Apple's US Market Share Slips in 1Q 2009 [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 16, 2009, 09:28 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/16/apples-us-market-share-slips-in-1q-2009/)

Gartner has released a preliminary report (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=939015) detailing U.S. and worldwide PC shipments for the first quarter of 2009. The report pegs Apple's U.S. market share in fourth place among vendors at 7.4%, down from 8.0% in the fourth quarter of 2008 (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/14/apples-us-market-share-growth-slows-in-4q-2008/). More importantly, the report shows a slight decline in market share over the year-ago quarter, when Apple held 7.5% market share.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us_trend_500.png

Apple's U.S. Market Share Trend: 1Q06-1Q09 (Gartner)
Apple's U.S. computer shipments showed a 1.1% decline over the year-ago quarter, compared to an overall U.S. industry decline of 0.3%. Gartner notes that the overall PC market performed better than expected, due in significant part to strong sales of "mini notebooks" or netbooks, a market segment in which Apple does not currently compete. Gartner also suggests that the average selling price of computers sold in the first quarter of 2009 may have shrunk as much as 20% due to this explosion in netbook sales. Consequently, while Apple's market share has apparently slipped, its gross revenue and profits are likely to have held up better than the industry average.

Also of note, HP was able to pass Dell for the top spot among U.S. PC shipments, taking that position for the first time since 2001.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us.png

Gartner's Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 1Q09 (Thousands of Units)
IDC has released a similar report (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21797609) showing Apple with 7.6% market share and a decline in U.S. sales of 1.2% over the year-ago quarter. IDC's numbers, however, are showing a slightly steeper decline in U.S. sales for the overall PC market at 3.1%. Apple remains unable to break into the top five vendors for worldwide PC shipments in either survey, with Toshiba continuing to hold the fifth spot with approximately 5.5% market share, a significant bump over their previous numbers.

Article Link: Apple's US Market Share Slips in 1Q 2009 (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/16/apples-us-market-share-slips-in-1q-2009/)

Lesser Evets

Apr 16, 2009, 09:32 AM

Apple is looking at Acer and wondering how they can get some growth.... TABLET.

guzhogi

Apr 16, 2009, 09:34 AM

Apple is looking at Acer and wondering how they can get some growth.... TABLET.

I wonder how many of these sell:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Modbook

Hard-Hat-Mac

Apr 16, 2009, 09:34 AM

BornAgainMac

Apr 16, 2009, 09:34 AM

I wish it would be possible to see the numbers without Netbooks. Also one that focuses on home purchases.

bigmc6000

Apr 16, 2009, 09:35 AM

Do they release the $ share numbers at the same time? I'm quite certain that Acer's growth is pretty much all in netbooks (probably not tablets) and acer makes, what, $20 on those?

WJKramer

Apr 16, 2009, 09:36 AM

Lesser Evets

Apr 16, 2009, 09:37 AM

I wonder how many of these sell:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Modbook

If THAT was thinner and cheaper I would buy it in an instant. A friend has one and he loves it, but I find it too clunky in terms of portability.

A tablet for me wouldn't even need half the computing power of one of those.

However, if Apple did make a 10" iPod type netbook device for $399, I would instantly buy. $399 from Apple.... BUWAHAHA! *snort* Doubt it.

Mykbibby

Apr 16, 2009, 09:37 AM

iTablet coming Summer, 99 dollars with contract, 499 without. That should bring it back up.

flopticalcube

Apr 16, 2009, 09:37 AM

netbooks, netbooks, netbooks

talkingfuture

Apr 16, 2009, 09:38 AM

Looking at that graph this could be cyclical. Maybe we need another couple of quarters to accurately judge it.

ivladster

Apr 16, 2009, 09:38 AM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

Lesser Evets

Apr 16, 2009, 09:40 AM

iTablet coming Summer, 99 dollars with contract, 499 without. That should bring it back up.

So an iPod Touch is $399 and a tablet type thing is $499??

I gotta see this.

I can see low priced iPods if they start to limit iPods downward with memory and ability, but they move in upward 10" Tablnetbooks-Maxipods.

If they have a supersmall mem. for $499 and larger ones going up to $999 it would make sense.
i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

Yeah. Apple doesn't care about money. They're totally about charity.

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 09:40 AM

Regardless if it is a netbook or not, it doesn't matter, it's still a computer. A netbook is still a computer that runs a bonafide OS (the same OS as a regular desktop would run). Regular consumers are starting to realize that they don't use their computers for anything more than word processing, PP presentations, email, and the internet. And these netbooks can accomplish these feats just as efficiently as a $1000-2000 laptop or desktop (making a lot of Apple computers just not needed). As netbooks become more powerful (and cheaper), their marketshare is going to continue to increase. It is not as "nascent" as Apple thought - they better hurry up and get into the game. And we still don't even know for a fact if Apple is going to indeed release one.

slightly

Apr 16, 2009, 09:40 AM

I'm a little surprised that vendors are only selling 1-4000 computers per quarter. Or should "shipment" be construed as "batch", ie, a sale of 200 computers to a business is one shipment?

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 09:42 AM

So an iPod Touch is $399 and a tablet type thing is $499??

I gotta see this.

I can see low priced iPods if they start to limit iPods downward with memory and ability, but they move in upward 10" Tablnetbooks-Maxipods.

If they have a supersmall mem. for $499 and larger ones going up to $999 it would make sense.

Yeah. Apple doesn't care about money. They're totally about charity.

+1.

These will definitely cost 100-200 dollars more than an iPhone (not less) as they are going to be larger (more materials) and likely have more processing power.

tjcampbell

Apr 16, 2009, 09:43 AM

Make an affordable, intelligent, sleek netbook NOW!

stagi

Apr 16, 2009, 09:44 AM

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 09:45 AM

The growth of Acer is phenomenal. Wow. It's like the growth of hybrids and small cars when gas prices were super-high last year.

lifeinhd

Apr 16, 2009, 09:45 AM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11a Safari/525.20)

The only reason HP is now ahead of Dell is because of those Microsoft ads :P

In addition, the reason Apple's share is slipping is because they don't seem to understand that you can't release a glossy notebook aimed at professionals and actually expect people to buy them.

Sound Evolution

Apr 16, 2009, 09:46 AM

Small White Car

Apr 16, 2009, 09:47 AM

Yeah. Apple doesn't care about money. They're totally about charity.

He said 'market share' not 'money.'

The two have remarkably little to do with each other, so you can't just go switching them with each other as if they're the same thing. ivladster made a good point and you "refuted" it by putting words in his mouth.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 09:47 AM

Yeah. Apple doesn't care about money. They're totally about charity.
Increasing market share is not the same thing as making money. *cough* Xbox *cough*

Edit: Damn, Small White Car stole my thunder! :D

notjustjay

Apr 16, 2009, 09:47 AM

Yeah, low-profit, but high-volume, are propelling up the likes of Asus, Acer, Dell, HP. A lot of other made-in-China names are getting in on the action, too.

Even if Apple were to reposition the Mac Mini, drop the price a bit and it would compete well against the "netbook in PC form" models, like the EEE Box and the touch-screen EEE Top (which looks a bit like Apple's old Cinema Display!)

Actually, if Apple would be willing to sacrifice a little bit of their larger-than-industry-average margins, and price their existing computers a little bit more competitively, that could go a long way too. Even Microsoft's ads acknowledge that everyone likes Macs, but they are "too pricey". (Yes, I *know* the truth of that is debatable). Even $100 off across the line would make a lot of sense. If they could bring the Mini below $500 and the iMac below $1000...

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 09:48 AM

I wish it would be possible to see the numbers without Netbooks. Also one that focuses on home purchases.

Why would you want to see the numbers without Netbooks? They are going to be an huge part of the future of computers.

That's like saying a few years ago that you want to see the desktop numbers without laptops.

IMHO Apple needs a $399-$499 Netbook with the following.

9 or 10' screen
1GB RAM
16GB SSD
Intel Atom Processor (I'd love better, but that is doubtful)
Mac OS X Leopard
Integrated camera

E-Mail, internet, iLife, iChat, word processing in a (more) portable casing (then MacBook) with a much cheaper price then the MacBook

I don't know if Apple would do it, and if they did, they would add a few small features and probably ask $699 or $799 for it

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 09:48 AM

I told it long time ago already... Apple missed the boat with Netbooks. Apple should have bin the first one with a Netbook alike device. It could be a way to make Apple widely acknowledged by more consumers.

With best regards,
Bas

I'm sure they regret it now. They were probably pouring most of their resources into the iPhone, which they did hit a homerun with. Nevertheless, even though it is a few years late, people will still be calling Apple's netbook/tablet as innovative.

Lesser Evets

Apr 16, 2009, 09:49 AM

+1.

These will definitely cost 100-200 dollars more than an iPhone (not less) as they are going to be larger (more materials) and likely have more processing power.

Thank you.

Apple does have a hole to fill in their price ladder. The only way this supposed netbook/tablet would fit to lower cost is if they shove down all their iPod lines. Seems doubtful, but a small iPod Nano at $99/$150, iPT at $199/$299, then MaxiPod/Netbook at $499+.

It would be awesome if an Apple tablet would be able to run a fairly complete OSX, but I somehow doubt this device will be fully capable. It'll probably be limited to communication via the internet and a little else for low end processing.

Lesser Evets

Apr 16, 2009, 09:49 AM

Increasing market share is not the same thing as making money. *cough* Xbox *cough*

Wait, so you mean you are comparing Apple to Microsoft?

....uhhh.... ok.
He said 'market share' not 'money.'

The two have remarkably little to do with each other, so you can't just go switching them with each other as if they're the same thing. ivladster made a good point and you "refuted" it by putting words in his mouth.

Wrong.

Market share=money when you sell devices that make money off of app sales and music/video sales. I doubt any decent company says "I'm just making great products for art's sake" and doesn't think about earnings and money.

Remember that Jobs himself has said that Apple is primarily a software company. It makes money from selling computers/devices that use their software or software they make money from (iTunes store apps and stuff).

macFanDave

Apr 16, 2009, 09:50 AM

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 09:50 AM

Increasing market share is not the same thing as making money. *cough* Xbox *cough*

The XBox 360 is a cash cow. The box itself is not profitable (neither is the Playstation) but software profits off the 360 beat the other 2 major competitors (in the US anyway, which is surprisingly the largest market)

MacsBestFriend

Apr 16, 2009, 09:51 AM

how i hate the new windows/hp commercials...

i blame the economy:):mad::eek::confused:

longofest

Apr 16, 2009, 09:52 AM

PeckhamBog

Apr 16, 2009, 09:53 AM

I'm a little surprised that vendors are only selling 1-4000 computers per quarter. Or should "shipment" be construed as "batch", ie, a sale of 200 computers to a business is one shipment?

