Slashdot Mirror
Apple Should Get Out of Hardware?
SQLGuru writes to mention an analyst recommendation being reported on ZDNet. Despite a BusinessWeek article about Apple's record breaking hardware sales, the folks at Gartner think Apple should get out of the hardware business. Calling for the company to license its hardware to Dell, the analyst company says that gains in Apple's hardware sales are simply not sustainable. From the article: "Apple's margins for its Mac business, currently around 40 percent, are only sustainable because component makers such as Intel choose to prop up the business, Gartner claimed. Given that HP has forced Intel to offer it comparable pricing to Dell, Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues. 'As a result of permanently changed market conditions, Intel has been forced to restructure and, in our opinion, cannot go on supporting Apple (or any other customer) indefinitely.'"
is hardware!
Garner should get out of the clue business. The industry trade press props them up and everybody knows they haven't made a decent clue for years.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
1997 called, they want their Apple doomsaying back!
Not quite "Enough said." You forgot the "Gartner is crap." part...
Are you serious?
Dell sells in two weeks what Apple sells in a year. Corporations, and HUGE ONES, base their hardware, from servers to desktops to laptops on Dell.
No they ain't fancy, but they do work, and work quite well (this post brought to you via a Dell D620).
It's fanboi comments like this that make the Apple Religious laughing stocks.
This used to be the standard advice given when Apple was ailing in the 90's. Back then it was slightly different, as they were suggesting that Apple license out their OS and let others handle the hardware side.
But controlling the hardware is good for Apple. When none of the PC manufacturers jumped onto USB, Apple did. The same with Firewire.
This is why hardware is good for Apple. Because they can innovate like that with the least amount of Red Tape.
Without hardware, they would not have had their successes no matter how awesome Mac OS X - iPod, iMac, their notebooks in general.
Hell, I think they should produce more hardware - like a Newton successor, preferably something small and that can slide into a PCMIA slot to do the syncing and charging.
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
Yet, the response is always the same. Apple is a hardware company first, and a software company second. Especially now, where they are selling actual intel PCs with their logo slapped on them. Without the income generated from sales of such hardware (and the ipod), Apple could not survive in this market. Mac OS X is a decent OS, but not good enough to convince companies and schools around the world to spend thousands on software to make the transition away from the more commonly used Windows OS.
Perhaps if Microsoft wasn't so dominant in the software arena, Apple could get out of the hardware business, but until that day comes, Apple will always be primarily a hardware company above all else.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Seems they tried that before and Apple was in such dire straits Jobs returned to salvage the company and close down the external Mac builders. Let's face it, Apple has survived because the dictatorial nature of product development at Apple means they can establish the trends and bail on those that don't do well, without worrying about maintaining a library of drivers even an orangitan couldn't keep up with (Ook) The PC/Windows path has Microsoft trying to keep an overweight operating system working on a staggering array of hardware combinations. Small wonder very few actually know what the heck is going on with things and most problems are countered with "did you try updating the drivers" or "Have you tried disconecting things until it works" or "You need to do a full re-install"
I wouldn't agree with having Dell make the machines, either. Their quality isn't a shade of what it once was. Dell made their name with competitively priced hardware which was built almost as solidy as IBMs. Now it's all cranked out in China and is as good as anything else cranked out in China, so there's no real advantage over competitors.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is he saying Apple's core business was seeded by Intel. And that without Intel rooting for them, it'll be the pits, so Apple should branch out into other areas?
Actually, Apple has a good name, with solid products like the Macbook, iPod, and OS X. I don't think Apple will have that mcuh of a problem. People don't run to Apple because of price, they run to them because they make decent, user-friendly hardware. Comparable devices are copies of them, and usually more expensive. If prices rise, Apple will go up a bit more, but will that actually drive people away?
Have you read my journal today?
...they want thier stupid apple-should-get-out-of-harware story back.
And why not, have you seen the earning reports? Apple is on the ropes. Record losses, losing market share, constant layoffs, etc. They clearly cannot support their current business model, hell at this rate they will be bankrupt in a year or two.
I would go even further, obviously they are losing money hand over fist on hardware, but I don't think that OSX thing is doing them any good either. And lets face it, the iPod does not have wireless and is pretty lame. Chuck it all and go with the business that has a REAL future. I of course speak of iTunes music store. Look at Napster, they are racking the money faster than they can handle with just an online music store. That is the wave of the future my friends. I only hope Apple has the good sense to listen to reason on this one, and not delude themselves that they are a successful company. The numbers clearly show otherwise.
Finkployd
First, we'll assume that Apple actually wants to continue their high rate of growth, which may not be the case. (eg, Jaguar could take a bigger market if they licensed their name to Ford ... um ... okay, bad example)
The 40% margins are based on what? Because I would think that were Apple to get 20% of the market (over 3x what it is today), the individual costs of the OS are effectively 1/3 per machine in cost, comparatively. And the larger they get, the more sway they might have.
And let's not forget -- Apple on Intel is a form of advertising for Intel. Apple is very, very good at getting in the press, so Intel might be willing to take a smaller margin in exchange.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Apple... going out of business since 1976.
Maryland State Motto: If you can dream it, we can tax it.
People have lost trust in quality of mainstream PC hardware and software, which is a big reason for growing Apple shipments in the first place. Nobody will trust a Mac from Dell. If Apple allows independent licensees at all, it should be a Japanese company line Sony or Panasonic. Even then there are many dangers. Licensees may not ship timely updates to hardware to run the latest releases of MacOSX. Look at how many PCs are still shipped with Intel integrated graphics which will suck on Vista. Does anyone really think the switch to Intel would have gone as quickly with 5 vendors who have their own investment in PPC macs? 3rd parties may not have support on the par with AppleCare and Genius Bar. By providing a complete package, Apple gives you one place which is going to be responsible for any problems you have with your purchase.
This doesn't mean Apple should design and build everything in house. iPod design is already done by several outside companies and I believe Powerbook is designed by Sony. It's just that they should approve what is actually shipped and how its supported to guarantee the quality.
