PDA

View Full Version : Market Share Myth: Nailed!


MacBytes
Jul 22, 2006, 09:12 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Market Share Myth: Nailed! (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060722221247)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

DMann
Jul 23, 2006, 12:51 AM
At this rate, 10% in the foreseeable future...
That would almost be half of MSs shrinking
share at 21% (OS only)

wnurse
Jul 23, 2006, 06:53 AM
This "market share myth" study is junk. Market share is market share. Regardless of where Dell gets it's operating system, it's market share of PC is the same. It's profit margin is not, but since when is profit margin equal to market share?. Only in the mac community would it's members be willing to swallow such junk. If the author wants to make such a fine point about where dell gets its operating system, perhaps he should compare everything. Does Dell manufacture more of it's internal components than apple?. Perhaps Dell manufactures more components that are used in it's monitors than apple. Why are apple faithfull willing to accept junk research if it favors apple?. We all know if some mag had come out with similiar research for Dell, we would all have slammed it as nuts. Why would you all accept stupid logic from the mac side?

To complete my argument. Toyota has a specific market share vs Ford in the United States. When that is done, do we consider how much of the car is actually made by Toyota vs how much of it is made by Ford?. Perhaps Toyota outsources the making of it's seats while Ford makes their in-house.. does that then invalidate the market share numbers?. The more i think about this study, the more i laugh. If 100 computers are sold and dell sells 20 and Apple sells 3, then Dell market share is 20%, apple 3% regardless of who makes the operating system. Just because apple makes it's own operating system does not imply it's cost is less vs Dell. They still had to pay their developers, MacOSX does not come with 0 cost. Does the author take into account that apple has to pay itself for the operating system (by that i mean, they have to amortize the cost of the operating system when selling the computer). If i don't see more mac zealots pointing out the obvious flaws in the article, i will be disappointed by the mac community. Very disappointed!!!.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 08:06 AM
I agree with the above poster.
If you sell 3 computers out of every 100 sold, you have 3% market share.
I'd like to see the shares broken down as portable/non-portable though.

cwtnospam
Jul 23, 2006, 08:11 AM
The purpose of dissecting the marketshare is to explain how Apple has the enormous impact it does on the rest of the industry. Even a cursory look at Vista for example, shows many 'new features' that have been in OS X for more than a year. If you think he's wrong, then how do you explain a company with a 3% or even 4.6% marketshare being the industry leader when it comes to software design and hardware style?

wnurse
Jul 23, 2006, 08:23 AM
The

cwtnospam, when someone has to come up with special exceptions to explain apple market share, it is junk. Every other company gets their market share determined the exact same way. Whenever you see someone saying stuff like "market share myth debunked" or "why apple market share is higher than reported", etc, these are excuses. Those type of statements are usually followed by convoluted and flawed logic that has rational people scatching their heads. I read the article.. all i saw was somone making excuses for apple market share (explaining how it is higher in certain market segments as if anyone didn't know that already.. duh!!). Apple market share is what it is. Apple has never been interested in grabbing a particularly high market share so really, there is no need to apologize or claim some myth exist about market share. Please.. apple is proud of the way they do business. That should be enough.

The purpose of dissecting the marketshare is to explain how Apple has the enormous impact it does on the rest of the industry. Even a cursory look at Vista for example, shows many 'new features' that have been in OS X for more than a year. If you think he's wrong, then how do you explain a company with a 3% or even 4.6% marketshare being the industry leader when it comes to software design and hardware style?

I agree apple is a trendsetter.. what does that have to do with market share?. Even a company with small market share has sufficient funds to create innovative products?.. what's your point?. That apple people are more creative than microsoft people thus this must mean apple market share is higher than reported?. Tell me that is not what you are thinking!!!. Also i never said the author did not make valid points. That is the basis of junk research. A person makes valid observations to come to an erroneous conclusion. Example of one such would be if i stated

"When you throw an apple in the air, it comes back down implying that the air pushes the apple down, thus gravity does not exist".

