Slashdot Mirror
Apple - What A Difference Eight Years Can Make
conq writes "It's been eight years since Michael Dell was asked after a speech at a Gartner conference in Orlando what he would do if he were in charge of Apple Computer. His answer: Shut the company down and give the money back to shareholders. BusinessWeek in its new Byte of The Apple Blog looks at how the tables have turned since then. For example, over the last four quarters Dell has been coming in with a net profit margin of about 6.5%. Meanwhile Apple just finished its fiscal 2005 with a profit margin just shy of 9.6%."
Micheal Dell would have been smarter had he reserved judgement. Arrogance can sure come back 'round and bite you in the ass. In terms of profit margin one has to consider that Dell is bringing in revenue of around 14 billion a quarter versus Apple's 4 billion so I am not sure how to judge the differences in profit margin given the difference in revenue. Dell probably has a great deal more infrastructure. Oh, well. Just saying we should make sure we are comparing Apples to Apples (funny, huh?).
http://www.busyweather.com/
Apple then vs. Apple now, the difference is night and day.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
6% versus 9% sounds good, but how much actual profit are we talking? 9% of chump change is worse than 6% of real money.
Fundamentally, Apple Computer has invested in research and development and has come out with revolutionary products that functionally make things easier while Dell has simply operated as a reseller and box builder. Where is the innovation coming out of Dell?
Although I just yesterday placed an order for two $379 commodity boxes from Dell that I will run headless behind OS X boxes for security reasons, almost all of our purchases have been going to Apple. From the Mac Mini to iMacs to dual G5s with 30in Cinema Displays, Apple has been building systems around an operating system, OS X that meets our needs. In addition, the security issues make them easier to administrate, freeing up time to get work done that we are actually interested in.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
As a wise man once said to me about allowing investors in my company, "Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon?"
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
With Dell's recent quarters slipping and Apple's recent quarters showing growth there can only be one conclusion:
Apple is dying!
{ - Generic Guy - }
Sure, Dell may have lower profit margins, but I can bet you their actual profit amount is much higher, as they probably have way more volume than apple. All this means is that apple is overcharging for its products. If I see 1 object for 200% of what it costs to make it, than my profit margin is quite high. However, i've only sold 1 product, and haven't managed to make very much money.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'd rather have 6% of a huge number than 9% of a large number.
No seriously, Dell is an amazing company when you consider they are competing in one of the most cutthroat market segments in high tech. IBM sold the last bits of their PC business a few months ago. Gateway is now pretty much irrelevant... even the Japanese titans can't compete with Dell.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Not being economically savvy, how much of a difference is 3% really?
(Like... in TV ratings, one point is a big deal. I honestly don't know how important 3% is in economic terms.)
Are the result of their OS and hard^H^H^H^H Ipod
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Although I've never owned an Apple Computer myself (just an iPod), I remember playing on a friend's Mac when I was younger and felt sad to see the company in trouble. It's nice to see a company turn around and become profitable again. Probably human nature to root for the underdog, but anything that stimulates competition and consumer choice can't be all bad either.
"Byte of the Apple" - That's so clever! I never would have thought of replacing bite with the homonym byte when talking about computer-related things. It must be what, 1994 now?
/sarcasm
But seriously, when about 50% of each iPod is profit, and they sell more of those than anything else, is it surprising? Dell is competing towards the bottom, it seems, with their mostly cut-rate PCs (XPS excluded) whereas Apple seems to be competing towards the top where the premium prices - and profits - are. Didn't they want to be the BMW of computers? Mission accomplished.
Not everyone is content with the same uniform workstation at home that they have to use at work / school. People used to be content with their stock Civic too, but F&F came out and people realized their vehicle could reflect their personal expression; Apple is going to do the same thing, albeit more slowly, with the PC market.* There may be a whole market of grandmothers out there willing to drop $700 for something for e-mail, but there are many more young IT and graphic design people willing to drop $2500+ for a Powermac w/ studio display. Innovation and creativity -do- matter; learn the lesson now. *F&F and Civics used purely for example, please do not flame talking about how lame a Civic with a coffee can exhaust is, we all know it. Thanks so much.
I know nothing
Apple computers are not selling well. Apple's turnaround is all about the iPod
If he said anything else he would be criticizing his own company. Give me a break...
Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
Thus spake Nelson Muntz: "Haw haw!"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I'm tired of Windows -- after 15 years of PCs, they no longer excite me. My next machine will definately be a Mac -- either a Mac Mini or iMac -- just going to wait and see how the Intel thing affects their new products in 2006.
Boxlight
A knowledgeable personal acquaintance (a mutual-fund manager) once told me never to pick a stock on the basis of its CEO, because the guy's (/gal's) potential is always factored into the share-price. I guess that rule still makes sense, but, for those seeking exceptions, Steve Jobs does seem a good place to start...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
At the same time, the fact is that most stockholders are reasonably intelligent adults, and (IMO) it's perfectly fine that it's been left up to them to decide to keep their money there instead of investing elsewhere. If the investors had all agreed with Michael Dell, Apple would simply be gone -- or perhaps, like SGI, being de-listed for having too low of a stock price.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Apple is moving more quickly towards a more diversified product line and has done so by bringing out some interesting and exciting products, but before anyone gets too excited, the bulk of their super profits over the last year has been largely due to the iPod. If they follow-up with another great product, they'll have a pretty secure future. However, if they can't follow iPods act with something just as (or close to) exciting, it's a short slide back. Dell's efforts to diversify into TVs and the like, has so far left a lot to be desired. On the other hand, they're not dead yet.
How many PC clone manufacturers have come and gone in the time that Apple has been making computers? Hell, even IBM and Compaq are gone. Dell is trying desperately to become more than a PC clone maker - selling TVs and home theater equipment now, but I have serious doubts on the long term viability of that strategy. Not that Dell hasn't been a great story - it has been - but as far as innovation, creativity, adapting to and creating new markets, Apple wins hands down.
If you think about it, the stock market does not award companies for doing well, maintaining a good fiscal outlook and treating it's employees good, it awards companies that grow. What happens whenever a company has utterly grown itself so large that there's really no room to go anywhere (ala Microsoft)?
Sure, it's a treadmill that everyone wants to get on, but it wears down and kills all but the strongest. Not to be outdone, it drives competing companies against one another to the point that now, a little over a hundred years later, companies are little more than rabid beasts. Clawing and looking for any way to get a little larger piece of the pie. If they slip in the slightest they are injured. If they slip a few more times they can be ripped apart by other competing companies- broken apart by others more ruthless.