Good thing Gartner is responsible for such great machines that they can... oh wait, they don't make anything but over-priced analysis.
I've had some decently-made PCs out of the 10 or 12 I've owned, but nothing like the quality of my Macs. I switched for home use a couple of years ago with a PowerBook. I added a MacMini last spring and a quad MacPro recently, and they are absolutely some of the nicest machines I've ever seen since I started as a tech in '79.
Apple would be completely stupid to give up that control and differentiation from everyone else.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Can we PLEASE stop spelling "fanboy" as "fanboi"? It is stupid.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
A few counterpoints: 1. Apple is a hardware company. They make their revenue from hardware sales, not from software sales. 2. Apple makes superior hardware. Have you seen the inside of the Mac Pro? I have one, and I'm very impressed. The only internal cable is for the IDE optical drive. Everything else is modular. 3. Apple doesn't actually make their own hardware. They design it and have it manufactured to specifications. The motherboard of the Mac Pro was designed by Intel and Apple, but is manufactured by Intel. So, if one would agree with me that their hardware is superior, and one understands that Apple does not manufacture the hardware, how would Apple be limited in manufacturing ability, and how would it help Apple in any way to completely commoditize (if that is a word...) the production of hardware to support their OS? When Apple needs to ramp up production, they can choose an additional manufacturer to support their needs. In addition, since Apple makes a majority of their money from hardware, they would need to redesign their business model to become profitable in the software market. And by the way, is Intel really here to "prop up the market" or are they here to make money? I can't imagine Intel is making deals like those with Apple and intentionally losing money.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
is that Gartner should go out of business permanently. This is just yet another load of BS from them, just like "50% of tech jobs will be outsourced in the next 5 years, and as it JUST so happens we have an offshore consultancy agency. Imagine that!"
Nothing but crap comes out of Gartner, how they are still in business is beyond me.
Monstar L
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackasse s
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Because everyone can offer Windows XP, but only Apple can offer OSX?
The major components like CPU, memory, and HD are the same but it is a simplification to say that it's all the same hardware. Especially when it comes to laptops. Except for BIY PCs, PCs are not all that interchangeable when you buy from the major manufacturers. You cannot replace a Dell MB with a HP MB and expect it to work perfectly. If you've done actually pricing between a Dell and an Apple feature for feature, the Apple is cheaper. Dell's target customer are those willing to pay the lowest price, period. Apple is not interested in that customer so their design is different than Dell's.
Some would argure one of the reason that OS X works so well it that it does not have to support the plethora of hardware that XP or Linux supports. Apple controls their own destiny when they control their own hardware. Again, Apple isn't looking to court the BIY customer.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Gee with increasing volumes large margins are not sustainable because Apple won't get as good of deals from Intel? Yeah that makes sense.. err wait no it doesn't! As volume goes up, Apple will get better deals from component manufacturers, in general, not worse. Maybe Intel will not cut them as nice of deals, but with increasing volumes, Apple does not need to maintain margins. Most of their costs are fixed. OS development, marketing, industrial design, etc. make up most of their costs, but remain fixed no matter how many units they ship. If they ship twice as many, they can cut their margins in half without being affected.
Either the Gartner people are looking to the very short term or they're out of their minds. The only way to free yourself from the influence of a monopoly is to maintain a complete vertical chain of components, including the one they have monopolized, but separate from their market. Apple doesn't sell their OS to Dell for two reasons. One, it would seriously cut into their hardware sales as people went to what they perceive as cheaper machines and were unable to compete with Dell's market outlets. Two, MS will kill Dell if they tried shipping OS X pre-installed. As soon as Dell had to re-negotiate their OEM licenses for Windows, MS would offer them the choice of being the largest supplier of computers in the US, with the cheapest rate for Windows, or being the most expensive supplier of PCs in the US. Assuming Gartner is 100% correct and Dell took all of that market, they'd still only be selling 13% of the machines in the US and they'd lose almost all of their existing 32% of the PC market selling Windows machines. Oh Dell would love that bargaining chip, but it just might kill Apple.
No, now is not the time for such a move. Everyone who has tried to compete in that market has been killed by MS's lock-ins, even though several had superior offerings at the time. Apple needs to maintain their segregation until either the courts actually stop MS's antitrust actions or until they or Linux has grabbed a bigger chunk of the pie.
They design them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL Apple products built under contract by factories in Asia?
What could they possibly gain by turning their manufacturing over to Dell?
This is not a slam at Apple. I own macs and ipods and I think they design great products. I just don't think there's an "Apple" factory out there churning out the gizmos. Why would they turn to Dell -- a company with a horrible, horrible track record for quality and reliability -- to make their products, when their current business arrangements seem to be working just fine?
$10B in the bank, no debt, 12 profitable quarters in a row, growing marketshare...this needs fixing how, exactly?
The Gartner guys must have mixed vodka with their Red Bull again.
Is it just me or has Gartner become a shill for certain companies that would like to see Apple and Linux fail?
Become? The US middle east intelligence folks have a better track record than Gartner for crying out loud.
Finkployd
Dell making apple computers would be a bit like repurposing the old Ford Taurus plant to make Ferrari's.
Is Jaguar close enough for your analogy?
My last laptop was a Dell Inspiron 1100. Within two months of getting the MacBook, the Dell laptop was in the closet. If you were to compare the MacBook with a Dell D620, the MacBook is a wonderfully engineered machine. While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience.
Yes, they sell a lot. And it's not top quality. From what I've seen there's about a 20% failure rate on machines. (I.e. needs a part replaced fairly soon. Usually the HDs).
Keep in mind that huge corps also base their software on Windows, and that doesn't make that inherently better either. Huge corporations go with the flow - nothing to upset the cart, because that can get you fired. If you're old enough, you'll remember the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" slogan. *That* is why Windows and Dell are prevalent.
really??? so you never touched a large number of dells then.
Out of 250, C640 laptops I had a 25% failure rate. upgraded to D600 and D610 and had a 35% failure rate and a 60% battery failure rate. This failure rate continued through the 2 years the laptops are in service.
