Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was said to have had a strange effect on just about everyone and everything he came into contact with during his reign at Apple. This effect became known as the “reality distortion field.” The Macintosh, in part, owes its existence to Job’s vision and persistence. To both Apple’s and Jobs’ credit, this effect produced a computer that catalyzed a paradigm shift in computing.
Over the years, however, this “reality distortion field” has managed to expand to encompass the Macintosh community as well; particularly at Apple itself, and to some extent within the Macintosh press and user base. Indeed, it would seem that this very “distortion field” has hindered the market penetration that the Macintosh may have otherwise enjoyed.
This “distortion field” seems to have clouded Apple’s vision. Perhaps the most tragic example of the RDF is how (until recently) Apple itself suggested to retailers that they keep prices as close as possible to Apple’s list price to maximize dealer profitability. More importantly, the traditionally high prices were used to sustain Apple’s self assumed “prestige.”
Mac users have long had to pay what would seem exorbitant prices for this technology. Only recently have Macintosh margins dropped to where they should have been in the first place. However, Macintosh computers are still not priced competitively. A Power Macintosh 8100/100 16/1000/CD retails for roughly $4,599 US. ($6,500 Cdn.). A Pentium-based system in a similar configuration retails for roughly $2, 799 US. ($3,900 Cdn.) including a monitor and keyboard! That’s a difference of over 65%!
Typical responses from Macintosh users affected by the RDF are that “yeah, but the Mac is much easier to use”, “the Mac has a superior processor and is faster”, “you don’t have to worry about DMA’s, IRQ’s and jumpers to configure a system”... and so on. Because of these sorts of concerns, Mac users seem to be preoccupied in a response psychologists term cognitive dissonance: essentially contriving reasons to offset the insecurities of their purchases.
While these reasons for Macs being superior over PCs may seem to be valid, in fact they could not be further than the truth. Studies have shown no conclusive evidence that Macs are easier to deploy, maintain or use. This is proven by the fact that after a decade on the market, Macintosh computers still comprise less than 15% of total market share of desktop computers.
IS managers and the majority of PC users still think Macs are proprietary, slow and expensive. As a result, 80% of all businesses and users run PCs with Microsoft OSes. With Windows 95 a few months away and Windows NT becoming available for x86, MIPS, Alpha and soon PowerPC platforms; Apple is playing a weak hand against the strong hands of both Microsoft and Intel.
On the desktop side, Windows 95 will eliminate any advantage the Macintosh may have held. While it might not be as good as System 7.x, its effect will be to give PCs a very competitive advantage. In some ways, Windows 95 will be superior to System 7.5 in that it will be the first mainstream OS to offer preemptive multitasking. Copeland (System/MacOS v. 8.0) which will also offer preemptive multitasking, among other improvements, but will not be available until at least mid-1996.
If Apple is going to survive as anything more than a minor player by the end of the century, this sort of mentality is going to have to be discarded by Macintosh proponents.
Now, why would I suggest such a contention? You might think that what I suggest is just short of ridiculous, and you might be right. However, before you pass judgment, permit me to present and examine some facts.
Macintosh proponents would have us believe, and quite correctly, that this past year, in particular this last quarter, has been a watershed year for Apple. Power Macintosh sales have already surpassed the million mark. In fact, recent estimates suggest that Power Macintosh sales will exceed even the most liberal estimates its first anniversary. Apple sold $2.83 billion in the last quarter of 1994, that’s a 15% improvement over the same period in 1993. In fact, Apple shareholders must be smiling as Apple’s profits have skyrocketed from 40 million in 1993 to 188 million in 1994, a 370% improvement.
So why am I expressing an opinion that seems contradictory? Well, the answer, in part lies in the numbers. The numbers the Macintosh community expound are correct only if you ignore those from the rest of the computer industry.
Most of Apple’s record year can be explained by the fact that 1994 was a good year for almost everyone in the industry! PC sales were up 20% over the previous year. Almost all of Apple’s record PowerMac sales came from the existing Macintosh user-base.
In fact, 1994 was the first year in a decade that Apple has not been the number one vendor in system shipments. Compaq reigned in over Apple in 1994 by more than 847,000 PCs! An examination of systems shipped worldwide reveals that Apple actually lost market share. Apple’s market share decreased by 1.1% from 9.6 to 8.5 in 1994. Another revelation that is especially surprising is that a great number of Compaq’s sales were in the home market, a traditional Macintosh stronghold.
Many industry analysts suggest that Apple’s market share will continue to diminish because of the widespread belief held in the PC community that Macintoshes in general are still too expensive and proprietary. While this belief might not be as warranted today as it was just few years ago, for the most part it still prevails.
Apple’s traditional response to IS managers has been “just wait and see”. To this day, there are 400 or so native applications available. A close look at these applications reveals that they are graphics programs and games. Apple failed to muster enough developers to deliver native-mode applications. Even to this day many software developers do not have a public timetable for delivery of native mode applications. More ominous is the fact that many traditional Mac-only developers are now shipping Windows’ versions of their software first!
If you were an IS manager at a corporation, how would you feel about this? Well, the answer is clear, business does not stop planning system deployment and purchase just because one of many vendors suggest that they have fancy new soon to be available vaporware. Businesses don’t care. They plan and deploy. To this day and for the foreseeable future, this means x86 and Windows. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that choices for the Power Mac are not as extensive as they are for Windows.
Prior to the introduction of the Power Macintosh, hype suggested that it would be faster and cheaper than comparable Pentium PCs. With the sole exception of some graphics programs, Apple did not deliver on either price or performance. Businesses responded by buying 486 or Pentium-based systems instead. Most home users, who wanted performance for under $2,000, opted for x86-based systems, not Macs or Power Macs.
Even Macintosh users seem to be opting for systems in the under $2,000 range. The real success story at Apple in the past year has not been the Power Macintosh. The success story has been the Quadra/Performa/LC 630—Apple’s most popular computer in 1994. Had Apple offered a Power Mac in the 630/486 price range, I think that a great many buyers would have done a great deal more than just think about PowerMacintosh purchase.
With Mac clones due out soon, Apple will be effectively be competing against itself. I suspect that a great part of clone sales will be from within the Macintosh community. This will likely serve only to diminish Apple’s market share even further.
If Apple is going to even keep their current market share, they are going to have to decide what they are going to be! Apple cannot be everything to everyone. With competition closing in on all sides, Apple must formulate a strategy that will take it into the next century. Hopefully, Apple and the Macintosh community will emerge from the reality distortion field. Failure to do so will see the demise of a truly innovative company.
 
Roy Chartier joins the MacSense staff this month, offering a PC user perspective in his new regular column, 'Through the Looking Glass'. Mr. Chartier is a marketing consultant and graphic designer with an interest in the high-technology and communications industries. He can be reached at: ae041@freenet.carleton.ca