Anyone wonder why the laws and regulations are changing so much in favor of the big corporations?
They might not be able to get off the treadmill, but it doesn't stop them from coercing others to come to their aid.
Does that make sense?
OS X is Apple's real core product yet, they are becoming more and more, instead of the Apple Computer Company, rather the iPod company. I know I may get modded troll, but I'd much rather see Apple making its sales off of OS X instead of on the iPod which is a relatively mediocre product in a sea of other mediocre products. Sure, the interface is great, the scroll wheel brilliant, but in the end it only does one thing -- play music (and videos now -- poorly).
The cost of entry to use a *nice* Apple is just too damned high -- and this coming from an Apple FAN! Microsoft is already seeing the consequences of its horrendous licensing schemes with the upstart of Linux use and development -- I am unsure why Apple cannot see the same thing.
There will be an iPod killer at some point -- when the iPod isn't as 'cool' as it is now. And just like the Windows 95 debut, the time will come that the all supreme market leader will be playing catchup. In Apple's case however, the fact that their business model is structured now around iTunes and iPods instead of the great OS they created is unfortunate and will put them in a predicament in the future.
The day Apple decides to put OS X onto a DVD and let you install it on your whitebox built computer is the day the grave is dug for Microsoft. With the closed environment of OS X right now, I liken it to Betamax and VHS. Betamax was a superior technology but because Sony wanted to keep the rights to themselves, they got beaten handily by VHS. In the future Betamax was a niche product -- and successful for video editors etc, but oh, what could have been?
I hope not to ask about Apple 5 or 10 years from now, "Oh, what could have been?" I worry more and more however, that I will wind up with a really nice and fashionable MP3 player and an OS that is used as a niche product, being better or not.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Buying Apple five years ago would have netted you a 450% profit. Buying Dell five years ago would have netted you...a small loss.
Crow T. Trollbot
I might actually say not.... The slice of watermelon requires a lot more work to eat. All those seeds to remove, and a messy outer skin you're left with afterwards too. The grape = instant enjoyment.
So too, it is with Apple. They might always just be a "niche company" compared to the PC/Windows market, but millions in profit is still millions in profit - and heading up a company you can truly be proud of can mean a LOT more than even more millions in profit on your ledger sheet.
As it was recently pointed out with portable MP3 players, how "cool" and "stylish" or "trendy" is it right now to wear around a player with a big, blue DELL logo stamped on the front of it? Compare that to carrying around an Apple iPod. Apple has achieved something no other computer company has ever really achieved -- the ability to make computers and technology "hip" instead of "nerdy/geeky/dorky".
So no, Michael Dell isn't "crying". He has one of the most successful businesses around mass-producing PCs as commodity items at as low a price as possible. But if I could be another Micahel Dell or another Steve Jobs, I'd have to pick Jobs. His company actually does R&D, experiments with possible product ideas just for the sake of seeing how they work out, and he still has time to head up Pixar - a company creatively doing very fun AND profitable things with computers.
No ipods in this story.
I guess the same headline could be used for the Bush administration.
The reason is that the higher the profit margin, the higher the price. The higher the price, the lower the market-share. Dell is more interested in gaining market-share than in maximizing price. For a commodity such as PCs, the way to achieve long-term success is high volume with a more modest profit margin. Undercutting competitors is more valuable than earning more on each sale.
The key is that total profits are a second-order curve as a function of price. Too low a price results in too low a total profit. To high a price means lower sales volume and lower total profit. The optimum price foregoes some profits per PC, but makes it up in volume.
Perhaps the big lesson is that Dell and Apple are NOT in the same business. Dell is just one more PC maker that sells a commodity that is strongly subject to price competition (Dell is very good at competing on this). Apple is a sole-source for an intrinsically valued product. Sure, some people do avoid Apple because of price, but many buy Apple (and don't even consider buying a PC) because of the unique value provided by Apple.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
um, why are blogs paraded as news or at the least columns? and why is the summary a copy-and-paste job? i must be new here, right?
slashdot. blogs are news. ruminations that don't matter.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
Dell shut down Dell's good reputation for service (probably its only strongpoint beside price) when it offshored its support services to foreign countries. I have heard numerous complaints about their new support being not very helpful. Apple, on the other hand, has produced new, highly popular products that many people seem to enjoy and actually use. People get excited about new products that are fun and well-designed. Dell seems to think that people only care about cheap PCs.a in.reut/
In a race to the bottom, Dell's stock has suffered. It is now just another PC Maker, with little or no excitement or fun. Yes they are cheap, but they are not very innovative.
Read this article, it talks a bit about Dell:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/11/01/dell.m
On a personal note: NEVER buy a DELL printer, unless you enjoy a beeping misfit that jams intermittently during times it is needed most.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Or at least if his version of "customer support" gives any hint, he's probably brainless.
Here's what's happened recently concerning my experience with Dell and a laptop I found on the side of the road. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's nice to see Apple turned around. May be it is just me, but knowing their major portion of the revenue comes from a MP3 player is just plain scary. If they are smart enough to hopping from one train to another (e.g. media distribution/iTune?), good for them, but I'm not holding this stock.
Well, in eight years from now, it could seem that now was the time to close Apple and give the money back to the shareholders. Who's to know that? Apple is depending too much in the iPod for its success. When the iPod frenzy abates it'll have to find some other hit to keep on sailing. That's not so easy. That said, it'll probably always have a niche in the computer field, and perhaps it can reinvent itself as a consumer-electronics company, but that's far from sure.
There is one clear difference between Dell and Apple. Dell is a lean machine of a company, offering the same as everybody else just easier, cheaper and with more options. Its margins are always going to be small, but it'll probably always make money. Apple is a boutique company that will always have fatter margins because it'll offer exclusive products. But it depends too much on fickle consumers that can change brands as easily in electronics as in shirts. Dell is like Wal-Mart, and Apple is like a successful delicatessen chain.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
As I remember it, apple was losing $700 million dollars a quarter. A 6.5% profit margin isn't very bad.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There seems to be an endless need in the Apple Kingdom to reaffirm their decisions by finding like-minded acceptance.
Apple users read reviews on Apple Computers, for instance, after they bought their computer just to
reassure themselves that they made the right decision. When they read a bad things about or criticism of Apple,
they get mad.
This continues to happen decade after decade. Insecurity seems to be pandemic among Macphiles.
This phenomenon is the only thing that explains Mac users still getting so adamant.