Dell servers, big ones, like their top of the line 8 processor Xeon behemoth before they decided that they cant do 8 way server motherboards reliable and got out of them. Died on a regular basis.. Perc cards from dell dying, etc....
just because you have a single laptop that worked fine, does not mean dell products are reliable.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What Gartner fails to understand is that the winds of change say more about Intel then it does about Apple. Intel can't afford not to subsidize Apple or HP or Dell or anyone else. Intel is realizing that consumers, particularly Apple's consumers, don't really care what's on the inside. It could be Intel, AMD, PowerPC or SPARC and as long as the system is still running.br>
The fact is, the processor has become a commodity. The "experience" and end-to-end design that Apple sells is not a commodity. Who has lost their completitive advantage? It sure isn't Apple, and they know that.
But Apple can only be in the software business if they control the hardware, and prevent tweaking, because a great deal of their stability, not to mention their software team size, depends on that hardware control. Just because the hardware is not more powerful than say, an AMD64, it can still be a difference, if say, you get to test your code on it six months in advance. You can't test a DIY six months in advance.
Dell sells about as many computers as Apple does, annually
That's just rubbish. Dell sold 37.3 million PCs last year, while Apple broke a record by selling 1.61 million Macs last quarter. Dell sells far more computers than Apple does.
I take it you don't own a Mac, nor have you priced one. I just did. At dell, a desktop with a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM, 250 GB HD and an NVidia 7900 GS with 256 MB of RAM costs you $2214. An iMac with a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo and a NVidia 7600 GT (256 MB RAM) costs $2300. The kicker? The iMac comes with a 24-inch widescreen monitor. The dell comes with a 20 inch regular sized monitor. In essence, I trade a slightly slower video card for a much, much nicer screen. And some bells and whistles like bluetooth, wirelesss, etc.
Yes, it's essentially not upgradeable (the videocard is actually soldered in). But I built my PC before, and by the time I had to upgrade, it was a case of having to upgrade everything anyway. Since I use a NAS for storage, I have the same flexibility as with a PC - and the connectivity is actually a lot easier and less troublesome. As for tweaking.... yeah, I used to do that. Now I just don't want to spend hours on fiddling with Memory latencies to squeeze a couple more frames out of Doom. I just want something that works well, does what I want it to do, and does it for a good price. And the iMac is perfect in that sense.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Trusting Gartner's eval is a bit like listening to the white house or congress speak about Iraq; You just know that they have their own agenda and worse, the ones behind it, have zip experience or education.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So, let me get this straight,
Dell strikes a sweet deal with Intel after opening up it's systems to the AMD line...
HP muscles in and says it will go to AMD (I assume) unless it gets the same deal as Dell.
Dell and HP are in a deathgrip to maintain market share for the corporate and household WinTel platform, and are being nipped at by Lenovo, BestBuy, Walmart, etc, for market share, house branding, and margins
Apple, which has the luxury of owning premium software that can run on multiple platforms, let alone on an x86 platform, and is probably already paying slightly more (due to volumes) than Dell or HP, Apple is the EVIL one here, and should be punished by Intel asking for a higher per unit cost for components, because Apple is more profitable?
I see this as ludicrous as Goodyear asking for Honda to pay [even] more for the same tire as GM and Ford, because Honda can afford to pay it... x86 is a freakin' commodity, like pork bellies, and batteries (SONY, pay attention!!!). It's an important commodity, but fundamentally, a chip is a chip, and it's just that.
Intel is not subsidizing Apple... Intel is subsidizing the big boy PC maker market in order to stave off AMD and maintain market their share. This article infers that Intel will soon ask Apple to help subsidize this partnership, and apple will be in no position to fight back....
I hope Apple says either "AMD called yesterday and built a proto system on the PLUON chip... It ran OSX without mods... doesn't need another Universal Binary... just plug and play" or "You know, you should come over sometime... the boys in the labs, They built a sweet OS X system that uses a CELL chip from IBM.... Obtw, here's our order for 6million Core 2 Duo and Quad CPUs... volume pricing hasn't changed... correct?"
Strongly disagree. If you compare prices on similar Apple and Dell systems, you will usually find that the prices are higher on the Apple side, but only 10-20%, and that in the high end the margin disappears and your most powerful systems cost about the same either way. Of course, a clone is always cheaper, regardless of what market you're talking about, and to me that's the bottom line and the reason I don't buy Apple. Actually, there is another reason, which is that Apple does their best to bury their mistakes to help the iFanboys forget that they ever made them. I got rid of it long ago, but I had a First Generation B&W G3 that had the UDMA data corruption problem. Apple's official recommendation was to buy FWB toolkit to reduce the drive down to PIO mode which is slower and makes the IDE chip consume TONS more CPU, which IDE is bad about already; or to buy an IDE ATA card and move your drive to that. A clear Apple fuckup, which they even admitted, and they STILL didn't offer a logic board replacement to the Rev.2, where they didn't make the same mistake. This is a chip used in TONS of other hardware including UltraSparc systems (like the Ultra 1 and 2) so it's not the chip, it's Apple's inability to implement the chip.
