The Market for Expensive Cheese Graters

124»

Comments

  • Claudio Piccinini
    Claudio Piccinini Posts: 681
    Cory Maylett said:
    John Savard said:
    Except for a few niche markets, because its popularity is so low - even if it has rebounded from its lowest point a few years back - very little choice of software is available for it. So it no longer matters how good it is as a computer.
    "very little choice of software is available for it." ???

    This is simply not the case unless one is involved in a niche that requires software only available on Windows. There are an estimated 100 million active Macintosh users, which is hardly small market ignored by software developers.

    In my niche, one of the reasons I stay with Macs is because the software I need (or at least greatly prefer) is unavailable for Windows.

    For the vast majority of people, setting price differences aside, either Windows or the Mac OS seem equally viable given that the most commonly used software is available for both or, at the very least, an alternative exists for one or the other.
    But we are not “the vast majority of people”. As far as graphic and type design goes, Windows comes from an entirely different history: I don’t think it will ever “catch up”, unless Apple continues to “screw up” things. Which, I admit, is a thing they’ve done particularly well in the last twenty years.
  • Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian
    Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian Posts: 2,044
    edited June 2019
    Designers tend to –naturally– be very fashion-centric. Apple can continue to over-charge us in proportion to how much more fashionable it is.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,135
    edited June 2019
    Cory Maylett said:
    This is simply not the case unless one is involved in a niche that requires software only available on Windows. There are an estimated 100 million active Macintosh users, which is hardly a small market ignored by software developers.

    In my niche, one of the reasons I stay with Macs is because the software I need (or at least greatly prefer) is unavailable for Windows.
    This is something new that I have learned from you, then. I had remembered that at the time the Macintosh was at its lowest ebb, just before Steve Jobs' return, some companies that were making desktop publishing software and other types of applications only for the Macintosh were starting to make Windows versions.
    I had thought the process had, in the time since, continued. While there are many types of software more readily available for Windows than the Macintosh, I learn from you that the process hadn't completed - and the Macintosh "niche" in areas like desktop publishing, type design, and video editing is still doing well; some applications are also on Windows, but the Macintosh still has the best choice.
    That does put a very different face on things. I still feel it's a pity Apple has limited the appeal of the Macintosh, so that it's not an alternative to many users in many applications areas. But this means that the Macintosh has a solid base of viability on which to be around for years to come.
    That still doesn't mean Apple can get away with forever abusing that base. Of course Macintosh prices have to be higher, as they're being designed for fewer customers, though, so that's not abuse in itself. Since the Atari ST is no longer around, emphasizing the lowest possible price alone is not the right strategy either.
    But from what you're saying, I am wrong to see the Macintosh as slowly dying, threatening to take creative professionals (or at least some of their money that they've spent on computers) with it; it still has decades of life left, even if it might not seem that way from the perspective of Windows users, who see their platform as lively, and from whose radar the Macintosh has largely disappeared.
    It would be a joke if the Macintosh keeps Intel alive so that AMD continues to have some competition! Finally succeeding in the end at the one thing it seems to have so sadly failed at...
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    edited June 2019
    John Savard said:

    …even if it might not seem that way from the perspective of Windows users, who see their platform as lively, and from whose radar the Macintosh has largely disappeared.

    Apple is hardly suffering in the PC market. Sure, their main contributor to be the biggest company of all times (in rapid exchange with Microsoft at the moment) is the iOS market, namely the iPhone. But comparing sales of completely different categories with one and another would’t make sense.

    Apple sold 5.3 million Macs in the third quarter of 2018. This is one company in the PC industry, which experienced a 4.6% decline in 2019. From 2016 to 2017, Apple’s PC market contribution grew by 4.1% and HP was the other major PC company whose market grew by 4.6%, Dell by 1.1% (Source: Gartner).

