PDA

View Full Version : Mac Marketshare Increasing


MacRumors
Jul 21, 2006, 10:06 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Along with the recent encouraging 3Q 2006 financial results (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml) from Apple on Wednesday, independent research firms Gartner and IDC have recently reported on 2Q 2006 market share (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php) (via MacWorld). Both firms report solid gains from 1 year ago, with IDC reporting a jump from 4.4 to 4.8% U.S. Marketshare and Gartner reporting a jump from 4.3 to 4.6%, making the Mac maker the 4th largest maker of computers behind Dell (32%), HP (18.9%), and Gateway (6.2%).

This is the first reported gains in marketshare for Apple since the Intel transition, as last quarter saw minor losses (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060601164133.shtml). From last quarter, it appears as though Apple has gained an entire percentage point in market share (up from 3.5-3.6% 1Q 2006).

Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Marketshare_Increasing)

erockerboy
Jul 21, 2006, 10:10 AM
HOT!

Also note that Dell's stock took a 13% dive today....

AAPL is on the move!

mjstew33
Jul 21, 2006, 10:13 AM
AWESOME!

YAY.

We can beat Dell...

Very, very awesome. *proud to be an Apple fan*

d_and_n5000
Jul 21, 2006, 10:13 AM
Sweet!


As long as Apple doesn't grow too fast, this is great news. Get to Gateway in the next few years, and I'll be happy. Just don't grow too big, Apple.

dombi
Jul 21, 2006, 10:14 AM
This is definitely a good thing. Apple has great products and with the Intel processor Macs they offer something that others cannot. Mac/Windows on the same machine without too much headache.

I have talked to people around me and everyone seems excited about this. Many said before that they would never switch to a Mac because it cannot run Windows, well that changed. So people are starting to realize all the possibilities that they have if do do buy an Apple product.

I bought a MacBook Pro a while ago and I absolutely love it. Every time I run the 'hostinfo' command I get a little suprised to see the "Intel 80486" part in the output, because we have been staying away from Intel chips for so long. But it does feel and act like a Mac, and even I bought Parallels just o be able to run Windows next to my OS X. It works really well and is fast!

I hope that this growth will continue. This will be good for the users and for Apple as well.

Chef Medeski
Jul 21, 2006, 10:16 AM
AWESOME!

YAY.

We can beat Dell...

Very, very awesome. *proud to be an Apple fan*
Lets tackle Gateway first. Personally I don't feel its a triumph to have better mark share than them, they make POS computers and have the worst customer support. I see more as sad that we are even behind them. :(

But we'll get 'em. ;)

dizastor
Jul 21, 2006, 10:17 AM
reassuring to me even if it only means I will be able to buy computers that run a Mac OS for the next 15+ years.

Queso
Jul 21, 2006, 10:18 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?

michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 2006, 10:25 AM
Exciting to hear.

Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.

... though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?
Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)

Thataboy
Jul 21, 2006, 10:25 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?

I think so -- and soon. Look at the sales of the MacBooks, and they came very late in the quarter! So now we have a full quarter of MacBook sales, PLUS Mac Pros. Not to mention possible iMac and MacBook Pro updates to Core 2 Duo this quarter.

I say we will hit 5% next quarter. Apple is well on its way to being in the Top 3 as far as US marketshare! :)

Macnoviz
Jul 21, 2006, 10:26 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?

yes, over the years, the general public gets smarter, just look at the evolution of computing from dirty backrooms and offices to the living room. Macs are bound to grow

mjstew33
Jul 21, 2006, 10:26 AM
I say we'll have 5.5% next year. :) :D

DTphonehome
Jul 21, 2006, 10:28 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?

At this rate, by the end of the year for sure.

JurgenWigg
Jul 21, 2006, 10:31 AM
I say we'll have 5.5% next year. :) :D


3 GHZ BY NEXT YEAR

oh wait... ;)

michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 2006, 10:38 AM
3 GHZ BY NEXT YEAR

oh wait... ;)
LOL... But this time it might actually happen! (No thanks to IBM)

Stella
Jul 21, 2006, 10:44 AM
Now that Apple have got an entire range of consumer machines ( laptops, desktops etc ) that can compete in terms of performance against their Window-PC counterparts, I'd expect nothing less - and expect the share to continue.

( Really - G4s had their day years ago ).

Good Stuff.

liven2
Jul 21, 2006, 10:49 AM
I work for a company called Prime Alliance Solutions and our entire company is migrating from Windows machine to macs running Parallels. We are also changing out our windows servers to a to Xserves. Most of the users have never used macs before but overall they have had an excellent experience!!! :) ... Things are changing specially if our Windows Centric Business is willing to go all Mac! I am soo stoked for APPLE!!

p0intblank
Jul 21, 2006, 10:50 AM
Yes! Gained Mac marketshare is always a good thing. :)

amac4me
Jul 21, 2006, 10:52 AM
It's been a strong position of mine for over 1.5 years that Apple's market share was to rise significantly. Data in now demonstrates that the position I've have held is valid.

I expect to see a large spike in Apple's market share over the next few years and by the time we see the successor to Leopard, Apple will have 8% market share. I made that prediction earlier this year.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jul 21, 2006, 11:01 AM
I work for a company called Prime Alliance Solutions and our entire company is migrating from Windows machine to macs running Parallels. We are also changing out our windows servers to a to Xserves. Most of the users have never used macs before but overall they have had an excellent experience!!! :) ... Things are changing specially if our Windows Centric Business is willing to go all Mac! I am soo stoked for APPLE!!

I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.

mandis
Jul 21, 2006, 11:09 AM
Exciting to hear.

Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.


Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)

Increased market share can only be a good thing.

Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.

I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?

A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.

RBMaraman
Jul 21, 2006, 11:09 AM
Walt Mossberg wrote a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about 2 weeks ago in which he said independent research had noted that 19% of all college students now use a Mac. That number is expected to grow leaps and bounds by this time next year.

supremedesigner
Jul 21, 2006, 11:10 AM
Sweet!


As long as Apple doesn't grow too fast, this is great news. Get to Gateway in the next few years, and I'll be happy. Just don't grow too big, Apple.

Few years? How about next month or TOMORROW?! :p

Shadow
Jul 21, 2006, 11:14 AM
New PowerBooks next Tuesday!!! :D :p

iMeowbot
Jul 21, 2006, 11:15 AM
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.

Phil Schiller recently that it isn't going to happen. "absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot." (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/07/windowsmac/index.php) At the same time, they are happy to promote Parallels (http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html).

theBB
Jul 21, 2006, 11:15 AM
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.
I don't think it will have virtualization, especially with the way they are supporting Parallels solution itself. I think a dual-boot or a fast OS switching type of solution is much more likely. Somebody around here was suggesting "sleeping" one OS and starting another. That's almost good enough. Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.

brepublican
Jul 21, 2006, 11:16 AM
Increased market share is a good thing, but I'm not sure how I'd feel if Apple overtook Dell...

shawnce
Jul 21, 2006, 11:18 AM
Lets hope this is a start of solid trend (I believe it is) but don't be surprised if the market share numbers are a little bumpy (up and down) as they inch their way up... Apple has relatively few products (compared to their main competition in this market) and as a result their product release cycles can contribute a lot of variability into quarterly market share numbers and depending how they line up with seasonal market aspects you can get even more variability.

In other words (as I have said before) look for trends not point to point comparisons.