But this isn't the part that's most upsetting - the thing that gets me is that when Apple folded their old knowledge base into the new library, they included documents both older and newer than the one I'm talking about, but that one didn't make it in. It is clearly a deliberate omission on Apple's part to try to cover up both the fact that they fucked up a computer, and that they were unresponsive to customers who purchased it. This is of course simply a further illustration of the fact that it's a very bad idea to purchase any first-generation Apple hardware, laptop desktop or otherwise, but it also explains why. Apple's customer support is legendarily bad when they think they can get away with it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's nice... Now I wish someone could explain to me why, if Dell is selling 37.3 million PCs, that Apple would want to homogenize their product to look just like Dell's since Dell seems to have that market pretty much covered. This article is pretty much telling any niche computer manufacturer that they should give up and just sell Dells. You can bunch Alienware into that category, and your local retailer, and Joe Bob who builds PCs from white-boxes down the street. It's dumb, because they're proposing that to compete with Dell, they should offer the exact same product Dell ships, which is what Apple customers are absolutely not looking for. Apple customers buy Apple because they do not want to buy Dell. Why would Apple give up that advantage? And finally, it's not like Apple is treading water here. Steve doesn't need business advice from "pundits" that don't seem to understand what a product is.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
(in millions, except per-share)
Q2, FY'07 Q2, FY'06 Change
Revenue $14,094 $13,428 5%
Operating Income $605 $1,173 (48%)
Net Income $502 $1,020 (51%)
Earnings/Share $0.22 $0.41 (46% )
Now let's look at Apple from their most recent announced results (in their case it's Q4 FY06 vs. Q4 FY05):
Q4 FY06 Q4 FY05
Revenue $4.84b $3.68B
Net Income $546m $430M
Earnings/Share: $.62 $.50
(Slashdot keeps taking out the spaces, which is why this looks funky.) So, even though Dell has a little more than 3x Apple's gross sales, Apple is the more profitable company. Dell's profits dropped by 51% between Q2FY06 and Q2FY07, while Apple's profits reached new records. Moreover, Apple's profitability and market share are both increasing, while Dell's is decreasing.
And Apple would want to outsource manufacturing to a much less profitable and quality-conscious company why?
Crow T. Trollbot
MS supported USB only from win98, afair.
Windows95c, on the install disc. And you could get USB to work on Windows95a and Windows95b with a driver from Microsoft or the manufacturer.
"the USB move was probably the smartest platform move apple made"
That was a terrible move: very anti-user. Apple would have been much better off phasing out non-USB ports only after the number of non-USB devices had dwindled a lot. What Appel did really screwed the user: making a machine without necessary standard-of-the-day ports in order to force the user to buy dongles or new peripherals because Apple thought that it was somehow immoral for users to use non-USB interface devices. (I've got a nice parellel-port printer I can still use on most PCs because they still have a port. Why? Because the printer is STILL A GOOD PRINTER, and PC manufacturers tend to respond to what the users need rather than Apple, which has fits of forcing morality like this.)
Where were you when the voynix came?
Wasn't Apple, like, actually doomed in '97?
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it.
Excuse me? I look around at fellow IT developers and quite a few of them have accepted OS X.
Furthermore Apple has done a great job growing really useful framrworks in the OS like Core Image and Core Data. There are an ever expanding group of developers for OSX who have seen what a pretty good development environment (XCode) and a well thought set of frameworks can do for productivity.
I know the Apple fans out there will fight me to their death, but the facts don't match up with you. Apple is slowly making the transition...
I won't fight you, I don't need to - for the obvious progression is to use Windows for legacy apps and switch everything else to the Mac. Bootcamp is Apple's 3270 emulator - it lets you keep using some old applications while moving forward.
Or really parallels is, Bootcamp is a slightly less convinent form of the same thing.
If you think Apple is anywhere close to giving up OS X just as it is exploding in popularity and usefulness then you might have something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One quick comment, but Vista closes the gap briefly. When was the last major update to Windows prior to Vista? 2001. That's 6 years between upgades, and the changes we've seen between versions haven't been particularly significant.
Windows is rapidly becoming a victim of it's own success. Making substantial changes to the code is difficult because they have to maintain compatibility with all the crap that's already out there. Apple has been able to go back to the drawing board and start with something totally new which has allowed them to be far more innovative.
So while Vista will close the gap, it'll then be another 5-6 years before the next Windows version and Apple will come out with many useful changes in the meantime.
Aside from that though, I believe Apple would be foolish to change their business model. Their selling point is that they control the whole experience. Apple's always have the impression of being more expensive, but that's because Apple doesn't generally make low end systems. They make higher end high quality systems and then make sure everything works well.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Eventually apple will announce the costs of maintaining OSX doesn't meet the interest of the public, and they will start going to head to head with Dell selling windows desktops.
Funny, I'd be more inclined to think the opposite. It seems more likely to me that, as Vista crashes and burns and IT departments reject it for it's insane piracy-protection measures, Dell and other PC vendors will look at Apple's success and wonder if they should start offering their own optimized versions of open-sourced software. Not that I think it's entirely likely right now, but more likely than Apple dropping OSX.
Developers haven't rejected OSX. Some developers just haven't been releasing OSX software because OSX lacked the market share to be a profitable platform for them. That appears to be changing, as Apple is getting more and more mainstream attention. In fact, I've heard a lot of developers say that Apple is a great platform to develop for, and that Xcode is a great environment (can't vouch for that, since I'm not a programmer).
Finally, I just can't imagine Steve Jobs will ever, so long as he's in control of the company, ship Macintoshes booting into Windows by default. I know, people doubted the Intel switch, said it would never happen, etc. But this is different. You're talking about Steve Jobs and Microsoft Windows here.
Just try to get on-site service work.
They basically only do it for ram and Hard drive problems, anything else and you still have to send the machine in, plus you wasted extra time in dealing with getting a support person out there.
How do I know this. My mother recently bought her first new computer(she was getting hand me downs from myself and my sister). Oddly enough the HP laptop had a backlight problem she spent the better part of 8 weeks trying to get HP to admit it. Finally they did and the machine needed to be mailed(on HP's tab at least) to them repaired, and sent back. Are HP's total crap? Nope I don't think so. It was just a defect. But that On site warrenty isn't as good as you think it is.
I much perfer Apples. I take it to one of the many apple stores, and they deal with it, if they can, if not I too have to deal with the same hassle of sending it in.
Service wise Apple comes out slightly better. Hence why Apple is Consumer Reports best tech company for such things.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Seems like Apple is making a shitload of cash just fine without being dell.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
As usual, the loudest criticisms of Apple are the ones based on the machines of a decade ago. Honestly, who still cares about the Centris/Performa/LC series or even the G3? What's next, a scathing critique of System 7?
Also, do the Mac fans still get to be snarky about PCs in general because Packard Bell and eMachines made such awful clunkers, or is this tactic reserved for the Apple-bashers only?