    The “Apple niche”, computers that are exclusively for a couple of graphic designers in the print- and Web design industry, is another myth around the Mac. It stems from the 1997 doomsday legends spun by reputable magazines such as Rolling Stone, at the time. The biggest growth factor for Macs sold today are switchers who come from PCs, regular people, not only designers. Mac Minis and MacBook Airs start at competitive prices within the PC segment and the macOS seems to be appealing to the younger generations who aren’t biased by historical myths.
  • Cory Maylett
    Cory Maylett Posts: 248
    edited June 2019
    John Savard said: I had remembered that at the time the Macintosh was at its lowest ebb, just before Steve Jobs' return, some companies that were making desktop publishing software and other types of applications only for the Macintosh were starting to make Windows versions.
    Yes, you're right, Apple very nearly went out of business in the mid '90s and rumors flourished about it being bought at fire sale prices by Sun, Oracle and others. Steve Jobs, no matter what one might think of the guy, performed a near miracle by turning a rapidly failing company into one of the most profitable companies on the planet. This happened right at the time when Windows, as you mentioned, had become a viable competitor in the design field, which it had not been previously.

    Today, in 2019, I would not say that the Mac OS or Macintosh products are inherently superior to Windows or some better-built PCs. I personally get frustrated when I need to use Windows because I regard it as awkward and a bit bassackwards. People who prefer Windows might say much the same about the Mac OS. Either platform, however, will get the job done given that it's now mainly a matter of personal preference or workgroup compatibility.

    I don't think I agree with you about Apple abusing its base. I believe it sometimes ignores its former primary base — the creative fields — but I don't think abuse is the right word.

    Apple does not sell low-cost, cheap computers. They typically don't cut corners and the price of their hardware reflects this. A similarly configured higher-end, quality PC is still less expensive than a Macintosh but not by as much as many people assume.

    The crazy high prices of Apple's new tower and monitor seem absurd when compared to, say, an inexpensive PC, but they're designed for radically different purposes. The processing demands for rendering high-resolution 3D animation, for example, is enormous and Apple's crazily expensive highest-end hardware is built for these and other kinds of high performance tasks. The prices reflect this and also reflect the fact that this is a small niche market where significant profits cannot be made through large sales volumes with small margins.

    Even so, a Mac Mini or a Mac Air are perfectly adequate for type design, and can be purchased in good configurations for around $1000 (plus the monitor). Many professional graphic designers seem to opt for MacBook Pros or iMacs, which have more horsepower and are portable in the case of the MacBooks, but again, that higher price tag reflects the job requirements and preferences of those buying the machines.
  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,229
    Personally, I know one person who may purchase one of these machines. He is dealing with photographic resolutions that boggle my mind, digitally archiving a fine art collection in a way that makes it possible to zoom in and see features not apparent to the naked eye.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,135
    Cory Maylett said:
    Apple does not sell low-cost, cheap computers. They typically don't cut corners and the price of their hardware reflects this. A similarly configured higher-end, quality PC is still less expensive than a Macintosh but not by as much as many people assume.

    The crazy high prices of Apple's new tower and monitor seem absurd when compared to, say, an inexpensive PC, but they're designed for radically different purposes. The processing demands for rendering high-resolution 3D animation, for example, is enormous and Apple's crazily expensive highest-end hardware is built for these and other kinds of high performance tasks. The prices reflect this and also reflect the fact that this is a small niche market where significant profits cannot be made through large sales volumes with small margins.
    Oh, absolutely. The problem isn't that the new Macintosh is so expensive for the power and features it provides. It's that only a system that expensive comes in a box you can open to add a hard drive or memory. If I only need the power of an iMac, I can't buy a Macintosh in a tower PC package of that kind at a reasonable price.
    It's not just that they "don't make cheap PCs", but that they engage in a pricing strategy that further increases the price differential by ensuring you have to buy everything at their higher prices. Even when the thing is a commodity item embodying no special Apple technology, like DRAM or a hard drive.
    While this is not a criminal breach of antitrust law, and it's something companies in other fields do often enough, it differs from normal practice in the Windows PC world. You can't increase the storage on an iPhone with an SD card either, whereas Android phone users take the ability to do that for granted. It may not be fair, but the natural reaction to that is moral outrage.
    They may have to do this in order to recoup their development costs over their limited sales. But why do they have limited sales? Because of their high prices. So instead of having sympathy for them, I'm upset, because they dug this hole themselves, with their attitude right from the very beginning (i.e., the 512 kB "Fat Mac").
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    John Savard said:

    It's that only a system that expensive comes in a box you can open to add a hard drive or memory.
    You’re not correctly informed. The MacBook Pro, the Mac Mini and the iMac and iMac Pro can all be upgraded with RAM and hard drives.
  • Cory Maylett
    Cory Maylett Posts: 248
    @John Savard, as mentioned by @Henning von Vogelsang, many Macs can be upgraded in various ways, while others can't. The memory on my MacBook Pro is soldered in, while upgrading my wife's iMac was a simple matter of opening a slot. This changes from year to year, and I'm unsure of the current status of what is and isn't upgradable.

