apple jihadists? Yeesh.

    OK, guys. Apple is perfect. Apple invented everything good in the computer market. Apple will never fail and will take over the world. Every failed Apple product was before Steve Jobs's time. Every broken Apple product is due to user error and Microsoft sabotage.

    No company ever did the smartphone right prior to Apple. Nobody will ever do the smartphone better. Macintoshes aren't just overpriced Intel PCs, they're works of art manufactured with aerospace tolerances in magical factories. Mac OS X is completely bulletproof and invulnerable to all hackers. Mac OS X has never crashed, ever, in all of human history.

    Adobe CS on Macintosh is much better than CS on Windows. Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is much more advanced than Office for Windows.

    PowerPC was vastly superior to Intel -- up to 3x faster. But Intel is now much better than PowerPC ever was, because Apple started making magical computers that made Intel faster than PowerPC.

    People with PCs are incapable of making any creative stuff. All we do is spreadsheets and databases. PCs cannot edit photos, hook up to digital cameras, edit videos, or print in color.

    Flash is an evil obsolete technology that is proprietary, not like QuickTime, which is stable, fast and open. Everyone wishes they had Safari on all the time. The iPad will never encounter content that it cannot open or view, because everyone in the universe will retool all their existing content to work on it. The iPad is revolutionary, there's never been another tablet computer with a web browser before.

    The iPhone is the most powerful smartphone ever made. Nobody needs a real keyboard, multitasking, multiple exchange accounts, OTA updates, OTA synchronization, or anything other than proprietary iTunes content and tens of thousands of boob jiggle apps.

    OK, all your "truths" have been spread. Now do us all a favor and head on over to the Android or Windows Mobile board. Thanks
  10. #110  
    Are you saying smart phones didn't exist before 2007?
    There is quite a difference between the functional business devices that existed prior to the iPhone's introduction. The two did not initially directly compete, therefore though there were other phones that were smart, they were not initially intended to compete with the iPhone.

    What does piracy have to do for all the people that continued to buy songs legally?
    Reduced their numbers significantly and inflate your statistic beyond meaning.

    What other product(s) in the near future are going to compete with the iPad? I can't think of one.
    The iPhone for one, the iPad has yet to demonstrate that it fills a need, thus all of the "Why not to by" stories for it all over the net.

    BMW is considered successful with it's small market share and what they sell, why can't Apple?
    That's the funny thing about the business space, Apple may be content to stay a boutique manufacturer but as other companies continue to eat into its market share and its profits flounder, Apple's stock holders won't be. It's cash flow will dry up and it may end up back in the same situation that it was in back in 1997, with Microsoft or some other big company having to invest or buy it outright.

    BTW, your example of BMW is faulty, BMW has a small Boutique presence in the US b/c they can't compete head on with the local companies, but they have significant presences in other countries that offset this problem. Apple DOES NOT have the same kind of international presence, if they fail in the US that's all she wrote.

    So, what you're saying is that Apple should waste it's time selling three computers for $300 each instead of it's current model where it sells one computer for $999 getting the same amount of money?
    Actually, I think for Apple and even Microsoft to survive they are going to have to go down the same road that Google has set down, that is transitioning away from traditional operating systems to a more web browser and cloud based model. That's where things are trending now as I see it.

    Just think, who's going to want to pay for OSX or Win7 when google offers a simple free alternative along with a free browser that could handle all the jobs that installed software once did? I think that is where the future will be, provided the bean counters can work out the math. >.<b

    So, is there a Starbucks tax?
    Sure, but that again is relative, as I think Waffle House has the best coffee, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than Starbucks.

    The difference is that we CAN compare computer hardware directly. For the same amount I would spend on a Macbook, I can get a high end Dell with a better screen, faster processor, more ram and memory, etc etc. So why should I buy the Apple?

    What does stock and earning games have to do with cash in a bank account?
    Apple's capitol is the result of investment and perception of the company first, profits second. No one is going to buy into the company if they don't think it will do well, so they play games with their reports to make things seem better than they are. It's the same kind of stuff that went on at Enron in spirit at least.

    The only PC manufacturer that was EVER considered premium is Sony.
    That's your opinion, it is not a reflection of the actual market perceptions and conditions that led to Dell's domination and fall.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by Treiz View Post
    Sure, but that again is relative, as I think Waffle House has the best coffee, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than Starbucks.
    You eat at the Waffle House, I guess that explains why you think Dell is a premium PC manufacturer.
  12. #112  
    You know what's funny? Waffle House buys food from the same people who sell the expensive brunch place food too. The food is often roughly the same quality. But one person knows the value of his money, the other feels the need to pay extra so he can brag about how much extra he paid. :P
  13. #113  
    "Waffle House buys food from the same people who sell the expensive brunch place food too. The food is often roughly the same quality."

