PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Marketshare Up to 5.6%




MacRumors
Jul 18, 2007, 07:05 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

IDC released (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp;jsessionid=EAUNC2ELMRO3WCQJAFDCFFAKBEAVAIWD?containerId=prUS20789807) marketshare numbers for the top U.S. and worldwide computer brands.

Apple's 2nd Quarter 2007 U.S. marketshare was up to 5.6% of U.S. shipments. This tied Apple in 3rd place with Gateway for U.S. marketshare for this quarter. Dell and HP were well ahead at 28.4% and 23.6% respectively. Apple did not rank in the top 5 vendors for worldwide sales.

The 5.6% U.S. marketshare represents an increase from 4.8% in the year-ago (2006) quarter, which was an increase from 4.4% in the Q2 2005 quarter.

The U.S. market grew by 7.2% while Apple's sales grew 26.1% from the year ago quarter.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/18/apples-marketshare-up-to-5-6/)



kbmb
Jul 18, 2007, 07:08 PM
Excellent progress.

I think an iMac refresh and Leopard will increase those numbers as well. :D

-Kevin

VanMac
Jul 18, 2007, 07:09 PM
Go AAPL!

rdowns
Jul 18, 2007, 07:12 PM
Apple sales growing at just under 4 times the industry growth rate. That is huge.

If you thought the iPod had a halo effect, wait until you see what the iPhone has.

balamw
Jul 18, 2007, 07:12 PM
Just think how many more they'd sell if they'd just update the iMac and Mini already. :p

B

WildCowboy
Jul 18, 2007, 07:14 PM
Very impressive growth from a lot of the other top vendors too, though. Toshiba and Acer both closed the gap considerably on Apple in the US. That growth is coming at the expense of Dell, Gateway, and a number of other smaller vendors, but Apple certainly has some competition still in that second tier.

Spock
Jul 18, 2007, 07:14 PM
Just remember the bigger you get the harder you fall, it has happened once.

IJ Reilly
Jul 18, 2007, 07:17 PM
Just think how many more they'd sell if they'd just update the iMac and Mini already. :p

B

No kidding -- I'd buy one!

bigandy
Jul 18, 2007, 07:24 PM
Just remember the bigger you get the harder you fall, it has happened once.


wow, enthusiasm :p

MacFly123
Jul 18, 2007, 07:24 PM
Apple is only going to keep growing more and more with new Macs, Leopard, iPhone, & new iPods :) Apple will not become the majority... BUT, NEARLY ANYONE that is not poor will own a Mac instead of a PC in the near future :) :apple:

mkrishnan
Jul 18, 2007, 07:25 PM
I'm really continually amazed that Gateway is still in business. Not only do they manage to find new lows for themselves... in 2003, eMachines was in the top five manufacturers all by itself... and now, three years after merging with Gateway, as far as I can tell, Gateway has managed to erode every last bit of eMachine's value. Gah. Deplorable.

Gymnut
Jul 18, 2007, 07:34 PM
I hate to toot my own horn but I hope my recent MBP purchase last month helped these figures. :)

*beep* *beep*

MacFly123
Jul 18, 2007, 07:46 PM
Not to take anything away from Apple, but Vista is only helping on top of everything else :D

ajhill
Jul 18, 2007, 07:46 PM
Let's see 26.2% sales growth last quarter, times 4 equals 104% sales growth year over year. That's the best part of being the #3 pc manufacturer, there's lots of room for growth.

Add a new operating system, a refresh of iMac and you have a better than 100% growth in sales for Macs this year. Is there any wonder the stock doubles each year. Maybe this year a little more than double considering I think they made a few extra dollars selling some phone thing... you may have heard about it.

And the best part is that Intel reported that they cut prices on their chips in the past quarter to compete with AMD. That means that Apple built those fast selling Macs with cheaper chips, i.e. bigger profit margin. :)

Sales doubling, margins expanding. What more could one ask for? A stock split? Not needed, but what they heck... why not?

mspmacguy
Jul 18, 2007, 07:47 PM
Good news that Apple is increasing its market share. It's certainly an up-hill battle.

Now, if they'll just fix that d*** 10.4.10 update wireless and kernel panic issue, I'l be happy as a clam!!! :(

topgunn
Jul 18, 2007, 07:47 PM
I'm really continually amazed that Gateway is still in business. Not only do they manage to find new lows for themselves... in 2003, eMachines was in the top five manufacturers all by itself... and now, three years after merging with Gateway, as far as I can tell, Gateway has managed to erode every last bit of eMachine's value. Gah. Deplorable.
Gateway actually makes pretty solid machines. Better than anything Dell makes not named XPS or Latitude. I have a Gateway laptop that I feel is second only to an Apple laptop in terms of build quality and has much better price/performance.

ajhill
Jul 18, 2007, 07:48 PM
Oh, and put me down for a new iMac next month too!

Phormic
Jul 18, 2007, 07:53 PM
I wonder what Apple's market share percentage would be if you remove the corporate sales from the totals. It would have to be in double figures.

allpar
Jul 18, 2007, 07:56 PM
"Let's see 26.2% sales growth last quarter, times 4 equals 104% sales growth year over year. That's the best part of being the #3 pc manufacturer, there's lots of room for growth. "

Normally sales growth is measured against the same quarter in the prior year.

frawgz
Jul 18, 2007, 08:18 PM
"Let's see 26.2% sales growth last quarter, times 4 equals 104% sales growth year over year. That's the best part of being the #3 pc manufacturer, there's lots of room for growth. "

Normally sales growth is measured against the same quarter in the prior year.

The math is also not quite right. Even assuming 26.2 percent growth per quarter, you'd end up with 150 percent growth in one year. Of course, the bigger their numbers get, the harder it will be to maintain such outsize growth. We hope they do, obviously. :cool:

mkrishnan
Jul 18, 2007, 08:19 PM
Gateway actually makes pretty solid machines. Better than anything Dell makes not named XPS or Latitude.

Mmmmm, I'm not sure that's exactly a stiff competition. :p But okay, to your point, they might make good computers, or they might not. They are nonetheless destroying themselves... look at their sliding marketshare, miserable failure excuses for stores, the lack of visibility of the excellent leader they brought over from eMachines. The clock is ticking...those computers you like are not going to be around for much longer at this rate.

defeated
Jul 18, 2007, 08:23 PM
Q2 of 07 vs. Q2 of 06
in US:
HP: +26%
TOSHIBA: +50%
ACER: +164%
DELL:-11%
GATEWAY: -7%
Apple: +26%

Worldwide
HP: +37%
Lenovo: +22%
ACER: +55%
DELL:-5%
TOSHIBA: +22%

Doctor Q
Jul 18, 2007, 08:39 PM
The easy way to see the market share percentages:

ajhill
Jul 18, 2007, 08:46 PM
The math is also not quite right. Even assuming 26.2 percent growth per quarter, you'd end up with 150 percent growth in one year. Of course, the bigger their numbers get, the harder it will be to maintain such outsize growth. We hope they do, obviously. :cool:



Before you slam my math, realize that Apple Inc.'s earnings are up year over year at a rate of 139.6%, so a 104% Mac sales increase would seem reasonable. The halo effect from the iPhone could accelerate Mac sales this fall, not to mention the upcoming release of Leopard, OS X.

At some point the momentum in market share growth will accelerate as Mac sales reach a tipping point. Maybe it's when PC users compare Leopard to Vista and realize that Leopard wins hands down.

It's going to be a great Christmas!

defeated
Jul 18, 2007, 08:55 PM
I hope I transcribed this properly.

nice pie

I wonder if that "market share" numbers are Q2 shipments or the whole user base percentages.

rikers_mailbox
Jul 18, 2007, 09:09 PM
Just remember the bigger you get the harder you fall, it has happened once.
wow, enthusiasm :p

I think Spock was referring to MS. In which case, right on!

Q3 Earnings call next week! :D

AidenShaw
Jul 18, 2007, 09:10 PM
I wonder if that "market share" numbers are Q2 shipments or the whole user base percentages.

Don't wonder - "market share" refers to shipments. "User base" is much harder to guesstimate.

Look at http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html - many PowerPC G3 systems aren't even supported by OX 10.4. Do you include these in the "user base" or not?

"Marketshare" numbers reflect what people are buying today, not history. It doesn't matter how long Apple computers were useful in the '90s - today, they're going obsolete at the same rate as the PCs. Apple is making sure of that - each version of OSX has tighter hardware requirements that push older systems into the "unsupported" category.

Since Apple has a hardware/software monopoly - this makes perfect sense. Add features to the software that the older hardware can't support. You don't get to sell an OSX upgrade license - you get to sell a new Apple! Rejoice!!

rikers_mailbox
Jul 18, 2007, 09:11 PM
Just think how many more they'd sell if they'd just update the iMac and Mini already. :p

Add me to the list. I'm ready for a Mini loaded with Leopard.

xnu
Jul 18, 2007, 09:40 PM
Great news for Apple, progress is on a upward swing. Nothing scientific, but after 5 years on a local technology board for a public school, I had the experience today of showing my iPhone to a few members..... If anyone has had the opportunity to do this you know what my experience was.... Pure Amazement. They are purchasing some iMacs to create podcasts. Previously, they were everything Dell and nothing else. The move is incremental but momentum is on Apple's side. It is truly an exciting time!!! Can't wait for the new iMac and an ultra-light notebook!!!!

nanonaren
Jul 18, 2007, 09:46 PM
That Xray feature in leopard alone is enough for me to switch from windows .... buy a PowerMac .... and Leopard!!! DAMN.... and Leopard comes with the Message Passing Interface.... so make that 5 PowerMacs connected together with an Xserve Raid under my bed.

offwidafairies
Jul 18, 2007, 09:51 PM
so is there any point buying apple shares now? :confused:

kcroy
Jul 18, 2007, 09:57 PM
Good numbers. That should boost stock price tomorrow. I wonder what the stock will do once we learn what Apple is getting each month from ATT on their billing? That hasn't been released yet has it? Any idea what Apple's take will be?

siurpeeman
Jul 18, 2007, 09:59 PM
is this the highest market share apple's ever had?

colocolo
Jul 18, 2007, 10:09 PM
is this the highest market share apple's ever had?
Highest of the last decade :)

Back in the day they were on double digits... bring back the 80's!

DogGone
Jul 18, 2007, 10:33 PM
Before you slam my math, realize that Apple Inc.'s earnings are up year over year at a rate of 139.6%, so a 104% Mac sales increase would seem reasonable. The halo effect from the iPhone could accelerate Mac sales this fall, not to mention the upcoming release of Leopard, OS X.

At some point the momentum in market share growth will accelerate as Mac sales reach a tipping point. Maybe it's when PC users compare Leopard to Vista and realize that Leopard wins hands down.

It's going to be a great Christmas!

Sorry guys the math is quite wrong. You cannot add 4 lot of 26 to get the whole year's growth. Apple's growth in unit sales will probably average around 30 % for the whole year. Hopefully it will be more but this quarter's trend is probably consistent for the year.

If this doesn't make sense to you then consider that from a year ago Mac US sales increased 26% from 750K to almost 1000K. If each quarter had increased 25% from the previous then this quarter's numbers should have been more like 2000K.

Still if Apple sell 1.6M this quarter total then it will be very good.

twoodcc
Jul 18, 2007, 10:43 PM
Excellent progress.

I think an iMac refresh and Leopard will increase those numbers as well. :D

-Kevin

yes, very good numbers. and i agree. leopard should increase sales even more

scu
Jul 18, 2007, 11:12 PM
so is there any point buying apple shares now? :confused:

You bet. In two years $138 will seem cheap when aapl hits 300+.

At the rate that Apple is growing and taking into account extra earnings from the iPhone. EPS will be 8-9 by end of 2009.:)

DTphonehome
Jul 18, 2007, 11:15 PM
You bet. In two years $138 will seem cheap when aapl hits 300+.

At the rate that Apple is growing and taking into account extra earnings from the iPhone. EPS will be 8-9 by end of 2009.:)

Oh man I hope so...I've got some options for Jan '09 at $100. If AAPL goes to $300, I'll be golden.

WildCowboy
Jul 19, 2007, 12:37 AM
I seem to be missing something in all of this discussion of how to compound the 26.2% growth rate out to a year's time. 26.2% is already year-over-year growth...Q206 to Q207.

teflon
Jul 19, 2007, 12:53 AM
Why do i remember Apple having 10% market share in the U.S? 5.6% seem little to be in the top 5 computer vendors in the U.S. :confused:

DakotaGuy
Jul 19, 2007, 01:14 AM
It is nice to see Apple's marketshare up to 5.6% in the US, however what is Apple's worldwide marketshare? It is a world economy especially when it comes to technology products. I know it is going to be less, but are they making as much progress worldwide as they are in the US?

hulugu
Jul 19, 2007, 01:27 AM
Why do i remember Apple having 10% market share in the U.S? 5.6% seem little to be in the top 5 computer vendors in the U.S. :confused:

Apple held it's highest market-share in 1990 with 11.73% of the market (this includes numbers from both the Macintosh and Apple II). This share declined until 2004 with a paltry 1.84%.

What this shows is two things:
Apple is coming back
The PC market is fragmented between manufacturers


It is nice to see Apple's marketshare up to 5.6% in the US, however what is Apple's worldwide marketshare? It is a world economy especially when it comes to technology products. I know it is going to be less, but are they making as much progress worldwide as they are in the US?

Well, they're not in the top 5, so it appears that Apple has some serious work to do internationally. Without numbers from IDC, we can extrapolate based on Apple's own quarterly report on sales.

madmax_2069
Jul 19, 2007, 01:35 AM
Look at http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html - many PowerPC G3 systems aren't even supported by OX 10.4. Do you include these in the "user base" or not?



the Beige G3 or some iMac G3's might not be supported by 10.4 but they sure run it good (a upgraded Beige G3 that is) with the help of xpostfacto, i know cause i am running 10.4.10 on my Beige G3 AIO (freebee) in my sig. i bought the cd's and not the dvd which put money into Apples hands.

if i had the money i would have bought a new Mac, but i cant

i am glad to see Apple moving up in the world

rlk62098
Jul 19, 2007, 01:38 AM
I will join the parade here, and toot my horn, too. Two Mac Minis purchased, one in May 2007, one in June 2007. Looking for a notebook in the fall. Go Apple!!!

roblin
Jul 19, 2007, 01:41 AM
i personally know ~10people who waited for a high res MBP. most have and some will buy on in Q3. and i know a lot who wait for leopard.

bootcamp+parallel is a big switcher.

inkswamp
Jul 19, 2007, 01:42 AM
Apple is making sure of that - each version of OSX has tighter hardware requirements that push older systems into the "unsupported" category.

That's nonsense.

I own a 5+ year old iBook G3 (blazing along at a whopping 600 Mhz :rolleyes:) and it has had Jaguar, Panther and Tiger installed. Each of those got progressively more stable and faster. Tiger is amazing on it. There are no noticeable lags during usage. There's no bizarre behavior. It's solid and very responsive. Obviously, I'm not doing any rigorous production work on this thing, but for a casual-use laptop, my iBook is hard to beat. Likewise, I have installed various versions of OS X on older hardware where I work and have witnessed similar performances bumps each time so I know this is not just a fluke in my case.

Where do you get this idea that Apple is gearing OS X so it pushes older systems into the unsupported category? From what I can tell, they're doing a fantastic job retaining compatibility with older hardware--certainly better than what I've seen with Windows XP.

em500
Jul 19, 2007, 02:52 AM
is this the highest market share apple's ever had?

For some historical perspective, see the Ars Technica article
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/1

in particular:

http://media.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.media/marketshare.jpg

ajhill
Jul 19, 2007, 02:52 AM
Mac OSX has only market share to take (from Windows). Just for fun I ran the two companies stock for the last 5 years...

iW00t
Jul 19, 2007, 03:11 AM
Apple held it's highest market-share in 1990 with 11.73% of the market (this includes numbers from both the Macintosh and Apple II). This share declined until 2004 with a paltry 1.84%.

What this shows is two things:
Apple is coming back
The PC market is fragmented between manufacturers




It also shows that they can disappear overnight and no one will notice ;)

BornAgainMac
Jul 19, 2007, 05:14 AM
It is nice to see Apple's marketshare up to 5.6% in the US, however what is Apple's worldwide marketshare? It is a world economy especially when it comes to technology products. I know it is going to be less, but are they making as much progress worldwide as they are in the US?

Some parts of the world like Asia tend to pirate software more. And it is probably easier for people to pirate Windows apps and also people that pirate are probably the same ones that look for super cheap machines. Integrated graphics, budget AMD processors, and floppy drives.

In Latin America, they probably look for a good deal on hardware too.

Anyways, even if people wanted to purchase a Mac, so much dependency with Windows even with websites that it will be difficult for them.

rdowns
Jul 19, 2007, 05:19 AM
Where do you get this idea that Apple is gearing OS X so it pushes older systems into the unsupported category? From what I can tell, they're doing a fantastic job retaining compatibility with older hardware--certainly better than what I've seen with Windows XP.

I think Apple does an excellent job of supporting older hardware. However, reports have stated that Leopard will NOT support G3 systems.

k2k koos
Jul 19, 2007, 06:44 AM
There are more Macs out there than ever before, and if that quantity keeps rising, the Mac is here to stay (they do need replacing eventually too :-) ), so new Macs for us for the foreseable future are guaranteed, and if the get a bigger part of the market, even better :-) :apple:

whooleytoo
Jul 19, 2007, 06:52 AM
Just noticed Apple is up over $2.50 in pre-trading this morning - is this the news that's driving it?

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 19, 2007, 07:25 AM
Highest of the last decade :)

Back in the day they were on double digits... bring back the 80's!

haha that was waaay before stupid dell became popular...

balamw
Jul 19, 2007, 07:47 AM
For some historical perspective, see the Ars Technica article
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/1

in particular:

http://media.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.media/marketshare.jpg

Thanks for the link. What was interesting to me was the lack of 1975-1984 data in this plot, but I found it in the article. From that it looks like Apple has always had a small share of the pie, even back in the day when the Apple ][ was the computer found in every school computer lab, etc...

Amazing that the Trash-80 share was so much higher. I expected the C64, but not the Trash-80.

B

210
Jul 19, 2007, 08:49 AM
Does anyone know which big corporations/companies use Macs? Everyone keeps saying there is a move from Windows to Mac in the business world, but I can't think of any companies that use Macs

defeated
Jul 19, 2007, 08:58 AM
Does anyone know which big corporations/companies use Macs? Everyone keeps saying there is a move from Windows to Mac in the business world, but I can't think of any companies that use Macs

I know Apple is a big company :D

Anyway, I still think apple's biggest computer user base is individual or small business (like 5-20 employees), for big business, its either "double service spending" or "totally switch from windows to macs company-wide", neither is realistic, IMHO.

Rocketman
Jul 19, 2007, 09:14 AM
In other financial news, Apple's market capitalization has now exceeded that of Dell and Motorola.

Rocketman

lamadude
Jul 19, 2007, 09:17 AM
Does anybody know apples' marketshare in the EU? Or if that's not available, in an EU country? I would like to know that.

CJD2112
Jul 19, 2007, 09:18 AM
Jeez, I didn't realize how much Gateway had shrunk. I remember back in college they were the PC brand to get, and I thought they were Dell's rival. Guess not so much...

Queso
Jul 19, 2007, 09:20 AM
In other financial news, Apple's market capitalization has now exceeded that of Dell and Motorola.

Rocketman
Last I looked they were only about $4bn behind HP. Not bad at all considering the gap used to be about $55bn not that long ago, and HP has nearly doubled in value since.

jellomizer
Jul 19, 2007, 09:33 AM
It is somewhat disapoining that Lenovo isn't on the list but mixed in with Others, If I couldn't get a Mac my second choice would be a ThinkPad. The Other guys on that list really make me sick to my stomach because all the ones of those brands I have seen and worked with are POS.

RichardI
Jul 19, 2007, 10:39 AM
I always find these numbers interesting because I assume they only include the portion of the market that purchases a "whole computer" or a "whole system". I have always (except in the '80's) built my own system by purchasing components and I'm seeing a lot more traffic on the websites that sell components over the last few years. Just thinking out loud. I wonder what that number is - I think it should definitely be a part of those figures.
Rich :cool:

overcast
Jul 19, 2007, 10:43 AM
Where do you get this idea that Apple is gearing OS X so it pushes older systems into the unsupported category? From what I can tell, they're doing a fantastic job retaining compatibility with older hardware--certainly better than what I've seen with Windows XP.
What are you kidding? The reason Windows has so many issues is the fact that it supports endless amounts of hardware/software dating back forever. Comparatively, Apple only has to worry about VERY few different hardware configurations. Microsoft, has to deal with almost infinite configurations. Is it as elegant and easy to use as OSX, not exactly, but Windows absolutely dominates the compatibility market.

applejilted
Jul 19, 2007, 10:44 AM
Steve Jobs finally managed to get Apple's share back to where it was when he rejoined Apple. Great Job(s) ...... not


Not to diminish his other great accomplishments of course .....

mathwhiz90601
Jul 19, 2007, 10:46 AM
Mmmmm, I'm not sure that's exactly a stiff competition. :p But okay, to your point, they might make good computers, or they might not. They are nonetheless destroying themselves... look at their sliding marketshare, miserable failure excuses for stores, the lack of visibility of the excellent leader they brought over from eMachines. The clock is ticking...those computers you like are not going to be around for much longer at this rate.

That's why we buy from Apple instead. :D

mathwhiz90601
Jul 19, 2007, 10:51 AM
Good numbers. That should boost stock price tomorrow. I wonder what the stock will do once we learn what Apple is getting each month from ATT on their billing? That hasn't been released yet has it? Any idea what Apple's take will be?

$3 for already ATT customers and $11 for switchers to ATT.

DakotaGuy
Jul 19, 2007, 10:57 AM
Does anyone know which big corporations/companies use Macs? Everyone keeps saying there is a move from Windows to Mac in the business world, but I can't think of any companies that use Macs

Ford Motor Company has been installing Macs on their assembly lines to manage parts flow while assembling cars and trucks. I know that is just a small application, however if they work well maybe they will consider using them in other applications as well.

Link: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/12/19/miniford/index.php

bommai
Jul 19, 2007, 11:02 AM
Oh, and put me down for a new iMac next month too!

Me three :) I sold my PowerMac G4 two months ago in anticipation of the new iMac and have been macless since then. Not funny!

mathwhiz90601
Jul 19, 2007, 11:06 AM
That's nonsense.

I own a 5+ year old iBook G3 (blazing along at a whopping 600 Mhz :rolleyes:) and it has had Jaguar, Panther and Tiger installed. Each of those got progressively more stable and faster. Tiger is amazing on it. There are no noticeable lags during usage. There's no bizarre behavior. It's solid and very responsive. Obviously, I'm not doing any rigorous production work on this thing, but for a casual-use laptop, my iBook is hard to beat. Likewise, I have installed various versions of OS X on older hardware where I work and have witnessed similar performances bumps each time so I know this is not just a fluke in my case.

Where do you get this idea that Apple is gearing OS X so it pushes older systems into the unsupported category? From what I can tell, they're doing a fantastic job retaining compatibility with older hardware--certainly better than what I've seen with Windows XP.

I have a 7-year-old iMac G3 and it runs OS 9 since OSX can't run on it. It's too old and doesn't have enough HD space (6GB) for OSX. It's being replaced whenever the new iMac comes out.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 19, 2007, 11:18 AM
I always find these numbers interesting because I assume they only include the portion of the market that purchases a "whole computer" or a "whole system". I have always (except in the '80's) built my own system by purchasing components and I'm seeing a lot more traffic on the websites that sell components over the last few years. Just thinking out loud. I wonder what that number is - I think it should definitely be a part of those figures.
Rich :cool:

I think "independent builders" would be a part of "others".

Marx55
Jul 19, 2007, 11:24 AM
How to get 90% Mac OS X market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run on any PC out there. At least on Dell and HP now.

2. Open Mac OS X. As linux is open.

3. Give Mac OS X for free. As linux is free.

Windows will fade away in two years.

paola105
Jul 19, 2007, 11:44 AM
Apple will soon rule the world!

Doctor Q
Jul 19, 2007, 11:51 AM
1. Allow Mac OS X to run on any PC out there. At least on Dell and HP now.

3. Give Mac OS X for free. As linux is free.Wouldn't this be contrary to Apple's business, which involves selling things? If consumers don't need to buy either their hardware or software, how do they stay afloat while they wait for Windows to fade away?

shawnce
Jul 19, 2007, 11:52 AM
How to get 90% Mac OS X market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run on any PC out there. At least on Dell and HP now.

2. Open Mac OS X. As linux is open.

3. Give Mac OS X for free. As linux is free.

Windows will fade away in two years. ...or how to run Apple into the ground.

lord patton
Jul 19, 2007, 11:54 AM
I seem to be missing something in all of this discussion of how to compound the 26.2% growth rate out to a year's time. 26.2% is already year-over-year growth...Q206 to Q207.

no, you're not missing anything. You actually understand, unlike some laughable asses that are posting on this thread :D

princealfie
Jul 19, 2007, 12:44 PM
Just wondering... why are some people rating this thread negatively?

cliffjumper68
Jul 19, 2007, 12:52 PM
Love to see apple grow, hopefully this will increase the availability of applications on OS X:D

megfilmworks
Jul 19, 2007, 01:17 PM
Just remember the bigger you get the harder you fall, it has happened once.

Are you talking about Apple or Leonard Nimoy?

WildCowboy
Jul 19, 2007, 02:48 PM
Thanks for the link. What was interesting to me was the lack of 1975-1984 data in this plot, but I found it in the article. From that it looks like Apple has always had a small share of the pie, even back in the day when the Apple ][ was the computer found in every school computer lab, etc...

Based on this graph, it looks like the Apple ][ had about 15-16% marketshare in 1984.
79900

JFreak
Jul 19, 2007, 03:44 PM
I will be excited as soon as Apple's *worldwide* marketshare grows to 10%

Stella
Jul 19, 2007, 04:25 PM
Just wondering... why are some people rating this thread negatively?

A whole host of reasons.. maybe they don't find the story interesting, don't believe the statistics... however..

however... there are still these elitist mac users who don't want Apple's marketshare to grow and to always remain at a pitiful 3%. In other words, to satisfy their own egos. They don't like the idea of Apple computers to be mass market.

simX
Jul 19, 2007, 04:46 PM
I have a 7-year-old iMac G3 and it runs OS 9 since OSX can't run on it. It's too old and doesn't have enough HD space (6GB) for OSX. It's being replaced whenever the new iMac comes out.

That's completely untrue. Any iMac, back to the very original version released in 1998, can run at least Mac OS X 10.3 Panther. There's no way I would give a computer like an iMac to anyone with the Classic Mac OS when Panther can run fine on it. It's slow, but it's more than enough for browsing the internet, getting e-mail, and doing word processing on it. Way more than enough. (6 GB of disk space leaves a couple of gigs extra even if you decide to install all languages on it; and if you don't, you save another gig or two.)

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger introduced the requirement for built-in FireWire, so that leaves Rev. A-D iMacs out in the cold as well as some of the lower-end models of the re-designed Kihei iMacs that were released in 1999. But Panther is still a damn good version of Mac OS X. If you're interested, I wrote an article about Panther on an original bondi blue iMac (http://homepage.mac.com/simx/technonova/C1700219634/E20060919034914/index.html) a couple of years ago.

But it's so untrue that Mac OS X cannot run on some specific version of iMac. It can run and runs well on any iMac ever made.

mwp98223
Jul 19, 2007, 06:39 PM
I hate to toot my own horn but I hope my recent MBP purchase last month helped these figures. :)

*beep* *beep*

And my personal move from Dell to Apple in June 2007.

headfake
Jul 19, 2007, 06:53 PM
Just remember the bigger you get the harder you fall, it has happened once.

um... when has it happened to apple? they've never been dominant.

regardless, i don't see it happening anytime soon. they have at least 4 core markets, and they're solid in each:

1. desktops. not dominant in the market, but dominant in their niche. high quality. not much room for market movement, up or down. no risk of backlash.

2. notebooks. not dominant, but very good, and on the upswing, there's not a lot of room for movement up or down here -- so again, not much to lose.

3. mp3 players. i guess we call them "iPods" now. not only totally dominant, but has tons of lock-in: AAC content protection, iTunes, computer halo effect, current cool factor, brand recognition... there's so many technological and cultural issues working in AAPL's favor here it's almost ridiculous. amazingly, they even have room for growth here into the video market. one's tempted to say that there's nowhere to go but down for the iPod segment, but it's at the same time difficult to see what the weakness is.

4. iphone. expectations were and are high, but here, there's not really anywhere to go but up, now that we're past the initial reception. and, in addition to the ipod-type lock-in, there's a 2-year contract lock-in here.


two really amazing things about that list:

1. independence. each of the core businesses is probably profitable on its own (although the margins in the desktop market suck), and there's not much room for loss in any of them -- market share might fall, but AAPL doesn't have its neck far out on anything. --and considering their COH, they could probably weather storms even if this wasn't the case.

2. synergy. each of the four areas tends to reinforce the others. not just the computer <-> portable interaction, but itunes, isync, etc. more to the point, it's very easy to see how each area falls within a core competency. (unlike, say, the XBox...). as far as moving forward, most advances on one front (even R&D and design) tend to have effects across the business, so there's fewer risky internal decisions to make -- not that Jobs' record on that score has been bad...

to top it all off, AAPL isn't facing a major threat from any of its direct competitors (and by some accounts, some of them are floundering independently -- but given the recent quarterly reports, we don't need to go there) and appears to have a bunch of tricks left in the bag (Leopard is obvious, but expanding iPhone coverage and models is also an easy one, to say nothing of all the patent apps, potential 'ultraportable', etc.). they have no obvious weaknesses. their track record so far has also been astonishing.

in short, your "bigger they are, harder they fall" objection is an interesting cliche and worth keeping in mind, i suppose -- but unless you have more specific objections, it's a pretty empty notion.

/fanboy off

rdowns
Jul 19, 2007, 07:04 PM
Just wondering... why are some people rating this thread negatively?

Why do people care about who rates the threads?

there are still these elitist mac users who don't want Apple's marketshare to grow and to always remain at a pitiful 3%. In other words, to satisfy their own egos. They don't like the idea of Apple computers to be mass market.

Bingo!

Personally, after having switched hundreds of people over the years (was a reseller), it's nice for friends and family to now tell me I was right all along. :cool:

headfake
Jul 19, 2007, 07:04 PM
I have a 7-year-old iMac G3 and it runs OS 9 since OSX can't run on it. It's too old and doesn't have enough HD space (6GB) for OSX. It's being replaced whenever the new iMac comes out.

... it seems like you're somewhat neutral on the lifetime issue, but this is an interesting point of comparison -- if you had a stock, middle-of-the-road PC from 2000, would it run Vista? mine sure wouldn't have, as i recall, and it wasn't even middle-of-the-road.

also worth mentioning that AAPL's build quality and system lifetime is exceptionally good (a few bugs like the old iBook logic board notwithstanding, but they have decent support as well, and the retail expansion will help drive door-to-door support), which is also another reason those market-share numbers are deceptive.

i.e., it's hard to say how often the apples are dying compared to the Dells, the Gateways, the HPs... based on the evidence (which is very hard to judge), this shakes out well for AAPL too.

another interesting point here is that business adoption of Macs has been abysmal -- and that's a huge market. however, that's another area I didn't even consider where AAPL really has nowhere to go but up. that's absolutely huge. the longer they keep up their current streak, the more companies will take the leap and change over (TCO from XP -> Vista is a really big issue here), and voila! -- more lock-in. lots of potential here, relatively little downside considering the current minimal market penetration.

headfake
Jul 19, 2007, 07:09 PM
Personally, after having switched hundreds of people over the years (was a reseller), it's nice for friends and family to now tell me I was right all along. :cool:

as for the elitism factor -- AAPL caters to this in a huge way, i think, though maybe not from the perspective of current users. if you own a PC, they pretty much all look the same, desktop or laptop, with the exception of a few ultraportables and some of the VAIOs, etc. the distinctive silver of a MBP, though, is widely recognizable as cool.

i've never really felt the "cool" factor -- and nothing until the TiBooks *really* my taste anyway -- but i agree that the "vindication" factor is far more important to me. :) ...although, i have a PM G4 (which is the hottest stock desktop in the world, IMO), and a 12" G4 (which, to my glee, remains one-of-a-kind -- although i'd buy one of the rumored ultraportables in a flash).

FredAkbar
Jul 19, 2007, 09:40 PM
That's completely untrue. Any iMac, back to the very original version released in 1998, can run at least Mac OS X 10.3 Panther. There's no way I would give a computer like an iMac to anyone with the Classic Mac OS when Panther can run fine on it. It's slow, but it's more than enough for browsing the internet, getting e-mail, and doing word processing on it. Way more than enough. (6 GB of disk space leaves a couple of gigs extra even if you decide to install all languages on it; and if you don't, you save another gig or two.)
I agree. I gave my mom my blueberry iMac DV (1998, 400 MHz, 9.5 GB), which we've since upgraded to 512 MB of RAM. It runs Tiger decently, though slowly. (It has since been given to a friend, and my mom has my old iMac G5.)

Wouldn't this be contrary to Apple's business, which involves selling things? If consumers don't need to buy either their hardware or software, how do they stay afloat while they wait for Windows to fade away?
In fairness (though I disagree with opening OS X or selling it for PC), Apple makes as much money (in terms of revenue at least from iPod+iPhone, which would be unaffected by this. So at worst their revenue/earnings would be cut in half.

Genghis Khan
Jul 19, 2007, 10:38 PM
i think apple has a potential share of around 10%-15%...anything higher than that and it means people, by and large, prefer them over PC's

short of macs becoming near equal in price with PC's (near impossible), or a huge shift of popular opinion towards macs

the growth we see today is apple gathering back what it lost in the 90's

BuzWeaver
Jul 20, 2007, 10:01 AM
Interesting that there was no mention of what percentage was generated by Apple Specialist (Apple Authorized Resellers). During our ASCM meeting this year an Apple rep along with Service reps aired out their laundry by giving us a lambasting and essentially labeling us as red headed step child of the Apple family.

Needless to say the exchange of conversation stayed just below colorful, but some skeletons quickly started coming out of the closet. There is a fine line between celebrating your numbers and being out right arrogant. To add insult to injury Apple did not allow us to sell the iPhone.

There still isn't a break down of how many systems went into homes versus going to creative professionals, companies or business.

IJ Reilly
Jul 20, 2007, 10:42 AM
There still isn't a break down of how many systems went into homes versus going to creative professionals, companies or business.

Does anyone collect these statistics?

BuzWeaver
Jul 20, 2007, 10:51 AM
Does anyone collect these statistics?

Yes, we do here and I did at Gateway, at our Country Store.

IJ Reilly
Jul 20, 2007, 10:57 AM
Yes, we do here and I did at Gateway, at our Country Store.

But does Apple or some industry analyst perform surveys? I don't recall ever being asked any questions about my purchases.

morespce54
Jul 20, 2007, 12:54 PM
so is there any point buying apple shares now? :confused:

It would have been... in 2001 ;)
But I guess shares will keep going up... until, at least, the iPhone is old news...

morespce54
Jul 20, 2007, 01:03 PM
Dude, 1983-1984 was the year of the C-64...!!! :eek::D

Good Ol Souvenirs... :rolleyes:

I want my C-64! :cool:



For some historical perspective, see the Ars Technica article
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/1

in particular:

http://media.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.media/marketshare.jpg

BuzWeaver
Jul 20, 2007, 01:44 PM
But does Apple or some industry analyst perform surveys? I don't recall ever being asked any questions about my purchases.

At Gateway and our current internal business management software we have a matrix system that has check boxes where you can select Business, Individual Government and Education (Tax Exempt as well). I can't speak for Gateway today, but we had a similar system when I worked there (98-2001).

In the Showroom I'll select whether its a Business or Individual, we no longer do Education (every once in a while) or Government as Apple pulled the rug out from under us on that to (they know our margin). Our Outside Sales Reps also use the matrix system, however since they are mostly business then the matrix will account for the sale by default.

We are fortunate because we deal with most of the creative professionals in Atlanta, to include CNN, Tuner Broadcasting, The Cartoon Network and various recording/video studios. We also work with local celebrities and sports figures as well as various News Papers.

The Atlanta Public School system is the only major account we have, the rest are just teachers or students. We also do Mac service repair for most of the Universities and Businesses in the local area. When you made your purchase you probably wouldn't know if someone selected a matrix.

IJ Reilly
Jul 20, 2007, 02:09 PM
When you made your purchase you probably wouldn't know if someone selected a matrix.

Interesting, thanks. Of course they'd only obtain this info based on the name on the invoice. An individual might well be purchasing for their small business, so this would be a hidden business sale. I suspect Apple has historically done well with SOHO businesses but I wonder if they have any concrete idea how well. They sure don't market to people running these sorts of businesses as if they know.

MikeTheC
Jul 20, 2007, 07:30 PM
Highest of the last decade :)

Back in the day they were on double digits... bring back the 80's!

Well, the problem is that you cannot compare the "modern era" to that of the 1980s (any more than you could the 1970s) because there was no computer standard at all.

The 1980s is so completely different than today that anyone not around in the computer world back then wouldn't be able to appreciate it, let alone even recognize the computer world of that era.

Everyone today is so gung-ho about Apple increasing their market percentage, but what you're really trying to say is "increase it relative to Microsoft's percentage". You cannot take that as a workable concept when talking about any time up to approximately 1992-1994. Microsoft was in no better a position than Apple, and maybe even worse. Back then, Commodore (remember them?) and Tandy (remember them?) probably had as good a percentage as Apple or anyone else.

Looked at another way, even when you are trying to factor percentages, it's also a bit like movie successes at the box office. In the 1970s and 1980s, if a movie did a million dollars (or whatever) on opening weekend or any period of time thereafter, it meant they had a higher number of people viewing the movie than it does today, and that's specifically because of the cost of movie tickets. Also, production expenses weren't as high, so a movie could have cost less than a million dollars to make but it could still easily have been an "A" movie. Nowadays, any movie that costs less than several million is probably nothing more than a "B" or less.

Everything has changed. You have to keep that in focus when trying to look back at how successful Apple was relative to today.

MikeTheC
Jul 20, 2007, 07:42 PM
Speaking strictly for myself, I think Apple is better off not having achieved a ridiculous percentage of market penetration, and especially a dominance in terms of having the most customers, and the reason for that is there's a *huge* number of potential users out there who are undesirable to have as customers. They are the "trailer trash" of the computer world, and should be avoided like the plague.

I like the fact that there's a certain bar of admittance. This, more than anything, helps to keep out the riff-raff and the garbage.

Anyone here who is (or has been) a computer tech -- or, for that matter, anyone here who's ever worked with the general public -- knows I speak the truth on this matter. I'd rather have a smaller user base comprised of the intelligent and savvy than a larger user base compromised by retarded, self-important ignoramouses.

Just my 2.

IJ Reilly
Jul 20, 2007, 07:46 PM
You cannot take that as a workable concept when talking about any time up to approximately 1992-1994. Microsoft was in no better a position than Apple, and maybe even worse. Back then, Commodore (remember them?) and Tandy (remember them?) probably had as good a percentage as Apple or anyone else.

The data does not agree with you. The PC achieved majority market share in 1985, and the vast majority of PCs shipped ran MS-DOS. And as we learned later about this time period, even the few PCs which were sold not loaded with MS-DOS put money into Microsoft's pocket. From the very start, Microsoft was better positioned. By 1992 they had achieved essentially total market control and were exploiting it for all it was worth.

Stella
Jul 20, 2007, 09:53 PM
A fine example of a Mac Elitist.


Speaking strictly for myself, I think Apple is better off not having achieved a ridiculous percentage of market penetration, and especially a dominance in terms of having the most customers, and the reason for that is there's a *huge* number of potential users out there who are undesirable to have as customers. They are the "trailer trash" of the computer world, and should be avoided like the plague.

I like the fact that there's a certain bar of admittance. This, more than anything, helps to keep out the riff-raff and the garbage.

Anyone here who is (or has been) a computer tech -- or, for that matter, anyone here who's ever worked with the general public -- knows I speak the truth on this matter. I'd rather have a smaller user base comprised of the intelligent and savvy than a larger user base compromised by retarded, self-important ignoramouses.

Just my 2.

MikeTheC
Jul 20, 2007, 10:03 PM
Well then, the data is wrong.

In 1985, the Mac platform was barely a year old. The Apple II and Apple IIe were probably at their zenith of popularity and usage. Apple had just released the IIc and was then in the latter stages of development of the IIgs (which wouldn't come out until 1986/87 IIRC). Tandy Radio Shack was still hot to trot with their TRS-80 series and just beginning their Tandy computers. Commodore was still a major player with the C64, and I think had started to ship the C128. The Amiga joystick company, which was developing their own computer, got bought up by Commodore somewhere around this point. IMSAI was, I think, still in business, Sun and Apollo were both building systems, and I'm quite certain I'm missing a few others here.

Now, it's true that most all of these computers were running some kind of command line interface, and some even used the three letters "DOS" in the name of their OS, and most of them looked very similar to MS-DOS (heck, even CP/M looked something like MS-DOS). It's also true that Leading Edge, Compaq, IBM and a few others were putting out computers that ran MS-DOS, but they collectively were no bigger than any one other company's "platform".

And, frankly, Microsoft wasn't anything too special. They were just a software company in search of becoming top dog. However, all throughout high school (I graduated in 1990) you didn't hear anything significant about Microsoft's OS or computers which ran it. Now, clearly, BillG didn't just snap his fingers and -- poof -- in an instant became the majority player. The process started long before that, and Microsoft has the stupidity and lack of vision of other computer company leaders, as well as just dumb luck, to thank for it's position of dominance as it does anything else. All I'm saying is that somewhere around 1992-1994 is when the market kind of coalesced into the Microsoft/Apple universe that we know today. And after that period, the biggest single driving force for Microsoft was sheer tenacious inertia.

So don't believe what you read when you read data that tries to lead you to think Microsoft achieved some kind of dominance in the early to mid 1980s just because more than one brand of computer ran their OS. That's just historical revisionism hard at work. Heck, Apple had licensed the Apple II and IIe to Franklin, which made clones for a while. CP/M ran on multiple computers (and several could be retrofitted for compatibility, including the Apple II/IIe!) Microsoft at the time wasn't jack ****.

MikeTheC
Jul 20, 2007, 10:11 PM
A fine example of a Mac Elitist.

If anything, Stella, I'm a technology enthusiast elitist. If you're going to lob barbs (even jokingly), get it right.

There's a saying I remember from one of the screen saver modules in After Dark:

"I.Q. is a constant; only the population is increasing."

MikeTheC
Jul 20, 2007, 10:34 PM
A fine example of a Mac Elitist.

Sorry, second post on this here, but I just found another thread here on MacRumors.com which is evidence of just the sort of thing I was talking about before: What CANT you do with an iMac? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=331787)

I rest my case.

balamw
Jul 20, 2007, 11:01 PM
So don't believe what you read when you read data that tries to lead you to think Microsoft achieved some kind of dominance in the early to mid 1980s just because more than one brand of computer ran their OS. That's just historical revisionism hard at work.

I don't fully disagree with you, but i think you are missing the point.

The shift to a PC/Mac world happened much earlier than you remember for volume buys, which is why the numbers seem inconsistent with your recollection.

I don't think I ever saw a Commodore or Amiga "lab", much less a whole lot of Trash 80s.

During the time period you are referring to (between 1984 and 1990) when all these other computers had places in schools and homes, business had well adopted "PCs" and Lotus 1-2-3. I was in college a the time and there were two different labs on campus: Macs and PCs, well before 1990.The shift to PCs really started well before 1990. I even remember my high school introduced a lab of DOS-Compatible DEC Rainbows during my last year there. (Before that, we had labs of Apple ][s and a PDP-11).

This was the time period where I was a Mac user in the labs, but had a Commie at home.

B

em500
Jul 21, 2007, 04:05 AM
Well then, the data is wrong.
[...]
So don't believe what you read when you read data that tries to lead you to think Microsoft achieved some kind of dominance in the early to mid 1980s just because more than one brand of computer ran their OS. That's just historical revisionism hard at work. Heck, Apple had licensed the Apple II and IIe to Franklin, which made clones for a while. CP/M ran on multiple computers (and several could be retrofitted for compatibility, including the Apple II/IIe!) Microsoft at the time wasn't jack ****.
balamw is right, MikeTheC, you need to read this:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/6
The PC clones dominated the market from 1987 onwards. Your perspective is probably colored by the fact that Commodores, Ataris and Apples were more common in the consumer market, but businesses and institutions bought a lot more computers and they were overwhelmingly IBM clones running MS-DOS.

As for your Franklin clone remark, Apple did not license anything. Franklin tried to pull a Compaq on Apple but messed up, which resulted in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Franklin

Stella
Jul 21, 2007, 08:01 AM
Sorry, second post on this here, but I just found another thread here on MacRumors.com which is evidence of just the sort of thing I was talking about before: What CANT you do with an iMac? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=331787)

I rest my case.

There's a few things you can't do with a Mac ( read: OS/X ) that you can do with Windows ( and of course, vice versa ) - quite simply because the software isn't available. Mac is not a silver bullet - just like windows.

Going back to your previous post -

Quote: " for that is there's a *huge* number of potential users out there who are undesirable to have as customers. They are the "trailer trash" of the computer world, and should be avoided like the plague.

I like the fact that there's a certain bar of admittance. This, more than anything, helps to keep out the riff-raff and the garbage."

Why do you even care about who buys Macs? That totally sounds like elitism.

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2007, 11:30 AM
Well then, the data is wrong.

Not to repeat all of the other responses, but if you're going to argue that the data is wrong, then you'd better come up with some of your own. This data looks perfectly plausible to me and conforms to my memory of the period.

The IBM-PC took off in a big way immediately after Compaq figured out how to clone the hardware platform and withstand IBM's lawsuits. This was in 1983. And of course Microsoft was free to license DOS to any comer. But they went one step further, which was to charge licensees an OS license fee for every computer they sold, whether DOS was loaded on it or not (AKA, the notorious "CPU tax"). This is just one of the anticompetitive techniques Microsoft was using to consolidate the PC market during the '80s, long before the release of the first popular version of Windows.

The Mac was released into a tremendous headwind, which by the mid-80s had turned into a hurricane. Mac sales actually plummeted in 1985, which is one of the reasons Steve Jobs hired John Scully that year. Apple was in a pretty much impossible situation. It's almost a miracle that they were able to build the Mac's market share to 10%+ by 1990. The often abused Scully actually deserves some credit for this.

Apple did fail to respond adequately to Windows 3.0 and even more so to Windows 95. These were costly strategic errors. But the nails were being driven well before the early '90s.

MikeTheC
Jul 21, 2007, 11:35 AM
There's an old joke about how 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. That, in very broad brushstrokes, is how I feel about the demographic of the computer user base out there. Now, I've left the computer industry, and I no longer do tech support for anyone but a very few of my very closest friends, so in a sense I suppose one could argue that, whatever the composition of computerdom out there, it doesn't have an opportunity to affect me any longer.

And I'd probably agree with that assertion, generally speaking, for the most part. However, much like in big business or politics or other similar fields of endeavor, what goes on and what is allowed to go on can and does affect us all. Most of the "really bad" stuff you have heard about going on that, fortunately, got stopped, was stopped in 11th hour actions by a few who were well-informed enough, opinionated enough and could rally enough force or momentum to their cause. A savvy and interested user base would likely not have allowed these things to have been potentially successful.

As blessed with brains and the capacity for individual initiative as we are, the sad truth is that most people out there (and again, this applies to many areas of endeavor) don't bother to do anything, or don't care, and so things like Net Neutrality, broadcast flags and (almost) root kits on music CDs get by us. These are things which I object to and refuse to go along with or participate in the usage thereof; and yes, for those who don't mind and/or don't care, in addition to all the other idioting that goes on ("Do I format my hard drive to get my Word file?", etc.) I hold a rather dim view of my fellow computer user.

There are plenty of savvy Windows users out there, and there are plenty of dumb Mac users out there. It's true, the hardware hardly makes the man (please forgive the mixed metaphor), but in my experience people buy Macs because they are savvy enough to know better (that is, that there's more to computers than just "Computers running Microsoft"), and people who buy Windows-based PCs do so because, well, it's what people buy (read: "Don't all computers use Microsoft?")

If anything, it may be arguable that the "truly savvy" out there run Linux, but that's another kettle of fish for another day.

Now, you can agree with me or not -- hey, it's a free country -- but that really isn't the point. You asked me to defend my position, and I have now done so.

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2007, 11:56 AM
Now, you can agree with me or not -- hey, it's a free country -- but that really isn't the point. You asked me to defend my position, and I have now done so.

Not insofar as I can see. It was an interesting rant, though. ;)

MikeTheC
Jul 21, 2007, 12:07 PM
Not insofar as I can see. It was an interesting rant, though. ;)

*points to Stella's post above yours*

That's the one I was responding to, not yours.

I have no data points to use or point to, IJ Reilly, which I can independently verify, and so therefore I will not bother. However, during the latter half of the 1980s, most businesses IIRC didn't even use computers, and of those which did, to the best of my recollection, they were using a mix of Apple IIe/IIc hardware, Tandy computers (a very few were "TRS-80" units), and some were using PCs which ran MS-DOS.

Heck, I can recall going up to Cleveland on a vacation circa 1994 and found several businesses weren't using computers at all, or were running then-aging computers compared to where I live (S.W. Florida).

I don't think I really saw what you'd call a significant penetration into the business market around here until about 1994; and yes, by then, they were all by-and-large running Win3.1/DOS 6.22 boxen.

EDIT: I think it's telling, and I sometimes wonder if it wasn't just as much a matter of waiting for standards to settle out of the maelstrom of the 1980s as it was business owners starting to become savvy enough to realize the benefits of technology to their companies.

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2007, 12:51 PM
*points to Stella's post above yours*

That's the one I was responding to, not yours.

Helps to use the quote-back. Then we know. ;)

I have no data points to use or point to, IJ Reilly, which I can independently verify, and so therefore I will not bother. However, during the latter half of the 1980s, most businesses IIRC didn't even use computers, and of those which did, to the best of my recollection, they were using a mix of Apple IIe/IIc hardware, Tandy computers (a very few were "TRS-80" units), and some were using PCs which ran MS-DOS.

Heck, I can recall going up to Cleveland on a vacation circa 1994 and found several businesses weren't using computers at all, or were running then-aging computers compared to where I live (S.W. Florida).

I don't think I really saw what you'd call a significant penetration into the business market around here until about 1994; and yes, by then, they were all by-and-large running Win3.1/DOS 6.22 boxen.

EDIT: I think it's telling, and I sometimes wonder if it wasn't just as much a matter of waiting for standards to settle out of the maelstrom of the 1980s as it was business owners starting to become savvy enough to realize the benefits of technology to their companies.

I apparently have the advantage of nearly 20 additional years of personal experience on you. I don't recall ever witnessing a Tandy in a business environment and rarely saw an Apple II outside of a home or school. The Apple III was marketed as a business computer, but of course that machine was a complete flop. I can remember seeing a grand total of one Apple III. Offices where I worked during the 1980s did have computers (not one for every desk, but computers nonetheless). Virtually all of them (with the notable exception of the Mac I insisted on bringing in for my own use :)) were PC-clones running DOS. It was nearly impossible to get the purchase of anything else approved.

The debate during the '80s was all about "standards." The conventional and even professional wisdom of the decade was that only one hardware and software platform was necessary or even desirable -- and that it should be the PC running DOS.