At the foot of the table is an explanation that figures are for thousands of units, i.e. HP shipped 4 million odd, and Apple 1,135,000

"Gartner's Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 1Q09 (Thousands of Units)"

Small White Car

Apr 16, 2009, 09:54 AM

9 or 10' screen
1GB RAM
16GB SSD
Intel Atom Processor (I'd love better, but that is doubtful)
Mac OS X Leopard
Integrated camera

It won't have Mac OS X. I'm nearly positive about this. A device that size would benefit greatly from having its own multi-touch custom OS, just like the iPhone has its own OS.

Now, it will be closer to the Mac OS than the iPhone's...I'm guessing you can take things like iLife or Photoshop and do a 3-week overhaul on them to basically run the same code but with a modified GUI made just for this device. So you'd still get full Mac programs on this thing, but they'd be custom altered to specifically run on this new Apple tablet using multitouch gestures and larger icons and buttons.

I'm just guessing here, but I feel pretty sure about this. The "Desktop" metephor for computing is old and needs to go. Everyone knows it but no one can figure out how to change the desktop on traditional computers. But when Apple had the chance to start fresh with the iPhone, they ditched the desktop and pointer idea. I suspect they'll do it again when given the chance on a new tablet device.

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 09:54 AM

Why would you want to see the numbers without Netbooks? They are going to be an huge part of the future of computers.

I agree with you. Just like laptop sales have been steadily increasing as desktops become less popular, we are likely going to see netbook sales increase from here on in. When you talk about basic consumer use, the netbook is going to be just as useful as a $2000 computer. People used to drool over specs, but now they realize any computer (cheap or expensive) can send an email or write a Word doc. Due to this (and the economy), people are likely going to pick the cheaper computer.

Discounting netbook sales is like saying, "well, I would like to see Toyota's car sale numbers without their Prius sales."

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 09:54 AM

Wait, so you mean you are comparing Apple to Microsoft?

....uhhh.... ok.
I'm not comparing them. I was just using the Xbox as an example of how to increase market share but make no money in it. In fact, Microsoft lost a lot of money in order to establish the Xbox. There are plenty of ways to increase your market share, some of which involve making money and some which don't. It's foolish to attempt to equate the two.

Market share=money when you sell devices that make money off of app sales and music/video sales. I doubt any decent company says "I'm just making great products for art's sake" and doesn't think about earnings and money.
So, Acer is making lots of money off app sales and music/video sales?

dwd3885

Apr 16, 2009, 09:56 AM

This isn't surprising. Apple's computers prices haven't gone down, they've gone up. So people aren't going to be buying them as much.

peterdevries

Apr 16, 2009, 09:58 AM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

Not true. Apple cares about making money through the selling of good products.

If they lose market share, than others are doing something better than Apple. And hence, Apple is losing money compared to the ones that are gaining market share. In this case the others are making netbooks and selling lots of them.

I agree that Apple needs to get in the netbook game. People would lap them up.

DELLsFan

Apr 16, 2009, 09:59 AM

Sure, the economy is bad, and folks aren't spending money like they used to ... but the money that IS being spent is going proportionally more to the PC market. This has more to do with Apple's marketing and product strategy - than it does about the recession, IMO.

Netbook entry would be a big hit for Apple. I think tweaking the options, design, and prices on their other items would move product faster than otherwise - especially if folks are only looking at the economy as the culprit.

:apple:

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 09:59 AM

This isn't surprising. Apple's computers prices haven't gone down, they've gone up. So people aren't going to be buying them as much.
How does that argument explain Dell's sharp drop in market share?

Small White Car

Apr 16, 2009, 10:01 AM

Wrong.

Market share=money when you sell devices that make money off of app sales and music/video sales. I doubt any decent company says "I'm just making great products for art's sake" and doesn't think about earnings and money.

Look, in the 4th quarter of 2006 Dell sold roughly 5 times the number of computers as Apple. In that same time period, though, Dell made less money than Apple.

And you call making a bigger profit "making great products for art's sake?" I call that making money, and it's what Apple cares about. I think it's crazy for you to argue that that's the wrong priority for them.

azentropy

Apr 16, 2009, 10:01 AM

Apple has made it obvious they don't care too much about Market share. They have no products in two of the largest segments - netbooks and consumer towers.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:02 AM

I'm not comparing them. I was just using the Xbox as an example of how to increase market share but make no money in it. In fact, Microsoft lost a lot of money in order to establish the Xbox. There are plenty of ways to increase your market share, some of which involve making money and some which don't. It's foolish to attempt to equate the two.

So, Acer is making lots of money off app sales and music/video sales?

You are right to say Microsoft lost money to establish the XBox, and if it were not for the RROD problem on the next gen, they would have done a lot better of it as well.

However, now that the Brand is established, the XBox 360 is one of the premier consoles in the industry. It might not sell as many units as the Wii, or be as powerful as the Playstation, but XBox Live and software sales make the XBox 360 probably more profitable them most consoles.

However, a lot of those profits go to software developers, so maybe Microsoft will report they aren't doing so hot with it. I think they established themselves now that they are on the right track to being very profitable in the future.

Small White Car

Apr 16, 2009, 10:03 AM

Apple has made it obvious they don't care too much about Market share. They have no products in two of the largest segments - netbooks and consumer towers.

Towers? I thought laptops were outselling desktops by a wide margin these days. Are you basing that on anything?

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:04 AM

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:04 AM

If they lose market share, than others are doing something better than Apple. And hence, Apple is losing money compared to the ones that are gaining market share. In this case the others are making netbooks and selling lots of them.
If all Apple cared about was market share, they would have operated quite differently over the last 10 years than they have, probably putting out netbooks, Mac mini towers, etc. Lots of knee-jerk products. But they haven't. I think that says a lot about what they think of market share. I.E. not operating in a way that sacrifices their other goals.

BlizzardBomb

Apr 16, 2009, 10:05 AM

Why would you want to see the numbers without Netbooks? They are going to be an huge part of the future of computers.

That's like saying a few years ago that you want to see the desktop numbers without laptops.

IMHO Apple needs a $399-$499 Netbook with the following.

9 or 10' screen
1GB RAM
16GB SSD
Intel Atom Processor (I'd love better, but that is doubtful)
Mac OS X Leopard
Integrated camera

E-Mail, internet, iLife, iChat, word processing in a (more) portable casing (then MacBook) with a much cheaper price then the MacBook

I don't know if Apple would do it, and if they did, they would add a few small features and probably ask $699 or $799 for it

$399? Not a chance. Apple needs to get their low-end MacBook down to $899, maybe even $849 (or offer big drops on the aluminium MBs (unlikely)). Then, maybe just maybe, they can offer a 10" or so model at $699ish. They also need to sort out the MBP pricing. The difference from low-end to high end 15" is not worth $500.

nplima

Apr 16, 2009, 10:06 AM

All positive effects of competition, in my view. I imagine that Apple could try to use the same approach for a Netbook as they did for the iPhone, to have a closed set of applications that run in there, as a way to compensate for not running iLife. at least that's how I see it: iLife could be the big differentiator between the current Macs, the iPhone, iPod and Netbook family (BigMacs vs. SmallMacs :D )
Of course, I have said it before: Apple needs to keep making iLife better, otherwise, it won't even be enough of a differentiator between Macs and PCs...

Mattjeff

Apr 16, 2009, 10:06 AM

I wish it would be possible to see the numbers without Netbooks. Also one that focuses on home purchases.

I wish I could see one with out any competition... just apple. I wanna see something that shows the "real world numbers" ;).

Now is apples chance to be less greedy and lower their prices (a lot) and give us a affordable computer.

Full of Win

Apr 16, 2009, 10:07 AM

Let me the first to yell...

HEADLESS MAC

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:10 AM

How does that argument explain Dell's sharp drop in market share?

Dell didn't have a decent netbook offering early enough?

Sabon

Apr 16, 2009, 10:11 AM

I'd love to see where on the chart the new iMacs/minis were released.

People have an idea when Apple's products are going to be renewed and stopped buying them before hand. If this shows a chart that ends just before this then yes of course the amount of sales would be lower. If this includes weeks of purchases that would show up on the graph and it is still lower, then I would take it with more than a grain of salt.

Macmel

Apr 16, 2009, 10:12 AM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

Yeah, because they are a NGO and want to keep people using computers happy. They don't care about making money. They charge almost 2000 for an MBA to distribute the profits among poor people.
If Apple grows market share-wise, then it is great news and MS should be scared to death. If Apple shrinks, then Apple does not care about market share and just make great products. You fanboys are hilarious.

SHOlover

Apr 16, 2009, 10:12 AM

If they updated Final Cut Studio, they will get 2 more Mac Pro sales from me. Maybe at NAB they will update...:o

mikecap

Apr 16, 2009, 10:13 AM

You could set your clock by the ups and downs on that market share graph. I predict that next quarter Apple sales will go up by the same percentage they went up last year!

flottenheimer

Apr 16, 2009, 10:15 AM

It's funny how a couple of simple graphs can control coversation.

The ones presented here says nothing about the price of the hardware sold, profit margins, ad spending, brand value, customer satisfaction or anything else. Raw, per unit market share, is not all that matters. Remember:

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true"
- Homer Simpson

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:15 AM

iMacmatician

Apr 16, 2009, 10:18 AM

So an iPod Touch is $399 and a tablet type thing is $499??
…
If they have a supersmall mem. for $499 and larger ones going up to $999 it would make sense.$499 is feasible if the mini-tablet has less flash memory than the $399 iPod touch. From that the price will go up a few hundred dollars depending on capacity and other hardware features.

notjustjay

Apr 16, 2009, 10:19 AM

Yeah, because they are a NGO and want to keep people using computers happy. They don't care about making money. They charge almost 2000 for an MBA to distribute the profits among poor people.
If Apple grows market share-wise, then it is great news and MS should be scared to death. If Apple shrinks, then Apple does not care about market share and just make great products. You fanboys are hilarious.

Well, he has a point, in a way.

But there's a fine balance between "make the very best computing experience possible, period" and "make a computer cheap enough to win massive market share".

In my opinion, Apple consistently leans a little too far toward the former. For example the Mac Mini uses 2.5" laptop hard drives in order to shave that extra fraction of an inch in size. If they'd gone with standard 3.5" desktop drives, the unit cost would be quite a bit cheaper, ... but they'd be a tiny bit bigger. For some reason, Apple didn't want that.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM

Considering how long it took apple to do product refreshes, and how disappointing those were when they finally came, I'm not surprised at all.

With price increases on some models, I wouldn't be surprised if we see their market share drop even more.