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2006, 11:20 AM
I've been teaching Mac courses at a local junior college, and have found that quite a few of my students are new/returning Mac users. I think Apple has quite a bit of potential to grow the Mac's market share, particularly from the latter group -- people who abandoned the Mac during the dark days of the '90s, but are now prepared to take another look. On the pro side, I believe market share will probably continue to stagnate for some months to come, until the mission-critical applications are all dual-binary. I think we could be optimistically be looking at 5.5 - 6.0% market share by this time next year, depending on how well the launch of 10.5 goes, and how much thunder is taken away by Vista.

irbdavid
Jul 21, 2006, 11:20 AM
If joe pc-user becomes joe mac-user, then macs wont be fun anymore :(

That said, i'd like to see market share go up in certain areas. A lot more scientists are switching (mostly switching back, after ditching around late 90s) these days.

It's hard to be an elitist mac user if you're no longer in the minority...

irbdavid
Jul 21, 2006, 11:24 AM
Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.

Actually they want to sell you the hardware, right? Apple calls itself a hardware company that makes a bit of software on the side, rather than software company that makes hardware to sell with it, doesn't it?

BenRoethig
Jul 21, 2006, 11:25 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?

5-7% is possible. Don't ever expect Apple to get above 10 again though.

brepublican
Jul 21, 2006, 11:26 AM
If joe pc-user becomes joe mac-user, then macs wont be fun anymore :(

That said, i'd like to see market share go up in certain areas. A lot more scientists are switching (mostly switching back, after ditching around late 90s) these days.

It's hard to be an elitist mac user if you're no longer in the minority...
I'm not too sure I agree with the reason you give though. My main concern is quality control. Even with the paltry share increase Apple has seen during the past year, quality control has become an issue. Would not like to see how much poorer with a 10% share thats all :rolleyes:

CEAbiscuit
Jul 21, 2006, 11:29 AM
reassuring to me even if it only means I will be able to buy computers that run a Mac OS for the next 15+ years.

Exactly. Stating the obvious, bbut now that you can run windows, I think the growth is unavoidable. All the companies that were "thinking" about converting can give OSX a try while running windows. 5%, here we come!

Stella
Jul 21, 2006, 11:32 AM
Pure sobbery, and imo, its ugly.


If joe pc-user becomes joe mac-user, then macs wont be fun anymore :(

It's hard to be an elitist mac user if you're no longer in the minority...

dashiel
Jul 21, 2006, 11:32 AM
Increased market share can only be a good thing.

Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.

I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?

A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.

the mac platform is still the choice for the creative class. you won't find more than a handful of print designers using windows. adobe/macromedia sales figures show just about 50/50. creative pros don't care one whit about upgradeability. final cut pro is absolutely devastating the film market right now, eating away at the market share of avid solutions. these are all factual and verifiable.

as for your anecdotal evidence of your friends switching back, i'm sure that has happened. i can anecdotally tell you two of my colleagues have switched recently, buying not one, but two laptops each (15" and 17"). thing is my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours, all that counts are cold hard numbers and 4.6 is greater than 3.2. clearly mac market share is on the rise.

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2006, 11:33 AM
Pure sobbery, and imo, its ugly.

I'm sorry, I can't see you over the end of my nose. ;)

dashiel
Jul 21, 2006, 11:35 AM
Phil Schiller recently that it isn't going to happen. "absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot." (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/07/windowsmac/index.php) At the same time, they are happy to promote Parallels (http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html).

schiller also said — i think the day before boot camp was announced — that apple wouldn't prevent users from putting windows on the intel macs, but they wouldn't facilitate it either.

apple is notorious for saying one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite the video ipod being a perfect example. i'm not saying it will happen, i'm just saying don't put much stock in comments from apple execs regarding future products.

dashiel
Jul 21, 2006, 11:36 AM
is this 4.8% for the quarter or 4.8% total market share? if the former, nice, but no big deal; if the latter then very big deal.

gauriemma
Jul 21, 2006, 11:39 AM
Sweet!


As long as Apple doesn't grow too fast, this is great news. Get to Gateway in the next few years, and I'll be happy. Just don't grow too big, Apple.

Catching up to Gateway is good, I suppose, but I seriously didn't even know they were even still around. That's a pretty low bar to set...

DTphonehome
Jul 21, 2006, 11:42 AM
Increased market share is a good thing, but I'm not sure how I'd feel if Apple overtook Dell...

Don't worry, you have a VERY long time to sort out your feelings. Apple ain't dethroning Dell for a while (if ever).

Grimace
Jul 21, 2006, 11:46 AM
Walt Mossberg wrote a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about 2 weeks ago in which he said independent research had noted that 19% of all college students now use a Mac. That number is expected to grow leaps and bounds by this time next year.
I would love to see this article -- can anyone PM me a link or post it here??

Stella
Jul 21, 2006, 11:49 AM
I'm sorry, I can't see you over the end of my nose. ;)
:-D
ROTFL

SiliconAddict
Jul 21, 2006, 11:53 AM
Yah know the interesting thing? Until now you had to compare Apple against the entire industry. e.g. Apple vs. (Dell+gateway+Sony+HP+Toshiba+Comcrap+Alienware+Falcon Computers+etx.)

Now that Apple can run Windows Oranges to oranges can be compared. Until you start talking about OS's in which case you are back to talking Apples to Oranges.

Apple migration to Intel has created a disturbance in the force.


PS- I do Dell warrantee work. I can't tell you how many people cock there head when I pull out my MBP to look at laptop pull apart manuals. And even more who start asking questions when they see I'm running Windows. Heheh. I feel like PT Barnum. :)

is this 4.8% for the quarter or 4.8% total market share? if the former, nice, but no big deal; if the latter then very big deal.

I don't even need to look at the article to know its total. Apple doesn't have the manufacturing and distribution channels to increase their market share by 4% in a quarter. Hell I don't think Dell has that kind of force either.

Macmaniac
Jul 21, 2006, 11:59 AM
"Ques the Apple is Screwed and will die news story"

slffl
Jul 21, 2006, 12:00 PM
I'm still wondering what is good about this. I see it as a bad thing. More viruses, more crap shareware, lesser quality products.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 21, 2006, 12:04 PM
I don't even need to look at the article to know its total. Apple doesn't have the manufacturing and distribution channels to increase their market share by 4% in a quarter. Hell I don't think Dell has that kind of force either.

I think you misunderstood what he was asking (or maybe I'm just really confused).

I think he meant, 'did Apple sell 4.8% of all the computers shipped in that ONE quarter?' or 'does Apple now own 4.8% of the TOTAL computer market?'

Both are possible - although the latter is what the article discusses.

bommai
Jul 21, 2006, 12:05 PM
I work for GE and we are all Dell (unfortunately). Dell laptops, desktops, servers. Everybody gets Dell and nothing else. Can you imagine a company wide policy (300k workers). While the stuff breaks pretty quickly (my latitude laptop had cracks on it within 2 months of use), I was told that the enterprise service plans that Dell offers are unbeatable. The will swap stuff overnight and make sure you have something to work with. If Apple were to have a good service plan for enterprise, I think they will get more takers. Until then, Apple will be more popular with consumers and not enterprise.

Don't confuse Dell consumer service plans with enterprise. Enterprise is their bread and butter.

SiliconAddict
Jul 21, 2006, 12:05 PM
I'm still wondering what is good about this. I see it as a bad thing. More viruses, more crap shareware, lesser quality products.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have a clue about computers. Congratulations. :rolleyes:

I work for GE and we are all Dell (unfortunately). Dell laptops, desktops, servers. Everybody gets Dell and nothing else. Can you imagine a company wide policy (300k workers). While the stuff breaks pretty quickly (my latitude laptop had cracks on it within 2 months of use), I was told that the enterprise service plans that Dell offers are unbeatable. The will swap stuff overnight and make sure you have something to work with. If Apple were to have a good service plan for enterprise, I think they will get more takers. Until then, Apple will be more popular with consumers and not enterprise.

