Apple Computer - long-term advantages?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Scott

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
Vocalise wrote:

>while not watching the market as closely as most here, what does apple have
>in stock for their advantage other than the new iMac? How long will it hold
>out for apple? There doesn't seem to be any other "cool" stuff that can
>keep the apple afloat save their new breed of computers which isn't as
>attractive as the iMac. The e-mate sounds like another weird market blunder
>like Newton used to be (I can't imagine anyone paying for that). G3s are
>great, but not distinctive enough to open up markets or wake up buyers.
>iMac is the only card they have. Will they pull out more cards in the
>future? Or will the release of the iMac be but a short time stimulant to
>Apple's already rising stocks? What if that stimulant is gone (iMac sales
>reach a plateau)? Will it crash? Just a few things that come to mind. Don't
>mind me if they sound stupid, but I do appreciate your help.

Hi Dan!

You ask lots of great questions, and I'll take a shot at some of them.
I see the following as some core strengths Apple has going forward:

- Brand. The Apple and Macintosh brand are right up there with Disney,
Coke and Nike. Apple is a household name and for most of today's
kids, their computer experiences started with the Macintosh. The
Apple logo is a familiar shape to everyone. It would take a new
company billions of dollars in advertising to receive the brand
awareness Apple has today. Apple hasn't leveraged its brand to
its advantage until only recently, starting with the very
successful "Think Different" campaign.

- The Mac OS. A common misconception is that Windows is "just as
good" or even better than the Mac OS. Most people who use both
OS's on a regular basis - myself included - will make a strong
argument that Mac OS is fundamentally more advanced and easier
to use. Mac OS is *truly* plug-and-play. It is *truly* intuitive.
First-time computer users find the Mac OS experience particularly
rewarding because they can instantly master the operation of the
computer - and feel as if they are in the driver's seat. While
Windows has improved enormously in past years, it is still
awkward, inconsistent, hard-to-use, crash-prone, and based on DOS
and other ancient technologies. Apple's recent Mac OS 8 version
also obliterated a key complaint people had of the Mac OS in the
past: instability. Mac OS 8 has rock-hard stability and
rarely, if ever, crashes. It is full of great, well-thought
out features - it's obvious Apple engineers spent a *lot* of
time thinking about the smallest of details - working on
polishing little things that people may never notice. It makes
a big difference. One critical technology that makes the
Mac OS superior - but has often been overlooked - is the
AppleScript scripting system. This fall's Mac OS 8.5 will
begin to drive home the power of AppleScript. For more
information on this cool technology, visit
www.apple.com/applescript. There's also key technologies
such as ColorSync that make Windows completely
unacceptable for certain creative content industries.

It really is refreshing using an OS where it's obvious that
someone took great pride in refining it and refining it.
There's thousands of examples, but here's one small one that
people probably never noticed: the edges of the Mac OS desktop
are slightly curved (Apple didn't want to "cut corners").
Oh, and while other computer companies are scrambling to achieve
Y2K compliance, the Mac OS (and virtually all applications)
have been Y2K compliant since 1984. As Douglas Adams
joked at the recent MacWorld Expo, Apple may have done
some things wrong with the Mac, but at least they knew the
end of the century was coming. And there are plenty of
pleasant surprises in the Mac OS - for example, one of
the "color pickers" provided in the OS that can be used
in any application shows a box of crayons. Over time,
some of the crayons begin to get whittled down. I
picture Microsoft programmers as inhuman sweatshop
programmers that just "don't get it" and do the bare
minimum amount of work. Testing? Ha! Let the Windows
users beta-test the software, and the amusing thing to
me is that *people paid money* to beta-test Windows 98
(even before it came out ;-) Apple programmers have always
thought differently and had a little fun, going the extra
mile to make the Mac OS not only minimally functional but
maximally enjoyable. (Why do you think Mac users are so
affectionate towards their computers? It really does seem
like there's "someone" inside the machine working to make
your life easier!)

[A disclaimer: I hate to stereotype Microsoft programmers;
I have some friends who work at Microsoft and MS has its
share of great programmers. However, they have to work
within the constraints of Windows and the business
attitudes at MS. Whereas Apple encourages creative
thinking, risk-taking, and sheer fun, MS is much more
strict about giving any low-level employees creative
license. They want to do everything by the corporate
book. I can't think of a single feature of Windows
that ever pleasantly surprised me, but examples
abound in the Mac OS, such as Clarus, the Dogcow, who
works diligently in every print setup dialog box to
show you how your page will be oriented. If you're
not a Mac user, you'll have no appreciation for
what I'm talking about. As Clarus would say, "Moof!"]

- Architecture. Apple successfully transitioned to the PowerPC
architecture several years ago. PowerPC is based on RISC
technology; Pentium is based on CISC technology. All microprocessor
companies - Intel included - concluded several years ago that
RISC was the only way to go. Unfortunately, in the Wintel
world, their hands are tied to the CISC-based Pentium because
of backwards compatibility requirements. While RISC chips
are simple and have limited instructions, Pentium chips continue
to grow in complexity because every old x86 instruction must
still be present in the chip for older programs to function
properly. It's like adding extra floors to a house that was
only designed to have two floors - eventually, the foundation
is going to collapse. This makes Pentium chips slower, larger,
more expensive, more power-hungry, less reliable, and generate
considerably more heat, limiting their use in applications
such as notebook computers. Apple has made a clean transition
to RISC, using software-based methods to emulate older 680x0
code. This worked great. It doesn't seem the Wintel world
can do this because it is so fragmented - too many diverse
parties would have to cooperate together to solve it, and
it's hard to imagine them getting it right the first time.
But I really think they're going to have to make an attempt
eventually.

In the long term, Apple's move to PowerPC will be an absolutely
collosal advantage over the Wintel world. The reason is that
the technical roadmap for PowerPC is very bright, whereas
Intel is already struggling with the Pentium line and its
follow-on chips, such as the hopelessly delayed Merced. It
costs Intel more money to squeeze x amount of performance
out of the Pentium architecture as it does IBM/Motorola
for the PowerPC architecture. Today, Macintosh-based
systems run twice as fast as Pentium systems at 1/3 the
cost. On August 31, Macintosh-based systems will run four
times as fast as Pentium systems at 1/3 the cost. This
trend will continue for the foreseeable future, and at some
point, people are going to realize they are getting some
lousy technology for a lot of money if they stick with Wintel.
State-of-the-art technologies, such as copper-based
manufacturing and continued cache breakthroughs, will
occur on the PowerPC architecture first for the foreseeable
future.

In the same category of architecture, Apple has many other
advantages beyond the PowerPC chip. Apple has traditionally
led the pack with the adoption of key technologies - such as
FireWire, which Apple developed. Ironically, even though
USB stemmed out of the Wintel world, it is only with the
introduction of the iMac that USB is taking off, and USB
peripheral manufacturers are so in love with the iMac that
they are copying the iMac's industrial design for their
products. Apple clearly has some weight in the computer
industry.

- Industrial design. Apple's industrial design group, led
by Jonathan Ives, is undoubtedly the industry's best. They
haven't been given a free creative license until the return
of Steve Jobs, but as Ives now says, Apple isn't taking
a risk with their innovative industrial design (such as the
iMac) - they'd be taking a huge risk if they *didn't* have
innovative industrial design! Ives feels that's one of
the core philosophies of Apple and his company now agrees.
The iMac and new PowerBook G3's have a trend-setting
industrial design, but it's not just good looks - there's
a functional reason behind every curve, every plastic.
You will see some revolutionary industrial design moving
beyond the iMac. Although details haven't been divulged
yet (it's going to be a pleasant surprise), you can expect
to see a major revamping of the G3 desktop line very soon -
not only in terms of performance (as I alluded to earlier),
but particularly in terms of appearance. Enough said.

- User base. Macintosh users are - some would say -
exceedingly loyal to their platform beyond all reason. That's
why so many users (20-25 million, at last count) stuck with
the Mac platform throughout years of neglect from Apple.
Suddenly Apple's changed, from the top down - and putting
out products which are literally rewards to the Mac faithful.
There are a *lot* of Macintosh users who haven't upgraded
their machines in several years, cautious about the
viability of Apple or simply waiting for the "next big
thing," the right time to upgrade. Apple's viable and
profitable - nothing but growth is ahead for the company,
and software developers - sensing a new fad - are flocking
to the Mac platform in large numbers. Now is the time
for the Mac faithful to buy, and they've already started
this, and will *really* start it with the iMac, starting
in August. The large base of installed Mac users - most
using computers 3-5 years old - are never included in
"market share" numbers because market share numbers are
based on *new* computers sold during a given quarter.
If a lot of older Mac users start to upgrade their systems,
Apple's "market share" will suddenly rise dramatically,
and this is *precisely* what I predict will happen
between now and the end of the year. Just watch.

I also think there will be some backlash with all
the monopoly talk, etc. Users have grown weary of
giving Bill Gates more money, and I think a lot of people
will be happy to consider *viable* alternatives.
Until now, alternatives haven't been viable.

Ok, so there's 20-25 million people who might be buying
new Apple machines in the next year. What then? This
sudden surge of Mac users back to the Mac will present
ample opportunities for software developers to make
lots of money (moreso than in the dormant, stale PC
market), and will also make Apple quite profitable,
further cementing its viability and ability to continue
producing head-turning products. Suddenly the Mac platform
will be flourishing, and at that point, I predict long-time
Wintel users will begin to question their commitment
to a platform where nothing exciting seems to be happening
(except an increase in the net worth of Bill Gates) -
once again, the Wintel platform will be playing catch-up
with the more exciting Mac platform. Wintel users will
slowly start to migrate to the Mac. I really do sense
a possible chain-reaction and I don't see how Microsoft can
counteract it with their OS, or PC manufacturers with
their hardware. There are fundamental limitations
in PC hardware and the Windows OS - limitations not
present on the Mac side, but that Apple has, until
recently, not taken advantage of. And there's always
the "fad quotient." Like the VW Beetle, the iMac is
likely to become a fad computer - everyone will want
one because it will be the thing to have - a "hip"
computer that isn't a boring beige and, by the way,
screams in performance. People will want to keep
up with the Joneses.

- Future OS technologies. I don't want to focus on this
area too much, because it's in the future, but it is
an area that will affect Apple in the long-term. Apple
has some really great programmers working on Mac OS 8.5
and Mac OS X/Rhapsody right now. 8.5 will probably
ship in September, and I think it will speak for itself -
it's a darned nice upgrade, one that users will be quite
enthusiastic to upgrade to. Mac OS X won't be released
until late next year, but it's looking like it will
finally clean out some of the rust in Mac OS, and man,
will it perform on the PowerPC architecture. As a
Macintosh software developer, I can tell you that developers -
for the first time in years - feel that Apple finally
has a viable, sensible OS strategy. And they're kicking
ass on it. (I'm still amazed at how quickly Avie Tevanian's
OS team has finished some key technologies.)

But Apple's future OS efforts are future efforts; Apple
has provided ample reason for people to buy Macs *today*
instead of waiting for tomorrow's technologies. Keeping
Mac OS current while working on the "next big thing"
(Rhapsody, now called Mac OS X) was the right choice.
I'll be the first to admit that Apple stumbled a few
times over the past few years with its OS strategy,
but they've demonstrated to developers that they're
on track now.

- Future software technologies. Apple has spent billions
of dollars on R&D over the past few years, on technologies
such as speech and gesture recognition, QuickTime,
handwriting recognition, and user interface methodologies.
Some of these technologies were refined in the early
90's, but were put in the closet because microprocessors
simply weren't fast enough back then. They are today
(at least PowerPC is), and you're going to see Apple
dusting off some of these cool technologies and putting
them into the Mac OS and software. I'm not going to
go into specific details, but I would suggest that
you'll see some rather cool speech technologies in
the coming year. (Bear in mind that Apple had very
solid speech recognition in Macs as early as 1991.) Ok,
let me also suggest that some of these speech technologies
might be particularly useful in certain new products,
such as ones with a small footprint.

- Ok, since we're on the topic of PDA's (wink, wink),
I'm going to drag Newton back from its death and
place it right here as another key Apple benefit.
It was *very* unfortunate to see Newton killed, because
the MessagePad 2000 and eMate *really worked*. The
handwriting recognition was flawless, and the Newton OS
was brilliant in design - it was designed from the ground
up as a PDA OS, unlike Windows CE, which is Windows
forced uncomfortably into a tiny footprint (and it
wants to get out!) But simplification was a key
effort for Apple in the past year, and it's reaping
many dividends. Working on a second OS was simply too
much, even though the Newton OS had been aggressively
refined since its initial, embarassing introduction.
Sadly, in a lot of peoples' minds, the Newton was
never able to get past its introduction, even after
Apple worked all the bugs out. The truth is, later
Newtons delivered on their promise - their only
fault was a high price and a complete lack of
marketing.

Yet, there are so many technologies in Newton OS that
are exceptional. These technologies are not going
to be wasted by Apple. Apple has hinted that a fourth
product will be added early next year - there's currently
the PowerMac "pro" desktop line, and the iMac "consumer"
line. There's currently the PowerBook "pro" portable line,
and the.. Umm.. The fourth product, coming out early next
year.

If you think the iMac is going to be big, I'd have
to say "just wait." I assure you the introduction
of a radical new machine early next year will be
quite unlike the introduction of the Newton several
years ago, because unlike with the Newton's introduction,
Apple has had years to perfect the technology. But
you're going to see a lot of influence from the
Newton - the Newton isn't really dead. But the
product will be Mac OS-based this time around.
And quite inexpensive. Oh, and radically cool.
Which leads into the next topic.

- More surprises. One thing Steve Jobs has shown is
that he can really shock and surprise the industry - and
people do care. Even a year ago, when Apple looked
like it was in serious trouble, the company continued
to receive a *lot* of press. Today, the company
receives a *lot* of press, but it's now increasingly
positive and upbeat press. Last year, Steve Jobs
promised surprises "every 90 days." So far he has
held to that promise. I would classify future
surprises in the following categories: profitability
(be prepared for a surprise next Wednesday), new
products, and new partnerships.

So, that's my stab at some *long-term* advantages
Apple has going into the future. The iMac is getting
a lot of attention right now, because it's so
different. (It's not beige.) But it's only one
small piece of Apple's strategy. I've listed some
other pieces, but there's a lot I didn't mention -
Apple's strong relationship with education resellers,
the Apple On-line Store, a great and effective
advertising campaign, just-in-time manufacturing,
Build to Order, and Apple's Java efforts. It just
seems like Apple's making all the right decisions now,
and slowly - but consistently - knocking off all of its
problems, one by one.

But there will remain naysayers. There's some
really vocal ones on this newsgroup who - without
providing an explanation - make short and incredibly
insightful statements such as "Apple is dead" (or
"Apple is spending no money on R&D." That was a good
one. Obviously, the iMac and Mac OS X materialized
out of thin air.) There are an awful lot of analysts
and journalists who publically and vocally concluded a
year ago that Apple was dead in the water; a turn-around
was impossible. Write them off. Has-been. These
people were obviously wrong, but many are not
willing to admit that, despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. Admitting that they
were wrong would hurt their credibility, but
I have to wonder just how much it will have to
take for them to admit that perhaps, just perhaps,
Apple is not dead after all. 80% market share?
No, that probably wouldn't be enough for some
people. Yet, it did look for awhile like Apple was
in a death-spiral, so I can't altogether blame them.
But it's obvious that some people will hang on to
their beliefs long after they should, and refuse to
be open-minded or think objectively.

I definitely rate AAPL a "buy," because I see
enormous short- and long-term growth for the company.
If you're still not convinced, I would simply suggest
that you follow Apple over the next 3-6 months,
gauging the success of Apple's new products, the
revenue growth, and the industry reaction. By then
it should be clear whether or not the iMac is the
end or simply the beginning, and it shouldn't be
too late to get in on the fun. And it will be fun
for investors and Macintosh users alike.

- Scott

Alex M.

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
Scott,

That's some answer! Of course, as an Apple stockholder I sure like
what you wrote.

Alex

>
>Hi Dan!
>snip
3,100 words later....
>- Scott


J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
aapl to hit $100 by end of year.

On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 03:44:20 GMT, sc...@SPAMdcski.com (Scott) wrote:

> I definitely rate AAPL a "buy," because I see
>enormous short- and long-term growth for the company.
>If you're still not convinced, I would simply suggest
>that you follow Apple over the next 3-6 months,
>gauging the success of Apple's new products, the
>revenue growth, and the industry reaction. By then
>it should be clear whether or not the iMac is the
>end or simply the beginning, and it shouldn't be
>too late to get in on the fun. And it will be fun
>for investors and Macintosh users alike.

-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------
Perry Fecteau's Blueprints to Success.
-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to

Hi, Scott.

I wonder if you work for Apple or not. Can you please let us know
what is your connection with Apple?

On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.

Also I read an article in "Murky News" over the lunch about iMac's.
These machines don't have floppy drive or any other removable media.
They also do not have serial port. USB only. So if you have printer,
scanner, modem that you used with your old Mac - forget it and
buy everything new. If you can find it, indeed. Hardware
manufacturers are not in rush to build USB devices yet.

So rumors about consumers rushing to buy new machines are a
little bit premature. I for one, would not buy machine that cannot
print and have a tiny, lousy monitor that I cannot upgrade.

vlad

In article <scott-11079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,


Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
>
> You ask lots of great questions, and I'll take a shot at some of them.
>I see the following as some core strengths Apple has going forward:
>
>- Brand. The Apple and Macintosh brand are right up there with Disney,
>Coke and Nike. Apple is a household name and for most of today's
>kids, their computer experiences started with the Macintosh. The
>Apple logo is a familiar shape to everyone. It would take a new
>company billions of dollars in advertising to receive the brand


a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
removed . . .

Scott

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In article <6oe2kl$ptp$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
Kuznetsov) wrote:

> Hi, Scott.
>
> I wonder if you work for Apple or not. Can you please let us know
> what is your connection with Apple?

I do not work for Apple. I have used Apple products since
1979 and am a software developer and writer. (I develop
software for Windows, Mac OS, and variants of UNIX.)

> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.

The monitor on the iMac is very high-quality, and supports
1,024x768 resolution. There is not a huge difference in
viewable size between monitors "called" 17" and monitors
"called" 15". (I put "called" in quotes because viewable
size - the thing that counts - is always smaller.)

In the iMac's case, I think the exceptionally high-quality
monitor and ability to drive 1,024x768 at 24-bit color more
than make up for that missing inch. (The monitor features
a 0.28 dot pitch and refresh rates as high as 117 MHz. It
is razor-sharp from edge to edge.) But you're right - the
monitor is not upgradeable so users requiring a larger monitor
should look elsewhere.

> Also I read an article in "Murky News" over the lunch about iMac's.
> These machines don't have floppy drive or any other removable media.
> They also do not have serial port. USB only. So if you have printer,
> scanner, modem that you used with your old Mac - forget it and
> buy everything new. If you can find it, indeed. Hardware
> manufacturers are not in rush to build USB devices yet.

On the contrary, hardware manufacturers *are* in a rush
to build USB devices, thanks to the iMac:

http://nytsyn.com/IMDS%7CCND7%7Cread%7C/home/content/users/imds/feeds/nytsyn/1998/07/10/cndin/8949-0199-pat_nytimes%7C/home/content/users/imds/feeds/nytsyn/1998/07/10/cndin/8960-0207-pat_nytimes%7C/home/content/users/imds/feeds/nytsyn/1998/07/10/cndin/894

http://www.austin360.com/biz/07july/10/10apple.htm

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1998/jul/8usb.html

Last week, over 20 peripherals manufacturers announced support
for the iMac. Iomega is making a USB Zip drive (in a translucent
case, even, to compliment the iMac); Imation is making a USB
SuperDrive; UMAX is making a USB scanner; Connectix is making
a USB QuickCam; and Epson, HP, and Canon all announced
USB printers for the iMac. HP also announced an inexpensive
cable that allows current HP printers to interface via USB
with the iMac. Other companies announced a plethora of
USB-to-serial (and USB-to-ADB and even USB-to-SCSI) options.

The fact that the iMac *doesn't* have serial ports is
why USB is *now* taking off. In the Wintel world, USB
has only been half-supported. Windows 95 had very weak
support for USB, and hardware manufacturers continued
to offer traditional serial ports in addition to USB.
The result? Little demand for USB products. That the
iMac only has USB suddenly caused peripheral manufacturers
to rush to the market - because it will be a big market.

The iMac does not come standard with removeable media,
but a handful of companies have stepped up to the plate -
the Imation SuperDrive, for example, is designed to match
the iMac in style and appearance. Much of the iMac's
core audience will not require removeable media, but
this has definitely been the most controversial aspect
of the iMac. Another controversy was the iMac's
inclusion of a 33.6k modem, but Apple corrected that -
the iMac will ship with a 56k modem. The iMac comes
with 100 megabit Ethernet, which I think is very
forward-thinking on Apple's part. I'm currently using
a cable modem, and technologies such as cable modems
and ADSL will become ubiquitous within the next five
years for most home computing users. (Ethernet is
already prevalent in schools and businesses.)

> So rumors about consumers rushing to buy new machines are a
> little bit premature. I for one, would not buy machine that cannot
> print and have a tiny, lousy monitor that I cannot upgrade.

I don't think these rumors are premature; I think they're
understated. A lot of people are saying things like "ugh, you
can't add a SuperSoundMaster sound card to the iMac. Very
little expandability. It will never fly." And these people
are describing *their* feelings, but their feelings are
not universal. For example, people posting on this newsgroup
are probably technically savvy. Probably a lot of people
*enjoy* building their own PC, tinkering with it, trying
to get it to do things. To these people, an all-in-one
no-need-to-think-hard-or-tinker solution like the iMac
might seem revolting.

But you forget that there are an awful lot of people who
*don't* want to mess with their computer - they just want
something simple that works. They don't *want* to worry
about upgrading their computer. They're perfectly happy
with a 17" monitor - they want to buy the "cute" computer,
and their eyes gloss over when you start talking about
megahertz and megabytes.

This is a **HUGE** market. And that's exactly the
market the iMac is geared towards. I don't expect you
to rush out and buy an iMac, but I expect there are
millions of people who will. Just watch. I think iMac
sales will exceed everyone's expectations - including
Apple. (Apple has not made any public predictions,
but independent analysts are expecting more than
1 million iMacs will roll into consumers' homes this
fall. If true, this will be the *best selling*
computer ever sold, by any company.)

The iMac isn't a computer for everyone, but a pretty
sizeable amount of the market will be thrilled about it,
and the sudden influx of customers into the Mac
market will improve the situation for high-end Mac
users (like me). Already, software developers are
flocking back to the Mac. Why? Because it's a wide
open opportunity right now. As one developer put it,
they'd rather have 10% of the "tiny" Mac market than
2% of the Wintel market, and they sense some great
opportunities.

> In article <scott-11079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
> Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
> >

> > You ask lots of great questions, and I'll take a shot at some of them.
> >I see the following as some core strengths Apple has going forward:
> >
> >- Brand. The Apple and Macintosh brand are right up there with Disney,
> >Coke and Nike. Apple is a household name and for most of today's
> >kids, their computer experiences started with the Macintosh. The
> >Apple logo is a familiar shape to everyone. It would take a new
> >company billions of dollars in advertising to receive the brand
>

> a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
> removed . . .

I don't think anything I said was wishful thinking - optimistic,
yes, but completely grounded in reality. The brainwashing comes
out of Microsoft and Intel, not "pro-Apple" folks. Again, watch
Apple over the next 6 months and see how things play out. I
can't predict the future, I can only make educated guesses.

Today, Apple stock broke its 52-week high again, rising 1.875
to close at 33.938. The stock has almost tripled in value
since the beginning of the year.

There were an awful lot of people who predicted Apple would
be dead - out of business - by this time, but suddenly
Apple looks like it has more growth potential than any
other computer company. Apple shareholders seem to have
a pretty big smile on their face these days. The big
question today is, not will Apple survive, but how much
of the market will they reclaim? There's no doubt Apple's
revenue is going to increase dramatically starting this
quarter (by the way, the profit margin on the iMac is very
high). What effect do you think this will have on investors?

- Scott

Ron Fitch

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
Very good points, Vladimir.

I am a grad student in Educational Technology, returning to school after
working in multimedia production for five years after working in
television for a couple. I've spent the last year working in an Area
Education Agency (one of several in Iowa which serve local school
districts) and have worked as an on-campus trainer, giving workshops to
students, staff and faculty for everytihng from Photoshop to Intro to
HTML to multi-session MS Word/Excel/PowerPoint using both Macintosh- and
Windows-based classrooms.

No bones about it ... in my *own* opinion, the Macintosh platform is the
better platform. I've seen it over and over -- students, staff and
faculty, some of whom have been using Windows machines for the past
couple of years in their offices -- come in uninformed and biased
against the Macintosh classroom (scheduling thing) who walk out two
hours later loving the platform and remarking about how much they like
the Macintosh platform.

However, I strongly question leaving the floppy out of the iMac and the
USB port. The G3 absolutely flies and MacOS8 is very, very good, no
doubt. But, like the Newton before, I think the iMac is *too* far ahead
of its time. I hope I am wrong. From my reading, there simply isn't
much of anything out there for the Mac platform using USB and I doubt
the third-party vendors are willing to put much into production for
Apple's share of the market. The floppy drive is a no-brainer -- it is
still the most-used method of backing up and transferring files.

Again, I love the Mac platform and hope I am wrong. I've worked in the
Mac, Windows, OS2 (and just a bit of UNIX) world. I'll stick with Mac.
I hope Mac can recapture the education market dominance it once had.

Just my thought,

Ron Fitch
Educational Technology
University of Northern Iowa

Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Hi, Scott.
>
> I wonder if you work for Apple or not. Can you please let us know
> what is your connection with Apple?
>

> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.
>

> Also I read an article in "Murky News" over the lunch about iMac's.
> These machines don't have floppy drive or any other removable media.
> They also do not have serial port. USB only. So if you have printer,
> scanner, modem that you used with your old Mac - forget it and
> buy everything new. If you can find it, indeed. Hardware
> manufacturers are not in rush to build USB devices yet.
>

> So rumors about consumers rushing to buy new machines are a
> little bit premature. I for one, would not buy machine that cannot
> print and have a tiny, lousy monitor that I cannot upgrade.
>

> vlad


>
> In article <scott-11079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
> Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
> >

> > You ask lots of great questions, and I'll take a shot at some of them.
> >I see the following as some core strengths Apple has going forward:
> >
> >- Brand. The Apple and Macintosh brand are right up there with Disney,
> >Coke and Nike. Apple is a household name and for most of today's
> >kids, their computer experiences started with the Macintosh. The
> >Apple logo is a familiar shape to everyone. It would take a new
> >company billions of dollars in advertising to receive the brand
>

> a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
> removed . . .
>

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to

I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.

Now let's look in your arguments . . .

In article <scott-13079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,


Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
>> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
>> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.
>
> The monitor on the iMac is very high-quality, and supports
>1,024x768 resolution. There is not a huge difference in
>viewable size between monitors "called" 17" and monitors
>"called" 15". (I put "called" in quotes because viewable
>size - the thing that counts - is always smaller.)
>

You can try to play it down as much as you wish.
But 1,024x768 is a lousy resolution by PC world standard.
1,280x1,024 is rather normal on ordinary PC. And the
difference in viewable size diagonally is 2". It is an
inferior monitor. Jobs just tried to save money on it.


> In the iMac's case, I think the exceptionally high-quality
>monitor and ability to drive 1,024x768 at 24-bit color more
>than make up for that missing inch. (The monitor features
>a 0.28 dot pitch and refresh rates as high as 117 MHz. It

I would not touch monitor with 0.28 pitch. Any decent
PC monitor has 0.22-0.25. You can call .28 razor sharp,
but it sounds like an advertisement pitch to me.

>is razor-sharp from edge to edge.) But you're right - the
>monitor is not upgradeable so users requiring a larger monitor
>should look elsewhere.
>
>

> On the contrary, hardware manufacturers *are* in a rush
>to build USB devices, thanks to the iMac:
>

I just can repeat that "Murky News" stated in their article
that manufacturers are waiting. 4% of the market is not
big enough for many of them.

>
>The result? Little demand for USB products. That the
>iMac only has USB suddenly caused peripheral manufacturers
>to rush to the market - because it will be a big market.

How a computer that has less then 4% of the market
(and this share is diminishing) can create "rush to
the market"? "Murky News" does not think so.

>
> The iMac does not come standard with removeable media,
>but a handful of companies have stepped up to the plate -
>the Imation SuperDrive, for example, is designed to match
>the iMac in style and appearance. Much of the iMac's
>core audience will not require removeable media, but
>this has definitely been the most controversial aspect
>of the iMac. Another controversy was the iMac's
>inclusion of a 33.6k modem, but Apple corrected that -
>the iMac will ship with a 56k modem. The iMac comes
>with 100 megabit Ethernet, which I think is very
>forward-thinking on Apple's part. I'm currently using
>a cable modem, and technologies such as cable modems
>and ADSL will become ubiquitous within the next five
>years for most home computing users. (Ethernet is
>already prevalent in schools and businesses.)

All this paragraph sounds like a marketing's
excuse for absent features.

>millions of people who will. Just watch. I think iMac
>sales will exceed everyone's expectations - including
>Apple. (Apple has not made any public predictions,
>but independent analysts are expecting more than
>1 million iMacs will roll into consumers' homes this
>fall. If true, this will be the *best selling*
>computer ever sold, by any company.)
>

More and more of wishful thinking.


> The iMac isn't a computer for everyone, but a pretty
>sizeable amount of the market will be thrilled about it,

Currently this "sizeable" amount is less then 4%
and diminishing.

>users (like me). Already, software developers are
>flocking back to the Mac. Why? Because it's a wide
>open opportunity right now. As one developer put it,
>they'd rather have 10% of the "tiny" Mac market than
>2% of the Wintel market, and they sense some great
>opportunities.

This is hilarious. 10% of 4% is .4% of the total market.
2% of 96% is 1.92% of the total market. Where did you
find those developers? I bet they all work for Apple.


>>
>> a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
>> removed . . .
>
> I don't think anything I said was wishful thinking - optimistic,
>yes, but completely grounded in reality. The brainwashing comes

I feel that your optimism is well paid for.

>- Scott

Are you sure you don't work for Apple?

vlad

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In article <6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
Kuznetsov) wrote:

> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
>
> Now let's look in your arguments . . .
>
> In article <scott-13079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
> Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:

> >> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
> >> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.
> >
> > The monitor on the iMac is very high-quality, and supports
> >1,024x768 resolution. There is not a huge difference in
> >viewable size between monitors "called" 17" and monitors
> >"called" 15". (I put "called" in quotes because viewable
> >size - the thing that counts - is always smaller.)
> >
>

> You can try to play it down as much as you wish.
> But 1,024x768 is a lousy resolution by PC world standard.
> 1,280x1,024 is rather normal on ordinary PC. And the
> difference in viewable size diagonally is 2". It is an
> inferior monitor. Jobs just tried to save money on it.

