PDA

View Full Version : Mac Market Share Update


MacRumors
Jun 1, 2006, 03:41 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A new Gartner report (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1781) (reported by AppleInsider) notes that despite increased sales, the Mac has yet to gain a market share increase.

The report, however, partially conflicts with a previous ZDNet report (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6062973.html) based on preliminary Gartner data.

U.S. Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 3.8%
4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%

Worldwide Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 2.2%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%

The PC industry as a whole is growing, with overall PC shipments in the U.S. booming 7.4% quarter over quarter and 13.1% year over year, so Mac sales would have to increase at a greater rate than the market as a whole in order for the Mac's market share to increase. Similarly, if Apple does not keep pace with the market, its share will decrease.

In a time when many users interested in buying a Mac have been waiting for Intel-based versions, Apple roughly maintaining its current market share is perhaps a feat unto itself. AppleInsider provides the following analysis:

To Apple's credit, [the .1%] uptick in U.S. PC market share was achieved during a quarter when most prospective Mac buyers were prolonging their computer purchases in favor new Intel-based models that had yet to come to market. This suggests the company could begin to realize some share gains in the latter half of the year, once all of its PC offerings are readily available with Intel processors.

Also from the report, Dell is beginning to lose some ground to rival HP. HP's worldwide market share increased 1.1%, while Dell lost 0.4% according to the report. Similar trends were also present for the companies' respective U.S. market shares.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 1, 2006, 03:45 PM
Good news. Come on Apple Marketing! We need more Mac OS X + Mac adverts!

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 03:46 PM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.

jaydub
Jun 1, 2006, 03:47 PM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.
Indeed. Along with a greater market share comes rushed products to please all of those buyers, and I'd rather Apple take their time providing software and hardware I'll be happy using.

jaxstate
Jun 1, 2006, 03:48 PM
:cool: I never believed in "The Halo" effect.

MacsRgr8
Jun 1, 2006, 03:48 PM
I would have guessed a much higher increase...?

Not so good IMHO

WildCowboy
Jun 1, 2006, 03:49 PM
Those fluctuations are essentially meaningless when it comes to judging long-term market share for Apple. The short-term impact of machine release cycles for the various manufacturers swamps the small variations that could be present.

fowler.
Jun 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.

and that's how i've always felt.

who needs market share?

longofest
Jun 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
:cool: I never believed in "The Halo" effect.

"The Halo" effect may be what is allowing Apple to remain competitive at this point (as in, it may be what has allowed Apple to turn in okay numbers during a quarter when most users were waiting for more intel products.

weitzner
Jun 1, 2006, 03:54 PM
i bought a mac because i liked iPod... so yeah the halo is real

iHotu
Jun 1, 2006, 04:01 PM
osservazione non miniera

snkTab
Jun 1, 2006, 04:01 PM
I bought an iPod cause I had a mac

iHotu
Jun 1, 2006, 04:03 PM
osservazione non miniera

nagromme
Jun 1, 2006, 04:06 PM
A level, non-increasing Mac marketshare means Apple is matching the same growth as the rest of the industry.

In other words, it means MORE Macs are selling, not the same or less--and that's enough to keep developers developing :)

And matching the industry growth during the Intel transition when everyone's been waiting for a new lineup? Not bad at all.

calculus
Jun 1, 2006, 04:07 PM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.
I absolutely agree with this.

nagromme
Jun 1, 2006, 04:10 PM
:cool: I never believed in "The Halo" effect.

The "halo" effect (or less non-sensically, the "gateway" effect) is real, as evidenced by many individual reports and also some larger surveys. You may doubt the size or importance of it, but it IS real :)

And it's NOT an overnight effect. The iPod effect makes people consider a Mac more seriously when the time comes to replace their current computer--or maybe the one after that. It does NOT make them jump up in large numbers and buy a new computer despite already owning one.

The effect is a gradual snowball, but, I believe, a large one.

mcarnes
Jun 1, 2006, 04:11 PM
Gisele will save us.

081440
Jun 1, 2006, 04:13 PM
The numbers look pretty good, esspecially keeping up with industry growth during the Intel transition, I thought Apple would really suffer after announcing they would go with Intel precessors, but they seemd to have done pretty well so far. And all the consumer machines, the majority of sales, are out so hopefully we'll see greater market share numbers in the future.

Personally I hope Apple gets to around 10% and then stops. Cause too large a share might cause problems with quality. (Everyone else can use LINUX, heck with Windows :p )

hayesk
Jun 1, 2006, 04:15 PM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less.

Sorry for the nitpick, but the phrase is "I couldn't care less". If you could care less, that implies you do care about Apple's market share.

That said, I agree with your sentiment 100%. I couldn't care less if Apple sold 1 million computers in a quarter where 100 million computers were sold. 1 million is a lot of computers - enough to keep Apple in business.

dongmin
Jun 1, 2006, 04:19 PM
Gisele will save us.fo shizzle. and don't forget leopard. i'm expecting big things.

mark88
Jun 1, 2006, 04:21 PM
Your hear about PC virus's every single day in the media, PCs run an OS that's over 5 years old, Macs can now run that OS aswell, Vista just keeps getting delayed and delayed....

If Apple can't capitalise on these things right now then it ain't ever gonna happen..

stomachdoc
Jun 1, 2006, 04:23 PM
Well, I'm not a marketing guy, but it seems to me that, once Leopard comes out, the dual-booting capabilities should be publicized, which should make any customer on the fence about switching go for a Mac. In reality, I'm not sure why any home user wouldn't buy a Mac, unless they are heavy duty gamers.

If they play their cards right, there's no reason why they shouldn't be #1 in the home consumer market after Leopard.

netdog
Jun 1, 2006, 04:25 PM
I would actually be more interested to know about the comparitive size of the base of active Apple and Windows machines. Surely the Apple Update and Windows Update could yield some estimates. I know that there are still some OS 9 and older machines that wouldn't be registered, but there are also a number of MS-based systems using the similarly unsupported Win95 and even DOS.

Of course, Apples running Boot Camp or Parallels could very well appear twice.

Super Dave
Jun 1, 2006, 04:26 PM
Your hear about PC virus's every single day in the media, PCs run an OS that's over 5 years old, Macs can now run that OS aswell, Vista just keeps getting delayed and delayed....

If Apple can't capitalise on these things right now then it ain't ever gonna happen..

That's not true. Microsoft may be having a hard time, but Apple isn't the easy sell it usually is. With FUD about intel versions of software and some of their product line still not switched over. If Apple doesn't gain market share next year after Office and Adobe CS are available then they never will.

David:cool:

rockthecasbah
Jun 1, 2006, 04:31 PM
i agree with iGary and frankly would like to keep it that way. I love seeing Apple do well sales and stuff, but as far as I'm concerned I don't need Apple to have very wide usage. Part of Apple computers are that they are special. They don't have virus/spyware problems which would only be more threatening if usage increased. They are on their own plane of coolness which is kept partly because they are not widely used in the computing community.

As far as the iPod Halo effect, I disagree that it doesn't exist. iPods have opened up many of my friends and others whom I know to Macs. They have more importantly made Macs more appealing and popular, even if sales don't translate that. While I do believe it was greatly exaggerated that the iPod would accumulate huge sales of Macs, many people don't regularly buy computers. Over the next few years I believe that sales will be boosted still from iPod sales, but not at the extremes as presented when the speculation surrounding this theory popped up a few months ago.

Krizoitz
Jun 1, 2006, 04:34 PM
What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

steve_hill4
Jun 1, 2006, 04:42 PM
The question is would Apple go for 99% market share and tons of virus, adware and security problems or stick to 5% and be relatively trouble free?

I think 10% is a good level to aim for and Apple would be happy if in a few years this were the case. I have noted here may times recently that more people are at least considering Macs. Certainly there is a much higher increase in Mac interest than in general PC market interest increases.

What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.
Partly sales, but also if you check the visitor stats of any website, they often tell you what operating systems people visiting them are using. Not entirely based on one thing, but the figures all add up.

nagromme
Jun 1, 2006, 04:47 PM
What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.
Current "market share" means sales by definition--and it's a limited measure as you say, but still useful in at least two ways:

1. It influences Apple's profits.

2. It's an indicator of trends and changes, and can help judge things like how well Apple is weathering challenges (like the "Intel slump" that was predicted to be so terrible).

Now, for OTHER purposes, "installed base" is more important, and is higher for the reasons you state.

For software developers, for instance, installed base is who they are selling to. But marketshare is still a useful tool to judge the RECENT installed base (newer, faster, more capable Macs) and to judge FUTURE installed base.

For instance, the installed base now is big enough for developers to make nice profits and support the Mac. But is that base shrinking? No. Sales/market share help show that the base is INCREASING. Maybe not any faster than the Windows base is (for right now) increasing. But increasing equally at the least. Thus, level market share is a good sign for installed base--especially when we can expect that the MacBook and Mac Pro have pent-up demand behind them that will cause a nice increase, as will Photoshop CS 3, Leopard, and probably the continued disappointments of Vista too.

netdog
Jun 1, 2006, 04:48 PM
What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

This study isn't about installed base size. It is about sales in a particular quarter.

Marx55
Jun 1, 2006, 04:49 PM
There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

tristan
Jun 1, 2006, 04:57 PM
You can see it in Apple's financials - sales and profits declined in Q1. I think sales will improve when the entire lineup goes to Intel.

beatle888
Jun 1, 2006, 05:01 PM
"The Halo" effect may be what is allowing Apple to remain competitive at this point (as in, it may be what has allowed Apple to turn in okay numbers during a quarter when most users were waiting for more intel products.


isnt that exactly what the original post says?

mandis
Jun 1, 2006, 05:12 PM
There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

Linux runs natively on any PC and it is of cource Open Source and it is for free...
yet nobody really want's to use it...
An OS is only a means to an end and never the end in itself. It doesn't matter if OSX is better or if it is the most advanced piece of software in the whole galaxy. For as long as there aren't enough apps to suit peoples needs it will not be accepted. It's not windows that i'm interested in, it's Photoshop, Illustrator, 3d Studio, Cinema 4D, Autocad and SketchUp that i use. Others use other apps. Some apps work on OSX and most don't. The most important reason (IMHO) apple's market share has remained stagnant, is due to the lack of high profile software.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 1, 2006, 05:15 PM
There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!You may be correct,lets face it Apples OS is better then windows but 2% of world market makes sure you are on the sidelines. If not for Pods Apple would be in a royal mess.

Steven1621
Jun 1, 2006, 05:27 PM
Seeing the reality of the mac market share is always sobering as my general market share observations are a bit skewed. The students at my college widely use macs. A 35% market share would be a reasonalbe guess. Granted, my college isn't the best place for comparision to the average computing public.

yg17
Jun 1, 2006, 05:35 PM
I'm fine with the market share staying put.

If less people use Macs, fewer viruses/spyware for us. Apple's not struggling to stay alive or anything, so I think we're at a perfect spot right now as far as market share goes.

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 05:35 PM
You can see it in Apple's financials - sales and profits declined in Q1. I think sales will improve when the entire lineup goes to Intel.

I don't see how switching to the Intel is going to increase sale and result in increase market share.

I've have been using Window XP on a Dell Optiplex at work for sometime now. I used Apple computers in my previous job. I like the snappy feel of being online with IE. I'm sorry guys, but that is the truth. XP/Dell is pretty good so long as you keep up with latest updates and run virus software. No it is not a pretty setup. Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig). Okay, so it was a wireless connection (but with good signal). I have ethernet connection in my office and it very snappy. To tell you the true, I was turn off by this sluggish performance of Safari, and I think the majority of people will feel the same way I did. I guess I just want things to be snappy (second most annoying thing about OSX is the bouncing app icon when you launch it, just open the darn thing..I dont' really care for the graphic effect).

Coming from someone who uses PC at work, I don't see any compelling reason to buy an Apple Computer other than the look. Yes, there are reasons e.g. iLife but not enough to spring $1199 for a MacBook. On a brighter note, I don't see any reason to buy a Dell either or any PC anytime soon.

Cinch,

Abstract
Jun 1, 2006, 05:36 PM
I think this is BS. I see more Macs around today than ever before, so while the computer market may be growing overall, the percentage of Macs out there are definitely on the rise.

Either way, I really don't care. I'd rather have a smaller market, much like iGary said. There's no benefit for me if Apple's marketshare gets bigger, only the potential for people to start writing viruses for Mac OSX.

plinden
Jun 1, 2006, 05:36 PM
Remember that business is practically 100% Windows. We are all given Windows PCs at work, but many of us wipe Windows and install Linux instead, or at least dual boot.

So is there any way of finding out retail sales percentages, i.e. sales to individuals? Out of six of us at lunch the other day, four of us had Intel Macs, one was considering buying one and the sixth was rebuilding his PC and didn't have the spare cash to buy one, although he said he found them tempting.

That's not common admittedly, since we are software engineers who program in Linux and are technically adept.

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 05:40 PM
Remember that business is practically 100% Windows. We are all given Windows PCs at work, but many of us wipe Windows and install Linux instead, or at least dual boot.


come on, let see the stat on this....I think what you meant to say is that some IT guys like to intall linux, which is less than 1% of 1% of all business PCs:D

Cinch

Silencio
Jun 1, 2006, 05:40 PM
If Apple can't gain a 10% share by 2008, they never will.

I liked them better pre iPod and at 2%

People always overlook how large the computer market really is, and it's constantly growing. Expressing it as a percentage really diminishes the impact of its scope. If Apple were to jump from ~3% to 10%, they would be clocking an additional $7 billion to perhaps $10 billion in annual revenue. For Apple to outgrow the larger market for a long enough period to achieve 10% marketshare would be a colossal accomplishment.

I find it encouraging that they're maintaining their rate of growth despite the uncertainty of the Intel transition. A large chunk of Apple's potential market is waiting for Adobe CS3.

I don't like Apple at 2% at all. I want them selling enough Macs to support a healthy ecosystem of compatible hardware and software. 10% would be wonderful, but, like I said, I would be a bit surprised to see them get there in 2 years.

Personally, I think Intel will provide enough CPU options to finally allow Apple to diversity their product lines in a meaningful manner, giving customers many more choices while allowing Apple to maintain a reasonable profit margin. I hope Apple steps to these opportunities aggressively.

nsjoker
Jun 1, 2006, 05:45 PM
Indeed. Along with a greater market share comes rushed products to please all of those buyers, and I'd rather Apple take their time providing software and hardware I'll be happy using.

yikes, apple's quality control has gone to crap lately so i don't even know if they can provide quality hardware. pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem. it's almost like they use those early adopters as guinea pigs to fund their quality control.

plinden
Jun 1, 2006, 05:48 PM
come on, let see the stat on this....I think what you meant to say is that some IT guys like to intall linux, which is less than 1% of 1% of all business PCs:D

Cinch
I wasn't using the example of business to say that wiping Windows reduces the percentages in any significant way. Rather that IT departments are just going to go Windows 100% of the time, because that's all they know. That inflates the number of Windows machines, since they are mostly used in work not as personal machines.

Of more interest is the market share of individuals. What percentage of people buying their own computers buy Macs?

As for installing Linux, I was only giving the example of my work in particular. Starting off, we are given Windows PCs, but we need to program for Linux, so we install VMWare, or dual boot. Finding VMWare too slow for development, or dual boot too onerous, many of us (at least half the developers) install Linux as our main OS. Like I acknowledged in my last sentence, this is not typical.

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 05:51 PM
Personally, I think Intel will provide enough CPU options to finally allow Apple to diversity their product lines in a meaningful manner, giving customers many more choices while allowing Apple to maintain a reasonable profit margin. I hope Apple steps to these opportunities aggressively.

I find this hard to comprehend, and how is this giving people more choices? Afterall, an Apple computer with Intel chip inside still runs OSX.

I think the computer market has pretty become commoditized circa 2001. For Apple to grow with respect to sharholder value, they need to invent, innovate and develop compelling products (past success and we all know this iPod and iTunes). Possible but certainly not in scale is the Nike shoe with iPod Nano wireless connection. I'm a runner and use Asics Kayano, but will be a switcher to Nike shoe if it fits:D


Cinch

jaydub
Jun 1, 2006, 05:54 PM
yikes, apple's quality control has gone to crap lately so i don't even know if they can provide quality hardware. pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem. it's almost like they use those early adopters as guinea pigs to fund their quality control.Well I'm perfectly happy with my problem-free MacBook Pro.

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 05:56 PM
Of more interest is the market share of individuals. What percentage of people buying their own computers buy Macs?


Can't you combine this number into the overall PC sold. Perhaps in the distance future where this scenario comes true, and lay people starts to demand Apple computer at work place because they use them personally. I think every Apple computer user had this fantasy at least once except me of course:D .

Cinch

rmhop81
Jun 1, 2006, 06:03 PM
In reality, I'm not sure why any home user wouldn't buy a Mac, unless they are heavy duty gamers.