Don't confuse Dell consumer service plans with enterprise. Enterprise is their bread and butter.

Dell has several levels of enterprise service. If they are looking at a company who is willing to drop their sorry butt they will upgrade their support contract to a higher level for free. I've seen this first hand.

photo-video
Jul 21, 2006, 12:05 PM
It's been a strong position of mine for over 1.5 years that Apple's market share was to rise significantly. Data in now demonstrates that the position I've have held is valid.

I expect to see a large spike in Apple's market share over the next few years and by the time we see the successor to Leopard, Apple will have 8% market share. I made that prediction earlier this year.

You can say you made the 8% prediction, but why don't you back it up with some proof? I can say that I predicted Apple would release software to dual boot an Intel Mac but without proof who would believe me?

inkswamp
Jul 21, 2006, 12:06 PM
Don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I didn't care about Apple's market share when it was slipping in the 90s and I don't care about it now that it's climbing. I didn't buy my Mac to be popular and I don't particularly care that lots of people are (or are not) using them. It's just an irrelevant metric to me.

Apple produces very high quality machines and that's always going to ding them (ironically) in terms of market share as people will buy new machines less often and because loads of people aren't picking up bargain Macs at Wal-Mart. I know lots of Windows users and they buy new PCs on average every two years. I buy a new Mac on average every 5 years and most Mac users I know do the same. Market share is just meaningless, even when it's positive news.

Besides, Apple deals in the kind of quality that will keep it around for many, many years, regardless of which way its market share is going and that's all that I care about.

I can say that I predicted Apple would release software to dual boot an Intel Mac but without proof who would believe me?

Only if you were John C. Dvorak. :D ;)

theBB
Jul 21, 2006, 12:13 PM
I didn't buy my Mac to be popular and I don't particularly care that lots of people are (or are not) using them. It's just an irrelevant metric to me.
Neither did I, but more market share means more software developers and more apps. That's the only reason I care.

jonharris200
Jul 21, 2006, 12:14 PM
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.

"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p

macFanDave
Jul 21, 2006, 12:16 PM
Although Apple is behind Gateway in market share, Apple's earnings (not revenue, earnings) last quarter (not year, quarter) is pretty close to Gateway's market capitalization!

michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 2006, 12:24 PM
Although Apple is behind Gateway in market share, Apple's earnings (not revenue, earnings) last quarter (not year, quarter) is pretty close to Gateway's market capitalization!
They're behind Gateway in number of units shipped. Gateway produces and ships more units than Apple.

shawnce
Jul 21, 2006, 12:25 PM
schiller also said — i think the day before boot camp was announced — that apple wouldn't prevent users from putting windows on the intel macs, but they wouldn't facilitate it either.

Why do folks keep misquoting Schiller?

He said basically that Apple will not sell or support Windows but that they will not prevent users from installing and running Windows on MacIntels. Nothing in what Schiller stated had anything to do with Apple facilitating (or not) the use of Windows.

iGlow
Jul 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
with the education macs the share will rise in september because schools are upgrading there computers:cool:

amac4me
Jul 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
You can say you made the 8% prediction, but why don't you back it up with some proof? I can say that I predicted Apple would release software to dual boot an Intel Mac but without proof who would believe me?

Ok photo-video here's the prediction that I made back on April 7, 2006:

"My prediction is that Apple will have at least 8% market share by the end of the Leopard Mac OS X 10.5 lifecycle."

Which can be found at:
http://switchtoamac.com/site/macs-boot-camp-market-share-switchers.html

inkswamp
Jul 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
Neither did I, but more market share means more software developers and more apps. That's the only reason I care.

I suppose there's some truth to that, but even when Apple was hitting its lowest points in terms of market share, there was no dearth of good apps. You may not be able to get some more esoteric stuff but that's not going to affect most people.

iMeowbot
Jul 21, 2006, 12:29 PM
schiller also said — i think the day before boot camp was announced — that apple wouldn't prevent users from putting windows on the intel macs, but they wouldn't facilitate it either.

There is a big difference between the things that Apple people actually say and the twisted versions that get regurgitated in the Apple rumors community.

Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in an interview Tuesday that the company won’t sell or support Windows itself, but also hasn’t done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves.

'That’s fine with us. We don’t mind,' Schiller said. 'If there are people who love our hardware but are forced to put up with a Windows world, then that’s OK.'

Link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789855/page/2/)

In another interview, he said:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Link. (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5733756-2.html)

Apple still don't plan to sell or support Windows. And Schiller didn't say that Apple wouldn't facilitate running it. He told the truth.

That's a very different stance from the clear "absolutely not" on integrating Windows into the OS X run time.

shawnce
Jul 21, 2006, 12:31 PM
Although Apple is behind Gateway in market share, Apple's earnings (not revenue, earnings) last quarter (not year, quarter) is pretty close to Gateway's market capitalization!

Not surprising given that Gateway's market share numbers come directly from the extremely low margin, low end systems they are dumping on the market. In other words they have higher volumes but they are making next to nothing (for some nearly selling at a loss) in order to get those volumes.

...basically the stock market knows that Gateway is not a very safe bet...

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jul 21, 2006, 12:33 PM
"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p
LOL! Shoosh you!
I am the technology coordinator at my church.

displaced
Jul 21, 2006, 12:34 PM
reassuring to me even if it only means I will be able to buy computers that run a Mac OS for the next 15+ years.

My thoughts exactly.

I wouldn't care if their share is 1%. Just as long as they remain a sound business and keep up the R&D.

DTphonehome
Jul 21, 2006, 12:35 PM
Not surprising given that Gateway's market share numbers come directly from the extremely low margin, low end systems they are dumping on the market. In other words they have higher volumes but they are making next to nothing (for some nearly selling at a loss) in order to get those volumes.

...basically the stock market knows that Gateway is not a very safe bet...

Which is exactly why Dell is taking a beating today (down 12%). Their margins are so low that any downturn in sales has a devastating effect on their profits. Apple has much larger margins (as they don't sell $300 computers), so they can afford a small downturn in sales (which isn't happening now anyway).

DTphonehome
Jul 21, 2006, 12:41 PM
Don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I didn't care about Apple's market share when it was slipping in the 90s and I don't care about it now that it's climbing. I didn't buy my Mac to be popular and I don't particularly care that lots of people are (or are not) using them. It's just an irrelevant metric to me.
...
Besides, Apple deals in the kind of quality that will keep it around for many, many years, regardless of which way its market share is going and that's all that I care about.

You do realize that if Apple's marketshare were to drop to, say, 1% or lower, they would have very little money to spend on R&D, and the quality and innovation you seek would suffer tremendously? Which is why Apple was doing dismally in the 90's and is doing much better today. They are now flush with cash, and can pump out great hardware products, and develop and refine the software that drives sales. Market share (and high margins) is important to ensure a steady flow of cash for those projects.

So, you don't care about how market share affects you, but if you were the only Mac user, I assure you, Apple wouldn't be manufacturing products just for your puny market share. (To make an extreme example)

dongmin
Jul 21, 2006, 12:53 PM
My thoughts exactly.

I wouldn't care if their share is 1%. Just as long as they remain a sound business and keep up the R&D.Marketshare matters.

Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.

The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?

