Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Apple versus Dell
Choices and solutions
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2004-1-29
34 KB |
|
|
 |
 looked at the different computer choices as if I were a customer thinking, "Should I buy a Mac, or should I buy a Dell?" After all, it was just a couple years ago that Steve Jobs declared that Apple was coming after Dell. Now jobs meant Dell's industry leading operations, and Apple definitely improved theirs, but customers think choices and solutions; and any reasonable comparison would have to mean products as well. So let's see how they are doing. I went on their respective websites and did some comparisons to find out. I'm not sure if the results were surprising to you, or even myself, but this serves as one of the many things that have evolved my views of the two companies over the years.
        
The most obvious thing when comparing the sites is that Apple has designers that get aesthetics and the basics of HTML and presentation. I found far fewer little bugs or quirks on Apple's site, and found the presentation and navigation clearer. But I generally found far more information on Dell's site. While Dell had more steps, poorer navigation and so on, they also had a lot more choices and a lot more information. Dell tried to tell me why to buy them over the competition, why one model was better than the other, or how to fill my needs or what industry terms meant. Apple didn't even offer equal amounts of information on the models that they carried. The Apple Store and the Apple Site don't really seem to crosslink very well; missing the whole purpose of HTML and of links. With Apple's the main site and the store were easier and less confusing; but there was a chasm between them and thus getting detailed information on models or choices was more difficult, usually involving two browser windows, and jumping back and forth. It felt like both were designed by different groups that don't actually talk to each other. Dell at least had the technical specs and information always at hand in one monster site, and it offered reasonable comparisons, cross links, more model suggestions, and so on. The results are that in form, Apple wins. But in function and helping to make better choices and actual information, Dell wins.
Still, the site comparison is not the meat of this article - what really matters isn't just where computers are each sold and how, but what is sold. Comparisons on comparing the sites or stores would take many articles by themselves. I'm much more concerned about what software and hardware choices can be made at each store, and which is better for a customer.
   
One of the first things that people do when looking at a machine or platform should be to decide what they are looking for. What features do they need, which do they want, and then what model best satisfies those requirements at a price they are willing to pay. This is an area where Apple falls way down.
Look, I understand Apple's "operations" saying that trimming models is a good thing for Apple's bottom line, and it even reduces customer confusion. To a point both are true; Apple used to have too many conflicting models and it caused confusion and inter-product competition (that wastes money). But the other side is not having enough choices is worse. Customers don't care about operations, they care about the company having the products they want.
There's another more important point here; when customers are choosing a Platform; meaning Mac or PC, many organizations need to know that they have a product spread that will cover their entire needs. Most individuals and smaller and mid sized organizations see it being easier to have and maintain a single platform (especially in homes, small businesses, schools an so on). They know they don't have a support staff to know all the intricacies of both platforms and how to integrate them, and they don't want to learn all that crap on their own; so give we one platform that will meet all my needs. Thus, if Apple doesn't have enough spread, they just go to PC's and Windows. If it even feels like Apple doesn't have enough spread, they won't research and adjust their requirements to fit Apple's products; they'll just go PC's and Windows. What Apple appears to be missing is that it isn't enough to have just the best machine in your segment, but you have to have models in every segment.
I think Apple is confused on that point; they act like they are Bang & Olufson, Rolls Royce, or some other exotic vendor of niche devices, and that they can cherry pick the profitable parts of the market and ignore the rest. But they can't. Computer platforms are more like caterers, airlines, service organizations or a house builder; people want an entire solution or spread. If Apple can't deliver them where they want to go (either directly or by outsourcing), then customers are going to find someone that can. Many customers are driven away from Apple because the choices are too limited. A little loss in carrying extra SKU's is nothing compared to the larger loss of customers going somewhere else because you don't offer a full enough spread. Apple can offer it themselves, or work with others to license designs to fill the gaps, but they need those gaps filled.
The point is that choices are critical. Customers don't just want to have Apple decide how they can get their machine configured, but that they can get a machine configured the way they want or need it. With that in mind, I started looking at Apple versus Dell, and seeing which company truly better met my needs.
       
Normally, when you look at options, you start at the bottom and work up the product line; people are cheap so they often start cheap and they you up-sell (tease them into higher and higher models with features). The bottom of the line is your foundation; what you build the rest of the company on.
The most stunning omissions on Apple's part are at the low end. And that Apple seems to think the other way. They don't make good models at the bottom and then tease them up; they seem to make good models at the top, then cripple them down the chain. What you end up at the bottom is not very impressive. And if you can't impress them there, then how are you going to tease them up the line?
Entry-level Dells were starting at $399. Entry-level Macs (eMacs) were at nearly double the price at $799 (or a little less to schools or developers). Just that pricing structure alone says something. Dell says, "we offer the best value to our customers we can", with some volume discounts. Apple says, "we'll try to micromanage who can buy what at which price". Dell pricing says "value", Apple says "gotcha". Don't give me this sob story that it is because Apple can't afford to make cheaper machines; they started making machines profitably at $666.66, and they have the fattest margins in the industry. Apple isn't down there because they think it is beneath them to cater to the unwashed masses. Then they wonder why they are seen by many as elitist?
Now Dell's story isn't all pure and good. Generally you could only got the "deals" by buying the machines the way that Dell wanted, and Dell is infamous for have rebates and specials on preconfigured systems and then changing anything knocks you way up in price as punishment for build-to-order or not buying a canned box. Bait and switch is their strategy. They are good at hiding those increases too. But the point is that Dell uses specials to draw people in, then convinces them to buy more (and pay more; with more margins). This is loss-leader strategy that works well. Apple has a more modest and less aggressive approach.
With Dell, almost everything configurable or available as an option; I could make the machine fit my needs. The monitor was external so I could get the one that I wanted. The computer had slots that I could fill as I wanted. The versatility was confusing and stunning; but I could build a machine exactly how I wanted it. It was an IT persons dream, and at worst gives customers the illusion that they are in complete control of their purchasing.
Apple on the other hand, believes in giving customers what they want. And when I mean "they" I don't mean what the customer wants, I mean what Apple wants to give them, the way Apple wants to give it to them. There was only one basic platform, and only two basic prices, few configuration options, and so on. The box was a closed and sealed box; something Steve Jobs seems enamored with but has always had problems in the industry (seen as closed and non-expandable, probably because it is closed and non-expandable). The truth is that few customers need most expandability; but the truth is also that most customers think they do, and don't appreciate being limited because of a company behaving like a Dictator and telling them what they want. If they can't get what they want, or have to add it externally then they are comparing that to others that don't, and they often go somewhere else. Apple's designs fed right into the old stereotypes of Apple being closed, inflexible and expensive; mostly because they were because you couldn't strip out things you didn't need, or add things that you think you might.
In reliability, I'm unsure. Apple's low end used to be fairly reliable (with some serious short-term lapses). Lately, I seem to get far more of the lapses. The failure rates I've gotten on early eMacs was totally unacceptable, on the rest of the product line it is just "concerning". It has gotten better in later batches, but Apple quality seems to be more a memory than truism. I'm not sure if Dell is better right now; they've been known for having some dogs and reliability problems as well. But I've bought a dozen or so from them and not had a problem in the last year. Still, I'll give it a wash. But that brings us to the next thing; what do you do if you have a failure?
Apple charges a premium price, but they offer the least in the ways of support. Apple offers 90 days of phone support, and a limited warranty of up to a year. For an extra $169 (for a low end machine) you can extend that to 3 years. On high end machines, Apple charges far more than anyone else. And all of that support is mediocre at best; mail-in you box or dragging your machine to a dealer and so on. Apple gets to decide how things get serviced, what gets serviced, and if you are worthy of getting service. Apple has a recent history of high rejection rates on claims, and a lot of hoops and hurdles to get them to fix things. And wait times aren't that great, and support people aren't always that sharp. I've been on hold with both Apple and Dell - and they are both equally annoying, slow and incompetent. The really sad part is they are both industry leading.
On the other hand, Dell's support is 1 year, in home. They'll come to you, instead of the other way around. That saves me a ton of time and is valuable to me; making Dell the better deal. For $139, I can extend the warranty to 3 years, again, in-home. And for $199, I can get a 4 year in-home warranty; a year longer than I can get from Apple. Heck, for a bit more, you can get coverage for not only normal repairs but for accidents and other things; if your toddler starts filling the CD with peanut butter and you're covered. Dells message seems to be you can get support how you want it, for as long as you want it, and the coverage you want; for a price.
What says they stand behind their products more? Apple used to have the best quality, so they offered the best warranties; longest and best options out of the box. Now they offer the least in length, features and options. That says a lot about how Apple values their customers and sees their own quality. The end results are if something does go wrong, it appears that you're better covered with Dell, and have more options to get better coverage with Dell. "Does more, costs less, it's that simple", that used to be Apple's marketing slogan, but now it only applies to Dell (on service/support).
Performance is actually far less important than people think. The most important thing in computers is convenience and productivity, not the speed of the machine; but only to a point. If the machine feels slow, then it becomes and obstruction to your work, and a lot of work is still CPU limited. And people think faster is better, so arguing with the customers perception is a waste of time. OS X may or may not be more productive than Windows, I think it is, but it definitely still feels slower (and gets in my way as much as Windows does). And if you want to do real work, there's little doubt that a 2.4GHz Celeron will outclass a 1GHz G4. I'll give Apple a 1.5:1 ratio, and a little more in some cases, but I won't give them a 2.4:1 ratio. This problem is being remedied as Apple is moving faster IBM processors across their line, and the situation may change in a year or two, but for now; Apple costs more and does less. They need improvements in this area too.
So Apple low end hardware offers a clean and nice design; but a very un-versatile, slow, disposable design at nearly twice the entry price. I don't know what Apple does to cripple their low end machines, but I compare new low end machines with older high end machines that ran at slower speeds, the new machines perform significantly worse. Apple seems to design by limiting their low end to try to entice people up the line; instead of making the best machines they can at each price point, or that's how I feel as a customer. Dell let me configure a solution to meet my needs. The Mac was better if I happened to fit in the exact niche they decided to fill, and the further out I got from that, the worse Apple choices were and better Dell was. If I needed any serious customization, Apple took themselves out of the market. A single slot would have made the Mac far more useful, or helped make the sale, at least I knew that one change wouldn't mean I'd have to throw the machine away. At it isn't about costs, it is about control, it would cost pennies to bring a PCMCIA card out. Apple charges a premium price, but is worse at filling customers needs (more often). Dell charged less, offered more, was faster, had better support, had more options, and for me has had better reliability (of late), and tried to empower the customer instead of themselves. Apple is getting flogged at the low-end, and this perception spreads out from there. And I prefer Macs to PC's, imagine if you start with a PC or anti-Apple bias?
I was thinking, well maybe it is only low-end desktops where Apple had a hole. So I kept looking at different markets and segments. How about laptops? Last year was the "year of the laptop". So Apple says they take their laptops seriously.
Apple did a much better job of presenting their choices and selling them. Having two product lines with 12", 15", and 17" models is an excellent positioning job by Apple. People "get it" immediately. iBook or PowerBook, and display size makes it pretty understandable. The layout of the site conveys the message as well. Sadly, defining the products is one of the few ways that Apple beat Dell.
Again, Dells site was polluted with choices; in many ways too many choices. I even went to a Dell Store and asked them what the hell the difference was between different models, and the differences were sometimes subtle; "that one was a 15.2" screen and this one has a 15.4" display". Or things like that. Most of Dells machines were inelegant plastic bricks, or on the higher end, less elegant metal bricks. They looked cheap, but felt pretty rugged. With my history with Apple laptops of late, I doubt they are any worse. Still, customers care about finding something that is right for them (and fits their niche). In most areas Dell slaughtered Apple.
On the low end, Dell's entry was $649 to Apple's $1100. On the high end it wasn't quite as bad; and Apple offered 17" displays while Dell stopped at 15". Hurray, Apple wins one in the choice department. But with Dell you not only chose the display size but the display density; so I could get the 15" display with 19" resolution that I've always wanted. That's something very important to me as I've wanted both the 15" or 17" PowerBooks with higher resolution (density) displays. And with the Dells most options were either the same price or cheaper; like adding wireless support was about 1/2 the price of Apple (both router and card). Dell had more processor choices and all had more performance. I've played with both as well, and on the low end the iBooks feel like dogs to me, I think to myself, "how did Apple make a processor this fast feel this slow?" Some is the graphics chips, or other choices - but the low end Dell's seem zippier.
Dell slaughtered Apple in support choices, and options. One option that has been killing me on Apple's portables; give me the ability to buy a port replicator or dock. All the models I looked at for Dell's had the option of one or the other or both. If I want to replace a desktop with a laptop (and have some expansion when I'm plugged in), or if I want the convenience of not plugging in a half dozen cables with my machine each time I get to home or work, then Dell engineered a whole solution and Apple has not.
I think the form factors of the Macs is better. But the functionality is questionable. Apple seems to differentiate machines by crippling some. Once again, Steve Jobs phobia of expandability rears its ugly head. Dells have slots and expandability, the Macs have less. Apple's proprietary wireless care is just an example of being closed. IBooks and 12" machines not having slots is another. Some will claim size is the factor; but there's something called PCMCIA-mini or SD cards or so on. Apple could easily offer some expansion if they weren't busy so intentionally trying to limit it. Some things like allowing separate displays versus forced mirroring is something I like about Macs; but Apple doesn't offer it on the low end (it would cost a few cents). I used to love being able to run my portables in clamshell mode (closed and with an external display only), Apple has taken that away too.
So in the end, if you are looking for a laptop choice you get the same result as elsewhere in Apple's product line; with the Mac I choose display size, with Dell I choose size and density and have many more choices in form factor, weight, warranty, certification, expandability, processor, and so on. The Dells have more expandability, more options and often cheaper options; but are cheaper looking and less desirable. If Apple offers exactly what you want, the way you want it, then they are the best choice; sexy products, decent designs, and so on. If you want anything at all outside their target then you're screwed; start adapting to Apple's way of thinking, or buy a Dell - at least that is the message that Apple seems to send.
 
Now I do web development, so I need servers. I not only need servers for websites, but also for file serving, utility boxes, and so on.
There is no doubt that Apple's Xserve are nice boxes. Well done, and high performing. They have a decent Operating System, and the license is good compared to Windows. But again, I start having to not only look at what Apple does well, but compare them to the competition and entire product spread and see what they do not cover. I don't have to look far.
Dell starts servers at $650. Apple at about $3000. Now those aren't the same class of boxes, of course. But not every server fits the format of requiring a $3000 box, unless you're an Apple customer (in their minds). A 50lb behemoth with a tumorous monitor attached (eMac) does not make a good low end server; but I've had to make it due, much to the mocking of my nerd friends. "What is that, a 6U paperweight that won't work with the KVM? You can get two Dells for that price", and so on. Sadly, they are right.
Apple had a potential low end, high density solution (the Cube), but Apple killed it. (The over priced it and gutted all expandability). In the end, Apple gets slaughtered in the sub $1000 market, and in the $1,000 - 2,500 market for servers. Heck it would cost Apple a few thousand dollars in engineering just to repackage an iMac in a cheaper headless form and 1U size pizza box; but they don't want to give me that option. If you're in the $3,000 - $4,000 market, then the Xserves are descent boxes. But then once you get above the $4,000 market in requirements you're outta luck again, and once again, Apple gets slaughtered.
So Dell has a product spread, starting at $650, and running up to 5 or 6 figures. Dell has small cases, 1U racks, they have quad processor tanks in 3U or 4U racks, they have big dishwasher format servers and so on. Dell knows that cases are cheap to design; you make a couple good motherboards, and then you just allow people to put the machines in the cases they want/need. Apple doesn't think that choice is necessary. People can add it third party and repackage Macs, but that drives the cost up and convenience down. So Apple has a rather narrow niche of choices.
Dell offers switches and ways to interconnect the machines and make a single order to create your network. Apple? Apple? Hello Apple? Where's the ability to create a complete solution? I don't think Apple should go Dell happy, and offer all the choices of everything. But having some turn-key solutions, or working with someone else to outsource some of this would probably help them in their low end markets.
Then you look at Storage solutions. We hear a ton about X-RAID, and it is a nice solution for the above $5,000 FibreChannel SAN type market. Definitely, if you need a product in this segment it is worth looking at; but what about all the other segments, i.e. the other 90% of storage solutions? The answer is they should be embarrassed by their lack of choices.
Dell offers SAN and NAS solutions across many spectrums and price points. The best way to setup a NAS for the Mac is to buy a pre-built PC (Dell?) for the solution? Apple this is about a weekend project to write the software for this.
On the low end, Dell has solutions. And above XRAID, Dell has solutions. Dell has solutions to have integrated switches for many protocols, and to daisy chain or slave drive bays into a singe controller, so they can get far more storage into a single controller than Apple can. Is Dell really that much better at engineering that they can do what Apple can't? I don't think so.
Apple created FireWire, remember? For a low end SAN (or NAS) type storage solution, it would take a few weeks of engineering (at most) to create little box of drives that allows workgroups to plug in using FireWire (or fast Ethernet). This is something people have pointed out to Apple for 5+ years, and there have been other products exploiting this. Is Micronet and their SANcube really that much ahead of Apple? A single model does not make a product line; spread out a little and stop with the "one size fits all" strategy. Again, the Apple choice is cool if you need exactly what Apple wants to offer. For everyone who needs open or choices, they are going to be driven somewhere else.
In server software, Apple keeps bragging about their OS that has an "unlimited" license for clients on Xserve, and compare themselves to Windows. And once again, the market is comparing them to someone else; they can buy a Dell with one a few LINUX distros on it, with unlimited user license for a lot less than the $1,000 premium Apple charges for their server OS. Apple targets themselves against the highest end of the market, but that's arrogance. You're the new player, you should start as the cheapest solution (best value), and then see if you can mature to the point where your ability fits your ego, and then price up the line.
Which brings me to another point. Apple should be using their server OS to drive them into bunches of new markets helping revenues and profits by improving marketshare (and sell hardware); instead they see it as a short term profit center and completely miss the big picture (growth and market acceptance). Apple could offer it as a free or $100 upgrade to their OS. Hey, if you want Macs you get to use the same thing as client or server. They should be sharing more server technologies where it makes sense; spread "server" across their product line for customers and give them choices and undercut Windows. Instead Apple wants to control how users get what they want to give them, and so they bundle it in with certain models, and charge a premium for the rest. And another great opportunity to be seen as better is pissed away in a fit of short term thinking.
The story for desktops is the same as servers, laptops and other choices. By this time I'm getting board and depressed as any Mac user should. With others the prices start lower, and can go to models much higher. If you want a product spread or choices, then Apple will give you what they want, and not what you might want. If you fit their niche, they do a great job. The G5 is a fantastic box, the iMacs are nice designs as well (if you really want a machine that has no expandability and a non-upgradable LCD attached). But Apple will decide to tie in expensive displays and offer no expandability on the low end, and you get to deal with it. If you want to have control of your platform as in display choices or limited expandability, then you get to go way up the food chain. If you didn't want to spend that much, or have something that large, then you've got to buy a Dell. Sad, because Apple is one of the companies that brought pizza boxes and small form factors (with some expandability) to the low end of the computer market in the first place. Not any more.
 
This comparison in some ways isn't completely fair to Apple; I mean, Apple actually engineers products while Dell just assembles many other people's components into systems and calls them their own. But in other ways, this really isn't fair to Dell; Apple gets to design their systems and has far more control but uses that far worse. Dell is a slave between Microsoft, Intel and the parts suppliers. This means Apple has the advantage of designing software to match their hardware, and much more control over the hardware itself. Probably 95% of the components in a Mac are "off-the-shelf" or at least made by someone other than Apple; so it isn't that different. Apple could fully offer more diversity with very little additional costs; but it would take some compromises that Apple or its leadership won't make (or has failed to make).
If you were sitting back 20 years ago when Dell was starting out, and Jobs was just about a Billionaire and Apple was a multi-billion dollar a year company just releasing the Mac, you probably wouldn't have bet how things would end up today. We can blame some of this on the situation, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, the big bad Universe, customer stupidity, and so on. But when you look at the choices and attitudes, I don't see how you can't think that maybe the customers aren't that wrong; a ton of the blame belongs with Apple and ultimately its leadership.
Twenty years ago, Steve Jobs was enamored with closed computers and sealed little over-priced machines with ridiculous margins (compared to anyone else). The Mac was better than the competition, but not as much better as Apple wanted to charge people for it. So instead of selling the thing as cheap as possible and exploding in market-share and making a difference, Apple tried to make as much as possible in the now; thus slowing down the adoption rate, and selling their future for their ego in the present. Dell focused on value and "got the sale", increased their market and sold for the future. Which has worked better in the long run? Dell out-grew Apple because were better businessmen, better visionaries, not as blinded by their own hubris, and so they didn't drive their customers to competing platforms through over pricing or over limiting the platform. Dell went to customers, instead of expecting or demanding that the customers come to them.
The Mac became a niche player because of this lack of vision or abundance of hubris. When the Mac started, Steve Jobs wanted a closed little sealed box; it was "his" computer, not the consumers. When the consumers complained, he ignored them; he knew better. The whole Mac platform might have collapsed back in 1985 or so, but Steve Jobs wasn't forced to compromise, and thus left in an ego huff. Apple opened up the Machine with the SE's and Mac II's and saved the platform (you can see the sales curve spike up). But the damage was done and they missed a huge opportunity. And once things started to pick up because of opening things up, Apple actually raised prices to prevent that growth. They succeeded. When Windows 3.1 and System 7 came out, Apple still had the advantage; and they delved a little into the lower end. But they had their old hubris; limited expandability and higher priced. They lept to the PowerPC and RISC, but again, overcharged and lost another opportunity back when they had the performance advantage. Apple pissed away a 10 year lead on the PC, and in 1995 people said, "Windows 95 is close enough", and Apple got pounded because of it. Who is to blame for that?