    Your larger point about Apple hardware not being as upgradable, however, is well-taken. With both Windows and Android, the operating systems are designed to accommodate dozens of different models of devices from many different manufacturers, so the choices are greater.

    However, this is both a plus and a minus. On the minus side, users are limited to whatever hardware Apple is selling. With Windows and Android, there are many different brands with different features — don't like what Lenovo sells, then get an Asus or an HP. On the plus side, the tight integration between Apple's OS's and its hardware has significant advantages. Apple has no need to accommodate dozens of other companies and backward compatibility with their products, which has always been an impediment to Windows's development.

    For what it's worth, I greatly prefer the convenience, swapability and backup ease of external hard drives to internal storage. I only use internal drives in my computers for system files and software apps. With mobile, unlike the iPad I used to use, my Samsung tablet has a micro SD card slot. I've never used it, but it's there — just in case.  ;)
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    edited June 2019
    In the last point you mention, @Cory Maylett, there is some psychology involved in this. People like the option to change their mind later on. It makes committing easier if we know we are not stuck with what we chose. But then when we have committed, we rarely actually do change our mind. I read an article a few years ago and I thought I had bookmarked it, but now I can’t find it anymore (of course). The article was about product choices we make and it turns out that often we think we have an advantage choosing something with the flexibility (to make up our mind later on), but in fact, we don’t really need that flexibility. It just helps to lower the barrier of commitment.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if statistics showed that the majority of PC buyers (who would claim they bought their PC because they wanted the ability to switch components) never end up doing it. They rather buy a new PC, because by then the main hardware, the motherboard, is already old and slow.

    Of course, this differs by market: Gamers, which make a dominant portion (but probably not the largest) of the PC market, prefer to have absolute control over their hardware and they do change the PCs components – but usually right away when ordering the device.

    There is a lot of bias involved when we are looking at these things. I am no exception, my perception of consumer behaviour is mostly informed by my own preferences, but I know I am not representative of an entire market. When you look at what people refer to as the PC market in detail, you’ll see that it is highly fragmented and not really one market. However, there is a majority of regular users who never really think about customizing their OS, or which OS it is, or customizing their hardware. Which is reflected in the main sales trend of the PC market where laptops and all-in computers are more and more built like Apple’s and only tower PCs remain upgradeable. The same is true for the mobile device market, where experiments of upgradability or modular parts have failed to gain interest.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 2,899
    Crosby, Stills & Nash for the win!
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,135
    edited June 2019
    Henning von Vogelsang said:
    I wouldn’t be surprised if statistics showed that the majority of PC buyers (who would claim they bought their PC because they wanted the ability to switch components) never end up doing it. They rather buy a new PC, because by then the main hardware, the motherboard, is already old and slow.
    That isn't the issue, though, that I was concerned about.
    It's not a question of swapping out components, but adding. Adding extra memory, for example, because the month I bought my computer, I didn't have enough money for a computer with as much memory as I would like. Or because the price differential between an iMac with 8 gigs of RAM and one with 16 gigs of RAM is much more than the price of 8 gigs of RAM.
    In the PC world, I can buy the case and power supply one month, the motherboard the next month, the processor the month after that, and use the hard drive and graphics card from my previous computer, and maybe get a new graphics card a few months down the road.
    The Macintosh doesn't seem to be for real people. I don't know who they're trying to sell it to; rich people with things like cars and credit cards? :)
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    Huh. So it's basically a very specific type of Mac hyped by their advertising and that hype multiplied a thousand times by media outlets and societies across the globe. That makes more sense.
  • Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian
    Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian Posts: 2,044
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Branding
    Of course the purpose of a "halo product" is to artificially raise the perceived value of everything else the company sells.
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    edited June 2019
    John Savard said:
    … In the PC world, I can buy the case and power supply one month, the motherboard the next month, the processor the month after that, and use the hard drive and graphics card from my previous computer, and maybe get a new graphics card a few months down the road.
    The Macintosh doesn't seem to be for real people. I don't know who they're trying to sell it to; rich people with things like cars and credit cards? :)
    The majority of the Mac audience are regular people. They buy devices and want to use them right out of the box. They are not tinkerers or nerds, who can’t wait to open the PC tower and swap graphics cards. They want a package defined to their custom wishes, within what’s available at the point of purchase, and then start using it. If this market wasn’t working, no Macs would be ever sold. But the continuous growth of macOS share in the PC industry shows otherwise.