Thataboy
Jul 21, 2006, 01:08 PM
I have a baseless, out-of-left-field prediction that I think would increase the Mac marketshare even further:

I think Apple and Microsoft will partner to include Virtual PC in Leopard. I can see them doing it as a BTO pre-install (like iWork), either Virtual PC alone, or with an XP/Vista bundle.

I can see no reason why Microsoft would have such a hard time with a virtualization program when little old Parallels can do it so quickly. They state they are "working with Apple to determine the future of the Virtual PC roadmap" or something like that. It would allow Apple to leverage the new "big plus" of having Windows run in virtualization, but it would force MICROSOFT to support it.

Everyone wins.

Just a guess :)

milo
Jul 21, 2006, 01:20 PM
5-7% is possible. Don't ever expect Apple to get above 10 again though.

Why not?

I think there's some upper limit that apple may hit, I just don't see why it would be as low as 10%.

Generic businesses will likely stay with windows for quite a while, regardless of what apple does. But I don't see any reason many creative businesses, schools and home users couldn't switch to macs.

pesos
Jul 21, 2006, 01:21 PM
well there are two market share stats that are at issue here. one is hardware sales, and one is OS X usage.

i.e. I have a mac mini, but it doesn't have X on it. It runs solely windows 2003 server with a couple of virtual servers on it also running windows 2003. It's dead quiet so i can run it in my room 24/7. so it's a hardware sale, but not using X.

I built a macbook for a client running XP only since that's what is required for work. i think more and more we will see apple hardware being bought for use with windows -- people who like the aesthetics but prefer to continue to use their current software library and/or have work restrictions.

-Wes

mdriftmeyer
Jul 21, 2006, 01:26 PM
schiller also said — i think the day before boot camp was announced — that apple wouldn't prevent users from putting windows on the intel macs, but they wouldn't facilitate it either.

apple is notorious for saying one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite the video ipod being a perfect example. i'm not saying it will happen, i'm just saying don't put much stock in comments from apple execs regarding future products.

What's your point?

Dual Boot allowing for multiple OS's to be selected at boot time vs. true virtualization allowing multiple OS's to be instantiated within OS X, albeit at a reduced performance aren't contradicting Phil's two statements.

We provide the boot loader.

Parallels provides the virtual solution. If you want native speed then you can run reboot into a different OS with boot camp. If you don't then go with Parallels.

displaced
Jul 21, 2006, 01:29 PM
Marketshare matters.

Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.

The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?

True, I was being pretty flippant with that reply.

Having said that, I was attempting to underline the point that marketshare is a percentage. Even an apparently low figure (even 5% which we're all hoping for is still a small percentage!) represents a sizeable market, considering the size of the computing industry in general.

shelterpaw
Jul 21, 2006, 02:02 PM
I'll get excited when/if Apple's Market share reaches 10%. Other than that, it's not such a big deal, IMO. :o

DTphonehome
Jul 21, 2006, 02:05 PM
I'll get excited when/if Apple's Market share reaches 10%. Other than that, it's not such a big deal, IMO. :o

You can't get to 10% from 4% without passing through 4.8%

Mac Fly (film)
Jul 21, 2006, 02:42 PM
And to think Leopard didn't even coem yet!

macFanDave
Jul 21, 2006, 02:44 PM
They're behind Gateway in number of units shipped. Gateway produces and ships more units than Apple.

Michael, read shawnce's message #61. It's exactly how I wanted to reply to your statement, only better.

About market share, there is an optimal level, I believe. Too low and the issue of third-party applications and peripherals becomes a problem. However, if Apple's marketshare gets too high, there could be some anti-trust problems.

Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.

10% should be far below that threshold.

theBB
Jul 21, 2006, 02:56 PM
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.
First, being a monopoly is not a crime. Using your dominant market power to eliminate competitors in your or other fields could be a crime. It is called "Anti-Trust Act", not "Anti-Monopoly Act."

Yes, Apple is the only supplier if you want to run OSX, but OSX is not a "market." It is one of many operating systems out there. That's like saying Ford is a monopoly, because Ford does not let you buy a Ford from another manufacturer.

milo
Jul 21, 2006, 03:16 PM
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with.

Apple is in no way a monopoly. What would they have a monopoly on, macs? That's like saying toyota has a monopoly on toyotas.

topicolo
Jul 21, 2006, 03:33 PM
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.

By definition, having alternatives makes Apple NOT a monopoly.

On a side note, who actually voted negatively for this news item? It makes no sense

JoeG4
Jul 21, 2006, 03:35 PM
I don't think it will have virtualization, especially with the way they are supporting Parallels solution itself. I think a dual-boot or a fast OS switching type of solution is much more likely. Somebody around here was suggesting "sleeping" one OS and starting another. That's almost good enough. Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.

I've been planning a project like this (I finally got it on sourceforge, in fact) - The idea is to make the virtualization system able to hibernate any given OS (or freeze state it) in such a way that it can be restored as the host OS (and vice versa), so that you can give any of your OSes running (virtual or host), the host priorities while all the others become virtual.

OTOH, that could be laggy, and may be subject to limitations within EFI, only time will tell.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/fruitsalad/ <- shameless self promotion XD

Marc-Mustang
Jul 21, 2006, 05:18 PM
I know this does not have much to do with anything in this thread. I have heard Gates owns a some shares of Apple and was wondering how many or what percentage he owns. I have googled, ask jeeves, yahoo and searched this website for 45 minutes for the answer with no luck and thought you all in this thread could shed some light. Thanks for reading.

Bonte
Jul 21, 2006, 05:24 PM
5-7% is possible. Don't ever expect Apple to get above 10 again though.

At 7% the Mac will gain in momentum and grow to its full potential at 30 to 50% of the home market in probably just a few years, it will never stay at just 7%.

my 2c

diehldun
Jul 21, 2006, 05:26 PM
This is fantastic, but why one earth would someone (13 so far) rate this as "negative"? :confused: :confused:

brepublican
Jul 21, 2006, 05:26 PM
On a side note, who actually voted negatively for this news item? It makes no sense
Not that I did, but it doesnt have to. Besides, some people feel negatively about Apple's increase in share; there are a few cons...

solvs
Jul 21, 2006, 05:31 PM
I have heard Gates owns a some shares of Apple and was wondering how many or what percentage he owns.
I don't know how much personally he has, if he even has any, but MS used to own some. It was part of an agreement where Apple agreed to use IE and not sue them in exchange for the promise that Office would still be developed. They bought a sizable amount of stock in Apple, but they were the non-voting variety, so they couldn't get a say in anything. They sold it off some years later when they could, at a large profit I might add.

That was back when Apple wasn't doing so good and MS were feeling the heat from the DOJ.

Marc-Mustang
Jul 21, 2006, 05:33 PM
Sorry guys. I was asking how much of Apple does Bill Gates actually own via stock, not the market share that Apple has. This info is very hard to find.

CubaTBird
Jul 21, 2006, 07:33 PM
This is awesome. The fact that Apple has gone above and beyond that 3% that we have seemed to stayed at for so long is most awesome. :o

gwangung
Jul 21, 2006, 07:44 PM
By definition, having alternatives makes Apple NOT a monopoly.

Really. We have an awful lot of ill-educated people around here who think they know economics....Wayyyyyyy too many people are saying that with a straight face.

Frisco
Jul 21, 2006, 07:57 PM
Sorry guys. I was asking how much of Apple does Bill Gates actually own via stock, not the market share that Apple has. This info is very hard to find.

Microsoft bought 150 million in non-voting stock. Hardly a controlling interest. They have since sold most if not all of that stock for a tidy profit. Apple in turn dropped the "Look and Feel" lawsuit (which they weren't going to win anyway) and MS promised updates to "Office" and IE. Microsoft has NO significant financial stake in Apple.

