Home  >  Back to Article  >  Email Responses to "Apple Must Change to Survive"

May 23, 2003:

Hi Kris,

In response to your article:

Steve Jobs staked his reputation on the digital hub, but OS X has had to be revamped too many times (the difference between Jaguar and pre-Jaguar is too big) and the third party accessory makers (Canon and Kodak being examples of the bigger ones) were caught up in their own profit squeezes. Result: many digital cameras, including the world's best selling in 2002, a Canon product, are not seamlessly compatible with the latest OS X version. It's up to non-profit orgs such as sourceforge.net to supply drivers for a variety of digital cameras, but this is a slow process. The future for Apple depends on the decision of what to do with the digital hub and the marketing scheme, i.e. the 'digital lifestyle' (that includes more than digital cameras).

Also, Microsoft has encountered the growing Linux and Open Source movement and by extension, took a swipe at Apple by revealing the XP source code to China. So the cheapest and most innovative products for the Windows platform will emerge from the biggest population base in the world today.

Apple clearly has its work cut out for it.

Best Wishes,

George (Canada)

May 22, 2003:

Kris,

The changing "look" of Apple hardware is something Apple does with perfection. Changing the look should not be done too often. People need change, but they also need the familiar coupled with continuity. The white, ice and metal of Apple's look becomes like a trademark. This gives Apple high visibility and allows the customer to keep the add-ons while upgrading the computers. It is hard for Apple to radically change the professional tower since it is almost perfect as it is. I think they will save color changes to go with radical hardware changes to show a totally new line of hardware. This would create a new ID for the new hardware line.

When Apple gets a new processor, it will get more market share.

For a low end Mac, you suggest last years motherboard as a starting point. As a total Mac-o-file I hate to point this out. The Mac's newest motherboard is already over a year old. Apple's motherboard isn't exactly cutting edge. Of course, it needn't be cutting edge when the G4 is so lame. So how old of a motherboard do we use on this "cheap Mac?" Besides, from what I read, the PC industry is getting ready to offer the highest technology motherboards on the lowest end. I don't know where that would leave a "cheap Mac".

Nice article, Thanks

Roger Harris

May 22, 2003:

I have bought five new computers in my life, and, until today, all of them have been Macintosh.

It isn't because I don't like the Mac software suite. It is far superior to its commercial competitors in aesthetics and forethought.

It isn't because I don't like Mac OS X. OS X has been a godsend to a Unix geek like me who has a GUI dependent family.

It is because Mac continues to chain their wonderful OS to flimsy, overpriced hardware.

Since I bought an iBook for nearly double the price of a comparable Linux laptop, I have had to invoke my Apple Care warranty eight times due to mysterious failures of the display, the power supply, and finally, the combo drive.

Finally, the eighth time the Mac failed, Apple Care re-invoiced the repair, saying that they would replace the combo drive, which had just broken within a week of my sending the computer for the same problem, but only if I paid them (ahem!) seven hundred dollars.

I was given no opportunity to appeal this decision, and nobody was able to explain the outrageous price of the re-invoice, being that a new CR-RW/DVD for a Dell computer sells for a retail price of around $200.00.

I bought a Dell laptop for just a little over the price of the new combo drive. It will take some time to learn to stomach Windows XP, but given the behavior of Macintosh towards their most loyal customers, I can only guess that Macintosh's OS won't be around much longer anyway.

It was with great regret that I left the Macintosh family. I hope to see a change in their attitude towards hardware soon so that I can come back. If I could trust Mac to honor and renew their warranty, even the higher price tag would have been worth it.

Ben Jones

May 21, 2003:

I have been around since before desktop computers were a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye. I fell in love with the Mac from the first time I saw one. Its ease of use, clear, apparent, and intuitive interface captured my imagination as an ideal solution to a complex machine made useful. However, I fear the end of Mac is not unimaginable.