0 1 - just my two bits
Of those 9000 laptops I can see:
About 25 that have been dropped, water damaged or otherwise user destroyed.
Two that had unexplained video problems
47 that have had battery issues (not holding charges typically)
14 that have had the locking mechanism on the front damaged.
Still looks FAR under the 20% number you are giving and I have a much larger install base.
I think there are a lot of hold-outs from when Dell didn't suck. Dell used to make very good machines at reasonable prices. They weren't the cheapest (that was Gateway), but it wasn't the most expensive, either.
I've got a Dell D300 that'll be seeing its ninth birthday next january. In that time, it got a solid five years of use as a workstation, and another three and a half as a server for my parents. I shut it down over the summer, simply because they didn't need it anymore. I opened it to find it full of drywall dust, because apparently nobody had thought to remove it from the closet while they renovated the basement last year.
I replaced that Dell D300 with an Inspiron 8200. It wasn't very good. It was a flimsy, awkward thing, the screen had to be replaced after a year, and after the three-year warranty ran out, the DVD drive started to get sketchy. And that was a $2k machine too --- I shudder to think what the $1000 boxes are like.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The only "Apple" manufacturing site left is the facility in Cork, Ireland!
"Manufacturing" is a bit of a misnomer, as all the do is assembly parts from Asia!
Mostly iMacs and Desktops with some xServes as well.
The two reasons they left Cork intact is that Ireland have a low tax rate,
and they can fill cto orders for the European market within a few days.
They also have a large call center there as well.
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
I actually completely disagree with this. And one reason. x86 compatibility. Until a year ago, I never would have considered owning a Macintosh. But, with an x86 processor inside, Boot Camp, Crossover, and other recent additions to the Mac arsenal, for the first time since 1989, I want a Mac! And it's _completely_ about the processor. It could be AMD as well, but the main point is that suddenly compatibility with my hundreds of PC games, applications and utilities becomes possible. Easily, without having to buy new versions or hope the developer might actually MAKE a new version.
One comment I haven't seen is.. one of the reasons, in my opinion, that Apple never reached market dominance in the beginning of the 90s is the lack of homebrew solutions. The people building their own machines, specifying the compoents they wanted, and knowing all about the architecture was the catalystfor companies like Gateway and Dell to succeed and in fact help Windows become the dominant OS. Quite simply, Apple refused to share the wealth. People attack Microsoft for being greedy, but in the process, they have made many other companies wealthy beyond belief.
"That said however, I'm not gonna blow but so much money on what will essentially be an OS experiment for me."
It's all about how much your time is worth to you. $2k really is a lot of money, and I understand that it's too much for some. But like almost anything, quality costs more, and if you can afford better quality, you will spend less time maintaining it, or learning its quirks etc.
I used to be a mac hater years ago. Then I used one. learned that instead of feeling smug because i knew how smart you had to be to really get useful things done on a computer, I could just put that energy into just getting things done period. For most of us, it's not about the computer, it's about design, chemistry, architecture, whatever.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Ford did not own Lamborghini.
It was Chrysler, who was responsible for the creation of the Diablo(Lee Iococca said the door sills on the Countach were too wide). You are correct that Chrysler raided some of the technology(ex. brakes on the Viper), however Chrysler sold off their interest in Lamborghini due to difficult financial circumstances(which lead to the Daimler "merger").
Lamborghini is currently owned by VW.
That meme died a long time ago. Macs, particularly the iMac and the Mac Pro (which is $1,000 less than the equivalently configured Dell workstation), give you a LOT of value for your dollar.
Apple-haters really need to find some new material.
"Sufferin' succotash."
From Wikipedia:
One early use of the term "personal computer" appeared in a November 3, 1962 New York Times article reporting John W. Mauchly's vision of future computing as detailed at a recent meeting of the American Institute of Industrial Engineers. Mauchly stated, "There is no reason to suppose the average boy or girl cannot be master of a personal computer."
The term is much older than Apple. What Apple did is popularize it. It became synonymous with IBM compatibles because of the name of the original IBM PC (PC for short).
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I agree! I had to waste a whole five minutes taking off a tiny panel on the bottom and sliding the RAM in!
"Sufferin' succotash."
and to those of us with a Windows machine, it still matters. Every time (every stinking time) I open an Explorer window to the "machine" level, I have to wait 5 seconds while Windows dutifully checks the floppy drive so it can see what to display for A: Never mind the fact that there is not now nor has their ever been a disk in the drive, never mind the fact that the last time anyone used a floppy was two versions of Windows back, the PC manufacturer still installed the drive and Windows still wastes time checking for a floppy.
It wasn't morally offensive, it was just a nusaince. I too am glad to see the death of them.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
"While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience."
No, they care about user experience. Big corporations want Windows, multiple sourcing, and suppliers who know how to sell and support in large volumes. That's the user experience they care about, not the brushed metal themes, the fancy packaging and the grammatically superior dialogs. That's why they buy Dell and not Apple.
If you compare prices on similar Apple and Dell systems, you will usually find that the prices are higher on the Apple side, but only 10-20%, and that in the high end the margin disappears and your most powerful systems cost about the same either way.
Actually, you're out of date. Last year Apple systems were priced at approximately 14% higher than equivalent PCs, not Dells in general. This year, they are actually cheaper by about 5% to equivalent machines. You'll note, I don't say Dells, I say equivalent machines. That is because people conducting real market research soon discover it is hard to find an equivalent machine from Dell.
Apple's customer support is legendarily bad when they think they can get away with it.
Yeah, um, unlike all the other companies out there? Take a look at Consumer Reports for the last 5 years. Apple is one of the best for support, not the worst. You actually have to compare them to what else is out there. Sure, Apple support can really suck an egg, which makes it about twice as good as Dell's customer support that sucks two eggs.
Fixed that for you. Lots of programs stopped working between 10.3 and 10.4, which annoyed at least me a bit. Apple forced people who upgraded the OS to upgrade their programs as well. I presume there was a cost/risk analysis somewhere, and Apple's said "yes" while Microsoft's said "no".
