Slashdot Mirror
66% Apple Market Share For Sales of High-End PCs
An anonymous reader lets us know about a recent analysis of retail computer sales numbers that shines a spotlight on Apple's sales growth as the PC market has flattened. In the lucrative >$1,000 PC segment, in the first quarter of 2008, Apple's retail market share was 66%. This includes a 64% market share for laptops and a market share for desktops of 70%. The article attributes the bulk of this success to Apple's stores. Fortune picked up this report and pointed out the somewhat obvious fact that the >$1,000 PC segment is Apple's by default, since Dell, HP, and Lenovo sell the bulk of their machines in the $500-$750 range, and Apple has only one model selling for less than $1,000. As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
"If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will take their money somewhere else."
Honestly, Apples are overpriced for what hardware and software they contain. Sure they may use a stable UNIX based OS, but you can get just that with any respectable Linux OS (Debian, Ubuntu, etc., depending on the person's preference.)
It's funny to watch Windows Fanboys write about Mac. Somehow, they always loop the discussion around to their favorite software. Check out this exchange from the fine Apple Watch article:
Really? For about a year now, studies have shown that everyone knows about Vista but no one wants it. It's poor performance has convinced all but the most self loathing of people that Windows is not going anywhere. But finally, Apple is now using almost exactly the same hardware - How can anyone not see that the only remaining difference is software that does not suck?
You have to wonder if any of these people have ever used anything but Windows for more than a week in the last ten years.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
...what you pay for. Most of those computers mentioned in the article are made from the absolute cheapest parts that HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. can get. Apple tends to use the best parts they can get, and the results speak for themselves. I have Macs that are still in running order after 20 years.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
that is reason apple biggest sellers are 1000+$ machines, anything under that you can't really do anything with.
way to try spin the fact mac's are a rip off into something positive. "zomg apple sells nothing under $1000, and since no one but mac fans are dumb enough to spend that much they rule!"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I may have missed something, but what is it that you want to do that you can't on an $800 Lenovo T61 with a 2.0 ghz Core 2 Duo and 2gb of ram?
You know, just the other day, I was looking at a Dell laptop running Ubuntu. I decided to compare it to the current MacBook. After upgrading the Dell to match Apple's stock options, the Dell was $100 more expensive (and still had a slower C2D processor and less disk space).
On one hand, Dell's plain model would suit most people fine. On the other, you get more for your money with a Mac. And ultimately, it works for the consumer's benefit. Macs depreciate much more slowly than Dells, meaning they can get a kick ass fast machine for less than even the cheapie Dell, if they trade in.
Take a look at a brick and mortar store retail store that sells computers. You probably won't see anything over $1000, because that's not what the market that buys computers there wants.
People going to Staples or whatever to buy a PC want a cheap office machine, emphasis on cheap, and they want it immediately. People willing to spend more or wait a few days will either order from somewhere like Dell, have a whitebox store assemble one from parts, or just do it themselves.
OK, I'll take some fanboy bait...
The bang-for-buck of Apple's hardware plus their software is a little difficult to justify by itself (though it is arguably a better deal than Windows and a lot less setup than linux). But the industrial design should not be overlooked as a value factor.
Compare a "cheap" consumer-grade MacBook to a similar consumer-grade Dell. The MacBook not only looks svelte and (to some) cool, it also is simply more convenient to deal with. If your computer is something that you use a lot, some of these little details can be very important.
I really appreciate the way a MacBook is almost completely silent. That it slips into the lid of a briefcase. That its speakers, microphone, and camera are all accessible but almost invisible. That I can click, right-click, scroll, pan, and more without moving my hand from one place. That it stays out of my way while I use it, instead of calling attention to itself: no blinking lights, no flashy logos in my face, no stupid buttons all over: it is just a screen with easy-to-use input devices.
People that buy Apple computers do so because they think they're getting their money's worth. People who buy higher-end PCs are the same. Dell has been mentioned already in this discussion - well they have laptops that cost several grand, and people buy them... even though Dell also has laptops for $500 or thereabouts.
#DeleteChrome
As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
Translation to reality:
"If you give people the choice between, as an example, a $2500 Wintel PC and a $500 Wintel PC, both of which offer the same crappy Windows Experience, most people will choose to invest less of their money in a losing proposition."
What truly amazes me is that, apparently, a full third of the people who can afford a superior product nonetheless invest in the inferior version.