If they play their cards right, there's no reason why they shouldn't be #1 in the home consumer market after Leopard.

most home users don't want to pay $1300 for a computer. All they want to do is get on the internet to check email and do some quicken here and there. why pay $1300 when you could pay $400 or $500 from dell for something that will work just how you want it. That's the problem apple is facing. MOST home users don't know anything about computers and could care less if there is a webcam built into the display. If apple is trying to increase marketshare in the home market they will have to come up with a cheaper solution bc even now with intel a basic mac mini is still $599 and doesn't include a mouse, keyboard or even a monitor. Add all those up and you're up to $1,000. again it goes back to why would i pay $1,000 when I could go to dell or hp or compaq, heck even emachines and get a decent machine for half or even $600 cheaper. i love apple, their prices are just too high for basic users to even think about switching.

anikgol
Jun 1, 2006, 06:11 PM
this whole thing about apple gaining market share is bollocks. i never believed in the hallow effect either. apple needs to lower prices.


i dont think that apple will ever reach 6-7 percent market share.


if apple doesnt increase the market share to 4-5 within two years, then it wont ever happen. time is running out.


this is definately not good news. most likely Apple has lost market share in recent months too. wont be surprised to see apple have market share around 2%.

I dont give a **** about US but i am talking about world wide market shares. thats the important thing.


apple will NEVER increase its share with these insane prices. specially here in Europe were you can buy computers that are at least as "good" half the apple price. insane arrogant bunch of people, expecting switchers and all.

Silencio
Jun 1, 2006, 06:20 PM
I find this hard to comprehend, and how is this giving people more choices? Afterall, an Apple computer with Intel chip inside still runs OSX.

What's so hard to comprehend about this statement? Look at the range, pricing, and availability of G4 and G5 CPUs available from Freescale and IBM; compare and contrast with Intel's short-term roadmap with Yonah, Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest, then get back to me.

Are you saying that Apple won't succeed until they license Mac OS X or otherwise jettison their hardware business? At this point, that strategy is corporate suicide. I don't see it happening except for a wildly optimistic scenario where Apple has gained so much momentum in the market that licensing Mac OS X will be their "finishing move" on Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop.

Microsoft uses Windows to sell Office, which is where they make their real money. The iPod may be a big success and all, but it can't subsidize Mac OS X as a loss leader in that way.

Apple is smart not to play by M$'s or Dell's rules.

And by the by, an "Apple Computer with Intel chip inside" can natively run Mac OS X, Windows XP, many many varieties of UNIX and Linux, Solaris, et al. Running Mac OS X by definition saves Apple hardware from commoditization at this point.

I think the computer market has pretty become commoditized circa 2001. For Apple to grow with respect to sharholder value, they need to invent, innovate and develop compelling products (past success and we all know this iPod and iTunes).

Again, the range of products Intel has to offer should really help Apple here, if they so choose. Maybe Apple can make an expandable mini-tower geared towards businesses with a Conroe Solo CPU and sell it for under $1K. Maybe Apple can bring back the 12" iBook form factor with a lower-powered/clocked Yonah Solo or Duo for $700-800. Maybe

nagromme
Jun 1, 2006, 06:21 PM
if apple doesnt increase the market share to 4-5 within two years, then it wont ever happen. time is running out.
I see a lot of people here posting that same assertion. So you think there's an opportunity right now, but that there will never be other opportunities in the future?

What time is running out? The challenges Apple faces seem to be diminishing (Intel "slump" passing is the big one) rather than increasing. Meanwhile, Microsoft's challenges DO seem to be increasing.


pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem.
Not true, but the "squeaky wheel" syndrome does create that impression in online forums. (Why make noise on a forum about your LACK of problems? People only post when they have something that needs solving--or at least venting.) Version A problems need to be put into perspective: they are more common than version B problems, so waiting has benefits, BUT most ver A buyers still get a trouble-free machine. It's a choice of "very few" problems in ver A vs. "very very few" in ver B.

Realize that the first version of ANY product from ANY company has more problems than later versions. That's just obvious logic--more people catching more problems, and more time to improve them. So of course a later refinement of a given model (car, TV, whatever) is likely to be more reliable.

Apple's hardware reliability is the best in the industry. If you think they're bad, you REALLY don't want to try another brand :)

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 1, 2006, 06:26 PM
i bought a mac because i liked iPod... so yeah the halo is real
Same here!

MacCNC
Jun 1, 2006, 06:30 PM
All this talk about market share is meaningless. It's the growth of the company that counts. Imagine a small company like Apple that ocasionally is valued at more than Dell. Why sell a Mac for $400 when, as one previous poster noted, when Apple can sell them for $1300? I have been hearing the last chance gloom and doom for Apple for years and short of Steve Jobs leaving I don't see it happening.

The only advantage to a larger market share that I can see would be more variety in applications, but I think that most users are prettty happy with what's available now. After all, how many office suites, movie/photo/graphic editing apps, and web browsers does one need? I believe the percentages sold to home users is much higher than Apple's measured market share each quarter and I don't think these users are as "sophisticated" as the average MacRumors user. For example, my daughter is tickled-pink with her iMac because she can get online and it always just works.

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 06:40 PM
What's so hard to comprehend about this statement? Look at the range, pricing, and availability of G4 and G5 CPUs available from Freescale and IBM; compare and contrast with Intel's short-term roadmap with Yonah, Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest, then get back to me.

And by the by, an "Apple Computer with Intel chip inside" can natively run Mac OS X, Windows XP, many many varieties of UNIX and Linux, Solaris, et al. Running Mac OS X by definition saves Apple hardware from commoditization at this point.

I'm sorry, the vast majority of the us will not care and will never care what a G4, G5, Yonah, Conroe etc. are. Yes, there is a small group of people who knows what these codenames mean, and I take it that you are one. And you think everyone should know of this before buying a computer.

lets face it, running multiple OSes on one machine that requires rebooting is not going to fly with 99.9% of the pop. Running XP as a window in OSX seemlessly may just be appealing to a few of us. Again I don't see this virtualization fix going big, because we the end user don't have a compelling reason to do so.

Detlev
Jun 1, 2006, 06:47 PM
Are they counting Intel Macs as PCs? Oops, touchy subject :D

aussie_geek
Jun 1, 2006, 06:55 PM
Good news. Come on Apple Marketing! We need more Mac OS X + Mac adverts!


Yep - that's what will sell Mac's. Just wait until Leopard is released with full virtualisation technology inbuilt into the OS. Imagine the TV ad, just in time for the xmas season. It will be an iMac running all OS's on one screen with a slogan. How does "The Mac runs everything - out of the box. Why buy anything else? " sound?? :D

It is about time Apple makes a mainstream hit with their new Intel tech promoting this type of versatility. Only time will tell. This year will be a big one for Apple. :) :) :) :)

aussie_geek

ulyssespdx
Jun 1, 2006, 06:58 PM
the only people that care about market share are financial analysts.

i could look at those results and go "hey, did you know nearly 9 out of 10 people who own computers *do NOT own a Dell*?

but imagine, if you will a meeting at Ferrari:

Luigi: Listen, we gotta up our market share. we got likea what, .24%?
Marco: Well, it's more like .15%.
Luigi: What?! how we gonna corner the auto market with number like that?
Marco: ...Corner the market?
Luigi: Yeah! why else would we be in the car business?
Marco: uh...to make high-quality, high-performance, legendary machines?
Luigi: fu*$ that! we gotta compete with Ford!
Marco: FORD? Luigi, you gone-a crazy!

Silencio
Jun 1, 2006, 07:01 PM
I'm sorry, the vast majority of the us will not care and will never care what a G4, G5, Yonah, Conroe etc. are. Yes, there is a small group of people who knows what these codenames mean, and I take it that you are one. And you think everyone should know of this before buying a computer.

lets face it, running multiple OSes on one machine that requires rebooting is not going to fly with 99.9% of the pop. Running XP as a window in OSX seemlessly may just be appealing to a few of us. Again I don't see this virtualization fix going big, because we the end user don't have a compelling reason to do so.

You don't need to [know] what CPU is in the machine. Intel's selection of CPUs will allow Apple to make machines they haven't been able to make before, if they so choose: think $700 iBook-like entry level laptop running a single-core, low-voltage Yonah; a sub-$1,000 business grade desktop with internal expansion capabilities running a single-core Conroe; a >4 pound midrange subnotebook running a low-voltage Merom. They couldn't come close to doing those things with the G4 and the G5, but they could conceivably do it with Intel's products.

otter-boy
Jun 1, 2006, 07:12 PM
I see a lot of people here posting that same assertion. So you think there's an opportunity right now, but that there will never be other opportunities in the future?

What time is running out? The challenges Apple faces seem to be diminishing (Intel "slump" passing is the big one) rather than increasing. Meanwhile, Microsoft's challenges DO seem to be increasing.


Haven't you heard? The Apocalypse is set to happen in 2008 :rolleyes:

sushi
Jun 1, 2006, 07:13 PM
The PC industry as a whole is growing, with overall PC shipments in the U.S. booming 7.4% quarter over quarter and 13.1% year over year, so Mac sales would have to increase at a greater rate than the market as a whole in order for the Mac's market share to increase. Similarly, if Apple does not keep pace with the market, its share will decrease.
So it looks like Apple is growing with the industry which is great news.

And it looks like it will continue to grow with the Intel Macs. :)

Note, these figures do not take into account installed base. Government and big business upgrade on a 3-5 year cycle which account for a huge amount of sales.

otter-boy
Jun 1, 2006, 07:24 PM
I've have been using Window XP on a Dell Optiplex at work for sometime now. I used Apple computers in my previous job. I like the snappy feel of being online with IE. I'm sorry guys, but that is the truth. XP/Dell is pretty good so long as you keep up with latest updates and run virus software. No it is not a pretty setup. Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig). Okay, so it was a wireless connection (but with good signal). I have ethernet connection in my office and it very snappy. To tell you the true, I was turn off by this sluggish performance of Safari, and I think the majority of people will feel the same way I did.

So, a wireless internet connection is slower than the business-class ethernet connection that you have at work? I think that pretty much explains the difference between the computers you used.

Even if Safari were slower than IE, you don't have to use Safari on a Mac. There are many other options including Firefox and Opera (I use Firefox which is fast and set to get even faster with version 2.0).

As someone who does quite a bit of web design work on a PC at work all day, I can attest that on the same computer (a fairly new Dell with a connection to Internet2 through our local network) IE runs noticeably slower (usually about one-third to one-half) than Firefox. It is also the least secure and and least interoperable of the major browsers out there. Our recommendation is that people don't use it to access sensitive/private information.

MyLeftNut
Jun 1, 2006, 07:26 PM
Time is not running out as long as Apple remains Microschlocks R&D department.

Innovation is always at the cutting edge. People who go for newer or untested products are always the minority. We are at the moment in that phase, the great unwashed masses will get there eventually.

Personally I wouldnt mind Apple staying at 5% but who knows? I dont recall the breakdown of the PC growth in those figures. Remember, Apple doesnt have any share of the corporate world...until that happens, there is no point to this argument.

Peace out.
:p

Sabenth
Jun 1, 2006, 07:59 PM
Just what dos all this bollocks really mean its of no use to your avarage user who just wants a soding computer sorry to say it but stuff ya numbers i know what i like and i know what i tell people to get DOSE NOT MEAN ANYONE LISTENS TO ME

tonyl
Jun 1, 2006, 08:12 PM
Apple share will increase after the transition, the transition till now is pretty good. I guess many PC guys are just watching.

Stella
Jun 1, 2006, 08:15 PM
Lame.

If PC shipments are increasing, then I'd expect Apple's to follow the trend.

But its not.

Apple should advertise more, especially in non u.s markets. They have no one to blame but themselves for this shambles.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 1, 2006, 08:16 PM
Same here!

Same here (I switched because of an iPod)...my sister got an iPod Mini, and I got an iRiver.

Nine months later...well, you get the idea :D

achmafooma
Jun 1, 2006, 08:17 PM
This doesn't fly with me...

Anecdotally, I had one Mac-using friend in 2000 -- just ONE. Today, I have five in roughly the same group of friends, not counting myself (2001 switcher). Another one is planning to switch in the next year.

In 2001, I worked part time for the company I'm at now -- a government contracting firm. Not a single employee was a Mac user then. I returned to the company in 2004 (full time) and there were about five (again, not counting myself). I know of another 4 who have switched since then and another 2 planning to do so soon.

When I started at George Mason University in 2000, I only saw ONE Mac that I recall in the entire school year (my roommate's iMac -- the same one friend from my first comment). I came back the next year with my new Power Mac, and started seeing occasional PowerBooks around campus. The year after that, iBooks and PowerBooks probably made up about 15-20% of the notebooks I saw around campus.

I know this is all anecdotal, but a 'no market share growth' statement doesn't jibe at all with the reality I see around me. I would believe a .5 or 1 percentage point increase (though even that seems too low to me), but I don't believe for a second that there's been no growth.

Kane67
Jun 1, 2006, 08:18 PM
I have to echo the sentiment of some here. The market share just isn't likely to raise to any significant amount. The issue, as is for almost everything else in life, comes down to dollars and cents. As long as you can get a reasonable (performance wise) Windows computer, there's just no way for people to justify to make the switch. The main reason I bought mine was because I worked for Pixar and I got a good deal. And let me tell you a little secret, even at Pixar (a company owned by Jobs) they use HP's and some Dell's with Linux. Now, if that doesn't tell you something, nothing else will.
Best regards

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 08:23 PM
So, a wireless internet connection is slower than the business-class ethernet connection that you have at work? I think that pretty much explains the difference between the computers you used.

Even if Safari were slower than IE, you don't have to use Safari on a Mac. There are many other options including Firefox and Opera (I use Firefox which is fast and set to get even faster with version 2.0).

As someone who does quite a bit of web design work on a PC at work all day, I can attest that on the same computer (a fairly new Dell with a connection to Internet2 through our local network) IE runs noticeably slower (usually about one-third to one-half) than Firefox. It is also the least secure and and least interoperable of the major browsers out there. Our recommendation is that people don't use it to access sensitive/private information.

Okay, so I must apologize for not being clear. I wasn't comparing my T3 desktop computer connection to the MacBook wireless connection. The point still stand. Sluggish Safari performance whether it was its fault or not, it doen't matter. I'm not saying IE is great, but it is there. I tried Firefox, and didn't like it because it couldn't open up a few site that I tried.

However, I like your suggestion on security i.e. not using IE for sensitive/private surfing e.g. bank account inquiry.

Cinch

Analog Kid
Jun 1, 2006, 08:24 PM
Just what dos all this bollocks really mean its of no use to your avarage user who just wants a soding computer sorry to say it but stuff ya numbers i know what i like and i know what i tell people to get DOSE NOT MEAN ANYONE LISTENS TO ME
If you're going to use giant-font, you might want to proof before you post...

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 08:25 PM
If you're going to use giant-font, you might want to proof before you post...


It is def jam poetry. Haven't your heard.:D

bloogersnigen
Jun 1, 2006, 08:25 PM
the only people that care about market share are financial analysts.

i could look at those results and go "hey, did you know nearly 9 out of 10 people who own computers *do NOT own a Dell*?

but imagine, if you will a meeting at Ferrari:

Luigi: Listen, we gotta up our market share. we got likea what, .24%?
Marco: Well, it's more like .15%.
Luigi: What?! how we gonna corner the auto market with number like that?
Marco: ...Corner the market?
Luigi: Yeah! why else would we be in the car business?
Marco: uh...to make high-quality, high-performance, legendary machines?
Luigi: fu*$ that! we gotta compete with Ford!
Marco: FORD? Luigi, you gone-a crazy!

I was laughing so hard at this a fell out of my seat. Thats exactly what Iwas thinking

Frisco
Jun 1, 2006, 08:29 PM
For all those that don't care about marketshare you got another thing coming to you.

Developers develop a lot more for Windows than Mac, and even when they develop for Mac, it is second class. Go buy a new printer or mouse--the driver is better for Windows than Mac.

Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

This is a start, but they to take more drastic measures. I see 2 possibilites.:
1. Let OS X run on any current PC
2. Licensure of OS X

Now is a perfect time.
1) People are fed up with Microsoft and Vista delays
2) Vista is a clear copy of OS X, but still doesn't quite measure up.
3) The new IE 7 (?) sucks bigtime. Is a clear and pathetic copy of Camino and Firefox.
4) The new Office--Office 2007 sucks and will confuse the business world to Hell.
5) Microsoft has it's hands in too many pots and is focused on competing with Google and the iPod. They are fighting the wrong battles!

Which is better I don't know, but without trying this, the Mac is doomed. Apple of course is diversified and would still survive!

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 08:30 PM
the only people that care about market share are financial analysts.

i could look at those results and go "hey, did you know nearly 9 out of 10 people who own computers *do NOT own a Dell*?

but imagine, if you will a meeting at Ferrari:

Luigi: Listen, we gotta up our market share. we got likea what, .24%?
Marco: Well, it's more like .15%.
Luigi: What?! how we gonna corner the auto market with number like that?
Marco: ...Corner the market?
Luigi: Yeah! why else would we be in the car business?
Marco: uh...to make high-quality, high-performance, legendary machines?
Luigi: fu*$ that! we gotta compete with Ford!
Marco: FORD? Luigi, you gone-a crazy!

I know the car analogy was going to come up sooner or later. Interestingly, the Best Buy story was the headline for today. Consider that Apple is trying get into the Best Buy audiance, I think the Ferrari and BMW analogies are pointless and hopelessly out of date.

Cinch

Cinch
Jun 1, 2006, 08:32 PM
For all those that don't care about marketshare you got another thing coming to you.

Developers develop a lot more for Windows than Mac, and even when they develop for Mac, it is second class. Go buy a new printer or mouse--the driver is better for Windows than Mac.

Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

This is a start, but they to take more drastic measures. I see 2 possibilites.:
1. Let OS X run on any current PC
2. Licensure of OS X

Which is better I don't know, but without trying this, the Mac is doomed. Apple of course is diversified and would still survive!