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
That's just rubbish. Dell sold 37.3 million PCs last year, while Apple broke a record by selling 1.61 million Macs last quarter. Dell sells far more computers than Apple does.
Let me put it another way that might be more enlightening: The growth in Dell's volume (ie, the difference between the number of machines they sold this year and the number last year) is greater than Apple's entire volume for the corresponding time period*. Apple is a distant fifth worldwide behind Dell, HP, Acer, and Lenovo.
* Note, this has been true for the last few years, but this quarter may not be due to Dell's recent problems.
I take exception to your statement about cost.
Apple's offerings are NOT more expensive than comparably equipped, say, Dells. The issue is that they do not have a low end el cheapo to compete with Dell's $500 junk.
They do NOT sell OS X at a premium, they sell it at a very competitive price, compared to Windows. Get the story straight. But, no they will never dump the hardware side; that's their bread and butter.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
And IBM had it before anyone else....errr....excuse me....Lenovo.....
Gorkman
You just proved the GP's point.
...then... It could be AMD as well
it's _completely_ about the processor
So it's not the processor. AMD processors aren't Intel processors. It is not the processor.
suddenly compatibility with my hundreds of PC games, applications and utilities becomes possible
AHA! So now we get to the real reason. Functionality. You have software you want to run. Apple makes (very nice) hardware that will run it.
And your final comments there are pretty accurate. Apple makes "the whole widget". Period. IBM was trying to do the same, but made a poor attempt at it and ended up being the designer of an open system. It turned into the "wild west" of computing. Now we're growing out of that "wild west" phase and we're looking for something more refined. Something that "just works". Something that is designed as a "whole widget". And Apple still makes them. It's not that Apple was wrong to do what they did, it's just that it wasn't time to do it yet.
If that was the case, comapnies would be buying boat loads of Inspirons instead of lattitudes. Dimentions instead of Optiplex's. The reason comapny;s buy opti's and latti's are the fact its a enterprise supportable platform. If you have a D series Latti, then you just have to stock D series gear. One of our captains had his D600 replaced with a D620, didnt have to change the docking stations he had, his floppy, or any of the accessories. You dont get that with platforms like Inspiron, or Macbooks. I'm not a fanboy or mac-bashing (i think the new macbooks are damn sexy), but apple isnt an enterprise platform. There's no managment frame work that come close to openmanage or hp's insight. the fact you can have SMS push out a bios or firmware update to a few hundred desktops is why you have corperations buying them by the pallet.
FF Market Share will drop over the next year.
Actually it is based upon multiple methods of information gathering, including spot checking and anonymous tests.
Wait a second, you take a jab at Consumer Reports' methodology and then you make an assertion like this based upon your views of what you read in a particular forum? Is that supposed to be a joke?
You make a lot of generalizations and assumptions, but the truth is the best data to date indicates Apple's support is better than average and you have no data to refute that claim. If you objectively look at the information, the best guess is the Apple's support is better.
Have you ever considered that a lot of UNIX types know exactly what they are doing, but simply have different priorities than you do? Open source, free software is a feature of software, but considering only one feature rather than the whole package is absurd. I use OS X, Windows, Linux, and OpenBSD every day. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I'd love to have a primary workstation that was completely open source. I'm just not willing to give up all the features of OS X or all the available library of software for Windows to do it. The sad truth is, for a lot of tasks, their is no good Linux solution. For a lot of tasks, Linux itself, regardless of the applications, is inferior. I don't have the time or money to get the features I want added to Linux and it is falling further behind on the desktop, not catching up. When Linux has functional system services I can use and a two step upgrade path to a new machine, via a firewire cable, let me know. Until then, Linus will be on servers and Linux and Windows will both be running in VMs under OS X on the desktop.
But OS X doesn't have the wonderful WGA that Vista will have.
Apple's edge isn't OSX, it isn't the iPod, it isn't softly glowing lights, it's the overall style. Have you seen DELL's concept of "Style"? The big thing is to partner and outsource and break down a company into its core competency, well, I say Apple's core competency is style, and they have to keep all the parts that are intimately tied to their being able to deliver on the style. OBVIOUSLY, they are already outsourcing some of their manufacturing, or we wouldn't have viral-infected iPods floating around.
The day I trust an analyst is the day I trust a politician.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Actually, yes. I would think the Jaguar example is a good analogy. Before Ford purchased Jaguar, Jaguar was the maker of desirable cars. Ones that, while they weren't the most reliable, per se, they certainly looked good, felt good and were very unique.
Now, Ford owns them, and look what's happened. Aside from the top-end car, every other one is essentially a rebranded Tauras with leather seats. They're absolute crap both interior wise, and component wise.
So ya, if Dell made Apple computers, it would be the same thing. Rebranded crappy computers.
I think that most customer surveys are flawed and you have no chance to figure out what's going on inside a customer's head without a focus group or similar, where you can find out why they gave particular answers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I haven't had any issues with a properly-configured Linux desktop setup;
I'm not talking about "problems" as in bugs. I'm not talking about UI effects. I'm talking about missing features. I got a new laptop from work a few weeks back. I rebooted my old laptop into firewire mode, plugged in a cable and turned on the new laptop. It asked me if I wanted to install from the old one and I clicked "yes." Then I walked down to the coffee shop, grabbed a bite and a drink. That was it. All my configurations, settings, files, programs, security certs, user accounts, and everything else was sucked across the firewire cable. With a straight Linux machine it takes me days of configuration to get all those configurations back on new hardware.
The other feature I mentioned is system services. One spellchecker that works in all programs and shares a dictionary I customize. One grammar checker that works in all programs, regardless of if the developers of vi or Adobe InDesign or SubEthaEdit even knew such a feature was available. The same goes for scripts, language translation, online dictionary/thesaurus lookups, automatic bibliography citations, and hundreds more. Because OS X has provided a way for applications to share functionality with one another or from a plug-in I no longer have to copy and paste from my IM application into MS Word to check spelling or grammar. I can translate text from one language to another in any program. It saves me hours every week and I catch spelling errors in my posts and chats and IRC conversations and e-mail and Web mail and everything else, that I would have missed before.