Uh, this is nothing exciting. How many PC's have you bought in a store. Not many. This is retail outlets. Dell sells three times as many computers and tons more over $1000 direct from them to you without the overhead cost of a store filled with cool glass displays and backlighting. The apple stores are designed to be more like a nightclub. They want people to come in and fall in love with the piece of hardware and its smooth round corners. You spend the extra money so you can make love to it. Post the stats on all computer sales and see Apple still with a very small bite of the global sales. Don't get too excited Macaddicts.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
It's all about pinning your opponent and cutting off their air supply.
How long will all the other laptop makers be able to hide the losses their "premium" laptops must be suffering because no one wants Vista? While they "race to the bottom" Apple is selling exactly the same hardware for twice as much. The only difference is software. The blackout will come soon.
Just a friendly note to all other commenters posting in this and any other thread:
Don't be a jackass. Seriously, If you have an opinion, express it thoughtfully but avoid assigning labels to those with different opinions.
For example:
"Apple fanboys are so stupid--they'll pay too much money for a computer they can't upgrade or build for themselves."
This is how an immature person makes an argument. I know I'm asking a lot here on slashdot, but it would be great to see the above opinion expressed in the following way:
"I'm not sure it's wise to spend one's money on a computer that can't be upgraded or one that can't be assembled from parts you pick for yourself. For me, the convenience tax and premium prices for Apple hardware are way too high to be justified."
Macintosh users should note that taking the former flamebait only reinforces the baiting behavior. You paid a pretty penny for the computer you're using to respond so try to use more than just the "CFCKYUO" keys in your response. As much as you might try, it's futile to explain the subjective nature of the "Mac experience" to the kind of person who types flamebait anyways.
Just say no to flamebait.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
But then they would lose their luxury lustre. The Apple brand is built around the idea that it's a luxury good that only trendy people use - the elaborate Apple stores with the people who fix your computer so you don't have to, the industrial design that looks better than the standard Dell, and the high-end specs and price. Apple makes its money because it can afford, through ruthless and effective positioning, to call itself a luxury good, and price accordingly.
Prada doesn't make cheap sunnies for the punters. Apple doesn't make cheap laptops for the punters. If either tried, they'd ruin their luxury reputation and they wouldn't be able to afford to put all that effort into making a nice-looking product.
Apple does compete with Dell. They suck up Dell's lucrative high end, leaving Dell with the dregs. They could compete with Dell's low end too, but it's more profitable not to.
When I moved out on my own I started buying tools to help me keep my apartment and eventually my house repaired. I started out picking up the first tool I saw that was cheap and did the job. $10 hammer, $5 multi-screwdriver set, 200-piece no-name, all-in-one socket sets for $20.00, etc. They did the job. After all, you can turn a screw with a cheap screwdriver just like an expensive one.
Needless to say, I've had many versions of each over time. I can't count the times I've had my phillips-head screwdriver turn into a rounded-out, useless waste of money at the first recalcitrant screw. It always happens at the worst time too. After expressing my frustrations with my dad one time (in language that probably shocked him) He looked at me and simply said "Why don't you buy decent tools?" My response was "Have you seen how much they cost?!" He responded "How many times have you re-bought that screwdriver?". I had to admit that I'd probably spent twice the cost of a "pro" screwdriver over the years on cheap ones and cursed them every time.
Over time I started applying this lesson to other things in my life. I found that every time I took the cheap option "to make due" I was disappointed and invariably wound up replacing it much sooner than I should have. I found that I actually saved money and aggravation by buying quality the first time. I traded in my cheap POS for a used Mercedes. I threw out my Walmart tennis-shoes for a pair of quality walking shoes. I passed up the $3.00 T-shirts and invested in quality brands. The list goes on...
I've had the extreme pleasure of driving my Mercedes every day for the last 10 years. It's as good as the day I bought it and when I go to sell it I'll have paid less for it year-over-year, than I ever did on the myriad el-cheap-O's I used to drive. Where I used to replace my shoes every year, or so, I have had my current pair of shoes going on 4 years and have experienced more comfort than I had imagined possible in a shoe up till that point. And my T-shirts? They used to fade and grow thin after a few washes and I'd donate them or throw them out and have to re-buy them. Today, I still have T-shirts that look almost new that I've worn regularly for 7 years. I still have one I wore to my brother's wedding rehearsal 9 years ago.
