Is this what Jobs is after?
13 01 2005Apple v. Google: A Matter of Timing is an article by Tom Steinert-Threlkeld which argues the Mac mini is really another step towards conversion for Apple. If that’s the case, and it’s not just about adopting for PC users as Cringley argues in his predictions for 2005, then I think Apple stock could continue to rise.
It’s interesting to note the confluence of product design and business fundamentals. In introducing its two new products, the Mac mini and the iPod shuffle, some get it and some don’t.
Seth Jayson claims in Apple’s Magic Act that their stock numbers don’t add up and the iPod shuffle is a dud waiting to happen. I thought so, too, at first, but what it really is is a cleverly designed solution to a multitude of problems. Apple knows the low end mp3 market is ripe for their picking, they have to introduce a device which can compete in that space but not compete with the iPod, and they must do it cheaply. So, they reduce the interface and create a new way of listening to music. It lets them lower the price point even further since you don’t need a screen, and it makes the unit even smaller.
More over, I think the usage will be fundamentally different. The iPod is about storing your whole music collection, playlists, etc. As the variety of accessory products are put out (car adapters, special speaker bases, etc.), it’s obvious that device usage is occurring in a huge variety of settings, making it, as one reviewer in the Sun-Times called it (can’t remember where, so sorry ‘bout the paraphrase) one of the first cultural icons of the 21st century. Now that’s strong adoption. The shuffle’s usage seems like it will be more occasion-based, personal, and temporary to me. You’ll dump a playlist on there for the day or for a task—working out, a road trip, or taking a walk—and go. If you don’t like what’s playing, just hit skip. I think these types of design decisions show Apple has value above the earnings report—in the knowledge of how to produce products such as these.
Well, yes, but what about the Mac mini?
Remember, most people don’t read specs! The Mac mini might be 2002ish in its innards, but it’s priced around the same as the x86 line, and just watching the first bubbles rising in the geeksphere it seems a lot of people are buying it to have a Mac aroumd, buying it for newbies or even switching over entirely.
Myself, I’ve been using this K6 for five years now. I frankly can’t see myself caring about the processor difference between a poderoso-y-sensual AMD64 and a 2002ish G4. And I even do some numerical work in Matlab and the like.
This smells like big waves in the desktop market. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple crossed into the double digits market share by the time Cringley is doing his 2006 predictions.
Diego, excellent point. I’ve been using a 1ghz pIII with 256 megs of ram as my main workhorse for a while now, and I don’t need a faster PC, not even for java development or photoshopping freshly scanned full page pictures. Ofcourse, matters would be different if I had to do those things all day long. But since I don’t, a few seconds wait here and there just does not matter.
The way I see it, if you’re an average home user, only gaming and fancy video editing still requires you to upgrade beyond the kind of specs the mini provides. And since I’m not a gamer and I don’t own a DV camera, that’s why I’ll be ordering a mini myself. I want to sidegrade to something that works “smoother”, not faster.
“Sidegrade”. Now, there’s a name for the concept!