I can't help but think of the infamous chant "Developer..Developer...Developer..Developer..:D

Cinch

Analog Kid
Jun 1, 2006, 08:33 PM
Just to be clear, Apple's market share didn't grow by .1%... For all we can tell, it grew from 3.54% to 3.55%..

It's good to see Apple hanging in there though. I'm most concerned by the fall in world market share. It seems to me that OSX is architected much better than Windows for non-English languages. Price is probably the killer here, but I'd still expect them to get a better foothold in Japan and Korea.

swingerofbirch
Jun 1, 2006, 08:36 PM
Just because market share is stagnant does not mean the iPod success hasn't helped the Mac marketshare. For all I know, the Mac marketshare could have gone down farther without the iPod success.

nagromme
Jun 1, 2006, 08:38 PM
As long as you can get a reasonable (performance wise) Windows computer, there's just no way for people to justify to make the switch. The main reason I bought mine was because I worked for Pixar and I got a good deal. And let me tell you a little secret, even at Pixar (a company owned by Jobs) they use HP's as some Dell's with Linux. Now, if that doesn't tell you something, nothing else will.
Best regards

If you see no benefits to OS X, there are certainly a lot of choices out there for you. Yet the fact is that many people DO see benefits to OS X, and buy Macs as a result.

As for Pixar using Linux, that does tell me something. It tells me they've been using UNIX software since before Macs ran UNIX. (It also tells me Steve Jobs is smart enough not to tell them to throw out software that works just so he can make a point.)


They have no one to blame but themselves for this shambles.
Would this "shambles" by any chance refer to Apple managing to keep pace with industry growth EVEN while facing the temporary lost sales resulting from a massive architecture shift?

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 08:55 PM
Would this "shambles" by any chance refer to Apple managing to keep pace with industry growth EVEN while facing the temporary lost sales resulting from a massive architecture shift?
I'm not sure that really that many people knew enough about the transition to wait....

The people in this forum aren't typical consumers.

Stella
Jun 1, 2006, 08:58 PM
They haven't kept pace.. otherwise they wouldn't have lost market share.
as the above poster says - no everyone knew Apple were switching.

50% of international sales is pretty poor too - it should be alot higher... it doesn't matter if Apple are a u.s company - they are an international company 'competing' globally.


Would this "shambles" by any chance refer to Apple managing to keep pace with industry growth EVEN while facing the temporary lost sales resulting from a massive architecture shift?

thejadedmonkey
Jun 1, 2006, 09:10 PM
Realize that the first version of ANY product from ANY company has more problems than later versions. That's just obvious logic--more people catching more problems, and more time to improve them. So of course a later refinement of a given model (car, TV, whatever) is likely to be more reliable.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the first generation iPods are significantly better than the iPod nano. My mac mini has zero issues, while the intel mac mini's had airport issues. Lastly, think about all of the PowerBook G4 owners who bought a revision "D" or whatever the last revision was...you know, the one with the freaky screens? Don't tell me that it gets "better" when it doesn't.

We like to pretend that things get better over time, especially with Job's RDF, but the truth is, Apple QC is dropping while consumers' expectations are rising. That's bad. Add on top of this Vista in 1st Q of 2007, and I just hope Apple has some mighty nice features for Leapord, otherwise the RDF might falter..

ricksbrain
Jun 1, 2006, 09:12 PM
This entire conversationm is silly until the Intel transition is done. Apple is continuing to grow. It's also clear Apple executes its strategies MUCH better than most competitors.

Things are good and getting better. Though Apple isnät exactlz small anzmore, it is relative to M$. Yet, it is still deciding much of the direction of the consumer tech field. Geez, if we are worried about being in this position, so many of us should have ended it all in the 90s.

iris_failsafe
Jun 1, 2006, 09:13 PM
Who cares?

Really, is like Steve said just because they sell more Ford's than BMW's it doesn't mean that Fords are better

We all know the majority of people is dumb and act like Longhorn cows
And that they cannot be as many Tigers as Longhorn cows

But I would rather be a Tiger any day than a stupid meal with horns...

ricksbrain
Jun 1, 2006, 09:14 PM
oops, keyboard in German and didn't know it...

Analog Kid
Jun 1, 2006, 09:47 PM
There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!
I suppose suicide is always an option, but I don't think it's gotten that desperate yet...

Linux market share is 0.4%, right now.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

macridah
Jun 1, 2006, 09:49 PM
I think without steve jobs or the iPod, the Mac share would of crazy shrank. As the article states, Apple maintaining their market share is a good thing.

NoelEiffe
Jun 1, 2006, 10:02 PM
I think without steve jobs or the iPod, the Mac share would of crazy shrank. As the article states, Apple maintaining their market share is a good thing.

And, I think it's too early to tell if macintels are increasing market share. The Macbook's been out for 2 weeks and a lot of wait and see in Q1 and Q2. Conversions and switchers are just getting going (I just bought my first Mac last week after 20 years of being fairly hostile toward apple products and 2-3 months of deciding to go for it based on said halo) ... and the real test will be over the next 2-4 quarters, in my opinion. A musician friend told me over the weekend I was the 4th person he knew who jumped recently.

And by the way, I am enthused.

noel

MacCNC
Jun 1, 2006, 10:05 PM
For all those that don't care about marketshare you got another thing coming to you.

Developers develop a lot more for Windows than Mac, and even when they develop for Mac, it is second class. Go buy a new printer or mouse--the driver is better for Windows than Mac.

I don't know where you are getting that from, every driver I have ever needed except one was already installed in OS X and worked great (mouse, digital camera, printer, etc). The one I had to install didn't seem second class (PodXT), infact it worked better than on Win2K.


Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

Really the only software missing is some specialty and vertical market apps (PLC programming, CNC milling, etc). How this is hurting Apple, I don't know. The switch to Intel is not really drastic at all. The core of a Mac is still the same and most people would never know the difference. Development is not any easier, the move to Cocoa is still as steep a curve, and little assembly code can be reused. Bootcamp is more significant, but as others have already mentioned, the real magic is yet to come with Leopard's virtualization.

Analog Kid
Jun 1, 2006, 10:32 PM
Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

This is a start, but they to take more drastic measures. I see 2 possibilites.:
1. Let OS X run on any current PC
2. Licensure of OS X

Now is a perfect time.
1) People are fed up with Microsoft and Vista delays
2) Vista is a clear copy of OS X, but still doesn't quite measure up.
3) The new IE 7 (?) sucks bigtime. Is a clear and pathetic copy of Camino and Firefox.
4) The new Office--Office 2007 sucks and will confuse the business world to Hell.
5) Microsoft has it's hands in too many pots and is focused on competing with Google and the iPod. They are fighting the wrong battles!

Which is better I don't know, but without trying this, the Mac is doomed. Apple of course is diversified and would still survive!

Why does everyone think that opening OS X is good for Apple-- this is one of those things that has been repeated so many times people just accept it without question.

First, Apple is not Microsoft. They are not a software company. That said, they could attempt to become one, but at what cost? How successful was the open platform strategy for IBM? In 2004, right before they sold the business off to Lenovo, IBM had 5.9% market share, putting them 3rd behind HP and Dell.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050118-4535.html

Now, that doesn't seem to say they really got rewarded for their decision. What would happen to Apple? Two things for sure, and possibly a third: other vendors would immediately start cutting slices out of Apple's hardware sales bringing their market share down. Apple's margins would fall under intense pressure bringing their revenue per unit down. If they were lucky, and OS X caught on, the growing popularity of the OS would, after some years, start to exert an upward pressure on demand for Apple hardware.

What would happen to their OS business? Contrary to what so many people think, being able to run on cheap hardware doesn't make you a best seller. Linux hasn't gotten very far outside of the server room and some hobbyists and it's free. OS/2 also failed despite being relatively open, and supported by a respected company. BeOS anyone? OpenStep?

What would OS X look like in this environment? All of a sudden, people would need OS X drivers for every random bit of hardware out there, and Apple would have to anticipate people mixing any piece of hardware with any other piece. For the most part, OS X would fail at this simply because there are too many devices out there and they won't get the support from hardware vendors that Windows does. Next thing you know, OS X starts to get a reputation as quirky and unstable because Apple doesn't have control any more.

So, I have a really hard time understanding why people want to cut Apple's computer revenue to essentially zero in the hopes that they'll eventually be able to sell 2 or 3 times as many copies of their OS.


I agree that Apple needs to grow it's market share (not that they haven't done quite well at this level for a very long time) for the very reason you give-- more and better development. Neither of your approaches will solve the problem though. I'm witholding judgement on the Intel move for the time being, but in general I think Apple is taking the right approach-- rapid development and release of innovative products. It gives the appearance that Microsoft is aging before our very eyes.

makku
Jun 2, 2006, 12:45 AM
Really, is like Steve said just because they sell more Ford's than BMW's it doesn't mean that Fords are better


It is only a problem when you start making Ford like cars and sell less than BMWs.

ulyssespdx
Jun 2, 2006, 12:49 AM
I know the car analogy was going to come up sooner or later. Interestingly, the Best Buy story was the headline for today. Consider that Apple is trying get into the Best Buy audiance, I think the Ferrari and BMW analogies are pointless and hopelessly out of date.

Cinch

Pointless? you mean, like your reply? got a better analogy, or are you just dissing? c'mon, man.

Apple, like any other company, does not have to compete on volume or market share to be successful. Apple stock price and dividends have gone up for years. Dell stock price and dividends have gone down. during that time, Dell increased their market share.

heck, i've been reading "Apple's market share is too low! they suck!" since like, oh, 1995.

and they're still here, stock price has quadrupled, and the brand Apple is known worldwide. what a failure. guess Apple should pack it in.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 2, 2006, 12:52 AM
Pointless? you mean, like your reply? got a better analogy, or are you just dissing? c'mon, man.

Apple, like any other company, does not have to compete on volume or market share to be successful. Apple stock price and dividends have gone up for years. Dell stock price and dividends have gone down. during that time, Dell increased their market share.

heck, i've been reading "Apple's market share is too low! they suck!" since like, oh, 1995.

and they're still here, stock price has quadrupled, and the brand Apple is known worldwide. what a failure. guess Apple should pack it in.

I agree with a lot of your points. But to be fair, you have to acknowledge the impact of the iPod as well...that's helped out Apple's stock price a wee bit, hasn't it??? :rolleyes:

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 02:13 AM
The "halo" effect (or less non-sensically, the "gateway" effect) is real, as evidenced by many individual reports and also some larger surveys. You may doubt the size or importance of it, but it IS real :)

And it's NOT an overnight effect. The iPod effect makes people consider a Mac more seriously when the time comes to replace their current computer--or maybe the one after that. It does NOT make them jump up in large numbers and buy a new computer despite already owning one.

The effect is a gradual snowball, but, I believe, a large one.I agree. But what I think is now the best kept secret is that Macs run Windoze natively - which is huge. Lately I have been mentioning this to all PC users I encounter and not one of them knew it before I told them. Even Apple is doing all it can to keep this a secret notwithstanding Boot Camp assistance.

As more and more of us spread this news, consideration of Mac next time around will be even more serious - especially when Leopard will include Boot Camp as part of its foundation next year and Parallels Workstation has a full suite of drivers for everything one can hook to a Mac. So Halo is spreading from iPod to "Can Run Windoze Natively". :)

kretzy
Jun 2, 2006, 02:18 AM
I agree. But what I think is now the best kept secret is that Macs run Windoze natively - which is huge. Lately I have been mentioning this to all PC users I encounter and not one of them knew it before I told them.
That's interesting because many people I've spoken (especially the ones that know I'm a bit of a Mac enthusiast) have actually brought up the fact that they heard Macs could now run Windows natively. I think it was fairly well published across the internet and many news sources also reported it. I suppose it just depends on what the people you know are interested in. :)

BakedBeans
Jun 2, 2006, 02:28 AM
comparing Apple market share to windows market share is sort of like comparing BMW to Unleaded petrol.

Apple v Dell v Compaq v Sony is where it should be

inkswamp
Jun 2, 2006, 02:40 AM
I've long been suspicious of computer industry market share reports, particularly in regard to Apple. These stats just don't pass the common sense test. I know this is anecdotal but look around and consider all your acquaintances, friends and colleagues. Do you see more Macs than 3 for every 100 people in that group? I do. Way more. I always have, even back in Apple's dark days in the late-90s. Everyone I talk to seems to have a similar response. Yes, there are definitely more Windows users out there, but the ratio is not that lopsided.

I'm not sure how to account for that discrepancy, but I am fairly certain that Apple's apparently low market share numbers are being exaggerated by something.

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 02:44 AM
I've long been suspicious of computer industry market share reports, particularly in regard to Apple. These stats just don't pass the common sense test. I know this is anecdotal but look around and consider all your acquaintances, friends and colleagues. Do you see more Macs than 3 for every 100 people in that group? I do. Way more. I always have, even back in Apple's dark days in the late-90s. Everyone I talk to seems to have a similar response. Yes, there are definitely more Windows users out there, but the ratio is not that lopsided.

I'm not sure how to account for that discrepancy, but I am fairly certain that Apple's apparently low market share numbers are being exaggerated by something.Yeah - China. :p

gekko513
Jun 2, 2006, 03:14 AM
FUD...
Then there's also the FUD about the whining, mooing, baaing, chirping and whooping of the MacBook (Pro)s.

kretzy
Jun 2, 2006, 03:21 AM
Then there's also the FUD about the whining, mooing, baaing, chirping and whooping of the MacBook (Pro)s.
Old MacDonald had a farm...:D

Ultimately in the long run FUD won't really have an effect on market share IMO. It may slow growth a little initially, but once they fix things up a bit, growth should accelerate again.

Marx55
Jun 2, 2006, 04:08 AM
I suppose suicide is always an option, but I don't think it's gotten that desperate yet...

Linux market share is 0.4%, right now.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

That is not suicide. That is making Mac OS X the number 1 OS on Earth. But Apple must do it before it is too late.

BakedBeans
Jun 2, 2006, 04:20 AM
That is not suicide. That is making Mac OS X the number 1 OS on Earth. But Apple must do it before it is too late.

They don't want to...

They are a hardware company... how will they sell any frikken hardware when you can buy a cheapo PC box and run it on that

gekko513
Jun 2, 2006, 04:35 AM
For all those that don't care about marketshare you got another thing coming to you.

Developers develop a lot more for Windows than Mac, and even when they develop for Mac, it is second class. Go buy a new printer or mouse--the driver is better for Windows than Mac.

Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

This is a start, but they to take more drastic measures. I see 2 possibilites.:
1. Let OS X run on any current PC
2. Licensure of OS X
You have some very good points. While I think Apple and OS X will chug along just fine without doing any of those two, I think the platform could benefit from a tightly controlled licensure scheme.

Even a 1-2 percent point increase in installed base for OS X would make the platform much more attractive to developers, and with the right kind of control of the licensure of OS X to third parties they can avoid cutting into their own hardware sales.

I'm thinking it could be a good idea to let some company like Dell offer OS X as an option beside Windows XP Professional (which is a $149 option up from Home edition) on selected low and mid-range mini-tower models.

javierbds
Jun 2, 2006, 05:36 AM
The people that want OS X on any hw are most probably Linux losers oops , I mean users ... (Putting on flame suit).

Apple is a 'whole cycle-experience' company: hw + os + user apps + pro apps + services.

If OS X is sold for non-Apple hw the retail price would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher and they would have to remove added sw from the offer (you can no longer leverage on hw sales to develop the OS).

The sure way to increase market share of OS X is the sure way to kill OS X:
Putting OS X on el-cheapo PCs is the same as giving it away for free ... El-cheapo owners DON'T BUY anything, they would not even pay for their PC if they could. This would NOT increase developed sw, it would make it diminish (and piracy would be king, perhaps the hidden agenda of some proponents) ...

If people develop for OS X is for some differentiating reasons on the type of users OS X have. They may not be more than 5% of the whole computer user community of the world but they are the 5% they are interested in ...

Nobody forces somebody to buy a Mac, it is a quality decision.
Nearly everybody feels forced to buy some cheapo PC with internet and some office apps ...

To those that want to be market leaders in volume: return to your Windows world ...

Analog Kid
Jun 2, 2006, 05:57 AM
That is not suicide. That is making Mac OS X the number 1 OS on Earth. But Apple must do it before it is too late.
See my post above-- it's suicide. How long do you think Apple can survive without revenue? Jobs has a rough idea of what would happen, he saw what happened to OS X when it was NeXTSTEP.

Atlasland
Jun 2, 2006, 06:22 AM
But what I think is now the best kept secret is that Macs run Windoze natively - which is huge... Even Apple is doing all it can to keep this a secret notwithstanding Boot Camp assistance.

That's because BootCamp is beta.

Wait till Leopard. Then it'll all kick off...

Evangelion
Jun 2, 2006, 06:55 AM
I suppose suicide is always an option, but I don't think it's gotten that desperate yet...

Linux market share is 0.4%, right now.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

It depends. The market-share figures for Linux seem to be changing all the time. Sometimes it's put at around .5%, other times it's around 2-4%. it depends on who makes the estimate and how they make the estimate.

That said, I foresee that Both Linux and OS X will gain huge amounts of market-share in the next few years. Apple makes kick-ass computers that everyone wants to own, and through that, they get exposed to OS X. And over the last few years Linux-folks have been plugging the shortcomings of Linux at a trendemous pace. First people complained that it was difficult to install. Today that's not an issue. Then they omplained that it has no proper GUI. It has great GUI's these days. Then people complained that it has no apps. Today it has loads of kick-ass apps (apps for mere mortals that is).