When Steve Jobs left, he founded NeXT. This was another machine with bits of brilliance and elegance, mixed in with a large dose of ego and "Steve knows best". He made a product that a lot took note of, and few bought. Concepts like high priced, fairly closed, and taking a good idea (like an optical drive) and mixing it in with absolutely no balance or compromises (no hard drive, etc.). He almost killed that platform as well. They were only saved from oblivion when Apple bought them back at multiple times what they were worth, because that was easier than following through on something.
Since Jobs came back to Apple, what has happened to the platform? It went from having too many overlapping models (but not enough diversity), to having way too few models and much less diversity. It went from being almost as open as PC's (and all models having slots), to most not having any internal expansion, and being sealed or harder to upgrade. Steve yanks out things he doesn't think the consumers need; like floppy drives in iMacs, when if he was just a little slower with the evolution and listened to customers (left a floppy connector in, and it as an option), all would be a lot happier and get to the same point anyway. It is a battle of control and willpower between Steve and the customer. But customers don't like the mantra, "Steve is always right", or to say, "Steve's way or the highway"; it frustrates them when they can't get what they want and drives many of them away.
In other areas Apple support has tanked, communications has tanked, prices have gone up (relative to the rest of the industry), speed has gone down, innovation has been replaced with sex-appeal, and the platform growth is flat. They went from going after market-share and the future (at last, though dangerously fast), to going after margins and the present only. And when a product misses (like a cube that is close to what consumers want, but too expensive and not expandable), Apple doesn't often learn and adapt, they expect the consumers to do so. When not enough come around to Apple's way of thinking, they kill the product and move on. These are not victories to most consumers or investors, and it is horribly frustrating because they keep coming close to doing something really good.
Consumers that want exactly the box that Steve Jobs wants to deliver are quite happy; they are very nice designs in their niche. But Apple expects you to pay a premium for their art and adapt to them. The lack of expandability or versatility in design makes most Macs very narrow machines. This goes beyond hardware and permeates Apple's new software and OS mentality as well. Many others have been forced to leave because they can't get the products they want, or they don't fit into Apple's myopic view of what they want in a customer. And much of the market is not coming over in droves because they can't get something close enough to what they want or are used to. If it wasn't for the costs to switch away, and the technology wasn't just better than windows, or customers weren't refusing to give up hope that Apple will "come around", it would have probably hurt the platform far more. I prefer Macs and want to sell and advocate them, but I need Apple to work with me on this; and not just cater to the niches that they choose to fill. I'm glad they sell 1100 G5's to make a cool supercomputer, but what about the rest of the industry?
The frustrating part is that it doesn't have to be like this. You can have a great product, and have a little expandability. Only idiots think that all the low-end sales will pirate your high end sales; Dell and the rest of the industry have a reasonable product spread despite being in the low end market - and their market is more price conscious than the Mac market. Apple is being ruled by fear or stupidity. A good visionary would realize that business is big picture; spread the products out (including a low end strategy), when you design a laptop you either design or license supporting products to create solutions (docks and replicators), you allow some expandability not because you want it or because customers need it but because customers want it. You start thinking about how you can undercut the competition in the future, even when it means making less in the present. You think about how to be so easy to get along with, and so in demand, that people are lining up to partner with you; instead of being so selective and controlling that few can stand to be partnered with you for long. Apple should outsource designs they can't afford to do themselves to make sure there's a full spread (controlled cloning). They should license other designs as well. Imagine if Apple worked with some Chinese companies to make some low end boxes with a slot or two, and worked with IBM to make OS X run on Power5 servers on the high end (and worked with IBM's support organization to sell/install/maintain them). To do business you need to drop the "kiss my ring" attitude, and play nice with others.
Dell is winning for a reason; and it isn't the quality of their solutions (which are mostly crap), it is their ability to give the customers what they want and make deals! Apple should try to learn something from that. Or they can stick with their old strategy of ego, art, waiting for customers to adapt to them, trying to control everything, and going it alone, and staying a niche and miss opportunities to do bigger things or dent the universe. Real artist ship; and real men can learn from their mistakes and grow.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
