“Big computer makers such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard make and sell ‘consumer’ models with lots of whiz-bang features. But they really focus on corporate customers and jump to the tune of IT managers. Dell recently folded its separate consumer division in the U.S., conceding that only a relatively small slice of its U.S. business is from consumers,” Walter S. Mossberg writes for The Wall Street Journal. “In fact, the industry operates on a false model of the U.S. computer-using population. It imagines the world is divided between ‘consumers,’ who lie around at home playing games and listening to music, with the occasional homework assignment or tax form thrown in; and “enterprises,” large corporations where computing is controlled by IT departments and only mission-critical tasks are performed.”
“If these models acknowledge small businesses at all, they get lumped into a category called SMB, for small and medium businesses, where the minimum size is something like 500 employees and an IT staff rules,” Mossberg writes. “In fact, the most accurate way to divide the computer-using world is into two segments: the one controlled by an IT department and the one controlled by the people who actually use the computers, be they consumers or small-business folks. A vast amount of business crucial to the U.S. economy is conducted every day in the non-IT part of the computing world.”
“Only one major computer company focuses mainly on the non-IT part of the computing world: Apple Computer. This is partly because Apple failed to make inroads in corporations, but it’s also because it prefers to aim its products at actual users, not intermediary buyers,” Mossberg writes. “Some of you wonder why reviewers like me, writing for the non-IT part of the world, have consistently praised Apple products in recent years. One reason is that they are good. Another is that they have been unaffected (so far) by the plague of viruses and spyware that makes Windows users miserable. But an underlying reason is the focus on individual users… In my view, the world would be better off if the biggest computer companies started catering more to the non-IT part of the market, where most computers live.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Barry” and “Whit” for the link.]
Advertisements: The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
Why is it that Mossberg is one of the ONLY tech writers who actually “GETS” Apple and the Macintosh?
Keep at it Walt, the world may finally be listening!
Yup. We’re all gonna use Macs TOO. That’s right, we’ll use BOTH kinds of computers; Windows at work, Mac at home. And the whole tech world is going to jump on and support this circumstance because if portends a wonderful new and lucrative monetizing cycle for the tech industry.
Yes Indeed!
Take note Thurrott and you other wannabees.
Mossberg is a professional with insight and credibility.
Mossberg’s a dude.
Mr. Reeee:
I would put David Pogue in that group.
Local Leader Steve J understands that the inculcation of the masses will best proceed upward from the end-user, not downward from the IT fool.
This is the primary reason for His Highness’s concentration on the masses of ill-informed balls of flesh known as PC users. By the end of your Terran year 2006, the coming changes will begin to be apparent.
Local Leader Steve J was known for his ruthless nature during the clone wars back on Relnack. He will not be denied.
Microsoft users will switch or perish.
Apple has always said they don’t compete against M$, but just make insanely great products.
Mossberg writes: “…In my view, the world would be better off if the biggest computer companies started catering more to the non-IT part of the market, where most computers live.”
Problem with this marketing approach for a lazy, slipshod organization is you need to make hundreds more “sales” one user at a time versus one “sale” to a Microsoft, lapdog I.T. “manager”.
Selling to “I.T.” you have:
1. Economies of scale in your favor
2. Low consumer expectation for quality (Windows crowd)
So profits should be higher, with less work. Problem? All the lazy ass also-rans are thinking the same thing. Supply > Demand = low prices. Windblows box pusher’s plight.
Rock on Mossberg!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
Rhetorical question:
Someone competes against Microsoft? I thought they didn’t allow that.
<ducks flying chair>
He actually implied that the world would be better off if Dell, HP et al were more like Apple and catered to the end user, not the IT weenies.
The world would really be better off if individuals, at least looked at a Mac, when contemplating their next computer purchase.
Mossberg is on CNBC right now talking about his article.
12:45 EST
may re-run later.
^
Mossberg gave props to Apple (like in his article) while slamming the the I.T. drones; CNBC flashed the AAPL chart for a sec.
the upcoming “correction” of Terra, overseen by Local Leader Steve J, will result in the cratering of the evil tools in redmond by a tightly-focused RDF transmitted by the Relnac mothership now orbiting.
unfortunately, about the non-IT world having more computers than the IT world–look at Dell’s market share compared to Apple’s. No, it can’t all be because employees are sheep and feel the need to buy the same type of computer at home that they have at work, though that has to be part of it. Anyone have some real figures on this?
Jake
Good you Kelnar! Knowledge entering through the coming orbital period, yes. The Steve knows more of Terran folly, transforming denial. Ruthless indeed. Good you Kelnar.
‘He must be wrong…’, It is not the market share snapshot, but the change in market share over time the matters to Mossberg’s point. Apple’s emphasis on the consumer has only recently become a strong differential against the competition. In that time the market share changes have been significantly in Apple’s favor. Sorry I don’t have the numbers ready, but MDN has been reporting on them if you want to go check.
He must be wrong… said: “No, it can’t all be because employees are sheep and feel the need to buy the same type of computer at home that they have at work,”
Why must he be wrong?
• How many more times must you hear about company HR sites that aren’t accessible by anything other than M$ IE?
• How many companies list required skills the knowledge of M$ Word, Excel, Access, Project, etc.?
Most people (dispite their best front) are technologically illiterate. So they, with the financial and psychological support of their companies buy peecees. They don’t want to use their brains, spit into the wind® or be “trailblazers”
My last employer’s VPN (Cisco) didn’t support anything but Winblows.
Hope this is not all news to you.
Problem with this marketing approach for a lazy, slipshod organization is you need to make hundreds more “sales” one user at a time versus one “sale” to a Microsoft, lapdog I.T. “manager”.
Selling to “I.T.” you have:
1. Economies of scale in your favor
2. Low consumer expectation for quality (Windows crowd)
IT people ruled the back room and what was bought because no one else int he firm knew anything about computer technology.
But that is changing, as everybody is becoming more computer literate. Corporate controllers are going to be reading computer supply proposals and paying much more attention to after purchase support costs.
The power of IT types to dictate what is purchased is waning, in favor of the guy that has to write the checks. How much can be saved if a 10 person IT department can be reduced to 2 people? Now caluclate that over the 4 year life of the average Mac. $1.6 Million in labor savings makes a strong argument for a non-Windows platform.
MacMania, The economies of scale you refer to are an illusory factor. Overcoming this ‘obstacle’ is really only a difference in budgeting away from a sales force mentality in favor of a segmentation and product quality mentality. There are rewards to gained from having a consistent retail message and positive word-of-mouth, respectively.
In other words, if you have a sales team then it makes sense to have each salesman approach enterprises that are as large as possible, like a seller of bar soap approaching a hotel chain. But if consumers say ‘Wow’ after using your soap and nobody else’s, then you have many more possibilities for that marketing dollar earmarked for a sales team.
Apple’s retail stores and Apple’s focus on end-user experience are the better strategies than targeting I.T. guys, because they’re marketing just such a ‘Wow’ product. There is great potential for a grassroots surge.
I seem to be one of the few who agrees with Apple’s keeping their Mac advertising low key. If Stevie J. is in fact going for the grassroots approach, then there is too much chance of an early backlash against a heavyhanded ad campaign. If you want to sell a ‘hip’ product then you have to be careful about this. Witness the increase in anti-iPod sentiment.
Dell focuses on individual users with a high powered laser from Earth’s orbit. Michael carries around his own “nuclear football” just in case.
It’s a unfortunate fact of life that corporations, schools, government agencies and other like large purchases look to cost and a broad choice of vendors to keep prices down.
Apple is a single vendor, with a verticle buisness model, only their OS runs on their hardware, you pay their price or go without.
Sure we love Apple, as consumers and artists we love their quality and reliability.
But to big buisness Mac’s don’t make a lot of sense, they seem to like paying more in IT costs to keep the braod choices in vendors.
And since most people get introduced to computers via work, thats what they are going to be using, they get one for the home.
So basically Apple is shut out of corporate and large installations not because of price usually because they retain their value, but choice of vendors.
If Microsoft didn’t suck so bad, Apple probably wouldn’t have had a chance in the world.
Vista might change everything for the worst for us, no longer a virus prone obsolete OS, it might be even decent enough to use, distracting for the need to switch to Mac OS X.
All M$ has to do is fix their OS, put a decent shine on it and it’s curtains for us.
Davidlow said: “MacMania, The economies of scale you refer to are an illusory factor. “
I respectfully disagree that selling to a single point thereby achieving economies of scale is “illusionary”. Furthermore, I don’t think a “grassroots” strategy and the “leveraged” single point sales strategy are mutually exclusive!
What if, just if, Apple were to continue the low key ad campaign (relying on “Macheads” like us to spread the message by word-of-mouth®) AND start marketing directly to the CFO’s and CEO’s with the Apple TCO message.
A seriously powerful “push-pull” strategy!
MacDude said: “Vista might change everything for the worst for us, no longer a virus prone obsolete OS”
I may be going out on a limb, but I predict Windows Stillborn, a.k.a Windows Pasta will be (like its predecessors) an open sewer.
Give it 10 days before the malware flood gates overtake it.
unfortunately, about the non-IT world having more computers than the IT world–look at Dell’s market share compared to Apple’s.
—
totally.. those dells break down and new ones are bought.. so the sales per year looks really good… IT managers love staying in demand
MacDude – Vista isn’t even released and there are already virusses for it (check out the BG Virus) or this article http://www.crime-research.org/news/05.08.2005/1407/
The issue with Windows is not that the code is crap, it’s pretty well written and gets regular fixes.
Many viruses take advantage of the overall design of Windows to circumvent security precautions.
ActiveX controls on the web are one avenue that hackers take.
Emails with attached scripts that are automatically run is another.
MSN Chat is another.
The holes are not just in the code but in the way the various pieces fit together and talk to one another. And the API’s Windows gives
God forbid you have a vulnerable firewall as a hacker can inject code into thoe that starts up processes and threads in other programs that you can NEVER see using an API that permits one program to start another thread in another program.
MS has designed the OS in a way that it is vulnerable and without a HUGE redesign (which Vista is not) will not get rid of the problems.
MS – their as in “MS had to redesign their OS to fix this”