See this (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-18155.html)

bousozoku
Jul 21, 2006, 08:18 PM
is this 4.8% for the quarter or 4.8% total market share? if the former, nice, but no big deal; if the latter then very big deal.

It's 4.8 % total market share for the quarter. ;)

It's more than it was and so it is a big deal. However, what matters is sustained growth not incidental spikes. If they continue to grow, they will have mind share as well as market share, especially with companies like Sophos telling consumers to buy Macs to keep their information secure.

Market share is an interesting figure anyway. It doesn't talk about the installed base, only about the very current sales figures.

shen
Jul 21, 2006, 10:44 PM
Apple produces very high quality machines and that's always going to ding them (ironically) in terms of market share as people will buy new machines less often and because loads of people aren't picking up bargain Macs at Wal-Mart. I know lots of Windows users and they buy new PCs on average every two years. I buy a new Mac on average every 5 years and most Mac users I know do the same. Market share is just meaningless, even when it's positive news.

Besides, Apple deals in the kind of quality that will keep it around for many, many years, regardless of which way its market share is going and that's all that I care about.

it is still odd to me using a Mac after so many years running windows networks and running linux and BSD. i used to upgrade at least parts, and generally whole machines every 14-20 months. now i have a G3 ibook, and it is fast approaching 4 years old, and i have no plans to upgrade for at least 9 months to a year.

when you can buy the low end entry level notebook and get great performance for 3-5 years, why would you upgrade?

....thanks apple!

mrblah
Jul 22, 2006, 01:11 AM
At 7% the Mac will gain in momentum and grow to its full potential at 30 to 50% of the home market in probably just a few years, it will never stay at just 7%.
50%? Did you forget how much Macs cost? One of the main reasons Dell has such a huge market share is because they are so cost effective and come with great bundles aimed at the average person. 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac.

If Apple can come up with bundles that include a monitor, printer, and scanner while still managing to be priced competitively with Dell then theyd have a chance at Dell level marketshare. Bundling iPods with Macs could be a great program for Apple as well. But they are very far away from offering anything close to what Dell does for that price, and thats what the average person wants (I doubt they are the least bit concerned with Windows, they just want a computer with everything they need).

Apple offers the programs people want, but theyre useless without the hardware to use the programs. They should do more to make it easier for non-computer people to get everything they need at a decent price (unlike shopping through dell.com which gets you good deals on a lot of stuff, shopping through Apple seems to cost more than if you bought the crap seperately)

BenRoethig
Jul 22, 2006, 09:45 AM
50%? Did you forget how much Macs cost? One of the main reasons Dell has such a huge market share is because they are so cost effective and come with great bundles aimed at the average person. 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac.

He also assumes that everyone else thinks like mac users.

d_and_n5000
Jul 22, 2006, 10:00 AM
Few years? How about next month or TOMORROW?! :p
Maybe I was a bit conservative;)This time next year. I'm just saying not too fast becuase bad things happen when companies grow too fast. Can't keep up with demand, can't keep up with expansion, can't keep up with worker volume. Grow gradually, and Apple will have time to adjust to all of these.

Trust me, its for the better to just take it slow.

IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 2006, 11:22 AM
Microsoft bought 150 million in non-voting stock. Hardly a controlling interest. They have since sold most if not all of that stock for a tidy profit. Apple in turn dropped the "Look and Feel" lawsuit (which they weren't going to win anyway) and MS promised updates to "Office" and IE. Microsoft has NO significant financial stake in Apple.

It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.

Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.

MikeTheC
Jul 22, 2006, 11:02 PM
My 2¢...

I 100% agree with the sentiment that Apple should not try to have a meteoric growth rate. From what I've seen over the years, a company can grow to any size it wants and be stable, but if it does it too fast (or, frankly, if it does it for the wrong reasons) it becomes unwieldly and unstable, and eventually will die. I know people here will laugh when I say this, but I fully expect to see this phenominon happen to both Wal-Mart and Home Depot, just like it's happened to countless other companies who got too big too quickly.

I firmly believe that marketshare is significant in that it is a make or break for software and peripheral development. It is also significant in that it contributes to overall "mindshare". Now, you can accept or reject "mindshare" if you like, but it absolutely has an effect because people believe it is important.

Furthermore, I have issues with the comments about marketshare increase alone as a primary contributor to getting Macs back into schools. The reason I have a problem with that is that school boards and school superintendants are typically in the back pocket of the IT staffs of the district, and so many of those staffs out there are all MS-heads. Until you can replace those folks (not convert, not convince, but replace) you're hardly likely to see much penetration into the educational market.

And with both businesses and schools, it's incredibly ironic that they cling -- positively cling -- to Microsoft and all things Microsoft and only things Microsoft, even despite the tide of spyware, malware, viruses and incessant security hole exploitation. I mean, they'll bitch and moan about all the holes they had to patch and all the viruses they had to contend with and all the maintenance issues which fill up their day, but mention "Macintosh" just once and they'll immediately jump on the bandwagon of "Anything not made by Microsoft sucks. Oh, and Macs doubly suck, and nobody uses them, and there isn't any software for them, and they just crash all the time." Yadda yadda yadda. Geez, if I had a nickle for everytime I heard that crap come out of the mouth of an allegedly-savvy IT guy...

Anyhow, one factor of significant import is Linux's market share, which is now either equal to or slightly in excess of Apple's. It's a good thing, on the one hand, because it means that competition is alive and well in the OS marketplace. But it also should serve as a wake-up call to Apple. They should know full-well what this means, since they're (at least to a degree) in bed with the Open Source crowd.

guzhogi
Jul 23, 2006, 10:03 PM
Furthermore, I have issues with the comments about marketshare increase alone as a primary contributor to getting Macs back into schools. The reason I have a problem with that is that school boards and school superintendants are typically in the back pocket of the IT staffs of the district, and so many of those staffs out there are all MS-heads. Until you can replace those folks (not convert, not convince, but replace) you're hardly likely to see much penetration into the educational market.
I'm the techie guy at an elementary school and 99.9% of all the computers in the district (not just my school, the entire district) are Macs. The last director of technology was really pro-Mac, along w/ a lot of the other schools' techies, which was a good thing. However, the kindergarten teacher @ my school has some peecees which she got on a grant to run some Windows only software (but didn't get them set-up since, according to the last director of technology, didn't fit into the district's technology plans). Also, each techie is getting a MacBook w/ dual boot because we're going to a new program that rates how well the kids to in reading & math where you can see the progress online, but the only way you can upload the results is on Windows. Boo!!! :mad: That's one reason why Macs still have low marketshare: no programs. It's a chicken & the egg problem. Mac marketshare won't go significantly up until more software is ported, but not very much software will be ported until mac marketshare is up.

One problem with increased market share is that there will be more attacks on them. One of the Mac's sources of security is security through obscurity. So, why go after an OS that only has 5% marketshare while another OS has 90%? I don't know whether Windows or Macs are more secure in terms of actual bugs and security holes, but we probably would if Windows & Macs get equal marketshare.

There are two main reasons that I know of to hack into computers, write viruses, or something: (1) to gain entry to a computer to get files, damage the company's infrastructure or (2) to be a jackass. The first one is probably for personal gain and Macs may be a target, the second to make yourself feel good at other people's expense and would probably be Windows-based to inflict the most damage. Anyone want to add something, be my guest.

