RSSHave high-end Macs made Apple the preferred choice of snobs?
By Carmi Levy | Published July 24, 2009, 7:44 PM
Just released figures from research firm NPD seem to suggest that Apple has a firm handle on the rich and famous.
In June, Apple owned 91 percent of the so-called premium computer market -- machines costing $1,000 and up. That's up three points over May's figures. Way back in early 2008, it was a mere 66 percent. Apple is clearly doing something right to attract the well-heeled.
Historically, Apple has been happy to maintain the status quo, to remain in the upper registers of the market and avoid slugging it out in the cheap seats. Even as netbooks seemed to take the computing world by storm, Apple steadfastly refused to bow to calls to dive into the low end of the computing pool. Just last week, Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook reinforced his company's position, saying, "Our goal is not to build the most computers, it's to build the best. Whatever price allows us to build the best computer, we'll build it there...We can't build a great $399 computer."
I agree. The average netbook makes a rusted out 1988 Toyota Tercel liftback look luxurious in comparison. Flimsy keyboards, snap off-but-not-back-on parts, and squeaky and creaky plastic everywhere else promise a mercifully short and sad service life. You get what you pay for, which in the case of the average netbook is relatively little. Relatively elevated return rates and online forums and blogs filled with nasty comments suggest I'm not alone in my disdain for this vision of uber-cheap computing.
Apple, for good reason, is steering well clear. This is where bottom feeders live, and presumably go to die. Introducing a full-on netbook at this price point would surely kill its carefully cultivated brand.
But if you read into Tim Cook's careful choice of words, you may notice something else: Namely that they can't build a $399 computer, but they'd be happy -- and absolutely able -- to build a $399 something else. They already make an even less expensive device that possesses many of the attributes mobilenauts hold dear. Depending on where you buy it and what your particular needs are, it's either an iPod touch or an iPhone. With a little stretching and tweaking, it's not out of the realm of possibility that something based on iPhone/iPod Touch bones might make a great $399 something.
Of course, that's not what the rumor mill is saying. The latest word (which, as you know, I've already bet my next mortgage payment on) is that Apple's bringing a $799 tablet-based device to market sometime in 2010. Apple, which has been defining and redefining form factors since the day it was founded, has never been content to simply follow anyone else's lead. So whatever it has in store, count on it not being a me-too product. And while all this speculation grew tiresome months ago, it still begs two key questions that don't seem to be getting much air time:
- Should it be a downsized Mac or an upsized iPhone/iPod Touch?
- Will it cannibalize existing Mac sales in either case?
Let's look at them in order:
Downsized or upsized? I'll apologize in advance for not having a set answer for this. Wait, I lied. I do: It depends. Our one-size-fits-all understanding of mobility needs to be replaced with something a little more flexible. For some folks, mobility is the ability to quickly look up stuff online, send relatively short e-mails, and maybe do some light editing. For them, the average iPhone or BlackBerry may be enough. For users who take their machines into meetings and remote offices and need to create larger volumes of work, a keyboard-equipped form factor with a real screen and Actual Microsoft Office, or something like it, are critical. An upsized iPhone -- complete with non-standard productivity apps and the need to sync and translate files -- may be just the ticket for lighter mobile needs, while a downsized Mac may suit the road warriors among us. Notice I didn't say Windows XP-powered netbook. Would you honestly want to crack one of those open in your next business meeting?
Cannibalize the Mac? It sounds like heresy to deliberately sell a less expensive product that knowingly cuts into sales of existing, more expensive, and higher margin offerings. The heresy issue is something that's seemingly dogged Apple forever. Indeed, other Tier 1 vendors that have gone down the netbook route have experienced it first-hand as their early netbook offerings shifted some revenue away from their existing low-end conventional laptops. So it's entirely fair that Apple, whose brand image is arguably more polished than those of its competitors, is afraid to even open up that Pandora's Box. But no company can afford to ignore its market. And if Apple fans expect a something that offers reasonable mobility and workflow support and costs in the high three figures, then it unnecessarily assumes major risk by ignoring the growing calls for too long.
In the short term, such a device may indeed siphon away some dollars from folks who would have purchased a full-on MacBook or MacBook Pro. In the long term, however, it'll attract additional attention and customers to the brand and prevent existing customers from looking elsewhere when they want something smaller than a conventional laptop. Erosion of existing customers is the biggest danger Apple faces by delaying the inevitable.