Apple is really missing the boat in this economy. They absolutely could offer a decent netbook and a decent headless mac, and they could get away with prices higher than the bargain basement ones others are offering (even a $499 netbook looks dirt cheap compared to Apple's 999 and 1299 notebook starting prices).

But if Apple came out with a dirtcheap $499 netbook with 1GB RAM, how does it explain why it charges $1299 for a small laptop with 2GB RAM and a Core 2 Duo?

If Apple did a netbook, they would probably do it for like $699 and that defeats the purpose, for most anyway.

Dell "MacBook Mini" 9 all the way, haha.

Macmel

Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM

I have a hard time believing that these figures are so accurate that 0.1% is not below the level of noise.

I would have to see more proof of the methodology before I could conclude that Apple's "slip" is real or just part of a cloud of data that could represent a spectrum of realities ranging from a worse drop to a small increase.

Also, this is the worst example of using data selectively to make an editorial point. The injection of low-cost netbooks (which are low margin as well) skews the VOLUME numbers away from the Mac, but the company's true performance is measured by revenue and even more so by MARGIN.

I have a hard time believing that you would be making this point if the presented result was a 0.1% increase in Apple's market share. Whether this is noise or not, the truth is that Apple's growth has stopped. People don't need 1.5 K computers to check their email and, as already stated, most people are happy with a $300-400 computer.

lamadude

Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM

I don't think this is all about netbooks, the prices of laptops in general have fallen a lot over the past few years while apple stuck to 999$ for the cheapest macbook. That being said it could have been a good move for them since cheaper laptops have lower profit margins and might take customers away from their existing line-up.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 10:21 AM

I told it long time ago already... Apple missed the boat with Netbooks. Apple should have bin the first one with a Netbook alike device. It could be a way to make Apple widely acknowledged by more consumers.
Apple tends to let other manufacturers discover a market, then they look at what's wrong with those products, and launch their own take on the same concept. You might argue that they "missed the boat" with cellphones by 20 years, but once they got around to making one, it was a smash hit. Same with automatic backup and system restore, Windows had it for aeons before Apple got around to creating Time Machine... but Apple's version, as always, looks much slicker and is much more intuitive. Just like fast user switching, another Windows first... so Apple had to do one better and make it a 3D effect.

Being first is great, but being the best is what really matters.
Well, he has a point, in a way.

But there's a fine balance between "make the very best computing experience possible, period" and "make a computer cheap enough to win massive market share".

In my opinion, Apple consistently leans a little too far toward the former. For example the Mac Mini uses 2.5" laptop hard drives in order to shave that extra fraction of an inch in size. If they'd gone with standard 3.5" desktop drives, the unit cost would be quite a bit cheaper, ... but they'd be a tiny bit bigger. For some reason, Apple didn't want that.
Steve Jobs' achilles' heel is his penchant for cost-prohibitive, experimental products. He did it with the Lisa, he did it again with NeXT, both awesome machines for their time with lots of innovative features but with pricetags that scared everyone away except a small group who happened to be both rich and eccentric computer geeks. If it weren't for the more business-oriented people around him, he'd probably still be working on some computer equivalent to a Koenigsegg.

Ademius

Apr 16, 2009, 10:22 AM

Now is apples chance to be less greedy and lower their prices (a lot) and give us a affordable computer.

Apple is all about making premium computers, why would they lower their margins and make a basic computer priced at the competions level? They have the Mac mini as their low-end computer, and that one is also priced higher than the competition. Design + Software = High margins.

It's lite Porche making a budget model.. :)
You're effectivly diluting the brand and thereby lowering the user experience and overall appeal. They would get lower profits, in exchange for larger market share. Why, in your opinon should they do this?

As for the news, of course highpriced computers suffer during a recession.

Bonte

Apr 16, 2009, 10:22 AM

Eidorian

Apr 16, 2009, 10:22 AM

It's all about the netbook.

Vkrati

Apr 16, 2009, 10:25 AM

I think the reason why apple is not entering the netbook market is pure marketing.

First of all they want to be a fancy brand. When people want a macbook they will save the money and buy it later. They look on the long term. Apple does as well. Prefers to offer also more quality (look at the numbers of crashes.)

This brings me to a second point. When Apple would lower prices, more people would buy. More marketshare can be horrible. IMO the kernel is not as protected as everyone claims. The software is not so airtight as they claim it to be. When i hear people, they would like an apple because 'its virus-free'. The faster the market share rises, the faster this CAN appear not to be true (I dont say it will). I just think they want to play safe. A lot of people use Apple for graphical design, or that is also the marketing around it. Combine that with virusses and a rather inactive antivirus market, and you will see this share drop.

Notice also the iphone is all about marketing. Its MARKETED as one of the top class mobile devices. They cannot permit themselves to lower prices.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:28 AM

Apple is all about making premium computers, why would they lower their margins and make a basic computer priced at the competions level?

I wouldn't expect them to price the same as the competition. But even if they met them HALFWAY, that would make a huge difference and be much more competitive.

They would make a basic computer because it would sell like crazy, even if it wasn't as cheap as the competition.

Right now apple's laptops start at 999 when PCs can be had for 299. Is a basic mac laptop for 599 or 699 really so outlandish a notion?

MaxiKana

Apr 16, 2009, 10:28 AM

Right. Lets set a few things straight.

Apple aren't actually after market share. Apple make high-end computers for people with the cash. They do not make budget computers. People who are interested in/can afford an Apple computer are in the "high-end" market segmet. That is they are the people who have a little more money (or spend everything they have, like me) to spend on stuff than the rest of us have. They value other things than joe schmoe like aestetics, form, ease-of-use, customer service and brand value over processor power, amount memory etc. It is that segment towards which apple targets the majority of its products and they don't make up alot of the total market. The majority of the market want a cheap computer. They focus on price instead of other variables. These are the customers Dell, HP and especially Acer are after. They advertise their products with a competitive price (look at any HP ad, the price is always big and in-your-face, atleast here in Finland) wereas I have never seen a price in an ad that apple has made themselfves.

Going to the graph, you can see that Q3 has usually been Apples strong quarter and Q4, Q1 always have a decline in market share compared to Q3. Market share starts to climb in Q2 again. This seasonal variation combined with what the economy looks like right now makes me believe that the market share decline compared to Q1 of 2008 is becuase the high-end segment has reduced in size – less people are willing to shell out the €€€ for an Apple computer. They'd rather pay less and get a netbook and save their money incase they loose their jobs.

It's not about the netbooks... it's just marketing. Netbooks are really laptops that are small.

Macmel

Apr 16, 2009, 10:28 AM

Look, in the 4th quarter of 2006 Dell sold roughly 5 times the number of computers as Apple. In that same time period, though, Dell made less money than Apple.

And you call making a bigger profit "making great products for art's sake?" I call that making money, and it's what Apple cares about. I think it's crazy for you to argue that that's the wrong priority for them.

That's amazingly shortsighted. Even if Apple made more money than Dell, they sold fewer computers, which means, fewer Snow Leopard copies in a few months, fewe iWorks copies, fewer name-the-Mac-only-software-you-want copies. Microsoft, on the other hand, is going to be making more money. Not only that: nobody will be looking at ACD if they need an external monitor if they don't own a Mac.
Given that a huge part of Apple revenue comes from software that only works on their computers, it is important for Apple to keep as many computers out there as they can.
Finally, something that anyone in economics know: The money that you don't earn is money that you loose.

Powerbooky

Apr 16, 2009, 10:28 AM

The only reason HP is now ahead of Dell is because of those Microsoft ads :P

:D Yeah, MS is stupid enough to actually think that.

i0Nic

Apr 16, 2009, 10:31 AM

The Acer Aspire One must be selling really well.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:31 AM

Apple make high-end computers for people with the cash. They do not make budget computers.

Sure, that's what apple DOES do. But the question is what apple SHOULD do.

I'd argue that some strategic "budget" machines, both laptop and desktop could be done and still have a good profit margin for the company, and would increase revenues and profits for the company. But we'll never know if that's right until Apple actually gives it a shot.

Cassie

Apr 16, 2009, 10:31 AM

Why do you guys even care about Apple's marketshare? I mean really, as long as they aren't failing, I don't care if they have 50% or 1%.

They make products that some people buy. They have never cared about what people want, why would they start now? If they don't want to make a netbook, they won't just because people want them to.

BornAgainMac

Apr 16, 2009, 10:31 AM

I wish I could see one with out any competition... just apple. I wanna see something that shows the "real world numbers" ;).

Now is apples chance to be less greedy and lower their prices (a lot) and give us a affordable computer.

LOL. Good catch. Perhaps Apple should just sell the OS like Microsoft and let the others make the hardware. I would be happy with that if they can't lower their prices on hardware.

MaxiKana

Apr 16, 2009, 10:32 AM

I wouldn't expect them to price the same as the competition. But even if they met them HALFWAY, that would make a huge difference and be much more competitive.

They would make a basic computer because it would sell like crazy, even if it wasn't as cheap as the competition.

Right now apple's laptops start at 999 when PCs can be had for 299. Is a basic mac laptop for 599 or 699 really so outlandish a notion?

Yes, then their computers would be atractive to people who don't want to pay what Apple prices their computers at now. This would also make their margins smaller which means they would have to sell more to get the same profit which means they would have to invest in more factories which means quality control would be harder which means...

Apple does know what they are doing. They are playing it very smart. Since they ship so few computers compared to HP and Dell AND since they have outsourced manufacturing they have NO warehousing. NO amount of money is sitting around waiting to be sold, it's all in use generating more money.

linuxophile

Apr 16, 2009, 10:33 AM

Well, I precognized that (sort of), before that report, less than one week ago.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7451788#post7451788

Ah.

Analyze that, Gartner!

That said, I am happy with the eee1000HE
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7442812#post7442812

MaxiKana

Apr 16, 2009, 10:34 AM

Sure, that's what apple DOES do. But the question is what apple SHOULD do.

I'd argue that some strategic "budget" machines, both laptop and desktop could be done and still have a good profit margin for the company, and would increase revenues and profits for the company. But we'll never know if that's right until Apple actually gives it a shot.

Yes, but that is more of a brand question. If they release a cheap computer (relatively speaking) people would slowly start to see Apple as a company that makes cheap computers. Then sheik Ali-Bin Muhammed who owns a couple of oil wells (heck, they are the only ones with the money left, and ofcourse Haliburton) wouldn't buy an Apple since it is no longer a premium brand. Rather he buys a Sony Vaio, because they ARE a premium brand.

ppnkg

Apr 16, 2009, 10:34 AM

Falling marketshare? Why would this be a surprise to anyone?