Lollypop
Jul 24, 2006, 12:47 AM
well there are two market share stats that are at issue here. one is hardware sales, and one is OS X usage.

i.e. I have a mac mini, but it doesn't have X on it. It runs solely windows 2003 server with a couple of virtual servers on it also running windows 2003. It's dead quiet so i can run it in my room 24/7. so it's a hardware sale, but not using X.

I built a macbook for a client running XP only since that's what is required for work. i think more and more we will see apple hardware being bought for use with windows -- people who like the aesthetics but prefer to continue to use their current software library and/or have work restrictions.

-Wes

This statement worries me, yes a increased market share is good, but in the end I want it to be for the entire platform, the hardware and OS X! I run Parrallels for a few ancient windows only games but even then I somehow feel like Im betraying my decision to use OS X, I just hope leopord is a big success and that more and more cool apps are writen to keep people trying OS X and not windows.

Out of interest, why havn't you tried OS X server? Is there a specific reason you went with Windows 2003 server?

BenRoethig
Jul 24, 2006, 09:49 AM
This statement worries me, yes a increased market share is good, but in the end I want it to be for the entire platform, the hardware and OS X! I run Parrallels for a few ancient windows only games but even then I somehow feel like Im betraying my decision to use OS X, I just hope leopord is a big success and that more and more cool apps are writen to keep people trying OS X and not windows.

Out of interest, why havn't you tried OS X server? Is there a specific reason you went with Windows 2003 server?

I think the low marketshare for OSX is working against OSX server. It is, however, a problem of Apple's own making.

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2006, 10:48 AM
I know this does not have much to do with anything in this thread. I have heard Gates owns a some shares of Apple and was wondering how many or what percentage he owns. I have googled, ask jeeves, yahoo and searched this website for 45 minutes for the answer with no luck and thought you all in this thread could shed some light. Thanks for reading.

Zero.

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2006, 10:52 AM
50%? Did you forget how much Macs cost? One of the main reasons Dell has such a huge market share is because they are so cost effective and come with great bundles aimed at the average person. 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac.

What third world country are you living in, where 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac?

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2006, 10:56 AM
By definition, having alternatives makes Apple NOT a monopoly.

It is not even necessary that there _are_ alternatives. It is enough if others _could_ enter the market if they wanted. In that situation, you cannot increase prices as you like, because at that point others _would_ enter the market.

zap2
Jul 24, 2006, 11:16 AM
50%? Did you forget how much Macs cost? One of the main reasons Dell has such a huge market share is because they are so cost effective and come with great bundles aimed at the average person. 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac.

If Apple can come up with bundles that include a monitor, printer, and scanner while still managing to be priced competitively with Dell then theyd have a chance at Dell level marketshare. Bundling iPods with Macs could be a great program for Apple as well. But they are very far away from offering anything close to what Dell does for that price, and thats what the average person wants (I doubt they are the least bit concerned with Windows, they just want a computer with everything they need).

Apple offers the programs people want, but theyre useless without the hardware to use the programs. They should do more to make it easier for non-computer people to get everything they need at a decent price (unlike shopping through dell.com which gets you good deals on a lot of stuff, shopping through Apple seems to cost more than if you bought the crap seperately)


Many people who buy PC buy pricy ones.. were they could buy a Mac for the price of the Dell/HP/ect

That said i doubt Apple will have 50% of the market in the next few years simply becase that would mean Mac sales would need to up but a ton AND PC sales would be to pretty much stop. Also that would be more then any hardwre maker currently has... look for 10% in the next few years

Gasu E.
Jul 24, 2006, 01:58 PM
As a Mac fan-boy I'd love to think Apple actually picked up sustainable market share, but as an actual technology product manager who does forecasts for a living, I've got to look askew at the data:

* Mac market share was DOWN the previous quarter

* The attributed cause of the share drop the previous quarter was the transition to Intel

* Therefore the previous quarter share drop represented pent-up demand that would rematerialize once the Intel transition stabilized

* Therefore one would expect a corresponding one-time blip UP in the corresponding quarter to resolve the pent-up demand

* And low and behold, the marketshare "increase" just about corresponds to the resolution of the previous quarter's pent-up demand.

In other words, to keep the same long-term share, the current quarter's share would have to temporarily rise to make-up for last quarter's drop.

Sorry, amigos, I'll wait to see next quarter's data before I pop the cork...

mrblah
Jul 25, 2006, 12:24 AM
What third world country are you living in, where 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac?
Havent looked at PC prices in awhile? Most PC's these days are less than $1000 and come with a monitor. The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same). Mini's are $600 and dont come with a monitor, keyboard, or mouse, they mainly appeal to old PC owners wanting to try a mac. PC's are very cheap these days, just take a stroll through dell's site to see what people can get for less than $800 and what Apple will need to do if they expect to compete.

Queso
Jul 25, 2006, 04:09 AM
The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same).
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.

Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.

BenRoethig
Jul 25, 2006, 08:15 AM
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.

Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.

And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.

2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
being able to choose what you want to do instead of having everything dictated to you by Steve Jobs.

Queso
Jul 25, 2006, 08:33 AM
And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.
And you're really going to use all that are you? With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers. So all that space in the case just translates to lost space in the home. I'm a pretty average computer user at home and with the exception of my camera, iPod and printer, I have no external devices. Although I will be purchasing an external firewire drive at some point, I'd much rather have a small squarish metallic box on display behind my iMac than lose an extra three square feet of floor space due to needing a bigger desk. Perhaps when you factor in the cost, the lost square footage of the room your computer is in should be taken into account.

Eraserhead
Jul 25, 2006, 09:48 AM
And you're really going to use all that are you? With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers.

Few even upgrade their HD's, i think apple users upgrade the RAM but that's only because Apple have *never* sold a computer (at least since the original iMac) with enough RAM.

One interesting think I have realised from going back to a PC laptop (i'm borrowing it and waiting for new MBP's/MB's) is how annoying many of the applications are, for example WinSCP, when you move a file across it brings up a dialog to confirm where you want to copy it to, even though the odds are 99.99% that you want to move it from the visible directory on the left to the visible directory on the right. An OS X application (eg Fugu or Cyberduck in this case) would never do that. Basically even if Vista is superior to Leopard in ease of use and features (which ain't gonna happen :p) because OS X app's are in general designed better I'd probably keep using a Mac, this is an excellent reason to switch too.

Evangelion
Jul 25, 2006, 10:57 AM
And you're really going to use all that are you?

What if he is?

With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers.

And most computer-users use Windows, so maybe we should all switch to Windows? Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems. To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.

What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks. Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.

I'm a pretty average computer user at home and with the exception of my camera, iPod and printer, I have no external devices.

Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.

Although I will be purchasing an external firewire drive at some point, I'd much rather have a small squarish metallic box on display behind my iMac than lose an extra three square feet of floor space due to needing a bigger desk.

Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items. And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.

Perhaps when you factor in the cost, the lost square footage of the room your computer is in should be taken into account.

Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.

zap2
Jul 25, 2006, 11:02 AM
2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display


iMac is perfect for most home users.. few "home users"(people who buy a computer and use it, not super up to date about it) upgrade anything..maybe RAM and Harddrive but thats really it

zap2
Jul 25, 2006, 11:03 AM
What if he is?



And most computer-users use Windows, so maybe we should all switch to Windows? Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems. To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.

What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks. Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.



Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.



Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items. And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.



Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.


2 Mac Mini should still be very small.. but i would love to see a Cube sized Mac agian..maybe this time it would sell.

Evangelion
Jul 25, 2006, 11:14 AM
2 Mac Mini should still be very small

Imagine two Mac Mini back-to-back. That is how much desk-space the tower would consume. Now, it could be as high as four Mini's stacked on top of each other, so the volume would be eight times as much as the Mini has, but the actual space needed on the desktop would be just two Mini's worth.