In that statement above, i stated a truth to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 08:35 AM
The purpose of dissecting the marketshare is to explain how Apple has the enormous impact it does on the rest of the industry. Even a cursory look at Vista for example, shows many 'new features' that have been in OS X for more than a year. If you think he's wrong, then how do you explain a company with a 3% or even 4.6% marketshare being the industry leader when it comes to software design and hardware style?
No, I see 2 markets which are distinct being mashed together to make Apple look better. It just happens that Apple competes in both markets.
If we combine the car and motorcycle markets, and take out the biggest car manufacturers, I can make Suzuki and Honda look like bigger players in the car market than they actually are. I could do the same with the music industry and portable music devices, and make Sony look all powerful. Or I could look at the market for all machines capable of playing music, and demonstrate that Dell are a significant player in the music market.

This is playing with statistics and gets us nowhere.

It would be more meaningful to look at the market in logical segments rather than trying to blend 2 different markets. A look at the "luxury end" and the "bargain end" would make more sense than this (e.g. to go back to cars, BMW is a small player in the car market, but a major player in the executive segment). This sort of comparison would be much more useful.

cwtnospam
Jul 23, 2006, 08:54 AM
I agree apple is a trendsetter.. what does that have to do with market share?
You agree they're a trendsetter, but you have no explanation as to how they're able to set the trends. That's what the article is about — explaining how along with great products, their marketshare gives them that power!

I'll ask again: how do you explain their ability to drive the industry on so many levels if their marketshare really is only 3%? Ferraris and Mazeratis may be stylish and desirable, but they don't drive Ford to copying them on a regular basis. Apple must have something more than style working for them. If it isn't marketshare, what is it?

Dont Hurt Me
Jul 23, 2006, 08:56 AM
I can remember when Apple had 20% marketshare.:) With marketshare a lot a things can happen, just look at Pods.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 09:20 AM
... If it isn't marketshare, what is it?
Panache

cwtnospam
Jul 23, 2006, 09:37 AM
Panache
:rolleyes:
Style = Panache. You must be joking.

iGary
Jul 23, 2006, 09:38 AM
I don't want Apple to have a large market share.

PlaceofDis
Jul 23, 2006, 09:39 AM
i still would like to see the market share against the installed base.

wnurse
Jul 23, 2006, 09:40 AM
:rolleyes:
Style = Panache. You must be joking.

Style = marketshare, you must be joking.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 09:43 AM
:rolleyes:
Style = Panache. You must be joking.
:rolleyes:
Panache = distinctive, stylish elegance (source - Dictionary.com)

Apple computers are distinctive, stylish and elegant.

i still would like to see the market share against the installed base.

Also a very useful comparison rather than cooked up stats.

PlaceofDis
Jul 23, 2006, 09:46 AM
Also a very useful comparison rather than cooked up stats.

i agree. Market share is just plain sales. but for the vast majority of users Macs last longer than their PC counterparts. so it would be interesting to see the installed user base, at least some rough estimate. because i'd say that would put things in perspective.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 09:51 AM
...
I'll ask again: how do you explain their ability to drive the industry on so many levels if their marketshare really is only 3%? ...

Dunnes Stores (Irish department store chain) sell a hell of a lot more clothes than John Rocha (designer). Who is the trendsetter, the designer or the mass marketer?

Timepass
Jul 23, 2006, 09:57 AM
I think the artical is very poorly writen and trying to make apple look better by putting together 2 markets that dont believe together.

Hardware is one side and software is the other. Because they overlap so heavily it means bad data to overlap them.
The entire artical is just full of data munipluations to make it look apple look better.

I dont think the artical disproves anything because there are to many holes in how the data is put together. Also the entire market share one data is worthless and false because he cut everyone else market share by 50% to say it how to make it fair. Instandly that makes it all worthless to me. Plus he did not include linux or anything like that.

It a poor artical and worthless for anything but putting out propoganda and worthless infomation.

rdowns
Jul 23, 2006, 09:59 AM
i still would like to see the market share against the installed base.

Just another way of manipulating the statistics. When I see those quoted, you always get the, "Macs last much longer than PCs" argument. While likely true, it is meaningless. If PCs were so truly awful, why do people keep buying them? Apple is and will always be a niche company. Nothing wrong with that.