With what they offer and the price they offer it, in this economy? The mini's price is outrageous, and I highly doubt that apple will ever come up with a reasonably priced netbook or even a netbook at all. So apple does not really compete in the most dynamic part of the market today. Even if apple performs well in the macbook/imac class and above, there's no question about not losing marketshare.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:35 AM

TheSlush

Apr 16, 2009, 10:36 AM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

Precisely. Everyone still expects Apple to think and act like any other manufacturer. How long will it take for them to see that Apple does not do this?

Forget netbooks. Yes, they're cheap and popular. But Apple is not going to chase the trend after the fact by releasing a cheap, low-end version of their existing laptop product line. They don't do that. Especially not to gain something they care as little about as market share. Ooooooh, market share... <<cue dramatic music>>

Would you tell Rolls Royce that they're missing all the opportunities that Toyota is snapping up??

(Okay, bad example. :p)

Apple will do what they always do: invent, innovate, start trends, not chase them. They're going to leverage their significant investments in multi-touch, probably by releasing a tablet that will potentially do several things:

- compete for the netbook audience
- expand multi-touch as a computing interface
- bolster the struggling print publishing industry by offering a product (tablet) and infrastructure (iTunes store) to revitalize yet another industry that is struggling with the digitization and demonetization of their product. (See iPod, music industry.)

MaxiKana

Apr 16, 2009, 10:37 AM

The orginal iPhone was $600. Then $400. Then $200. I know part of that is subsidizing, but they sure as heck DID lower prices and it made it MORE popular.

No, Apple didn't lower prices. Apple still gets 600$-ish per phone. AT&T (& co) lowerd the prices so that more people would buy the contracts so that THEY would get money. In turn Apple gets more money. But NEVER did Apple lower the prices and I believe that Apple doesn't really like it that the iPhone is sold at such a cheap price.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:40 AM

No, Apple didn't lower prices. Apple still gets 600$-ish per phone. AT&T (& co) lowerd the prices so that more people would buy the contracts so that THEY would get money. In turn Apple gets more money. But NEVER did Apple lower the prices and I believe that Apple doesn't really like it that the iPhone is sold at such a cheap price.

I am willing to bet Apple is happy with the price point AT&T sells the device for.

They still get between $500-$600 per device, and AT&T and Apple have the iPhone at a price thats a sweet spot between affordability and top end.

Apple would be crazy to be upset with the iPhone's current $200-$300 with contract price. They still get PAID, and now they sell like CRAZY.

It would be different is Apple was getting LESS per device, but they ARE NOT.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:40 AM

Why do you guys even care about Apple's marketshare?

Because market share is directly related to third party development of apps and peripherals.

Yes, then their computers would be atractive to people who don't want to pay what Apple prices their computers at now.

Isn't making the product attractive to more buyers a GOOD thing?

This would also make their margins smaller which means they would have to sell more to get the same profit

I don't agree that margins would necessarily have to be smaller, there is room for a machine that is less than a grand that still has a decent profit margin. And the lower price would mean they WOULD sell more.

Apple does know what they are doing. They are playing it very smart.

I would say they are playing it very conservative. They aren't taking a risk, meaning they can keep their income the same or improve it a bit. But I think they are missing a bigger opportunity by being so cautious.

Yes, but that is more of a brand question. If they release a cheap computer (relatively speaking) people would slowly start to see Apple as a company that makes cheap computers. Then sheik Ali-Bin Muhammed who owns a couple of oil wells (heck, they are the only ones with the money left, and ofcourse Haliburton) wouldn't buy an Apple since it is no longer a premium brand. Rather he buys a Sony Vaio, because they ARE a premium brand.

That all assumes that people all buy macs as a status symbol. Right now many people see macs as overpriced, and that limits their sales. I don't buy the argument that selling a netbook somehow cheapens the top of the line MacBook Pro. Does the mini cheapen the Mac Pro? Heck, Apple sells a $49 iPod shuffle, does that cheapen the touch or iPhone? I don't see it.

ChrisA

Apr 16, 2009, 10:41 AM

People here need to remember that Apple's goal is NOT market share. Can I say that again? They are NOT going after market share.

The goal is to make money. Anyone can gain market share simply be dropping the prince and accepting a smaller margin on each unit sold. Or Apple could simply make a conventional desktop computer and sell it for $1K and gain a huge jumop in market share. But that is not their goal.

In theory there is a curve. At one end you sell product at your cost. You sell a lot of product but don't make any money. At the other end you price it very high but no one buys. At some point on the curve profit is maximized and it should be clear that profit is not maximum when you are selling the greatest number of units.

BTW

Apr 16, 2009, 10:42 AM

It's not just netbooks. People can get full size PC notebooks for around $699. Apple doesn't have a price point there for these poor economic times.

You watch though, Apple's Netbook may boost their sales only if it is subsidized through a cellular modem package.

Tablets are a small niche. Pen computing sucks, but I'm sure it is fine for UPS drivers. ;)

BVeritas

Apr 16, 2009, 10:43 AM

If you go to the following link, you'll find that when it comes to actual use, the Mac share has increased. To me, this implies that netbooks are second machine purchases. Users still use their main machine for most of their work. Apple does need an iTablet for this use, since users tend to buy a matching desktop environment. An iTablet will make the iMac and Mac Pro sales explode.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

akm3

Apr 16, 2009, 10:43 AM

NetBooks are the name of the game people. With no money in the economy people are spending less buying cheaper computers only to realize the NetBook is all they really need. Apple better get with it and put out a $399 10" MacBook Air of their own!

Screw tablets.

That is short term thinking. If Apple did that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Apple can not and should not try to compete with the Windows market in a race to the price bottom.

An Apple netbook could and would destroy their margins and cannabalize their higher end sales. It would be the beginning of the end for Apple, and therefore is a bad idea.

What they should do is keep doing what they are doing, ride out this wave, and when the economy picks up again they won't have cheapened and destroyed their brand and continued to make billions of dollars.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 10:43 AM

Apple aren't actually after market share. Apple make high-end computers for people with the cash. They do not make budget computers.
If they weren't after market share, why did the come up with products like the iBook, the iMac, the MacBook and the Mac Mini? These are neither high-end nor expensive -- they might be overpriced for their specs, but they're still much more affordable than many popular PCs out there. It doesn't get any more low end than the original Mac Mini G4. All their machines are mainstream consumer products except MBP and MP. And that's just the computers (don't get me started on iPods, the iTunes store, etc...)

Furthermore, the main theme in Apple's ads for the last 10 years or more has been switching from PC to Mac. The "Switch" campaign, the "Get a Mac" campaign (a.k.a. "Hi, I'm a Mac..."), the introduction of BootCamp, the constant mockery of Vista -- if Apple aren't after market share, why do their ads scream WE WANT A BIGGER MARKET SHARE so loud it can be heard to neighboring galaxies?

MaxiKana

Apr 16, 2009, 10:45 AM

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 10:51 AM

People can get full size PC notebooks for around $699. Apple doesn't have a price point there for these poor economic times.
Apparently, Dell doesn't have a price point there either then. The economy is constantly used as an excuse as to why consumers will shy away from Apple and purchase lower prices products but that doesn't hold water if you look at Dell losing 16% market share in the quarter and whose profits were down 48% (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123568271183986563.html), according to their last quarterly report.

benpatient

Apr 16, 2009, 10:54 AM

Apple is all about making premium computers, why would they lower their margins and make a basic computer priced at the competions level? They have the Mac mini as their low-end computer, and that one is also priced higher than the competition. Design + Software = High margins.

It's lite Porche making a budget model.. :)
You're effectivly diluting the brand and thereby lowering the user experience and overall appeal. They would get lower profits, in exchange for larger market share. Why, in your opinon should they do this?

As for the news, of course highpriced computers suffer during a recession.

The only problem with your analogy is that Porsche, AG owns a majority stake in VW Group.

If Apple owned Acer, you'd have a point.

They don't. They almost certainly won't.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 10:56 AM

Apparently, Dell doesn't have a price point there either then. The economy is constantly used as an excuse as to why consumers will shy away from Apple and purchase lower prices products but that doesn't hold water if you look at Dell losing 16% market share in the quarter and whose profits were down 48% (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123568271183986563.html), according to their last quarterly report.
There are many different effects at play. Ikea are seeing a large drop in sales, while some exclusive furniture manufacturers aren't noticing any difference at all. The reason being that the latter's target demographic always has money no matter which shape the economy is in, but the former's target demographic is totally spooked and holding on to every penny for dear life. It might be that Apple's Mac Pro and MacBook Pro sales remain strong, while Mac Mini and MacBook sales are plummeting.

jayducharme

Apr 16, 2009, 10:58 AM

Actually, if Apple would be willing to sacrifice a little bit of their larger-than-industry-average margins, and price their existing computers a little bit more competitively, that could go a long way too.

That's what I'm thinking, too. I mean, heck -- they've got plenty of cash reserves. If they priced their version of a netbook competitively, it would be good for their bottom line: a lot more people would purchase the device, many who otherwise wouldn't buy a Mac. Their experience with the device would then prompt those people to "come into the fold" and buy more Apple products.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 10:59 AM

That is short term thinking. If Apple did that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Apple can not and should not try to compete with the Windows market in a race to the price bottom.

An Apple netbook could and would destroy their margins and cannabalize their higher end sales. It would be the beginning of the end for Apple, and therefore is a bad idea.

What they should do is keep doing what they are doing, ride out this wave, and when the economy picks up again they won't have cheapened and destroyed their brand and continued to make billions of dollars.

Yeah, but if they are not careful, they could easily out price themselves into oblivion, which is exactly what will happen if netbooks and laptops become the end all of computing. Netbooks for portability, and laptops for upper end with the benefit of limited portability over a tower, with towers being high end game/graphics only.

I will have people argue that it is impossible and blah blah blah, but by not looking for new ways to make money AND keep the brand name respected, Apple could be shooting themselves in the foot. A GOOD netbook with a resobably price is superior to all other netbooks will be a HIT more so then a failure. Of course, if the device sucks, the branding will be bad. It's not so much the price that matters as much as the product itself.

I mean, look where Apple was in the 90's.

All these people claiming Apple is infallible and such don't realize that they HAVE made mistakes in the past and they sure as heck can make them now.

Now, Apple has done VERY right with iPod and iPhone, but as far as Mac's go, I don't think Apple has the same solution.

It's a potential lose-lose situation for Apple. I bet they will release a netbook type, BUT the price will be very un-netbook like, if they do it at all.

I mean, Apple charges $2000 for a 15' laptop that has comparable specs to computers HALF THE PRICE. The $1299 macbook might match up favorably with the competition (reasonably priced but also higher end), but the pro's pricing is a joke. The 17' even more so.