Queso
Jul 25, 2006, 11:26 AM
What if he is?
Then good for him, but if he's that much of a power user, he's looking at a redesign of the PowerMac case, not a mini-tower.

Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems.
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?

To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs? Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result. Keeping the range small means they have tight control on inventory and can dedicate the Apple Stores to showing what Macs can do. So far it's brought the company a lot of money.

What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks.
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.

Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?

Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.

Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items.
Yeah, I used to have one of those, then I realised how much wasted space it was causing and ditched it for a smaller one. You obviously live in a bigger place than me, but then for me it's location, location, location :)

And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.
I don't care about "all-in-one elegance". I didn't buy an iMac because it matches the curtains. I just want something that takes up minimum space. The iMac does that perfectly.

Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.
But only SOME of you. Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower? Jobs' arrogance or because they don't think it'll sell in enough quantity to justify it? As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.

Let's wait and see what comes out at WWDC. The G5 case had to be enormous for cooling reasons. The MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.

BenRoethig
Jul 25, 2006, 11:40 AM
Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.

Or in my case, it would use exactly no desk space since mine neatly tucks it away underneath. While I have no choice but to buy an iMac, a tower like this Core2 Duo based Vector GX (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1988081,00.asp) from Velocity Micro would give a much cleaner look with my setup.

Evangelion
Jul 25, 2006, 11:50 AM
Then good for him, but if he's that much of a power user, he's looking at a redesign of the PowerMac case, not a mini-tower.

Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.

Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?

There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?

You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs?

No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?

Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result.

Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.

You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.

Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?

But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?

Coming up maybe?

Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.

Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?

But only SOME of you.

And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?

Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower?

Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".

As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.

Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.

MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.

Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.

What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.

backdraft
Jul 25, 2006, 03:10 PM
I'm not too sure I agree with the reason you give though. My main concern is quality control. Even with the paltry share increase Apple has seen during the past year, quality control has become an issue. Would not like to see how much poorer with a 10% share thats all :rolleyes:

Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers... :mad:

displaced
Jul 25, 2006, 04:32 PM
Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers... :mad:

Oh... dear... lord...

The MBP's whine (arguably the biggest problem, barring heat) was caused by either: 1) the inverter for the LCD backlight, or 2) power regulation for the CPU, which (believe it or not) the G-series also required very similar parts. Neither of these components were designed or built by Intel. If you want to blame someone, blame Foxconn/Hon Hai/Asustek/whoever built the system. I'd probably put money on that company also having built PPC systems for Apple at some point.

The heat? Well, again, depending on who you believe regarding the cause, that's either dodgy thermal paste application (blame Asustek/whoever again), or... well, let's say that the Core line are rather toasty no matter who's using it.... but again, for the computing power, the Core is a great piece of work. Before the switch, there was zero chance of us having a laptop with this amount of computational power at *any* heat output.

Wonky 'eject' key on the MBP's? Asustek/whoever again.

The switch to Intel had zero bearing on quality control. QC's performed by the system builder.

Let's look back a bit through the mists of time...

Apple-designed logic boards. Were they somehow sprinkled with the magic fairy-dust of goodness? No. iBook and eMac failures?

Apple-designed chipsets: sub-par USB2 performance, even on the G5.

Apple-designed power systems: G5 chirping.

QC is a problem across the industry. Apple's used to be exemplary (many years ago... I'm talking Pismo/Wallstreet era). Now it's merely average or -- depending on the studies/surveys you believe -- slightly above-average.

mrblah
Jul 26, 2006, 07:43 PM
A tower is more disirable to people who are new to computers because it looks like youre getting more for your money. Obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, and saying such sacrilige on a Mac forum is going to get a lot of strange looks since the audience would be part of the "not everyone" crowd. But if you actually look at what SELLS rather than what you think people want then youll see that towers are the most sought after among the people looking for maximum value rather than style. People dont care what their computers look like, if they did then why would Dell have such a big market share with their ass ugly cases? PC's arent a fashion statement, theyre a tool. PowerMacs are absurdly priced and will never make a dent in the market share, so those are only options for rich people or enthusiasts that are willing to pay such prices.

Regardless of anyones opinion on how perfect iMacs are for new computer users, new computer users dont see it that way. They want value and upgradability since that means even more value in the long run. They dont know if they are going to upgrade anything in the future, the fact is that they buy a computer THINKING they will. You cant expect these people to know what you know, or to know that Apple has better quality parts than Dell or HP, they look at things and see computers and thats it. Not Windows, not OSX, just computers with already high prices.

Mal
Jul 26, 2006, 08:53 PM
Mr Blah, your name seems to be appropriate. No one looks at a tower and says, "Hey, that looks like a really innovative computer." However, how many people think that (maybe not in those exact words, but the idea) about the iMac? I'd venture to guess a lot more than ever thought that about a Dell. That's why Apple's viewed as the leader in the computer industry even by a lot of people who don't have or even want Macs. If Apple sacrificed that for the sake of perceived benefit on the part of the same people that go for Dells because they're "tools", they're not going to gain anything. Apple survives and flourishes by being the technology leaders, not by copying overused designs like towers.

jW

bousozoku
Jul 26, 2006, 09:20 PM
Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers... :mad:

Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.

Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.

JackSYi
Jul 27, 2006, 03:01 PM
Apple is all about the matter of balance between design and performance.

mrblah
Jul 27, 2006, 04:13 PM
Mr Blah, your name seems to be appropriate. No one looks at a tower and says, "Hey, that looks like a really innovative computer." However, how many people think that (maybe not in those exact words, but the idea) about the iMac? I'd venture to guess a lot more than ever thought that about a Dell. That's why Apple's viewed as the leader in the computer industry even by a lot of people who don't have or even want Macs. If Apple sacrificed that for the sake of perceived benefit on the part of the same people that go for Dells because they're "tools", they're not going to gain anything. Apple survives and flourishes by being the technology leaders, not by copying overused designs like towers.
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy. Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality. People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly? I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need? Hes probably in no rush to make mroe money), but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.

savage1881
Jul 27, 2006, 10:51 PM
And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.

2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
being able to choose what you want to do instead of having everything dictated to you by Steve Jobs.

An iMac is NOT suitable for the sort of computer use you are intending! As an experienced computer technician who works mostly on PCs, I can assure you that any new Dell, HP or Gateway tower is even less suited to handle the upgrades you are suggesting, with the exclusion of RAM upgrades.

New PCs are products of out-of-control cost cutting and nothing more. If you want upgradability, you must spend at least $2000 and get one from ABS or another semi-custom shop.

Finally, the Mac Pro tower is coming out soon. Then, many of your complaints about the Mac's faults will be dealt with. While I am a fan of the Mac platform, I run a custom dual-xeon PC that I built myself and I can say that, from my perspective, I would take any computer over a sub-$1500 PC.

I've got a fried Dell P4 Motherboard sitting at home b/c Dell decided to use proprietary pin configs with a standard ATX power connector (not my mistake :) ). Mass-manufactured PCs are made to be fortresses, preventing user upgrade. The Mac is a nice, good-looking alternative among only a few alternatives. Atleast you know the each of those external devices is going to work right as soon as you plug it in. With PCs today, esp. from dell, You have no such guarantee on any of the upgrades you suggested. People are making a mistake when they buy a cheap PC, whether you believe they ought to be buying a mac or not!

