[williamgoody]

How awful of an idea was that skijacket?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Sounded like a decent idea to me as long as you want to listen to your iPod while skiing.

Would you? I dunno, haven't skiied enough to tell.

 

[williamgoody]

I'm not a skier, but I can't imagine you need a special jacket to listen to your IPod while skiing.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Well you need to be able to access the buttons without taking your hands off the pikes (er pikes?)

Is there a photo of that MacWarrior?

 

[BDA_ABAT]

Sorry, I have to laugh...

Plainsong wrote:
Quote:

It's insane, did he not ever take a marketing class?

Not only did he never take a marketing class, he (and the other honchos at Apple) made some incredibly stoopid marketing decisions with the Mac and other Apple products over the years! Entire texts have been written on the failures of Apple's marketing. Unfortunately, those marketing decisions are the reason why the world is currently dominated by the PC.

Apple HAD the best software and the best use of technology in the mid 1980s. They created legions of "evangelical" users who championed their cause. They were making HUGE sums of money. So, why did the company nearly go bankrupt (and need to be bailed out by Microsoft)? Poor marketing decisions.

Plainsong is absolutely correct: a well implemented PDA from Apple would help (at least) keep existing Mac users.


Bruce
(a former Mac user who had to switch to the other side)

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by BDA_ABAT So, why did the company nearly go bankrupt (and need to be bailed out by Microsoft)? Poor marketing decisions.

Ah.... no.

Apple never "nearly went bankrupt," and they never had to be "bailed out by Microsoft." Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple stock about six years ago as a show of good faith and of their interest in the platform. They had just signed a deal with Apple in which Microsoft agreed to write a new, updated version of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh, in exchange for which Apple agreed to include Internet Explorer as the default web browser on the Mac.

Apple had no financial need for the $150 million in stock purchases; they actually had over $2 BILLION in cash reserves at the time -- far more than most companies triple or quadruple their size have.

Apple did have a need for a real professional office suite on the Mac platform, and nobody else at the time (Wordperfect, etc) was in a position to make one. So they made sure the one company that could do so, did.

The primary reason why Apple never dominated the personal computer market has NOTHING to do with "marketing failures." It's because Microsoft had a four year head start, when their MS-DOS was licenced by IBM for the IBM PC in 1980. Apple didn't introduce the (greatly superior, both hardware- and software-wise) Macintosh until 1984. In those four years, the vast majority of businesses that had adopted "personal" computers had gone with IBM.

Companies are quite wary (and were back then too) of switching from one vendor to another. It means buying all new hardware, all new software, etc. The fact that the Macintosh made such incredible inroads, at one point holding almost 10% of the American market, is pretty amazing.

The early-mid 1990s were when Apple's market share started going the other direction, from around 8-10% to about 3-5%. But anyone who thinks Apple was ever in 'financial trouble' due to having "only" 4% of the market needs a good lesson in business. 4% of the market is about what BMW has of the car market; you don't hear people crying that BMW is near bankruptcy, or in danger of dying out. There were several quarters in the late 1990s, after the first iMac was introduced, that Apple sold more personal computers than any other personal computer maker in the world. Even now, they're consistently in the top 5. It's stupid and ridiculous to say that Apple's gonna 'die' because they 'only' have 4% of the market, when no other single computer maker (Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc) does any better.

In other words, you don't compare Apple (4%) to everybody else combined (96%). It gives a misleading picture of the situation.

Apple doesn't sell PCs, folks. They sell "luxury" computers, much as BMW sells "luxury" cars. 4% of the personal computer market is well more than enough to keep them afloat and profitable for the forseeable future.

 

[plainsong]

I'm not referring to not having the market share as a marketing failure. I'm referring to the failure to make the products that existing Apple customers want as a marketing failure - and a very basic one at that.

People get testy when you dare to point out things Apple hasn't done.

 

[ai0tron]

You all are forgetting the basic premise of our society which is "Money Talks". And where macs seem to blabber uselessly PC's shut up and get the job done. Thats why PC's dominate the market and thats why they always will.

 

[BDA_ABAT]

There is NO doubt that Apple lost the marketing game, set, and match.

Question: WHY wasn't there anyone writing software for the Mac when Jobs went a-grovelling to MS?? Anyone remember this time? If you went into a software store during this time, you would be hard pressed to find ANY Mac software at all. Even now, the amount of software for the Mac pales in comparrison to software available for the PC.

No, IBM/MS did not "win" the game because of early adopters. That's just plain silly. Yes, there were some companies that decided to go with PCs in the early 1980s... but the real growth in the industry came MUCH later.... actually occured about the time that Apple started to do well with the Mac.... Mmmm...

The reason Apple did not ever garner more than ~10% of the market was due to their decision to keep the Mac a closed product, pure and simple. They were going for more, but came up short. They never intended to be a niche company (a la your BMW analogy). They were interested in becoming the answer company. That's why they invested so heavily in schools.... they were planning on growing new customers. But, they never really followed through, kept the platform closed, kept the profits high, failed to capitalize on their technologic superiority.