TheSlush

Apr 16, 2009, 11:00 AM

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 11:01 AM

There are many different effects at play.
Exactly. So to boil it down to "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is being simplistic at best.

AlexisV

Apr 16, 2009, 11:01 AM

Maybe this is due to the silly price rises the other month.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 11:02 AM

The only problem with your analogy is that Porsche, AG owns a majority stake in VW Group.

If Apple owned Acer, you'd have a point.

They don't. They almost certainly won't.
Exactly. The VW Group has everything from low-end Chinese Volkswagens and Czech Skodas, to Bentleys, Lamborghinis and Bugattis. They have their asses covered in all market segments. And this will help Porsche weather the storm.

BMW, on the other hand, only has premium products (BMW, Rolls-Royce and their premium supermini 'Mini Cooper'), and they're having a much harder time coping in this economy.

Babybandit

Apr 16, 2009, 11:03 AM

I don't get what's with everyone thinking "Apple's going to fail with the pricepoint". They are very much selling the same amount in relations to the total computers sold.

Why in the world would, and should Apple lower their pricepoint? They serve to the richer market sector, not to anyone, and the price is the thing that separates them from Dell or Hp.

Apple usually isn't the one to start a new market, they master the market when they see a hole in the market. SmartPhones, they weren't the first, but they revolutionized the world. (iPhone), the MacBook Air. It wasn't the first Ultra-Portable, but look at how many companies started competing with them for the market (Adamo).

Apple doesn't really start a market, they just make the best of it, they are also not serving the average Joe. They have marketed themselves to sell to a market sector who are willing to pay the high price, there should be no reason they're changing it.

stevearm

Apr 16, 2009, 11:03 AM

Apple fanboys blame netbooks to make themselves feel better?

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 11:03 AM

Apparently, Dell doesn't have a price point there either then. The economy is constantly used as an excuse as to why consumers will shy away from Apple and purchase lower prices products but that doesn't hold water if you look at Dell losing 16% market share in the quarter and whose profits were down 48% (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123568271183986563.html), according to their last quarterly report.

Dell has competition in their market, and has been forced to cut prices to unbelievable low margins.

Apple has little competition in the higher end as well as iPod, iPhone, and iTunes revenue coming in.

Macs are not even Apples cash cow.

Comparing Dell to Apple is harder then you think, Apple can afford to take a hit on mac sales.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 11:04 AM

Now are you going to take heed at us apple and listen when across the board glossy displays have scared people away and the hyper reflective glassy ones are having people running after buying last years tec for matte or abandoning you altogether?????!???????????????:mad:

iPhoneNYC

Apr 16, 2009, 11:07 AM

Remove netbooks and the numbers are different. Also, a year ago the 3G iPhone created a whole new market for Apple. Nothing new for a while. So, one would think a new iPhone and a possible tablet would shake thinngs up

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 11:09 AM

Apple fanboys blame netbooks to make themselves feel better?
Meh, it's just classic Apple apologism at its finest. When Apple's market share goes up, it's "wohoo, go Apple! Keep pushing!". When it goes down it's "oh but didn't you know? Apple doesn't care about market share at all". When Macs don't have Blu-Ray, it's "who needs Blu-Ray anyway?". When they do get Blu-Ray at some point in the future, it'll be "woah, Blu-Ray!!! How could I live without it before?"

iPhoneNYC

Apr 16, 2009, 11:09 AM

And reading the comment above mine, I think gamers and video watchers love glossy. I don't think glossy is scaring anyone off and glossy probably wins in the long run.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 11:11 AM

And reading the comment above mine, I think gamers and video watchers love glossy. I don't think glossy is scaring anyone off and glossy probably wins in the long run.
I have a wide circle of friends a relatives and I would wager of about these 50 or so people almost 80% downright hate the new glassy displays, cant handle them at all. The opinions are the same here at the forums.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 11:14 AM

btw if the graph says it's in "thousans of units" then total sold is 15,276,000????? Isn't that too much?:confused:

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 11:14 AM

Comparing Dell to Apple is harder then you think, Apple can afford to take a hit on mac sales.
Which doesn't disprove my premise that claiming "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is a not a valid excuse. Unless one thinks "Dells are too expensive for this economy" as well.

akm3

Apr 16, 2009, 11:15 AM

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 11:19 AM

Which doesn't disprove my premise that claiming "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is a not a valid excuse. Unless one thinks "Dells are too expensive for this economy" as well.

I never said the economy was the reason, but Macs are overpriced anyway, regardless of the economy.

15' and 17' MacBooks and Mac Pros are overpriced, it's just the way it is.

People buy them, so I guess it doesn't matter if they are.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 11:22 AM

Meh, it's just classic Apple apologism at its finest. When Apple's market share goes up, it's "wohoo, go Apple! Keep pushing!". When it goes down it's "oh but didn't you know? Apple doesn't care about market share at all". When Macs don't have Blu-Ray, it's "who needs Blu-Ray anyway?". When they do get Blu-Ray at some point in the future, it'll be "woah, Blu-Ray!!! How could I live without it before?"
Well, I've no right to speak on behalf of any others, but for me, is Apple interested in increasing their market share? Of course they are! But that is not the only goal they are pursuing. And I feel they will not do so in a way that sacrifices any of their other goals. So when their market share increases, good. When it doesn't in one quarter, I'm not prone to a knee-jerk reaction of "OMFG! Apple is dying! They need to put out a netbook and a headless Mac or they will fail!". As long as their other goals are being met, I'll take a "let's just wait and see what happens over the course of a few quarters" attitude.

I never said the economy was the reason
And I never claimed you did. I was just responding, initially, to BTW's statement that "Apple doesn't have a price point there for these poor economic times."

macffooky

Apr 16, 2009, 11:25 AM

I thought Apple outsourced production of their netbook to Dell ;)

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 11:25 AM

However, Apple's focus didn't change, just during the boom times they also were grabbing market share. But it is HOW they were gaining market share. They didn't gain by going to lower margin/high volume computers. They were gaining share with HIGH margin computers.
Oh, I agree. And more elbow power to them. But at the end of the day, they're a public company with shareholders, and shareholders want more than decent profits year after year, they want growth. Over the last few years this growth has come mostly from iPods and iPhones, and even though Macs are selling better and better, a sub-5% marketshare worldwide is still a relative failure if you consider all the things that Apple has going for them today, they didn't have 10 years ago. They have the iPod and iPhone halo effect, the competition has been unusually weak for the last 2+ years (=Vista), they have BootCamp, they have affordable Macs (Mini, MacBook and to some degree the iMac), they have more product placement in movies and TV shows than any other computer brand... but after 25 years, the Mac is still "only" at 10% in the US and low single digits worldwide. That's kind of like carpet bombing a lake and all you catch is 3-4 fish.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 11:30 AM

Oh, I agree. And more elbow power to them. But at the end of the day, they're a public company with shareholders, and shareholders want more than decent profits year after year, they want growth. Over the last few years this growth has come mostly from iPods and iPhones, and even though Macs are selling better and better, a sub-5% marketshare worldwide is still a relative failure if you consider all the things that Apple has going for them today, they didn't have 10 years ago. They have the iPod and iPhone halo effect, the competition has been unusually weak for the last 2+ years (=Vista), they have BootCamp, they have affordable Macs (Mini, MacBook and to some degree the iMac), they have more product placement in movies and TV shows than any other computer brand... but after 25 years, the Mac is still "only" at 10% in the US and low single digits worldwide. That's kind of like carpet bombing a lake and all you catch is 3-4 fish.

That is very true and one of the most well put posts I 've read recently. That's why some of us think they are shooting themselves in the foot for not allowing options such as the matte display.

azentropy

Apr 16, 2009, 11:31 AM

Towers? I thought laptops were outselling desktops by a wide margin these days. Are you basing that on anything?

I said two of the largest, not the two largest. Apple has a much larger share of laptops than desktops and yes laptops outsell desktops now.

The last numbers I saw (sorry I don't recall where) had Apple desktop market share at < 3%, the only reason they are as high as they are overall is they are competitive in the laptop segment.

Common sense shows that Towers still far outsell all-in-ones in the desktop market. Don't you think it is odd that ever other manufacture offer several different lines of "towers" and typically only one line of all-in-ones? If all-in-ones were outselling towers at Dell don't you think they would stop producing towers?

megatronbomb

Apr 16, 2009, 11:35 AM

Share is all relative - Netbooks really are the cause IMHO.

Bingo! The last couple of years it seemed everyone on campus had a MacBook, but now everyone has a Netbook... except me of course. :p

macFanDave

Apr 16, 2009, 11:37 AM

I have a hard time believing that you would be making this point if the presented result was a 0.1% increase in Apple's market share. Whether this is noise or not, the truth is that Apple's growth has stopped. People don't need 1.5 K computers to check their email and, as already stated, most people are happy with a $300-400 computer.

I would certainly tell someone who crowed about a 0.1% gain not to be so confident.

Also, you clearly seem to be innumerate (the mathematical analog to illiterate). There is nothing in the market share statistic per se that says that growth has stopped. With this new fad of netbooks hitting the market, the numbers are skewed -- especially the volume numbers. Apple could have easily grown their numbers (and margin), but the flood of cheap, low-margin netbooks may have outpaced that growth. I would venture to guess that that is the case since netbooks are the flavor of the month.

Apple does make a product for people whose computing needs extend no further than requiring an e-mail appliance. It's called an iPhone. Anyway, your point is idiotic because that would be like saying that carmakers should make a product cheap enough to attract customers whose transportation needs are met by a bicycle. Apple does not design products for the bottom of the barrel market segment. You might find that statement harsh and snobbish, but Apple is about making the power of computers easy and accessible to people and there is a value in this. I feel sorry for people who are "happy" on $300-400 computers because they missing out on a lot of the potential uses that could better their lives. Also, they are going to be paying a lot of hidden costs that will dwarf that original low price tag.

BTW, I wrote my original post on my brand new, 0.6K (0.594K at MacMall) Mac mini, so your 1.5K figure is another misleading hyperbole.

rhpenguin

Apr 16, 2009, 11:37 AM

It's lite Porche making a budget model.. :)

They did. It's called the Boxter.

azentropy

Apr 16, 2009, 11:37 AM

And reading the comment above mine, I think gamers and video watchers love glossy. I don't think glossy is scaring anyone off and glossy probably wins in the long run.

I won't purchase a system with a glass/glossy display ever again. I wasn't thrilled going from my iBook to a MacBook 3 years ago, but I lived with it. When I got a Samsung NC10 netbook earlier this year it made me realize how much better matte displays are for me and where I use them.