Edit: What I'd really like to see is a measure of market share that excludes business purchases.

PlaceofDis
Jul 23, 2006, 10:03 AM
Just another way of manipulating the statistics. When I see those quoted, you always get the, "Macs last much longer than PCs" argument. While likely true, it is meaningless. If PCs were so truly awful, why do people keep buying them? Apple is and will always be a niche company. Nothing wrong with that.

Edit: What I'd really like to see is a measure of market share that excludes business purchases.

yes apple is and will be a niche company. and i agree, nothing wrong with that. but if there was some way to measure installed base i think it would be interesting just for interest sake. no arguementative.

and a marketshare that excludes business purchases would be very telling for the average user.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 10:03 AM
Just another way of manipulating the statistics. When I see those quoted, you always get the, "Macs last much longer than PCs" argument. While likely true, it is meaningless. If PCs were so truly awful, why do people keep buying them? Apple is and will always be a niche company. Nothing wrong with that.

But it does answer the question of how many people use macs more accurately than sales alone. The stats to use depend on the question you have.

And yes, apple will probably remain a niche company.

rdowns
Jul 23, 2006, 10:11 AM
There have been threads at MR about larger web site stats of Mac browsers. As I recall, Mac browsers were quoted at 6-10%. Probably as close a measure as we'll ever get.

My site at work gets 250,000 unique visitors a month with 7-8% Mac browsers.

plinden
Jul 23, 2006, 10:24 AM
I've read over the article a couple of times, and I still don't see how he could massage the numbers to give MS 48%. Like most of the other posters here, I think this was a totally pointless exercise. You can't modify the numbers using a component (the OS). You may as well add in Seagate vs Western Digital hard drive numbers.

And if he was talking about income from computer sales, the numbers are totally off anyway. Microsoft doesn't get 50% of the sales price when a PC is sold. Whether it's a $300 Dell B110 or a $2000 Dell XPS 700, they charge the OEM price, which is $100 or less for XP Home.

The fact that installed base and consumer market share would give a more accurate account of the Apple "mindshare" doesn't change the crapness of the article.

cwtnospam
Jul 23, 2006, 10:28 AM
Dunnes Stores (Irish department store chain) sell a hell of a lot more clothes than John Rocha (designer). Who is the trendsetter, the designer or the mass marketer?
Neither. There are tons of both and clothing trends follow cycles more than they do designers or retailers. In computers however, there's only Apple and Windows PC makers. Apple innovates and PC makers follow. You still haven't explained why. It seems plausible that the effect of Apple's marketshare is much greater than it would be for any other PC company with the same market penetration. The article does a good job of explaining how that could be.

I've read over the article a couple of times, and I still don't see how he could massage the numbers to give MS 48%.
The point wasn't to peg their marketshare at a lower number. It was to put a number on the influence of their marketshare relative to Apple's. If you assume that the ratio of influence/marketshare is always 1 to 1, then the Windows marketshare should mean that Microsoft wins virtually every competition. Clearly, that isn't the case as iTunes, iPod, and the Mac have shown.

shamino
Jul 23, 2006, 10:40 AM
First off, market share is a stupid, meaningless statistic, unless your goal is to become a monopoly. If your goal is (gasp!) to make a profit, then market share is irrelevant.

If Apple is selling more computers now than ever before, and their profits are higher than ever before, then it's good news. The amount that others are selling is irrelevant and misleading. If I double my sales and double my profits, but someone else triples his, it doesn't suddenly turn my success into a failure.

Second, and this is a mistake everybody (including this article) makes, is that you can't combine unrelated markets together when generating market share numbers.

Apple's Mac product competes in two markets - system software and computer hardware. In the software market, it's Mac OS vs. Windows vs. Linux and some niche players - Dell, HP other hardware makers aren't in this market at all. In the hardware market, it's Apple vs. Dell vs. HP vs. others, and Microsoft isn't in the market at all.

In the software market, Apple has a small share. And this isn't ever going to change unless Microsoft goes out of business. There's an entrenched monopoly that isn't going anywhere. Things like Parallels and Boot Camp make the situation worse, because now even Mac owners are Windows users.