If Apple had 90 percent market share you wouldn't hear a peep out of Mac users, since the
market itself would have given them the affirmation they need.
Mac users style themselves as non-conformists; in reality, they insecure and utterly intolerant.
Notice how they mod down reasonable criticism around here.
... we can also focused on what hasn't changed: Michael Dell is still an asshole.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Don't get me wrong, I have bought Dell as well as Apple, however Apple seems to be looking more toward style and performance while Dell is about power and price (or power at cost). The market for PC's will slow down and people will be looking for something different. It may not be an Apple, but people will be more open to buying something other than what they already have. Not to mention that the iPod probably contributes a lot to Apple's success and opens the market to many people that would probably not have ever tried an Apple product.
All nouns can be verbed.
Chill.
(See? That was another one!)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Wow! 5 insightful? Looks like a few people drifted into the reality distortion field.
has come out with revolutionary products
Sorry, no. What they have done is put far more marketing muscle behind products that may/not work better and certainly suffer from a usual amount of manufacturing/planning problems.
that functionally make things easier
I have to agree with you here to a certain degree. But
Dell has simply operated as a reseller and box builder
Yes, once upon a time they did well going direct. They never really offer leading edge anything. They wait for a market segment to develop and define, then enter at a lower price. Innovation is for other brands you don't quote off the top of your head.
I like Apples too. I just got my neighbor to buy one.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If they hadn't gotten a $150 million cash infusion from Microsoft in 1997? That kept the company afloat when it was about to go down for the third time.
6.5% of the money Dell makes is more than ten times what Apple is worth as a whole. Dell might be losing its commercial edge, but most of Apple's profits these days come from selling music, and as more people get into that business, their market share can only go down.
When people talk about Apple allowing people to engage in self-expression and celebrate individuality, all I truly see is a Marketing Machine that did a HELL of a good job.
One poster already mentioned that until recently, the look of Macs has been completely homogeneous as best. The hardware architecture still is. So it's self-expression as long as you share the expression of Apple. Where is all this incredible individuality Macs emancipate us into?
Widgets don't an individual make....
I applaud the notion of "Think Different" and uniqueness... but it's similar to people raging against the machine and being defined by choosing to drink Starbucks.... way to stick it to the Establishment...
apple is a true technology company. they spend a great deal on R&D. I don't remember exactly the numbers, but I read where dell invests the least amount of any "tech" company into R&D. infact, dell is a glorified white-box dealer. they simply assemble and repackage other peoples' technology. dell might be today's IBM (nobody ever got fired for...), but that could change. they are far too dependent on others. apple, while needing chips, etc., still innovates. dell, what? that wretchid mp3 player?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Dell quality is sliding and since Dell don't do much R&D at all (Michael Dell, your partners' R&D don't count!), I am shifting my company desktop purchase to HP. HP at least plunges a % of its profits back into R&D. HP is a little more expensive than Dell but I prefer to support a company that really innovate and move the technology sector forward. Apple invests a lot in R&D as well and helps to introduce digital music to the masses. That's good for everybody. Look at Dell's product, for company this big, it has no internally developed technology at all. Supporting Dell means a dearth of innovation. Don't buy Dell!
I think you are right on the money friend... im open to new site suggestions too. I been going to digg.com but its very slow lately. Also a big fuck off to Zonk who will post anything and everything so relevant articles are "zonked" off the front page, quicker than flies to shit!
I like Apples too. I just got my neighbor to buy one.
Shit, I just bought a whole bag at the grocery store today!
In summary, unattractive squares should stick to Linux and Windows. Vertical integration is for different thinkers.
You lie, apple came out with a mouse with more than one button...now THAT'S innovation! :P
Since Apple has branched out (pun intended) to consumer electronics (ie: the iPod). I'm not sure you can still call them a *just* a computer company. They are more of a Digital Media/Consumer Electronics and computing platform maker. Not sure what you would call that outside the fact that they have successfully diversified where Dell has not. If the computer market dries up tomorrow, Dell will be in big trouble. Apple will still have the iPod's and the digital music/media to fall back on.
As many threads have already noted, the percentages are misleading because Dell's total amount of profit is larger than Apples total profit. Dell's 4th quarter profit for 2005 was 667 million while Apple's was 430 Million.
Okay, Dell's revenue is higher, but it's not that much higher. Also, Dell's profitability is falling while Apple's is rising. Del's profit was 749 million last year. I think it's premature to rub anything in Dell's face but I do think that even thought they are percentages, they are significant. The percentage is even more significant since Dell's revenue and expenses over all are higher than Apple's. This means that they are more severely effected by slimming margins.
The article might be premature, and it's most likely hype, but there is a valid point here, and that is 8 years ago Dell wrote off Apple, and now Apple is trending up, while Dell is trending down.
Making all the "do you want a whole grape or a slick of a watermelon" analogies you want, but If the watermelon slice is dried out and sour, and the grape is perfectly ripe, I'll take the grape. (see I can make analogies too!)
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Well, I'm pretty sure he's actually right there. Properly speaking, administrate is an erroneous back-formation. However, it's used so often that it's gaining acceptance.
See here:
noun : verb
calucation : calculate
articulation : articulate
demonstration : demonstrate
even the hideous
dissertation:dissertate
is technically correct.
However, this stuff isn't:
administration : administrate - wrong, administer
amplification : amplificate - wrong, amplify
multiplication : multiplicate - wrong, multiply
indemnification : indemnificate - wrong, indemnify
The only difference is that words like "multiplicate" are totally hilarious, whereas most people think of administrate as a an accepted part of the language. I wouldn't get out my red pen if I saw administrate, personally, though I to avoid using it in official materials.
Steve. Jobs.
Apple's turnaround wouldn't have happened without the hard work of hundreds of programmers, designers, engineers, certainly. But brilliant people were working there under Amelio, too. It was braindead management and a total lack of vision that nearly drove Apple into the ground in the 90s, and it was brilliant management and vision that brought it back.
Anyone still remember all the "to hell with Dell" banners and stuff eight years ago, when Michael Dell first made those comments?
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
In truth, I'd rather have recognizable, defendable, and sustainable differentiation in the market, combined with engineers that can develop new products (and proven experts to market them). Operational efficiency (Dell's primary, and perhaps only, mode of differentiation) isn't a good mode of differentiation (it was against the existing players, but new entrants can learn from Dell and eliminate Dell's advantage). From that perspective, Apple is in a better long-term position. On the other hand, Dell's scale and cash flow (both better than Apple) provides it ample opportunity to adapt and make necessary changes. IMHO, Gateway isn't the issue; nor is HP. Lenovo could be a challenge, but it depends on how that card plays out (and I doubt Lenovo wants a price war with Dell, so I doubt Lenovo is a core threat to Dell's current business). I expect Dell's largest threat is not one of the players we would think of as the potential challenger today.