Funny, even with the acknowledgement that Apple had ~10% market share and is now in the 3.5% share, you STILL think that they did a good job marketing? Especially galling considering that they have superior products??? Isn't that is THE definition of market failure???

Bruce

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by plainsong People get testy when you dare to point out things Apple hasn't done.

No, I get testy when somebody says that Apple "nearly went bankrupt, and had to be bailed out by Microsoft," which is absolutely, 100%, incorrect.

Your premise is flawed as well -- you claim Apple hasn't come out with products that Mac users want. If they hadn't, they really would be in financial trouble. What they haven't come out with yet, they will probably introduce later.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by ai0tron You all are forgetting the basic premise of our society which is "Money Talks". And where macs seem to blabber uselessly PC's shut up and get the job done. Thats why PC's dominate the market and thats why they always will.

You're so full of crap. I make my living using, administering, and supporting Windows servers and clients, Mac servers and clients, & UNIX servers and clients. Any of these platforms can "get the job done" when it's applied to the appropriate task. PCs dominate because the vast majority of end users and companies in the world buy whatever hardware is cheapest, and resist changing when one platform is already well-established -- as I explained previously.

Macs "get the job done" just as easily as a Windows boxes do -- easier in some cases.

 

[myself, aka me]

My PC shuts up. And doesn't get the job done.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by BDA_ABAT Question: WHY wasn't there anyone writing software for the Mac when Jobs went a-grovelling to MS?? Anyone remember this time? If you went into a software store during this time, you would be hard pressed to find ANY Mac software at all. Even now, the amount of software for the Mac pales in comparrison to software available for the PC.

I remember "that time" well. Microsoft Office dominated both the Windows and Mac platforms. All Apple wanted was an updated version of the most popular Office suite.

Walking into a "software store" was (and still is) a poor way to get an idea of how much software is available for the Mac. Most retail outlets did not stock Mac software, because they didn't sell Macs. MacConnection, MacMall, and various other Macintosh vendors carried full stocks -- thousands of titles -- of Mac software. The fact that you didn't see any when you walked into Office Max or Staples means nothing.

Quote:

No, IBM/MS did not "win" the game because of early adopters. That's just plain silly.

It's NOT silly, and I'm not simply talking about "early adopters." If your company spent five or ten million dollars on IBM PCs and software, and somebody told you it would be a good idea to scrap the entire investment and switch to Macs, which would cost you another ten million, you'd tell them to go jump off a bridge. In 1984, the Mac was so much better, both hardware- and software-wise that if money and previous investments hadn't been a concern, everybody would have just switched. They were giving people the functionality of Windows 3.1 at a time before DOS 3.3 was even out the door.

Quote:

They never intended to be a niche company (a la your BMW analogy).

BMW never "intended" to be a niche company either. But they're still successful, and so is Apple. You said that Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy. You can dress that statement up all you want and backpedal, but it doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong.

Quote:

Funny, even with the acknowledgement that Apple had ~10% market share and is now in the 3.5% share, you STILL think that they did a good job marketing? Especially galling considering that they have superior products??? Isn't that is THE definition of market failure???

Sigh. Amiga had even better hardware and software. But they really did go bankrupt and die. THAT'S a marketing failure. Apple has been quite successful, despite not "dominating" the market. Whatever their "intentions" were is irrelevant. They have stayed afloat, not just barely, but quite profitably. They now have over four billion dollars in cash reserves. Microsoft has been following their lead in interface design for almost twenty years. Apple's market share shrunk from 10% to 4% because people buy the cheapest hardware they can, in general.

Apple's market share reached 10% at one point because back then the hardware and software was SO superior that some people simply couldn't ignore the difference. But slowly, over time, Windows has improved to the point that the difference between the two is no longer so startling.

 

[bangraman]

I don't know why some Mac users get uptight about this difference. Just smile and tell PC lovers to keep them if they really love them. "Perhaps you can realistically consider buying a Mac as opposed to arguing about them when you're earning a bit more" with a patronising smile works the best for me

 

[FrostyMMB]

It's always great to hear people scream "Failure!" and point fingers and turn their backs when they don't see the things released at Expo/Seybold/Macworld/etc. that they read about on rumor sites. Stop and think about what a rumor is, and where Apple's obligation comes in to heel to rumors or speculation.

"Oh, Apple is going to fail because the rumor sites predicted everything, and all we got were these great Powerbooks, a browser in the making, excellent presentation software, the fastest wi-fi ever to be seen, updates to three of the four major iApps coming in two weeks, and a consumer version of Final Cut, an X11, what a crock of ****."

Yeah, I almost know what you're talking about. Guess what, the rumors were wrong, and the speculations failed. As if rumors and speculations come with a money back guarantee from Apple.

Also, I'm curious, what job can't be done a Mac?