So yes, only have glossy displays are scaring off people.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 11:38 AM

That is very true and one of the most well put posts I 've read recently. That's why some of us think they are shooting themselves in the foot for not allowing options such as the matte display.
You sure hate that glossy display, huh? ;)

The main problem is, over the last few years more and more non-professionals have bought the MacBook Pro because of the higher brag factor. Apple caved in to this and made the new MBP more 'boutique' than professional. This is one of the cons of having a small product range, they should have split the MBP in two branches... one for true professionals, the other a glossy MacBook Deluxe for customers who are more like the couple in the "Two @ssholes" skits on Saturday Night Live.

http://www.shinystakeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/picture-3.jpg

The Flashing Fi

Apr 16, 2009, 11:41 AM

When it doesn't in one quarter,

They fell in two consecutive quarters. It appears that the drop is beginning to "level off," but it's still a loss nonetheless. The typical cycle has them dropping only one quarter each year, and the other three quarters they make gains.

AlphaBob

Apr 16, 2009, 11:50 AM

Do they want to fall to 5th place 6 months from now, or do they want to grow and recapture 3rd place?

If they continue to ignore the $350 Netbook they are ignoring the bulk of the growth.

And, if they had a $500 Netbook ($150 premium) I would immediately buy two (one for each of my kids).

Think of it this way, when Acer ships a $350 netbook, they have paid a ransom to Microsoft for XP. Apple doesn't have that cost burden with OS-X

farmboy

Apr 16, 2009, 11:52 AM

That's amazingly shortsighted. Even if Apple made more money than Dell, they sold fewer computers, which means, fewer Snow Leopard copies in a few months, fewe iWorks copies, fewer name-the-Mac-only-software-you-want copies. Microsoft, on the other hand, is going to be making more money. Not only that: nobody will be looking at ACD if they need an external monitor if they don't own a Mac.
Given that a huge part of Apple revenue comes from software that only works on their computers, it is important for Apple to keep as many computers out there as they can.
Finally, something that anyone in economics know: The money that you don't earn is money that you loose.

Uh, Mel...does that mean that since no one company gathers all the money in the world that all companies are losing money? This is NOT something anyone in economics knows. If you actually owned a company, you would know it's profitability that counts. That's it. Period. Sell one unit or one billion units, doesn't matter. Market share is irrelevant

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 11:52 AM

In theory there is a curve. At one end you sell product at your cost. You sell a lot of product but don't make any money. At the other end you price it very high but no one buys. At some point on the curve profit is maximized and it should be clear that profit is not maximum when you are selling the greatest number of units.

That's a good way to put it. But it should also be clear that profit is not maximum when you are priced way at the high end and selling few units.

We get how it works. Some of us just don't think that Apple is at the right place on the curve, that there's a lower price where the extra money from sales gained would more than offset a smaller profit margin.

And don't forget about the possibility of apple adding additional models on the low end to the pricier high end stuff they already offer.

I don't get what's with everyone thinking "Apple's going to fail with the pricepoint". They are very much selling the same amount in relations to the total computers sold.

Did you even read the story? Apple's market share was down, meaning they are selling less in relation to the total.

Which doesn't disprove my premise that claiming "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is a not a valid excuse. Unless one thinks "Dells are too expensive for this economy" as well.

Who says that all companies that lost market share did it for the same reason?

Think of it this way, when Acer ships a $350 netbook, they have paid a ransom to Microsoft for XP. Apple doesn't have that cost burden with OS-X

I have heard otherwise, that MS is desperate to keep the low end business and licenses to netbooks for dirt cheap. Looking at pricing online, I saw machines only $20 cheaper with Linux.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 11:54 AM

They fell in two consecutive quarters. It appears that the drop is beginning to "level off," but it's still a loss nonetheless. The typical cycle has them dropping only one quarter each year, and the other three quarters they make gains.
Ah, that's true. Still, this is just a preliminary report and I won't be too concerned as long as Apple's quarterly reports are positive, such as last quarter when they reported record revenue and record net quarterly profit and nine percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter in the Mac department, the same quarter in which Gartner said they lost market share.

Saladinos

Apr 16, 2009, 11:56 AM

Apple is looking at Acer and wondering how they can get some growth.... TABLET.

Nope. Acer is positioning themselves as a budget brand. They make small, cheap computers. That's why they've got 49% growth.

Apple have enough cash reserves to experiment with a low cost model. It's simply a question of whether they want to.

AlphaBob

Apr 16, 2009, 12:00 PM

I
BTW, I wrote my original post on my brand new, 0.6K (0.594K at MacMall) Mac mini, so your 1.5K figure is another misleading hyperbole.

This isn't a very good argument or example. Your MacMini is sans keyboard, mouse and display. Add costs those in an it is more like a $850 computer. Performance wise, you are now into the class of machine that is sold by WalMart with keyboard, display, and mouse for $399.

For the record, I own and love my MacMini, but it isn't "cheap" for what it does, but it is reasonably priced for what I get out of it. And I love my MacBook too. But it stays at home while I take a Asus Eee PC around with me on trips. The Air is just too expensive for my mobile computing requirements -- especially in light of all the "Cloud Computing" applications that exist today.

gnasher729

Apr 16, 2009, 12:00 PM

If all Apple cared about was market share, they would have operated quite differently over the last 10 years than they have, probably putting out netbooks, Mac mini towers, etc. Lots of knee-jerk products. But they haven't. I think that says a lot about what they think of market share. I.E. not operating in a way that sacrifices their other goals.

Remember that these numbers are "units sold". One octo core Mac Pro with everything you could dream off = 1 sale. One Netbook with a tiny screen for $299 = 1 sale. These numbers are of no real interest to the companies. It would be much more interesting to compare revenue. According to some recent studies conducted and heavily advertised by Microsoft, Apple actually makes much more revenue per unit sold than everyone else. So if we had a chart showing "million dollars" instead of "thousand units", Apple would look a lot better. But what a company really looks for is profit. You might find Apple to be number one.

Many years ago, there were the "Cola wars". Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola fighting it out. At some point the Pepsi guys figured out that Coca Cola marketing was counting "bottles sold", whereas Pepsi was counting "ounces sold". So they shifted their strategy to increase sales of larger bottles. The advantage: Coca Cola _believed_ they were in the lead and increasing their lead, when actually the opposite was true. Pepsi sold fewer bottles, but they had more revenue. Coca Cola worked very hard to improve their numbers, but they worked hard to improve the wrong numbers.

Macaday

Apr 16, 2009, 12:03 PM

I have to admit I'm guilty as charged on this one.

However, Apple's focus didn't change, just during the boom times they also were grabbing market share. But it is HOW they were gaining market share. They didn't gain by going to lower margin/high volume computers. They were gaining share with HIGH margin computers. Now they are losing share, but keeping high margin computers.

The industry focus changed but Apple has stayed on target.

You're dead right, Apple have said time and time again that they place themselves at the higher end of the market because the core of the business is quality and reliability. If market share was such a high priority they would have many more lower end devices to compete with the likes of HP. All in all, I really don't see how Apple could bring out a netbook at a competitive price point and stick to their core business without massive subsides from network carriers for mobile broadband.

It could go one of 2 ways if they bring one out. It will be priced too high to fit in the 'PC' netbook market and people will complain, or it will be tied to a mobile network and... people will complain! :confused:

gnasher729

Apr 16, 2009, 12:09 PM

gcmexico

Apr 16, 2009, 12:15 PM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.
*
I agree...I can't understand this netbook crave...you're buying a cheaper product, with cheaper specs, that can only surfer the net and maybe word processing, on a 10inch (or smaller) screen...I saw one of them at the mall recently, I just don't get it, everything looks so tiny...might as well use your cell iphone and save 399

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 12:20 PM

the other a glossy MacBook Deluxe for customers who are more like the couple in the "Two @ssholes" skits on Saturday Night Live.

http://www.shinystakeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/picture-3.jpg

HAHAHAHA...exactly!!!!:D:D:D:cool::cool::cool:

Hey why was this post deleted a while back, sure it's not the most constructive post, but neither are 95% of the posts, and I have every right to express how I liked another users comment. Hey mods why don't you go for a walk and loosen up, no use venting out by deleting people's posts...:mad:...it's really annoying, delete your own posts and let others be the judge of merit if a post is not offensive in any way...moderating here has always been challenged and it's getting worse. And start showin some respect too for people who are here 24/7 and keep your site afloat by clicking on the ads.

freebooter

Apr 16, 2009, 12:20 PM

Apple has a hard time competing on price.

Maybe it's those high profit margins. Look at the latest iPod Shuffle.

A sub-500 netbook from Apple would be snapped up like the latest celebrity skank video... :rolleyes:

A day may come when the hype runs out and the reality of value sets in. Windows 7 may usher in that day.

This from a purely Mac user.

ps: glossy sucks! (big time)

oldwatery

Apr 16, 2009, 12:22 PM

Well if they got back to making great innovative computers again this would not happen.
Sorry, but the iPhone was the last nail in the Apple Computer coffin.
RIP.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:23 PM

Hey why was this post deleted a while back, sure it's not the most constructive post, but neither are 95% of the posts, and I have every right to express how I liked another users comment. Hey mods why don't you go for a walk and loosen up, no use venting out by deleting people's posts...:mad:...it's really annoying, delete your own posts and let others be the judge of merit if a post is not offensive in any way...moderating here has always been challenged and it's getting worse. And start showin some respect too for people who are here 24/7 and keep your site afloat by clicking on the ads.
Please consult the Forum Rules (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules) concerning Useless Posts.

FoxyKaye

Apr 16, 2009, 12:24 PM

That graph looks eerily consistent to me. Maybe the 2009 figures are dipping lower because of netbooks, maybe it's because of the recession. I wonder what it will look like in early 2010? It seems to me that the real test of Apple will be whether or not it can recapture lost ground in the fall and holidays.

Edwin the Elder

Apr 16, 2009, 12:25 PM

You're dead right, Apple have said time and time again that they place themselves at the higher end of the market because the core of the business is quality and reliability. If market share was such a high priority they would have many more lower end devices to compete with the likes of HP. All in all, I really don't see how Apple could bring out a netbook at a competitive price point and stick to their core business without massive subsides from network carriers for mobile broadband.:

I agree. Apple's business model is to differentiate its products and sell them at high margins to discriminating and affluent consumers (think of the high end of the demand curve). It needs those margins for development costs that other PC makers don't incur. It will not sacrifice margin for market share. It will not introduce "me-too" products.