Dell's problem is that their slowing growth and trouble hitting targets is indicative of their lack of differentiation that they can convert into profits. It is also indicative of the main problem in many technologies: People buy what is 'good enough'... and frankly, a $500 PC is 'good enough' for everyone except the die-hards. Ironically, Dell is now performing the same actions everyone uses when they complain about IBM (getting profit growth through expense cutting). The problem in Dell's case is that they are sacrificing customer service in the process of growing profits, which (as the article points out) could snowball into further problems for the company.
The net of all of this is that it depends... and in the cases of stock, depends on what you're paying for the profits (or what the companies invested to produce the profits, or however you'd like to phrase it to have the appropriate perspective).
From
Dell: Apple should close shop
To
Dell: We Would License Mac OS X
I was out smoking at Dell one day when I encountered a marketing exec. I mentioned that I thought PCs wouldn't really take off as home appliances until they brought out colors and made them look interesting so they matched the decor (this would have been about 1996). He scoffed and said that Dell would NEVER have a computer that was any color other than beige, because that wasn't what customers wanted. Dell's entire culture has become built around trailing the pack and just finding out a way to build the "current thing" cheaper than everyone else.
Bollocks, I typed too fast again. I just wanted to catch it before some slashturd started cat-calling "NEENER NEENER ENGLISH GEEK! You made a grammar mistake!"
Did you ever think he said this because he didn't want a competitor? He trounced Gateway at their own game; Compaq & HP did horrible things to themselves; and Sony well Sony is Sony.
Is Dell a industry leader? Yes. Is he a visionary? No. Could he take an upstart and make it profitable? Yes. Could he have turned a failing company around? Probably not.
He was just the first to figure out how to streamline hardware manufacture from a small capital into large capital and bring it to the masses.
Agreeing with everyone and telling them what they want to hear from a 'upstart' makes wall street think he has the right ideas, forward thinking paradigms outside the box which led to his success and all companies should be molded after him. (until the next great genius of our time comes along once in a life time.)
Ever hear of a guy named Mike Milkin? -Scorpio
Apple may be doing well in the home computer market. But if you're going to compare the two of these companies, consider the corporate market as well.
Dell can afford to sell its home computer stuff so cheap because it's making more money on the high-end stuff. Don't forget, Dell produces (or at least brands) backup systems, storage solutions, servers, racks, etc. You name it, Dell makes it for your business. They have captured a ton of that market, and their sales structure for businesses of all sizes makes it easier to buy there again.
So I think financially, Dell is doing very well...when you consider that solid corporate market.
Where is Apple's profit margin coming from? Right, iPods. Not computers. Yes, Dell sells an MP3 player. But if you want to compare "apples to apples" do the comparison like this:
iPod profit margin VS Dell's mp3 player profit margin
Dell PC profit margin VS Apple's Mac profit margin
Now that would be an apples to apples comparison!
BTW, if Mac market share was any lower it would practically be a rounding error. That's a fact. So I still wouldn't say that Apple is a solid company. They have a very checkered past. They've had good fortune with the iPod line. And I'll give them credit for that. But there's no guarantee that that margin will last more than a year or two.
What Michael Dell needs to realize is that if he was the CEO of Apple he will be do what the shareholders say. And if they want to have their money in Apple then who is he to say where they can invest their money.
People really like to repeat that VHS vs. Betamax canard, while completely missing the important lesson.
The thing that really killed Betamax wasn't so much the licensing issues as the fact that you for early US models, you couldn't put a 2 hour movie on a betamax tape, but you could on a VHS.
That's huge. Being able to ship movies on a single VHS tape is what estabilshed the distirbution channels for those tapes and is what encouraged people to buy in to the VHS technology, in turn creating the demand for more VHS tapes, and so on.
And that's the big lesson lurking behind it all: pay attention to what your customers actually need, and what aspects of the technology will support the distribution and consumption models. It doesn't matter if your product will do a thousand things more cheaply than the other product, if most people can't easily get it to do the one thing they really buy it for. That's why the iPod has been so successful, even though there are tons of cheaper, more feature-rich products out there.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Dell doesn't do R&D. They use Intel CPUs and usually Intel chipsets. I believe even the motherboards are Intel reference designs. Dell assembles parts into boxes. Apple is frankly going the same route at least when you are talking about hardware. They will use Intel cpus and chipsets. That is the whole point of Apple going to Intel. They can buy solutions. At least Apple does it's own OS.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'd argue with the validity of "Star Wars Syndrome". The quality of Star Wars really has gone down between the original trilogy and the prequels, with the tipping point being the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi which coincided with some of the brighter collaborators leaving the fold and Lucas assuming more autonomy.
Remind me. Try as I might I can't think of an interesting product from a company called "Dell". Can someone jog my memory.
Apple Then: $14.00 a share. (I bought 400 and got SCREAMED at by my wife.)
...I wish I'd bought more Apple. (Wife is happy and leaves me alone when I'm trading now. =)
Apple Now: $60.00 a share after 2 2:1 splits
So my 5,600 investment is now worth about $95,000.
Dell Then: 19:00 a share. (I bought 200 and caught hell for that too...)
Dell Now: $29.00 a share after 3 2:1 splits.
So that $3,800 investment is worth about $46,000.
If an unstable company like Apple can prove all the arrogant folks like Dell wrong then I guess the mac and linux zealots are REALLY arrogant for thinking that an ultra-stable 800 pound gorilla like MS will die!
/. zealots!
--
I'm sorry. It's Friday and I just feel like having fun by messing with the
Well, they might indeed not be stupid, but from where I'm sitting they could have been doing better relative to Apple over the year. The legal obligation of these public companies is to do everything they can to make their line go up over the X axis, not necessarily to impress Joe Slashdot.
So Dell have a smaller profit margin that Apple. Great, but then Dell aren't propped up by Microsoft.
Just because he was proven wrong doesn't mean that what he said wasn't justified. I have friends who were Apple fanatics who in those days had stock in the company for sentimental reasons. They've done way better than they had any reasonable right to expect.