All this is a very long way of saying that, amortized over time, buying quality is often cheaper (and almost always more pleasurable) than buying the first thing you can afford.
Now, I've built my share of PC's. I enjoy picking through catalogues and eBay auctions and getting the best bang for my buck. But, those are my hobby machines. My TrixBox. My MythTV. My fun stuff. My main system is (currently) a Dual G5 Power Mac that I bought refurb'ed shortly after they came out. Even then, it cost me more than $1,000, but I've had it almost 5 years now and It's still doing it's job well. My neighbor just gave me his 3rd Dell in 5 years (a trade for re-installing Windows so many times). He's spent way more on all those systems than I did on my one and has had no end to his aggravation. I sit down at my system (that I've never had to re-install) and get my work done. Would I like to get a cool new 8-way Intel system? Sure. No doubt. But I don't *need* it yet, and I haven't saved up for it yet. It's budgeted for this fall - yay! :-D
Some people can get by just fine with the cheapest piece of crap Dell or Walmart sells. It looks like crap, it's loaded with useless crap, it's made with the cheapest parts that can be had, it's "settling" for the lowest common denominator. Like the cheap screwdriver, it can get the job done, but you wind up fighting it every step of the way. Their entire experience with computers is based on that. They are used to it. They expect it. It's sad.
There is something special that you experience the first time you pick up a professional tool. The hammer feels more balanced. The screwdriver turns the screws with surprisingly little effo
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Personally I think the claim is mis-leading anyway. The category is narrowly defined as not only over 1000, but also bought retail. So it's crafted to exclude all the expensive workstations and servers bought by corporations, since they don't usually just drive a truck to WalMart to buy them retail.
It's a bit like saying that Joe is the world leader in selling over-$1000 cats by Ebay and air mail. Sure, he only sold one on Ebay, but he's the only guy who sedated the cat and sent it by air mail. The rest of the people bought their cats face to face, or had them delivered by courier in a few cases. Narrow it down to Ebay and air mail, and, bam, Joe has 100% of that market.
Better invest in Joe. In fact, this year he found two stray kittens in his backyard, and plans to sell them both on Ebay by air mail. That's 100% year-on-year growth, baby. At this rate, in 20 year, Joe will ship over 1 million cats yearly. As a savvy investor, you don't want to miss _that_ boat.
In other words, it's just a PR masturbation exercise.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Next time buy a $40 card that works. You only defeat yourself when you give money to a card maker that is not playing nice. I'm glad people write software for nasty hardware but I'm not about to waste months waiting for it. There are too many good cards and too little time to fool with the bad ones.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
Money is social status. It's the fact that it costs more and is out of reach of the mob that makes it stylish...
If you buy a pair of ripped jeans which cost you $5 you are cheap and have no style. If you buy the same pair for $200 you are a superstar.
Deleted
"I really think Apple would increase their market share of all systems if they lowered their prices or at least had models that started at lower prices."
Companies aim to maximise profits, not market share. More sales doesn't necessarily mean more profits if those sales are achieved by lowering margins to a point where they need to sell 20 items to make the same as they currently do from one (meaning they _have_ to sell 20x as many, and also cope with 20x the support calls, carry 20x the inventory, etc.) or in the case of a company with a reputation for quality, by cutting corners in ways that result in an inferior product.
The fact that Apple are making lots and lots of money while others with significantly larger market shares are struggling means that the company obviously isn't being run by idiots who aren't capable of working out the price point for each product that allows them to maximise their profits while maintaining their very high customer satisfaction ratings.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Yes, but the intersection is still mis-leading. Percentage of retail _or_ percentage of over-1000 computers could say something. (If you do understand that you are talking about a particular niche, not about the company's overall profitability or market share.) But the intersection is just a narrowly crafted niche, for PR masturbation reasons.
It's like saying that Moraelin's Fairies won the most games played on a rainy Tuesday under artificial lighting. They have a whole two games won under those conditions, while everyone else has at best one win that's on a rainy day _and_ tuesday _and_ played at night. It's trivia, at best. It doesn't make it the best team in any actual category that matters, it just crafts an artificial niche to make my team look good.
And probably more importantly, a tell-tale sign of a PR masturbation exercise, is that even that niche doesn't really support the conclusion they try to feed you. ""If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."" Really? Exactly which part of that percentage supports that conclusion? Did they compare before and after a price hike, or what? Did Apple try to have cheap computers too, and people were going for those instead?