So I would conclude 4 things:

1. If Apple offers a "netbook" it won't look like the current offerings. It will be different; it will be innovative; it will offer something more.
2. It won't be priced anything like the current offerings - it'll be higher priced, much higher.
3. If it thinks it can't be successful with that type of product, it won't introduce it. They will maintain they have that market covered with the iPhone, the iTouch and the Macbook Air.
4. For those of you hoping Apple will cut its prices on its current models, don't hold your breath. If the price is out of your budget, buy something else. You're not Apple's target market.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 12:27 PM

Uh, Mel...does that mean that since no one company gathers all the money in the world that all companies are losing money? This is NOT something anyone in economics knows. If you actually owned a company, you would know it's profitability that counts. That's it. Period. Sell one unit or one billion units, doesn't matter. Market share is irrelevant
Perhaps, but in this case the market share dictates the size of the OS X install base, which in turn dictates a lot of factors that directly or indirectly make up the sum total of the Mac experience. With a small market share for OS X, the network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) benefits will remain limited:

"In economics and business, a network effect (also called network externality) is the effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people.

The classic example is the telephone. The more people own telephones, the more valuable the telephone is to each owner. This creates a positive externality because a user may purchase their phone without intending to create value for other users, but does so in any case."
iChat may be great, but 99% of your friends are still on Windows Messenger. More OS X users means more software, more games, more peripherals and other third-party gadgets. The more people have Macs, the more value each individual gets out of his or her Mac. The only thing Mac users get out of the market share remaining small is an illusion of exclusivity, plus less exposure to malware. All other effects are negative.

farmboy

Apr 16, 2009, 12:27 PM

This just in:

IDC says Apple GAINED MARKET SHARE through the March Quarter, even though sales were offyear-to-year. The market as a whole declined far more than Apple's share, representing a MARKET SHARE GAIN for the company, up from 7.4% to 7.6%.

And by the way, folks, anybody (analysts) claiming to know sales figures to the tenth of a percent based on guesses, because not one of the companies actually submitted certified figures to these bozos, is not worth debating. All the end of the world folks here just are too gullible and don't really understand business.

ecoons

Apr 16, 2009, 12:31 PM

Discounting netbook sales is like saying, "well, I would like to see Toyota's car sale numbers without their Prius sales."

Not entirely, because you have to look at the "purpose" of a graph that displays market share, what if it included the iPod Touch as a "computer?" This market share is defined in terms of number of units, and yes, although Apple would love to sell more units, it isn't important (except mearly for the basis of being higher on this graph) to sell more units COMPARED to some other computer company. What is important is how much money they are making.

For instance, say you sell 10 million computers a year, but are barely making any money off them (i.e. netbooks). How do you increases you profits for the next year? Sell more units? or increase the price (as a new model)? If you sell more units, you are diluting the market, and the more units you sell, people will eventually realize they don't need 3 netbooks, and just stop buying them. And they can't increase the price TOO much because the competitors would just undercut them.

However, lets say you sell 2 million computers a year, but make just as much money as the company selling 10 million computers. Now this company has much more POTENTIAL in the market, which is hugely important.

Not true. Apple cares about making money through the selling of good products.

If they lose market share, than others are doing something better than Apple. And hence, Apple is losing money compared to the ones that are gaining market share. In this case the others are making netbooks and selling lots of them.

Just because they are losing market share (units) does not mean they are losing market share ($$).

With all that being said, Apple is still definitely going to enter into the "netbook" market, but as always will have high margins.

zabbadoo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:32 PM

Looks like those HP ads by Microsoft are already working. But Apple cares more about iPods and iPhones which is why fewer people are buying their computers.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 12:34 PM

Please consult the Forum Rules (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules) concerning Useless Posts.

I read everything to a t. and I am not in breach of any rule. You guys should really get out more, it's a community here, if it's considered a useless post to reply to someone with a hey I liked your comment and I found it funny we might as well get the bots to reply instead of us people. I just agreed with someone on another thread and had this deleted too as useless... it's very enervating to find your posts just vanish into thin air...so just take her easy...

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 12:36 PM

Looks like those HP ads by Microsoft are already working. But Apple cares more about iPods and iPhones which is why fewer people are buying their computers.
Those ads have only been out for 3½ weeks -- these numbers cover the entire first quarter of 2009. Besides, the economic downturn has had a million times more impact than any ad campaigns could ever hope to achieve.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:37 PM

Looks like those HP ads by Microsoft are already working.
Amazing how they were able to affect the sales from the previous quarter! Talk about your time-space continuum distortion!

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:40 PM

I read everything to a t....
Even the part about "Posts saying "I agree", "+1", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed"?

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:44 PM

you're buying a cheaper product, with cheaper specs, that can only surfer the net and maybe word processing, on a 10inch (or smaller) screen

It's pretty simple actually.

Some people just want to surf the net and do word processing.

ULFoaf

Apr 16, 2009, 12:45 PM

Share is all relative - Netbooks really are the cause IMHO.

How many Dell Mini's and HP Mini's flew off the shelf to increase market share.

Apple REALLY needs to get on the ball with a $399 Netbook.

They would FLY off the shelves. I would buy two immediately.

HHM

I don't see a $399 one, but we might see an $800 10" this summer, hopefully. This hope is keeping me from buying a Dell Mini 9 with Linux. Meanwhile, I use my iPhone like a netbook at home on the couch...while my wife has the Macbook. :>} If they are losing market share, I think we will see something. Like eveyone else, I think it is the netbooks that are taking it.

zabbadoo

Apr 16, 2009, 12:46 PM

Remember that these numbers are "units sold". One octo core Mac Pro with everything you could dream off = 1 sale. One Netbook with a tiny screen for $299 = 1 sale. These numbers are of no real interest to the companies. It would be much more interesting to compare revenue. According to some recent studies conducted and heavily advertised by Microsoft, Apple actually makes much more revenue per unit sold than everyone else. So if we had a chart showing "million dollars" instead of "thousand units", Apple would look a lot better. But what a company really looks for is profit. You might find Apple to be number one.

Many years ago, there were the "Cola wars". Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola fighting it out. At some point the Pepsi guys figured out that Coca Cola marketing was counting "bottles sold", whereas Pepsi was counting "ounces sold". So they shifted their strategy to increase sales of larger bottles. The advantage: Coca Cola _believed_ they were in the lead and increasing their lead, when actually the opposite was true. Pepsi sold fewer bottles, but they had more revenue. Coca Cola worked very hard to improve their numbers, but they worked hard to improve the wrong numbers.

So are Macs Coke or Pepsi?

mustang_dvs

Apr 16, 2009, 12:48 PM

Full of Win will look up and shout, HEADLESS MAC

And I'll look down, and whisper, "What do you think a Mac Mini is!?"

h.21

Apr 16, 2009, 12:51 PM

It's a bad economy. More people got cheap PCs for Christmas. Oh well.

OldMike

Apr 16, 2009, 12:52 PM

Perhaps, but in this case the market share dictates the size of the OS X install base, which in turn dictates a lot of factors that directly or indirectly make up the sum total of the Mac experience. With a small market share for OS X, the network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) benefits will remain limited:

iChat may be great, but 99% of your friends are still on Windows Messenger. More OS X users means more software, more games, more peripherals and other third-party gadgets. The more people have Macs, the more value each individual gets out of his or her Mac. The only thing Mac users get out of the market share remaining small is an illusion of exclusivity, plus less exposure to malware. All other effects are negative.

Well said. I, personally, would love to see the Mac market share go up and stabilize at around 25%. I think maintaining a market share of less than 10% creates the potential of your platform going the way of the dinosaur at some point in the future, depending on what competing systems (and newly developed systems) may have to offer down the road.

As a business application developer, I would love to switch to developing apps primarily for OS X, but with less than 10% market share (and much less in business computing), I just don't see the payback and security in switching to developing in Objective-C, solely for OS X. I have made the switch to OS X for my primary OS, but I still develop for other platforms to pay the bills.

Also, I find it interesting that many of the people on this forum (I am guessing) who say market share does not matter, also have negative feelings towards Microsoft. But yet, these same users probably also run MS Windows on their Mac (either through Bootcamp or Virtualization) - and pay Microsoft for a license for it's 'inferior' OS, just to get many basic tasks done. I would imagine that if the Mac had a market share of 25% or better, the need for buying Windows to run on your Mac would be much less. Also we would not have to purchase a license for Windows and contribute to the beast and its ads that irk so many here.

I think when you are at less than 10% market share, market share is important for the user base, even if it is not important to the profitability of Apple, the company. I really don't care if Apple becomes the most profitable company in the world, with the highest margins, if they kill OS X in the process. I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, by any stretch, but lets just say I was not a big fan of Apple removing 'Computer' from its name...

Just my thoughts...

jbernie

Apr 16, 2009, 12:57 PM

I agree with most of you that netbooks are the reason for this and Apple should produce a netbook or small table like device soon to be competitive, but I don't think they need a $399 product. Something different from the competition and priced at $599 still could fly off the shelves even in tight times and still be a profitable product for apple.

Agreed, I dont see any Apple netbook product coming in under $499, there is a chance the absolute light weight one might be $399 but based on their pricing models for computers they will be wanting to be priced around $150 more than the Windows versions which will be around $200 more expensive than the Linux ones.

They also need to price relative the iPod Touch which is in effect a netbook of sorts.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 12:57 PM

Even the part about "Posts saying "I agree", "+1", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed"?

point well taken, I missed that...look if people want to get anal about it 99% of us here at some point of other have broken the rules and a lot of us should even be banned according to the letter of rules, but of course what is important is the spirit in which these are written. :apple:

zabbadoo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:00 PM

Amazing how they were able to affect the sales from the previous quarter! Talk about your time-space continuum distortion!

March is part of the first quarter.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 01:02 PM

imwoblin

Apr 16, 2009, 01:02 PM

They did. It's called the Boxter.

I resemble that remark! There is really nothing budget about the BoxSter except it's comparable price to the venerable 911. I have owned both (Porsche Fanatic). Now back to our regularly scheduled program. :D

zabbadoo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:02 PM

point well taken, I missed that...look if people want to get anal about it 99% of us here at some point of other have broken the rules and a lot of us should even be banned according to the letter of rules, but of course what is important is the spirit in which these are written. :apple:

Good luck with that argument here.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:04 PM

March is part of the first quarter.
And the first Laptop Hunters ad came out on March 27th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/27/new-microsoft-ad-campaign-targets-mac-prices/). Pretty doubtful they had that much effect on market share in 5 days.

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 01:07 PM

Good luck with that argument here.
April 2009 is too late to register for someone as wise as you are, if you know what I mean. ;) :cool: You are absolutely right btw, but what can you do...

zabbadoo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:08 PM

And the first Laptop Hunters ad came out on March 27th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/27/new-microsoft-ad-campaign-targets-mac-prices/). Pretty doubtful they had that much effect on market share in 5 days.