Apple makes money by doing everything that is supposed to be suicidally stupid. It sells hardware and software tied to each other. It tries to do many things well instead of concentrating on one area of strength. But it breaks the rules because it sees the opportunity created by others following the rules, which is that things built by this kind of cross corporate ecosystem just don't work that well together. But even seeing this possibility is a long way from taking advantage of it: there are plenty of contrarian schemes that sound good on paper but never succeed. You need actual leadership which is connected to realities of consumer behavior.
I detest Steve Jobs' personality. I think he's a self-centered, manipulative bully. But he's also got the brains to match -- I'm just grateful he's not in politics. Bastards who think they're geniuses are common enough, but bastards who are geniuses, who are way out on the right hand of the bell curve on both scales, those are rare. If Apple didn't have Jobs or somebody alike to him as two peas in a pod, they'd have been bought out by some far east PC manufacturer by now.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Evolution teaches that the fittest survive.
However, what happens when hunters specifically target the fittest (ala trophy kills)? I'd assume that the definition of "fittest" changes for a small window each year, but what is the outcome overall?
That situation is just as odd as the one you describe.
On that personal note, most of Dell's printers are just rebadges of other companies products (mostly Lexmark machines). I was overjoyed when my boss's Dell laser choked to death on its own toner cartridge.
I'd love to see somebody ask Steve Jobs what he'd do if he were in charge of Dell.
Do not fear. In time, this too shall change.
[cnn.com]
I was going to read it, but then I saw that, and decided that if I want to be told what to think, I'll listen to the voices in my head.
Kind of funny this comparison... the reason apple is doing so well isn't because of innovation or design. It's because they've become the "dell" of mp3 players. And if you look where the majority of their money comes in, it's from the mp3 players. They undercut everyone else in the market by buying in such bulk... remind you of anyone else?
I think it has been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community that it is impossible to correct somebody else's grammar in a web forum without making one of your own while you are at it.
It has also been demonstrated that English is a convoluted and stupid language, and deserves every ounce of abuse it receives.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Apple have off shored some of their tech support as well you know? Buying higher priced computers hasn't stopped them from doing the same with cutting costs.
Jonathanjk.com
Are you an accounting retard or are you simply a Mac zealot? For the sake of argument I will use your numbers. Looking at share prices of the two companies, I see that Apple's shares cost approximately double what Dell's shares cost so...
If I take my $300 and buy 5 shares of Apple stock my return is $2.30
If I take my $300 and buy 10 shares of Dell stock my return is $3.80
I'm a greedy bastard! I want the most I can get for my $300 so, I would have to choose Dell because it puts 60% more money in my pocket. Your post suggests that you would choose Apple.
Either you failed math, you are a Mac zealot, or you are a complete moron. Which is it?
To ask Mike Dell about Apple seems to me to have been purely an invitation to publically "flame" a competitor. What would you expect Karl Rove to say if asked,"what would you do if you were working for the Democratic party?" What I want to know is, What Would the Flying Spagetti Monster Do?
Glad to learn that Apple is doing well. But is this a flash in the pan? Or a long term thing?
I think there is something of a trendy, faddish, element involved with ipod sales. What happens when ipods become passe?
I doubt anybody would admit to it now, but eight years ago, I bet a lot of people felt the same as Dell. And why not? Apple was dipping below it's cash value.
Lets not forget, Apple would not have made the comback if MS didn't give them $150 million to stay afloat and regroup. Steve Jobs AND Bill Gates really deserve the Tank You from the apple fans.
p ple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+A
So true. So true.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
gartner is the perfect audience for him - one ass talking to another bunch of asses.
Michael Dell would be bill gates' camel, if that distinction wasn't already owned by HP. A camel, you see, has an almost limitless capacity for drinking stuff.
dell had not one but two ads in a single Oracle magazine touting billy bathgatesOS as a supposed enterprise class server platform. Man, if he crawled any further up bill gates tush he would come out his mouth.
This should be moderated up as insightful. Dell lost a sale from me, due to their service support. I tried several times to put in an order for a new PC. One of the most frustrating issues was that the prices would keep changing on a daily basis (gradually going up each month, then down again at the start of a new month). Then, when I did finally put my order in, the confirmation would be completely different from what had been requested. Then when I tried to make phone calls to amend the order, I would be contacted at 7am in the morning by their Indian call centre, by someone trying to sell me a Firewire card as a separate upgrade order.
Try this one ...
one decade.
I'm not an apple basher. I love the company! I just think it's interesting how the apple zealots sound so much like the company's founder. They seem to exist in a Reality Distortion Field. Apple has a tiny market share. 6% is barely having your foot in the door!
Now how are we supposed to take anything you say seriously when you are so rapidly backpedaling from yor "market share is a rounding error" comment. Would not a statemnet like that imply a market share well under 1%?
Sure they are remarkable because they once almost owned the computer market and now they seem to be lauded everytime they succeed at what? Keeping their foot in the door? Why is that so wonderful?
You might have a point if that's all they manage to do, but the fact is that they are not just keeping the foot in the door - they are also slowly opening that door. To any student of history on commercial OS's, that is a remarkable feat. Apple computers could just as easily have been another OS/2.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What about the 4-way scrolling?
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
"Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon?"
I think the more accurate way to put that would be "Would you rather have a grape vine or a watermelon on your table?"
The watermelon is tasty now. But for years to come the vide will continue to give you more, and someday you may have a whole vinyard if you treat it right.
The problem with the watermelon is that it will only last so long and there are no fertile seeds within that show signs you can get more watermelon in the future.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple's growth has been downward for years. If you claim you have a better product, you should be able to tangibly prove it, or Most of Us will decide you're simply another bullshitter. Having owned Apple hardware, and dealt with that flaky acephalous company, I'd never buy anything from Cupertino again. It's better to get a quality clone and have flexibility in response than it is to have hand-holding that ultimately suffers from the same and worse limitations.
Detailed Study:
http://www.anus.com/zine/news/1002.html
exponentiation ezine
Though Apple support may also be offshored (and I know it is to some extent from other conversations I have had, just not sure how much) they have maintained a high level of quality with the support they offer. Apple is about the only computer support organization I have ever talked to that when I call and explain clearly the diagnosies I have done on a dead hard drive (and I mean dead, as in clicking on boot) take that at face valuae and BELIEVE WHAT I SAY. I'm sorry to have put that in all caps but I just cannot express how frustrating it is to know what is wrong, and try to explain it to a support person yet they insist on making you run through all kinds of stupid scripted tests.