And considering that Vista is something like this (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=151250154&size=o), I don't see a bright future for Windows. Yes, it will be hugely successfull, objectively thinking. But when compared to previous Windowses, I think it will fall short.

Mark my words: heads will roll at Microsoft

fixyourthinking
Jun 2, 2006, 06:58 AM
I wish someone would do a "well done" "well balanced" survey not based on quarterly sales of Macs, but on actual usage. I would gaurantee that Macs as a whole in the US are in the double digits as far as usage in the US and somewhere around the mid single digits worldwide.

BenjyD
Jun 2, 2006, 06:58 AM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.

OK, here are some reasons that larger Apple market share would help you:

- Larger market is more attractive to developers. That means more software, more competition and lower prices.
- Better hardware support. With a larger market share, the days of "sorry, we don't support mac" would be over
- Web: the final death of things like IE-only websites etc.
- A more peaceful world as cases of computer rage drop ;-)

Yes, life as a Mac user is pretty good, but a larger market share would make it better.

BenjyD
Jun 2, 2006, 07:06 AM
Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig).

According to some actual benchmarks (http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2006/05/all-the-lovely-browsers.html), rather than your anecdotal evidence, Safari/MacOSX is significantly faster than IE/WinXP.

SPUY767
Jun 2, 2006, 07:41 AM
Marketshare or no, Apple's still a more valuable company than Dell who claims to have something like a 15% marketshare. Just because the vast majority of Americans don't understand a value proposition, doesn't mean anything to Apple. Apple is an interesting company in the business world. Apple is immune to disruptive business competition. Dell has essentially painted itself into a corner with its business model, and now no one takes it seriously as anything other than a peperweight with a CPU.

Evangelion
Jun 2, 2006, 07:47 AM
Marketshare or no, Apple's still a more valuable company than Dell who claims to have something like a 15% marketshare. Just because the vast majority of Americans don't understand a value proposition, doesn't mean anything to Apple. Apple is an interesting company in the business world. Apple is immune to disruptive business competition. Dell has essentially painted itself into a corner with its business model, and now no one takes it seriously as anything other than a peperweight with a CPU.

Um, that's not quite true. Dells ARE used for many "enterprise"-tasks, so they are a bit more than "paperweights with CPU's". Like it or not, many businesses run on Dell-hardware. A lot more than Apple-hardware.

And Apple CAN be harmed by "disruptive competition". Why do you think they switched to Intel? Do you forget the late nineties when Apple seemed to be doomed? If Apple was vulnerable back then, what makes you think it's not vulnerable today?

And besides: market-capitalisation:

Dell: 59.52B
Apple: 52.88B

So Apple is NOT "more valuable company" than Dell is.

Soli Gratia
Jun 2, 2006, 07:52 AM
As a new "switcher" , (which is apparent by my title of macrumors "newbie" :) ), I must say several of the points that have pointed out as reasons why Apple is failing (OS X limited to Apple Computers, Apple's small market share, etc.) are all reasons why I decided to switch.

The biggest attraction for me (apart from the beautiful designs of my friend's Apple computers), was simply the fact that, unlike Microsoft, Apple was not solely a software company. For some reason it excites me that there's a computer manufacturer that makes everything (hw + sw). Call me crazy.

Another big attraction for me (and I realize this is not the most logical of reasons to purchase anything, much less a computer) is simply the fact that Apple is NOT a huge market share holder. Everyone has a PC. Everyone has a Dell or HP or Gateway, why not be different and get an Apple?

Just a few thoughts.

ArchiMac
Jun 2, 2006, 08:08 AM
I may be a minority ,
but.. I have been using a 1ghz G4 for 3 years now for intensive CAD, 'Photoshop'ing and 3D (arch. only!) modelling tasks. I may well have bought a new computer in that time, should I have felt the need, but this little baby has worked really well. Point: mac consumers buy (probably) 3 x less computers than their counterparts. This would critically influence 'market-share' statistics.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 2, 2006, 08:27 AM
US marketshare = lots of stores, and growing everyday.
Worldwide marketshare (particularly Europe) = a lack of Apple stores.

Catch my drift! In Ireland not one Apple store. Now how does apple expect to sell lots of Macs here with no stores. It's simply not possible. :mad:

I'm am fairly pissed of about this, what's keeping apple!!! Apple we need at least two stores here for a start, followed up by about 10 more over the next 3 years.
(There's iPod's everywhere here, but Mac's are a rarity)

Gasu E.
Jun 2, 2006, 08:33 AM
As long as enough people know about it to keep Apple in business, I could care less. Well kept secret Macs are.

I agree. I think Apple has established a distinctive niche in which it is the clear leader. In that regard, it is in a strong position.

The flaw in the marketshare data is that it is not broken down by segment-- it portrays the PC market as monolithic. We know that ain't so. If, say, market share was provided for the following segments

Creative
Home
Education, K-12
Higher education and research
SMB
Enterprise IT

The Mac is a non-player and no-hoper in Enterprise IT, which (I'm guessing) is 70-80% of the PC market. It's more interesting to see how the Mac is doing in areas where it can compete.

morespce54
Jun 2, 2006, 08:35 AM
Gisele will save us.

LOL

Yes, I can't wait for the "Gisele Halo Effect"... :p :D :D :D

Evangelion
Jun 2, 2006, 08:36 AM
Catch my drift! In Ireland not one Apple store. Now how does apple expect to sell lots of Macs here with no stores. It's simply not possible. :mad:

There's exactly zero Apple Stores in Finland. Yet buying an Apple computer is very easy. First of all, there's the online-store. Second: there are several retailers here that sell Apple-hardware.

You do not HAVE to buy your Macs from Apple Store. You can get it from the online store as well, or from some other retailer.

SPUY767
Jun 2, 2006, 08:37 AM
Um, that's not quite true. Dells ARE used for many "enterprise"-tasks, so they are a bit more than "paperweights with CPU's". Like it or not, many businesses run on Dell-hardware. A lot more than Apple-hardware.

And Apple CAN be harmed by "disruptive competition". Why do you think they switched to Intel? Do you forget the late nineties when Apple seemed to be doomed? If Apple was vulnerable back then, what makes you think it's not vulnerable today?

And besides: market-capitalisation:

Dell: 59.52B
Apple: 52.88B

So Apple is NOT "more valuable company" than Dell is.

Well, you know as well as Everyone else in this forum that I'm talking about consumer PCs. The market cap thing fluctuates, as a matter of fact, Apple gained 2 billion in market cap yesterday alone, and I Believe that as little as 2 weeks ago, apple's market cap was higher than dells. Dell's stock is stagnant, Apple's is not. And you clearly aren't understanding my meaning when I talk about disruptive competition, but I'm not going to elaborate here, cause the threads don't allow enough text.

Evangelion
Jun 2, 2006, 08:44 AM
Well, you know as well as Everyone else in this forum that I'm talking about consumer PCs.

And there are millions of consumer-Dell's being sold all the time. Do you seriously claim that those computers are totally and completely useless?

The market cap thing fluctuates

How can you then claim that Apple is worth more? Apple did surpass Dell for a while some months ago, that much is true. And I wouldn't be surprise if Apple surpassed Dell for good in the months to come. But as things are right now. Dell is worth more than Apple is.

Gasu E.
Jun 2, 2006, 08:51 AM
I know this is all anecdotal, but a 'no market share growth' statement doesn't jibe at all with the reality I see around me. I would believe a .5 or 1 percentage point increase (though even that seems too low to me), but I don't believe for a second that there's been no growth.


That's the whole point-- your circle of friends is not a random sample of the PC market as a whole; you are part of a small subsegment. I work in the IT industry and as I read through these forums it is clear that only a tiny minority of the participants have an inkling of how PCs are purchased by big business. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of advertising or any other tactic within Apple's control will ever get them back into the mainstream of IT. That shipped has sailed, and only a total, unpredictable technological paradigm shift could ever turn that around. Apple's strength and opportunity is in niche markets which include creative, K-12, and home. So share of total market is an extremely crude measurement of success. I would be much more interested in seeing how Apple has been doing in the Home market anyway. That's the only place the "halo" effect could have any value, and that's likely where your buddies reside, achmafooma (I'm guessing). I don't think any IT director is going to drive his company to "switch" just because he's plugged into iTunes.

SPUY767
Jun 2, 2006, 08:54 AM
And there are millions of consumer-Dell's being sold all the time. Do you seriously claim that those computers are totally and completely useless?

I'm saying that the market is not the same. Dell customers typically want the absolute cheapest thing that meets their needs. Barely. Apples customers seems to want something more.



How can you then claim that Apple is worth more? Apple did surpass Dell for a while some months ago, that much is true. And I wouldn't be surprise if Apple surpassed Dell for good in the months to come. But as things are right now. Dell is worth more than Apple is.

Some months ago? Apple has been on top of dell for a few months and actually a recently as the 17th of May where Apple's cap was 55.3b and dell's was 52b. And as you said, they will probably pass dell for good quite soon. Don't misinterperet my statements. I simply don't have time to sit down and justify everyting in every one of my posts. I am a very busy man.

Evangelion
Jun 2, 2006, 09:02 AM
I'm saying that the market is not the same.

You said that Dells are "paperweights with CPU's". As in: useless. I'm disputing that claim.

Some months ago?

Yep. Apple surpassed Dell for a while, but then Dell surpassed Apple again. But they have usually been just few billions apart from each other.

Apple has been on top of dell for a few months

Doesn't seem like that now.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 2, 2006, 09:27 AM
There's exactly zero Apple Stores in Finland. Yet buying an Apple computer is very easy. First of all, there's the online-store. Second: there are several retailers here that sell Apple-hardware.

You do not HAVE to buy your Macs from Apple Store. You can get it from the online store as well, or from some other retailer.
There's not one retalier here in Ireland that sells the latest Mac's, only the last generation, i.e. no MacBook's or MacBook Pro's or Mac Mini (IR). OK so there's the online store here, but the only people who know or are interested in it are Mac fans. What about everybody else!! As in the people who go to the local P.C. world to decide what computer they want to buy, they can't say "oh look there's a MacBook, that looks very nice" Then the ask the sales person and he informs them that apple computers are different than all other computers, as in they're easier to use! /Out comes the credit card.

drewyboy
Jun 2, 2006, 09:30 AM
For all those that don't care about marketshare you got another thing coming to you.

Developers develop a lot more for Windows than Mac, and even when they develop for Mac, it is second class. Go buy a new printer or mouse--the driver is better for Windows than Mac.

Mac needs marketshare for the #1 reason being development.

Apple has taken two drastic measures in the last year: 1. Move to Intel; (2) Bootcamp.

This is a start, but they to take more drastic measures. I see 2 possibilites.:
1. Let OS X run on any current PC
2. Licensure of OS X

Which is better I don't know, but without trying this, the Mac is doomed. Apple of course is diversified and would still survive!

Bah, ppl have been saying that's apple's only two options since os x came out. I say they know how to hold their own, and I am very against then letting it run on crap PC's. 3 simple reason.
1. Pirating
2. Virus'
3. Drivers

I do not want to have f'd up driver problems like windows always gives you trying to keep up all 3rd party joe shmoe drivers up-to-date. Plus, I've paid the premium price for the "Apple Experience", so I don't see why any punk kid that pulls a $300 dollar computer out of his butt should be able to put the superior OS in it. I say apple should keep the OS to themselves, because I see absolutely no reason they should release it, cuz when that happens, it takes a big selling point of their computers away. Plus i think Steve likes that their computers are more of an "elite" circle. And when i say "elite" i don't mean performance wise, I mean exclusivity.

Edit: I just realized something, due to circular reasoning, apple have become "elite". They are more exclusive because of their price, and are more pricey because of their exclusivity. Hmm.... I smell a conspiracy ;)

miketcool
Jun 2, 2006, 09:35 AM
the only people that care about market share are financial analysts.

i could look at those results and go "hey, did you know nearly 9 out of 10 people who own computers *do NOT own a Dell*?

but imagine, if you will a meeting at Ferrari:

Luigi: Listen, we gotta up our market share. we got likea what, .24%?
Marco: Well, it's more like .15%.
Luigi: What?! how we gonna corner the auto market with number like that?
Marco: ...Corner the market?
Luigi: Yeah! why else would we be in the car business?
Marco: uh...to make high-quality, high-performance, legendary machines?
Luigi: fu*$ that! we gotta compete with Ford!
Marco: FORD? Luigi, you gone-a crazy!

Hey! Lets be fair here. The guys in charge of Financial strategy at Ferrari in Europe are Giancarlo and Amedeo, not two stereotypically generic Italian names. Didn't you learn about the extreme nature of dynamically ethnic names from modern classroom textbooks? And that dialogue! People always seem to imitate italians with the super mario brothers theme song going on in their heads. If only this was a speakeasy 80 years ago this would have been settled with a simple hand gesture...

sushi
Jun 2, 2006, 09:42 AM
If PC shipments are increasing, then I'd expect Apple's to follow the trend.

But its not.
According to the article, the PC market is expanding (increasing).

Apple has maintained it's market share. This means that Apple is expanding as the same rate as the market which is fantastic.

Of course it would be nice if they expanded a little faster and therefore increased their market share.

QPlot
Jun 2, 2006, 09:53 AM
i don't need any of the features and don't think i need them in the near future. Very useful, but maybe not

Cinch
Jun 2, 2006, 09:54 AM
According to some actual benchmarks (http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2006/05/all-the-lovely-browsers.html), rather than your anecdotal evidence, Safari/MacOSX is significantly faster than IE/WinXP.


Either it is anecdotal or it is evidence. It can't be both:D oxymoron

Perhaps with the latest version of Safari and OSX.4. Be that as it may, the site you pointed out did the test under control condition. I think my personal experience counts much more. It is not about who creates a better product/software. I think it is about getting it to the consumer and in MBA jargan execution. I digress.

Cinch

peharri
Jun 2, 2006, 10:17 AM
Linux runs natively on any PC and it is of cource Open Source and it is for free...
yet nobody really want's to use it...

In fairness, until recently, GNU/Linux didn't really have a mature, user-friendly, desktop, and it has next to no marketing behind it on the desktop.

Mac OS X -

- has a good reputation
- is userfriendly and mature on the desktop
- has marketing behind it

FWIW, I suspect GNU/Linux has a higher desktop penetration than 2%. Probably not much greater, but it's used in a lot of development shops, not to mention widely rolled out in places like Lowes, and that's on top of hobbiest interest.

I'm not trying to suggest Apple should turn Mac OS X into Free Software, I'd be delighted if they did, but it's not necessarily good for Apple.


An OS is only a means to an end and never the end in itself. It doesn't matter if OSX is better or if it is the most advanced piece of software in the whole galaxy. For as long as there aren't enough apps to suit peoples needs it will not be accepted. It's not windows that i'm interested in, it's Photoshop, Illustrator, 3d Studio, Cinema 4D, Autocad and SketchUp that i use. Others use other apps. Some apps work on OSX and most don't. The most important reason (IMHO) apple's market share has remained stagnant, is due to the lack of high profile software.

Apple has a lot of high profile, quality, software. So does GNU/Linux. The environment really is important. While a lot of people use Windows because they feel they have to, if someone can present to them a solution that's nicer to use (and it's not hard to get nicer than Windows) yet has the same flexibility, people can and will use it.

Throughout my entire Mac using period (since 2003) I never came across a set of circumstances where I thought "I wish I had a PC, I'd be able to run X, Y and Z". The environment was wonderful. The only thing that's made me switch back is the hardware and the lack of openness on the Mac side. My requirements are probably too obscure for that to be interpreted as a trend, but that said, do not underestimate how important a friendly, usable, environment is. A system like Windows where the UI frequently gets in the way of what you're trying to do is less usable than a system with slightly less software. Given a straight choice between Windows on a MacBook and Mac OS X on a MacBook, I'll choose the latter every time.

weitzner
Jun 2, 2006, 11:04 AM
The people that want OS X on any hw are most probably Linux losers oops , I mean users ... (Putting on flame suit).

Apple is a 'whole cycle-experience' company: hw + os + user apps + pro apps + services.

If OS X is sold for non-Apple hw the retail price would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher and they would have to remove added sw from the offer (you can no longer leverage on hw sales to develop the OS).

The sure way to increase market share of OS X is the sure way to kill OS X:
Putting OS X on el-cheapo PCs is the same as giving it away for free ... El-cheapo owners DON'T BUY anything, they would not even pay for their PC if they could. This would NOT increase developed sw, it would make it diminish (and piracy would be king, perhaps the hidden agenda of some proponents) ...

If people develop for OS X is for some differentiating reasons on the type of users OS X have. They may not be more than 5% of the whole computer user community of the world but they are the 5% they are interested in ...

Nobody forces somebody to buy a Mac, it is a quality decision.
Nearly everybody feels forced to buy some cheapo PC with internet and some office apps ...