The fact that the number of computers sold jumped substantially during the '90s doesn't change the market share question we are discussing. When that big decade for computer sales arrived, Microsoft was already positioned as the clear market-leader and Apple was widely regarded as an also-ran, not to be taken seriously by people who bought "real" computers.

coffey7
Jul 21, 2007, 05:28 PM
Thats sad to be tied with Gateway. :eek:

balamw
Jul 21, 2007, 07:12 PM
I don't recall ever witnessing a Tandy in a business environment and rarely saw an Apple II outside of a home or school.
FWIW I did some early programming for a stock forecasting program (UI only) on an Apple ][, back in ~1982 and saw them in various offices around that time. By 1984 the system was being replaced by PC based solutions.

B

IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 2007, 10:09 PM
FWIW I did some early programming for a stock forecasting program (UI only) on an Apple ][, back in ~1982 and saw them in various offices around that time. By 1984 the system was being replaced by PC based solutions.

B

I know they were in use outside of education and homes. VisiCalc made the Apple II appealing in some situations. Still, the trust level for Apple (then only a few years old as a company and run by a bunch of hippies) was low and very few people, especially in business, took desktop computing seriously until IBM came out with the PC. They put a white shirt and a tie on desktop computers.

MikeTheC
Jul 22, 2007, 06:16 AM
I was going through school (primary education upper half) and then high school just at the very beginning of the technology wave here. The private school I attended down here (they were K-12, but I transferred to this school after having completed 4th grade up north) got a batch of Apple IIc units over the summer between grades 6 and 7, so I started using them in 7th grade.

When I started high school, I went to a public school, and as I recall they had maybe a dozen Apple IIe computers or so, and something like 10 or 15 TRS-80s (two were Model I keyboard units, not sure if they had any Model IIs, but all the rest were definitely IIIs and IVs). Going from 9th to 10th grade, the newspaper class bought a Mac SE (and then subsequently a second SE and eventually a IIcx and a LaserWriter.) And, now that I think about it, they had an IBM PS/2 computer sitting in the school yearbook office.

I never pursued higher education after high school, so I can't vouch for what the local Community College had on it's campus. I can tell you, however, from what I've seen of businesses in this area, they were none of them any too fast to jump on the computer bandwagon. Maybe major corporations had standardized (I won't argue that point since there weren't any around here, and even now-a-days there's barely any) but regular businesses hadn't. That's probably down to the fact that none of them had what you'd call an "IT staff" and were either dependent upon being solicited by a local computer business or the ownership's own personal initiative.

Actually, the earliest adopters of technology around here, in any significant sense, were the newspapers, particularly post-photo typesetter. They had to have something for their reporters to do data entry on, and they had to have something to do page layouts with. Anyhow...

em500
Jul 22, 2007, 07:05 AM
Apple, Commodore, Atari, etc. may have been more visible in homes, K-12 and small shops in the late 80s and early 90s, but in terms of total sales they were all dwarfed by IBM clones running MS-DOS after circa 1987 (see the link I provided earlier).

If you go by personal experience, you can get a rather biased POV. If I lived at a Californian university campus and only hung around local coffeeshops in my spare time I might get the impression that half the world uses Macs, but on a global scale Windows is absolutely dominant.

Stella
Jul 22, 2007, 07:29 AM
I was interested in your thoughts / reasons. Thanks for sharing them.

Certainly in the past, overall, compared to windows, a 'savvy' user would choose Macs over windows - and being so, they could tell you exactly why.

As you alluded to - tying up this post I' replying to with your previous one - the more mass market Macs become, the less thought people are going to put into the reasons of buying a Mac over windows.

Both our respective countries are free.. and so should Macrumors!


There are plenty of savvy Windows users out there, and there are plenty of dumb Mac users out there.

Now, you can agree with me or not -- hey, it's a free country -- but that really isn't the point. You asked me to defend my position, and I have now done so.

MikeTheC
Jul 22, 2007, 09:36 AM
Both our respective countries are free.. and so should Macrumors!

FWIW, totally off-topic, I just had some Stella Artois last night at a local (well, relatively local) English pub. Not bad. No, not bad at all... :)

mkrishnan
Jul 22, 2007, 10:36 AM
FWIW, totally off-topic, I just had some Stella Artois last night at a local (well, relatively local) English pub. Not bad. No, not bad at all... :)

Tis a fine, fine beer. :)

Fairly
Jul 22, 2007, 11:55 AM
How many PC factories are there in the Far East? How many boxes can Foxxconn make?

What gets me is fanboys first say #1) hey we got a bigger market share HERE WE GO and then #2) we don't want to be a big market share anyway.

OK so someday Apple has 95% of the market. Apple own or control most PC factories in the Far East (or wherever they move to keep costs down). Is that what you want?

Isn't that the same thing as Microsoft had yesterday?

IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 2007, 12:34 PM
What gets me is fanboys first say #1) hey we got a bigger market share HERE WE GO and then #2) we don't want to be a big market share anyway.

Not the same people, methinks. Two sides of a different coin. Most of us probably want to see Apple achieve a market share which is sufficient to sustain a healthy alternative to Windows, one that's taken seriously by computers purchasers, software developers, and the media, but don't otherwise care about the numbers. Beyond that, I don't much care about the numbers except as an investor who likes to see his dollars grow.

Oddly, I think Apple has more or less gotten to this place with 5-6% of the market today, when twice as much wasn't enough to be taken very seriously 15 years ago.

MikeTheC
Jul 22, 2007, 05:03 PM
Oddly, I think Apple has more or less gotten to this place with 5-6% of the market today, when twice as much wasn't enough to be taken very seriously 15 years ago.

Well, of course, that's because there's a larger total number of people today who either own or are likely to buy a computer than there were 15 years ago. Just to completely pull this out of the air, 5% 15 years ago might have meant 5 million people, but today it now might mean 30 million people.

The other thing is that Microsoft has had enough rope now to hang itself in the public square, whereas 15 years ago there weren't enough complaints, and there weren't enough tech-savvy members of the general public, and individual computer ownership was relegated more or less to computer enthusiasts/hobbiests market, to businesses and certain types of professionals. Now that "mere mortals" own computers, and a super-abundance of the general public is comprised of computer owners, what Microsoft does affects the world to such an extent that their "evil ways" can no longer be ignored by any but the most casual of computer users.

Whole different ball game now, bub.

IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 2007, 05:54 PM
Well, of course, that's because there's a larger total number of people today who either own or are likely to buy a computer than there were 15 years ago. Just to completely pull this out of the air, 5% 15 years ago might have meant 5 million people, but today it now might mean 30 million people.

The other thing is that Microsoft has had enough rope now to hang itself in the public square, whereas 15 years ago there weren't enough complaints, and there weren't enough tech-savvy members of the general public, and individual computer ownership was relegated more or less to computer enthusiasts/hobbiests market, to businesses and certain types of professionals. Now that "mere mortals" own computers, and a super-abundance of the general public is comprised of computer owners, what Microsoft does affects the world to such an extent that their "evil ways" can no longer be ignored by any but the most casual of computer users.

Whole different ball game now, bub.

True. But I'd add a couple more factors. For one, back in the '80s and '90s, the tech media as a whole promoted the preposterous idea that a battle for standards was underway, which only one company could win. They managed to persuade the vast majority of consumers that they really were better off with a monopoly. Some still talk this way, but fewer and fewer, partly as you say, due to Microsoft's steadily eroding image.

Second, Apple's image is much revitalized, due mainly to the iPod. It shouldn't matter, but consumers are always more comfortable buying from a company they perceive as a "winner."