But even that wouldn't be visible, if you only look at the over-1000 segment. You need an entirely different sample to make that point.
No, it's very likely just a PR exercise masquerading as news.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It appears that you consider a computer that works from the moment you turn it on and real people enjoy using, a luxury, but I think that it's just how things should be.
That's called customer service. If I bought almost any other product, and it broke, I'd expect the person who sold it to me to get it fixed.
If you actually spec up an equivalent Dell, you'll find that it usually comes out slightly more expensive then the Apple machine. Just because Dell will sell you a $300 piece of crap doesn't mean they're selling you something better as well.
FACT Apples have always been about the same OR BETTER priced compared to equal PC's
I don't know why I spend my time on an obvious fanboy, but this is just ridiculous. Do 800+ bucks RAM-upgrades ring a bell?And the rest of your FACTs sound just as plausible as Microsoft's 'Get The Facts'
...."Have you mooed today?"...
nothing. If I can make a machine for under a thousand $ that can play crysis on high with 35 fps (atleast) then why buy a mac? Most people do not need or even want the extras you get with a >1000$ machine. And guess what businesses want (the real money maker)? Thats right the 1000$ machine. So this leaves the cows that want the shiney mac and artists. I have never been impressed by a Mac or a PC. But if Mac really wants into the non fantasy computer world, then they need make there product work on a PC. What with the high gas prices I don't think the cows are willing to go to pasture for these worthless machines anyway. That leaves the artists. And a really serious artist probably needs more than a Mac can provide also. This whole thing seems like a train wreck waiting to happen. If Apple wants to survive then they need to change.
Here's what has been pointed out so far:
* Apple has such a big market share for the $1000+ market because most PC are cheaper.
* True, but if you deck out a regular PC to match Apple's specs, it'll be around the same price.
You're all missing something rather significant. Apple makes very competitive machines, but they don't make all those low or no margin PCs that other manufactures make to boost sales and act as a loss leader for their more expensive models.
And, because of that Apple is doing quite well. Thank you very much. Apple could greatly increase their market share if they started selling low cost PCs. But, if Apple started doing that, they'd be lowering their profit margins. And, that would make the Apple stores unprofitable. Apple would be forced to close the Apple stores and cut back on customer service in general. That would make Apple just another Dell or HP.
Compare an Apple store to a typical PC retailer. There are dozens of Macs all running, and they're all connected to the Internet. iPhones and iPods are everywhere. Sales people don't chase you away if you're just browsing. Heck, browsing is highly encouraged. And, salespeople actually know something about the product. Apple service is highly rated by almost all consumer surveys.
In other words, Apple sells PCs that they can actually make a pretty profit on, and then use that profit to build an image that encourages people to spend the extra dough for an Apple PC. All this makes Apple (get ready for this...) more profitable than any other computer or electronics company - ever. Back in 1998, I bought $1000 of Apple when Steve Jobs took over. I thought I was clever when I sold it after a few months for about $5000. Well, if I was still holding on to that stock today, it would be worth over $1,500,000. Duh! Over the past decade Apple's stock has outperformed Google.
Whether or not you are a Drinker-of-the Koolade or an Apple Basher, you have to look at Apple as a way to be highly profitable in a commodity business. You don't need a MacBook to appreciate this aspect of the business. Anyone who is interested in running a company should pay attention to Apple's playbook. Apple caters to the higher end of the market, but unlike companies like Bose and Mercedes, which also have a similar strategy, Apple's products are not prime luxury goods that only a few can consider buying. A more significant number is that Apple has broken the 10% mark of market share and is the third largest manufacture of PCs. And, that's pretty hard to bash.
Most people don't really do much with their computers anyway. Read a couple emails, browse a couple webpages. Write up a couple documents. Maybe some personal finance. Most people don't do HiDef video editing, or even run games. I know I don't. I'm perfectly happy with the speed of my $500 laptop running Mandriva (Vista is another story). Most people don't need, or even want a $1000 machine. It's the same reason the Shuffle and the Nano sell so much better than the 160 GB iPod or the iPod Touch. You would think that Apple would have learned from their iPod product line, that some people just want low cost devices that meet their very modest needs.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Basically if I only get an extra 3-4 hours of work out of a Mac than a windows machine over the course of the machine's life time, it's paid for the difference in price.