    By the way, if you add all comparable components to any PC, you usually end up with roughly the same amount of money you spend on a Mac, give or take a few bucks. I am aware that Apple charges more than the market price for RAM, but you can add the RAM you bought yourself using any Mac dealer. Macs are not exclusively available and modified at Apple Stores.

    My dad is a retired journalist. When we got his iMac, he had ordered more RAM on Amazon. We brought the RAM to the local Mac dealer and they put it inside while we were waiting in the store.
  • Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian
    Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian Posts: 2,044
    edited June 2019
    "The computer for the rest of us."
    An underhanded condescension meant to leverage misplaced insecurity.
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    edited June 2019
    Hrant H. Papazian said:
    An underhanded condescension meant to leverage misplaced insecurity.
    The basic scare principle of all advertising. Like convincing men they need this car or teenage girls that they're fat. And that's with the internet, mind you. Such girls would rather believe cosmo than me, and I did much beauty retouch. Halo effect indeed.
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    I believe “The computer for the rest of us” was 1984 marketing. A lot has changed in the entire industry since then. But I understand it is easier to hold onto myths and bias than accepting the change that comes with evolution.
  • Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian
    Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian Posts: 2,044
    edited June 2019
    Henning von Vogelsang said:
    A lot has changed in the entire industry since then.
    Yes, the personal computer field went off the deep end once we allowed Jobs to trump Wozniak, turning humankind's most tantalizing invention into yet another cash cow for investors, the product's potential positive role in society be damned.
  • Henning von Vogelsang
    Henning von Vogelsang Posts: 147
    And Perseus actually beheaded Medusa and saved Andromeda from Cetus.
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    Jobs was a marketing genius, no matter his character. Had Wozniak prevailed, the PC still would be something for nerds, Gates would have swalled them, or it would be something completely different. Companies like Amazon are now playing the game somewhat dirty, while Win and Mac are already past this phase. It seems to not be so much this or that person, but the zeitgeist itself. While the personal factor is far from unimportant.
  • Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian
    Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian Posts: 2,044
    If you had been there before the hijacking, you would have felt the amazing potential that has been denied our children.
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    And keep in mind people are far harder to please in 2019 than they were in 2009 or 1984.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,135
    edited June 2019
    Hrant H. Papazian said:
    If you had been there before the hijacking, you would have felt the amazing potential that has been denied our children.
    Unfortunately, Wozniak suffered from a brain injury. And I didn't even think that he was involved with the Macintosh, only the Apple II. Maybe he could have made the Macintosh into something as open and liberating as the Apple II was in its day, but it's just as possible that had he been the one running Apple, there wouldn't have been a Macintosh at all.
    Which, of course, would not have been the end of the world. What  was going on at Xerox was featured in a Scientific American article, so if not Apple, some other computer company would still have seen what Xerox missed, and would have taken action to bring the GUI to the masses.
    Ah, looking at Wikipedia, before his tragic plane accident, Wozniak was indeed significantly involved with the Macintosh project. So I was mistaken in thinking he was not involved with it. I suspect he deserves much of the credit for the computer fitting on a single small board, and being able to run at all with only 128k of RAM.
  • Russell McGorman
    Russell McGorman Posts: 262
    Chris Lozos said:
    I see the Mac vs PC wars have not yet faded after all of these years.
    The hundred Years War of our times.
    ... Black (turtlenecked) Prince included.

  • Russell McGorman
    Russell McGorman Posts: 262
    Ray Larabie said:
    My heart still belongs to Amiga.
    Yeah, Commodore 64 bought my loyalty when I got to cut their logo in fifteen foot tall letters that were installed on top of the CN tower (in Toronto).

Categories