So it's really an ever further indictment against Dell that they can't even offshore support properly while Apple seems to be able to do the same thing just fine. Perhaps they chose a better shore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
About the time iPods start declining in sales (because everyone has ten) is when Apple will probably introduce a home digital video box that will sideline cable and satellite. Then the real growth starts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When you buy one stock of dell you pay a little less than $30 and they make $1.37 on it per year. This is called Earnings Per Share. This means that if the numbers did not change, the company would earn your investment in profit in 21.68 years. This is called the Price/Earnings Ratio. The lower this number, the better.
/endrant
Now, Apple has WORSE numbers. They earn LESS money for every dollar you invest. Their EPS are $1.56, which is higher than dells by a tiny ammount. Unfortunately for the investor, the stock costs over $60! This is double dell's. This means that it would take nearly 40 years to make back your investment in profits.
THIS MEANS THAT DELL MAKES MORE FOR EVERY DOLLAR INVESTED THAN APPLE.
Yes, and if you extend your timeline more than 1 year, you get this chart.
Just goes to show that performance is relative to the timescale when it comes to stocks. And when you compare Dell to Apple over the "long term", it's not even close.
Apple is a MONOPOLY. They've completely taken over their own platform with all their own apps including iChat A/V, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, Safari, Photobooth, Garageband, iSync, DVD Player, Final Cut Pro, Aperture, iCal, and .Mac and in doing shut most of the market out. It's like they like to make things simple and elegant, but rarely work with others to add the level of compatibility the PC side maintains. Mac are no different then PC's in terms of capabilities, but since nobody wishes to support the Mac platform Apple gets stuck doing it, then it goes down to "Nobody wants to play with us we won't play with them!" Then when they get a good popular thing like the POD, they take SNOB to a whole new level. They won't work with anyone on it. FairPlay had to be reverse engineered, thank God for RealNetworks. I wish somebody would tell Jobs that you catch more fly's with honey then you do with vineger. Qucktime and iTunes for Windows, are just because Apple wants to sell iPod and have the number one most widely used set of codecs and containers.
Yeah...I used to own lots of Apple products - Performas, Quadras, PowerMacs. Don't own any Apple products except and iPod now... They don't really fit my needs. But I owned a bunch of Apple stock and it paid for a house. Sold it after it split (and before it went up another 25% dammit) but they've been good to me. Large piece of small pie or small piece of large pie? Doesn't much matter. A 200% stock price return is the same dollars regardless.
We are talking about Dell (the company, perhaps you have hard of them?), not PC's. Your comments are as irrelevant as they are uninsightful (Since I can upgrade a desktop powermac in the same manner).
Dell is withering because they invest nothing for good support or R&D - witness the many posts complaining about Dell's decline in quality. Indeed my first PC was a Dell and it was great then, but after having countless Dells die on me at work I would never consider one for a personal purchase and warn people against them.
PC makers will be around a long time to be sure. I'm just not sure sure Dell will be one of them. Thus my comparison is an accurate one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Compare it to Dell http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=dell
Had the same person invested in dell, they would have made out better.
-everphilski-
1995 called, they want their typical anti-Mac stance back.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I am a true-blue, hardcore hardware geek. I've been building my own PCs for over a decade, and love "getting my hands dirty" in the hardware. It's both my work and my pleasure. My house is practically a monument to computer hardware, with cards and cases all over the place, and enough cabling strung around to give the hovercraft in The Matrix a run for its money. (Okay, slight exaggeration there.) I have over a dozen functioning computers, (if you count the Amiga), and enough parts to build at least 3-4 more complete machines. I use various flavors of Windows on a daily basis, am comfortable in the registry, have a Linux box that I built, installed, and configured on my own, and even play with BeOS from time to time just for the hell of it.
That said, when I actually need to get work done on a computer I use one of my Macs. My PowerBook is as integral to my day-to-day existence as one of my hands. I've opened up every machine in the house (with the exception of my wife's iBook) to do upgrades myself, including the PowerBook and a first generation iMac (living room net access machine). Yes, the Macs are less open to hardware tinkering than PCs, but for raw functionality OS X and the apps which run on it are so far ahead of Windows (and to a somewhat lesser extent Linux) that I find that it's absurd to use my PCs for anything other than games, file storage, and hobby work.
Yes I'm the exception, but I'm not unique. Your statement that "mac has always been about people who dont care enough about computers to want to swap around parts, or learn how they work" is incorrect. The user friendliness of Macs may be one of their most well-known selling points, but the people you're talking about are just as much a part of Microsoft's target market as they are Apple's.
I do agree with you that hardware lock-in is a Bad Thing from a political and economic standpoint, but from a usability and reliability perspective Apple's control over the hardware upon which their OS runs gives them an enormous edge, and I'm happy to be the beneficiary of that advantage. If Apple had the monopoly that Microsoft does then we'd have cause for concern, but they don't.
Yes, Macs are "trendy", but there's solid quality and functionality behind the shine and sparkle.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
Meanwhile, Apple hardware kicks the butt of Dell's "break in nine months" el cheapo crap.
To back that up with a number, I'm a student employee in Ohio State's computer science department, and the department bought several hundred Dell Optiplex GX270's for the supported grad students and for the labs. In the first year we had a 70% failure rate on the motherboards. Eventually Dell came out and replaced the rest as a preemptive measure. The service techs said that on the previous model (which we never had) they had to do a replacement of all the optical drives.
I kind of miss the dead ass slow but reliable diskless workstations. At least they didn't ever break.
Apple makes the news not because it dominates the computer industry, but because of its impact on the computer market. Again, as many have argued, Apple doesn't always innovate. It has become very good at bringing integrated software/hardware combinations to market and pushing the rest of the market to catch up. They've also transformed themselves in recent years from a computer company to something still being defined. Perhaps we should call Apple a User Experience Company. Opening up the legal music download market is frequently pointed to as merely a by-product of the iPod phenomenon, but it's a rather substantial achievement. Early signs indicate that Apple may be on to something with their expansion into video as well.
We see so many articles about Apple rather than Dell in large part because the DNA of the two companies is radically different. Apple moves forward by putting together very well integrated user experiences. Their products make a splash because from inception to roll-out, the focus is on user experience. Dell makes a splash when it has a good quarter and ships half a zillion units, trampling yet another also-ran into the dust. Apple is an inherently more exciting company to the layman, in part because it has to continually re-invent itself to stay competitive. Dell, on the other hand, just has to keep perfecting its initial business formula, in boring but lucrative Coca-Cola fashion.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...since I also said you were wrong, in addition to being off topic - would you rather I just called you all-around ignorant and be done with it? I was willing to suppose you had some good idea somewhere that you'd not brought up.