Stupid Cheap Guitars
When I was in high school, and even college, I pirated software. But as an adult with a job, I either buy the software or I don't use it. People can make the case for buying a copy of OS X and then using one of the hacked kernels off the internet to get it to boot on non-Apple hardware, but let's face it -- most people who download these iso images are not doing that -- they're criminals.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I like Macs, but didn't anyone else think, "Gee, all Macs except one cost over $1000. How could Apple have *any* growth in the sub-$1000 market?" Captain Obvious, to the rescue!
I think you are confusing "luxury" with "no cost cutting". I for one I'm glad there are a few companies out there who design with quality in mind first.
Then again, what value is my post, being the trendy guy and all (seriously, it's pretty hard to be trendy at age 38 and for 20 years of using Apple products..when does this 'trendy' novelty wear off?)
You are assuming that the OS is the only reason the guy wants a MacBook Pro.
"I really think Apple would increase their market share of all systems if they lowered their prices or at least had models that started at lower prices."
But is "market share of all systems" really that interesting to the industry? If you're a software developer, do you want to sell software to people who bargain-basement shop, or people who are willing to spend more? Apple is a very profitable company, the major third party apps on the platform appear to be profitable, and the community has a huge ecosystem of mom&pop software developers that manage to make a tidy profit.
It's kind of like a television station that has 60% market share of 20-35 year olds. Sure, that segment is a minority of the population and a somewhat arbitrary gauge of spending power, but nonetheless that television station could consider themselves wildly successful and will probably sell gobs of advertising.
I think the bottom line is that any software developer who hasn't ported to the Mac yet should probably figure out a path to do so if they want to make some money.
E pluribus unum
Folks, this is the Samuel Vimes 'Boots' Theory Of Socio-Economic Injustice. From Wikipedia (easier to blockquote than the dead tree):
Early in his career, while he is still a nearly-impoverished Watchman, Vimes reflects that he can only afford ten-dollar boots with thin soles which don't keep out the damp and wear out in a season or two. A pair of good boots, which cost fifty dollars, would last for years and years - which means that over the long run, the man with cheap boots has spent much more money and still has wet feet.
This thought leads to the general realization that one of the reasons rich people remain rich is because they don't actually have to spend as much money as poor people; in many situations, they buy high-quality items (such as clothing, housing, and other necessities) which are made to last. In the long run, they actually use much less of their disposable income.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
If you have yet to see it actually happen you haven't actually spec'd out comparable systems in the last 3 or 4 years. It's easier now than ever to compare because you can actually buy the same hardware options.
For fun, here's what I came up with today:
From Dell: 13.3"
Alpine White
Intel® Coreâ 2 Duo T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB/3MB cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
160GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
Intel® Integrated GMA X3100
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
10/100 Ethernet
37Whr Lithium Ion Battery (4 cell)
High Definition Audio 2.0
Biometric Fingerprint Reader
McAfee SecurityCenter 15-months
1Yr In-Home Service, P+L,24x7 Phone Support
Included 3 GB DataSafe Online Backup for 1Yr
Price: $1254
From Apple: 13" Macbook
White
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 3MB shared L2 cache
13.3-inch glossy widescreen and iSight camera
OS X (Panther)
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
160GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
Dual Layer Superdrive dvd burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
Intel® Integrated GMA X3100
Integrated Bluetooth
Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n
Gigabit Ethernet port
4 cell Li-Ion battery
Built in Audio
iLife08--iMovie, iDVD, garageband, iPhoto
Price $1299
No the Dell isn't higher priced, but the Apple isn't significantly higher, when you consider the "entertainment"software that it provides that doesn't come with the Dell. That easily covers the $45 price difference.
Add to that the reliability issues of Vista versus OS X and it's pretty much a wash that ends up being a choice of personal preference.
The days of Apple being significantly higher priced than the competition are long gone. Now it's just FUD from anti-fanboys.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Their goal isn't to maximize marketshare in all markets - their goal is to maximize profits. In the iPod line, they need to sell low-end stuff to keep the music store viable, and their low-end stuff still fetches pretty decent margins because of the brand name.
Macs, on the other hand, are a different market. The best they could hope for in the low-end is to become a prettier Dell. I'm a Dell stockholder, and I wish they'd abandon that market to repair their brand name. Dell doesn't have to be cool like Apple, but they need to get the word "crap" disassociated with their name.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I think your calculator malfunctioned! Do many Apple products come at a slight premium? Probably. Does it stop me from buying a damn MacBook Air? Nope.