Those are the two examples I listed, but they are not the only ways Linux is behind as a workstation. The thing is, I don't expect Linux to catch up anytime soon because all the people who really care about these things, have moved to OS X on the desktop. I use Linux on the server and I use it on the desktop for testing compatibility and for a few programs that I like better in KDE than in a generic X11 on OS X. But it just does not compare in general.
Until you try different systems for your everyday computer you just don't know what is missing from one or another. Don't mistake not having "problems" for Linux not being inferior in many ways.
Apple does this all the time. It does make for a vibrant 3rd developer market, with opportunities to charge for updates at more points of failure, and the new technologies and frameworks you adopt with each OS revision typically provide enough incentive for people to put down their hard-earned cash. Unfortunately, this also makes OSX unacceptable for corporate use, as in-house solutions are much more difficult to support if APIs keep getting deprecated or significantly modified. Also, you tend to have to recompile with the latest version of XCode as major OS revisions are released, or your apps will have stability problems, meaning that you can't just keep using the same binaries for long periods of time. There are advantages (3rd party developer sales, enticing new features on a regular basis) and disadvantages (app stability and compatibility, increased effort for developers, lost corporate sales). In the consumer market where Apple thrives, they can get away with this tradeoff and offer their users more drastic progress. It costs them the corporate market, however, so that must be ceded to Microsoft, who will ensure backwards compatibility to developers who use their APIs, in exchange for less fundamental innovation and end user features.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Linux is also geared to API stability to the extreme, and offers great value to corporate users. Since all the code to Linux is open, you can ensure that an API will be there in a usable form if you need it. As Linux takes away Microsoft's bread and butter, MS will react violently, trying to make big interface changes to compete with Apple in the consumer market, while keeping their corporate customers appeased with backwards-compatibility, and locked in with licensing agreements. This is a trap for them, though, as corporate customers don't care for fancy visual doodads or subscribing to ever-updating software. They want to run their productivity and database software on a stable platform, and that's it. They will keep their Win2k, XP and Office2k3 licenses until Linux and OpenOffice is able to be swapped in seamlessly (which is pretty much the case now), and get off of MS licensing for good. Since MS will be fighting to hold on to the remaining corporate diehards, they will be reluctant to make the big sweeping changes Apple has been able to, and so won't be able to compete in the consumer space as well. The combination of Apple's rise in the consumer space and Linux's rise in the corporate space will really start to put the hurt on Microsoft in the years to come. They're really caught between a rock and a hard place, and they're squeezing together at an increasing rate. Their attempts to lock down the screws with Windows Genuine Advantage are just going to accelerate this shift.
If Microsoft is to succeed, they will have to become a middleware vendor for other operating systems. If they focus on their vast library of APIs, and work on making them universally available, they would have great leverage, with all the software that depends on these APIs, to secure a large part of the future computer market. This would attract more developers to their platform, and make their platform more crucial to computing in general.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Personally, I'm happy with any computer built since the Difference Engine (Hey, I'm old. Ada Lovelace was hot).
But I also know that the rest of the world ain't like me and you. There are whole groups of professionals who must - by charter - eschew innovation (floor care nurses come to mind) and the less they have to think about computers the more comfortable they are. For me, mouse buttons >= 3 is better. For others, mouse buttons > 0 are problematic, mouse buttons > 1 are Way Beyond The Comfort Zone. There are a lot of those people out there.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Y'know, I studied Virgil at school, but I never realised he wrote I Am The Walrus.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I totally agree. I first used osx a year ago or so and am convinced that is how computing should work for users. It's all of the little things that you mention that put it above a linux or windows desktop. Of course it has it's issues like any piece of software, but it works and works well.
In fact, I'm not sure that linux can ever reach that type of integration or functionality by the very nature of OSS. Not that it's a bad thing, but lack of integration will always relegate linux to server room or the techies desktop.
Having used both within a span of mintes (like, right next to each other), I can also say they're not that dissimilar either. The BlackBook has a nicer screen (by a longshot) and OS X, but as far as Windows notebooks go, the Thinkpad is pretty good. It's somewhat more responsive (thanks solely to it's gig of ram, the 512MB stock simply isn't enough for OS X) and more comfortable to use (notably due to how it NEVER gets hot, despite having both the same processor and GMA950 chip; the Genius Bar has never been able to grasp this, though the fact that the edge where your wrists rest aren't SHARP!! on the thinkpad is a plus too). They both have the black show greasy fingerprints off like only black laptop owners know about, and I'd say that overall they had about equal build quality (though in a rare turn of events, the MacBook is quite a bit easier to upgrade). They even had comparable battery life under similar usage situations - around 4.5-5 hours, though you get more done on the MacBook in a given space of time thanks to things like Expose' and everything being wonderfully integrated together.
I agree, they're definitely doing something right. Maybe advertising, maybe being trendsetters, maybe people just recommending them more than ever. I couldn't say. But I'm not going to be able to trick myself into thinking the hardware is vastly superior, when there are still heat-related issues (I just got my MBP back from Apple's service dept where they were going to fix it... it's still scaldingly hot) and the things don't even sit flat on the table because they warped. Don't get me wrong - I'd still take the Apple system any day, but it's solely because of OS X.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Speak up, Steve can't hear you over the clanging of the cash registers.
In addressing the premise of the recommendation from this particular Gartner analyst, one has to wonder why a company would get out of a highly profitable area of their business while it is still highly profitable. The day may come when selling computers is not a good financial thing for Apple to do, but until that time I am pretty confident Apple will continue doing it.
Of course, many of us also question the prediction for other reasons. First, Apple is not just in the computer hardware business. They sell an overall user experience. The unique design of the hardware and the software are components in that overall experience - each is not easily separable from the other. Second, Apple's current strategy has been extremely effective. They continue to increase market share in each segment they operate in. The line between the iPod and the Mac computer line is continuing to blur without risking the individual segments.