Since the last post was not at all personal I thought I'd demonstrate what an actual personal insult looks like so you have an example to compare against. I'm sure you'll do your worst to me in response and demonstrate to everyone your superiour mental abilities.
As for the rest of your post - Dell simply is larger and the decline of the giant is always a slower process than the rise of a new company, as trends are right now Apple will overtake them eventually. I am just telling you what is obvious from personal experience and reading posts from other people - not just myself. If you believe what you say than by all means buy stock in Dell this moment.
You sound an awful lot like an example of a "fanboy", unable to take any critism of your beloved company (in this case Dell). While I enjoy Apple products I realize and critisize when they make stupid errors (like the iPod photo which is pretty worthless as far as I'm concerned). But you seem oddly to unable that decline in customer support is a MAJOR concern for Dell as it's a huge component of what keeps people coming to them (or not).
Lastly, if Dell is doing so well why are thier profits half of what they were at the same time last year, when the economy is on the upswing and Apples profits (even just from computers) have increased dramatically?
I bought a Mac exactly because I value functionality above all else. I use a Dell at Work and and an Mac at home. How long have YOU used a Mac for, that gives you any idea what you are talking about? My bet is somewhere from zero to one hour (leaning towards zero), and that months ago. So by all means go on about how Macs are only pretty pieces of metal and plastic with no redeeming virtue, so the rest of us might sit and stare in wonder at your effort of reputation self-immolation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like "administrate" for what you do with computers, "administer" for what you do with cough syrup.
Verbing nouns can be okay, but is sometimes ridiculous. For instance, he who burgles is a burglar. He who burglarizes is a burglarizer, he who burglarizerizes is a burglarizerizer...
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Dell makes End Point Boxes - they sell you a box for you to go get your own data. Maybe you want a side order of printer and ink with that?
Apple Sells the Channel - Users pay Apple big bucks for the honor of plugging into the Apple marketing channel - iTunes, iPod, iEverything.
Slowly, but surely, Apple has poked it's little fingers into the bottoms of all the candy in the candy box - and picked out the items it likes.
Music, Videos, TV Shows, Movies, Internet, Phone service, and Video Phone service. Soon live TV and Radio will get added to the list, I'd bet.
People go to their information device to create content or to consume content. Apple has the device, the channel, the content, and everything all wrapped up in contracts and patents. That's very creative!
Dell? What? you want some more RAM with that? - Please.
The XBOX 360 will be the real competition for the Apple company.
XBOX 360 does games, and Microsofts plans turn it into a Point of Sale device for just about every other content, including a Microsoft version of eBay, Microsoft version of Amazon, Microsoft version of google, and i'd bet a microsoft version of iTunes/iMovies to come, all in one box. And with every dollar spent through the XBOX 360 system, Microsoft will be getting their two or more pennies.
I would be suprised it XBOX 360s are not sold below cost, just to get MS in control of all those revenue streams...
On the desktop I'd probably pick the Intel box, simply because of the computer's easy upgradability, but I'd never buy an Intel notebook. Most of them are heavy, loud, huge and ugly - not to forget the lousy *nix compatibility. In case you haven't heard, Apple is dumping the PPC and using Intel chips.
Your post is misleading. Yes, Apple's units are flat from 2000. What you're not saying is that they're significantly up from 2001-2004, and that they're inches away from eclipsing their 2000 unit sales figure.
Also, Dell's growth has been abnormally high vs. the PC industry as a whole, they're the only one that grew through the downturn. Apple is not really in direct competition with Dell, they have completely different value propositions.
PC Industry unit growth (CY): 1999 = +23%, 2000 = 14.5% , 2001 = -7%, 2002 = -1%, 2003 = +9%, 2004 = +15%, 2005 = (predicted) +0.5%
Apple's unit growth (FY, ending September): 1999 = +25%, 2000 = +32%, 2001 = -32%, 2002 = 0%, 2003 = -3%, 2004 = +9%, 2005 = (predicted) +38%
Apple's unit sales in FY 2000: 4.6 million. FY2001-2004, around 3 million. Apple's unit sales in FY 2005: 4.53 million.
Dell's unit growth in 2005 (FY, end): (predicted) +17%. They grew 50% in 1999 and well over 20% each year through most of the downturn.
Sources: Gartner & IDC stats for 2000, Dell's 10-K filings from FY2001-2005 where they reported their share vs. industry share, Apple's 10-K filings from FY2000-2004, plus their 10-Q from Q3 2005 combined with the Q4 announced figures. and Gartner's 2005 prediction.
A couple of notes: Apple's growth figures tend to lag the industry because they count "last year's" holiday season. Notwithstanding that, Apple's 38% unit jump relative to a flat industry, and nearly double that of Dell for FY 2005, is significant. Does it mean Apple is killing Dell? No! Does it mean that more people are buying Macs? Probably. I find the argument that all those 32% that bought Macs in 2000 are en-masse upgrading this year somewhat implausible. This holiday's figures are going to be very interesting to compare vs. the rest of the industry.
-Stu
One big problem with Dell is, they don't really give as high a "value" as the initial price tag makes it seem. As another person posted, their tech. support is decidely "low value" when you consider all the time you wait on hold or waste talking to a foreigner who is tough to understand, and who makes you go through 30 minutes of useless "troubleshooting" including "make sure the power cord is firmly attached to the back of your monitor" and "please shut down and restart Windows" to get a faulty video card or display replaced, or worse yet - may not let you get a defective memory DIMM replaced until you humor them by letting them swap out the CPU, motherboard and who knows what else first, over multiple support calls.
Is Apple "perfect" by comparison? Hell no... But they do a lot of things right in this area. For one, you usually do get native English speaking support reps when you call the toll-free support number in the U.S. - and my hold time has been 5 minutes or less. On the iMacs, they have a self-service system over the web, so you can order your own warranty replacement parts without getting permission first from some support rep. over the phone. They're also pretty good about eventually extending warranties to cover products with known major flaws - instead of just screwing over everyone who bought one with only a standard 1 year warranty. (By contrast, I was burnt on 2 Dell Latitude CPi series laptops now, because of design flaws and poor construction that Dell never officially admitted to.)
I don't think it's really possible to achieve "trendiness" with a shoddy/substandard product. There's simply not anything "cool" about some product that was inexpensive up-front, but most users end up underwhelmed or just "so-so" about over the long haul.