I have never had a Mac, or any of its associated hardware, die on me, and my son gets the hand me downs pretty rapidly. He just got the year old MacBook. And, somebody else will get that when he gets this... And, on they go for five or six years, until they're in the hands of 5 year olds.
The difference is the software! But, the hardware is pretty damn nice at times!
the apple one has an led backlight and a 512MB 8600m gt, it also weighs significantly less ....
instead of the vostro, you should be looking at the m1530 for the 15 inch, for the 17 inch, not really a comparison. (xps?)
It's a bit like comparing a (Hyundai/kia/lada) to (BMW,mercedes,lexus). They both have an engine and four wheels. but the plastics you touch when you sit inside them, are definitely different.
But I guess you wouldn't know....
You must be new to the Intertubes. Ever hear of "Usenet"? Threadjacking has been around a lot longer than twitter ...
What's useful about it is that it shows Apple is upselling customers to higher quality computers. HP and Dell make $1200 laptops that compare with the MacBook in hardware features, but they have to sell $700 laptops because consumers want cheap stuff.
Apple has the market power to push people toward better machines. That results in better profitability, but also higher customer satisfaction, better reliability, and a longer equipment life span.
Average sale prices of PCs are diving into the toilet, and Dell/HP would like to reverse the trend, but they can't. If one tries to prop PC prices up, the other undercuts them with cheap crap and ends up with "higher market share" despite lower profits (or greater losses).
That has locked HP and Dell into low profit spirals where they have to support junk instant eWaste PCs that only last for 18 months. Apple is not only maintaining a higher ASP, but also developing a quality brand and rapidly eating into the valuable growth in the market.
That's also why the fascination with "market share" is pointless. Obviously, Apple's 5% of the world / 9% of the US is far more valuable per percentage point than the 30% shares of HP and Dell. Every new percent Apple adds is a major expansion into greater profitability while the PC makers burn their brands as they turn into profitless Packard Bell junk vendors.
That in turn enables Apple to invest in developing better software that further differentiates its brand. Low prices are great, but most people don't want to drive a Yugo just because its cheaper.
Mobile EEE PC, UMPC, and Internet Tablets vs the iPhone
The title of this post is sensationalistic, but it should be obvious to even the biggest luddite that the biggest problem that Dell, Lenovo, HP, sony and even Asus have is Microsoft.
That sounds like the start of another classic Microsoft bashing session, but it's not. The problem that all these companies have is not poor quality hardware, or lack of features, or even ugly hardware (although anyone who has ever opened a Mac tower must realise the extreme amount of thought and work that went into designing the case and the insides). Rather the problem is that all of those companies are dependent on a company that has its own agenda and treats all of its partners as if to only tolerate them, not as if they were valuable in any real way to Microsoft.
If one of the big hardware makers had the wisdom and the courage to buy up a significant stake in a popular Linux distribution, be it Ubuntu or Suse/Novell, they would be, in the long term in a very favourable position.
Firstly, consumers don't really care about the OS. They like OSX because Apple pays such an enormous amount of attention right down to the single pixel corners of windows, but the basically just want to surf, chat, work, email, play games etc.
Apple has been able to leverage its control of both the hardware and the software to deliver a good user experience, and crucually, a stable one with all the tools (and more) that a average consumer needs to use their computer.
If, say Sony, which puts a lot of effort into the design of their machines, were to say, buy Suse, or simply start up their own Kubuntu based distribution (the KDE 4.1 desktop is nothing short of amazing), and most importantly build up a developer team to start making beautiful but simple to use applications, they would
a) have the control over what went into the distro nd what not, b) an enormous amount of developer talent worldwide to base their efforts on
c) crucially, control of their own destiny.
If Sony were then to preload enough, simple and good apps into the computers, and keep it open enough to encourage others to develop for it,they could very well take Apple on in their own space. And it would grow.
The sad thing is that none of these companies is able to find the courage or has the vision to build up a long term effort like that,that might very well mean losses over the short term, and possibly even a break with Microsoft.
None of them will do that. Hell, even Microsoft could do it, if they started their own computer brand. they would lose all their hardware partners within a year, but their hardware in the form of Keyboards, mice and Xbox has not been too bad.
Ok, back to my beer, now.