Sure. Could you name a company that sells an all-in-one for $1299 that has
a better monitor? So Steve Jobs saved some money -- but the monitor is
still reported to be *very* sharp. At the iMac's introduction, Steve had
to turn down the brightness on the monitor.

Saving money on a product is a bad thing?

Don't forget at Christmas time, the iMac will most likely be selling for $999.


>
>
> > In the iMac's case, I think the exceptionally high-quality
> >monitor and ability to drive 1,024x768 at 24-bit color more
> >than make up for that missing inch. (The monitor features
> >a 0.28 dot pitch and refresh rates as high as 117 MHz. It
>

> I would not touch monitor with 0.28 pitch. Any decent
> PC monitor has 0.22-0.25. You can call .28 razor sharp,
> but it sounds like an advertisement pitch to me.

Remember that the iMac is intended for people who have never purchased a
computer before. This, of course, means these customers aren't using
Photoshop (yet) and don't require a high res monitor.

(*snip*)

> > On the contrary, hardware manufacturers *are* in a rush
> >to build USB devices, thanks to the iMac:
> >
>

> I just can repeat that "Murky News" stated in their article
> that manufacturers are waiting. 4% of the market is not
> big enough for many of them.

If, by 'Murky News' you mean the San Jose Mecury News, well ... let's just
say that, despite living within a stone's throw from Apple Computer, they
are not exactly Mac fans, and their Apple-related 'news' is usually
suspect. Sometimes just plain wrong.

> >The result? Little demand for USB products. That the
> >iMac only has USB suddenly caused peripheral manufacturers
> >to rush to the market - because it will be a big market.
>

> How a computer that has less then 4% of the market
> (and this share is diminishing) can create "rush to
> the market"? "Murky News" does not think so.

Scott posted several URLs that discuss which companies are building
USB-based peripherals. Did you read any of them? Amazingly, there wasn't a
'Murky News' story in there anywhere.

> >
> > The iMac does not come standard with removeable media,
> >but a handful of companies have stepped up to the plate -
> >the Imation SuperDrive, for example, is designed to match
> >the iMac in style and appearance. Much of the iMac's
> >core audience will not require removeable media, but
> >this has definitely been the most controversial aspect
> >of the iMac. Another controversy was the iMac's
> >inclusion of a 33.6k modem, but Apple corrected that -
> >the iMac will ship with a 56k modem. The iMac comes
> >with 100 megabit Ethernet, which I think is very
> >forward-thinking on Apple's part. I'm currently using
> >a cable modem, and technologies such as cable modems
> >and ADSL will become ubiquitous within the next five
> >years for most home computing users. (Ethernet is
> >already prevalent in schools and businesses.)
>

> All this paragraph sounds like a marketing's
> excuse for absent features.

Perhaps ... but do you deny the truth of any of the items mentioned
therein? Was the announcement of the USB-based SuperDrive an illusion? Was
the news of Apple upgrading the 33.6k modem to 56k that I read in error?
Is the Ethernet port on the back of the iMac just there for decoration?
Can you point to any news stories which confirm what you seem to be
saying? No? Didn't think so.


>
> >millions of people who will. Just watch. I think iMac
> >sales will exceed everyone's expectations - including
> >Apple. (Apple has not made any public predictions,
> >but independent analysts are expecting more than
> >1 million iMacs will roll into consumers' homes this
> >fall. If true, this will be the *best selling*
> >computer ever sold, by any company.)
> >
>

> More and more of wishful thinking.

I'd look at it as more of an 'educated' guess. Your 'guesses' seem to be
based on one article you apparently looked at in passing during lunch.
Scott is actually an Apple Developer (which does *not* mean he works
directly for Apple). If it comes down to basing a stock purchase on either
Scott's predictions (which I can actually verify by reading the same
things he's read) or yours, well, let's face it: you have NO credibility
(in my opinion).


>
>
> > The iMac isn't a computer for everyone, but a pretty
> >sizeable amount of the market will be thrilled about it,
>

> Currently this "sizeable" amount is less then 4%
> and diminishing.

This '4%' figure you throw out there is rather misleading. It is based on
computers purchased during the previous 3 months. The market Scott is
talking about is all the people who have purchased Macs way, *way* back
... and haven't bothered to upgrade. That is a lot of people.


>
> >users (like me). Already, software developers are
> >flocking back to the Mac. Why? Because it's a wide
> >open opportunity right now. As one developer put it,
> >they'd rather have 10% of the "tiny" Mac market than
> >2% of the Wintel market, and they sense some great
> >opportunities.
>

> This is hilarious. 10% of 4% is .4% of the total market.
> 2% of 96% is 1.92% of the total market. Where did you
> find those developers? I bet they all work for Apple.

That would be "10% of ~5,000,000" (say 500K).

As for the question you didn't ask but should have ("How come you don't
want 2% of the Windows market? Won't that be lucrative, Mr.
Programmer-dude?"), the answer is support costs. Supporting all the
different flavors of PC out there, the various video boards, the multitude
of different sound cards, etc., etc. would rapidly suck up all the profit
the developer would make. Due to Apple controlling the specs for
peripherals and Apple's own hardware, software developers (who actually
follow the Apple Human Interface Guidlines) have the satisfaction of
knowing that their software will just work.

... and let's not talk about 'Y2K' compliance. (Or security. Or
ease-of-use. Or patents. Or innovation. Or ... well, you get the idea.)

> >> a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
> >> removed . . .
> >
> > I don't think anything I said was wishful thinking - optimistic,
> >yes, but completely grounded in reality. The brainwashing comes
>

> I feel that your optimism is well paid for.

I don't work for Apple, but I agree with Scott's projections. I'm not
'brainwashed', either.


>
> >- Scott
>
> Are you sure you don't work for Apple?

Do some more reading, stay away from the "Macintosh Sucks!" web sites ...
and get your news from something other than the San Jose Mercury News.

--gdw
>
> vlad

--
Remove the 'nyet' from the e-mail address, and you'll be all set.
(%*#$&! spammers ....)

Robert Barris

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
In article <6oe2kl$ptp$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>,

Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote:
>
> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
>monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.

On $1299 complete systems? Don't forget such systems must also hold a
P-II/400 to be able to compete with the G3 chip on speed.


> Also I read an article in "Murky News" over the lunch about iMac's.
>These machines don't have floppy drive or any other removable media.
>They also do not have serial port. USB only. So if you have printer,
>scanner, modem that you used with your old Mac - forget it and
>buy everything new. If you can find it, indeed. Hardware
>manufacturers are not in rush to build USB devices yet.

1. floppy / zip drives are available for USB, there have been many
announcements in this area.

2. old devices will be made usable on iMac's USB through a number of
third party adapters for people who might want to do this. For example,
adapters for serial, ADB, and local-talk are in the works. There may be
others that I do not know of.

3. HP in the short term is shipping a $69 adapter which allows one to use
their existing parallel-port printers with USB on iMac. I believe it can
be purchased separately

4. The whole USB thing is not so much about the installed base, as it is
about lowering peripheral costs and increasing user choices going
forward, by leveraging the substantial effort going into USB hardware. I
don't agree with your "Hardware manufacturers not in a rush to build
hardware" assertion.

> So rumors about consumers rushing to buy new machines are a
>little bit premature. I for one, would not buy machine that cannot
>print and have a tiny, lousy monitor that I cannot upgrade.
>
> vlad

It's entirely possible that the iMac is not for you. It might well be the
perfect machine for some other people, maybe even people that have never
owned a Mac before.

Rob


Elixir

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
On 13 Jul 1998 19:21:31 -0700, Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
<Snip>

> Are you sure you don't work for Apple?

He said he didn't. Isn't that enough?

-Elixir
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."


Scott

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
In article <6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
Kuznetsov) wrote:

> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.

Apple's official policy is not to comment on future products.
Any employee who does so is fired rather quickly. I do not work
for Apple and have never worked for Apple. I visited San
Francisco once, but that's the closest I've ever come to
Apple.

I assure you my enthusiasm for the iMac is shared by a great
many Mac users. I understand this enthusiasm may seem suspect;
I've never seen someone enthusiastic and excited about a Compaq,
or Dell, or Windows 98, or ...

But. I will admit it: I do own an Apple t-shirt. (There,
I've said it!) I ... even... sometimes wear it in public.

> Now let's look in your arguments . . .

(Note: I am very happy to have my arguments questioned -
that's why I post in the first place, to open up a debate.)

> In article <scott-13079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
> Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:

> >> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
> >> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.
> >
> > The monitor on the iMac is very high-quality, and supports
> >1,024x768 resolution. There is not a huge difference in
> >viewable size between monitors "called" 17" and monitors
> >"called" 15". (I put "called" in quotes because viewable
> >size - the thing that counts - is always smaller.)
>

> You can try to play it down as much as you wish.
> But 1,024x768 is a lousy resolution by PC world standard.
> 1,280x1,024 is rather normal on ordinary PC. And the
> difference in viewable size diagonally is 2". It is an
> inferior monitor. Jobs just tried to save money on it.

I've used 21" monitors for years and rarely set the resolution
above 1,024x768 - anything higher is just too small for my
eyes (and I'm still a youngun' - my eyes haven't gone bad yet.)
1,024x768 is large enough to display two full pages side-by-side,
and is great for viewing web pages (although, personally, I
would set the resolution lower if I was working on writing a
paper.) Depending on which 17" monitors you're talking about,
the difference is less than 2" - subtract the *viewable*
sizes - but this is a moot point. The monitor included with
the $1299 iMac is the sharpest, nicest monitor you'll find
on a complete system shipping for under $1,500. Go out and
look. Apple could have saved a heck of a lot of money by
going with an inferior monitor - even the tube in the Apple
MultiScan 15" monitor (which costs $400 - just for the monitor)
is inferior to the iMac's monitor.

> > In the iMac's case, I think the exceptionally high-quality
> >monitor and ability to drive 1,024x768 at 24-bit color more
> >than make up for that missing inch. (The monitor features
> >a 0.28 dot pitch and refresh rates as high as 117 MHz. It
>

> I would not touch monitor with 0.28 pitch. Any decent
> PC monitor has 0.22-0.25. You can call .28 razor sharp,
> but it sounds like an advertisement pitch to me.

I have seen and used the iMac in person, and its monitor
looks nearly as good as a $2,000 Apple ColorSync 21" monitor
(which is traditionally rated as the best on the market, by
independent sources.) Granted, the 21" monitor is larger.
But the iMac's monitor is sharp. The refresh rate is what
makes the iMac's monitor so exceptional - higher refresh
rates mean less flicker, and I didn't notice *any* flicker
on the iMac.

Complaining about the monitor size seems to be
irrelevant nit-picking because the target audience for the
iMac is going to be perfectly satisfied with it. 15"
may be too small for *you* but Apple isn't trying to
get *you* to buy the iMac.

> > On the contrary, hardware manufacturers *are* in a rush
> >to build USB devices, thanks to the iMac:
>

> I just can repeat that "Murky News" stated in their article
> that manufacturers are waiting. 4% of the market is not
> big enough for many of them.

I posted URL's which you obviously didn't read. Go to
the web pages for companies such as HP, and read their own
press releases about USB support for iMac. These companies
are thrilled about the iMac and this has given them the
motivation to finally spit out some USB products. Are
you claiming that these companies are lying? Over 20
heavyweight companies made USB product announcements
last week. I don't know what "Murky News" is but I
personally spoke with many of these manufacturers and
their enthusiasm for the iMac and USB was solid and
infectious.

> >The result? Little demand for USB products. That the
> >iMac only has USB suddenly caused peripheral manufacturers
> >to rush to the market - because it will be a big market.
>

> How a computer that has less then 4% of the market
> (and this share is diminishing) can create "rush to
> the market"? "Murky News" does not think so.

You can throw around a "4% market share" number, but this
number is meaningless - especially going into the future.
In the recent past, Apple had *no* consumer-oriented machine.
Now they suddenly do.

- As I think I said before, that market share number is based
on total computer sales during the past 3 months. It completely
ignores installed base. There is ample evidence that Apple's
installed base is much larger than 4%. The truth of the matter
is, people don't have to upgrade Macs that frequently - they
continue to function in a useful way even five years after
purchase, and rarely break down - and there has not been a good
reason for Mac users to upgrade their computer in several years
(uncertainty about Apple's future, *no consumer product*, etc.)
Suddenly it's a great time to upgrade.

- Overall market share is pretty much irrelevant, because I
know of very few software developers who care about that
number. (I'm a software developer, so I speak from experience.)
With computers, you can break the market down into lots of
groups, and you develop for a specific group. If I'm Adobe
and I'm writing a high-profit-margin product such as Photoshop,
I'm going to be much more interested in Apple's 80+% market
share (in the creative content industry) than their overall
4% market share. Ditto for education. And now, ditto for
games. A lot of Wintel game manufacturers who haven't
*touched* the Mac platform before are working on Mac versions
of their games. Why would they do this *now*, when Apple's
market share is lower than it has been? Because they're
not idiots. They see that Apple's consumer market share
(which again, is much higher than 4% due to installed
base) is in for a huge increase in the next 6-12 months,
thanks to products such as the iMac and a sudden aggressive
interest on Apple's part to retake the consumer market
it invented. And the iMac is the most consumer-friendly
machine out there. I'd bet the iMac (and its follow-on
products) will help Apple gain 30% of the consumer market
share within 18 months. That's huge. That's a hell
of a lot of people and customers. And, currently,
a software market without too many competitors.

- If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Microsoft.
During the past year, even as Apple's overall market share
has dropped to its lowest historical records, Ben Waldman
of Microsoft reports that the Mac version of Office 98
has been one of Microsoft's most successful software
products - ever - for any platform. Is Microsoft making
lots of money on Office 98 for the Mac? You'd better
believe so. The Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft
is one of their more profitable divisions right now.
This is a detail which isn't lost by many software
developers. Somebody's buying all that software, after
all (and Office 98 is a *business* oriented package -
Mac hasn't been targeted at businesses in years).
Microsoft is the second largest Macintosh software
developer, right behind Apple.

The fact is, hundreds of software developers have
announced that they are working on new titles for
the Mac. This was announced last week and has been
well-publicized.

> >millions of people who will. Just watch. I think iMac
> >sales will exceed everyone's expectations - including
> >Apple. (Apple has not made any public predictions,
> >but independent analysts are expecting more than
> >1 million iMacs will roll into consumers' homes this
> >fall. If true, this will be the *best selling*
> >computer ever sold, by any company.)
>

> More and more of wishful thinking.

This isn't just *my* thinking. Several analysts -
many who publically predicted Apple's death a year ago -
have predicted that the iMac will be the best-selling
computer of all time.

This isn't that unbelievable. They're talking
about the iMac versus, say, a Compaq Presario, or an
IBM Aptiva - *not* the entire line of Wintel computer
manufacturers. They expect Apple to sell more iMacs
than any other company has sold their line of computers,
and faster. Given the reaction I saw of the iMac,
I think this is definitely reasonable.

> > The iMac isn't a computer for everyone, but a pretty
> >sizeable amount of the market will be thrilled about it,
>

> Currently this "sizeable" amount is less then 4%
> and diminishing.

Again, the 4% number is irrelevant (the iMac is geared
towards the consumer and education markets - not the
entire market), and Apple's market share *increased*
nominally last quarter. That's not "diminishing,"
although a nominal increase isn't that much to get
excited about, either. But then, Apple only had
products geared towards niche areas at the time.
(Even so, Apple's sold over 750,000 PowerMac G3's
since November - their best-selling product ever.)

Since the number you like to quote is based on one
quarter's worth of sales, let me make another prediction.
If the iMac is a smashing success with the *installed
base of Macintosh users* (forget Wintel owners - let's
say they completely ignore the iMac), then there could
be quite a large number of older Mac users rushing out
this fall to purchase the iMac. This could very well
cause Apple's market share to shoot up to 30%,
overnight. But this, too, would be inaccurate, because
Apple's overall, installed market share would be less.
And I'm sure you'd then begin to refute the mechanics
used to derive that market share number. The simple
truth is, there is *no easy way* for the industry to
measure the installed base of users, so they derive
those market share numbers based on something they
can measure - sales of new systems during the past
quarter. But it's really not a terribly useful
number.

Again, software developers - whose livelihood
is determined by their decisions - completely ignore
the 4% figure you hear thrown around. It's a lot
more complicated than that.

> >users (like me). Already, software developers are
> >flocking back to the Mac. Why? Because it's a wide
> >open opportunity right now. As one developer put it,
> >they'd rather have 10% of the "tiny" Mac market than
> >2% of the Wintel market, and they sense some great
> >opportunities.
>

> This is hilarious. 10% of 4% is .4% of the total market.
> 2% of 96% is 1.92% of the total market. Where did you
> find those developers? I bet they all work for Apple.

What's hilarious is your persistent use of "4%" when
it's not appropriate!

First, I can't let your 96% go by, either. (I'm sure the
Linux people cringed when they saw that.) Statistics
I've seen show that the Wintel market is somewhere around
90%. Now, that's broken down into several variants such
as Windows 3.1 (of which a *large* percentage of users
are still using - something like 30% (of 90), believe it or
not; Microsoft was hoping Windows 98 would finally give a reason
for these people to upgrade, but they're perfectly happy
and don't want to have to upgrade their hardware, which
would be required); Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT.

If we're talking about the consumer market, then
that falls squarely on Windows 95/98. That would be,
at most, about 30-35% * 90% of the overall market. These
are the people who would be buying consumer titles
such as games. (Markets are important; home users
probably aren't going to be buying Microsoft Access,
and business users aren't going to be buying
Unreal.)

Apple has a much stronger presence in the consumer
space than in the business space, although it's mostly
made up of Mac users who haven't upgraded their
systems in several years. They're now ripe for
upgrading, and they'll undoubtedly buy new software
when they upgrade. My 10%/2% argument is perfectly
valid, and I didn't invent that - it's an argument
presented to me by a long-time Wintel software
developer. They've done the math.

And this says nothing about cost of development
and after-sales support, which someone else touched
on. Or the fact that Mac users have traditionally
purchased more software, on average, than their
Wintel counterparts.

Even if you don't buy these arguments, the *fact*
is that a lot of software developers are currently
rushing to the Macintosh platform because they sense
potential. These companies are risking their money
and livelihood, so I'm sure they've done their
research and feel there's something to be gained.
Even in the worst times for the Mac platform,
developing software for the Mac has been profitable.

Some references:

http://www.currents.net/newstoday/98/07/13/news3.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1998/jul/8soft.html

> >> a lot of wishful thinking and plain pro-Apple brainwashing
> >> removed . . .
> >
> > I don't think anything I said was wishful thinking - optimistic,
> >yes, but completely grounded in reality. The brainwashing comes
>

> I feel that your optimism is well paid for.
>

> >- Scott


>
> Are you sure you don't work for Apple?

I said I didn't. People can be positive about the
Macintosh without being an Apple employee. I know this
is a foreign concept to people who have not used a Mac -
I've never seen someone get emotional about their Dell.
(Well, emotional in a *good* way. I've certainly gotten
emotional when I've used Dells, but the emotion was
more along the lines of wanting to take a hammer and
insert it through the screen.)

(By the way, don't underestimate the strength of
Apple's "religious" installed base of 25 million users.
One of Apple's biggest assets is this strange phenomena -
Macintosh users tend to turn into walking advertisements
for the Macintosh platform. And Apple doesn't have to
pay them a cent! Imagine!)

Are you sure you don't work for Microsoft? (The company
which *doesn't* have a monopoly, but, by the way, the
economy will crash if Windows 98 is delayed? :)

- Scott

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
In article <gdwarnernyet-1...@mg-20664222-36.ricochet.net>,

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>>
>> You can try to play it down as much as you wish.
>> But 1,024x768 is a lousy resolution by PC world standard.
>> 1,280x1,024 is rather normal on ordinary PC. And the
>> difference in viewable size diagonally is 2". It is an
>> inferior monitor. Jobs just tried to save money on it.
>
>Sure. Could you name a company that sells an all-in-one for $1299 that has
>a better monitor? So Steve Jobs saved some money -- but the monitor is

You can buy now PC with 233MHz Pentium, 64M of memory,
4G drive, 33.6 modem, 24x CD-ROM, etc. for $600. Good 17"
monitor will cost you ~$500. Can you do $600+$500?

>still reported to be *very* sharp. At the iMac's introduction, Steve had
>to turn down the brightness on the monitor.
>

It is still an inferior monitor. Plus iMac is not
upgradeable. Even Mac fanatics admit that. So in a year or two
all these people who are "rushing" to buy it now will either
have to live with outdated computer or buy a jMac, I guess.

>
>Don't forget at Christmas time, the iMac will most likely be selling for $999.

I cannot forget, what I never new. Where did you get
this number? Or it is just a wishful thinking?

>>
>>
>> > In the iMac's case, I think the exceptionally high-quality
>> >monitor and ability to drive 1,024x768 at 24-bit color more
>> >than make up for that missing inch. (The monitor features
>> >a 0.28 dot pitch and refresh rates as high as 117 MHz. It
>>
>> I would not touch monitor with 0.28 pitch. Any decent
>> PC monitor has 0.22-0.25. You can call .28 razor sharp,
>> but it sounds like an advertisement pitch to me.
>

>Remember that the iMac is intended for people who have never purchased a
>computer before. This, of course, means these customers aren't using
>Photoshop (yet) and don't require a high res monitor.
>

Do you mean people who has no clue? Should I conclude that
Apple is trying to make business of people ignorance selling
them slick inferior hardware under disguise of "Think different"
campaign?

>>
>> I just can repeat that "Murky News" stated in their article
>> that manufacturers are waiting. 4% of the market is not
>> big enough for many of them.
>
>If, by 'Murky News' you mean the San Jose Mecury News, well ... let's just
>say that, despite living within a stone's throw from Apple Computer, they
>are not exactly Mac fans, and their Apple-related 'news' is usually
>suspect. Sometimes just plain wrong.
>

So the only credible source is a pro_Apple publication?


>> >years for most home computing users. (Ethernet is
>> >already prevalent in schools and businesses.)
>>
>> All this paragraph sounds like a marketing's
>> excuse for absent features.
>

>Perhaps ... but do you deny the truth . . .

More marketing stuff deleted.

>> >millions of people who will. Just watch. I think iMac
>> >sales will exceed everyone's expectations - including
>> >Apple. (Apple has not made any public predictions,
>> >but independent analysts are expecting more than
>> >1 million iMacs will roll into consumers' homes this
>> >fall. If true, this will be the *best selling*
>> >computer ever sold, by any company.)
>> >
>>
>> More and more of wishful thinking.
>
>I'd look at it as more of an 'educated' guess. Your 'guesses' seem to be
>based on one article you apparently looked at in passing during lunch.

I was an owner of a Macintosh. I parted with it when I
realized that Apple is sucking me dry. Everything, SW and HW
was more then 30% expensive then comparable PC stuff.


>> > The iMac isn't a computer for everyone, but a pretty
>> >sizeable amount of the market will be thrilled about it,
>>

Should I interpret it is not for people who know
at least something about computers?


>> Currently this "sizeable" amount is less then 4%
>> and diminishing.
>
>>
>

>As for the question you didn't ask but should have ("How come you don't
>want 2% of the Windows market? Won't that be lucrative, Mr.
>Programmer-dude?"), the answer is support costs. Supporting all the
>different flavors of PC out there, the various video boards, the multitude
>of different sound cards, etc., etc. would rapidly suck up all the profit
>the developer would make. Due to Apple controlling the specs for
>peripherals and Apple's own hardware, software developers (who actually
>follow the Apple Human Interface Guidlines) have the satisfaction of
>knowing that their software will just work.

On what planet do you leave? Have you heard about new API's
on Windows? This argument is not valid anymore.


>
>I don't work for Apple, but I agree with Scott's projections. I'm not
>'brainwashed', either.
>>

Is the major portion of your portfolio in APPLE stock?

>
>Do some more reading, stay away from the "Macintosh Sucks!" web sites ...
>and get your news from something other than the San Jose Mercury News.
>

From some pro-APPLE phanatic source, you mean?

vlad

J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
On 13 Jul 1998 15:44:37 -0700, vl...@best.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov) wrote:

> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
>monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.

bullshit. you can't have a sub-1000 with a 17" monitor on it. there'd be no
margin. even though the imac is 1299, it's aimed at the consumer market which
usually go sub-1000. i'd pay an extra 299 for a neato toy. look at what joe
consumer was paying for the new volkswagons. monitor size is immaterial. i
know alot of people who have the 17" that leave their resolutions at 640.
that's a waste.

> Also I read an article in "Murky News" over the lunch about iMac's.
>These machines don't have floppy drive or any other removable media.
>They also do not have serial port. USB only. So if you have printer,
>scanner, modem that you used with your old Mac - forget it and
>buy everything new. If you can find it, indeed. Hardware
>manufacturers are not in rush to build USB devices yet.

hmmm... syquest and imation come to mind first. there's your floppy. i don't
think the printer necessarily has to be usb either.

> So rumors about consumers rushing to buy new machines are a
>little bit premature. I for one, would not buy machine that cannot
>print and have a tiny, lousy monitor that I cannot upgrade.

you are an exception believe me. these are consumer devices not for the
computer professional (even though i plan to get one myself).

J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
On 14 Jul 1998 11:24:54 -0700, vl...@best.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov) wrote:

> You can buy now PC with 233MHz Pentium, 64M of memory,
> 4G drive, 33.6 modem, 24x CD-ROM, etc. for $600. Good 17"
> monitor will cost you ~$500. Can you do $600+$500?

yeah but you're comparing a g3 to a 233 which is no comparison at all. and
you're comparing a 33.6 with a 56k.

> It is still an inferior monitor. Plus iMac is not
> upgradeable. Even Mac fanatics admit that. So in a year or two
> all these people who are "rushing" to buy it now will either
> have to live with outdated computer or buy a jMac, I guess.

macs generally have longer longevity compared to pcs. sorry.

> I cannot forget, what I never new. Where did you get
> this number? Or it is just a wishful thinking?

simple, it's 1299 in august. the volume will compensate the price cut in
december. this is the holiday computer no doubt.

> Do you mean people who has no clue? Should I conclude that
> Apple is trying to make business of people ignorance selling
> them slick inferior hardware under disguise of "Think different"
> campaign?

what brand of crack do you smoke? we're talking about a $1299 machine here
not a $4000 one.

J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:45:40 GMT, Sh...@All.Spammers.On.Sight (ryan) wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 07:20:51 GMT, perf...@ct2.nai.net (J Perry
>Fecteau) peaked out from the sixth floor window of the
>misc.invest.stocks schoolbook depository and fired off a couple of
>thoughts . . .

>>aapl to hit $100 by end of year.

>Perry also posts under the name "m80s" <g>

haha. i stand by that statement. imac will be the biggest revenue generator
apple's had in a long time!

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
In article <6og7pm$2fd$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
Kuznetsov) wrote:

(*snip*)


>
> You can buy now PC with 233MHz Pentium, 64M of memory,
> 4G drive, 33.6 modem, 24x CD-ROM, etc. for $600. Good 17"
> monitor will cost you ~$500. Can you do $600+$500?

Sure ... the wimpy calculator that came with my Mac can do math. Does
that PC run MacOS 8.1? No? Not interested. With the Mac, it's not just the
hardware (though despite what you believe, is not bad). It's a combination
of the two.

(*snip*)

> It is still an inferior monitor. Plus iMac is not
> upgradeable. Even Mac fanatics admit that. So in a year or two
> all these people who are "rushing" to buy it now will either
> have to live with outdated computer or buy a jMac, I guess.

There are 'post iMac' systems in the works ... but, since the 'i' in iMac
stands for 'internet', chances are good that there will be no 'jMac'.

Sure, there is no upgrade path (apparently, though I haven't actually
examined one; it's possible the motherboard may be removeable so you can
do a motherboard swap). Since Apple got sued by the FTC for erroneously
saying there was an upgrade path for some of their 68040 systems to PPC,
I'm sure they will be *most* careful to provide an in-house upgrade path
or contract out to a 3rd party (most likely NewerTech).


>
> >
> >Don't forget at Christmas time, the iMac will most likely be selling
for $999.
>
> I cannot forget, what I never new. Where did you get
> this number? Or it is just a wishful thinking?

This shows how much research you've done. I can't recall the source for
this ... one of the Mac news sites, possibly. This is what happens when
you read the 'Murky News'.

(*snip*)

>
> >Remember that the iMac is intended for people who have never purchased a
> >computer before. This, of course, means these customers aren't using
> >Photoshop (yet) and don't require a high res monitor.
> >
>
> Do you mean people who has no clue? Should I conclude that
> Apple is trying to make business of people ignorance selling
> them slick inferior hardware under disguise of "Think different"
> campaign?

Well ... I wouldn't quite put it that way, but basically, yes: Apple's
target market for the iMac is the new
'never-touched-a-computer-in-his/her-life' user. Secondary will be current
Mac users who haven't upgraded in a while. The experienced users will like
what comes out later in the fall.

(*snip*)


> >
> >If, by 'Murky News' you mean the San Jose Mecury News, well ... let's just
> >say that, despite living within a stone's throw from Apple Computer, they
> >are not exactly Mac fans, and their Apple-related 'news' is usually
> >suspect. Sometimes just plain wrong.
> >
>
> So the only credible source is a pro_Apple publication?

No ... a publication which doesn't print misinformation every time they
write an article about Apple. In other words, a publication that can
differntiate between fact, fiction and opinion. These are usually found
two weeks after the article is printed: is the newspaper or magazine
inundated with e-mail correcting the articles' errors? After a writer
receives a deluge of e-mail correcting the basic mistakes in their
article, the next time that writer writes about Apple, s/he (usually)
checks their facts a bit better.

Not every writer, but .....

(*snip*)
>
> More marketing stuff deleted.

... and conviently neglecting to answer the questions I posed.
>
(*snip*)

> >>
> >> More and more of wishful thinking.
> >
> >I'd look at it as more of an 'educated' guess. Your 'guesses' seem to be
> >based on one article you apparently looked at in passing during lunch.
>
> I was an owner of a Macintosh.

I recently read an article by some guy who claimed to be a Mac user. He
couldn't differentiate between a 'resource' and an 'extension'. He also
made several claims similar to what you've made (but, to his credit, he
didn't cite the SJ 'Murky News' as a source).

> I parted with it when I realized that Apple is sucking me dry.
> Everything, SW and HW was more then 30% expensive then comparable PC
> stuff.

... which is why Apple's got a new board.

(*snip*)

> Should I interpret it is not for people who know
> at least something about computers?

Again (for clarification and possible penetration): the iMac's primary
intended audience is the new computer user.
>
(*snip*)

> >
> >As for the question you didn't ask but should have ("How come you don't
> >want 2% of the Windows market? Won't that be lucrative, Mr.
> >Programmer-dude?"), the answer is support costs. Supporting all the
> >different flavors of PC out there, the various video boards, the multitude
> >of different sound cards, etc., etc. would rapidly suck up all the profit
> >the developer would make. Due to Apple controlling the specs for
> >peripherals and Apple's own hardware, software developers (who actually
> >follow the Apple Human Interface Guidlines) have the satisfaction of
> >knowing that their software will just work.
>
> On what planet do you leave?

I 'live' on this one ... what planet did you leave?

> Have you heard about new API's on Windows? This argument
> is not valid anymore.

Really? Do you recall when Big Bill's assistant plugged in that USB
scanner and Windows '98 crashed? I've got that saved as a QuickTime movie
on my computer.



> >
> >I don't work for Apple, but I agree with Scott's projections. I'm not
> >'brainwashed', either.
> >>
>
> Is the major portion of your portfolio in APPLE stock?

Let's just say that despite the fact that I use Macs, I know that I should
start purchasing options on MSFT when they announce a stock split.


>
> >
> >Do some more reading, stay away from the "Macintosh Sucks!" web sites ...
> >and get your news from something other than the San Jose Mercury News.
> >
>
> From some pro-APPLE phanatic source, you mean?

From some unbiased source, I mean.

murr...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:03:57 GMT, sc...@SPAMdcski.com (Scott) wrote:

>In article <6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
>Kuznetsov) wrote:
>
>> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
>> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
>
> Apple's official policy is not to comment on future products.
>Any employee who does so is fired rather quickly. I do not work
>for Apple and have never worked for Apple. I visited San
>Francisco once, but that's the closest I've ever come to
>Apple.
>
> I assure you my enthusiasm for the iMac is shared by a great
>many Mac users. I understand this enthusiasm may seem suspect;
>I've never seen someone enthusiastic and excited about a Compaq,
>or Dell, or Windows 98, or ...

The only potential problem I see for the iMac is the limited
availability of USB peripherals. When you have a box that can't be
opened, that's kind of a key thing down the road. I'm sure the problem
will be overcome as IOM and other cos. are already developing USB
devices, but as usual, it will be a while before their prices come
down to the levels of non-USB devices.

Robert Barris

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
In article <35b163ce...@news.alt.net>, <murr...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:03:57 GMT, sc...@SPAMdcski.com (Scott) wrote:
>
>>In article <6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
>>Kuznetsov) wrote:
>>
>>> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
>>> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
>>
>> Apple's official policy is not to comment on future products.
>>Any employee who does so is fired rather quickly. I do not work
>>for Apple and have never worked for Apple. I visited San
>>Francisco once, but that's the closest I've ever come to
>>Apple.
>>
>> I assure you my enthusiasm for the iMac is shared by a great
>>many Mac users. I understand this enthusiasm may seem suspect;
>>I've never seen someone enthusiastic and excited about a Compaq,
>>or Dell, or Windows 98, or ...
>
>The only potential problem I see for the iMac is the limited
>availability of USB peripherals. When you have a box that can't be
>opened, that's kind of a key thing down the road. I'm sure the problem
>will be overcome as IOM and other cos. are already developing USB
>devices, but as usual, it will be a while before their prices come
>down to the levels of non-USB devices.

Just one example, but HP is shipping a $69 adapter to let you use their
classic parallel-port printers from a USB machine. There are other
adapters for other legacy interfaces on the way too. Ideally peripherals
move steadily to USB and the need for adapters lessens, but some people
have obviously thought about this issue and have come up with some
creative solutions.

Rob

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to

Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote in article <6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>...


>
> I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.

[snip]

There are people out there that are absolutely
fanatical about the Apple Computer Company. The
Pope would give you a less bias view of Catholicism
than they would of Apple Computer.

Give it up. They are NOT going to admit any error
on the part of Saint Steve Jobs, nor any flaw in
his holy icon, the Bitten Apple (even if it did
go solid colors). All you're going to do is give
them an excuse for another long, stupid, and
irrelevant thread where they try to talk up Apple
computer stock. If you have a point, they will
bury you in techno babble and then declare you
ignorant because you don't speak Applejive.

These people don't give a damn if you lose money
investing in Apple or not. They are not capable
of rational thought. They sure as hell are not
going to admit their wrong, and they become violent
when their delusions are not humored. Objective,
unattached reasoning regarding Apple is a mortal
sin in their religion. Only a fool would buy
the stock because of what THEY said.

The stock is on a high right now, as it usually is
around a Mac Expo. Traditionally, from here the
enthusiasm wanes a bit and the stock price drifts
downward. But the newly evangelized Applites will
start crawling out of the wood work for awhile longer,
until the stock starts going down again, and then
they'll shut up for awhile.

Yes, they belong in comp.sys.mac.advocacy but
they feel they can do a service to their god by
spreading the evangelical word in misc.invest.stocks.
Believe me, to many of them, they are quite willing
to sacrifice their fortunes and their first born
children on their Mac keyboards. They aren't
interested in making a return on investment.


Jeffrey Karp

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to

Glen Warner wrote:

> In article <6og7pm$2fd$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir
> Kuznetsov) wrote:
>
> > In article <gdwarnernyet-1...@mg-20664222-36.ricochet.net>,
> > Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>
> (*snip*)
> >
> > You can buy now PC with 233MHz Pentium, 64M of memory,
> > 4G drive, 33.6 modem, 24x CD-ROM, etc. for $600. Good 17"
> > monitor will cost you ~$500. Can you do $600+$500?
>
> Sure ... the wimpy calculator that came with my Mac can do math. Does
> that PC run MacOS 8.1? No? Not interested. With the Mac, it's not just the
> hardware (though despite what you believe, is not bad). It's a combination
> of the two.

What good is Mac os8.1, if you can't get the APPLICATION SOFTWAREyou need to use
to run on it?

>
>
>
> (*snip*)
>
> > It is still an inferior monitor. Plus iMac is not
> > upgradeable. Even Mac fanatics admit that. So in a year or two
> > all these people who are "rushing" to buy it now will either
> > have to live with outdated computer or buy a jMac, I guess.
>
> There are 'post iMac' systems in the works ... but, since the 'i' in iMac
> stands for 'internet', chances are good that there will be no 'jMac'.
>
> Sure, there is no upgrade path (apparently, though I haven't actually
> examined one; it's possible the motherboard may be removeable so you can
> do a motherboard swap). Since Apple got sued by the FTC for erroneously
> saying there was an upgrade path for some of their 68040 systems to PPC,
> I'm sure they will be *most* careful to provide an in-house upgrade path
> or contract out to a 3rd party (most likely NewerTech).
> >
> > >
> > >Don't forget at Christmas time, the iMac will most likely be selling
> for $999.

And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.

Robert Barris

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Steve must have hurt his brain from all the head scratching he did,
trying to figure out how Apple was profitable for three quarters in a
row, and taking tens of thousands of pre-orders for a product that hasn't
even shipped yet.

As far as "Expo" related stock peaks go,

http://quicken.excite.com/investments/charts/?symbol=AAPL

indicates a pretty steady rise since January 1998. Hmm.

Rob

In article <01bdaffc$f7fb41a0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>,

taiQ

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:21:31, vl...@best.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
thought aloud:

> In article <scott-13079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
> Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:

> >> On iMac. I think they have one fundamental flaw with iMac - 15"
> >> monitor. In PC world 17" is an entry level now.
> >
> > The monitor on the iMac is very high-quality, and supports
> >1,024x768 resolution. There is not a huge difference in
> >viewable size between monitors "called" 17" and monitors
> >"called" 15". (I put "called" in quotes because viewable
> >size - the thing that counts - is always smaller.)
> >
>

> You can try to play it down as much as you wish.
> But 1,024x768 is a lousy resolution by PC world standard.
> 1,280x1,024 is rather normal on ordinary PC. And the
> difference in viewable size diagonally is 2". It is an
> inferior monitor. Jobs just tried to save money on it.

This one deserves a reply...

In real life a 15" monitor running Mac OS gives somewhat equal amount
of space to work on compared to, say, Microsoft Windows XX on a 17"
screen. Or Mac at 1024x768 and the PC at 1280x1024. I got both -
Mac(s) and a PC; no Windows though.

First of all, Macs have the menubar on top of the screen (as well as
pop-up menus via mouse or key combo), used by Mac OS and the currently
active app. Windows has a (larger) menubar on the bottom and
practically all windows sport their own menubars whether they're just
lying around or active.

Secondly, Mac app windows are usually "more designed" with aesthetics
and ease-of-use being a top consideration. This results in a cleaner,
yet efficient work space.

The 15" iMac monitor is perfectly good for years to come. If PC's
waste screen real estate and need an 17" monitor to display the same
amount of information that surely isn't iMac's short-coming.


Brgds,
--
taiQ

[this space is intentionally blank]

Matthew Cromer

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
In article <01bdaffc$f7fb41a0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com> steve

lajoie, laj...@eskimo.com writes:
>There are people out there that are absolutely
>fanatical about the Apple Computer Company. The
>Pope would give you a less bias view of Catholicism
>than they would of Apple Computer.

>The stock is on a high right now, as it usually is


>around a Mac Expo. Traditionally, from here the
>enthusiasm wanes a bit and the stock price drifts
>downward.


Hope you covered your short Steve.

AAPL 38 on Instinet 7/15/98 6:00 PMish

Matthew Cromer

Harbinger

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Robert Barris wrote:
: Steve must have hurt his brain from all the head scratching he

did, trying to figure out how Apple was profitable for
: three quarters in a row, and taking tens of thousands of
pre-orders for a product that hasn't even shipped yet.
: As far as "Expo" related stock peaks go,
: http://quicken.excite.com/investments/charts/?symbol=AAPL
: indicates a pretty steady rise since January 1998. Hmm.
: Rob
: In article <01bdaffc$f7fb41a0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>,
steve lajoie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote in article
<6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>...
: >>
: >> I still think that you work for Apple and all your
enthusiasm
: >> about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
: >
: >[snip]
: >
: >There are people out there that are absolutely

: >fanatical about the Apple Computer Company. The
: >Pope would give you a less bias view of Catholicism
: >than they would of Apple Computer.
: >
: >Give it up. They are NOT going to admit any error

: >on the part of Saint Steve Jobs, nor any flaw in
: >his holy icon, the Bitten Apple (even if it did
: >go solid colors). All you're going to do is give
: >them an excuse for another long, stupid, and
: >irrelevant thread where they try to talk up Apple
: >computer stock. If you have a point, they will
: >bury you in techno babble and then declare you
: >ignorant because you don't speak Applejive.
: >
: >These people don't give a damn if you lose money
: >investing in Apple or not. They are not capable
: >of rational thought. They sure as hell are not
: >going to admit their wrong, and they become violent
: >when their delusions are not humored. Objective,
: >unattached reasoning regarding Apple is a mortal
: >sin in their religion. Only a fool would buy
: >the stock because of what THEY said.
: >
: >The stock is on a high right now, as it usually is

: >around a Mac Expo. Traditionally, from here the
: >enthusiasm wanes a bit and the stock price drifts
: >downward. But the newly evangelized Applites will

: >start crawling out of the wood work for awhile longer,
: >until the stock starts going down again, and then
: >they'll shut up for awhile.
: >
: >Yes, they belong in comp.sys.mac.advocacy but
: >they feel they can do a service to their god by
: >spreading the evangelical word in misc.invest.stocks.
: >Believe me, to many of them, they are quite willing
: >to sacrifice their fortunes and their first born
: >children on their Mac keyboards. They aren't
: >interested in making a return on investment.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
If you are intelligent enough to have figured the cycle out,
have you invested and made money buying when it is cheap and
selling when it is high? Your comments seem not to be one of
practical application but of disgust for customer loyalty. TELL
ME why I shouldn't invest, not why I am am stupid when I do.

Scott

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <01bdaffc$f7fb41a0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote in article
<6oefbb$2ra$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>...
> >
> > I still think that you work for Apple and all your enthusiasm
> > about iMac is an enthusiasm of a payed employee.
>
> [snip]
>
> There are people out there that are absolutely
> fanatical about the Apple Computer Company. The
> Pope would give you a less bias view of Catholicism
> than they would of Apple Computer.

Yeah, well, I think most Apple stock holders are
pretty fanatical about the Apple Computer Company as well.
Seems the popular press is, too - Apple's headlining
everything from CNN to USA Today to Washington Post
to PC Week. In after-hours trading, Apple has
soared beyond 38 per share.

I have to assume you posted your message before Apple
reported its earnings this evening. You're so far off
base you're barely sitting in the bleachers.

You've been predicting Apple's demise and labeling
anyone who disagreed with you as an Apple zealot.
Meanwhile, Apple stock has continued to climb.. and
climb.. and climb. And it's not because of a few
Apple zealots running around advocating the Mac. It's
because of solid results on the part of Apple.

Give it up - you were wrong. People make mistakes,
and you obviously made a bad call. Apple has turned
the corner and has solid growth ahead. Just browse
the newspapers and news channels tomorrow, and you'll
hear plenty of analysts who had predicted Apple's
demise admitting they were wrong. There's going
to be a flood of investors who suddenly realize
there's a gold nugget of undervalued stock that
has been pretty much ignored.

What should be particularly exciting to Apple
investors is that Apple is *really* getting in the
game now. There have now been three quarters of
stellar profits during a transitional time for
Apple - Apple has been making major changes and
minor tweaks to ensure profitability and
dramatically higher revenue in the coming years.
The results of these efforts will start to be
seen next quarter. In a really big way.

What can you expect during the next month?
Expect a *major* marketing blitz for the iMac.
And I do mean major. Apple has a lot of spare
cash on hand now and intends to spend quite a bit
on marketing. We're talking Windows 95 style.
(Don't worry, you won't see many dancing Intel
cleanroom bunnies. Apple's campaign will be very,
um, translucent, but not transparent. Simplicity
will be key.)

Happy investing,

- Scott

EAJohnsen

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ojdsg$e8a$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, Matthew Cromer
<matthew...@iname.com> writes:

>Hope you covered your short Steve.
>
>AAPL 38 on Instinet 7/15/98 6:00 PMish
>
>Matthew Cromer
>
>

Well of course it is going to go up after beating estimates by so much but in
the long run aapl will continue to decline. According to most estimates apple's
market share will continue to decline. As will most other OS makers. The only
OS's whos market shares will go up will be Microsoft ones (windows 95, 98, NT)
and Linux. Apple might be good in the short term though because of it's great
earnings.
-Austin Johnsen
mailto:eajo...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~eajohnsen

Rick Monihan

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Latest earnings say it all. They can break even in the 4th quarter
and still be worth a MINIMUM of $45....(though that would be discounted
due to a fall from 3rd to 4th).
Still, they look to earn a great sum of money in the 4th
quarter....this stock is moving up to the 40's, as I predicted. If
valued similarly to MSFT....why shouldn't it go to 70 or 80?

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <35ACDDCC...@erols.com>, jeff...@erols.com wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
>

(*snip*)


> >
> > Sure ... the wimpy calculator that came with my Mac can do math. Does
> > that PC run MacOS 8.1? No? Not interested. With the Mac, it's not just the
> > hardware (though despite what you believe, is not bad). It's a combination
> > of the two.
>
> What good is Mac os8.1, if you can't get the APPLICATION SOFTWAREyou need to
> use to run on it?

I'm running 8.1 right now ... and, amazingly enough, I am actually using
SOFTWARE to post this message. Do some more research before you post.
Thanks.

(*snip*)

>
> And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.

.... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?


(*snip*)

Amazing. You managed to quote my entire post and responded (weakly) to two
minor points.

--gdw

Rick Monihan

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
As long as they consolidate their base, AAPL is solid for the near
future. A G3 is my next computer, it kicks Intel doopy!
AAPL will continue to profit with the fine products they produce.
Since they aren't just a box manufacturer, they are likely to keep
earning cash just on the basis of the large # of boxes they've already
sold......

Jeffrey Karp

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

Glen Warner wrote:

> In article <35ACDDCC...@erols.com>, jeff...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Glen Warner wrote:
> >
>
> (*snip*)
> > >

> > > Sure ... the wimpy calculator that came with my Mac can do math. Does
> > > that PC run MacOS 8.1? No? Not interested. With the Mac, it's not just the
> > > hardware (though despite what you believe, is not bad). It's a combination
> > > of the two.
> >
> > What good is Mac os8.1, if you can't get the APPLICATION SOFTWAREyou need to
> > use to run on it?
>

> I'm running 8.1 right now ... and, amazingly enough, I am actually using
> SOFTWARE to post this message. Do some more research before you post.

I have. Most financial programs are not written for the Mac.

> Thanks.
>
> (*snip*)


>
> >
> > And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.
>

> .... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?

I still can't get the software I need to run on them. The average consumerwants a
very low priced machine. Sub $500- PCs will entice many people
to buy their first computer.

>
>
> (*snip*)
>
> Amazing. You managed to quote my entire post and responded (weakly) to two
> minor points.

What are your major points? Apple sales are only strong in the graphic artssector.
Apple has had continuous market share erosion, and their revenues
continue to spiral downward.Their recent profitability is a temporary event
brought about by downsizing. They will need much more aggressive price
cutting to gain market share, and return to the point of critical mass.
Introducing many new models may only make matters worse, as they
need to simplify their product line, and achieve more economies of scale.
At two percent of the personal computer market, Apple is not viable.

>
>
> --gdw

Matthew Cromer

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <199807160328...@ladder01.news.aol.com> EAJohnsen,

eajo...@aol.com writes:
>Well of course it is going to go up after beating estimates by so much but in
>the long run aapl will continue to decline. According to most estimates apple's
>market share will continue to decline. As will most other OS makers. The only
>OS's whos market shares will go up will be Microsoft ones (windows 95, 98, NT)
>and Linux. Apple might be good in the short term though because of it's great
>earnings.
>-Austin Johnsen

Of course, these are the same "most estimates" that said AAPL at 20 was a
screaming short.

No thanks, I don't really care what people who don't know anything about
AAPL or the mac have to say about AAPL and the mac's viability.

Matthew Cromer

Matthew Cromer

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <35AE1816...@erols.com> Jeffrey Karp, jeff...@erols.com
writes:

>At two percent of the personal computer market, Apple is not viable.

Why should anyone read what you write, when you post crap like this?
Come back when you have a basic grasp of the facts.

Matthew Cromer

Scott

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

>
> What are your major points? Apple sales are only strong in the graphic
artssector.

Not just graphics arts, but all of the creative content
industries, to include things as diverse as video editing
and music sequencing. However, although Apple dominates
these (substantial) markets, they are definitely niche
markets as far as computers go.

You neglected to mention education, a very large market
that Apple has traditionally dominated. Although it
appeared Apple was beginning to lose its footing in this
market, new figures came out which show this isn't the
case. For example, an article in the San Francisco
Chronicle today [1] quotes Jeanne Hayes, President
of Quality Education Data, a market research firm
in Denver that follows the education market closely.
She says:

"For the first time in five years we saw an upswing in
orders for the Mac. We went nuts. I ran the numbers
again just to make sure."

Quality Education Data reports that Mac sales in
the education market were up 32%, accounting for
38% of all new computers ordered for the coming
school year. (The iMac is expected to play a large
role in education, as well, but hasn't been accounted
for since it doesn't ship 'til August 15.)

[1]:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/07/16/BU70205.DTL

Apple's eye is on the consumer market, however - the
largest segment of the market, and a market it literally
invented over two decades ago. Analysts are expecting
the iMac will be a huge splash in the consumer market.


Already, software developers are flocking back to the
Mac.

(You mentioned how there was a lack of financial
software for the Mac platform. I'm not going to
argue this - in certain areas, such as business,
there is definitely a smaller amount of software
available for the Mac than Wintel. For me, I've got
all the financial programs I need - Quicken 98 and
MS Excel 98, for example. But for specific
areas, such as accounting, there is going to be
more software for Wintel and this is not likely
to change even if Apple re-dominates the consumer
market. Apple has hinted, however, that they
plan to attack the business market once they
secure the consumer market, so things could
change. Another point I won't go into detail
on is Java. Apple expects Java to increase in
popularity, and programs written in Java are
cross-platform.)

> Apple has had continuous market share erosion

As a matter of fact, this is incorrect. Apple's market
share has gone up slightly in the first half of this year,
according to market research firms such as PC Data.
The iMac is expected to have a very positive effect on
Apple's market share going forward.

At worst, Apple has stabilized market share erosion
in the past year. Prior to that, you're right -
Apple suffered continuous market share erosion.
However, Apple's internal figures show that during
these past mis-managed times, they lost no more
than 10% of their customer base per year. (Quick
lesson in statistics: if you have 1,000 customers,
and you lose 10% in the first year, you have
900 customers. If you lose 10% the next year, you
have 810. Etc. It's always 10% of the current
base. This isn't huge erosion, although in past
years, Apple's growth has been lower than the
computer industry at large, resulting in a decreasing
market share even though unit shipments have
continued to increase. (In other words, Apple's
competitors unit shipments were increasing at a
higher rate. But anyway..))

, and their revenues
> continue to spiral downward.

This is also incorrect. Apple's revenues have
been stable so far this year - and again, are expected
to increase dramatically this fall as the iMac goes
to market. Revenues for the quarter just ended
were $1.4 billion. Revenues for the prior quarter
were also $1.4 billion. Exactly how do you translate
this into a "downward spiral"? I'd call it "flat."
I'd also call it extraordinary, given that Apple
had *no consumer product* during the past quarter.

> Their recent profitability is a temporary event
> brought about by downsizing.

Professional analysts believe Apple has returned
to sustainable profitability. I haven't heard a single
analyst question whether Apple's next four quarters
will be profitable. Some continue to question what
role the Mac will play in the computer industry, but
Apple is lean and mean and poised for continued
profitability and growth. Just examine their
numbers.

Apple has downsized in some areas (for example,
they no longer have a printer division, deciding
instead to concentrate on computers, the OS,
and certain software), but has upsized in other
areas. (Apple is hiring computer programmers
and has assigned huge resources to the Mac OS 8.5
and Mac OS X team. Apple has also increased
spending in areas such as marketing.)

> They will need much more aggressive price
> cutting to gain market share, and return to the point of critical mass.

This is the most valid question you raise. The
market is expecting the iMac to be so popular that Apple
will not be able to manufacture enough systems to meet
demand, until at least December. Enter the laws
of supply and demand. If there are more buyers of
iMacs than there are iMacs, why should Apple lower
the price? Apple is initially targeting long-time
Macintosh users, who will be thrilled to pay $1299
for a system as innovative and powerful as the iMac.
Once demand begins to lower, Apple will cut prices
and introduce even lower-priced products. Apple
has drastically improved their manufacturing, and
the PowerPC is a significantly cheaper processor
than Pentiums, so when Apple wants to (or needs to),
it will be able to manufacture computers that
are very cheap and considerably more valuable than
the competition.

Give 'em time. Again, they've finally got their
consumer product in place - and man, does it look
sweet - and there is no shortage of customers who
are lined up to purchase them. (Apple already
has pre-orders for hundreds of thousands of the
iMac. Name one computer in the history of computers
that had hundreds of thousands of customer orders,
before it shipped. This is a first in the computer
industry.)

I also do have to address all the naysayers who
say "but hey, now there's $500 PC's! The iMac can't
compete against those!" Bull. Think of what you're
saying! There's Geo Metros which are pretty cheap,
too, but this doesn't keep people from buying
Saturns and Camry's and BMW's. The iMac's
$1299 is a very sweet price-point; Apple would
sell millions of these machines even if it was
$1500. The profit margin is so low on $500 PC's
(and their features so lacking) that it doesn't
make any sense for Apple to try to compete in that
market segment. You don't get much for $500 and
most consumers aren't that dumb.

> Introducing many new models may only make matters worse, as they
> need to simplify their product line

Where have you been the past year? Apple has
radically simplified their product line - it's the
simplest in the computer industry. It contains three -
count 'em, three products, today, and will max out
at four early next year.

On the desktop side, you have the high-end PowerMac
G3, or the consumer-based iMac.

On the portable side, you have the high-end PowerBook
G3, or a consumer-based portable that will be announced
later this year.

That's it. That's simplification. (Apple offers
build-to-order on the high-end models.) This allows
Apple to put new designs to market faster, put its
"A" team on each product line, do better product
forecasting, reduce inventory and increase turnaround,
etc. Even better, Apple's products now use industry-
standard parts, allowing Apple to "shop around" and
have multiple sources. If you say Apple needs to simplify
their product line, you are obviously not in touch with
today's reality. That was something Apple needed to
do 12 months ago, and they executed it brilliantly.
In fact, Steve Jobs regularly points out how he was
confused when he re-joined Apple - there were something
like 17 product lines, and he couldn't figure them out.
He slashed them down into 4 great product lines.

> At two percent of the personal computer market, Apple is not viable.

What is your source? I've never heard any marketing
firm quote a number as low as 2%. You also don't define
personal computer market. Are you talking domestically,
or internationally?

Market share will become a moot point in the next
six months. There's a reason why so many developers
are suddenly embracing the Mac OS for the first time -
they see solid growth ahead. I absolutely guarantee
you that the Mac platform is going to grow faster
than the Wintel platform during the next 6-12
months, at the expense of other computer manufacturers.
This growth will fall somewhere in between of
"explosively rapid" and "slow and steady."

You make a lot of strong statements without facts
to back them up, and you echo complaints about Apple
that have been fixed in the past 6-12 months. Apple
still has a struggle ahead, but they've managed to
turn around and correct virtually all of their most
critical (and long-standing) problems. They've come
out with a superior product line and eliminated reasons
why people shouldn't buy it; now it's time for the market
to respond. (Apple's just-announced earnings already show
that there is a vibrant, profitable Macintosh market. Just
wait until next quarter once the iMac hits the consumer
market.)

- Scott

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

> Glen Warner wrote:
>
(*snip*)


>
> I have. Most financial programs are not written for the Mac.

Ah! Specifics. Have you asked? If so, someone (probably me) would've
pointed you towards this web site:

http://www.beesoft.net/

If this doesn't suit your fancy, try the folks at Trendsetter Software ...
who, amazingly enough, don't have a web page, just a toll-free number:
1-800-825-1852.

It *that* doesn't suit, simply take your existing software, install
VirtualPC on a Mac (G3 for best speeds, natch) and then install your
financial software and run it.

> > >
> > > And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.
> >

> > .... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?
>
> I still can't get the software I need to run on them. The average

consumer wants a


> very low priced machine. Sub $500- PCs will entice many people to buy
their first
> computer.

Yes ... and isn't (insert the name of your favorite computer maker *here*)
projecting lower earnings precisely because of the sub-$1K market?

"It's fun to make more money than Compaq." --S. Jobs

> > (*snip*)
> >
> > Amazing. You managed to quote my entire post and responded (weakly) to two
> > minor points.
>

> What are your major points?

Re-read the original post.

> Apple sales are only strong in the graphic arts sector.

> Apple has had continuous market share erosion, and their revenues
> continue to spiral downward.Their recent profitability is a temporary event
> brought about by downsizing.

Ha! This is funny ...

> They will need much more aggressive price cutting to gain market share,

> and return to the point of critical mass. Introducing many new models
> may only make matters worse, as they need to simplify their product line,
> and achieve more economies of scale. At two percent of the personal


> computer market, Apple is not viable.

I am tempted to say simply "Time Will Tell", but ... well, here goes:

With the iMac, PC manufacturers will have to come up with something that
will compete with it, at or below its price ... and not lose money.
Ideally, the performance of the computer should meet or beat that of the
iMac. This will be difficult.

The introduction of new models by Apple ... well, a *lot* of confusing
models were cut during Gil Amelio's reign. The product line is *already*
simplified.

Ah, yes ... that pesky market share number again. If you read the portions
of the post by me that you quoted nearly all of and responded to just ...
aw, skip it. Suffice it to say this market share number has been dealt
with already. Fred Anderson (Apple CFO) says that the iMac is targeted
towards present Mac owners who haven't upgraded in four years or so. This
amounts to about 5.6 *million* customers.

http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZE202119&pic=Y

As for Apple not being viable ... well, analysts have been saying Apple is
dying for, what, twenty years now? Amazingly, these are the same analysts
who weren't exactly on the money in their guestimates of Apple's earnings.

Anyway ....

--gdw

Jeffrey Karp

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Glen Warner wrote:

In article <35AE1816...@erols.com>, jeff...@erols.com wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
>
(*snip*)
>
> I have. Most financial programs are not written for the Mac.

Ah! Specifics. Have you asked? If so, someone (probably me) would've
pointed you towards this web site:

http://www.beesoft.net/

If this doesn't suit your fancy, try the folks at Trendsetter Software ...
who, amazingly enough, don't have a web page, just a toll-free number:
1-800-825-1852.

It *that* doesn't suit, simply take your existing software, install
VirtualPC on a Mac (G3 for best speeds, natch) and then install your
financial software and run it.

This must be very slow.

 

> > >
> > > And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.
> >

> > .... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?

The fastest growth are is very low priced machines. Abouthalf the US households, in addition to more than half of
Eurppean households, and virtually all thirs world households
are still without a computer. Sub $500- compurs will change
this. I believe that Apple will not be able to effectively compete
in this are.

>
> I still can't get the software I need to run on them. The average
consumer wants a
> very low priced machine. Sub $500- PCs will entice many people to buy
their first
> computer.

Yes ... and isn't (insert the name of your favorite computer maker *here*)
projecting lower earnings precisely because of the sub-$1K market?

"It's fun to make more money than Compaq." --S. Jobs

Oh great. Apple sales keep shrinking. How long can this trendcontinue? Apple should slip back into the red soon. They can
not keep downsizing.

 

> > (*snip*)
> >
> > Amazing. You managed to quote my entire post and responded (weakly) to two
> > minor points.
>
> What are your major points?

Re-read the original post.

Cop out.

 

> Apple sales are only strong in the graphic arts sector.
> Apple has had continuous market share erosion, and their revenues
> continue to spiral downward.Their recent profitability is a temporary event
> brought about by downsizing.

Ha! This is funny ...

Its not funny. Its sad.

 

> They will need much more aggressive price cutting to gain market share,
> and return to the point of critical mass. Introducing many new models
> may only make matters worse, as they need to simplify their product line,
> and achieve more economies of scale. At two percent of the personal
> computer market, Apple is not viable.

I am tempted to say simply "Time Will Tell", but ... well, here goes:

With the iMac, PC manufacturers will have to come up with something that
will compete with it, at or below its price ... and not lose money.
Ideally, the performance of the computer should meet or beat that of the
iMac. This will be difficult.

Unnecesary. The average consumer does not need a very powerful computer.They need something that will get them on the net, and run their word processing
software. They want a very low priced machine. The sub $500- PCs built around
Cyrix(NSM) chips will put tremendous pricing pressure on Apple.

 

The introduction of new models by Apple ... well, a *lot* of confusing
models were cut during Gil Amelio's reign. The product line is *already*
simplified.

Ah, yes ... that pesky market share number again. If you read the portions
of the post by me that you quoted nearly all of and responded to just ...
aw, skip it. Suffice it to say this market share number has been dealt
with already. Fred Anderson (Apple CFO) says that the iMac is targeted
towards present Mac owners who haven't upgraded in four years or so. This
amounts to about 5.6 *million* customers.

Most will go for lower priced PCs, or stick with what they already have. Ifthey haven't upgraded in over 4 years, why should they do so now?

 

http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZE202119&pic=Y

As for Apple not being viable ... well, analysts have been saying Apple is
dying for, what, twenty years now? Amazingly, these are the same analysts
who weren't exactly on the money in their guestimates of Apple's earnings.

A few quarters of earnings does not make a company viable. Longer term ,I think Apple could survive as a division of a larger company. I just don't
see anyone buying the company until the stock price becomes depressed again.

 

Anyway ....

--gdw

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

EAJohnsen <eajo...@aol.com> wrote in article <199807160328...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...


> In article <6ojdsg$e8a$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, Matthew Cromer
> <matthew...@iname.com> writes:
>
> >Hope you covered your short Steve.
> >
> >AAPL 38 on Instinet 7/15/98 6:00 PMish
> >
> >Matthew Cromer
> >
> >
>

> Well of course it is going to go up after beating estimates by so much but in
> the long run aapl will continue to decline. According to most estimates apple's
> market share will continue to decline. As will most other OS makers. The only
> OS's whos market shares will go up will be Microsoft ones (windows 95, 98, NT)
> and Linux. Apple might be good in the short term though because of it's great
> earnings.

That's just it. As usual, Jobs leaks the good news,
higher than expected profits, but the bad news we have
to wait for the 10-Q.

The number I am interested in is gross revenue. It has
been in steady decline. 2nd quarter it was down even though
the number of computer units sold went up. I believe had
gross revenue gone up 3rd quarter, Jobs would have announced
that, too. But he didn't. The usual assumption is that increased
earnings => increased revenue, but this hasn't been true
for Apple. ALL of their earnings has come about by cutting
important things like R&D.


3-98 12-97 9-97 6-97 3-97

Net Sales 1405 1578 1614 1737 1601
Cost of Sales 1056 1225 1295 1389 1298
R&D 75 79 94 101 141
In-Process R&D 0 0 0 0 375
G&A 223 243 259 307 348

Profit 55 47 -161 -56 -708

The decline in R&D is not mistakable. According to Brown Brothers
Harrimon, this quarter's profits (~ 66 mil) are due to more cuts
and not revenue growth. And while the iMac may be popular, it's
going to damage Apple's outstanding 27% gross margins.

Someone wanted a reason not to invest in Apple. Here's one, Dell.
Better returns over just about any time period to date in the last
five years. They spend only 56 million/quarter in R&D, but they
are not trying to develop multiple Operating systems and they use
ALL off the shelf parts. Dell has sales growth. Apple? Doesn't
look like it.

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Matthew Cromer <matthew...@iname.com> wrote in article <6oltl4$pri$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...

[snip]


> No thanks, I don't really care what people who don't know anything about
> AAPL or the mac have to say about AAPL and the mac's viability.
>
> Matthew Cromer

I think I mentioned this behavior in the apple zealot crowd.
They make some techno babble about and declare anyone who
disagrees with them as not knowing anything.

We've already seen in this thread how they get violent
when confronted with reality. Fact is, this company
is headed out of business.

Apple's down 1. Gonna make another remark about my
short? I got a nice solid "uptick". I told you there
were ways to make money on Apple. I'll close my short
at 25, and buy in before the next Mac Expo.


John Lienhart

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Geez, Matthew. Speak of the devil and

steve lajoie appears (wrote):

Alan Hill

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Because Microsoft has a monopoly and Apple does not

Nuh said.

Alan

Matthew Cromer

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <01bdb191$06820340$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com> steve

lajoie, laj...@eskimo.com writes:
>We've already seen in this thread how they get violent
>when confronted with reality. Fact is, this company
>is headed out of business.
>
>Apple's down 1.


Of course, it is overbought. As I mentioned on #daytraders yesterday.


Gonna make another remark about my
>short?

Short from 32?

I hope not.

AAPL will be 50 by the end of the year.

You shorted after MacWorld and before earnings? What were you thinking?

BTW, your crack about declining revs is absurd--revs were sequentially
just about flat as predicted by Apple, but there was no consumer product
this quarter and the Powerbook G3 computers were not shipping in quantity.

Next quarter revs will be up substantially over this one.


The iMac will be profitable at $1299 and at $999 in six months. It is
not really a low-margin computer--Anderson and Jobs are stretching the
truth to overpromise and underdeliver to the street.

I got a nice solid "uptick". I told you there
>were ways to make money on Apple. I'll close my short
>at 25, and buy in before the next Mac Expo.

You are going to buy AAPL long. Good, 1 week before expo is a good time.
But I hope you got your short in at 38, and plan to cover around 35,
because AAPL is not going back to 25, ever. Well unless the market
collapses very soon.

Matthew Cromer

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to

> Glen Warner wrote:

(*snip*)

> >


> > It *that* doesn't suit, simply take your existing software, install
> > VirtualPC on a Mac (G3 for best speeds, natch) and then install your
> > financial software and run it.
>
> This must be very slow.

Sounds like you haven't actually tried VirtualPC. Take your software to an
Apple dealer (call first) and ask if you can try VirtualPC with your own
software. If you can, get them to do the demo on multiple systems (i.e.,
pre-G3 systems and actual G3s). If you find it slow after your own tests,
then this solution is not for you.

> > > > > And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.
> > > >
> > > > .... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?
>
> The fastest growth are is very low priced machines. Abouthalf the US
households,
> in addition to more than half of Eurppean households, and
> virtually all thirs world households are still without a computer.
> Sub $500- compurs will change
> this. I believe that Apple will not be able to effectively compete
> in this are.

Here you probably are correct: Apple will not compete in the sub $500
market. Of course ... one ad showing the speed of a sub-$500 machine vs.
the iMac should change a lot of minds.

I think I read somehing about Apple making inroads into Asia recently .....

(*snip*)


> >
> > Yes ... and isn't (insert the name of your favorite computer maker *here*)
> > projecting lower earnings precisely because of the sub-$1K market?
> >
> > "It's fun to make more money than Compaq." --S. Jobs
>
> Oh great. Apple sales keep shrinking. How long can this trendcontinue? Apple
> should slip back into the red soon. They can not keep downsizing.

Steve Jobs said at Macworld that Apple's attrition rate is lower than any
other Silicon Valley company.

In an effort to gear up for demand for the iMac, they've hired a lot of people.

> > > > (*snip*)
> > > >
> > > > Amazing. You managed to quote my entire post and responded
(weakly) to two
> > > > minor points.
> > >
> > > What are your major points?
> >
> > Re-read the original post.
>
> Cop out.

I call it 'conservation of (my) energy'. You had the original post in
front of you at one point or another; why should I do your work for you?


>
> >
> >
> > > Apple sales are only strong in the graphic arts sector.
> > > Apple has had continuous market share erosion, and their revenues
> > > continue to spiral downward.Their recent profitability is a
temporary event
> > > brought about by downsizing.
> >
> > Ha! This is funny ...
>
> Its not funny. Its sad.

Okay. Sad. Got it.

(*snip*)

> > I am tempted to say simply "Time Will Tell", but ... well, here goes:
> >
> > With the iMac, PC manufacturers will have to come up with something that
> > will compete with it, at or below its price ... and not lose money.
> > Ideally, the performance of the computer should meet or beat that of the
> > iMac. This will be difficult.
>
> Unnecesary. The average consumer does not need a very powerful
computer.They need
> something that will get them on the net, and run their word processing
> software. They want a very low priced machine. The sub $500- PCs built around
> Cyrix(NSM) chips will put tremendous pricing pressure on Apple.

Price? Most likely. Performance? Not likely.

Homes have kids. Kids like to play games. Games stress a CPU a lot more
than sending e-mail. If these sub-$500 systems can't support Unreal (and
etc.), will they really sell?

Apple will introduce new systems a little after the iMac starts selling
(at Seybold). These systems will sport the G4 chip, running MacOS X. (

Merced is due out when ...?

Windows NT 5.0 is due out ... when?

(*snip*)

> > Ah, yes ... that pesky market share number again. If you read the portions
> > of the post by me that you quoted nearly all of and responded to just ...
> > aw, skip it. Suffice it to say this market share number has been dealt
> > with already. Fred Anderson (Apple CFO) says that the iMac is targeted
> > towards present Mac owners who haven't upgraded in four years or so. This
> > amounts to about 5.6 *million* customers.
>
> Most will go for lower priced PCs, or stick with what they already have.
Ifthey
> haven't upgraded in over 4 years, why should they do so now?

Mac users using older systems (SE-30s and etc.) will feel the Need for
Speed ... as soon as the price gets to a 'can't resist' level -- which,
for many, is where the iMac is priced -- they will upgrade.

PC-folk will most likely go for the lower priced PCs ... though a lot of
them will go for the iMac.

The Mac-users' old software will run on the iMac. PC-users software will
(most of it) run on the iMac with VirtualPC.

(*snip*)


>
> A few quarters of earnings does not make a company viable.

True ... but a few quarters of bad results don't necessarily make for a
doomed company.

Interesting ... when Apple bought NeXT and posted the charge against their
earnings, Apple was said to be on its last legs. Yet when Compaq posts
earnings of #32 million (if you don't take into account that pesky $3.6
*billion* dollar loss on that DEC deal) nobody bats an eye. Why is this, I
wonder?

> Longer term ,I think Apple could survive as a division of a larger
company. I just
> don't see anyone buying the company until the stock price becomes
depressed again.

This is good .... since the company isn't for sale.

Apple's stock price (barring weird problems with the tech sector or the
market in general (pesky asteroids and etc.)) should reach at least the
low 40's by the end of the year.

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <01bdb191$06820340$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

(*snip*)



> We've already seen in this thread how they get violent
> when confronted with reality.

What? Was there violence in this thread? Where? When? Who?

> Fact is, this company is headed out of business.

Yeah, yeah ... same old stuff all the 'experts' have been saying for 20
years now.

Hasn't happened yet ... and I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath
waiting for it to happen.

--gdw

(*snip*)

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <01bdb18e$0e64c780$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> EAJohnsen <eajo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807160328...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > In article <6ojdsg$e8a$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, Matthew Cromer
> > <matthew...@iname.com> writes:

(*snip*)

> That's just it. As usual, Jobs leaks the good news,
> higher than expected profits, but the bad news we have
> to wait for the 10-Q.
>
> The number I am interested in is gross revenue. It has
> been in steady decline. 2nd quarter it was down even though
> the number of computer units sold went up. I believe had
> gross revenue gone up 3rd quarter, Jobs would have announced
> that, too. But he didn't. The usual assumption is that increased
> earnings => increased revenue, but this hasn't been true
> for Apple. ALL of their earnings has come about by cutting
> important things like R&D.
>
>
> 3-98 12-97 9-97 6-97 3-97
>
> Net Sales 1405 1578 1614 1737 1601
> Cost of Sales 1056 1225 1295 1389 1298

The declining costs of sales *could* indicate an attempt by Apple to cut
prices to be more competitive .....


> R&D 75 79 94 101 141
> In-Process R&D 0 0 0 0 375

The drops in R&D were a cost-cutting thing, as you say ... Apple had to
get into better financial shape ... but consider this: Apple's Advanced
Technologies Group came up with a *lot* of stuff. None of that stuff was
released, or thrown away, just stored until later (some things required a
faster CPU than was available at the time). This means that Apple is
finally making money on R&D done previously. You could say they are (or
will be) getting profits with no investment, in this instance. How's that
math work ...? Lotsa Profit / $0.00 invested = ....?

> G&A 223 243 259 307 348
>
> Profit 55 47 -161 -56 -708
>

(*snip*)


>
> Someone wanted a reason not to invest in Apple. Here's one, Dell.

This isn't a reason not to invest in Apple ... it's a reason to invest in
Dell. A reason not to invest in Apple would be if, say, the iMac blows up
when you power it up ... and even then, you buy put options when you get
the news.

> Better returns over just about any time period to date in the last
> five years. They spend only 56 million/quarter in R&D, but they
> are not trying to develop multiple Operating systems and they use
> ALL off the shelf parts. Dell has sales growth. Apple? Doesn't
> look like it.

Let's see ... Dell sells PCs. Microsoft writes the software. Dell doesn't
write its own software. I guess this explains why Dell isn't trying to
develop multiple operating systems.

Apple makes Macintoshes. They write their own operating systems (yes, two
... and they will merge into one). They absorbed Claris, so they write
(some) of their own software. Apple posted a rather hefty profit this
quarter ... despite having no consumer product and having a shortage of
the new G3 PowerBooks.

In August, they will have a consumer product: the iMac. While the
introduction of the iMac will come too late in the quarter to show a large
upswing in profits, the quarter after will tell.

Did I mention that there will be new product introductions at Seybold (end
of August)?

Does it still looks as if Apple doesn't have sales growth?

--gdw

Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <gdwarnernyet-1...@mg-20664219-64.ricochet.net>,

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>In article <01bdb18e$0e64c780$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
>lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> EAJohnsen <eajo...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199807160328...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> > In article <6ojdsg$e8a$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, Matthew Cromer
>> > <matthew...@iname.com> writes:
>
[snip]

>The declining costs of sales *could* indicate an attempt by Apple to cut
>prices to be more competitive .....

The declining cost of sales indicates that they are selling more of the
high margine G3s and are moving towards using industry standard parts.

This is great. Good move. But as the numbers show, it's not enough.

IF your point is that they cut the cost of sales so they could cut the
price of the product and be competitive, that's not clear at all. Revenue
is still decreasing. That's doesn't sound competitive to me, unless by
competitive you mean the loser in the race. What they are doing is
funnelling money into "profits" to look good to investors. What's so
special about investors I'm not sure, it doesn't matter squat unless you
do a second stock offering or you're a greedy bastard on the BoD trying to
get the stock up so your options will make you richer. Stock price doesn't
do squat for the Apple Computer Company otherwise.

So, which is it? Stock offering in the future, or GBs on the BoD?


>> R&D 75 79 94 101 141
>> In-Process R&D 0 0 0 0 375
>

[snip trying to make R&D a side issue]

>This means that Apple is finally making money on R&D done previously.

That's the way R&D works, son. But you seemed to have been asleep that day
in business 101. If you don't spend the R&D money TODAY, you don't make
money down the line. Talking well of the R&D money spent in the past
doesn't mean the future will be bright if you don't spend R&D money today.

What I'm saying is that cutting R&D by almost 50% (or more, depending on
how you want to count it) means that there will be half as much innovation
and half as many new Apple products. Even Dell computer, which basically
only looks at the BIOS, the Case design, a little bit on the Mother board,
and who's parts to put into their products, spends 55 million a quarter in
R&D. Apple has all that plus MORE as the mother board isn't some off the
shelf part slightly modified by some Taiwanese company. Mind you Dell
doesn't spend much on OS R&D either; that's done by a little company in
Washington called MICROSOFT. Apple is trying to go to market with TWO
operating systems.

> You could say they are (or
>will be) getting profits with no investment, in this instance. How's that
>math work ...? Lotsa Profit / $0.00 invested = ....?
>
>> G&A 223 243 259 307 348
>>
>> Profit 55 47 -161 -56 -708
>>
>
>(*snip*)
>>
>> Someone wanted a reason not to invest in Apple. Here's one, Dell.
>
>This isn't a reason not to invest in Apple ... it's a reason to invest in
>Dell.

Were you asleep that day they covered rates of return? You put your money
where you get the greatest rate of return. Dell has had a greater rate
of return over just about any time period in the last 5 years up till the
present than Apple. Historically, Dell has been a performer. Historically,
Apple is dragging it's ass of the bottom and 38 "looks good" only because
you're ignoring that it use to be 50 two or three years ago.

> A reason not to invest in Apple would be if, say, the iMac blows up
>when you power it up ... and even then, you buy put options when you get
>the news.
>
>> Better returns over just about any time period to date in the last
>> five years. They spend only 56 million/quarter in R&D, but they
>> are not trying to develop multiple Operating systems and they use
>> ALL off the shelf parts. Dell has sales growth. Apple? Doesn't
>> look like it.
>
>Let's see ... Dell sells PCs. Microsoft writes the software. Dell doesn't
>write its own software. I guess this explains why Dell isn't trying to
>develop multiple operating systems.

Don't be intentionally stupid. My point was that Dell doesn't have the
cost of developing operating systems and Apple does, yet their
expenditures of R&D money are roughly the same.

>Apple makes Macintoshes. They write their own operating systems (yes, two
>... and they will merge into one). They absorbed Claris, so they write
>(some) of their own software. Apple posted a rather hefty profit this
>quarter ... despite having no consumer product and having a shortage of
>the new G3 PowerBooks.

You know, I pointed out that R&D is at the Dell level, and that Apple has
a lot more to develop than Apple. A resonable investor expects that
Apple's R&D cost would be much higher than Dells.

The simple fact is, in the Wintel platform as a whole, MUCH more money is
being spend on R&D than Apple could possibly spend.

Hefty profits? Only by not investing in Apple's future did Apple make
these "hefty profits". Which has been my point all along. You're investing
in the future of a company that is looking at profits TODAY and is not
investing in it's own future at reasonable levels. I suspect that the
Apple BoD, not being able to find someone to buy them out, decided to make
the most of a doomed situation and ride this bastard for all it's worth.

What I see is a CEO who sold all but one share when he came on board, and
insider trading that dumps the stock at around 30. I think the board is
doing what the board wants done; slaughter this cow for beef before it
wastes away to nothing.

[snip]

>Does it still looks as if Apple doesn't have sales growth?

Haven't seen sales growth in quite awhile. Margins on the iMac are less
than that of the G3. Compaq already has a sub $1000 PC and monitor on the
market, and the iMac shows up a year late, and a floppy drive and $300
short. The G3 made improvements to the gross margins on Apple's balance
sheet, an very respectable 27% or so! iMac will bring that down some. The
impact iMac will have on revenue has yet to be proven. It looks to me that
Apple has gone back to the sealed box and not upgradeable computer
concept. Very expensive way for the consumer to go. I'd never buy it.


--
Steve La Joie | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
laj...@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
| In this manner, the people are made to fall in line
| with the principles of the government" A. Einstein

Jeffrey Karp

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Glen Warner wrote:

> In article <35AF5B19...@erols.com>, jeff...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Glen Warner wrote:
>
> (*snip*)
>
> > >
> > > It *that* doesn't suit, simply take your existing software, install
> > > VirtualPC on a Mac (G3 for best speeds, natch) and then install your
> > > financial software and run it.
> >
> > This must be very slow.
>
> Sounds like you haven't actually tried VirtualPC. Take your software to an
> Apple dealer (call first) and ask if you can try VirtualPC with your own
> software. If you can, get them to do the demo on multiple systems (i.e.,
> pre-G3 systems and actual G3s). If you find it slow after your own tests,
> then this solution is not for you.

How much does this emulation software cost. All of my past experience withemulation
software was that it was extremely slow. I would like to see some
benchmarks that prove otherwise.

>
>
> > > > > > And there will be powerful $500- K6 machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > .... which will be blown away by the iMac. Your point ...?
> >
> > The fastest growth are is very low priced machines. Abouthalf the US
> households,
> > in addition to more than half of Eurppean households, and
> > virtually all thirs world households are still without a computer.
> > Sub $500- compurs will change
> > this. I believe that Apple will not be able to effectively compete
> > in this are.
>
> Here you probably are correct: Apple will not compete in the sub $500
> market. Of course ... one ad showing the speed of a sub-$500 machine vs.
> the iMac should change a lot of minds.

Not necessarily. How many consumers are willing to spend more than $1,000-on a high
end VCR? Very few, as a $200 or $300- vcr satisfies their needs.

Very few people need better performance.

>
>
> Homes have kids. Kids like to play games. Games stress a CPU a lot more
> than sending e-mail. If these sub-$500 systems can't support Unreal (and
> etc.), will they really sell?

Do you honestly believe that many parents will spends $1500- for a homecomputer
instead of spending $500-, due to the fact that the $1500-
machine will be better for games?

>
>
> Apple will introduce new systems a little after the iMac starts selling
> (at Seybold). These systems will sport the G4 chip, running MacOS X. (
>
> Merced is due out when ...?
>
> Windows NT 5.0 is due out ... when?
>
> (*snip*)
>
> > > Ah, yes ... that pesky market share number again. If you read the portions
> > > of the post by me that you quoted nearly all of and responded to just ...
> > > aw, skip it. Suffice it to say this market share number has been dealt
> > > with already. Fred Anderson (Apple CFO) says that the iMac is targeted
> > > towards present Mac owners who haven't upgraded in four years or so. This
> > > amounts to about 5.6 *million* customers.
> >
> > Most will go for lower priced PCs, or stick with what they already have.
> Ifthey
> > haven't upgraded in over 4 years, why should they do so now?
>
> Mac users using older systems (SE-30s and etc.) will feel the Need for
> Speed ... as soon as the price gets to a 'can't resist' level -- which,
> for many, is where the iMac is priced -- they will upgrade.

No, most will go for a $500- pc, or stick with what they have.

>
>
> PC-folk will most likely go for the lower priced PCs ... though a lot of
> them will go for the iMac.

No way.

>
>
> The Mac-users' old software will run on the iMac. PC-users software will
> (most of it) run on the iMac with VirtualPC.

However it will run too slow.

>
>
> (*snip*)
> >
> > A few quarters of earnings does not make a company viable.
>
> True ... but a few quarters of bad results don't necessarily make for a
> doomed company.
>
> Interesting ... when Apple bought NeXT and posted the charge against their
> earnings, Apple was said to be on its last legs. Yet when Compaq posts
> earnings of #32 million (if you don't take into account that pesky $3.6
> *billion* dollar loss on that DEC deal) nobody bats an eye. Why is this, I
> wonder?
>
> > Longer term ,I think Apple could survive as a division of a larger
> company. I just
> > don't see anyone buying the company until the stock price becomes
> depressed again.
>
> This is good .... since the company isn't for sale.
>
> Apple's stock price (barring weird problems with the tech sector or the
> market in general (pesky asteroids and etc.)) should reach at least the
> low 40's by the end of the year.

You are willing to take all that risk, for an expected gain of only 10%?The
downside potential is much greater than this.

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

> Glen Warner wrote:
>
(*snip*)

> How much does this emulation software cost.

SoftWindows: $169; VirtualPC (w/Windows '95): $129; RealPC (this is
VirtualPC with just DOS): $79


> All of my past experience with emulation software was that it was


extremely slow. I
> would like to see some benchmarks that prove otherwise.

While I haven't checked these benchmarks myself, I did find a page that
has a few:

http://www.emulation.net/windoze/index.html

If, by 'past experience' you mean you ran SoftWindows 1.0 on a 68k
machine, then yes, it was too slow. Try it with a G3.

I heard of one Mac user installing OS2 on his Mac with *no* problems.
However, when he attempted to install it on his PC, the system froze.
Other users have installed other operating systems, including OpenStep and
NetBSD.

(*snip*)

> > Here you probably are correct: Apple will not compete in the sub $500
> > market. Of course ... one ad showing the speed of a sub-$500 machine vs.
> > the iMac should change a lot of minds.
>
> Not necessarily. How many consumers are willing to spend more than
$1,000-on a high
> end VCR? Very few, as a $200 or $300- vcr satisfies their needs.

We'll see.

Besides ... computers aren't VCRs.

(*snip*)

> > Price? Most likely. Performance? Not likely.
>
> Very few people need better performance.

Okay. :o)

> > Homes have kids. Kids like to play games. Games stress a CPU a lot more
> > than sending e-mail. If these sub-$500 systems can't support Unreal (and
> > etc.), will they really sell?
>
> Do you honestly believe that many parents will spends $1500- for a
homecomputer
> instead of spending $500-, due to the fact that the $1500- machine will
be better for > games?

Sure. Most of the young PC users are gamers. They want the latest and
greatest. Games stress the CPU, use sound, and some use 3-d graphics.

(*snip*)

> No, most will go for a $500- pc, or stick with what they have.

We'll see.

> > PC-folk will most likely go for the lower priced PCs ... though a lot of
> > them will go for the iMac.
>
> No way.

We'll see. Did you happen to hear the Yale has reversed its decision about
Macintosh support? Did you happen to hear also that they are recommending
to the incoming class that they buy an iMac?

> >
> > The Mac-users' old software will run on the iMac. PC-users software will
> > (most of it) run on the iMac with VirtualPC.
>
> However it will run too slow.

Are you sure?

There is the story of the consultant who had two computers hooked up to
two projectors. One was a PC, the other was a Mac running VirtualPC. He
manipulated a few files and appliations and asked the crowd (all IT
professionals, by the way) if they could tell which was which. They all
picked the Mac as being the PC.

Does that sound slow?

(*snip*)


>
> You are willing to take all that risk, for an expected gain of only 10%?The
> downside potential is much greater than this.

All what risk? ... and I don't see a lot of downside potential. Besides:
no one ever went broke making a profit.

Scott

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Several people have argued that Apple's $1299 iMac will
not be able to compete in the market because there are
now "sub-$500 PC's".

I find this notion utterly ludicrous, for numerous
reasons. It's like saying Chrysler can't compete in the
auto market because there's $6,000 Geo Metros.

The "sub-$500" PC's you hear about are severely
underpowered and that price tag cannot possibly include
such luxuries as, say, a monitor. When you add up
a hard drive, microprocessor, memory, power supply,
monitor, etc. etc., it's going to exceed $500 and
there's going to be a very small (if not negative)
profit margin. And the components are going to be
flimsy, and the computer's useful life will be about
one year. And salespeople are not going to promote
it; they'd much rather sell a system with higher
profit margins for them. And they're not going to
come with much free tech support at that price,
even though that market would need tech support
most (first-time, low-income computer buyers).

But regardless of all this, here is my question for
you folks that keep pointing to these inexpensive
PC's. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM? Yes, that's
right - I want statistics. I want to know what
percentage of the computer market is actually
buying complete systems which cost less than $1,000.
I have seen statistics for sub-$1,000 machines (ones
which *don't* include monitors), but have not seen any
sales numbers for so-called "sub-$500" machines. I
have learned that every computer manufacturer that
attempted to sell sub-$1,000 PC's last Christmas
was severely burned (most notably Compaq, which lost
a huge amount of money by forecasting too much demand.)
A price war and lack of demand caused computer
manufacturers such as Compaq to sell its systems
for far less than they cost to build - a practice
which can't occur indefinitely.

If you haven't seen raw statistics, you are way
off base by saying the iMac won't compete because it
is too expensive. You have no idea how many sub-$500
PC's people are actually buying. If you can provide
a legitimate source that has this data, I will be
more willing to entertain your opinion.

- Scott

Jeffrey Karp

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Scott wrote:

> Several people have argued that Apple's $1299 iMac will
> not be able to compete in the market because there are
> now "sub-$500 PC's".
>
> I find this notion utterly ludicrous, for numerous
> reasons. It's like saying Chrysler can't compete in the
> auto market because there's $6,000 Geo Metros.
>
> The "sub-$500" PC's you hear about are severely
> underpowered and that price tag cannot possibly include
> such luxuries as, say, a monitor.

For $500-, it will include a not so fancy monitor. Already,generic K6 233
systems are selling for $650- or less
with a 14" monitor, 32meg, a 56K modem, and a 3.2
GIG hard drive.

> When you add up
> a hard drive, microprocessor, memory, power supply,
> monitor, etc. etc., it's going to exceed $500 and
> there's going to be a very small (if not negative)
> profit margin. And the components are going to be
> flimsy,

The monitor may not be so great.

> and the computer's useful life will be about
> one year.

Only for those that feel a need to have a new computerevery year. Some people
may buy a 233Mhz K6
and use it for 3 or 4 years.The $500- machines that
will be out at the end of the year will probably be
faster than this(perhaps 300mhz+). This is sufficient
for most home users who need word processing,
and to get on the net.

> And salespeople are not going to promote
> it; they'd much rather sell a system with higher
> profit margins for them.

Who cares. People will buy them anyway.

> And they're not going to
> come with much free tech support at that price,
> even though that market would need tech support
> most (first-time, low-income computer buyers).

How much support do people need? Are you referringto software support?

>
>
> But regardless of all this, here is my question for
> you folks that keep pointing to these inexpensive
> PC's. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM? Yes, that's
> right - I want statistics. I want to know what
> percentage of the computer market is actually
> buying complete systems which cost less than $1,000.
> I have seen statistics for sub-$1,000 machines (ones
> which *don't* include monitors), but have not seen any
> sales numbers for so-called "sub-$500" machines.

They are just coming out. Buy a copy of Computer Shoppermagazine to see what low
priced systems are already available.

> I
> have learned that every computer manufacturer that
> attempted to sell sub-$1,000 PC's last Christmas
> was severely burned (most notably Compaq, which lost
> a huge amount of money by forecasting too much demand.)

Many Compaq machines were not very upgradeable. Manypeople did not want a
machine with limited upgradeability.
Companies such as CyberMax and others that advertise
in Computer Shopper offer better value, by selling low
priced machines with video cards that are at least 4 meg,
and systems with more ram and larger hard drives.

> A price war and lack of demand caused computer
> manufacturers such as Compaq to sell its systems
> for far less than they cost to build - a practice
> which can't occur indefinitely.

Production costs are way down, thanks in partto the Asian crisis, and also to
economies of
scale. As computer sales in third world countries
accelerate, price decreases for computers
will also accelerate. NSM(Cyrix) will have
their new chips out, which will eliminate the
need for many of the support chips in current
computers.

>
>
> If you haven't seen raw statistics, you are way
> off base by saying the iMac won't compete because it
> is too expensive. You have no idea how many sub-$500
> PC's people are actually buying. If you can provide
> a legitimate source that has this data, I will be
> more willing to entertain your opinion.

Performance is not that important. Low prices, andsoftware compatability are the
key issues. Very few
people will buy a Mac and emulation software
when they intend to run windows applications.

>
>
> - Scott


Rick Monihan

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Nuh said??? What does that mean?
1. MSFT doesn't have a monopoly, although everyone loves to talk about
it.
2. AAPL is showing more long run growth potential right now, primarily
because they are working off lower #'s, but also because of their
restructuring.
3. AAPL has grown FASTER than MSFT over the last 6 months....


NUFF SAID!

Rick Monihan

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Anyone think that maybe, just maybe, AAPL cut back its R&D because
they are looking to either BUYOUT or be BOUGHT OUT? Typically, that is
a sign of some kind of sale/purchase activity taking place....adding to
or taking advantage of some other companies' R&D.....................

THAT WOULD BE A B