It continues to amaze me that any analyst would be unable to comprehend that Apple's business model is not Dell's. Having not read the analysts actual report (too lazy to download it), I hope that he is only referring to the supply chain and manufacturing efficiencies that Dell is supposed to enjoy over other companies. However, I suspect that Apple is getting as efficient as Dell in these areas. If you look at their component inventory on-hand (at about 4-6 days), they seem to be quite good in their supply chain management. The earlier point that their margins may decrease seems a more salient point than to suggest that Apple would be any less capable of being able to profit from the computer business.
...though not very many of them.
Apple retains one manufacturing plant in Laguna, CA and another in Cork, Ireland. Both have seen their workforces shrink in recent years.
I believe it may also have a company-owned (that is, not contracted) plant in Malaysia that makes mice.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
In the 15 years i've been in IT, I have consistently been a white-box/Dell/HP/EMC guy. The current network I admin uses Dell servers and the 3 year old Dell workstations are on their way out. Guess what we are buying to replace the aging workstations? You guessed it - Macs.
The ability to standardize on one platform for both Mac OS and Windows is great. The hardware is nicely designed, and seems to hold up better than Dell or HP.
Still, Dell makes a nice server, and the re-branded EMC stuff is also nice....but who knows...the next Xserves may run Windows....you never know.
Apple's control over its hardware ensures quality. The miracle called Boot Camp will only increase Apple's market share. I hope an MBA doesn't screw that up.
-ted
Complete, utter, and total shash..
---- Apple computers make up a tiny market share.
Apple's market share is growing, and guess what: that growth had to come from somewhere. Apple is taking share away from the other players in the market. It's also interesting to note that while Apple is #4 is market share right now (behind Gateway, but not for long), their profits for this quarter were $584 million. Gateway (.3% ahead of Apple right now in sales share) lost about $80 million last quarter, and Dell (#1) had profits of about $510 million for its last quarter. In other words, Dell and Gateway had to sell something like six times as many computers as Apple to make $160 million less than Apple did over the last quarter.
---- Dell and HP will continue to grow.
That's debatable. Dell and HP sell a lot of $300 computers at either a razor-thin profit as an actual loss-leader. A company that buys 1500 cheap desktop units for the workers will also buy a couple hundred high-end laptops for the executives.. and the laptops probably bring Dell more actual profit than the whole consignment of desktops. Thing is, Apple's growing market share is coming from the $1500-5000 price range, where Dell and HP make their real money.
Apple will be absolutely delighted to see Dell and HP ship 80% of the computers sold in the market, as long as that 80% comes from the sub-$1k, $2-profit-per-unit loss-leader segment. Meanwhile, Apple will sit happily on the 20% of unit sales that generate 25% profit on a $1500-5000 sale per machine.
---- How many small incremental features can be added to the iPod before people look the other way? Rivals are offering similar devices with more features at a lower price.
And consumers voting with their wallets don't give a shit. Those lower-priced units with similar features also offer a lousy user experience, which is just certain to get better now that Microsoft has jumped firmly astride the fence with its dual Zune-to-be-coming and Plays-for-Sure-Unless-It-Doesn't initiatives. The numbers for the past several years show that Apple holds about 75% of the global market and everyone else competes for the remaining 25%. Any competitors who want to take market share away from Apple have to do better than 'similar features (but lousy usability) at a slightly lower price'. They have to offer something that's significantly better. And since the competition is currently stuck in "which one sucks least?" territory, that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
---- Apple is sunk without a strategic alliance and a different strategy.
Apple is making money hand over fist in a market where everyone else is fighting to survive. And if you want a strategic alliance, wait 'til the cross-pollination between Apple's R&D and Intel's R&D starts to kick in. Apple is willing to push new technology into the market, where the Wintel manufacturers wait to adopt (or release) technology until a trend is established (look how long it took to get rid of parallel ports). Intel has spent years developing concept platforms that none of the Wintel OEMs have been willing to take to market. Apple wants an edge on technology, Intel wants a vendor to showcase its new tech. And now the two are working together.
Andrew Donoghue suggested that Toyota get out of the car business, and just make car stereos.
Apple's machines are generally built by contract PC manufacturers in Asia; Apple already is largely only design, marketing, distribution, and some software development. Involving Dell would only increase costs for Apple.
I'm somewhat disapointed with apple's present hardware offerings. I wish they kept the PPC platform esp since PA semi made the laptop chip they needed and it's better then intel's core ie is 64bit has an onboard PCI-e controller and two DDR2 memory controllers and uses only 5 to 13 watts. Tell me does yohna or even conroe come close to this http://www.pasemi.com/processors/1682M.html Other gripes no PCMCIA on the macbooks and to get a usable graphics card you must buy the macbook pro. Though since they have OSX on X86 I'd like to see it offered for normal PCs esp since I seen acer and sony laptops that have better battery life and offer a 3d card for a lot less money.
This is precisely why I never listen to such analyst. They are dumb.
The point of Apple is to make hardware ergonomic and user friendly. Software is the glue. But regardless of quality of glue, you cannot force user to stick with shit.
Look at M$ and its relations of OEMs & hardware manufacturers - and resulting quality of Windows, its drivers and integration with hardware. This is precisely what would happen to Apple, would it ever stop being vertical company: crashes & blue screens (since software would never know hardware it runs), incompatibilities & over-delayed releases (since exact way hardware works might be known only few weeks before it's released).
Apple would never do that.
HAHAHA! Morons! Apple survived not single CPU manufacturer/architecture in past, with Intel being third. Apple is outliving CPUs for sure. That's tradition.
What's more, for Intel now Apple is becoming important part. Compared to other HW manufacturers, Apple has very narrow well defined goals it is trying to achieve no matter what. That's something certain for Intel in the uncertain market.
Also, Apple is often early adopter. (I do not know even where to start with what they did first. Plug&Play & USB as two big examples.) And that's again good for Intel, since they can now pilot new technologies on "high end" Apple's hardware, w/o need to wait for other manufacturers who are in their turn wait for Intel to drop prices. Win-win combination: Intel can sell more expensive hardware to people who can appreciate it and Apple can improve its "exclusiveness" rating.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.