Forums | MacLife

Bat wrote:

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

Yes, it actually was a record quarter. I very much doubt it can continue, but they bucked the trend for a few months.

Let's add you to the list of everyone else that has been saying that every quarter. It's quite obvious that what you and the other doubters think here is irrelevant. Perhaps you should reading www.daringfireball.net where John Gruber keeps track of the idiots in the press that spout off stuff like this only to print their quotes many months later when we get to the point where they said something Apple was doing was doomed to fail.

They had a record smurfing quarter when other companies are either losing their shirts, laying off workers, or going completely out of business (I'm looking at you 60 year old Circuit City). When will people realize that they are doing thing right? Doubters are starting to look looney at this point.

Frank

So we really are back to the 'frankly & [ghost of] Czach wars? I suppose I'm also on the list of "Apple doubters who've ruined this forum..." in which case no reorg should be needed; we 'doubters' ruined things, and the Great Debate ahould draw beaucoups spectator traffic.

For my part, I think you in an excess of pro-Apple zeal failed to note my prediction has nothing to do with Apple's direction or product line, but rather with the massive global economic downturn. No far-flung, many-faceted corporation is escaping that... even companies like Wal-Mart, whose low prices people turn to money is tight, are immune, while higher-end retailers like Neiman-Marcus have been massively affected. It's been noticed AAPL's stock price is half what it was at its peak, Steve himself is on medical leave of absence for 1H '09, Apple's new principal supplier of LCDs LG is hard-hit, #2 RAM-maker Quimonda has filed for bankruptcy, and even mighty Apple supplier Intel is shuttering plants and laying off personnel.

To counter you offer one man's opinion at one website. Let John Gruber track us both; history in its minor way will judge our lunacy. (And likening me to an idiot is skirting dangerous ground, I suspect). Chill.

I wasn't likening you to an idiot. If I wanted to call you an idiot then that is what I would have done. You are the one that needs to chill and not be so paranoid. The people in the press that I was referring to are idiots because their claims are ridiculously over the top predictions of massive failures by Apple based on certain product releases. When their ridiculous claims turn out to be massively wrong then they it becomes obvious that they are idiots. The predictions I'm referring to don't hedge at all. They flat out say that Apple is doing something completely wrong and when the facts come in (sales numbers) they never retract their previous statements.

As far as your claim that I'm offering one man's opinion (Gruber) as a counter then perhaps you should read what I wrote. First, the items from his website that I referred you to were NOT opinion. They were simply his reposting of the original quote by the analyst or reporter followed by the actual sales numbers that their analysis or reporting had said would end up the opposite of what they actually did. This isn't opinion.

Your quote that I was responding to is just you making a guess. The only thing you use to back up your guess is that the economy is in bad shape. Therefore, every company is going to have a bad time. Most restaurants in my area have less customers than normal. But when I drove by Outback tonight the place was packed.

Have you been in an Apple store lately? The economy has been bad and getting worse for a while and yet EVERY time I go to an Apple store the place is PACKED. And people aren't just looking. They are walking out with iPhones, MacBooks, and anything else they can get their hands on.

Another example is Circuit City. They are going out of business, closing up all of their stores over the next two months. However, every time I go into a Best Buy store it is packed. The parking lot is packed and the line at the register is long.

No matter how bad the economy gets there will be a segment of the population that is not affected. Some companies will close during this period. Some will survive while having to tighten their belts and either lay off workers or halt expansion. And some will actually thrive during this time.

It is possible that Apple will have a bad quarter or two sometime over the next year. However, it is not certain and not every company is in trouble. Also, Apple has not "bucked the trend". They have been run well over many years now. That is what has allowed them to do well while others are not. When a company has a record quarter while others are shuttering they are doing a great many things right. They didn't just do okay. They had a record quarter. This should give you some indication that perhaps they have planned and positioned themselves well for this economic downturn.


And for the record, I don't mind good discussion on any topic. For you to make the statement "So we really are back to the 'frankly & [ghost of] Czach wars?" was a bit rude and uncalled for. You read things into my last post that weren't there and you are the only one that seems to want to start any "war".

Frank (who remains sufficiently chilled at all times, well except for the topic of politics )

Pariah wrote:

Apple does not ask laptop users to settle for less or go without features that you would expect in the form factor.

I'd say that's a perfect description of the lack of firewire in the $1300 Macbooks

Pariah wrote:

kman wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Apple does not ask laptop users to settle for less or go without features that you would expect in the form factor.

I'd say that's a perfect description of the lack of firewire in the $1300 Macbooks

Is firewire standard on PC laptops in that price range? Last time I looked at PC laptops a couple of years ago I dont think any I looked at had FW.

It's hard to tell, but I searched the top-selling 13.3" laptops on Amazon, and only one of the top 10 or so did not have Firewire - it was an HP, and it had eSATA and an Expresscard slot.

Also, among the non-netbook laptops, I found:

* None had less than 3 gigs of RAM
* Most cost less than Apple's cheapest Unibody, many were under $1k
* Almost, if not all, had Expresscard slots
* None had less than a 250GB HD, most were 320


So, yeah, I'd say Apple's $1299 laptop with a 13.3" screen, 160GB HD and 2GB RAM and no Firewire or Card Slot does ask users to settle for less features than I would expect.  The $1600 MB is especially embarrassing. 

I agree with you about the Desktops, btw.  I just think Apple's product line kind of sucks all around.  The minis and the air are embarrassing.  The iMacs aren't a bad value, it just sucks that there's no alternative for someone who doesn't want the all-in-one.  Right now I think the White MacBook might be Apple's best deal running, which is more than a little sad.

"The" computer market?

.tsooJ

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

I haven't used desktop computers in years so Apple's current lineup meets both the form/dollar and function/dollar for my needs. Since you are speaking for "a lot" of the old Mac faithful based only on the people you know and extrapolating this out to the Mac buying public in general I think I will do the same. The overwhelming majority of people, whether old Mac faithful or those new to the Mac, are only interested in laptops anyway. Therefore it really doesn't matter much what Apple does with their desktop line.
.

That's the whole thing.
If you want a laptop Apple offers great machines at very competitive prices. Apple does not ask laptop users to settle for less or go without features that you would expect in the form factor. Apple continues to innovate aggressively in this sector. The new dual Vid card set-up for example. Apple laptops represent a decent deal.
The desktop line is just the opposite. Sky high prices, oddball form factors and hardware that lags far behind the rest of the industry. Almost three years in the case of the Mini. Apple neglects it's desktops very badly. Apple desktops are a horrible buy and the value/price ratio on them is heinous.
So Apple laptops are pretty damn nice while their desktop line absolutely blows.

I know but my statement was meant more as a parody of what I was quoting. The Mini is in BAD need of an upgrade. I honestly don't know what they are waiting for there. I honestly don't think Apple is even in what would be considered the "regular" desktop space. The fact is that for most people the specs of the current laptops is more than they need. So the iMac is really meant to fit those users who want the convenience of the all in one but don't want the portability. Also, the iMac does offer some advantages with their larger screen size and 3.5" hard drives.

As Tim Cook said, Apple has decided that there are only certain segments where they really want to compete. For now they have chosen not to compete in the mid-tower segment, the netbook segment, or the lower-end smartphone segment. That is not to say they won't at some point, just that they aren't there now.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Which marketplace are you referring to? Which companies in that marketplace preceded Apple?

The computer market.  Worldwide, you've got  Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc...  In the US, things are more favorable for Apple.  But they are still preceded by HP, Dell (both with commanding leads), and Acer (They've been kicking ass in the netbook segment, as of late).  Chalk one up to conventional wisdom.

Ummm, HP, yes.
Dell, no.
Acer, no.
Lenovo, no.
Toshiba, company yes, making computers no.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Also, what are the raw sales numbers for that netbook segment? Or what percentage of all notebook computers sold are netbooks? Does it really matter if you are kicking ass in a segment if the entire segment is really small? And what are the profit margins on those machines since they are so cheap?

Frank

Sigh... 

Everything I wrote was correct, as you can see from the following.  As for everything else, I'm just not going to go down that road again.  I'm just going to post the raw data, confident that most people who look at it will reach the same conclusion as I have.  As for you and I, I'm sure we'll disagree (but I can accept that).

Source IDC

worldwide 2008 PC market data

US 2008 PC Market data

frankly wrote:

You stated that all of those companies preceded Apple in the computer market. How is that accurate?

100%

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

You stated that all of those companies preceded Apple in the computer market. How is that accurate?

100%

Go directly to the company websites and you will find out how wrong you are. Where in the hell are you getting this information??? Apple has been in the computer market since 1976.

Dell 1984

Acer 1976, Acer is founded under the name Multitech (Multitech was used until 1987 when the ‘Acer’ name was created), focusing on trade and product design.
1979, Acer designs Taiwan’s first mass-produced computer product for export.

Lenovo As IBM 1981  IBM PCD introduces its first personal computer, the IBM PC

Toshiba 1978 Released the first Japanese word processor. Their computers came later.

Makes you wonder how accurate some of the other stuff you post is...

Here's the definition of the word precede:

pre⋅cede     [pri-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation   
verb, -ced⋅ed, -ced⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.    to go before, as in place, order, rank, importance, or time.
2.    to introduce by something preliminary; preface: to precede one's statement with a qualification.
–verb (used without object)
3.    to go or come before.
–noun
4.    Journalism. copy printed at the beginning of a news story presenting late bulletins, editorial notes, or prefatory remarks.
Origin:
1325–75; ME preceden < L praecēdere. See pre-, cede

In this context, my meaning was unambiguously referring to "place, order, rank," with regard to the performance of the corporation.  You misconstrued this as referring to time.  Makes you wonder...

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-01-25 5:25 pm)

frankly wrote:

No wonder you are confused. The most common use for precede relates to time. In fact, many definitions ONLY include the relationship of items in reference to time.

If such definitions exist, they're not correct.  Here's Miriam Webster:

pre·cede
Pronunciation:
\pri-ˈsēd\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
pre·ced·ed; pre·ced·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Middle French preceder, from Latin praecedere, from prae- pre- + cedere to go
Date:
15th century
transitive verb
1 : to surpass in rank, dignity, or importance
2 : to be, go, or come ahead or in front of
3 : to be earlier than
4 : to cause to be preceded : preface
intransitive verb
: to go or come before

Here, as before, the word is defined for transitive and intransitive --my use was transitive.  The first two definitions for this usage involve rank, importance, or a spatial relationship.  The context under which the word was first used further solidifies its meaning, as did the dialog that ensued.

And your last response, with the included attempt at condescension, tells me a lot about you.

tit for tat.

You might want to take a look at the profit margins of those companies that are "preceding" Apple in sales. You hold them up as the right way to do things simply because...

As I said before, we've been down that road, and I'm not going back (for reasons stated in other posts).  I'm just going to provide some raw data (see post #36), and I'm confident that most people who view it will reach the same conclusion as I have.  You and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

One thing I would like to emphasize, however, is that I am not saying Apple's plan is wrong.  I am simply saying that sufficient evidence does not exist to support claim that it's better than or even as good as conventional computer lineup.  Even if you could prove that, there's still a lot of corporations that successfully target both boutique and mainstream markets under different brands.  HP/Voodoo, Dell/Alienware, Gateway/eMachines, and Chevy/Cadillac are some common examples.

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-01-25 6:50 pm)

frankly wrote:

ANYONE that looks at this objectively, including you, has to say that Apple is running their business well.

I've emphasized that point myself, several times.

frankly wrote:

If you can ever get beyond the fact that you think Apple is wrong for not making the product you want then you might see where I'm coming from on this.

There's no maybe about it.  If I accept that premise, then I logically must agree with you on this.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

ANYONE that looks at this objectively, including you, has to say that Apple is running their business well.

I've emphasized that point myself, several times.

frankly wrote:

If you can ever get beyond the fact that you think Apple is wrong for not making the product you want then you might see where I'm coming from on this.

There's no maybe about it.  If I accept that premise, then I logically must agree with you on this.

Okay, well then let me rephrase that. If you can ever get beyond the fact that making the wrong products for you does not equal the wrong way to do business...

49 20 6C 69 6B 65 20 70 65 61 6E 75 74 20 62 75 74 74 65 72 2E

Things do seem to have gone a bit OT in the old way..

The subject, from the thread title, isn't about what products Apple's making, who exactly here they satisfy and who otherwise. Basically it's about the effect, if any, the recession has had, is having, will have on Apple- not about whether they make a mid-tower, etc.

They had a record smurfing quarter when other companies are either losing their shirts, laying off workers, or going completely out of business (I'm looking at you 60 year old Circuit City). When will people realize that they are doing thing right? Doubters are starting to look looney at this point.

Frank

The United States lost 2.6 million jobs last year, the most in any single year since World War II. Manufacturing is at a 28-year low and even Obama's economists say unemployment could top 10 percent before the recession ends. One in 10 homeowners are at risk of foreclosure and the dollar continues its slide in value.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28825558

It may not matter how 'right' Apple does things, and pre-Recession 'doubts' don't necessarily relate to the current world economic downturn. Best Buy's busyness near you is an anecdote, and for that matter may reflect CC's closure, as they haven't gotten shipments of new product in months. In many places they're the only game in town, and their traffic will reflect that. BB management made a statement last month that they hadn't seen things that bad in their entire history.

I expect Apple's lesser dependence on loans due to their large cash reserves will help cushion them, and they won't fold unless this turns into Great Depression II... but they've been oathe to tap those reserves in past, and more to the point, people are simply buying less. Market shrinkage will affect them at some point, likely already; the questions are in timing and degree.

I wonder how the continuing drop in Apple's presence in professional settings (as a percentage of sales) will effect future Macs.
Go back 6 or 7 years and a large percentage of posters here were "Mac Professionals". Now the pro segment has all but disappeared. Seems that's the Apple strategy, basically abandoning the pro segment, at least the printing/publishing one. They just don't make anything that makes sense for pre-press anymore.