Is this a joke?

Posted October 15, 2008 By The Macalope and has 39 comments.

Wired’s news feed teases Adam DuVander’s Webmonkey piece on the so-called “Apple tax” thusly:

It’s no secret that Apple’s computers cost more than PCs with similar specs.

Well, when you put it like that, it must be true!

But Apple’s disclosure of its sales figures and estimated market share at a press event Tuesday raises new questions about exactly how much money the company is making off each new Mac purchase.

And new questions mean new jackasstic answers! Enough teasing! Let’s get to the piece.

The concept, which has merit, is that Apple’s computers cost more than PCs.

Does it have merit? Of course! Adam just said so!

Just how much? Apple hinted at the number in its event today:

Retail share: 17.6 percent market share of unit sales.
Revenue share: 31.3 percent of retail sales.

In other words, where one in five computer sales is an Apple, these account for one of every three dollars spent. Apple has more share of the revenue because its computer cost more.

Cost more than what? Cost more than similarly configured machines as Adam says (remember, the teaser promised we’d be talking about similarly configured machines)? No.

No matter how you crunch the numbers, they imply that Apple charges at least 50 percent more than other manufacturers, maybe even twice as much.

Good lord.

They do not. How would that even be possible? Don’t you think people might notice that? What the numbers show is that Apple competes at the high end of the market and has no presence in the low end of the market.

Are you kidding us, Adam? Are you kidding us, Wired?

Well, duh

Posted June 8, 2007 By The Macalope and has 8 comments.

Computerworld discovers what you already knew: yes, Virginia, on average, Macs don’t actually cost more.*

It’s just that:

A) Apple is a quality brand. eMachines, etc., aren’t.

and

B) Apple doesn’t make as many models as all the other PC makers combined.

It’s absurd we keep having to go through this exercise, but this is good. This is progress.

It should take only another 15-20 years for this particular piece of erroneous conventional wisdom to be drained from the fetid brain pan of public consciousness.

The Macalope is assuming your name is Virginia. Your name may not actually be Virginia, but the point still remains.

Whither the mini?

Posted May 25, 2007 By The Macalope and has 16 comments.

The tender flowers of the Mac web are all a-twitter (not to be confused with the popular social networking site of the same name) over an Apple Insider report claiming that the Mac mini will soon be pushing daisies (not to be confused with the much-anticipated ABC series of the same name, coming this fall, check your local listings).

The Macalope doesn’t doubt this could be true, but he did find it amusing that in trying to bolster their argument that “Apple just doesn’t like the mini darn it!”, Apple Insider cites as evidence the fact that a rumored enhancement of the mini they pimped failed to materialize. It’s the theory of Apple rumor site infallibility in action.

But on the face of it, it seems unlikely that Apple would completely do away with the mini or, rather, decide to abandon the market it targets.

Now, what is that market? The Macalope doubts anyone outside Apple knows for sure as they don’t release that kind of data. The mini was introduced ostensibly for the switcher (“Bring your own monitor, keyboard and mouse!”) but the Macalope doubts that’s who’s really buying them. It’s anecdotal, of course, but the switchers the Macalope knows have all bought either iMacs or MacBooks. The horny one does hear that the smallest Mac of them all is popular with developers and, possibly just by definition, people who already own a bunch of other Macs. For some it temporarily filled the niche that’s now filled by the Apple TV. And then there are the schools. And the businesses.

There’s two ways of looking at that. Either the low price of the mini is allowing people who already own a Mac to buy another, or it’s eating into sales of Macs with higher margins.

Unlike Apple Insider, the Macalope doesn’t think the mini is analogous to the G4 Cube or the 12-inch PowerBook, both of which, while lovely, probably did not generate sales like the mini. It seems unlikely to this furry Macophile that even if Apple drops the mini it won’t be replaced with something cooler.

So, killing the Mac mini is not to be confused with, well, killing the Mac mini.

Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea after all

Posted May 3, 2007 By The Macalope and has 9 comments.

On his new blog, Walt Mossberg (tip o’ the antlers to Michael Gartenberg) talks about how Microsoft and Sony are gettin’ themselves some o’ that old-time Apple religion: making the whole widget.

Those of you who, like the Macalope, lived through the 1990s where every yahoo analyst and oh-so-well-meaning Apple basher swore up and down that the company needed to license or die can feel free to bask in the schadenfreude.

Of course, they’re still doing it, but not nearly as much.

Irony!

Posted April 19, 2007 By The Macalope and has 6 comments.

Via Mr. Gruber, the Macalope sees that Gartner — the firm that famously recommended Apple get out of the hardware business — notes that Mac sales were up 30% in the first quarter.

Good advice, fellas!

And that is why you fail.

Posted March 22, 2007 By The Macalope and has 15 comments.

Everyone’s linking to David Pogue’s Apple TV review today. Pogue also has some spillover content on his blog, including a clue as to why Apple only allows you to buy video content, not rent.

Here’s how the Xbox handles it:

First, each movie is available for rental only during a several-week window–then it’s gone. Second, you have to start watching the movie within two weeks of downloading it. Third, once you start watching it, you have to finish watching within 24 hours.

In each case, the movie is lost forever if you’re tardy.

Well, isn’t that craptacular?!

The Macalope suspect that — like DRM — Apple could probably find a better way of handling rentals than Microsoft which loves to roll over to the recording industry. But barring that, that’s really one of the differentiators between the two companies, isn’t it? Microsoft’s willing to give you a half-assed solution for something were Apple says, no, you don’t want to do that because it’s going to suck.

Can’t you just hear Steve Jobs saying that?

And you’d just nod vigorously in agreement, too, wouldn’t you.

Finally, here’s Michael Gartenberg’s on the Apple TV after a glowing review:

Is there a downside? Not really.

There you have it.

Have you tried exorcism?

Posted March 15, 2007 By The Macalope and has 11 comments.

Kris Tuttle at Seeking Alpha flogs the “Dell wants to sell Macs!” non-story.

Even though I can’t see a clear path to a deal of some sort, that comment from Michael Dell continues to haunt me.

Well, you really need to rid yourself of this appartition because while there are a dozen reasons it makes sense for Dell, there are exactly… uh, let’s see, three times four… take the derivative… carry the one… uh… zero for Apple.

Na. Gonna. Happen.

This is the best we can do?

Posted December 11, 2006 By The Macalope and has 4 comments.

For the record, the Macalope does not profess to “know” whether or not Apple will make an iPhone or whether or not it will succeed. He merely thinks there’s an opportunity there.

For those who believe there is no room for Apple in this space, please take a look at eWeek’s roundup of smart phones available this holiday season and if you’re comfortable with these, then you should consider checking yourself into the Jonathan Ive Clinic for the Esthetically Challenged.

Damn this iPhone-induced cough!

Posted December 6, 2006 By The Macalope and has 5 comments.

Julie Ask at Jupiter Research has an interesting post about the challenges and opportunities a company (cough – Apple – cough) might face in selling an unlocked phone and the challenges and opportunities a consumer (cough – Macalope – cough) might face getting a service provider for it.

Falling prices knock Mac pundit in the head

Posted November 28, 2006 By The Macalope and has 8 comments.

Today’s dime-store speculation is brought to you by Remy Davison at Insanely Great Mac (link via the Apple Blog which really should know better than to lend credence to this) who speculates that falling prices for 17-inch LCDs will cause Apple to discontinue the 15-inch MacBook Pro.

Moreover, as notebook market trend is ‘bigger is better’, the opportunity for Apple to make the MBP exclusively 17″ is there, given the falling prices.

This smells remarkably like the market consisting solely of Remy Davison and a couple of d00dz he talked to. Since when are people rushing out to buy bigger and bigger laptops?

The Macalope was not able to find a break-out of MacBook or PowerBook sales between the 17-inch and the 15-inch models, but he’d be willing to bet his left antler that Apple sells far more 15-inch models than 17-inch.

The point is that Apple would no longer really need a 15.4″ widescreen MBP if a 15″ MacBook eventuates. It would be redundant, much as the 12.1″ PowerBook found relatively few customers in the end, as the much cheaper 12.1″ G4 iBook had virtually an identical feature set.

Please define “15-inch MacBook”.

It’s astounding to the Macalope that Davison gets through this whole spiel without noting a very important difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro.

Forgetting even the FireWire 800 port and the ExpressCard slot, the MacBook uses GMA graphics while the MacBook Pro has dedicated graphics memory on Radeon cards. A 15-inch MacBook does not replace a 15-inch MacBook Pro unless you have blurred vision from too much wacky tobaccy. Davison would have a whole slew of professionals lug 17-inch laptops around in order to perform skipless video presentations.

Falling component prices have less to do with product positioning than demand does. If they did, black paint would really be more expensive than white.