As much as Apple would like to maintain its current product roadmap and ignore what's happening in the lower end of the market, it can't afford to sit still. The world is changing around it, and the company must adapt its product line to suit customers' evolving needs. That may mean iPhones on steroids, MacBooks struck by shrink rays, or both of the above.
History is filled with examples of companies that, content to occupy their niche, missed the higher order changes outside their little islands that eventually swallowed them whole. While I'm hardly accusing Apple of keeping its head in the sand, it needs to accelerate its ability to adapt to global trends that redefine what hardware looks like and how it works.
Nothing snobby about that.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
I love the fact that internetworld7's comments don't even appear anymore.
Score: -1
|And I love the fact that you can't visit this site without mentioning me in at least one post. It shows that I've really gotten underneath your skin! ^__^
Oh and by the way your comment isn't showing either hillbilly, at least on my screen. :-)
Score: 0
|I use both generic PCs and laptops and Apple PCs and Apple laptops. I think either can be a good investment if you enjoy using them and find yourself productive. I, personally, do enjoy the Apple aesthetic and craftsmanship and feel (in most cases) you get excellent ROI. I use Apple for my personal machines but for my servers in the rack, Linux on hand-built machines are the way I go.
I don't have much use for the Windows OS myself right now but it seems to get people by and I would imagine is really the only choice at the moment if one is a serious PC gamer. I don't want to rock the boat, but it feels to me like Windows tries to be too many things to too many people and, as a result, can be overburdened by it. I suppose in some situations, this could be said to be a strength. Win7 and 2008/r2 do seem to be heading in the right direction but neither of the unlimited versions seem appropriately priced to me.
At the end of the day, as long as your satisfied is what matters I suppose ;)
Score: 4
|there will always be people that prefer
"Value over Statement"
apples are "over-stated" and "over-priced".
apple is simply taking advantage of the people who have dollars but "no cents" (yes, pun intended)
Score: 1
|Here is what Carmi Levy and the rest of you PC fanboys need to worry about: http://bit.ly/w3SVt
I've said it once and I'll say it again, Microsoft is a dying brand.
Instead of trying to paint all Mac users as snobs and elitist you should be far more concerned about Microsoft's continual downward spiral under the leadership of monkey boy a.k.a Steve Ballmer.
Score: -7
|The title does imply that macs are owned by snobs, but, as a Mac user, I found the article to be an interesting analysis and not-in-the-least Windows fanboy-ish.
The Mac-Windows debates here are extremely tiresome. Let's discuss the actual content of the articles rather than which platform is anointed by a higher power.
Score: -1
|That one's easy...Yes.
Because any person can see that it is a rip off. I can buy a higher spec PC for half the price.
Score: 0
|With regards to a Apple tablet. Could be a good idea. If it was affordable and decent. 500-600 would be the most they really could be able to sell it for. if they run the iphone os on it they would and could have a big winner. Being they already have a massive app store. makeing the tablet into a mac with a proper OS X would be a bad idea. Cause it wouldnt mean as much. and would cut into sales of they're other laptops. iphone or rather ipod touch OS is perfect. each touch interface and apps galore. but i dont see them making it cost wise. after all being it would be more a toy then a serious work machine it should then be maybe 400 bucks. but we know they like to charge alot more and surely will charge more. To make it a winner it cant cost more then 500 bucks, should have 10-12 inch widescreen, and shouldnt come with some carrier required subsidised contract that gives you internet being more people wont need that. Alot of netbooks do this and it's a bad idea. I got a phone for that reason or a laptop for serious work. This tablet would be a toy, and toys shouldnt cost me something each month.
Score: 0
|let's be honest here for a sec. Just how many 1000+ laptops are being sold? The majority of laptops for sale are under 1000 bucks. I purchased one for 399.99 and it's great for what i needed it for. Sure my video card for my gaming desktop cost more then the laptop. But thats another story. I've considered buying a Apple laptop, but when you do the math and you are paying double for the same specs it makes no sense. Sure macbooks are nice and all. But I dont think 91 percent is alot of actual machines being sold. Compared with the sub 1000 market. This story would have more weight years ago when a windows based laptop was over 1000 bucks to begin with. Apple is happy with it's small market share cause it makes such a huge profit on everything it sells cause it charges way to much for all of it. I have a iphone, And i love it. Yet they charge me 199 for the thing and charge at&t another 450 bucks for a device that costs them 175 bucks to make. If Apple wanted to prove how great they think they are they need to cut prices by at least 30 percent and see if they can sell in the big league. Besides for everyday stuff a 400 laptop is great. So why do we need a 1000-2000 macbook?
Score: 0
|"let's be honest here for a sec. "
"I've considered buying a Apple laptop, but when you do the math and you are paying double for the same specs"
Same use maybe, but same specs? I thought you were going to "be honest here"...
Windows laptops may be cheaper for the same specs, but not by double...not even close. At most it's 25-35% over cost which is probably only about 6-10% over the mark-ups for the brands with the Windows laptops...
Score: -2
|Do your own math b4 you check mine. as of today a 999.99 macbook, the cheapest mac laptop has the following specs.
2.13GHz
Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR2 Memory
160GB hard drive1
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
From best buy a HP laptop with color printer for 429.98 has this....
2.0ghz pentium dua core
4gigs ram
15.6 inch screen
250gig hard drive
intel video card 4500mhd
the specs of both are very similar. sure the apple has a slightly better video card. but makes no different since gaming is a none issue on a mac. if you do the math it's more then double. a macbook is a basic machine without much frills. actually check b4 you say someone is wrong.
Score: 1
|Sorry but i continued shopping. Page 2 of the best buy sales ad has a laptop for 339.99.
Score: 2
|Same specs? ROFL. Not even close. The mac has much more powerful processor, higher speed memory, same resolution screen, and _way_ better graphics card. Try running anything 3d with crap Intel graphics....ROFL.
Not to mention, you need anti-malware. firewall, anti-spyware, intrusion detection, photo editing, video editing, etc... plus you have a crappy Windows OS with DRM everywhere infecting everything you do.
Score: -4
|I can get all of the stuff you listed above for free. Avast, Comodo, irfanview/paint.net/GIMP/etc. Also my PC has no DRM infecting it.
Score: 3
|That's only half a comparison. Try to compare apples with Apples. :p
C2D != pentium dual core. The latter typically can't do virtualisation, which is a right PITA. Moreover, the C2D, even at similar clock speeds, will flog the pants off it because it has a bigger cache and typically a better FSB. It's also not fair to compare the GeForce 9400M to ANY Intel integrated graphics. Intel graphics run at best half the speed of the Nvidia solution, and at worst, about 1/10th the speed.
Try again.
Score: 0
|Further to that - the HP dv5-1099nr is probably a better comparison, at $679. Doesn't include a full version of Windows (only Home Premium) but it's got a T5800 (slower than the Mac), 4GB and 9600M graphics (faster than the Mac).
Score: 1
|You're on crack if you think Vista has no DRM. The whole thing is designed around DRM.
Score: -3
|@ bigsexy022870:
Processor is slower, RAM is undoubtedly slower, even the chipset on the mainboard is probably slower...
And even without that, you posted two entirely different systems...hardly the "same specs".
2.0/2.13 4GB/2GB... This is "same" to you?
Score: 0
|No sir, you are on crack the only thing DRM in Vista is support for support != DRM Infestation
Score: -1
|Snobs and people who want to appear successful or important.
Score: 0
|All OS, including MAC, has under 10% of the OS market. Microsoft has the rest. MAC users post in here like there's some kind of competition going on. Dream on. Duh! MAC's a microscopic fish in a huge ocean. Microsoft is the whale. It owns the ocean.
Score: 3
|Great! but mac users like that SOB internetworld7, are just too ignorant to get that thing into their brain
Score: 4
|I love it --- please review historical comments in Betanews over the last few years (if that's possible) where you will see almost identical comments posted often. I say "almost identical" because each time someone posts such a comment, that marketshare value gets higher!
Score: 0
|You're right, the percentage is gaining at the speed of light. Only 90% to go. They'll probably overcome MS in a few short light years.
Score: 0
|How fast do you think it should be going? Last year, they were at 6%, now they're at 10% --- let's see YOU make a product that has that kind of penetration in the market in a single year!
Score: 0
|10%?
Citation?
Score: 0
|This is the best I could find, it sounds like Apple is doing good with Apple but compared with everyone else, not so much
http://arstechnica.com/a...ding-on-who-you-ask.ars
Score: 0
|Still a little better than I thought. I was pegging it at between 6-8%, but 7.6-8.7% still isn't 10. ;)
Would love tot see the numbers for last year to compare, but not motivated enough to google them right now.. :p
Score: 0
|Well, 9.63% for Macs alone, but that was as of Jan 2009
http://www.tuaw.com/2009...e-lowest-since-tracking/
-----------
Citation?
Score: 0
|I don't think it is fair to say that the MAC customer base is limited to the wealthy. People below the poverty line can't afford a MAC. However, if we focus on the cost of ownership rather than sale price, the trade-off tips to the MAC. The quality open-source software (Open Office for example) and no need for anti-virus software alone evens the score. The long term reliability of a quality-built computer clinches the deal.
Score: 1
|That's true. I paid almost 2k for my five-year-old Powerbook. Needless to say, the computer is of top-notch quality and still works perfectly today - even despite its age. I've never had such luck with any of my PC systems. You get what you pay for.
Score: 0
|*shrug*
I paid $75 for my 4 year old HP laptop (original cost: $850). Still works just fine...and is running the Windows 7 RC. How well is that powerbook going to run Snow Leopard?
"You get what you pay for."
True. But are you paying for the product or the name? ;)
...and all that free software the OP was going on about? Free for Windows too....as is the anti-malware software. ;)
Score: 1
|This is just stupid...
Who cares??
Some people use Mac OS, some people use Windows. Mac is better at some things, Windows is better at others. Does it surprise *anyone* that some people prefer one over the other?
These stupid flamebait articles are pointless other than to generate hits and bring out fatty/itard to play with.
Apple doesn't *want* huge market share. Microsoft doesn't *need* "premium" sales. They both serve their own markets very well. The rest is just fanboy/troll BS.
Score: 5
|PC_Tool "This is just stupid..." "Who cares??"
Well you apparently, surprised you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon.
Score: 1
|Calling *all* Mac users snobs? Yes, that is stupid.
"surprised you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon"
Well, that 5 minutes before lunch is usually a little slow... ;)
What's your excuse? *grin*
Score: 0
|Macs are for noob snobs. You're a tr00 snob when you have a custom build, hand overclocked one of a kind super high end water cooled powerhouse. Running Vista or Windows 7 of course.
Score: 1
|It's a bit like owning a gas guzzling luxury motor, if you've got the dosh and want to be flash you'll be a Mac (gas guzzling) individual. However in these times of frugality when thrift is to be admired it beholds all good folk to use a netbook, using netbooks and shunning the flash (gas guzzling) folk is the only way to save the planet, so I say go green buy a netbook today. Opera rocks, now let's all pop over to the Mac forums to tell the posh toffs that their stuff sucks, are you with me lads ?
Score: -2
|All you PC loving, green people are like those who followed the Pied Piper over the edge. Who is that flute blower anyway? I think he resides in a big white house.
Score: -5
|And next week:
"IS LINUX AN OS FOR MALCONTENT NERDS?"
Then the week after that:
"ARE ALL WINDOWS USERS HILLBILLIES?"
Of course, yes, yes, AND yes!!! Oh God, yes! We love a good hit-producing flame war.
Score: 0
|Mac sucks
Score: -2
|Well according to me apple is going to top just because of its good quality. I will suggest every one to use apple because it has got the best quality.
============================
christopher martin
Real Estate
Score: -5
|Nice comment , I am impressed.
=============
christopher martin
Real Estate
Score: -6
|_ "We are far too poor to waste our resources on cheap anything. If we don't instill quality over quantity as a value, our children will be heir to a most terrible mess." - Albert Einstein
"Snob" is a word birthed from the emotion of envy. I, for one, think it is ignorant to punish with childish vindictive taunts those who would be more selective and thoughtful about who and what they support with their resources -> One can choose a monopolistic bully machine like Microsoft or a creative, elegant, thoughtful idea enterprise like Apple.
Score: -6
|ROFL! Creative, Elegant, Thoughtful? I think you may be drunk on the Apple juice because you actually believe that. Apple only allows OSX to be installed on specific hardware, this hardware which is used by everyone else as well. The only difference is certain pieces of say Asus are TPM to prevent it from being used on anything other then Apple. If Apple removed this restriction there would be no need for Apple computers.