To those that want to be market leaders in volume: return to your Windows world ...

dear sir or maddam,
you have made my day. the really good point about apple is that it's easy. you buy a machine: all the hardware plays nicely together and with the OS, the OS is pleasent to look at and intuitive, all software is nicely integrated, etc. even buying stuff at the apple store is like this- just like we mac users should expect. you walk in with a problem, someone there helps you and all is well. apple is the whole deal - not like M$ or dell or hp or sony.

p.s. i loves my macintosh:D

hulugu
Jun 2, 2006, 11:05 AM
There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

So, Apple should give up profit margins on software and hardware to seize a Linux sized marketshare? This is a spectacularly bad idea and I like and respect the FSF.
Battling for 100% marketshare puts them in direct conflict with Microsoft and would be a pyrric victory at best. After expending billions Apple would now have all of Microsoft's problems without the profit base.

sonnys
Jun 2, 2006, 11:32 AM
Numers are DOWN by .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR in both US and worldwide market share -- this is a BAD thing, not a good thing.

Although the successful Intel transition is no doubt boosting numbers this quarter, Mac still lost significant ground this past year. A .2% US market share drop from 3.8% to 3.6% represents a 5.3% loss during a record year for PC market growth.

Eraserhead
Jun 2, 2006, 11:35 AM
Look, people should buy a Mac if it's the best computer for them. There are lots of area that Mac's are better than PC's (eg, the OS itself, Mathematics, Music, DTP, Film and anything that requires UNIX.) and also a few where PC's beat Macs (eg Gaming and Video calling), however only about 20% or so of PC users are gamers so Apple could still attract a good market share.

There are currently advantages to Apple only offering a limited number of models in that they can compete with Dell (for those models) on price (at least here in the UK) as they are selling them in bulk, they've actually been slimming down the number of options recently. As their market share goes up, I'm sure we'll see a sub-laptop, a cheap laptop with a 15" screen, a Midi tower Mac and possibly some others. Apple'll hopefully release some of these new models if/when their market share starts to increase.

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
Numers are DOWN by .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR in both US and worldwide market share -- this is a BAD thing, not a good thing.

Although the successful Intel transition is no doubt boosting numbers this quarter, Mac still lost significant ground this past year. A .2% US market share drop from 3.8% to 3.6% represents a 5.3% loss during a record year for PC market growth.

What I read is that because the overall market is growing, the number of Macs is still also growing in spite of this processor transition share blip. Many of us think that Leopard with integrated Boot Camp will be the OS X that begins to help Apple break through the 4% wall. I don't think you can worry about market share numbers for 2005 & 2006 due to the processor transition which is still not even over yet. :)

Many long term Mac fanatics may not even want to venture into the Intel Macs until 2007 when Leopard ships with them. So don't panic and be patient. It's all good. :)

And remember in China they only make Macs - they don't buy Macs. :p

plinden
Jun 2, 2006, 12:10 PM
Numers are DOWN by .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR in both US and worldwide market share -- this is a BAD thing, not a good thing.

Although the successful Intel transition is no doubt boosting numbers this quarter, Mac still lost significant ground this past year. A .2% US market share drop from 3.8% to 3.6% represents a 5.3% loss during a record year for PC market growth.


Say there were 1,000,000 computers sold in the US last year (actually much more - using 1,000,000 for ease of calculation). Macs account for 3.8% of that = 38,000.

Number increases by 13% = 1,130,000 computers. Macs account for 3.6% of that = 40,680.

That's an increase of 7%, in a time of transition, when people were waiting for the Intel Macs.

These figures assume something about the number of PCs sold - we can only look at the real number of Macs sold, according to Apple's last sales figures. I can't be bothered looking that up. Edit: actually, I just did - their sales increased 4% last quarter over a year ago - http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/19results.html

inkswamp
Jun 2, 2006, 12:50 PM
Numers are DOWN by .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR in both US and worldwide market share -- this is a BAD thing, not a good thing.

Although the successful Intel transition is no doubt boosting numbers this quarter, Mac still lost significant ground this past year. A .2% US market share drop from 3.8% to 3.6% represents a 5.3% loss during a record year for PC market growth.

What are you people smoking?

Not smoking anything. Perhaps that's why I have the presence of mind to question that kind of oversimplification.

The problem with drawing any conclusions from this--good or bad--is that we have no idea where the growth in the PC market is coming from. The PC market includes home, educational, government and business/server sales. If all this growth in the market is coming from business/server sales (where Apple is a relatively small player) then these numbers are basically meaningless (in regard to Apple, at least.) If it's all in home and educational sales, then you might be right.

Do you have an exact break-down of the PC market growth numbers you would like to share with us to back up your asssertion that this is a a bad thing for Apple? If you don't, I'm puzzled as to why you're so inisistent about this. What makes you so sure of your position that you would be insulting to everyone about it?

xenotaku
Jun 2, 2006, 01:02 PM
I bought a PB because of how much I loved my iPod.

weg
Jun 2, 2006, 01:08 PM
I bought an iPod cause I had a mac

I bought an iPod because I got it cheaper WITH my Mac..
I would have never bought an iPod otherwise ;-) (just the Mac)

weitzner
Jun 2, 2006, 01:25 PM
In fairness, until recently, GNU/Linux didn't really have a mature, user-friendly, desktop, and it has next to no marketing behind it on the desktop.

you can't afford marketing for something that isn't being sold. so, if you want to give out an OS, you lose the ability to market it.

ObsidianIce
Jun 2, 2006, 01:31 PM
you're comparing work ethernet speads....to a wireless connection? Unless your company is from the stoneage, the ethernet connection should be FAR faster than the wireless. I use safari and firefox primarily, rarely IE on my work machine and it opens and loads pages extremely fast...


I don't see how switching to the Intel is going to increase sale and result in increase market share.

I've have been using Window XP on a Dell Optiplex at work for sometime now. I used Apple computers in my previous job. I like the snappy feel of being online with IE. I'm sorry guys, but that is the truth. XP/Dell is pretty good so long as you keep up with latest updates and run virus software. No it is not a pretty setup. Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig). Okay, so it was a wireless connection (but with good signal). I have ethernet connection in my office and it very snappy. To tell you the true, I was turn off by this sluggish performance of Safari, and I think the majority of people will feel the same way I did. I guess I just want things to be snappy (second most annoying thing about OSX is the bouncing app icon when you launch it, just open the darn thing..I dont' really care for the graphic effect).

Coming from someone who uses PC at work, I don't see any compelling reason to buy an Apple Computer other than the look. Yes, there are reasons e.g. iLife but not enough to spring $1199 for a MacBook. On a brighter note, I don't see any reason to buy a Dell either or any PC anytime soon.

Cinch,

wnurse
Jun 2, 2006, 02:44 PM
What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

First of, people dont get rid of pc's any faster than macs. The components in a dell computer do not corrode or rust or somehow break apart. Secondly, marketshare is a function of sales. No one cares about installed base (except developers), Apple stock price will not go up unless they make more sales, irrespective of the number of old mac computers existing. If these pc users are getting rid of their machines faster (as you claim) why aren't they replaceing them with macs?. That's the whole point of marketshare.. how long before a pc or mac is replaced is irrelevant.. it's what people buy when looking for replacement.. in fact, if apple becomes more appealing, then they might want pc users to replace their pcs at a faster rate if they would replace them with a mac.

People have been determining market share for a long, long time.. how stupid of them not to consult you first on how to do their job. Everybody always think they know how to do the other guys job. I assure you, the method of measuring market share is tested and time proven... i'm sure Gartner analysts would welcome your comments though on how to do their job better.

rhpixelfreak
Jun 2, 2006, 03:04 PM
I'm surprised. At least here in El Salvador macs are starting to pick up, they are being distributed in about 6 stores since last year (two years ago it was only one) there's a newly opened mini apple store in a mall.
And lots of people I know are first time mac users making the switch last year... It's possible that this is common only in the more expensive schools here.

CmdrLaForge
Jun 2, 2006, 03:22 PM
I bought an iPod cause I had a mac

Same hear. Anyway - it would be great if the market share could get up to 7%.

edcrosay
Jun 2, 2006, 03:26 PM
An OS is only a means to an end and never the end in itself. It doesn't matter if OSX is better or if it is the most advanced piece of software in the whole galaxy. For as long as there aren't enough apps to suit peoples needs it will not be accepted. It's not windows that i'm interested in, it's Photoshop, Illustrator, 3d Studio, Cinema 4D, Autocad and SketchUp that i use. Others use other apps. Some apps work on OSX and most don't. The most important reason (IMHO) apple's market share has remained stagnant, is due to the lack of high profile software.

Actually it is the high profile software that made me switch to a mac. Final Cut Studio, by and far the best affordable video editing software, is only available for Apple, and I bought my Powerbook for this high profile (and exclusive) piece of software. I dont own these, but there is also Shake, Logic, and Apeture to some extent, that drive Mac sales in creative industries.

morespce54
Jun 2, 2006, 04:14 PM
i bought a mac because i liked iPod

I bought a (new) mac because I wanted Tiger... beat you !!! :D :D :D
(seriously, that's not the only reason but...)

SpankWare
Jun 2, 2006, 04:24 PM
I think what's being missed when comparing the market share of OS X to Linux is the fact that these numbers are based on sales. A large component of the Linux install base comes from post purchase installations. I'm assuming the numbers in the report reflect installed systems at the time of sale. As a result the reality of the Linux numbers are likely higher because of the nature with which many deploy Linux systems.

I would like to see a bigger breakdown of the numbers but as was pointed out earlier I think it's bad that there was a .2% reduction in US market share. While with the increase in over all sales for personal computers exists and thus a larger number of Macs sold it's still a reduction over the same quarter the previous year. You can argue the Intel transition all you want and Leopard too but I am confident that most of your average Mac (or PC customers for that matter) aren't holding off purchases because of Leopard or Vista.

081440
Jun 2, 2006, 04:33 PM
And, I think it's too early to tell if macintels are increasing market share. The Macbook's been out for 2 weeks and a lot of wait and see in Q1 and Q2. Conversions and switchers are just getting going (I just bought my first Mac last week after 20 years of being fairly hostile toward apple products and 2-3 months of deciding to go for it based on said halo) ... and the real test will be over the next 2-4 quarters, in my opinion. A musician friend told me over the weekend I was the 4th person he knew who jumped recently.

And by the way, I am enthused.

noel


Just wondering... why were you hostile to Macs for so long? I can understand in the OS 9 days, but even after OS X?


(Asking cauase cause I've always wanted to know why people doen't like Apple, but usually just get a "Cause I don't, OK?!" )

But Congrats on getting an Apple! :D

081440
Jun 2, 2006, 04:38 PM
You can argue the Intel transition all you want and Leopard too but I am confident that most of your average Mac (or PC customers for that matter) aren't holding off purchases because of Leopard or Vista.

Actually I think most are. Almost all of my friends (most of whom wouldn't know the difference between a GPU and a CPU) know enough to not purchase till Vista is out. I would tend to beleive the PC market is feeling the let's wait till Vista jitters. (Another reason they are so ticked that Microsoft will not release it in time for theh Holiday Buying season)

However, I think fewer Mac owners are delaying purchases till Leopard. They realize that it will work on their machines, and they can buy it seperately when they want to.

Stu-Duncan
Jun 2, 2006, 04:51 PM
Very simply, throughout most of the world it is very difficult to buy a Mac.

The main UK PC store is PC World. You struggle to buy a Mac there. The displays are dreadful and the employee will try to persuade you to buy a PC ("there's so much more software for a PC, sir") If you go to an electrical store in France all you see are PCs. It's pretty much the same all over Europe. I'm pretty certain it's the same in Australia and New Zealand and I imagine it's even worse in the old Eastern Europe or China. With so few outlets, how can you possibly increase Market Share. Having a few resellers that sell Mail order doesn't work. You have to know about and want a Mac to go looking for them.

It's no different from cars. If you did a road test on a small Buick and a Peugeot, then most road testers would say the Peugeot was a much better car. But they don't sell many in the USA, do they. No outlets, no sales. Having the best product doesn't matter - that's why Jobs built up Apple Stores. Without them, Apple would have disappeared.

javierbds
Jun 2, 2006, 05:01 PM
wnurse, I know I am taking out of context your words ... But the 'professional' 'static' 'boring' way you look at this stuff bores me :p
With POV's like yours everything will ever stay the same ever ...

First of, people dont get rid of pc's any faster than macs.

Can you back this up with data?
No really, this is a very interesting aspect:
*When do people stop buying new sw as a function of the age of their computer: a) they have all the sw they need, b) New sw will not run properly on their machine

*When do people decide to upgrade their computer and for what reason as a f...?
a) price drop on components, b) to run new sw

*When do people start using less and less their computer as it is a pain in their a** as a f ...? a) virus, malware b) bad maintenance c) fragmentation ...

*When do people decide they need a new computer as a f(t)?

*How do people evaluate the market offer when they are going after a new computer? a) if they had OS Y and app Z, do they look for alternatives ...
...
These are the kind of marketing studies any developer/ hw vendor would be interested in knowing

No one cares about installed base (except developers)



Every user should worry about developers ... (If they interested in sw for their machines)
No one cares about stock price except investors (except when it gets 'Sun' low).

how long before a pc or mac is replaced is irrelevant
It is relevant to evaluate if using OS X is really more expensive. I think they call it TCO ...

Gartner analysts would welcome your comments though on how to do their job better.

I'm tired of most market analysts, business analysts, auditing companies (they say more or less what they are paid to say, Enron ...), statistics (there are little lies, big lies and statistics) ...
Of course, we know, nobody gets fired for buying MS in IT ... Or was it IBM?

Just an innocent question. Do you base your shopping on market share? :cool:

Is this an investment forum?

iDrinkKoolAid
Jun 2, 2006, 05:07 PM
Apple needs at least 10% market share to be relevant. I'm an engineering student, and I cannot do any electrical nor audio engineering on a Mac. In the early '90s when Macs had 10% market share, it was a better time to be a Mac user. For the hype Apple garners, its market share is dying a slow death. Apple should put those Apple reps as they have in CompUSA at Best Buy and Fry's so at least someone can make sure once a week that questions are answered, and a working mouse and keyboard are connected.

javierbds
Jun 2, 2006, 05:15 PM
I agree with most Europeans that market share here is not going to grow much ... :(
The fact is most marketing Apple does is US centered, they only stuff Apple has in Europe that I know of is the online shop in Ireland ... The fact is (flame me) most US multinationals are US centered (with asian workforces, and some salesforces around)... The fact is US companies thinks they are making the world US centered but they cannot :mad:

Not that I think Europe is that important ... :cool: but hey, there are some europeople around here ...

achmafooma
Jun 2, 2006, 06:50 PM
That's the whole point-- your circle of friends is not a random sample of the PC market as a whole; you are part of a small subsegment. I work in the IT industry and as I read through these forums it is clear that only a tiny minority of the participants have an inkling of how PCs are purchased by big business. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of advertising or any other tactic within Apple's control will ever get them back into the mainstream of IT. That shipped has sailed, and only a total, unpredictable technological paradigm shift could ever turn that around. Apple's strength and opportunity is in niche markets which include creative, K-12, and home. So share of total market is an extremely crude measurement of success. I would be much more interested in seeing how Apple has been doing in the Home market anyway. That's the only place the "halo" effect could have any value, and that's likely where your buddies reside, achmafooma (I'm guessing). I don't think any IT director is going to drive his company to "switch" just because he's plugged into iTunes.
You are correct on many points -- essentially all the Macs I see are in the home or school markets. My company owns 2 as test machines. The government agencies my company works for don't use them (with the notable exception of the Army -- army.mil and Army Knowledge Online are hosted on Xserves, as are the two Army sites my office support).

But I take issue with part of your argument -- the 'that ship has sailed' argument. None of the executives making purchasing decisions today have interest in Macs, but many of the lower- and mid-level developers in our office -- an IT contracting firm for the US government -- do use them at home. We even use them for work sometimes instead of the company-provided PCs. Those lower- and mid-level employees will be the IT directors and VPs in a few years, and that's when we'll start seeing the shift.

Business/government IT buyers don't pay any attention to Macs today, but the buyers of the future are increasingly using and respecting them and will give them serious consideration when making those decisions later in their careers.

Five years ago, none of my webdev peers were Mac users at home -- Macs were a 'toy' computer. Today, many of them have become Mac users at home and -- even if they haven't switched -- take the Macs seriously as potential IT machines. The tide is, indeed, turning; I just wish it turned faster!

sonnys
Jun 2, 2006, 06:55 PM
Not smoking anything. Perhaps that's why I have the presence of mind to question that kind of oversimplification.

The problem with drawing any conclusions from this--good or bad--is that we have no idea where the growth in the PC market is coming from. The PC market includes home, educational, government and business/server sales. If all this growth in the market is coming from business/server sales (where Apple is a relatively small player) then these numbers are basically meaningless (in regard to Apple, at least.) If it's all in home and educational sales, then you might be right.

Do you have an exact break-down of the PC market growth numbers you would like to share with us to back up your asssertion that this is a a bad thing for Apple? If you don't, I'm puzzled as to why you're so inisistent about this. What makes you so sure of your position that you would be insulting to everyone about it?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but regardless of where the overall industry growth is coming from, the Mac still shows a .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR drop iin market share, which means the Mac has LESS market share this quarter than it did a year ago.

This quarter's numbers may be better than last quarter, but overall the Mac is in worse shape this year than last year in terms of market share. Why is everyone happy about this?

BenjyD
Jun 2, 2006, 06:56 PM
Very simply, throughout most of the world it is very difficult to buy a Mac.

The main UK PC store is PC World. You struggle to buy a Mac there.

Places to buy Macs are becoming more common in the UK. The Apple shop on Regent Street in London has always been packed when I've seen it, so I think the demand is there. I believe Apple has an agreement with Tescos to put ministores in supermarkets here, and places like John Lewis generally feature Apple stuff very prominently.

