PDA

View Full Version : Apple's 3rd Quarter 2007 U.S. Marketshare Up to 8.1%




MacRumors
Oct 17, 2007, 05:09 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to the latest numbers (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/17/apples_u_s_mac_market_share_rises_to_8_1_percent_in_q3.html) from Gartner, worldwide computer shipments increased 14.4% over the same period last year. In the U.S., computer shipments increased 4.7% over the same period last year.

In comparison, Apple has seen a 37.2% increase in growth over the same period. As a result, Apple's individual marketshare has grown from 6.2% to 8.1% year-over-year. This places Apple in 3rd place in U.S. marketshare, trailing Dell (29.1%) and HP (25.7%).


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/10/17/marketshare.png


Gartner had previously (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/19/gartner-apples-q1-2007-marketshare-up-from-last-year/) pegged Apple with a 5% U.S. marketshare (ranked 5th) during the 1st quarter of 2007, while Apple did not rank amongst the top 5 U.S. manufacturers in Q2 2007.

Raw Data: Gartner Press Release (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=NEWS_VIEW_POPUP_TYPE&newsId=20071017006336&ndmHsc=v2*A1192618800000*B1192682455000*DgroupByDate*J1*N1000837&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view_popup)

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/17/apples-3rd-quarter-2007-u-s-marketshare-up-to-8-1/)



Peace
Oct 17, 2007, 05:11 PM
A good , steady climb. Love it! :)

Grimace
Oct 17, 2007, 05:12 PM
Cue AAPL boost! :D

Dagless
Oct 17, 2007, 05:13 PM
Looks like a big leap is needed to jump to those Dell and HP figures.
No doubt market share will increase with the halo effect on iPhone and the likes.

Grimace
Oct 17, 2007, 05:13 PM
Meanwhile, rival market research firm IDC also released its preliminary third quarter PC share results around the same time as Gartner. It claims, however, that Apple's U.S. shipments totaled just 1,130,000 in Q3 for an overall share to 6.3 percent -- representing growth of just 15.9 percent.

Nick012
Oct 17, 2007, 05:14 PM
I bet Scott Bourne just made a few million...

yzp
Oct 17, 2007, 05:14 PM
any other stats would have been surprising ;)

offwidafairies
Oct 17, 2007, 05:15 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

P-Worm
Oct 17, 2007, 05:17 PM
wow. Those are some intensely high numbers. Be prepared for an AAPL stock jump...

P-Worm

yzp
Oct 17, 2007, 05:18 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

true, but OS X architechture, which is a Unix one, is way better for security than windows' is...

plumbingandtech
Oct 17, 2007, 05:21 PM
Extremely Impressive!

They are seriously firing on all cylinders now.

(at least once they get the kitty out the door in a week.)

paddy
Oct 17, 2007, 05:24 PM
Wow that's a really amazing jump! :eek:

miniConvert
Oct 17, 2007, 05:31 PM
Really pleased about this. I'm sure the release of Leopard will further fuel sales.

SuperDan1348
Oct 17, 2007, 05:35 PM
Finally Mac gettin some respect.

:D

Marx55
Oct 17, 2007, 05:36 PM
The day in which Mac OS X reaches 20% worldwide market share will be the end of Windows, which is crap and only maintained by inertia.

Phormic
Oct 17, 2007, 05:43 PM
A good , steady climb. Love it! :)

A steady climb? That's a jump high enough to give you nose bleed!

Westside guy
Oct 17, 2007, 05:44 PM
Very good news - but note that this is share of new computers sold; not total marketshare. The total marketshare will be lower (but still increasing).

splashman
Oct 17, 2007, 05:44 PM
The day in which Mac OS X reaches 20% worldwide market share will be the end of Windows, which is crap and only maintained by inertia.

And that's the same day that Apple raises prices by 100%. SJ doesn't want Apple to become Microsoft; he wants Apple to be the perennial top-tier, high-margin choice for the enlightened, not the default for cubicle farms. Apple needs enough share to attract the top developers, and I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, but I'm certain SJ will raise prices as necessary to keep marketshare at or below 20%.

plumosa
Oct 17, 2007, 05:45 PM
The day in which Mac OS X reaches 20% worldwide market share will be the end of Windows, which is crap and only maintained by inertia.

and the other 80% will just disappear? I hate windoze as much as anyone here, but your logic just isn't sound.

P-Worm
Oct 17, 2007, 05:53 PM
and the other 80% will just disappear? I hate windoze as much as anyone here, but your logic just isn't sound.

Maybe he's assuming everything else will be Linux?

P-Worm

tekcor
Oct 17, 2007, 05:55 PM
Looks like the author forgot to change his Snapz Pro settings from "Normal Window" to "Drop Shadow" when taking the screenshot.

sblasl
Oct 17, 2007, 05:55 PM
With numbers like these, if you were Apple, why would you release an update to the Mac Pro?

Everyone here in the MacRumors' Forums acknowledge the desire to have an update to the Mac Pro line. Apple obviously is selling a he** of a lot of computers in the current configurations, why change the Mac Pro line when it isn't the predominant sales driver to begin with and with Leopard right around the corner, it is only going to help drive additional sales of the Mac Pro line without Apple having to do a da** thing.

IMHO, no new Mac Pro's until 2008.

IJ Reilly
Oct 17, 2007, 05:56 PM
wow. Those are some intensely high numbers. Be prepared for an AAPL stock jump...

P-Worm

AAPL was up nearly 2% today, but I'm not sure if these market share numbers had anything to do with it.

Bosunsfate
Oct 17, 2007, 05:56 PM
AAPL closes up 3.17 point to $172.75

That's a 30 point gain in 1 month.

The question now...how much higher...I bouth at 40, then some more at 120 and just laugh at how much it keeps growing. Now, when to sell.:rolleyes:

rdowns
Oct 17, 2007, 05:58 PM
Wish I hadn't sold 1/2 my AAPL shares after the last split.

davebarnes
Oct 17, 2007, 06:11 PM
With numbers like these, if you were Apple, why would you release an update to the Mac Pro?

I gave up waiting. Sold my G5 PowerMac to a friend and bought a 24-inch (2.8GHz) iMac. It is a wonderful machine. But, I would really like:
2nd disk
heftier graphics
more than 4GB of memory

Oh well.

azentropy
Oct 17, 2007, 06:15 PM
Good, but should be better and I'm disappointed Apple seems content with that growth.

If only Apple produced a true desktop computer and not just an entry level (Mac mini), an all-in-one (iMac) and a Professional Workstation Class system (Mac Pro)...

All 3 are excellent systems, but Apple won't gain mainstream market share past a certain point if they don't make a mainstream system.

plumbingandtech
Oct 17, 2007, 06:23 PM
Good, but should be better and I'm disappointed Apple seems content with that growth.

If only Apple produced a true desktop computer and not just an entry level (Mac mini), an all-in-one (iMac) and a Professional Workstation Class system (Mac Pro)...

All 3 are excellent systems, but Apple won't gain mainstream market share past a certain point if they don't make a mainstream system.

40% of new college students buying macs. Apple market share skyrocketing.

They already have a mainstream machine, the imac and macbook.

The thing to rembember about those HP and Dull numbers is that they include commericial / office / use it as a typwriter for word sales.

I would LOVE to see their numbers if you took out those.

For family and school apple's market share must be much higher.

dongmin
Oct 17, 2007, 06:24 PM
A few more quarters of similar growth and we'll be over 10%.

Developers, take note.

DTphonehome
Oct 17, 2007, 06:29 PM
Wish I hadn't sold 1/2 my AAPL shares after the last split.

Err...they split an awfully long time ago.

Bosunsfate
Oct 17, 2007, 06:38 PM
Wish I hadn't sold 1/2 my AAPL shares after the last split.

Err...they split an awfully long time ago.

I was gonna say. There was a least a few times between now and then to but. I read your pain nonetheless.

Hell, I keep wishing I could buy Google stock. But each time I get close to being able to afford it I can't becuase the price has gone up so much. How is that for irony?

They closed at $633.48 up 17.48 points. Seriously, WTF?!

twoodcc
Oct 17, 2007, 06:42 PM
keep on climbing!

IJ Reilly
Oct 17, 2007, 06:43 PM
Good, but should be better and I'm disappointed Apple seems content with that growth.

I couldn't say whether Apple is "content" with that growth rate but I doubt it. They are chalking up a remarkable track-record, which as someone else pointed out, will take Apple over 10% in short order if growth continues at this rate.

Err...they split an awfully long time ago.

I suspect he already knows that.

isoMorpheus
Oct 17, 2007, 06:43 PM
The day in which Mac OS X reaches 20% worldwide market share will be the end of Windows, which is crap and only maintained by inertia.

Love your use of the word inertia, very smart.:apple:

toneloco2881
Oct 17, 2007, 06:43 PM
Good, but should be better and I'm disappointed Apple seems content with that growth.

If only Apple produced a true desktop computer and not just an entry level (Mac mini), an all-in-one (iMac) and a Professional Workstation Class system (Mac Pro)...

All 3 are excellent systems, but Apple won't gain mainstream market share past a certain point if they don't make a mainstream system.

I'm convinced that Apple, at least while Steve Jobs is at the helm, is not overly concerned with "mainstream" market share. Meaning, of course they would love to get 15-20%, but while maintaining their industry leading margins. The profit margins in the consumer desktop arena are razor thin, and there's not as much room for Apple to differentiate themselves; as they do in the notebook segment. Perhaps we will see a midrange tower one of these days, but I look at it more as Apple throwing people a bone, as opposed to them thinking it's an untapped source of revenue.

Look at a pc manufacturer such as Dell. They sell loads of computers but their losing money. Aapl market cap crossed $150B today. Their limited product matrix may be stifling to some, including myself, but it's hard to argue with their business model. I think Steve feels as though Apple should remain a premium brand, and as long as the Mac and OS X are regarded as the best platform around, he's cool with that.

PlaceofDis
Oct 17, 2007, 06:45 PM
wonder what the stats would look like if businesses were taken out of the equation.

George Bailey
Oct 17, 2007, 06:55 PM
AAPL closes up 3.17 point to $172.75

The question now...how much higher...I bouth at 40, then some more at 120 and just laugh at how much it keeps growing. Now, when to sell.:rolleyes:

One way you can get a little cash out of it without selling is this: If you think the price will be below $250 a share on January 18th, then you can sell options on your holdings. Today the 250s were about $1.40, which means that if, for instance, you owned 500 shares of AAPL, you could sell 5 options and receive $700. Come January 18th, if the price is below $250 you get to just keep the $700 and your AAPL shares. If it's above $250 then you still keep the $700, but you have to sell your shares for $250 a share. (which is not exactly a disaster.)

If you've got more gamble in you you could sell, say, the 200s for about $7.50. In the above example then you'd receive $3,750 in return for being willing to sell at $200 a share.

Bosunsfate
Oct 17, 2007, 06:55 PM
wonder what the stats would look like if businesses were taken out of the equation.

Sorry, don't quite understand your point. Do you mean if you just compared OS?

PlaceofDis
Oct 17, 2007, 06:57 PM
Sorry, don't quite understand your point. Do you mean if you just compared OS?

no business sales. on a consumer level of sales.

Bosunsfate
Oct 17, 2007, 07:02 PM
One way you can get a little cash out of it without selling is this: If you think the price will be below $250 a share on January 18th, then you can sell options on your holdings. Today the 250s were about $1.40, which means that if, for instance, you owned 500 shares of AAPL, you could sell 5 options and receive $700. Come January 18th, if the price is below $250 you get to just keep the $700 and your AAPL shares. If it's above $250 then you still keep the $700, but you have to sell your shares for $250 a share. (which is not exactly a disaster.)

If you've got more gamble in you you could sell, say, the 200s for about $7.50. In the above example then you'd receive $3,750 in return for being willing to sell at $200 a share.

Yea, that gets into a whole world I haven't yet ventured into. Thanks for the tip though. :)

no business sales. on a consumer level of sales.

I don't have the link handy, but there was a recent report that broke down the notebook sales. Which certainly is applicable.

But in neither report did I see information about whether the computers were for business or home use.

It would be interesting to see how much business sales are increasing.

IJ Reilly
Oct 17, 2007, 07:04 PM
Look at a pc manufacturer such as Dell. They sell loads of computers but their losing money.

Dell has problems, but they aren't losing money.

macidiot
Oct 17, 2007, 07:23 PM
Nice.

Apple is well on its way of achieving the 10% market share I predicted awhile back... :cool:

macidiot
Oct 17, 2007, 07:34 PM
AAPL closes up 3.17 point to $172.75

That's a 30 point gain in 1 month.

The question now...how much higher...I bouth at 40, then some more at 120 and just laugh at how much it keeps growing. Now, when to sell.:rolleyes:

I expect Apple to be at about 200-225 in about 12 months. And possibly 300 in about 2-3 years.

Apple stock price growth is a pretty safe bet for 18-24 months.

After that, I expect Apple company growth and stock growth to slow significantly. Then again, at that point, Apple would have a bigger market cap than Microsoft. As of today, Apple is already bigger than IBM.

CANEHDN
Oct 17, 2007, 07:47 PM
That's really impressive. I love Apple.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 07:49 PM
I think third is a decent place after seeing how many units HP and Dell ship. :eek:

Analog Kid
Oct 17, 2007, 08:02 PM
I'm not sure if I'm more gratified by Apple's growth or Dell's decline... God, how I'd love to see that company crater... I think we're witnessing the separation of the business and home markets for computers. That ought to give Apple relatively easy access to 20% share, with time.

I do love how everyone seems so deeply into Steve's head, though...

im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets
Do you sleep on the floor because you're worried about monsters under your bed?

George Bailey
Oct 17, 2007, 08:08 PM
As of today, Apple is already bigger than IBM.


Not quite. Pretty soon though. :)

thespazz
Oct 17, 2007, 08:08 PM
I'm terrified of the day when Apple gets into Cubicles. Financial Aid at UCDavis is switching macs which is a massive mistake. The people are used to Windows based machines. I just smirk whenever I see parallels launched and that's all the people are using.

Oh well. More work for the OS X nerd that I am.

inkswamp
Oct 17, 2007, 08:15 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

Don't buy into the market share=more viruses argument. There's some truth there, but it's not the whole story. There are other factors beyond market share that influence a platform/software's chances of getting viruses or having security exploits.

The best example I've seen is the Apache vs. IIS. Apache has a much larger market share than IIS and yet, it's the latter that has the most security issues.

Bear in mind too that many of the viruses on Windows can be traced back directly to very, very dumb decisions by MS: automatically opening attachments in Outlook, leaving ports open, RPC exploits, sloppy programming resulting in buffer overflows, giving user account admin-like access, etc.

Here's another thing to consider. OS 9 never had the market share than OS X does and yet there were viruses for OS 9. None for OS X however.

There are hundreds of examples like this. The whole market share argument has been thoroughly debunked by now. It's a popular thing to say because it gives MS apologists a way to defend MS and simultaneously take a swipe at OS X's relatively smaller user base. There's not a lot of substance to that argument.

I have no doubt that OS X will have security issues, but I will be surprised to see it ever approach anything like what exists on Windows.

hooch
Oct 17, 2007, 08:24 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

I'm sorry, but this is something window fanatics say. I am not saying it isn't possible, but wouldn't we have seen one by now?? I don't care what people say that market share is the determining factor. If there are people who do this for fun or challenge, why not be the one to write a virus on an OS whose company proclaims on TV commercials, websites, etc to be the most secure OS out there? Is it because all the virus writers use OSX/Linux? Hmmmmm...

skinnylegs
Oct 17, 2007, 08:33 PM
All 3 are excellent systems, but Apple won't gain mainstream market share past a certain point if they don't make a mainstream system.Agreed. There is a wide margin between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Given the move to Intel based processors, I would think Apple might make a move to nab a bit of the gaming market which seems to fuel new technology. Case in point: I love my iMac but I'm getting ready to purchase a new PC for gaming because Apple simply doesn't offer anything compelling.

phillipjfry
Oct 17, 2007, 08:42 PM
Apple will always want their products to be considered "above the average" to the world. It wouldn't be the "premium" or the "cool thing" if they were like Microsoft and owned the whole world with their OS, or Dell with the hardware side. It seems more "exclusive" being apart of the 6-8% of the population of :apple: users/owners.

One way you can get a little cash out of it without selling is this: If you think the price will be below $250 a share on January 18th, then you can sell options on your holdings. Today the 250s were about $1.40, which means that if, for instance, you owned 500 shares of AAPL, you could sell 5 options and receive $700. Come January 18th, if the price is below $250 you get to just keep the $700 and your AAPL shares. If it's above $250 then you still keep the $700, but you have to sell your shares for $250 a share. (which is not exactly a disaster.)

If you've got more gamble in you you could sell, say, the 200s for about $7.50. In the above example then you'd receive $3,750 in return for being willing to sell at $200 a share.

You make my head spin like that again, I just might throw up :p

FoxyKaye
Oct 17, 2007, 08:45 PM
Kinda takes the sting out of the 1990s a bit, doesn't it?

SolRayz
Oct 17, 2007, 08:49 PM
I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

angelwatt
Oct 17, 2007, 08:52 PM
And that's the same day that Apple raises prices by 100%. SJ doesn't want Apple to become Microsoft; he wants Apple to be the perennial top-tier, high-margin choice for the enlightened, not the default for cubicle farms. Apple needs enough share to attract the top developers, and I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, but I'm certain SJ will raise prices as necessary to keep marketshare at or below 20%.

Exactly where my thoughts are at. Increasing market share is good, but Apple doesn't need/want to be at the very top. Well, in terms of quality, they want to be top.

phillipjfry
Oct 17, 2007, 09:00 PM
I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

In all fairness, Bill Gates' entire attitude and sense of domination has always echoed long ago in some of the bb's of the early days. So when he started his own company and started to gain steam, it should have been known he would control the market just like he's doing now.
If Jobs takes over the world like MS has, that doesn't mean that he will follow in Gates' footsteps whatsoever.


On another note: I was catching up on old Apple history (Scully/Spindler eras), where the hell was Steve Jobs from 1985 until his return to Apple in 1997?

Bosunsfate
Oct 17, 2007, 09:31 PM
I expect Apple to be at about 200-225 in about 12 months. And possibly 300 in about 2-3 years.

Apple stock price growth is a pretty safe bet for 18-24 months.



Most of my growth expectations, and as I suspect are Wall Street's in general, are around the iPhone. The next generation of iPhone and the next few quarters of growth will tell a lot of that story for us.

Its the OS growth that I feel is the hardest to determine. For me the most significant change will come when we can see how and if Apple will start to get into the business world. They are still a consumer computer company.



After that, I expect Apple company growth and stock growth to slow significantly. Then again, at that point, Apple would have a bigger market cap than Microsoft. As of today, Apple is already bigger than IBM.

Not quite. Pretty soon though. :)

When it comes to software I believe Apple is larger. When it comes to hardware, don't know about that.

But then again, neither hardware or software are the core business for IBM. They are a service company now with over 50% of their business some from that side.

Zadillo
Oct 17, 2007, 09:56 PM
It does make you kind of wonder where Apple could put themselves marketshare-wise if they could churn out some more $500-700 laptops like the low-end stuff Dell and HP sell.

-Zadillo

Zadillo
Oct 17, 2007, 09:58 PM
In all fairness, Bill Gates' entire attitude and sense of domination has always echoed long ago in some of the bb's of the early days. So when he started his own company and started to gain steam, it should have been known he would control the market just like he's doing now.
If Jobs takes over the world like MS has, that doesn't mean that he will follow in Gates' footsteps whatsoever.


On another note: I was catching up on old Apple history (Scully/Spindler eras), where the hell was Steve Jobs from 1985 until his return to Apple in 1997?

NeXT (and Pixar). NeXT was the company he founded after being forced out of Apple. Their OS, NeXTStep, became the basis for the current Mac OS X (the whole reason for acquiring NeXT).

And remember, when Apple acquired NeXT (to bring Jobs back), what really essentially happened was that Jobs and his team took over, essentially, and NeXT in some sense became Apple.

-Zadillo

kevinwiz
Oct 17, 2007, 10:20 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

me too, thats why i don't care if apple is gaining popularity or whatever. that's bad news for my macbook and i. and i don't own stock so it doesn't have any financial effect on me

WannaGoMac
Oct 17, 2007, 10:21 PM
The best example I've seen is the Apache vs. IIS. Apache has a much larger market share than IIS and yet, it's the latter that has the most security issues.


I see this comment all the time. Version 4 of IIS had lots of problems, but version 5 and 6 have been very good and secure web servers. This is no longer a great counter-argument IMHO.

The rest of your reasoning is sound.

Zadillo
Oct 17, 2007, 10:27 PM
me too, thats why i don't care if apple is gaining popularity or whatever. that's bad news for my macbook and i. and i don't own stock so it doesn't have any financial effect on me

I think this is buying into the excuse MS tries to make for itself; namely, that they aren't to blame for any of their security problems, that it's solely because their platform is so popular that it is a target for hackers and virus writers.

Certainly popularity plays a role, but there's more to it. Windows became so virus-prone precisely because a lot of the security aspects of it were very sloppy, and MS was negligent. But this is why they like to push this idea that it was just popularity that made them a target, not blatant security holes.

This isn't to say that OS X or Linux are completely 100% bulletproof; clearly that's not the case. But they are generally designed more with security in mind, and that does make a difference.

Aside from that, Apple has made themselves a major target by promoting the security and virus-free nature of OS X, and you certainly do see people come out with various hacks/etc. But what we have yet to see is a really widespread virus. But you can imagine that there are plenty of people out there who would love to write one, because the notoriety would be unprecedented; as it is, people are able to garner major attention for finding any security breaches or problems whatsoever, even if they don't have much real-world impact.

-Zadillo

DTphonehome
Oct 17, 2007, 10:31 PM
Most of my growth expectations, and as I suspect are Wall Street's in general, are around the iPhone. The next generation of iPhone and the next few quarters of growth will tell a lot of that story for us.

I disagree (somewhat)...certainly the iPhone is a big part of the story, but the latest marketshare figures portend a very bright future for Apple in the PC space. Apple has huge margins on the PC side, and the young people who are buying now (college marketshare at 40%...laptop marketshare >10%) will be customers for life. I read recently that every 1% of the US PC market is worth $1 billion NET sales for Apple. At 8% currently, they have a HUGE potential upside. The sky really is the limit.

Their strategy was brilliant...let Dell and HP have the corporate market (for now). There are plenty of PC sales in the home that Apple has a real shot at getting. The halo effect from the iPod and iPhone is really starting to show. Apple is becoming (once again) a very viable option for many home and education PC buyers.

JeffTL
Oct 17, 2007, 10:37 PM
It does make you kind of wonder where Apple could put themselves marketshare-wise if they could churn out some more $500-700 laptops like the low-end stuff Dell and HP sell.

-Zadillo

In the end, though, market share doesn't show up anywhere in the financial statements -- it's a good indicator of comparative sales, but it's not income, an asset, or equity, so it's not good in and of itself. The actual profit margins on low-end laptops aren't very good, they can cannibalize sales of higher-priced products, and they weaken brands.

mm1250
Oct 17, 2007, 10:37 PM
I'm sorry to bust everyones bubble but the numbers released by Garnter and IDC shows they haven't really done any homework. I'm not even sure where they pulled those numbers out of.

Simple research will show the following:

in Q4 2005 Apple shipped 1.23million units
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html

in Q4 2006 Apple shipped 1.61million units
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/oct/18results.html

the Last Quarter (Q3 2007), Apple shipped 1.71 million units
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/25results.html

Q4 2007 numbers will be out Monday and I see mabye 1.9 to 2.0 million units sold, there should be NO DOUBT that they ATLEAST sell what they did in the last Q which was 1.7million units.

I'm not sure how they reported 1.3million when they almost reached that number in 2005. How can they insist Apple hasn't grown its unit sales in over 2 years.

So in theory, Apple's marketshare should be higher... YOU do the math.

sososowhat
Oct 17, 2007, 10:55 PM
I'm sorry to bust everyones bubble but the numbers released by Garnter and IDC shows they haven't really done any homework. I'm not even sure where they pulled those numbers out of.
...
Q4 2007 numbers will be out Monday and I see mabye 1.9 to 2.0 million units sold, there should be NO DOUBT that they ATLEAST sell what they did in the last Q which was 1.7million units.

I'm not sure how they reported 1.3million when they almost reached that number in 2005. How can they insist Apple hasn't grown its unit sales in over 2 years.

So in theory, Apple's marketshare should be higher... YOU do the math.
Gartner's numbers are for US only sales, while yours are for worldwide sales.

cameronjpu
Oct 17, 2007, 10:57 PM
wonder what the stats would look like if businesses were taken out of the equation.

Wonder what the stats would look like if consumers were taken out of the equation.

offwidafairies
Oct 18, 2007, 12:01 AM
I'm sorry, but this is something window fanatics say. I am not saying it isn't possible, but wouldn't we have seen one by now?? I don't care what people say that market share is the determining factor. If there are people who do this for fun or challenge, why not be the one to write a virus on an OS whose company proclaims on TV commercials, websites, etc to be the most secure OS out there? Is it because all the virus writers use OSX/Linux? Hmmmmm...

im certainly not a windoze fanatic.
quite the opposite
im glad to hear so many people disagree with me

IJ Reilly
Oct 18, 2007, 12:04 AM
I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

Microsoft was never about product quality from the very start, so it's not like they changed when they became successful. They became successful because they never changed. It was always about market domination.

offwidafairies
Oct 18, 2007, 12:06 AM
I'm not sure if I'm more gratified by Apple's growth or Dell's decline... God, how I'd love to see that company crater... I think we're witnessing the separation of the business and home markets for computers. That ought to give Apple relatively easy access to 20% share, with time.

I do love how everyone seems so deeply into Steve's head, though...


Do you sleep on the floor because you're worried about monsters under your bed?

im not worried about monsters. thats just stupid. i just love how smoothly my mac runs. ive had endless problems with every windows computer ive owned including my current dell. the people ive met who design and collect viruses say they do it just because they can or because they hate m$. so i think it is fair to say as apple gets more and more popular, as we have seen, not just in shares but in the number of university students switching to mac... there will be people who like to bring us down. and i dont feel different anymore. :rolleyes:

inkswamp
Oct 18, 2007, 12:36 AM
I'm sorry, but this is something window fanatics say. I am not saying it isn't possible, but wouldn't we have seen one by now?? I don't care what people say that market share is the determining factor.

What's funny about the market share argument too is that it really doesn't work. The Mac doesn't run OS 9 anymore. It's OS X and OS X is Unix. There are lots and lots of Unix (or Unix-like, if that makes Linux fans happy) machines out there and they're all running same or similar software under the hood and all have similarities in how they operate and are structured. In that sense, OS X is part of a much bigger market. And yet, I don't see a whole lot to worry about from the Unix side of OS X either. We've seen a few security issues pop up (like the ssh thing a while back) but nothing that has exploded into a major virus outbreak.

inkswamp
Oct 18, 2007, 12:39 AM
I see this comment all the time. Version 4 of IIS had lots of problems, but version 5 and 6 have been very good and secure web servers. This is no longer a great counter-argument IMHO.

I first heard that a few years back so I don't doubt it may be an outdated example. The point still stands. What seems to indicate whether or not a piece of software is virus-prone is not its market share, but whether it was made in Redmond, WA.

Hell, think about the biggest, legitimate scare we've had on OS X thus far: Office macros.

Gee, I think I see a pattern. :D

hulugu
Oct 18, 2007, 03:21 AM
AAPL closes up 3.17 point to $172.75

That's a 30 point gain in 1 month.

The question now...how much higher...I bouth at 40, then some more at 120 and just laugh at how much it keeps growing. Now, when to sell.:rolleyes:

Wait for the split.

Good, but should be better and I'm disappointed Apple seems content with that growth.

If only Apple produced a true desktop computer and not just an entry level (Mac mini), an all-in-one (iMac) and a Professional Workstation Class system (Mac Pro)...

All 3 are excellent systems, but Apple won't gain mainstream market share past a certain point if they don't make a mainstream system.

As others have pointed out, I'm not sure if Apple really cares about seizing the entire market. At 10% they retain a significant enough footprint to guarentee developers, but small enough to control their own product and keep up with quality control. I've always considered ~10% to be a kind of Goldilocks number for Apple. Let Linux fight Windows for the cubicle farms, data centers, and corporate wonks.

Mac Kiwi
Oct 18, 2007, 04:21 AM
With growth at this rate {not there yet] I see third party graphic card offerings coming our way.If Apple can come to an agreement with the suitor that is.


Imagine {in 2-3 years} looking at specs for the software you want to buy and always seeing Mac listed with Windows etc :D.....that will be a happy day.And updates are always released at exactly the same time as Windows vers.

Eriamjh1138@DAN
Oct 18, 2007, 06:14 AM
http://images.macnn.com/macnn/news/0710/17-idc-marketshare.gif

From here. (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/17/idc.pc.share.est.fall.2007/)

MacRumors:

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/10/17/marketshare.png

Why the big difference? Different estimates from different data pulled out of different asses?

jellomizer
Oct 18, 2007, 06:27 AM
wonder what the stats would look like if businesses were taken out of the equation.

Agreed Dell and HP are very big into the corporate sales. While the others then to be in the Consumer Sales. Lets face it Apples Business relations Sucks, there education relation stinks too. I really like my MacBook Pro and use it for work all the time but I would never advise a company to go Apple, even if they were to be boot-camped into windows (taking the bulk of migration costs out of the picture)

1. Apple keeps their products secrete to the last minute. This site is proof of that. Businesses want to know when the new model is coming out Months before then.

2. They need a company that will give price cuts to their models while they are depreciating. For example the XServe and the MacPro prices should have been reduced by now. Because they are aging, and expected to be updated soon.

3. Small product line. Most companies need a Tower systems that is more upgradable with user replaceable parts then an iMac but not as powerful as a MacPro. Business like the ability to upgrade, so after 3 years they can get 3 or more years out of the system if they can put in a new Video Card, and Some more Ram, and perhaps a card that now supports new devices. Or replace parts that fail.

There are other things too. But those are the big ones. If you add having them use Parallels and OS X then there are more issues we need to deal with. (Mostly because most people doesn't understand how virtualization works)

psychofreak
Oct 18, 2007, 06:29 AM
Thankfully in my line of work (well, being a student) the percentage of people who are Mac users is more like 20% :)

Digitalclips
Oct 18, 2007, 07:46 AM
A steady climb? That's a jump high enough to give you nose bleed!

I just flew from US to UK and back with long waits at various airports. It was amazing, both sides of the Atlantic I saw Mac laptops everywhere being used by waiting passengers and even several pilot types checking flight data. They far out numbered PC laptops by 10 to 1. I thought I was hallucinating! Last time I flew this trip a few years back I had the only Mac I saw. Man this is sweet :)

guzhogi
Oct 18, 2007, 08:36 AM
true, but OS X architechture, which is a Unix one, is way better for security than windows' is...

While Mac OS X is based on Unix, I wonder how many security holes Apple may have opened when adapting Unix to use as a Mac.

Simple question: is this 8.1% tell how much of the computers sold last quater were Macs or is it how much of all computers currently running Macs? If it's just computers sold this quater, I want what the marketshare is for the installed base.

Zadillo
Oct 18, 2007, 08:42 AM
While Mac OS X is based on Unix, I wonder how many security holes Apple may have opened when adapting Unix to use as a Mac.

Simple question: is this 8.1% tell how much of the computers sold last quater were Macs or is it how much of all computers currently running Macs? If it's just computers sold this quater, I want what the marketshare is for the installed base.

Remember, it's not like OS X was just developed from scratch. NeXT/Apple already had years of experience with it as NeXTStep. I guess you are suggesting possible security holes added by adding in the new API's, etc. but I haven't heard of too many problems coming up like this (it seems like when you do hear about security holes in OS X, they are often more standard UNIX security issues).

The marketshare figure represents computers sold during that quarter.

I think "installed base" is much harder to figure out though. You'd have to have an accurate way to survey people and find out what systems they were actually using.

This actually used to be one of the common complaints when people talked about Apple's low marketshare numbers. Historically speaking, Mac users tended to hold on to and use their Macs for much longer, so the quarterly marketshare figures of new purchased Macs often were fairly low. But it didn't tell the whole picture, since it didn't reflect necessarily how many people were actually using Macs.

-Zadillo

DTphonehome
Oct 18, 2007, 09:52 AM
I think "installed base" is much harder to figure out though. You'd have to have an accurate way to survey people and find out what systems they were actually using.


Plus, besides for developers and bragging rights, it's a useless measure. Apple as a company needs SALES to survive, not installed base.

wPod
Oct 18, 2007, 10:19 AM
What about Acer who bought Gateway who bought Packard Bell? This accumulation is supposed to end up as 3rd largest market share under Dell and HP. But this buyout has just happened so I am curious to see th next round of numbers. I am sure Apple's market share will continue to rise, but I am curious if they will be able to hold on to the 3rd place spot!

Zadillo
Oct 18, 2007, 11:14 AM
Plus, besides for developers and bragging rights, it's a useless measure. Apple as a company needs SALES to survive, not installed base.

Well, I wouldn't underestimate the importance for developers though in terms of how it relates to sales.

Larger installed base = more potential customers for developers to develop software for.

More software support = more future sales from people who are willing to buy Macs because the software they want is available for it.

So Apple needs sales AND installed base.

macUser2007
Oct 18, 2007, 12:07 PM
Eh, so why the difference in reported numbers? Is it 8+% or 6+%?

I've always had Apples, but for HTPC I've switched to Windows a while back. Apple just sucks for HTPC and Leopard is doing nothing to fix that. Plus, they have left the only HTPC-apt Mac, the Mini, to rot. I just replaced mine (which was dedicated HTPC running Vista MCE), with an AOPEN 965-based mini-PC, so I can run Hi-Def DVDs.

In fairness, I feel that MS is far more responsive to their customers. MS has their people helping and taking suggestions from end-users on third-party sites, like thegreenbutton.com, while Apple can't be bothered to have someone helping on their own forums.

As to security, there are various surveys showing that MS responds significantly faster and more aggressively to security holes, than Apple does.

Not bashing Apple here, just setting some facts straight.

mdntcallr
Oct 18, 2007, 12:14 PM
Hey there, this is great news.

more importantly the 8.1% marketshare. could mean even better numbers when you look at the consumer market.

the 8.1% could in consumer market mean 10-12%

MattJessop
Oct 18, 2007, 12:16 PM
im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

I don't think you'll have to worry about that for a while. Linux's share of servers and 'critical' workstations that companies rely on in the background is quite high I'd assume. This would make it a prime target for hackers who want to disrupt companies. Yet Linux is secure, and very few to no viruses are reported.

OS X is based on the same architecture as Linux, so it would be safe to assume that it'll be pretty safe for a while. Especially with Apple introducing a limited form of Application signing in Leopard.

Windows meanwhile relies on WinNT. Thank the heavens its not Win9x. *Shakes head* those were the days. :D

MattJessop
Oct 18, 2007, 12:19 PM
Eh, so why the difference in reported numbers? Is it 8+% or 6+%?

I've always had Apples, but for HTPC I've switched to Windows a while back. Apple just sucks for HTPC and Leopard is doing nothing to fix that. Plus, they have left the only HTPC-apt Mac, the Mini, to rot. I just replaced mine (which was dedicated HTPC running Vista MCE), with an AOPEN 965-based mini-PC, so I can run Hi-Def DVDs.

In fairness, I feel that MS is far more responsive to their customers. MS has their people helping and taking suggestions from end-users on third-party sites, like thegreenbutton.com, while Apple can't be bothered to have someone helping on their own forums.

As to security, there are various surveys showing that MS responds significantly faster and more aggressively to security holes, than Apple does.

Not bashing Apple here, just setting some facts straight.

I agree. While Apple are great at what they do, there are certain things that they lack. While they led with 802.11n and other technologies. Hi-Def DVDs for example they lack, possibly because they're just sitting on the fence.

And again, while Apple may have the better security to begin with, Microsoft do respond faster. This possibly may just be to help with businesses, who MS hold a far higher marketshare.

mdntcallr
Oct 18, 2007, 12:20 PM
2. They need a company that will give price cuts to their models while they are depreciating. For example the XServe and the MacPro prices should have been reduced by now. Because they are aging, and expected to be updated soon.

3. Small product line. Most companies need a Tower systems that is more upgradable with user replaceable parts then an iMac but not as powerful as a MacPro. Business like the ability to upgrade, so after 3 years they can get 3 or more years out of the system if they can put in a new Video Card, and Some more Ram, and perhaps a card that now supports new devices. Or replace parts that fail.



2- Regarding pricing, Apple needs to drop pricing when model are lagging. It is the same as other computers or cameras. AS models get older, and tech doesnt get upgraded. Lower the price. its the right thing to do.

3- I wholeheartedly agree. Apple needs a midrange tower which is user upgradeable. Something that a nice graphics card and more can be put into. not everyone needs 4 hard drive bays and etc.

it would be great to have one with 2-3 card slots and 2 hard drive bays. Allow people to put in nicer graphics cards. obviously needing mac drivers

WannaGoMac
Oct 18, 2007, 12:29 PM
I don't think you'll have to worry about that for a while. Linux's share of servers and 'critical' workstations that companies rely on in the background is quite high I'd assume. This would make it a prime target for hackers who want to disrupt companies. Yet Linux is secure, and very few to no viruses are reported.

OS X is based on the same architecture as Linux, so it would be safe to assume that it'll be pretty safe for a while. Especially with Apple introducing a limited form of Application signing in Leopard.

Windows meanwhile relies on WinNT. Thank the heavens its not Win9x. *Shakes head* those were the days. :D

Actually OS X is based on BSD, not Linux. :D

Just because there are no viruses, doesn't mean they won't be prone to hacking. I agree viruses are unlikely for UNIX based OSes.

I have friends in the computer security industry that have told me that it is actually EASIER in many ways to hack a Unix box than a Windoze. Though they do say both systems are vulnerable in unique ways...

surferfromuk
Oct 18, 2007, 02:47 PM
your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

virduk
Oct 18, 2007, 04:37 PM
I wonder what the picture looks like outside the U.S?

I wonder if all that growth is in laptops.

I also wonder if these figures include non-branded systems? Now it may just be vastly differently in the US, but here I almost never see 'branded' systems. Even in education its far more common to see system that are put together by local outfits rather than brand names.

DTphonehome
Oct 18, 2007, 05:04 PM
your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

Not sure about your numbers, but that's why I'm accumulating AAPL...the future is VERY bright.

gnasher729
Oct 20, 2007, 07:13 PM
Larger installed base = more potential customers for developers to develop software for.

Actually, installed base is not _that_ important for software development. People who are too tight to replace a five year old computer are less likely to pay for new software. People who buy new computers are much more likely to buy new software.

But since Gateway etc. were mentioned: The average price for a Gateway computer is much less than for a Mac. And again, people who bought the cheapest PC they can find are less likely to pay for new software than people who paid more money, for example for a Macintosh. I wouldn't try to make a living writing software for people who bought $400 PCs.

gnasher729
Oct 20, 2007, 07:19 PM
This actually used to be one of the common complaints when people talked about Apple's low marketshare numbers. Historically speaking, Mac users tended to hold on to and use their Macs for much longer, so the quarterly marketshare figures of new purchased Macs often were fairly low. But it didn't tell the whole picture, since it didn't reflect necessarily how many people were actually using Macs.

These marketshare numbers also don't consider the value of the computers sold. An eight core MacPro with 3,000GB harddisk space, 16GB RAM and two 30" monitors = one computer sold. A $400 crappy PC = one computer sold. Apple's share at total computer revenue is much higher, and Apple's share at total computer profit is higher still. Like Gateway makes about $1 profit per computer sold in a good quarter.

Bill Av
Oct 20, 2007, 08:55 PM
Where's Sony? Under "Others"? I thought they'd be bigger than that.

MacsAttack
Oct 21, 2007, 12:52 AM
3- I wholeheartedly agree. Apple needs a midrange tower which is user upgradeable.

Ahh... No.

The whole market is shifting to laptops at a growing pace. Apple's most popular models are now the laptops - they account for over half the sales now. With firewire and USB there is very little you can't "add" externally - and it is far more user friendly than grubbing about in the guts of a system.

A midrange tower is a small and poorly defined niche market item. Apple would be barking to consider producing such a system. It goes against their entire (apparent) strategy/business.

1. Support. By keeping the number of systems and their configurations down to a minimum it simplifies support and repair.

2. Retail Market Model. Apple have taken a very different approach to that of - say - Dell. Dell operate a tight stock managment system that also has them frequently updating their products. In a direct sales environment this works as their are no large piles of inventory. Apple one the other hand have a retail market model - with a long stock tail. Combined with their own stores, there are all the third party resellers to consider. Frequent updates are not possible in this environment - the retail end of things would forever be selling products at end-of-line discount. Products thus have a long lifecycle between updates.

3. Target Market. Dell built market share by pitching at the low end. Sure they sell top of the line systems too - but most of their sales are right at the low end. Problem is the margins there have been shrinking. Dell may not be in a death spiral, but thay have seen their profits cut by half. Apple just does not play in that market - so no "mini tower". The Mini is sold as much on the form factor as price. It is typical Apple in that it is not a typical low end machine. The iMac - well - is the iMac. No other company has produced a sucessful line of all-in-one desktops. The Mac Pro is the industrial-grade rig. And then there is the laptop range. None of this stuff is pitched at the low end of the market. Apple focus on where there is a profit to be made. Never forget that in the end - that is Apple's overriding consideration.

4. Component/Design Re-Use. Just take a look at the lineup. The Mac Mini and MacBook are esentially the same hardware. Just packaged up differntly. The same is true of the iMac and MacBook Pro. This re-use saves Apple money on development and support. It saves them money on percurment as they can wring the maximum savings on bulk orders. The Mac Pro is the only exception - but then it does have a high sticker price.

The case against the midrange tower...

Ground up product design. This would be a system that uses virtually no component with any of the other Apple systems (hard disks and optical drives aside). No point in a multiprocessor system - that is what the Mac Pro is. A "smaller" Mac Pro would not cost very much less. No. the midrange tower would use a different processor (Intel desktop 2 or 4 core) - which is not used in any existing Mac. A different chipset - which is not used in any existing Mac. A different kind of memory - which is not used in any existing - Mac. A differnet case. In short this would be a ground up design with none of the cost savings that Apple enjoys on the other lines.

OS/Software. Being an all-new system, Apple has support it in software in the OS. That adds to their costs.

After sales support. Yet another product line. More support requirments. Training. Spares. Etc.

So adding a midrange tower would be a non-trivial undertaking. For such a niche system (aside from switching graphics cards to make it a "killer gaming rig", nobody has ever defined just what this mythical beast is suppored to do that cannot be done with an existing system), it just does present a good business case.

On the other hand - if the numbers are correct - Apple have increased their market share from 5% to 8% (that is a 60% growth) without the aid of a midrange tower. Considering that Apple have done so without targeting the low end of the maket with low cost/low margin products (which is what the midrange would be), but is doing so with its slow product cycles and high margins.

Sounds like a company with a working business plan to me.

If some people don't like it, I hear Dell are still in business (for the time being).

MacsAttack
Oct 21, 2007, 12:57 AM
These marketshare numbers also don't consider the value of the computers sold. An eight core MacPro with 3,000GB harddisk space, 16GB RAM and two 30" monitors = one computer sold. A $400 crappy PC = one computer sold. Apple's share at total computer revenue is much higher, and Apple's share at total computer profit is higher still. Like Gateway makes about $1 profit per computer sold in a good quarter.

A valid point. And Gateway are being bought by Packard Bell. Meanwhile Dell have seen their profits drop by half.

Apple on the other hand...

MacsAttack
Oct 21, 2007, 01:01 AM
your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

I'm not sold on the "halo effect" - well not that one. Halo 3 has stimulated X-Box 360 sales I understand. I did not buy a Mac because of the iPod. I don't know anyone who has.

I did buy a Nano after getting a Mac though - Reverse halo effect? No. More like the Nano was the right price and the right form factor. No surprise that it was the Nano - and to a lesser extent the Mini - that made the iPod the success it is.

WannaGoMac
Oct 21, 2007, 09:50 AM
Ahh... No.

The whole market is shifting to laptops at a growing pace. Apple's most popular models are now the laptops - they account for over half the sales now.

While laptops are on pace in the industry to outsell desktops. I think this is mainly because the larger volume purchasers (corporations) are buying mainly laptops.

As for Apple laptops outselling the "desktops", I think it is because if you have to buy an all-in-one people think they might as well buy a portable one. Apple desktops are hardly desktops, more like non-mobile laptops.

djlu
Oct 24, 2007, 12:26 PM
http://images.macnn.com/macnn/news/0710/17-idc-marketshare.gif

From here. (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/17/idc.pc.share.est.fall.2007/)

MacRumors:

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/10/17/marketshare.png

Why the big difference? Different estimates from different data pulled out of different asses?

It seems as if IDC is wrong. If you assume that US/International revenue mix is close to unit mix. 2.164 million computers * 60% = 1.2984 domestic units.

I would actually tend to think its probably a slight bit higher than 60% unit mix since int'l price per machine is slightly higher than US. Meaning less units per revenue.

IDC's number would be around a 52% US and would be around 62% for Gartner.