4 ms·
An Apple netbook would be far more commercially viable IMHO.
by axod 17y ago
An Apple netbook would be far more commercially viable IMHO.
- rimantas 17y agoWhat's the margin on netbooks? So far Apple was way more interested in making money vs. market share.
- lallysingh 17y agoAgreed. They're making double-digit profits, and have ~91% (retail) market share of the most margin-heavy part of the market: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Mac-PC-Marketshare-macbook,8332.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Mac-PC-Marketshare-ma... Really, outside of pathetically-low-margin customer demand, why would apple make a netbook? Cheap, fairly-crappy laptops won't help the brand or image (to sell other stuff that has margin), and doesn't actually make (much) money on its own. Instead, they can focus their limited engineering team on stuff that makes lots more money. Aren't there a stack of business books saying that it's important to know when to say _no_ to distractions from your core business? How are netbooks anything but a distraction? PS: Apple's market cap is $191 bln @ $212/share.
- elai 17y agoWhy is apple considered a company with 'limited' engineering capacity while they're are one of the most profitable, largest companies in the entire world? And they don't even do the 'hard expensive stuff' that's capital intensive like semiconductor fabrication? Microsoft and Apple have a market cap ratio of just 1.5, yet microsoft engineers a significant greater amount of products and projects, and owns a very large percentage of the PC market.
- boucher 17y agoBecause Apple has about 10,000 non-retail employees, while Microsoft has about 90,000.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- berntb 17y agoWow, I hadn't really thought about this... vertigo. 10K people designs and builds both hardware and software which the 90K people software company needs to copy -- for decades?! There are some explaining factors, of course. The 90K company has a monopoly strategy, so they need to build their O/S so complex that it will be hard/impossible for competitors to make a bug-compatible implementation. But I still get dizzy. Edit: This went down fast. :-) Down vote if you think it is low quality/unsuitable -- but please add some argument why this isn't a really surprising case? Are there examples in other industries? Edit 2: Yes, Microsoft does make some applications that Apple doesn't. There should be at most 5000-7000 people at Apple doing software? Do Yahoo's search (and other Bing competitors) have 20K people... each? Hardly. (And isn't it extra shocking that Microsoft copies, despite having Microsoft Research?)
- sp332 17y agoApple doesn't make office suites. The Me service isn't as big as Live. Apple doesn't have a search engine. Apple isn't trying to build computing clusters large enough to break into the Top100. Apple doesn't have an equivalent to Microsoft Research. Apple doesn't have a gaming platform. I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
- rimantas 17y agoApple does have iWork (yep, far cry from MS Office, but nonetheless… and good enough for me). There is also iLife, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, Aperture. Mobile Me may be not as big as Live, but ITMS takes some effort to run I suppose.
- sp332 17y agoMan, I totally blanked on iWork.
- 17y ago
- billjings 17y agoI think that you are underestimating the ongoing cost of complexity in a product line. Apple only works to support a limited amount of hardware. This simplifies: - OS development - Hardware development - Hardware design - Software support, hardware support - Marketing - Sales Adding an extra product to the product line complicates all of the above, on top of whatever it costs you in engineering to build it. It's certainly possible that Apple's just wrong, that they are better off making a killer cheapo Mini Macbook than sinking their resources into a tablet, or whatever it is they are concerned with. Every company has limited resources, though, and no company is served well by throwing those resources around indiscriminately.
- ahoyhere 17y agoBecause the number of people who can work up to their standards are necessarily limited, and it obviously takes a long time to engineer the things they do make happen. Ergo, Apple has limited engineering capacity -- for additional projects. I also wouldn't call their engineering "not the 'hard expensive stuff'" -- think about what it took to create the unibody shell. They had to create the manufacturing process for it. They pretty much never make the cheap, easy choice. The plastic for the original iMacs had never been used before in that type of application/volume, etc., etc.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoIt would be interesting to know how much of that innovation comes from Apple and how much comes from their manufacturing partners who actually make all their products.
- pchristensen 17y agoIf it wasn't for Apple's giant check-writing machine, their manufacturing partners wouldn't be coming up with those solutions.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoTrue, but hiring a 3rd party firm to innovate something is distinctly different from doing it in-house.
- ahoyhere 17y agoIs it really? Do you think those firms would be doing it without Apple's insistence, assistance, & guidance (not considering their money)? Did it look like anyone else was working on manufacturing processes like Apple is? If you compare Apple's computers & devices to those of every one of their competitors, you'll see that it's not just a matter of Apple's check-writing abilities. HP, Dell, Sony, Creative, Google, Microsoft, Palm, etc., are all just as capable of writing huge checks as Apple. But their hardware doesn't compare in style, design, quality & fit and finish. They have seams, chunks, feel cheap, have poor tactile experiences with the moving/sliding/closing pieces, etc., etc., etc.[1] I don't think Apple's manufacturer partners are doing it all on their own. It's gotta be more than check-writing. Or, all those other companies are still so stupid they don't realize what game they're playing. [1] (They may win in terms of specs, but that's not what I'm talking about.)
- axod 17y agoI'm talking about a smaller version of the macbook air. I very much doubt Apple would try to compete with cheap netbooks, but a smaller form factor would do well when you're more pushed for space. So I was using 'netbook' to describe the form factor, rather than price point. I'd say there's far more potential market for a sleek mini Macbook air, than there is for a tablet.
- tsally 17y agoI'd say there's far more potential market for a sleek mini Macbook air, than there is for a tablet. Not if Apple's tablet can do to the tablet market what the iPhone did to the smart phone market. There are huge strides in UI waiting to be made for tablets.
- axod 17y agoI still say the potential market for tablet is small. Can't fit in your pocket, no keyboard, no protection for the screen :/
- pchristensen 17y agoCareful, sounds a lot like: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
- axod 17y agoTotally different, and tablets have been around (and failed) for a long time. Laptops are the way they are for a reason.
- roc 17y agoAnd so long as consumer satisfaction on those tiny screens and tiny keyboards is so low, it's a market Apple's not going to touch. Which is also why the hypothetical tablet, if it exists, absolutely will not run Mac OS X. (At least, not while it's out and about, doing it's tablet thing. It's at least plausible that it might act more desktop-y if it docks as a peripheral.)
- anigbrowl 17y agoYes, but you hate tablets. I still say they're going to be a hot item in 2010, and if Apple launch one in January they'll be enjoying a boatload of cash by year-end from it.
- jsz0 17y agoWhat if it's price competitive with net books? I'm thinking basically a 10" iPod Touch with some new multi-touch gestures and other enhancements via Touch OS 4. They could compete on pricing with net books. Do people like net books for the form factor or the price tag?