In the world of business, a 3-5% market share is unsustainable. Yes, I know that Mac has never had much more than that, but as computer makers turn out ever more cheaply-produced and sophisticated machines (a seeming contradiction), Apple will be more and more hard pressed to retain even that small corner of the computer world. It is difficult to imagine a company surviving the fierce competition of the computer sales world merely by designing their way into the market. The iMac and notebook computers Apple makes are seriously cool, but over priced and under competitive. How many more 'cool' computers can Apple invent to sustain, if not gain, market share?

Jobs et al. must find a way to market the Mac OS as a viable alternative to Microsoft. We who use it already know it is a superior product, but if others do not join the fold and leave Microsoft, we will, like the Shakers, die out because of our own dogmas.

Let us hope that never happens. I for one, like being somewhat iconoclastic, but would like a little more company.

Royce Blackburn

May 20, 2003:

Are you older or younger than Apple as a corporation?

Market share is not the measure of a business. Customer loyalty and growth are. Apple has nailed each of these two down, well.

Is BMW about to go out of business with their 3% market share? Unlikely. Apple is a niche computer and probably always will be. There is nothing wrong with that. Personally, if they became #1, I might go after the next "underdog". Why are you (and so many other so-called informed web-ramblers) so stuck on market share as the most important measure. It really is one of the least important.

I run a business (for the last 25 years) and in our market, we are barely 3-5%. We are doing just fine as well. And we could care less about the others. We do our jobs well. Our customers know it, and they stick with our product BECAUSE they get to deal with us if they do. How do we know? Because they tell us.

Try not to let the big numbers fool you. Quality always supersedes quantity.

Jenny Morgan

My Response:

Jenny,

Thanks for reading the article and thank you for your input. I agree with many of your points but I have some reservations about your conclusions. I am not a business expert. Most of my ideas come from John Ward, the Webmaster of Vectronic's Apple World. He is a CPA slash CIS guru with many years of business experience. He has written an article, "Does Market Share Matter," about Apple and market share espousing many of the points you have made. If you are interested, you can read the article at http://www.vectronicsappleworld.com/2003/opinion/0306.html.

Basically, my point is simple. How many people do you know who can afford a BMW? I can't and none of my friends can. In fact, I don't personally know anyone who owns one. Maybe they went to a better college than me or maybe I am just a worthless loser but the fact still remains, I can't afford a BMW. Their product is marketed to the well-heeled, upper-middle to rich consumer. Sure, it is a great car but I get around just fine in my 6-year old Toyota. I don't think you can make a close comparison between cars and computers, but the analogy holds in one important aspect. Apple will be forced to market to those of greater means if they do not change their market position. Their upfront cost in R&D is just too great. They must come up with a balance between quality and quantity.

Consumers will tolerate an affordable Windows box if Apple prices them out of the market. That is the plain, simple, and undeniable reality of the consumer electronics market. Market share doesn't necessarily matter to BMW, Ferrari, or Jaguar. If that is the kind of customer Apple wishes to court, so be it. The platform will become extremely niche, school children will no longer use them in school, developers will shy away from the smaller market, and people like me will be forced to buy Windows machines.

Thanks again for reading the article and I hope that our disagreement won't keep you from coming back to the site.

Thanks,

Kris Hookerman

May 20, 2003:

Regarding the article:

Apple Must Change to Survive (By Kris Hookerman)

Please understand that Dell, Gateway, and Compaq do almost no R&D, whereas Apple does. Apple also produces software. The other three mentioned do not. That's why the hardware and software work so well. Apple makes the whole widget, which costs more, so the margins have to be higher.

Simple economics - R&D costs! (but that's why you like Apple...)

brutno

My Response:

Thanks for reading the article and thanks for taking the time to reply.

Great points, but even so, Apple does have a huge R&D burden. The Wintel machine is poised to destroy Apple because the R&D is spread over an immense network of companies. Apple must change its market position to cope with this challenge. The are doing some great things with iPod and iTunes. That is the kind of "Think Different" marketing that they need to bring back to their major product line.

Take Care,

Kris Hookerman