In the hardware market, however, Apple's share is pretty darn good. IIRC, they rank #3, comapred to other PC makers. It's only when you compare Apple against all the other PC makers put together that their share seems bad.

Any attempt to combine hardware and software into a single market (putting Apple against Dell, HP, and Microsoft) is just a stupid munging of numbers that destroys any possibility of getting useful information from the result.

I can remember when Apple had 20% marketshare.:)
That would be for the Apple II product.

Care you explain how Apple could possibly have parlayed that into market dominance today?

Macs never had a market share that large.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 10:48 AM
Neither. There are tons of both and clothing trends follow cycles more than they do designers or retailers. In computers however, there's only Apple and Windows PC makers. Apple innovates and PC makers follow. You still haven't explained why. It seems plausible that the effect of Apple's marketshare is much greater than it would be for any other PC company with the same market penetration. The article does a good job of explaining how that could be.

No is doesn't.
Apple has a reputation for innovation. If they had 3% or 30% they would still have that reputation. They even have a reputation for innovation in iPods, even though there's been no major innovation in the last couple of years, just bumps in capacity, changes in styling and a modest few new features. The next gen is likely to be more innovative than the last few.

Windows pc makers is not a vast monolith you know. There are several manufacturers following their own brand and marketing strategy. Apple is the fifth largest computer manufacturer iirc, which is not a bad position to be. Sony doesn't copy Apple, it ploughs its own furrow. Dell doesn't copy Apple (at the lower end) where the philosophy seems to be "stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap".

I don't have to explain why other manufacturers follow Apple, but I can definitely point out that that article doesn't explain it either. Someone pointed out earlier that linux wasn't mentioned. Any article about OS'es that neglects Linux is suspect from the off, especially when dealing with statstics which are presumably available for Linux.

And clothing trends just happen? :confused: :rolleyes:
There's an established chain of designer innovates (or rips off old designs and markets it as new) and mass marketer follows with cheaper knock offs. That's part of the reason for the seemingly random and arbitrary changes in fashion from season to season.

rdowns
Jul 23, 2006, 10:53 AM
That would be for the Apple II product.

Care you explain how Apple could possibly have parlayed that into market dominance today?

Macs never had a market share that large.

Read up on the introduction of the Mac. It was supposed to be affordable but they released it at a price point ($2,495) that put it out of reach for most.

Max on Macs
Jul 23, 2006, 11:09 AM
This "market share myth" study is junk. Market share is market share. Regardless of where Dell gets it's operating system, it's market share of PC is the same. It's profit margin is not, but since when is profit margin equal to market share?. Only in the mac community would it's members be willing to swallow such junk. If the author wants to make such a fine point about where dell gets its operating system, perhaps he should compare everything. Does Dell manufacture more of it's internal components than apple?. Perhaps Dell manufactures more components that are used in it's monitors than apple. Why are apple faithfull willing to accept junk research if it favors apple?. We all know if some mag had come out with similiar research for Dell, we would all have slammed it as nuts. Why would you all accept stupid logic from the mac side?
I read the article and I was just like WTF this is ********. Ok so someone wants it to look like Apple has a big market share, but whoever the hell it was deserves to be shot. This is crap. Apple's market share is 4.6% roughly (according to various figures found online) and Microsoft's is more than 85%. If you want to believe that Apple's is 9.2% and Microsoft's is more than 42.5% then feel free, but you're a dumbass.

mkrishnan
Jul 23, 2006, 11:28 AM
If i don't see more mac zealots pointing out the obvious flaws in the article, i will be disappointed by the mac community. Very disappointed!!!.

Your diatribe amuses me. ;)

Seriously...marketshare is an (imperfect) predictor of the stability of revenue and profitability streams. That's all it's good for. The bottom line of the balance sheet has only one number on it, and it isn't market share. There are lots of other important things about the company, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Apple's bottom line is healthy and getting better. On other fronts, it's not perfect, but it's competitive. Its market capitalization reflects these facts. That's the end.

wnurse
Jul 23, 2006, 11:43 AM
Your diatribe amuses me. ;)

Seriously...marketshare is an (imperfect) predictor of the stability of revenue and profitability streams. That's all it's good for. The bottom line of the balance sheet has only one number on it, and it isn't market share. There are lots of other important things about the company, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Apple's bottom line is healthy and getting better. On other fronts, it's not perfect, but it's competitive. Its market capitalization reflects these facts. That's the end.