Score: 2
|91% of the 'premium computer market' is still only 7% of retail sales. and retail sales aer still only estimated to be 2/3 of all computer sales, so that's 4% of all sales. the bulk of computer sales are not in apple's price range, and as they said, they can't compete on price without damaging their quality standards.
hell, the sales tabulated are only for pre-built computers anyway, that doesn't take system builders into account. system builders that do small-medium business contracts for dozens or hundreds of identical custom builds. system builders who routinely spend just as much or more building their gaming rigs. apple's overall marketshare is falling despite gaining sales in the 'high end' category, as the high end is shrinking.
Score: 1
|Actually Apple's overall marketshare is rising. "Although the PC market shrank on a year-to-year basis, Apple's Mac shipments grew 4 percent in the same timeframe."
Source: http://www.electronista....crosoft.q2.2009.results/
If the overall market shrinks, but Apple unit sales roise, the only possible conclusion is that Apple is gaining market share.
Score: 1
|_ gundamboyzack:
-> 30$ for upgrade to OSX SnowLeopard
-> Vista Sp3 (Win7) $$$ ouch
Score: -5
|You sir are a moron, its obvious because you still believe that macs and pcs are different when the only difference that separates them is the OS.
Calling Win7 Vista SP3 is the equivalent of calling ANY upgrade OSX has made as a service pack because aesthetically speaking Apple OSX now and today hasn't changed much in appearance, it still looks exactly the same. Underneath though a lot of work has been done. It obvious you are a fanboy as you know nothing about the competition.
Score: -1
|terminalx, you must be smoking crack. Of course it's equivalent to a SPack - that's why it's still called OSX. But they've also thrown in some excellent functionality to boot along the way.
In the case of XP->Vista->Windows7... A superficial facelift (using up megaram by the way), the addition of piles of mostly annoying security slugware, and moving the graphics driver from the kernel to the application level to try and prevent the sadly too common BSODs are the only "notable" changes in seven years. Depending on your version, that will have cost you upwards of 400 smacks.
"There's a sucker (by the name of terminalx) born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
Score: -7
|"the addition of piles of mostly annoying security slugware"
This was resolved in Win7
"Moving the graphics driver from the kernel to the application level to try and prevent the sadly too common BSODs are the only "notable" changes in seven years"
Except once again you don't have a clue because if you did you would know that since XP BSODs indicate a hardware problem or a badly written driver - see Apple on their driver for Itunes for Windows for reference. - In OSX and Linux you call these Kernel Panics.
Nothing I say will open your eyes as you are a fanboy and don't see that BOTH operating systems have their strengths and weaknesses
"A superficial facelift (using up megaram by the way)"
Because Win7 does not need megaram or even a premier graphics card, its running on netbooks FFS
Here's one thing Win7 can do that Snow Leopard can't - Anyone on hardware before Apple started using Intel won't be putting snow leopard on their shiny machine because ppc support has been discontinued.
Score: 2
|anything expensive and shiney ends up being the choice of a snob, better, or not. obvious question has obvious answer
could show somebody how much more you can do with some other product and they would say "but i want what i saw my favorite actor using on TV' :)
Score: 1
|dougau:
I didn't realize OS X was freeware.... :)
Score: 3
|I guess the "well-heeled" may be "well-heeled" in part because they aren't paying Microsoft $400 to "upgrade" their OS and hundreds more to "upgrade" all the various utility programs that go with it every three years.
Score: -7
|what are you talkin about? i use Vista Ultimate, think i paid alot for it? came with the laptop i'm using, i paid very little, not $400... as was the case with most folks and anyone who is still using XP has a disc laying around from 2001, thats awhile ago... and havent paid for a single update to date, so between 2001 and today, i think many have saved up enough cash to afford 7
and how many are going out of their way to pay $400 on 7 Ultimate? wtf are you on? alot of folks opted for the online deals on 7, $49 upgrade, sure many will have to buy retail 7 premium (no avg user is buying ultimate) how much is premium? $199, cheaper than Vista at launch, many folks will also simply get 7 with their PC, little cost.
so please stop with your $400 crap, its tired
Score: 3
|