That said, I agree that Apple computers are far too rare in shops.

McDave
Jun 2, 2006, 07:17 PM
I keep hearing this 2% and it's starting to annoy me.

When I buy my groceries & electrical gadgets the till is a Windows machine.
When my colleagues produce spreadsheets for sales projections they'll never hit they use a Windows machine
When my Nephews play video games they use a Windows machine
When a local Government Department recently rolled out 3,500 computers for their army of public servants they used Windows machines

All of these have one thing in common - they have nothing to do with why I use a computer.

I use my machine as my "digital hub", for production & management of home digital media, to listen to and manage music, photos and produce DVDs to bore my folks rigid back home. I don't play games or use MS Office or leave it sitting in the corner for web/email/chat and pirating music & videos. If I wanted those killer apps, I would probably have bought a Windows machine.

The real question for me is - what is Apple's market share in my market area? i.e. of all the machines sold to people who are now actually producing a home DVD every couple of months (as opposed to those who bought a machine to do it which now sits in the corner because those 'hundreds of software titles' that might exist out there in internet-land were mostly crap). That statistic is of relevance to me.

As far as overall market share is concerned, Apple should stop being so US-centric and get the retail presence/advertising/full iTMS (including TV shows) rolled out globally and stop stalling so they don't blow their one window of opportunity, pre-vista market capture.

Rant over but if anyone knows where I can get relevant market stats, please tell me.

McD

Analog Kid
Jun 2, 2006, 10:38 PM
I think what's being missed when comparing the market share of OS X to Linux is the fact that these numbers are based on sales. A large component of the Linux install base comes from post purchase installations. I'm assuming the numbers in the report reflect installed systems at the time of sale. As a result the reality of the Linux numbers are likely higher because of the nature with which many deploy Linux systems.

I would like to see a bigger breakdown of the numbers but as was pointed out earlier I think it's bad that there was a .2% reduction in US market share. While with the increase in over all sales for personal computers exists and thus a larger number of Macs sold it's still a reduction over the same quarter the previous year. You can argue the Intel transition all you want and Leopard too but I am confident that most of your average Mac (or PC customers for that matter) aren't holding off purchases because of Leopard or Vista.
A lot of the estimates of installed base for operating systems now comes from Web server logs. If you as Google what the percentages are of Mac/Win/Linux machines hitting their site, they could give you a pretty good sense of what machines are out there and what they're running...

This, of course, has it's own biases-- a lot of Linux machines are servers that will never go to the web, for example, but it's not a bad approach if you look at high traffic sites.

The market share numbers that started this discussion are based on hardware sales and ignore OSs.

Analog Kid
Jun 2, 2006, 11:27 PM
First of, people dont get rid of pc's any faster than macs. Last I saw, the Software Publishers Association estimated Apple had about 16% of the installed base. If they have less than 4% marketshare, and 16% of the installed base then people are getting rid of their PCs faster than Macs.

I know I've been keeping my Macs for 5 or more years, while I had to trash my PCs every 3 or so. Since switching my work machine to a Mac, I'm watching folks around me need to replace their PCs much more often because of failing components.

One thing to look at is the support the company gives to older machines-- Apple supports very, very old machines for a very long time. Even if this means writing emulation software to support changing processors and OS architectures...
The components in a dell computer do not corrode or rust or somehow break apart.
Uh, yes they do. That's why I convinced my boss to let me go Mac at work. Tired of screws falling out of my Dell laptop, and parts failing. That's pretty much exactly what happened-- parts corroded or broke apart.
Secondly, marketshare is a function of sales. No one cares about installed base (except developers), Apple stock price will not go up unless they make more sales, irrespective of the number of old mac computers existing. Actually, everyone cares about installed base except hardware manufacturers. Apple's stock price will rise with growing installed base-- Apple sells all kinds of stuff to continuing customers. Applications, OS updates, Applecare, displays, and, um... iPods. About half of Apple's revenue is iPod related now, right? Would the iPod have taken off the way it had if there weren't a bunch of Mac users out there who could use the original Mac-only iPod?
If these pc users are getting rid of their machines faster (as you claim) why aren't they replaceing them with macs?. Ooo. This is a trick question isn't it... Uh... Is it because, um, because they're PC users?
That's the whole point of marketshare.. how long before a pc or mac is replaced is irrelevant.. it's what people buy when looking for replacement.. Here's an interesting word problem you can use to practice for the SATs-- There are 100 people using computers and they replace their computers every 2 years. What is the average number of computers sold every month? What would this average be if the computers were replaced every 5 years?
in fact, if apple becomes more appealing, then they might want pc users to replace their pcs at a faster rate if they would replace them with a mac. Yup. Or, they may be happy with the difference in replacement rates they're seeing now, figure it's enough that when PC users get tired of replacing their machines so often they see the longer lifetime of a Mac as a selling point.

People have been determining market share for a long, long time.. how stupid of them not to consult you first on how to do their job. Everybody always think they know how to do the other guys job. I assure you, the method of measuring market share is tested and time proven... i'm sure Gartner analysts would welcome your comments though on how to do their job better.
Considering that he started his comment by saying he wanted to know how they calculate these things, I'd say the sarcasm is a little misplaced here. It's also worth noting that market share can be calculated and reported in a lot of different ways to support a lot of different agendas. In this case, Gartner is reporting market share data for investors to monitor the performance of the various PC makers and we've been trying to use these numbers to draw a bunch of other conclusions. Drawing the distinction between the reported market share and the installed base was relevant to some of the preceding threads.

Analog Kid
Jun 2, 2006, 11:38 PM
I'm an engineering student, and I cannot do any electrical nor audio engineering on a Mac.
What are you trying to do?

Switcher2001
Jun 3, 2006, 01:06 AM
BMW and Mercedes each have around 5% of the world auto market (give or take, depending on the month and the news article you read), but they are recognized as elite vehicles the world over. Why complain that Apple computers only make up a small percentage of the world market? I agree that Apple could position themselves more strategically or market themselves better, I guess, but they are recognized as makers of fine, sexy, cool computers and gadgets. And hey, even if I had to run Windows, I'd rather run it on a Mac!

rayz
Jun 3, 2006, 01:35 AM
... how hanging around on the 'net can really screw with your perception. ...:confused:

In the wider world, the Mac market share is still falling, and WinTel machines still continue to set records. Why this is, I have no idea; wouldn't it be wiser to hang on to your money and wait for Vista to land?

Now unless I say "don't bother", someone will feel the need to say

"Well, I bought a Windows machine, and the second I plugged it in, it caught a million viruses, a thousand spyware programs, kicked my dog then choked on BSOD".

So just don't bother. okay?

Windows is robust, stable, has excellent PnP and unparalleled industry support. There is not going to be a mass exodus to the Mac or Linux. MS knows this, and Apple knows this.

Why doesn't Apple advertise MacOSX? Because outside of the loyal Mac community, the advantages aren't that great. Nothing you could put into a thirty second commercial anyway. The machines however .. that's something you can show. Immediate visual impact; that's what this advertising lark is all about.

This is why Apple has stopped fighting for market share, and has focussed on something more important; profitability.

All this marketshare figure shows, is that ONE single company, does not sell machines at the same rate as THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of other companies put together. Why does that surprise anybody? The only real surprise here, is that Apple can sell enough machines to show up at all. They're in the top five sellers! Does anyone have any idea how many other companies are BENEATH them, and still making good money? I buy machines from a UK company, that doesn't even register on the marketshare figures, and has still managed to stay in business for twenty years.

What's really important is that Apple sells more machines one year, than they did in the previous year. Apple's market share can carry on dropping and they can still be increasing sales, and so increase the size of the user base.

Analog Kid
Jun 3, 2006, 01:52 AM
BMW and Mercedes each have around 5% of the world auto market (give or take, depending on the month and the news article you read), but they are recognized as elite vehicles the world over. Why complain that Apple computers only make up a small percentage of the world market? I agree that Apple could position themselves more strategically or market themselves better, I guess, but they are recognized as makers of fine, sexy, cool computers and gadgets. And hey, even if I had to run Windows, I'd rather run it on a Mac!
The problem would come in if the highway you drive to work only accepted Fords... Because the auto industry is highly standardized this doesn't happen, but no auto manufacturer has 90% market share either...

Analog Kid
Jun 3, 2006, 02:28 AM
All this marketshare figure shows, is that ONE single company, does not sell machines at the same rate as THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of other companies put together. Why does that surprise anybody? The only real surprise here, is that Apple can sell enough machines to show up at all. They're in the top five sellers! Does anyone have any idea how many other companies are BENEATH them, and still making good money? I buy machines from a UK company, that doesn't even register on the marketshare figures, and has still managed to stay in business for twenty years.

Apple is in a different position than your UK company though... If your UK company was selling a proprietary architecture and a unique but excellent OS, they probably wouldn't survive long. Ironically, that company survives because of Dell and HP.

What's amazing to me is that Apple has found a niche and kept it all this time. They peaked at 10% market share like 15 years ago, and since then they've been consistently below 5% and reportedly have an installed base around 16%. There has to be a number below which they'll fade out and die, and a number above which they'd blossom and grow substantially.

How is it they've stayed in the same place for so long-- not crossing either threshold? Is it intentional? Is it an artifact of some marketing formula? Makes you wonder if they're setting their prices, or doing something else, to maintain the status quo.

I really don't have the background in economics or the visibility into Apple's finances to know for sure, but I do notice that the biggest companies have stopped innovating in their products. Dell is clearly nothing more than a manufacturing company-- there may be innovation in their production methods but their products are pretty mediocre. HP spun off their "science" division into Agilent. Microsoft innovates, but not at a rate commensurate with their size difference relative to Apple. IBM is another innovator, but they're much broader than a PC company.

I wonder if Apple's management sets their margins in such a way that they have enough loose cash around to innovate the way they want to and have simply fully captured the demographic that a company of that type will appeal too-- namely the people willing to pay more and suffer some inconvenience in exchange for using a unique product.

wnurse
Jun 3, 2006, 09:35 AM
wnurse, I know I am taking out of context your words ... But the 'professional' 'static' 'boring' way you look at this stuff bores me :p
With POV's like yours everything will ever stay the same ever ...


Can you back this up with data?
No really, this is a very interesting aspect:
*When do people stop buying new sw as a function of the age of their computer: a) they have all the sw they need, b) New sw will not run properly on their machine

*When do people decide to upgrade their computer and for what reason as a f...?
a) price drop on components, b) to run new sw

*When do people start using less and less their computer as it is a pain in their a** as a f ...? a) virus, malware b) bad maintenance c) fragmentation ...

*When do people decide they need a new computer as a f(t)?

*How do people evaluate the market offer when they are going after a new computer? a) if they had OS Y and app Z, do they look for alternatives ...
...
These are the kind of marketing studies any developer/ hw vendor would be interested in knowing




Every user should worry about developers ... (If they interested in sw for their machines)
No one cares about stock price except investors (except when it gets 'Sun' low).


It is relevant to evaluate if using OS X is really more expensive. I think they call it TCO ...



I'm tired of most market analysts, business analysts, auditing companies (they say more or less what they are paid to say, Enron ...), statistics (there are little lies, big lies and statistics) ...
Of course, we know, nobody gets fired for buying MS in IT ... Or was it IBM?

Just an innocent question. Do you base your shopping on market share? :cool:

Is this an investment forum?

One simple question. Does anyone anywhere know of any study or analysis of market share that took installed base into account?.

wnurse
Jun 3, 2006, 09:49 AM
Last I saw, the Software Publishers Association estimated Apple had about 16% of the installed base. If they have less than 4% marketshare, and 16% of the installed base then people are getting rid of their PCs faster than Macs.

I know I've been keeping my Macs for 5 or more years, while I had to trash my PCs every 3 or so. Since switching my work machine to a Mac, I'm watching folks around me need to replace their PCs much more often because of failing components.

One thing to look at is the support the company gives to older machines-- Apple supports very, very old machines for a very long time. Even if this means writing emulation software to support changing processors and OS architectures...

Uh, yes they do. That's why I convinced my boss to let me go Mac at work. Tired of screws falling out of my Dell laptop, and parts failing. That's pretty much exactly what happened-- parts corroded or broke apart.


You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Secondly, i know people that have had their pc's for a long, long time.. in fact, i bet the same amount of people keep their pc as long as those that keep their macs (not difficult given that pc's marketshare overall is huge).. secondly, there are people that replace their macs often.. not becuase it is obselete but because they want the latest.. same with pc's. pc's are so much cheaper that people can replace them more often. In fact, the majority of pc users replace their pc's faster than macs not because their pc's corrode (hahahaha.. man, i am laughing with tears streaming down my face as i am typing this reply.. that is sooo funny!!) or becuase their pc's become useless.. but becuase they want to upgrade to the new faster computer out there.. many, many households have multiple computers.. i had a client who had 5 pc's in his home.. ranged from windows 95 to XP. From desktop to laptop. He did not throw out his old computer, it did not corrode (ok, whew.. that was a good laugh).. I have a mac.. it cost me 5000. I'm gonna keep it for a while not because it is usefull or because i don't want a new mac (i'm dying for a new mac) but cause it COST SO DAMN MUCH!!!.. had this been a pc i bought for 800 bucks, i would have upgraded/bought a new computer a long time ago.

ictiosapiens
Jun 3, 2006, 12:31 PM
Apple is in a different position than your UK company though... If your UK company was selling a proprietary architecture and a unique but excellent OS, they probably wouldn't survive long. Ironically, that company survives because of Dell and HP.

What's amazing to me is that Apple has found a niche and kept it all this time. They peaked at 10% market share like 15 years ago, and since then they've been consistently below 5% and reportedly have an installed base around 16%. There has to be a number below which they'll fade out and die, and a number above which they'd blossom and grow substantially.

How is it they've stayed in the same place for so long-- not crossing either threshold? Is it intentional? Is it an artifact of some marketing formula? Makes you wonder if they're setting their prices, or doing something else, to maintain the status quo.

I really don't have the background in economics or the visibility into Apple's finances to know for sure, but I do notice that the biggest companies have stopped innovating in their products. Dell is clearly nothing more than a manufacturing company-- there may be innovation in their production methods but their products are pretty mediocre. HP spun off their "science" division into Agilent. Microsoft innovates, but not at a rate commensurate with their size difference relative to Apple. IBM is another innovator, but they're much broader than a PC company.

I wonder if Apple's management sets their margins in such a way that they have enough loose cash around to innovate the way they want to and have simply fully captured the demographic that a company of that type will appeal too-- namely the people willing to pay more and suffer some inconvenience in exchange for using a unique product.

Even if the market suddenly changed and decided to all go Mac, there's a limit in apple's capacity. You guys are comparing a company that makes both hardware and os, to a million companies that make hardware and another one that makes the os for those other millions...


Even if apple all of the sudden hypnotized the whole world to buy a Mac, they could not satisfy that demand, they just don't have the capacity, not until they license their os, that is the only way they could break that 5 or 6% threshold. But this may not be in their best interest, because they seem to be happy with that 5% or because they don't seem confident that people will continue to buy apple hardware if they can boot Mac os on a cheaper pc.

I don't know its all a bit weird at the moment with apple bringing hardware more in line with pc hardware, so its going to be harder for them to justify the premium price. At the same time, they are letting people run windows on the Macs. Anything could happen, they could start licensing Mac os, or they could stop making Mac os altogether (NOT LIKELY, just hypothesizing) my point is that with the Intel and boot camp move, apple is in a very interesting position, with both scenarios making some kind of business sense. With the first one, becoming more of a Microsoft kind of company with its main product being the OS and apps, and also making hardware on the side(pretty much what Microsoft seems to want to do with the 360) or with the 2nd(and extremely unlikely scenario of them becoming a pure hardware company dell style.

And I definitely don’t think that apple are just happy with their 5% niche, if they were they wouldn’t be spending money on massive stores all over the world, and massive TV/radio/add campaigns they do want more, and mr. Jobs has implied it just by mentioning the market share figures on his keynotes...

rolandf
Jun 3, 2006, 12:49 PM
As I emphasised several times, the transition to Intel will only help in the short to middle run. Certainly it is a reasonable hedge. But so-far, I haven't got the impression, that Apple would have been treated better than other Intel customers, so they get the things at the same time. Therefore they should keep open the AMD option as-well.

On a personal side, the Intel macs lost there charisma, they don't convey that special feeling anymore. The new 15,4 inch power-book doesn't look so nice anymore.

On the other hand, giving IBM away, was not a smart move in any case. If there is a computer superpower that is IBM, a company that is able to help innovative companies in critical situations. AMD wouldn't probably be alive without IBM backing them. To innovate, Apple should have embraced something like the CELL, to introduce new product categories, like they did with the iPod.

The arrival of Windows Vista will take away a lot of the motivation to switch to Apple. Their OS can only keep an edge in conjunction with cutting-edge hardware, that isn't mainstream, and x86 is main-main-main-stream.

Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.

So, I think after all the Intel hype and FLOPS per Watt etc., it would be better to introduce the next bigger thing, with strong long-term partners, who also know, how to make an OS around a good processor, but are not that keen on how their boxes look like.

ictiosapiens
Jun 3, 2006, 12:56 PM
Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.

Not only 1-1 to the Euro, but nearly 1-1.2 to the Pound Sterling!!! I know we get charge VAT and all the rest, but still, it makes them very, VERY expensive!!!

inkswamp
Jun 3, 2006, 03:04 PM
You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Why argue about it then? What will that prove? If you want a definitive answer, go look at Consumer Reports. Apple computers have hardware failures far less often than their PC counterparts, especially in terms of critical failures. That's just a fact. Argue it all you want, but the evidence is not in your favor.

And that has been my experience. At work, I have a PC and a Mac on my desktop. In two years, the Mac has required no tech support. The PC has needed help many, many times. In fact, just this last week, its video card started to die (something that our tech guy seemed unsurprised by but something I have never witnessed on a Mac.)

On top of that, I have worked in a mixed Mac and PC environment and I can assure you that the PC hardware fails *far* more often than the Macs.

[Edit: I'm posting this on my 6-year-old iBook, 500Mhz G3 running Tiger like a champ--and has never had a hardware failure. None of my PC using friends have laptops that old that have survived. Must be my dumb luck, huh?]

k2k koos
Jun 3, 2006, 03:30 PM
Reading all discussions about what Apple may or may not do in terms of market share, I think the answer to what Apple wants to accieve eventually lies in the drive of Steve Jobs.
Just read the book "Accidental Empires' by Robert X Cringely for a few juicy stories. While I do not fully agree with Robert in his descriptions of Steve and Apple, there is some underlying truth there. In a nut shell, Steve Jobs wants to show the world a better way of computing, and even better, would love the whole world to use computers that completely match his vision of what this thing should be. The Mac is awfully close to this 'ideal machine' allready, and it continues to innovate (particulary on the software side, which is the soul of the machine). Software is key for the sales of Apple computers.
Steve as the drive to push his vision forward, and opening up several new stores all over the place (starting in the US), and adding flagship stores slowly but surely arround the globe, will increase Apple's presence, and lure potential buyers inside. In there lies the key, Apple increase its presence, and Steve to push the Mac to the next level together will be a very healthy start for increased market share. It will not come overnight, and Vista's launch will no doubt be a major factor, but I think Apple will succeed in eventually getting a marketshare of 10%, in the next 5 years, although Steve would like to see that even higher. If not, I'll still buy a Mac!

backspinner
Jun 3, 2006, 05:53 PM
Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.
It's not, it's just right. I guess you forget that in Europe we have to include the VAT or whatever it's called localy, and in the USA you don't.

MacBook: 1099 dollar and 923 euro, a nice rate of about 1:1.2

riversky
Jun 3, 2006, 05:59 PM
If the market for personal computers (desks and notebooks) is growing (the whole pie is getting bigger) then even if Apple stays at their current market share, or even a little less, that means there are still MORE new Macs in use.

Slice of pie is out of a LARGER total.

backspinner
Jun 3, 2006, 06:00 PM
I'm posting this on my 6-year-old iBook, 500Mhz G3 running Tiger like a champ--and has never had a hardware failure. None of my PC using friends have laptops that old that have survived. Must be my dumb luck, huh?
Well I'm typing this on a 4+ year old powerbook that is regularly failing from a broken logic board, broken DVD player and a broken case and hinges. I have seen multiple PC laptops that do not have these problems... since these lay around somewhere collecting dust (because the OS won't keep running) and not being used and moved around and beaten 10 hours a day for four years long.

inkswamp
Jun 3, 2006, 07:04 PM
Well I'm typing this on a 4+ year old powerbook that is regularly failing from a broken logic board, broken DVD player and a broken case and hinges. I have seen multiple PC laptops that do not have these problems... since these lay around somewhere collecting dust (because the OS won't keep running) and not being used and moved around and beaten 10 hours a day for four years long.

Well, to be clear, I was citing my own anecdotal evidence after pointing out that Consumer Reports pretty much definitively shows this to be the case. If anyone wants to make the case that Macs are every bit as likely to fall apart as the average PC, they will need to show some numbers to back it up.

Analog Kid
Jun 4, 2006, 01:21 AM
You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Happy to amuse you.

Given the numbers I quoted above, 16% installed base with a 4% market share indicating that people dispose of their Macs less frequently than people dispose of their PCs, and your solid evidence of a client who keeps their PCs as long as they still run, I'd say that my experience is typical.

When I look around the office at the outdated machines, most of them are Thinkpads. The Dells barely survive until they depreciate. Their desktops do a little better. There aren't enough Macs in the office to talk statistically-- just my personal experience there...

Analog Kid
Jun 4, 2006, 02:16 AM
Even if apple all of the sudden hypnotized the whole world to buy a Mac, they could not satisfy that demand, they just don't have the capacity, not until they license their os, that is the only way they could break that 5 or 6% threshold. But this may not be in their best interest, because they seem to be happy with that 5% or because they don't seem confident that people will continue to buy apple hardware if they can boot Mac os on a cheaper pc.Granted, if the change in demand happened suddenly there would be a shortage, but if it happened over years, as is more likely, this capacity isn't an issue. Apple doesn't manufacture much of anything, if anything at all-- they contract it out. As long as there is factory capacity in the world, there will be enough Macs to go around.
I don't know its all a bit weird at the moment with apple bringing hardware more in line with pc hardware, so its going to be harder for them to justify the premium price. At the same time, they are letting people run windows on the Macs. Anything could happen, they could start licensing Mac os, or they could stop making Mac os altogether (NOT LIKELY, just hypothesizing) my point is that with the Intel and boot camp move, apple is in a very interesting position, with both scenarios making some kind of business sense. With the first one, becoming more of a Microsoft kind of company with its main product being the OS and apps, and also making hardware on the side(pretty much what Microsoft seems to want to do with the 360) or with the 2nd(and extremely unlikely scenario of them becoming a pure hardware company dell style. I agree with you that Bootcamp is an interesting development. I think it's just a way of dealing with the inevitable. Props to Apple for thinking ahead and developing this on their own, but I do notice they waited until users figured out how to dual boot on their own before releasing it. I think it fits into the larger Apple strategy-- building systems. Apple's strength is in delivering a complete "experience" from hardware and peripherals to the OS and key applications. Once it became clear that people were going to dual boot, they wanted control over how it was done-- either to ensure that the experience was satisfactory (at least until the Windows startup chime) or to ensure that the proper drivers were in place so their hardware fared well in the head to head benchmarking that was sure to follow.

That might help answer your the other dichotomy you pose-- a hardware or software company. There's probably places in the forum archives where I asserted that Apple is a hardware company, but that's just where their revenue comes from. At its heart they're a systems company and I expect they always will be as long as the Old Guard, Jobs in particular, is still around. They can't seem to deal with someone else coming in and marring the "perfect" Apple experience.
And I definitely don’t think that apple are just happy with their 5% niche, if they were they wouldn’t be spending money on massive stores all over the world, and massive TV/radio/add campaigns they do want more, and mr. Jobs has implied it just by mentioning the market share figures on his keynotes... Yeah, my speculation was just a mental exercise... Trying to find a reason why the company has stayed in essentially the same place for so very long. To me, staying Apple sized seems harder to do than either growing bigger or fading away. I can't really explain it.

javierbds
Jun 4, 2006, 06:45 AM
And hey, even if I had to run Windows, I'd rather run it on a Mac!
++ :p

SPUY767
Jun 4, 2006, 06:45 AM
I know I've been keeping my Macs for 5 or more years, while I had to trash my PCs every 3 or so. Since switching my work machine to a Mac, I'm watching folks around me need to replace their PCs much more often because of failing components.

This is precisely the point that so many fail to make. Macs have a much longer useful life than their Windows-based counterparts. I've still got a Sawtooth G4 that I purchased in '00 I think. . . maybe late '99. Still capable of running the latest version of the Mac OS. And at a respectable speed. Try running XP at a reasonable speed on a 6 year old machine. If I didn't need a ridiculous amount of computing power, I'd still be using that. And the majority of Apple customers would be in the latter of the two positions.

Bottom line. Apple customers keep their machines longer on average than PC owners thereby showing an innacurately low market share.

slotcarbob
Jun 4, 2006, 10:26 AM
I don't see how switching to the Intel is going to increase sale and result in increase market share.

I've have been using Window XP on a Dell Optiplex at work for sometime now. I used Apple computers in my previous job. I like the snappy feel of being online with IE. I'm sorry guys, but that is the truth. XP/Dell is pretty good so long as you keep up with latest updates and run virus software. No it is not a pretty setup. Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig). Okay, so it was a wireless connection (but with good signal). I have ethernet connection in my office and it very snappy. To tell you the true, I was turn off by this sluggish performance of Safari, and I think the majority of people will feel the same way I did. I guess I just want things to be snappy (second most annoying thing about OSX is the bouncing app icon when you launch it, just open the darn thing..I dont' really care for the graphic effect).

Coming from someone who uses PC at work, I don't see any compelling reason to buy an Apple Computer other than the look. Yes, there are reasons e.g. iLife but not enough to spring $1199 for a MacBook. On a brighter note, I don't see any reason to buy a Dell either or any PC anytime soon.

Cinch,

This is the essence of why Apple trails PC's. It's about perceived speed, and cost.

Several things of note, though. First, Apple has a bigger "User" percentage than "market share" percentage, because Apple computers stay viable longer. Second, Apples come with everything. You don't need to add anything (that's a little why it bothers me that modems are being left out). That's why they cost more. Take a comparable Dell, add everything that Apple includes, and the costs are comparable. But people like cinch, who are quite typical and normal, don't care. Also, let's not forget that Windows percentage is based on it running on ALL manufacturers machines, while the Mac OS only runs on Apples. If you compare Apple sales one on one with any other single manufacturer, they stack up pretty well. The discrepancy is far less.

Apple is a niche, just like Mercedes is. Don't expect that to change. It is a certain type of individual who appreciates, and is willing to spend the money for, a Mac.

Will running Windows on a Mac help? You bet it will. Every web page designer on the planet will own one, IF-F-F-F one won't have to reboot to switch OS's, and Windows runs as fast as it does now on a Mac, in a true dual boot configuration.

As for having the Mac OS run on PC's, and giving away the OS, that is ludicrous, and death to Macs. I don't even think it warrants consideration, or a reason, as it's too obvious.

javierbds
Jun 4, 2006, 10:32 AM
NOTE: PC is used as a neutral term here just denoting Personal Computer ... I would not let them to rob me a good term, even if they have tarnished it

This is in no way a scientific justification, but there are a few reasons why it has been very hard to get above 4% marketshare:

1. Being a lamb. Most MS users are 'lambs', followers: it is the easy path in a sense. You don't make decisions, you follow the crowd (leader). Many people are afraid to part from the crowd, specially in areas where things change fast or where they do not have much information ... I know of many guys who would buy a BMW but would be afraid to buy a Mac (weasels!)... I am a lamb in many areas, but not in computing ... ;)

2. Available points of purchase and exposure to Macs. Any mom and pop could open a PC little shop buying parts and assembling PCs ... (I think it is no longer much profitable as the margins are getting too low for low volume operation ...). Long gone are the days, in many places, when you used Macs (apples) at school, in Math or Computing, before your teens. (iPods, in a sense, are changing that ... halo)

3. IT in the enterprise. Most PCs in any 'shop' are MS machines, and they are in part because that is what IBM's design was targetted to serve: cheap hw in volume with office apps ... Most computing jobs are in (working for) enterprises, so a Mac culture there is not useful and can even be 'detrimental' as quality standards are much lower and you can be seen as snob or self-righteous :rolleyes: ...

4. Not that many people are 'creative' in the abstract sense. They use their PC to consume, not to create anything (except reports and clone cds) and Windows can be an 'adecuate' consumer experience for that ...

5. Most people do NOT pay for most of their sw. If they did they would realize a Windows machine is not that cheap ... (There is some more free usable sw in Winland lately).

6. Being a Mac user (in a Win world) requires being more 'active' (but much less active in the tiresome maintenance area ...). There is less people (close) around to talk to, less games (IMHO, most Hw-intensive games should be played in specialized hw, aka gaming consoles ...) ... If you are not 'online' (at least outside US) you should not buy a Mac (At last, most people are getting online ...).

7. The kind of pressures that a big player can exert in tech are much higher than those in other industries ... A paranoid (comic book stuff!) example: if Bill got angry and decided he was tired and done with ingrate computer users he could release something that could possibly bring 80% of computers to their knees (OTOH, maybe that was Windows Millenium :rolleyes: ).

My humble perceptions that point that this is changing:

1. After having had several computers and, if you have tried a Mac (and this is a big IF), people realize it is better. Since PCs appeared in mass volume (late 80s early 90s), people would have had at least 4 machines, so consumers are a bit more computer-savvy.

2. A commodity market. The difference between buying a just passable PC for 900 € and a good one for 3000 € in the early 90s is not the same as now : 300 € vs 1500 €. Current 'good' price is not as 'sensitive' as it was, people now realize the very short lifespan of a passable machine. People bought PCs then, in part, because people told them they should have one. People spend more time with PCs now and realize they are a tool they use everyday. To just print some stuff and do some spreadsheets any PC could do, but people do much more now with their PCs and they care more about their longer day experience.

3. Even if you do not have much direct exposure to clients (media and retail presence) you can leverage on some 'tricks' (Apple is an expert at this): internet, word of mouth, status symbols, satisfied customers, key figures in some areas ... I like the new pub of Apple (sadly only through the net): it is going from we are great and different which can be perceived as snob, to simply 'we are better, can we help you?' not avoiding comparison and integration and inviting people to try ...

4. Many people are tired of many undelivered (or very late delivered) promises from MS (Vista, security, stability and .NET ...). Mac leverages on Unix and offers a great user experience that Linux cannot easily deliver.

5. Buying a Mac next year (Leopard) will not be that much of a jump for users to make (For developers with Unix experience it is not that big since OS X): LESS risk than with PPC, virtualization, be able to run Win easily when needed. An iMac with a Leopard window with XP is really a sight I long to see in many places where Macs would be anathema ...

6. With more presence online and the right push of services (iTunes with TV serials for EU and 1 year .Mac account (with tutorials) with a hw purchase) in other countries (growing the online community globally) the mac presence online will recover.

7. And last but not least, the iPod Video PDA Apple is going to launch at Xmas :p will increase the halo effect.

There are indeed some risks involved, but Apple is a company that does not take really that many risks anymore, they go little by little, by increments, as price, technology and niche market opportunities appear (but they never stop). Some may not like it, but the late 90s were a lesson to everybody :( ...
Indeed I would like to have Leopard, all apps Universal, high end Intel hw, Xcode 3, iPod PDA and who knows now and watch the sonic wave (and the lawsuits :D ...).

There is a risk that I worry about, but is not so easy to explain (maybe it also justifies in part not having gone above 5%, though a 'kind of monopoly' explains it better ...). This is not the 'Macs are gonna dissapear and Apple is going to sell toasters' kind of stuff, but goes a bit in that line ...
It seems (but I do not know) everything has to go through Steve. He is getting older and the rate of change in x86 world is faster and more competitive. Also Apple seems prepared to diversify in more markets: mobile, pda, consumer media ...
Perhaps the type of leadership Apple has that allows it to innovate and give a high quality-experience without much risk (assured 4% of market share, great market value, high quality sw & hw integration, low repair numbers ...), will have to transform into something a bit less centralized to allow it to enter those 'new' markets, without sacrificing quality, and being able to keep the pace of change ... But I am way out of line here as, to evaluate this, I would need to know much more about how the tech market works 'up there' and the insides of Apple ... Maybe Apple is gonna develop some more alliances ... Job postings and patent fillings are all I can see :confused:

slotcarbob
Jun 4, 2006, 10:46 AM
yikes, apple's quality control has gone to crap lately so i don't even know if they can provide quality hardware. pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem. it's almost like they use those early adopters as guinea pigs to fund their quality control.

This is so true. Apple has fallen a little in this regard, and tech support.

janstett
Jun 4, 2006, 11:03 AM
I'm fine with the market share staying put.

If less people use Macs, fewer viruses/spyware for us. Apple's not struggling to stay alive or anything, so I think we're at a perfect spot right now as far as market share goes.

I have to disagree with this "small is good" philosophy. Having worked at several startups over the years, you have to grow to survive. See all the problems Microsoft is going through the last few years -- they are at the top of the world and struggling to grow.

In most competitive markets, not growing means stagnation and death.

Not to mention, where is the challenge for the management and staff teams if they're never going to grow, to aim higher? This may explain the recent high level departures at Apple. For example, the OS guru behind NeXTStep and OSX, what are the challenges to keep yourself interested in? If you're an OS guru, well OS's have become a stable technology and nothing really new or radical is going on. Where's the challenge in that? Now is when the pioneers and innovators go away and the maintenance-mode guys come in.

Being in business just to stay where you already are is not much fun.

celebrian23
Jun 4, 2006, 11:06 AM
Well I think keeping the quality control will get harder and harder the more apple grows. What about if apple and MS are 50-50? Or apple gains a monopoly:eek: As some things are gained, others are lost. The bigger the company becomes, the less control apple has over their company. What I mean is like how the Romans had to start having princes in individual "regions" because the "leader" couldn't control this entire great mass of land. Same idea.

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 11:08 AM
I agree with you that Bootcamp is an interesting development. ....

Props to Apple for thinking ahead and developing this on their own, but I do notice they waited until users figured out how to dual boot on their own before releasing it.
This is really precious, considering that Apple started by *removing* the BIOS support in the firmware to make the MacIntels unable to boot XP !!

I can think of two reasons for the change to put the BIOS support *back into* the firmware:
(Conspiracy Theory) Apple got so many complaints about the stupidity of crippling the BIOS that The Steve® changed his mind and put it back.
(Generous Interpretation) Apple planned dual-boot capability, but during testing for the first MacIntel Books they found that it caused problems with EFI. Therefore, the BIOS was temporarily disabled for the first systems, and restored when the problems were fixed.


Either way, you can't pat Apple on the back too much for replacing functionality that's been in the Intel platform for at least 15 years.

janstett
Jun 4, 2006, 11:19 AM
Can't you combine this number into the overall PC sold. Perhaps in the distance future where this scenario comes true, and lay people starts to demand Apple computer at work place because they use them personally. I think every Apple computer user had this fantasy at least once except me of course:D .

Cinch

I recently started a new job at a large chip maker. I'm trying to use my personal MacBook Pro for development. I use Linux extensively but I'm ok with telnet, ssh, vnc, etc. I even have a good Fedora Core 5 image on Parallels. However, the thing that's killing me is VPN. There is no working VPN solution for Intel Macs. So until then I'm stuck with the stock Dell the company issues.

My company did business with Apple and as a result has a stash of G4 Powerbooks which people have gotten, but many of them have been left in frustration, especially in dealing with Proxy servers and in particular Mac Skype. There are lots of little annoyances -- like I can't listen to Sirius online with my Mac.

It's a lovely thought, using a Mac in business, but it isn't smooth sailing.

javierbds
Jun 4, 2006, 11:21 AM
This is precisely the point that so many fail to make. Macs have a much longer useful life than their Windows-based counterparts. I've still got a Sawtooth G4 that I purchased in '00 I think. . . maybe late '99. Still capable of running the latest version of the Mac OS. And at a respectable speed. Try running XP at a reasonable speed on a 6 year old machine.

I still use my '00 assembled K7 with XP at a respectable speed ... (But not to play most games, in less than 3 years my machine was obsolete to play 3D games, not that I care for those). I payed quite some money then for it ... :cool:

I cannot use my parent's '02 branded P4 with XP Home for much more than surfing and P2P ... It was cheaper and, theoretically, much better than my K7, better integrated, with more apps, more of everything ... I have added RAM, HDs, dual layer DVD recorder and done everything imaginable to get a decent experience from it except remove a legal XP Home and put a better OS ... But a lemon is a lemon ... :(

So, there are good Win machines :eek: , but they are not cheaper than Macs and, most of the time, you have to assemble them yourself not to pay through the nose and to get the 'right' components ... Most people do not own those (but some people do). I do not want to build my machines (and investigate about all the pieces available) anymore, so a Core 2 Mac will retire my trusted K7 ...

javierbds
Jun 4, 2006, 11:45 AM
Being in business just to stay where you already are is not much fun.

Being married just to keep having sex with the same partner is not much fun? ... ;)

Apple is not a startup!
Fantasizing about taking over a mature market is not ... mature. The time for that is long gone.
Anyway, the idea that everybody is in the market to be the ruler is sooo ... Gateish.

... Two words: dynamic equilibrium :p

Add to that new markets: iPods and those to come ...
Add to that integration.
And evolution.
...

celebrian23
Jun 4, 2006, 11:51 AM
My PC is 5ish years old and still runs XP like the day we got it. :) So not all of them are incapable of working for years.

janstett
Jun 4, 2006, 12:07 PM
the only people that care about market share are financial analysts.

i could look at those results and go "hey, did you know nearly 9 out of 10 people who own computers *do NOT own a Dell*?

but imagine, if you will a meeting at Ferrari:!

That's a stupid argument (aside from the arrogance of associating Apple with Ferrari).

Ferrari is a successful boutique manufacturer but it too worries about market share -- it purchased (and then set free) Maserati, and it has a long-standing close association with Fiat -- precisely for the purpose of market share.

Take the other successful boutqiue car maker, Porsche. They have done design work for Mercedes in the past. Several of their own cars were actually designed for Audi (914, 924). They bought 20% of VW/Audi, and still do a lot of platform sharing (Cayenne/Toureg/Q7).

All companies are businesses and have to worry about keeping cash flow. Be they Apple, Ferrari, or Porsche.

javierbds
Jun 4, 2006, 12:11 PM
My company did business with Apple and as a result has a stash of G4 Powerbooks which people have gotten, but many of them have been left in frustration, especially in dealing with Proxy servers and in particular Mac Skype.

It's a lovely thought, using a Mac in business, but it isn't smooth sailing.

PM if you want to get rid of some of those G4 Powerbooks, I will pay for PnP and the time spent in shipping ... :)

Have not used Skype but I have used Coccinella a bit in my iBook ...

I have yet to try harder to use my 'personal' iBook in a corporate env. I have used the wintel machine they gave me when I had to and laptops with Win or Linux when I could. So this is not a problem with Macs per se ... but the way corps organize their internal IT. Some corps officially forbid using other machines except the ones they give you, but most people find a way ... I have not had much problems in smaller companies with more heterogeneous hw and less anal envs ...

janstett
Jun 4, 2006, 12:30 PM
BMW and Mercedes each have around 5% of the world auto market (give or take, depending on the month and the news article you read), but they are recognized as elite vehicles the world over.

Again with the poorly thought out car analogies.

BMW is fiercely independent, but realizes it needs to grow or it will be gobbled up by a larger manufacturer (the trend in the auto business). BMW picked the carcass of the British car industry and picked up several British vehicles, including Rolls Royce, Land Rover, and Mini. BMW jettisoned Land Rover (which now belongs to Ford), but why do you think BMW is involved with Mini?

Mercedes similarly gobbled up Chrysler and until recently had a large stake in Mitsubishi. While BMW has success with Mini, Mercedes has had nothing but headaches with its Smart cars. Mercedes also has a large commercial truck business.

Both companies have an image but realize they have to make volume and continue to grow.

And one more point, that low market share equals eliteness... Suzuki and Kia have low market share too.

gregorsamsa
Jun 4, 2006, 01:44 PM
I'm not surprised Apple's market share either hasn't increased, or not by much. One of the main reasons why PCs are preferred to Macs inside most peoples homes is software availability, not least, games. Most people buying home computers buy for family entertainment/leisure purposes, as well as work. The kids, the teenagers, their dads, etc. most of them want that PC rather than an Apple Mac, because "the Mac isn't very good for games".

In this sense Boot camp addresses very little, particularly when Apple's mass-consumer MB doesn't even have dedicated graphics. Things like iSight & different colour MBs may appeal to the girls, but many dudes want dedicated graphics on affordable (but not necessarily, cheap) computers.

I have a 12" Apple which I find ultra-reliable & ideal in many ways. It won't be the last Mac I'll buy. But at a time when 15.4" laptops are flying off the shelves, Apple gives us ****** in the same dept., unless you're prepared to spend well over £1,300 & go MBP. I'm not!

So (unless Apple make a surprise announcement soon) looks like I'll be buying a 15.4" Acer laptop, with dedicated graphics, for under a £1,000 in the next couple of months. My reasoning, I'm sure, will not be an uncommon factor in why Apple, sadly, have blown their chances of significantly increasing market share, for the forseeable future at least. Let's just hope, for Mac OS X's sake, that Vista fails to deliver.

wnurse
Jun 4, 2006, 02:27 PM
Why argue about it then? What will that prove? If you want a definitive answer, go look at Consumer Reports. Apple computers have hardware failures far less often than their PC counterparts, especially in terms of critical failures. That's just a fact. Argue it all you want, but the evidence is not in your favor.

And that has been my experience. At work, I have a PC and a Mac on my desktop. In two years, the Mac has required no tech support. The PC has needed help many, many times. In fact, just this last week, its video card started to die (something that our tech guy seemed unsurprised by but something I have never witnessed on a Mac.)

On top of that, I have worked in a mixed Mac and PC environment and I can assure you that the PC hardware fails *far* more often than the Macs.

[Edit: I'm posting this on my 6-year-old iBook, 500Mhz G3 running Tiger like a champ--and has never had a hardware failure. None of my PC using friends have laptops that old that have survived. Must be my dumb luck, huh?]

I have a pc laptop that old. Case closed.

BTW. I have a 1997 pc that is extremely slow that i put linux on to play around with. Just opened it.. nothing is corroded. I also have a non-working imac (one of the first ones ever made, won it on beyond.com.. they had a online competition.. yeah i was lucky).. that **** just up and died three years ago. You have friends whoose old laptops have died, i have friends whoose old laptops are alive and kicking. You have a 6 year old laptop still working, i have a dead imac that died before it got to be 6 years old. Anectodal evidence is useless.

inkswamp
Jun 4, 2006, 04:19 PM
Anectodal evidence is useless.

I agree. I didn't say otherwise, did I?

Now, just curious, why did you ignore the other part of what I said--the fact that Consumer Reports consistently shows Apple as having fewer hardware failures than other PC manufacturers (especially in terms of critical hardware failures)? That's not anectdotal. Care to comment?

andiwm2003
Jun 4, 2006, 06:03 PM
I agree. I didn't say otherwise, did I?

Now, just curious, why did you ignore the other part of what I said--the fact that Consumer Reports consistently shows Apple as having fewer hardware failures than other PC manufacturers (especially in terms of critical hardware failures)? That's not anectdotal. Care to comment?


i also have lot's of anecdotal evidence that much more than 2% of people have macs at home. i know a number of people with macs, some more who will switch soon. when i fly somewhere there are always a number of mac notebooks used on the plane.

i'm not saying the market analysis is wrong. but could it be that they count all the point of sales PC's and all the other PC's in companies that run only one software or drive machines and stuff?

brofski
Jun 5, 2006, 12:16 AM
the day Apple makes OSX for the pc market is the day Apple can no longer say "it just works"! putting together high quality computers with a high quality OS is what makes Macs sooooooooo sweet!

- brofski

brofski
Jun 5, 2006, 12:21 AM
oh... and why i switched (just 2 months ago actually)

1. the iPod... the iPod... oh, and the iPod!
2. i was impressed with iTunes on my old windows box
3. too many problems with windows
4. tired if Vista's delay
5. once i used my brother's mac for a week i was sold!

also...

i agree with the car analogy. macs are special. they are the "BMW" of the industry and companies who target this area will always have a small share of the market... but that small share will be VERY dedicated and that's the most important thing.

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 03:10 AM
Even if the market suddenly changed and decided to all go Mac, there's a limit in apple's capacity. You guys are comparing a company that makes both hardware and os, to a million companies that make hardware and another one that makes the os for those other millions...

Even if apple all of the sudden hypnotized the whole world to buy a Mac, they could not satisfy that demand, they just don't have the capacity, not until they license their os, that is the only way they could break that 5 or 6% threshold. But this may not be in their best interest, because they seem to be happy with that 5% or because they don't seem confident that people will continue to buy apple hardware if they can boot Mac os on a cheaper pc.


I'm not sure this is really true. When you buy a Mac, you're essentially getting PC hardware that is manufactured by the same folk who manufacture PCs for the likes of HP, Dell etc. There is no difference. If Apple wants to increase capacity, all they have to really do, is take on more box builders.


I don't know its all a bit weird at the moment with apple bringing hardware more in line with pc hardware, so its going to be harder for them to justify the premium price. At the same time, they are letting people run windows on the Macs. Anything could happen, they could start licensing Mac os, or they could stop making Mac os altogether (NOT LIKELY, just hypothesizing) my point is that with the Intel and boot camp move, apple is in a very interesting position, with both scenarios making some kind of business sense. With the first one, becoming more of a Microsoft kind of company with its main product being the OS and apps, and also making hardware on the side(pretty much what Microsoft seems to want to do with the 360) or with the 2nd(and extremely unlikely scenario of them becoming a pure hardware company dell style.


Well, I don't believe that Jobs has any particular attachment to the hardware, MacOSX or even the iPod. He'll do whatever he needs to do to keep Apple thriving. If that means dropping the hardware or the operating system, then he'll do it. Whatever happens, I think a lot of Mac fans are going to be very surprised.

And I definitely don’t think that apple are just happy with their 5% niche, if they were they wouldn’t be spending money on massive stores all over the world, and massive TV/radio/add campaigns they do want more, and mr. Jobs has implied it just by mentioning the market share figures on his keynotes...

The stores are about brand recognition more than anything else. As I said before, even without a whisper of Vista on the horizon, Wintel sales are getting increasingly stronger; I really don't see the situation changing much when (if?) Vista is actually released.

I do find it a bit odd that Dell have decicded to open stores ... but you can't actually buy machines there. Didn't they learn anything from the Gateway fiasco?

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 04:23 AM
As I emphasised several times, the transition to Intel will only help in the short to middle run. Certainly it is a reasonable hedge. But so-far, I haven't got the impression, that Apple would have been treated better than other Intel customers, so they get the things at the same time.


Did anyone believe otherwise? Apple is certainly not going to get the newer stuff over the likes of Dell.


On a personal side, the Intel macs lost there charisma, they don't convey that special feeling anymore. The new 15,4 inch power-book doesn't look so nice anymore.


Mmm ... I think that in some ways, some of the newer PC designs have surpassed them. The latest Viao line look incredible (with a price tag to match).

On the other hand, giving IBM away, was not a smart move in any case. If there is a computer superpower that is IBM, a company that is able to help innovative companies in critical situations. AMD wouldn't probably be alive without IBM backing them. To innovate, Apple should have embraced something like the CELL, to introduce new product categories, like they did with the iPod.

Right or wrong, I think it's time everybody got over this now ... :)


The arrival of Windows Vista will take away a lot of the motivation to switch to Apple. Their OS can only keep an edge in conjunction with cutting-edge hardware, that isn't mainstream, and x86 is main-main-main-stream.


Yep, possibly.

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 04:29 AM
i also have lot's of anecdotal evidence that much more than 2% of people have macs at home. i know a number of people with macs, some more who will switch soon. when i fly somewhere there are always a number of mac notebooks used on the plane.


Nobody has said that only 2% of people have Macs at home! ...

What they are saying is that out of all the PCs sold this year, Apple's share of the sales was 2%. Now did the Macs that folk bought last year, suddenly vanish?!

If you want a very ROUGH idea of how many Macs are currently in use, then GoogleZiest used to be a pretty good source. It's a pitty they don't seem to publish the OS use figures anymore, but I vaguely remember that it was a lot less that 16%

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 05:16 AM
1. Being a lamb. Most MS users are 'lambs', followers: it is the easy path in a sense. You don't make decisions, you follow the crowd (leader). Many people are afraid to part from the crowd, specially in areas where things change fast or where they do not have much information ... I know of many guys who would buy a BMW but would be afraid to buy a Mac (weasels!)... I am a lamb in many areas, but not in computing ... ;)

I've never actually been convinced by this argument. You're following a crowd yourself; the only difference is that your crowd is a lot louder and a lot smaller ... :rolleyes:

Folk buy PCs because they are just as capable as Macs, offer more choices and are cheaper (at least in the UK).

PC users don't usually attach the act of choosing a platform, to some inner need to feel superior; if they want to do that, they'll take up skydiving or something.

ictiosapiens
Jun 5, 2006, 06:36 AM
The stores are about brand recognition more than anything else. As I said before, even without a whisper of Vista on the horizon, Wintel sales are getting increasingly stronger; I really don't see the situation changing much when (if?) Vista is actually released.

I do find it a bit odd that Dell have decicded to open stores ... but you can't actually buy machines there. Didn't they learn anything from the Gateway fiasco?


Well, you said yourself that the stores are about brand recognition(I do believe that if you want more brand recognition, that means you want to get your products to more custumers thus increasing your market share, but thats just me)

Don't get me wrong, I find completely ridiculous the idea of opening a store that has no products for sale... You might just call it a Showroom...

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 07:29 AM
Well, you said yourself that the stores are about brand recognition(I do believe that if you want more brand recognition, that means you want to get your products to more custumers thus increasing your market share, but thats just me)

It does not mean that at all ....

Increasing sales is fine, but when the rest of the PC market is outpacing you, then you market share is not going to increase. Apple knows this.
If they wanted to increase marketshare, then they would slash prices to the bone, take the hit and sit back as the profits hit the skids, even as their market share rises (possibly). How would that help Apple in the long term?
Increased sales is not the same as increasing market share; not by a long shot. Apple needs to increase sales and not get hung up on the WinTel sales which, as a whole, will always outpace them

Don't get me wrong, I find completely ridiculous the idea of opening a store that has no products for sale... You might just call it a Showroom...

Well, I go to a car showroom .. I can still leave with a car.

rayz
Jun 5, 2006, 07:42 AM
It's a shame that Google doesn't publish their view on installed base anymore. The last set of figures came from 2004, which does not tell us how things stand now, but they do suggest that a Mac installed base of 16%, is highly unlikely.

http://www.pegasus3d.com/osshare.html

And of course there is the assumption that most people who use the internet, will regularly use Google ....

inkswamp
Jun 6, 2006, 03:50 AM
It's a shame that Google doesn't publish their view on installed base anymore.

Yeah, but those kinds of numbers are inherently flawed anyway. A lot of Mac users work in places where they have to use Windows. If you surf the Web at work, you're seen as a "Windows user."

rayz
Jun 6, 2006, 06:05 AM
Yeah, but those kinds of numbers are inherently flawed anyway. A lot of Mac users work in places where they have to use Windows. If you surf the Web at work, you're seen as a "Windows user."


Er .. if you're using Windows, then you ARE a Windows user ... :rolleyes:

You just happen to show up in two installed bases.

spacehog371
Jun 6, 2006, 01:55 PM
I'd like to see apple gain 20 percent market share... that'll prolly never happen though.