    How can one argue with this??

    I think I now *completely* understand your perspective on quality, value and retail success. This thread suddenly makes sense! LOL!
  14. #114  
    Finngirl, you're probably one of the people who pays $30,000 extra for a Camry with a Lexus badge and then spends all your time talking about "superior quality" and "retail success."

    My advice? Stop trying so hard!

    Your precious Apple products are generic Intel PCs made in China. There's nothing "superior" about them, other than the pretentiousness around the "brand." You embrace "the brand" to declare your superiority, but I'll use the money I save to get more hardware, a bigger house, and save for retirement. Steve ain't gonna pay for yours, after all.
  15. #115  
    Actually dude, I drive a 97 pathfinder.

    I just like a phone I don't have to tinker with. Like I have always said, I don't have any problem if people want to tinker, and I get that it can be fun.

    But for productivity tools, especially now that we don't have any landlines, I like things to work.

    The pre we had was a *constant* headache. And SO cheap. (My pathfinder is a tank by the way, no down time in ten years, except for maintenance. You should only hope to find a car that solid.)

    YOU sound like the guy that buys cool in style clothes at Walmart that fall apart in a season because you're "saving money" instead of investing in a classic suit that last 20 years.

    Sort of like the pre, unfortunately.
  16. #116  
    I actually don't shop at WalMart.

    But I also don't kid myself into thinking the made-in-Pakistan business shirt at Saks for $199 is "better" than the made-in-Pakistan business shirt at JC Penney's for $19.

    And I don't walk around insisting that such Saks shirts are "more durable" and "a better overall solution." They're a waste of money, just like Apple products.

    The sensitivity that Apple users have towards people pointing out the poor value of Apple products suggests that deep down, they know the "difference' is superficial -- a logo and a 100% price premium.

    Comparing Apple products to "classic suits that last 10 years" is also a bit silly. They're disposable and a major source of e-waste... from non-removable batteries to planned obsolescence. See http://www.appledefects.com for more.
  17. #117  
    If you can't tell the difference between a shirt that wears well for 20 years, and something you buy and then toss in a season, i really can't explain it to you.
  18. #118  
    See, Finngirl, that's just the thing -- the shirt doesn't "wear better for 20 years." It's a lie. Sort of like Apple's lie that its cheaply-made Intel hardware manufactured in China is "better and faster" than HP and Dell hardware made in the same factory, or that OS X is "more robust and secure and never crashes."

    It's all bull****. The $199 shirt (and $5,000 Apple) is no more reliable or better made than the $19 shirt (or $1,000 PC) made in the same factory by the same people from the same materials. The only difference is the logo stitched (or glued) to it and the price tag.
  19. #119  
    Sorry, guy, you're wrong. You just are.

    I have suits that have lasted since college, and I have clothes that fall apart in 3 months.

    I have had brand new cars that had things fall off within the first month, and cars I have driven for ten years with no major problems.

    And we had a Pre that we replaced three times before going with a different sprint phone, and we've had phones that held up for a couple years good as new, only to be replaced because of technology.

    You're just *wrong*.
  20. #120  
    But you see It's more than just straight "speed" comparison. There's a lot of other things that set Apple apart from the rest.

    Apple lovers tend to have a knack for things that many others don't appreciate, and that's great design, great quality and a superior user experience (UX being subjective as it's purely opinion based).

    There are a lot of other laptops and desktops that are significantly faster than say a Macbook Pro or iMac, but it's a tradeoff. What exactly are you sacrificing for the speed? Build quality, terrible looking hardware, terrible customer support, etc?

    For me, Apple provides the whole "schebang", and I'm willing to pay top-dollar for it. I'd rather give $2,500 for a beautiful looking machine that performs awesome, comes with great support and I know will last for years to come versus a $2,500 machine that I'm buying for just pure horsepower.

    As many others have pointed out already, it's like comparing to BMW or some other luxury vehicle. You pay the premium for quality your $20,000 tricked out Ford Mustang may outperform my $45,000 BMW 325ci but I guarantee it doesn't come with all the premium features that mine includes as a whole.
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions