Is There Room for a Really Cheap Mac?
If you’re a fan of cheap computing, you’ve probably seen the pictures of the MIT $100 laptop. For the denizens of cash-strapped countries, the laptop computer will undoubtedly be a welcome addition. There is a bright side for Mac fans as well, they can finally say that there is a laptop that looks goofier than the original iBook. The existence of a $100 laptop does give rise to the thought, should Apple make a very low-end laptop?
The usual objection at this point is the existence of the new MacBook. There is no doubt that the MacBook is an impressive machine looking at the specs, factor in the price and you’ve got an absolute steal. Well, a steal if you compare it spec for spec with the equivalent laptop from Dell, but not such a great deal if you compare it to the very cheapest Dell available.
The cheapest Dell you can get, without digging about, is the Inspiron B130 for a mere $504 (On sale, regularly $649). Sure, most people will tell you the machine is a piece of junk, but sometimes, perhaps the majority of the time, people prefer cheap over capable. If you need further evidence of the cheap at all costs mentality, cast your mind back to the Christmas fracas that occurred when Wal-Mart was trading laptops for a meager four C-notes.
It could be the case that the consumers of the low-end Dells and $300 Wal Mart laptops sat down, carefully analyzed their computing needs and compared said needs to the specs of the computers, then, using advanced cost benefit and amortization tools, the consumers realized that the value-priced laptop was the ideal trade off between out-of-pocket expense and performance. Either that or they just wanted a cheap laptop.
Apple doesn’t have a dog in the cheap laptop arena. As great as the MacBook is, it just doesn’t qualify as a cheap laptop. As alluded to earlier, the Macbook qualifies as an exceptional value, as an outstanding machine and a decent mirror for applying makeup. While those are admirable traits, they are not what a cheap laptop is all about. Apple should seriously, very seriously, consider offering a truly cheap laptop.
What kind of specs might one expect from a really low-end Apple laptop? 12.1 screen, 1024 by 768, 30GB hard drive, and the much-maligned Intel Celeron (1.5 GHz) with the weakest integrated video support imaginable. Since Apple doesn’t seem to be on much of a roll with names lately (MacBook, iPod Hifi) we’ll just call the machine: MacBook Lame.
A machine like that, what with the processor that people love to hate, the anemic video support and the tiny screen would be little more than an Apple branded clamshell Palm Pilot. Or at best last year’s iBook. People are bound to complain about the specs and note that Apple wishes to provide a truly superior computing experience out of the box. These objections scream for more investigation.
Bring on the MacBook Lame
Let us begin with the notion that the MacBook Lame would be underpowered for OS X. The chip running the machine would be a Celeron so anyone who actually purchases a MacBook lame will be in for a rude awakening. Yet, Tiger runs acceptably fast on a single processor 1 GHz G4 with 1 GB of RAM operating on a 100 MHz FSB. It is no speed demon to be sure but for the internet, e-mail and most iLife Apps the performance is more than acceptable.
Of course, elite users think they have to the most modern hardware possible, particularly people who visits sites like Apple Matters. They instinctively shun machines powered by yesterday’s chips. The truth is that they aren’t average users. You can find G4 mini owners who made entire movies on the mini, designers who create incredibly complex works of digital art in Photoshop on the mini. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who simply have to have the latest and greatest regardless of actual need (Apple calls these people “profit,” Dell calls them “gamers”).
So, the MacBook lame will be more than capable for the needs of most users. The real questions, and the one Apple asks when thinking of things like this is: What is in it for Apple’s bottom line? There is a very real fear of the machine cannibalizing Apple’s other laptops, but that effect can be minimized. Let us set the MacBook Lame’s price at $697.32. Think of it like the car you see advertised at the impossibly low price in the newspaper.
The price gets people interested in the machine, but it lacks a CD burner. The CD burner upgrade is $50 dollars. Who is going to pass that up, everyone burns CDs. The hard drive size is claustrophobic at only 30 GB, no problem 80 GB is just $75 away. The machine features the iBook style keyboard, not very good, for an extra $30 you can get the new MacBook keyboard. Only one slot for memory, you know you need a GB, don’t void that warranty, have Apple install it for $150. You want the nifty built in iSight, it is an option, a mere $100. Hey, that black MacBook is looking like a really good deal isn’t it?
The point is that the add-ons add up quickly, sure the base price is low but by the time anyone who wants more than a cheap laptop is done with it they’re better off buying a MacBook. For those that go with the base model, and there will always those that do, it is still a win for Apple. Not only will they know they have the least capable Mac available they will be exposed to OS X. The tactic has worked for Apple in the past, the Mac Classic was a horrible machine if you knew anything about Macs but Apple sold a ton of them. When users wanted to do more they went back and bought another Mac.
There are a lot of reasons you won’t be seeing a MacBook Lame tomorrow, but no convincing reasons why you shouldn’t see one someday. Right now the Apple engineers are likely overwhelmed, once the Intel transition is complete they can get back to making products that shock the world, products like the MacBook lame.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Apple could just offer a geared up G3. Sure it may not run everything out there. But I was using my G3 as my main computer till last week and managed to perform every task I wanted with the exception of Playing SimCity 4… lol Mind ya I had to look to Japan for DVD authoring software and such because none was produced in the United States for the G3, and authoring a DVD took at least a day to render. However G3 iMacs now sell on eBay for $50 to $100. However theres a risk, cheaper will bring more users, lower performance may equate Apple to Microsoft. I’m more than happy to shell out 2G’s for a computer that will last me 6-7 years or more…
When offering a cheap machine, Apple has to look into their marketing. As Calista suggests: why include firewire? But isn’t the answer that this is the primary way to feed video into iMovie? Cutting out firewire might give buyers the impression iMovie has no value. Same for a weaker processor (Celeron of Core Solo) and iPhoto will be a permanent lacking your scrolling or even show the lollipop cursor for most of the time. Both arguments together and the inclusion of (the latest iLife) is more a con then a pro.
I am not an everyday user of iLife at all, I’m just saying that iLife is part of promoting the Mac. People will expect some acceptable or even a solid performance. The risks Apple runs is that the word gets out that the Apple experience isn’t what it is made to believe.
Leaving out options like bluetooth (although I think it doesn’t add much to the cost of building the machine) might not been seen as high impact (I am not using it either), but a machine has to anticipate being used for three to five years. A lot will happen in that time and bluethooth will only increase penetration into our lives. Bluetooth (being wireless) might not complicate internal design, while firewire (which probably doesn’t cost too much to add either) at leasts needs a connector that is located logically.
Profit, as Joshua already mentioned, is important. Although, at this moment is Apple able to afford less profit to gain marketshare. Then again, Apple probably doesn’t want mass-buyers (like schools) to jump to this lower-end option.
Support is also a huge factor, as mentioned.
Part of the value of running MacOSX is having many of the open-source applications available. While you might not like the interface of Gimp or Open-Office, they are free and offer features that you would otherwise have to buy. Installation and usage isn’t up the user-experience Apple sets out to offer, but it is an option. And many open-source projects are delivered with improved user-experience specifically for MacOSX. *)
The conclusion is that a MacBook, whatever you think of it’s value-point, does not require you to buy anything extra. No virus protection or other malware-removal software, no Office suite, no image-manipulation software. There is really a lot of software included or out there. And the MacBook will prepare you reasonably well for things to come.
The precondition perhaps is that you aren’t buying your computer with a specific taks in mind, but that you are a real novice buyer trying out the Mac; the kind of users that would go for a low-end Mac as suggested.
After everything is said here, I think Apple probably is thinking about lower-end machines themselves. It only makes business sense to keep looking for value-points. I am making a case against such a low-end machine and Apple might make a fool out of me by introducing on the moment I click the submit button. So, I am not saying that it won’t come. I am just pointing out a few arguments and deriving a conclusion from that. I am just a clueless as the next guy.
*) Don’t try to counter the argument with freeware for Windows; adding/removing on MacOSX won’t clutter your computer, while on Windows it *will* degrade overall performance.
Many “bargain” PC’s come with an “impressive” list of included software: free stuff like Acrobat Reader, crippled stuff like expiring malware protection, or versions of products that are at least two years old. Something that keeps you busy exploring for about two months, until you really want to get something done.
On MacOSX, a lot of freeware comes in disk-image files and most of those applications I run directly out of those files never actually installing them at all, so removing (or just moving) them is even simpler.
I very highly recommend John Gruber’s latest article which is perhaps the most intelligent writing about microsoft, apple, profit and success I’ve yet seen, and which is highly relevant.
Ben Hall- You said “I don’t think your arguments change the fact that not every user is catered for in the current mac line-up.”
I wasn’t trying to change that fact. I’m stating that, in their Mac business, Apple is not currently trying to cater to every user, nor, frankly, is there a very good reason to. If Apple grabs another 3-5% of the global marketshare, they will double their profitability, reinforce the demand for development of OS X applications, and put a hurt on the business of their hardware competitors all in one fell swoop.
Why would they go after the low-end market when there’s no reason to do so? I still haven’t seen any reason, much less a valid one, for chasing the very low end computer market, aside from saying “well, a bunch of people would spend money on a $700 laptop”. I was one of those doubters who said people wouldn’t spend $200-400 on an MP3 player, but Apple has built a market for them on their own terms. Who is to say they can’t do the same thing for portable systems priced around $1100?
Looks like Apple will be coming out with a cheaper desktop Mac, but it might be only for education:
http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1775
Joshua David, a very good reason to go after the low end is to build brand AND product recognition. He who has used a Mac in the past is more likely to use one in the future, and the same can of course be said about a Windows machine.
Is Apple a well-known brand? Yes. Is it a strong brand? To this I disagre. Reason of course being that most people have no real clue about what kind of products Apple sell or why they should ask for one.
Pair this with a Mac community which can be considered pathological and if you excuse me saying so, a big PITA, and the normal customer has few reasons to even consider a switch.
Joshua David, it looks like we will have to disagree.
The way I see it, with technology becoming ever more advanced and processing power cheaper by the quarter, we are bound to end up with top-end machines like the macbook pro (and indeed the macbook) that are actually unnecessarily fast for the vast majority of computer users. $700 can these days buy you enough computational horsepower to more than satisfactorily run OS X with plenty of budget left over to have superior engineering/swankay extras and maintain profit margins.
Does apple want to grow its marketshare? Yes.
Does apple want to cater for the ultra-low-budget, crap computer market? No.
Is there a middle ground? You betcha.
Have we even considered that [although they will not admit] Apple is now a Windows hardware OEM? Of course, their reality distortion field makes them too proud to bundle XP or Vista in the buggers. Oh yes, OSX is too fine an OS to be flushed down the toilet like that.
So, the likes of Dell, HP, Gateway, and specifically, Sony VAIOs, are the target in all of this Intel transition, not M$. Those hardware companies are bound to lose market share rather than M$ market share. People will move to the Mac and their Windows apps with them (including their OS, of course). It will take many a years for people to adapt to OSX as their main OS, perhaps up to the successor to the Vista fiasco.
It would be good to position the Intel Macs as great XP/Vista machines vice OSX machines to build the user base to the critical mass (hint: market share) needed to have same pricing power as the aforementioned PC companies. You only have this power when you have volume. One example - iPod has 80% worldwide and you know what they did to the 1” HD supply, right? Choked everyones supplies thus set their BOM (build of materials) prices soaring but their own.
So what is the critical mass? The highest Apple ever achieved in market share was around 15% in the early 1980s. In those days worldwide PC unit shipments were around 10 mils or less. That makes around 1 to 1.5 million Apple IIs/Macs a year. The rest were serious DOS or CP/M machines with their 16-color beauties.
Now, worldwide shipment tops over 100 million annually and, we know, some 90% of those have a M$ OS embedded one way or another. If the Big-A ever want to play the 15% mass again, they would have to gear up their production/marketing/price structures/hire a bunch to support 15 to 20 million units per anum.
That is a lot to ask Apple today. In a word, their corporate structure will need to change. One man can’t handle everything from being a visionary to marketing to design to the nitty gritty little detail of the mechanicals to a store architect. It is great to be the king of a small island but if Apple want to conquer worlds they need an emperor with mighty kings.
The only way for Apple to achieve such critical mass is not the mid-range or high-end hardware (as they have that today) but in the sub-$1000 market. Two sublevels in this range. Less than $500 for the iPod family. $499 to $999 will be inhabited by the Mac minis, eMacs (the name will stay), hybrid “iPod” portable notebook, and a low-end OSX notebook at the top end.
To rebut some that think throwing cheap G3 or G4s to this market will be effective. What is the reason Apple dump PPC? Not enough volume capacity. So why try to conquer this space with CPUs that can’t scale to volumes required for pricing below a grand? Even if the likes of Motorola/Freescale/IBM were able to amass such volume it wouldn’t run Tiger or Leopard fast enough to convince many would-be switchers. And how ‘bout running XP or Vista? So we would be back to the Mac era where 2 percentile share is the norm.
The future of the Mac is very promising thanks to one man’s visions and luck? Yes, luck. Steve’s got something we all want when the other guy is just giving us crap. Now Steve needs to loosen up and fatten’ up those would-be kings.
Does apple want to grow its marketshare? Yes.
The true answer to this question does indeed seem to depend on the day it’s asked. On days marketshare is down, “they don’t care about marketshare.” Today it’s “of course they care about marketshare.”
Does apple want to cater for the ultra-low-budget, crap computer market? No.
They don’t until they do. Meaning that there are all sorts of reasons for why Apple isn’t catering to the low-budget computer market. And the day after they come out with a computer that does just that (the Mac Mini, for example), there will be all sorts of reasons why this move was absolute genius.
The bottom line is that no one knows what Apple will do until they do it. And even then, we don’t know WHY. For all we know, Jobs woke up on the left side of the bed or a butterfly flapped its wings in China. It makes about as much sense as anything else, including any explanation Jobs gives or anything said here so far.
Well I think we can safely say that if there was a wand steve jobs could wave to, say, double apple market share over night, there’s no question, he would have to wave it. Whether we macpots would like that to happen this day of the week is different matter.
I’d buy it.. I’m currently running the latest version of OSX on a lampshade iMac with only about 380mgs of ram.. and a G$ processor… my machine is practically BEGGING for an upgrade, but it works for me, and I use apps like iMove, Adobe CS, Flash MX, etc… only 40gb HD, too. I would love to own my very own MacBook Lame!
I have bought my 3 years old iMac 3.06 Core 2 Duo cheap at http://www.applesale.net -> huge collection of second hand Macs. I really recommend. Yes, it is three years old, but everything is running smooth. I had to upgrade to 12 GB RAM and hope few years still holds.