I agree totally.. that is why if you read my other post, you would see where i stated that apple never aspired to a large marketshare. BMW does not want a large marketshare either else they would make cars that sells for 12,000. You can either be high end or low end but it's difficult to be both (that is why toyota calls their high end lexus).. can you imagine if they hadn't?.. who would buy a $40,000 toyota?. Once you get the rep as a low end seller, you keep that rep. Apple has always been high end and high margin. Marketshare is only important to apple as insomuch as it wants people to buy it's hardware. I criticized the article because it is bunk. In an effort to somehow attribute higher market share to apple, it makes some foolish assumptions. The author would have been better of not writing anything.

shamino
Jul 23, 2006, 12:25 PM
Read up on the introduction of the Mac. It was supposed to be affordable but they released it at a price point ($2,495) that put it out of reach for most.
That's a part of it, but it was completely incompatible (in virtually every conceivable way) with the Apple II.

They could've given Macs away for free, and it wouldn't have helped to convert the Apple II user base into Mac users.

You can't parlay one product's success into another if adoption of the new product required abandoning the original.

cwtnospam
Jul 23, 2006, 02:43 PM
That's a part of it, but it was completely incompatible (in virtually every conceivable way) with the Apple II.
Every way? I remember reading files from my Apple //e on a Mac Plus with an external 3.5" floppy drive that worked on either system. :eek:

prechrchet
Jul 23, 2006, 04:17 PM
This article is a load of poop. I have never seen a list of market share that included Microsoft, and believe me, I looked for one after I read this thing.

What I'd really like to see is a measure of market share that excludes business purchases.

Hear Hear!! I wonder how Apple would look if you just looked at the home market.

SPUY767
Jul 24, 2006, 08:54 AM
This is a remarkably well written article. More than I had expected. While I agree with the people who say that marketshare is marketshare, this is more aof an article about quality vs. quantity.


Hear Hear!! I wonder how Apple would look if you just looked at the home market.

I believe that he covered that 6.6% I think it was of the retail market. Simple fact is, a lot of people buy cheap PCs as it is all that they can afford. In turn, Microsoft and Dell give them a cheap experience, but it serves a need. No bargain basement PC is going to edit HDV, but my G5 will. There is a need there as well, and the Mac fills it.

shamino
Jul 24, 2006, 09:49 AM
Every way? I remember reading files from my Apple //e on a Mac Plus with an external 3.5" floppy drive that worked on either system. :eek:
The Apple II was hardware incompatible - different slots, different built-in ports, different disk drives, and even an incompatible monitor connection.

And it was software incompatible. Different OS. Different disk format. Different processor.

The fact that, after the Mac was released, they shipped a 3.5" floppy drive for some of the last-generation II-series systems does not suddenly make the systems compatible.

mkrishnan
Jul 24, 2006, 11:17 AM
I agree totally..

In that case, yay! :eek: ;) :D I think I understand what you're saying now... and I'm glad we agree! ;)

bryanc
Jul 24, 2006, 12:16 PM
While TFA clearly tortures the statistics to show Apple's 'market share' in the best possible light, I think one of the points the author makes is a very good one: there's no simple way to assess Apple's market share, and even if there was it would be irrelevant.

We can't meaningfully compare Apple Dell, or Apple to Microsoft, because, although Apple competes in the same markets with those companies, Apple's business model is completely different. Apple is the only company that makes the whole widget - Hardware, OS and Software - so comparing with Dell, or HP, or Microsoft makes no sense.

The best analogy I can think of is trying to compare a grocery store to a fine restaurant. They both sell you food, and you may even be able to get very nice food at the grocery store, but they aren't really competing in the same markets, and even if most people buy most of their food at the grocery store most of the time, the restaurant isn't necessarily in any danger of going out of business.

For most people, most of the time, the Wintel ecology provides well enough, but if they want (and can afford) something nice, they buy a mac.

Cheers