Herbvic
A> That the shakeout in the Wintel camp will draw more dealers to Apple as the company's products deliver better dealer margins, assuming they are able to maintain increases in selling pressure.
A: Dealers will find that Apples will still be higher priced as the bargain Wintels attract clients and expose them to MHZ per $$ price comparisons. Apple has always had good margins. but sales went away and money was frittered on stuff by managers who felt they had an endless $$ fountain to draw on. A difficult sales job for Apple will continue
B> That the margin comparison between Macintosh and Wintels will be a strong incentive for dealers to push Apple's products over the competition's.
B: What is better a product with margin and no sales or a product with sales and no margin?
C> That the price of CPUs is more a product of supply and demand as the chip moves through its product cycle than anything else.
C: The Wintel chips decsned the price curve faster than the Apple chips. Thuis lag penalizes Apple.
D> That Intel is approaching the end of the product cycle for their current crop of chips evidenced by the FACT that the 'clear the market' price is sinking below cost of production. And that IBM/Motorola are just hitting their best economies of scale driven by a position of technology leadership.
D: Saturation is setting in with the WIntels, with AMD and IBM/Cyrix ramping up volume and sales at a plateau. The only chips still a monopoly are the P-II 400 MHZ. The AMD new chip 3D-350 seems to be a match for the P-II-350 in performance and is far cheaper.
Intel has tried to destroy AMD by cutting prices in a peremptory way to deny AMD margins to build next geberations of chips from. The big problem was that this works best between equals. Intel was 25 times as big as AMD in chip sales. Each dollar they cost AMD cost Intel $25. That is why Grove was "elevated". Take a look at the hit to the Intel bottomline that war cost. They failed to kill AMD as Compaq and some others purposely gave AMD orders to keep them going as an alterbative. AFter all with no AMD they would have paid an average of $300 more per chip for the past 3 years.
Bill, some of your statements make me wonder if you even have a clue. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but come on. "The monopoly on CPUs from IBM/Motorola differs from the more competitive mileue that occurs with Intel, Amd, Cyrix and IBM." Intel has dominated this side of the market and has only come under pressure lately due to their monopolistic practices and their failure to gauge the threat from Amd and Cyrix.
Herb, IBM/MOT has no bogey man to match AMD. Why is the smaller cheaper chip so much more money? They are mature lines with a high yield on a .25 micron process that IBM and MOT are running( 2lines) and each chip costs them less than $35 .
AMD/MOT are a duopoly and they must drop prices to help Apple and them selves. The problem is they are both monopolists at heart and like to gouge, and how.
A few more things I might respond to from your latest post:
Of course Apple is trying to get the price down on the CPU supply. They will always try to get the best price on each new contract.
The visual attribute argument does not hold much water. The Macintosh is the technology leader both in OS usability and strategy, and in pure processor horsepower and power consumption efficiency
Yes Apple is better, faster, cheaper, thinner, fatter, except in sales.
The visual aspect is everything. Without it Wintel would be a dead horse on DOS with no GUI. The GUI is good enough to take sales from APple, mainly on price though, but it runs well enough to dominate. Evolution never spared the dinosaurs, and it will not spare the Applesaurs if they do not adapt and get smart. The faster better argument has failed. People want cheaper.(most of them)
You price Porshes the same as chevys and porsche sales will kill chevy. Apples cost more and work better=less sales.
Apples work better and cost less = more sales.
Thats it.
Apple never stopped mail orders. At one point in their glorious past, they fought a loosing battle to protect the dealer channel from unauthorized distribution through mail order, only to find that it was their largest dealers supplying the unauthorized distribution. This was due primarily to Apple's inept practice of volume discounting.
Yes they should have had flat pricing with all pating the same. Those big dealers got a price for 1000 pieces and split it among a dozen mail order houses to get an extra 2% discount.
I will not respond to any of the rest of your post. As you already know, it deviates from the subject of discussion with meaningless dribble. Honestly, if you can't make a point, don't lapse into red herring ramblings. Just wait until your brain wakes up and post later in the day. (grin)
My social commentary offends you?, it gets me the most e-mail, manily fromn right wingers.
Bill |