Apple's Mac business has been growing since the iPod came out. In the past year, it has grown significantly (35% or more.)
Mac sales volume is up. Mac revenue is up. Mac profits are up.
From any economic angle, the Mac is a product which has great value.
From a technical angle, Mac OS X is being improved and enhanced at a furious rate. If Microsoft were neglecting Longhorn as badly as Apple has been neglecting OS X, then it would've shipped in 2003.
The Mac only looks bad if you compare it to the growth of iPod. And that's a stupid comparison, because the Mac does not compete with the iPod.
(Incidentally, Sony eagerly sought licensees for Betamax. It lost because VHS continuously improved quality, reduced costs, extended playtime and beat Sony to market with each improvment.)
So he says. In every interview ever done with him after he left. IMHO, Gil sucked. Damn near killed the company. Jobs killed the clones and saved Apple's ass in the process. Jobs got Apple a decent version of MS Office. Jobs is a rock star personality. It took just that kind of personality to regain positive attention from the press. None of that could have been done by Gil. Gil's 'reforms' included clones. Had Apple stayed that course, there would be no iPod today. Maybe not even an iMac. But most of all, I don't like Gil because I owned a Performa 6360. You know, the one with the Geoport software modem that sucked the life out of the anemic 160 MHz 603e. The one with 16MB of that fabulous 168-pin RAM that costs an arm and a leg. Three years later when I upgraded to an iMac the RAM in that POS cost *more* than a stick of the same MB for the brand new machine. I hate to say it, because I defended that little Mac at the time, but I would have been way better off with a PC at the time. Gil was a PHB leading Apple down the road to ruin, not obscurity.
That's true. Except the way you say it makes it sound like it was for more than one quarter.
Short answer: HELL NO.
Long answer: Dec 31, 1997. AAPL closes at 12.75 a share. With $1.3 Billion in the bank, their cash on hand exceeded their market cap. Today, two stock splits later, AAPL closed at 61.15 a share. Overlooking the fact that one of those splits was 3 for 1 where the company kept one share and gave investors two... Split adjusted, that's about 19 times your investment in less than 8 years. Long term, that's a solid 44.7% growth in your investment EVERY year for EIGHT SOLID YEARS. DELL on the other hand has *almost* tripled its 12/31/97 closing value (about 14.7% annual). So, let's see... which would I rather have: $19i or $3i.
If you're suggesting AAPL investors might have been better off with DELL, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet AAPL has stomped every other computer hardware manufacturer in the past 8 years in share value growth. And for investors, that's what counts. Very, very, very few companies have done this well in the past eight years. AAPL is a superstar.
PS. I don't own a dime in AAPL, but I have been watching their stock closely since about 4/97.
It seems, admittedly from anecdotal evidence, that there are large numbers of people who want to buy OSX and run it on the hardware of their choice. Any normal company and any normal management team would stop bleating about controlling the total user experience (which is anyway nonsense, the Tiger experience has been no stabler, and no more immune from hardware incompatibilities than the XP experience) and just sell its customers what they want.
People keep saying in reply to this sort of thing: but Apple is a hardware company. It may be. If it is, people will carry on buying its hardware. What's the problem? Sell them the OS they seem to want, as well.
People also quote Jobs as referring to people who want to buy the software standalone as parasites. This is one of the maddest things ever to come out of California. We are talking customers . Guys with money who want to give it to you! Just take it!
I've heard other people say good things about IBM gear, If I were going to buy a Windows laptop I think that'd be my top contender. I know from past experiences the AIX boxes were built like a tank...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you look at online stores of Dell and Apple and build out similar systems (as close as possible, similar substitutions are allowed!) you will find their prices are essentially the same - sometimes Apple will even have a price $50-$100 better, sometimes the other way.
The main exception is that Dell *also* sells an additional lower class of systems that no one should be stuck with -- their "Basic PC". It's still in the same field as a Mac mini, but stripped to the max and with few options. This is the PC that nobody in this forum would buy for themselves unless it was the last PC in the universe for sale.
If you exclude the *garbage* bottom end systems that Dell sells, over time, there's little difference in price or components.
At least by any conventional definition, Mac's are not overpriced - haven't been for a long time.
(You build it yourself-ers are working a different equation. Possibly much cheaper (or much more) than either Dell or Apple, but not an apples to apples comparison, and not what 99% of people are going to try.)
All this talk about R&D and struggling companies, gotta mention IBM. After doing Nobel-prize winning work, they trimmed research budgets in the early 1990's when they looked to be on their corporate deathbed. Now they are again doing the sort of fundamental work - slowing light! - that will lay the foundation for optical computers. This is real research, not figuring out how to save $2.37 on a commodity computer.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Hey, stop it! Halloween's over.
Thwarting such monstrous danger to our endless personal consumption is why we turn so avidly to religion ("There will be poor always"), politicians ("It's yer munny! It's yer munny!") and TV pundits ("Sorry, not my problem!").
It's only semantics, but I don't believe Apple sells a single major product that qualifies as cute.
"Little" is accurate, since Apple's form factor is modernist, and modernism prizes spare, unadorned, stripped-down essences: beauty in the way a thing actually looks before it is layered over with decoration.
To be sure, some of Apple's accessories as well as a lot of the iPod aftermarket are pretty crap to make your iPod look cute, to "dress it up." This fetishistic stuff caters to the desire to play dolly, something, amusingly, that can be observed in quite a lot of adults.
That's why there's a fortune to be made by the first person to market the Burp-Your-iPod accessory. Just squeeze, and....ah, music to your ears!
I'm actually surprised. I mean, I'm not a big Dell fan, and our failure rate on their laptops at my company approaches 100% per year. (60 laptops, nearly 60 failures per year, though of course not every single one fails... some fail several times.) But as for my (14) rack-mount servers, mostly Dells, I have had only two problems in the last two years: one was on a Dell which had one drive, which I bought myself, fail (fortunately it was in a RAID), and one was on an xServe that had its memory (which I had also bought, from Crucial) die spectacularly. Aside from that, everything has been rock-solid, and I've never even had to use that 8-hour-response-time service contract I got from Dell.
What do you see failing? What are the worst models?
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
> Dell is more interested in gaining market-share than in maximizing price.
:-)
Which is to say, 'Dell is more interested in driving all of its competitors out of the business of making computers at all, so that they can then jack up their prices as high as they like, than in actually making money.'
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.