Miguel0019
Jul 27, 2006, 11:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Along with the recent encouraging 3Q 2006 financial results (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml) from Apple on Wednesday, independent research firms Gartner and IDC have recently reported on 2Q 2006 market share (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php) (via MacWorld). Both firms report solid gains from 1 year ago, with IDC reporting a jump from 4.4 to 4.8% U.S. Marketshare and Gartner reporting a jump from 4.3 to 4.6%, making the Mac maker the 4th largest maker of computers behind Dell (32%), HP (18.9%), and Gateway (6.2%).

This is the first reported gains in marketshare for Apple since the Intel transition, as last quarter saw minor losses (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060601164133.shtml). From last quarter, it appears as though Apple has gained an entire percentage point in market share (up from 3.5-3.6% 1Q 2006).

Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Marketshare_Increasing)

is that good or bad?

displaced
Jul 30, 2006, 06:32 AM
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy. Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality. People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly? I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need? Hes probably in no rush to make mroe money), but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.

This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.

I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.

If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.

Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.

A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.

Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.

(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)

supremedesigner
Jul 30, 2006, 08:07 PM
Different topic: Saw dell.com new "interim" website and it have poorly html function. Bah!

dsnort
Jul 30, 2006, 08:53 PM
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy.
Dell is already changing their market strategy. The whole idea behind their XPS line is that they want to get out of the "Walmart Mentality" approach to marketing. They find it hard on the margins. And wouldn't that more accurately be described as Dells "massive, shrinking, market share"?

Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality.
Wow, another person that thinks they are the only ones to see reality.

People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly?
I agree, it is definately a Walmart world. But I think I would hate to live in a world without innovators, after all, someone had to invent the toothbrush! And there are a lot of features on modern PC's that PC users are fond of that were not developed by "Bargain Basement" PC manufacturers. Stop and think what your computing experience would really be like if not for the innovators.

I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need?
No corporation ever settles. Growth is one of the main objectives of all corporations. And by the way, how many billions does Michael Dell need? Or Bill Gates? Or Steve Bawl-mer? ( and that's not a typo )

.... but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.
Yeah, that's what drove Yugo to dominance in the automobile industry. Oh, wait a minute....

mandis
Aug 2, 2006, 05:24 AM
I will try to ignore your fan-boyish attitude as I find it mindless and undermining of the quality of MacRumors.


the mac platform is still the choice for the creative class. you won't find more than a handful of print designers using windows. adobe/macromedia sales figures show just about 50/50. creative pros don't care one whit about upgradeability. final cut pro is absolutely devastating the film market right now, eating away at the market share of avid solutions. these are all factual and verifiable.

No it is not and I dare you to prove me wrong! The majority of the creative class uses pcs period. Software titles like Autocad, 3d Studio Max, Rhino etc. don’t even exist for the mac. Your claims sound pretty much like Apples marketing, which tends to be over the top and pretty damn unrealistic. Also by creative class I obviously mean people like architects, interior designers, furniture designers, and people of fine arts and music. I have no idea what you mean by “print designers”, perhaps you would care to clarify?

as for your anecdotal evidence of your friends switching back, i'm sure that has happened. i can anecdotally tell you two of my colleagues have switched recently, buying not one, but two laptops each (15" and 17"). thing is my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours, all that counts are cold hard numbers and 4.6 is greater than 3.2. clearly mac market share is on the rise.


You call my personal experience “anecdotal evidence”? Perhaps you need a course in the English language? I would be more than happy to arrange an interview for you at the university of Brighton where I teach in post grad architecture. You could do one of the English courses and learn what the word “anecdotal” really means. As for the legitimacy of my claims you would only need to pay a visit to the UB Art and Design campus to see what once was a computer pool of 120 PowerMacs be filled with 120 brand new Gateway pcs.

As for your "friends" who bought not one but many MB PROS, I’m sure they did. In fact, if they are one bit like you, they must buy every piece of kit apple throws out of the assembly line. It is not either your fault or theirs though. It is fan-boyism that dictates this behavior and mind you we're not having any of it in these forums.

Blue Velvet
Aug 2, 2006, 06:02 AM
No it is not and I dare you to prove me wrong! The majority of the creative class uses pcs period.

Wrong. Of course, sequestered in your teaching post-graduate architectural world you may not see the wood for the trees and in the readily-accepted use of the word, 'creatives' do not include those who use AutoCAD.

The design, print, packaging, promo, photographic and fashion industry is overwhelmingly Mac-based.

Saying 'period' at the end of a sentence doesn't make it correct. Nor does one campus switching to PCs make it a summer. ;)

dsnort
Aug 2, 2006, 07:28 AM
No it is not and I dare you to prove me wrong!

:confused: :confused: :confused: How old are you?

The majority of the creative class uses pcs period. Software titles like Autocad, 3d Studio Max, Rhino etc. don’t even exist for the mac.

Not sure about 3d Studio or Rhino, but pretty sure Autocad is for engineers, not traditionally considered creative because engineering is bound by rules and laws of materials and physics, ( although some can be very original).

Your claims sound pretty much like Apples marketing, which tends to be over the top and pretty damn unrealistic.

Now who's being the fan-boy?

I have no idea what you mean by “print designers”, perhaps you would care to clarify?

Wow, you need to get out more!



You call my personal experience “anecdotal evidence”? Perhaps you need a course in the English language? I would be more than happy to arrange an interview for you at the university of Brighton where I teach in post grad architecture. You could do one of the English courses and learn what the word “anecdotal” really means.

What is the UB definition of anecdotal?? (As I silently crossing UB off of list of uni's kids might attend)

I could continue, but I weary of this. All in all a fairly poorly constructed argument. I am certain that UB has teachers more capable than this.

mandis
Aug 2, 2006, 09:13 AM
Wrong. Of course, sequestered in your teaching post-graduate architectural world you may not see the wood for the trees and in the readily-accepted use of the word, 'creatives' do not include those who use AutoCAD.

Wrong? Perhaps you are more informed in the fields of architecture and design and you could teach us a thing or two about what software to use.

The design, print, packaging, promo, photographic and fashion industry is overwhelmingly Mac-based.

Could you back that up with some numbers?

Saying 'period' at the end of a sentence doesn't make it correct. Nor does one campus switching to PCs make it a summer. ;)

Do the words “personal” and “experience” mean anything to you? Just read my original post.

Queso
Aug 2, 2006, 09:22 AM
The design, print, packaging, promo, photographic and fashion industry is overwhelmingly Mac-based.
Can I add film, television production and public relations/advertising to that list?

mandis
Aug 2, 2006, 09:36 AM
:confused: :confused: :confused: How old are you?

29 and currently doing a PHD in Architectural design.


Not sure about 3d Studio or Rhino, but pretty sure Autocad is for engineers, not traditionally considered creative because engineering is bound by rules and laws of materials and physics, ( although some can be very original). .

You are obviously uninformed. Autocad is used by most Architects and Architectural practices in the world.


Now who's being the fan-boy?

You perhaps? Why else would you attempt to discredit my statement and me when you have no real facts to support your argument?

Wow, you need to get out more!

I’m getting out quite often actually. I only managed to reply to dashiel a week after his reply to my post. You on the other hand replied only an hour after mine.Don’t you have anything better to do?


What is the UB definition of anecdotal?? (As I silently crossing UB off of list of uni's kids might attend)

Forget Uni mate! Judging from your grammar, you probably need to go back to primary school.

I could continue, but I weary of this. All in all a fairly poorly constructed argument. I am certain that UB has teachers more capable than this.

LOL!! I knew it! Fan-boys actualy travel in herds! :rolleyes: