[X4U] Re: How can we compete?

[Randy B.Singer]

Chris Malanga said:

>Aside from the fact that a person has to make a real investment in the
>platform with new software, training, etc., this computer has features
>standard that you cannot get without paying extra and/or going third party
>and/or just aren't available at all on the Mac.  And for a LOT less than you
>would pay for a comparable Mac bundle.  I paid over $200 more (education
>price) for my eMac with SuperDrive and I still would need to add hundreds of
>dollars worth of accessories to come close to the specs on this PC.

This reminds me of when I purchased my first non-OEM car stereo.  I 
looked at Sony, Denon, Concord, etc., and then I noticed that Sanyo made 
a product that was less more, yet had more features, and they claimed 
that their product was just as good as anyone else's.

I bought the Sanyo, and it turned out to be a piece of junk.  The 
reception was terrible, and not all of the features actually worked.  It 
broke after about a year.

Back to computers.  I don't use a Windows machine myself, but my wife has 
one, and I am often her tech support person.  Frankly, I don't see how 
anyone familiar with both Windows and Mac OS can say that the Mac is 
easier these days.  The two are somewhat different, but neither is 
better.  Both are easier to figure out in some ways, and harder in others.

The Mac's advantages these days are slim, but notable.  The Mac OS, 
properly sorted out, doesn't crash.  There are currently no viruses in 
the wild that infect OS X, while there are literally over 100,000 that 
infect Windows.  When there are technical problems with the OS, the 
Macintosh is somewhat easier to troubleshoot and fix.  A big advantage 
for the Mac is that each individual example is tested between four to 
nine times as it comes down the assemblyline, and they are simply better 
made.  Macs also tend to have superior backwards compatibility with old 
software.

But Window's boxes have some advantages also.  There is a lot of 
competition, for one.  So a purchaser is free to trade off 
price/features/quality/support in a mix that suits them.  There is simply 
a lot more software for Windows.  It's true that the Mac has a lot of 
software of its own, and that it is mostly quality software, but Windows 
has more essoteric software for special needs.  Windows computers are 
cheaper and easier to upgrade.  And, of course, there are games out the 
wazoo for Windows. (Though this doesn't seem that important to me.  I 
just purchased a Nintendo Game Cube for my kids for only $100, and the 
quality and availability of games is excellent, without tying up my 
computer.)

>I'm just saying that I think Apple needs to do some stuff to market to the
>"other" 95%... 

Apple has made the decision not to pursue the low-end of the market, and 
to not sell low-quality Macs.  I assume that they don't want to cheapen 
their reputation for quality in much the same way BMW and Mercedes don't 
sell competitors for the Chevy Cavalier.  (Or, for that matter, any of 
Chevy's cars.)

There is the argument to be made that if Apple sold a loss leader for 
about $500 that Apple would be gaining market share, and that those 
purchasers would later move up to more expensive Macs. The problem with 
this theory is that Apple already tried competing at the low end of the 
market once with the Mac LC. (LC standing ostensibly for Low Cost.  Most 
LC's cost well over $1,000, but that was the low end of the market at the 
time.) That experiment really didn't work. 

http://www.lowendmac.com/lc/lc.shtml 



Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

Routine OS X Maintenance and Generic Troubleshooting
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html