You never know! How did they come up with these sale figures so quickly?

hagjohn

Apr 16, 2009, 01:09 PM

Higher market share with lower prices doesn't always mean less profits. With a higher market share Apple has the opportunity to sell more software and hardware accessories to offset any lower profits.

feraca

Apr 16, 2009, 01:12 PM

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/macworld/20090416/tc_macworld/applemarketsharerisesslightlyaspcshipmentsfall

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:13 PM

And I'll look down, and whisper, "What do you think a Mac Mini is!?"

An overpriced turd?

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:14 PM

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 01:15 PM

Well said. I, personally, would love to see the Mac market share go up and stabilize at around 25%. I think maintaining a market share of less than 10% creates the potential of your platform going the way of the dinosaur at some point in the future, depending on what competing systems (and newly developed systems) may have to offer down the road.

As a business application developer, I would love to switch to developing apps primarily for OS X, but with less than 10% market share (and much less in business computing), I just don't see the payback and security in switching to developing in Objective-C, solely for OS X. I have made the switch to OS X for my primary OS, but I still develop for other platforms to pay the bills.
Yeah, 25% is the magic number, I think.

I'm in the process of buying a new laptop and a new workstation this year to replace my Dell machines. I already have an iMac and a Mini, so this would be an MBP 17" and a Mac Pro. Then I started looking around at all the stuff I use -- mice, keyboards, speakers etc, and noticed that not even 50% of them have OS X drivers available. My business software is Windows-only (there is no Swedish bookkeeping and accounting software for OS X, period), my favorite audio editor (Steinberg WaveLab) is Windows-only, the software suite for one of my cellphones is Windows-only... Office 2008 for OS X is a toy compared to Office 2007 for Win... and don't get me started on all my games. Fine, there's BootCamp and Parallels but I thought I was buying a Mac, not a PC. Not only is it built from generic PC components, it also needs Windows to get my job done. Not really feeling the benefits of the small market share here.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 01:17 PM

Macworld reporting increased marketshare - who is right?
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/macworld/20090416/tc_macworld/applemarketsharerisesslightlyaspcshipmentsfall

Both are wrong.

Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.
These figures are meaningless.

Imagine this tiny market.
Two computers are sold. A 17" Macbook pro for $3000 and a Dell Netbook for $300
In this scenario, do Dell and Apple have an equal share of the market? - or does Apple have ten times the Market share?

C.

neoelectronaut

Apr 16, 2009, 01:19 PM

Welp, show's over folks.

Everyone switch back to Windows.

Don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. [/sarcasm]

randyhudson

Apr 16, 2009, 01:21 PM

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:22 PM

Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.

Actually, either dollars or units are valid measures of market share. It's not "meaningless", it's just measuring something different than one based on dollars.

iSee

Apr 16, 2009, 01:25 PM

Which doesn't disprove my premise that claiming "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is a not a valid excuse. Unless one thinks "Dells are too expensive for this economy" as well.

^^^^ Nice logical fallacy! ^^^^

Dell could be losing market share for reasons other than that they are too expensive for this economy--regardless of why Apple is losing markey share.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 01:25 PM

Both are wrong.

Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.
These figures are meaningless.

Imagine this tiny market.
Two computers are sold. A 17" Macbook pro for $3000 and a Dell Netbook for $300
In this scenario, do Dell and Apple have an equal share of the market? - or does Apple have ten times the Market share?

C.
The reason why anyone is even interested in Apple's market share in the first place is that it's a measure of the current standings in the OS X vs Windows war. Therefore dollars spent is utterly useless info but units purchased is interesting.

Wall Street yuppies may be more interested in the $$$ measure, though.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 01:30 PM

Hey Gartner, why not include sales of game consoles in your PC sales report too!?! After all, I can send e-mail and surf the web with my PS3. In fact, I can install Linux on my PS3, and it's already installed on my DishNetwork receiver. Are you sure my satellite receiver isn't a PC too?

I wonder if Gartner is trying to make their reports seem relevant.
Uh... nobody has redefined the PC. A netbook is a PC that runs the exact same OS you'd find on a regular laptop or desktop. It's only a "netbook" when the processor is too weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing. Put an Atom processor in a MacBook Air and voilá, you have a netbook.

inkswamp

Apr 16, 2009, 01:31 PM

I know so many people who want to buy their first Mac but want a tower without the high price tag of the MacPros. I know it's almost gotten to the point of being taboo to mention this around here, but a mid-range tower (literally, just the components of the iMac in a box without screen for about $1000) would be such a massive boost to Apple's share. That wouldn't compete for the high-end customers who need the MacPros. I work with people like that and they want the best they can get, and cost is irrelevant.

I think there are a lot of PC users out there who just want something they can relate to--a tower form factor--at a price they can also relate to. For a company that likes to focus on the switchers they attract, it's surprising that Apple doesn't offer such a machine.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 01:32 PM

The reason why anyone is even interested in Apple's market share in the first place is that it's a measure of the current standings in the OS X vs Windows war. Therefore dollars spent is utterly useless info but units purchased is interesting.

Wall Street yuppies may be more interested in the $$$ measure, though.

Bunkum dude.
Units are meaningless. Companies can churn out low-cost netbooks, claim a massive market share, and be losing cash faster than General Motors.

If one in every three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple. That means Apple has a 33% market share.

C.

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 01:35 PM

Not entirely, because you have to look at the "purpose" of a graph that displays market share, what if it included the iPod Touch as a "computer?"

They can't include the iTouch as a "computer" because it is not a free-standing unit (it relies on another "computer") and the iTouch does not run a full-fledged OS - it runs a much watered-down version. A netbook does not rely on another computer for syncing or any other use. And netbooks run the same OS as a desktop. For basic use, a netbook is no different than a desktop.

For instance, say you sell 10 million computers a year, but are barely making any money off them (i.e. netbooks). How do you increases you profits for the next year? Sell more units? or increase the price (as a new model)?

I'm sure ASUS is not complaining about a 50% increase in sales. I'm 100% positive that they are not "barely making any money off them." And yes, they do increase profits by selling a new model in subsequent years. It is a lot easier for a consumer to economically justfy replacing a $299 device every 1-2 years than a $1500 device every 1-2 years.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 01:35 PM

Actually, either dollars or units are valid measures of market share. It's not "meaningless", it's just measuring something different than one based on dollars.

We are talking about a market. And markets are measured in terms of dollars spent.

To claim that a $300 loss-making netbook is "the same" as a $3000 Macbook pro is meaningless.

By value, Apple has about a third of the market.

C.

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

Share is all relative - Netbooks really are the cause IMHO.

How many Dell Mini's and HP Mini's flew off the shelf to increase market share.

Apple REALLY needs to get on the ball with a $399 Netbook.

They would FLY off the shelves. I would buy two immediately.

HHM

I agree...I bought a Dell Mini9 with XP Home, 1gig ram, and a 16g SSD for $275 to my door. $275 to my door. Let me say it a 3rd time...$275 to my door.

:)

I have other machines in my house but the Mini9 is sooooooo awesome for quick couch web surfing, taking on vacation, 6 hour battery life, super super super quiet...never hot.

Love the thing to death.

rhpenguin

Apr 16, 2009, 01:38 PM

I resemble that remark! There is really nothing budget about the BoxSter except it's comparable price to the venerable 911. I have owned both (Porsche Fanatic). Now back to our regularly scheduled program. :D

Ha, I wasn't slamming it at all, and they are a fantastic drive. They're just often referred to as the "Poor man's Porsche". That said though, I'd take a Honda S2000 any day of the week.

synth3tik

Apr 16, 2009, 01:38 PM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

That argument may have worked 10 years aago or more, but not now-a-days.

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 01:41 PM

Looking at that graph this could be cyclical. Maybe we need another couple of quarters to accurately judge it.

These graphs really aren't the whole picture (horrible economy, etc) but my bet is that Q2 2009 will be another "down" curve for Apple. My reasoning, in no particular oder is: price of Macs are high (period...I'm not comparing to pcs), lack of Mac selection (no true desktop that I can add/customize easily...no netbooks), economy is still pretty bad, and lastly if someone wants (not "needs") to buy a new computer, there are literally hundreds of models to choose from under $1000 in the pc world...2 in the Mac world (Mini and MB and each are available in very limited configs).

-Eric

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 01:42 PM

Bunkum dude.
Units are meaningless. Companies can churn out low-cost netbooks, claim a massive market share, and be losing cash faster than General Motors.

If one in every three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple. That means Apple has a 33% market share.

C.

You sir are missing the point.

Market share is by unit, but cash made is reporting in income and profits. You are talking about the total income of Apple as opposed to Dell and HP. That is NOT market share. That is income. If 1/3 dollars went to Apple, they have 33% income compared to Dell and HP.

Whether Market Share is a useful stat is another story though. The fact that one mac pro costs as much as 10 netbooks gets lost in your calculations.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 01:46 PM

We are talking about a market.
No, you are talking about a market. Which would be a great idea on, I dunno, "MarketRumors.com" where the focus would probably be on the yawn-inducing financial end of things.

Around these parts, however, most of us are talking about number of Macs sold, which is equal to the number of OS X licenses sold.

If you're a software developer who is considering releasing a Mac version of your product, you want hard facts about the number of OS X installations in use. If Apple has somehow managed to sell one single specimen of a 60 billion dollar megacomputer, well that's great for them but it's still only one more potential customer for you.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:46 PM

Units are meaningless.

You can repeat that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Sure, units measure something different than dollars, but the units stats are still useful...just for different things.

We are talking about a market. And markets are measured in terms of dollars spent.

Where did you get that definition? Or is that one you made up yourself?

To claim that a $300 loss-making netbook is "the same" as a $3000 Macbook pro is meaningless.

Well, then good thing I haven't claimed that.

I agree...I bought a Dell Mini9 with XP Home

And have you kept XP on it, or "upgraded"? (wink, wink)

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 01:53 PM

If you're a software developer who is considering releasing a Mac version of your product, you want hard facts about the number of OS X installations in use.
Agreed. Unfortunately, getting installed-base figures is way harder than getting market share figures. And although one affects the other, they are different animals.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 01:54 PM

I agree...I bought a Dell Mini9 with XP Home, 1gig ram, and a 16g SSD for $275 to my door. $275 to my door. Let me say it a 3rd time...$275 to my door.

:)

I have other machines in my house but the Mini9 is sooooooo awesome for quick couch web surfing, taking on vacation, 6 hour battery life, super super super quiet...never hot.

Love the thing to death.

Dell "MacBook Mini" 9. Just bought it off eBay. 16GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.5.6, $350 to my door.

Repeat, $350 to my door.

haha, I am very excited, I have used Mini 9's with OS X before as my friend has one, and this is a very neat little computer. He benchmarked his with 1GB RAM and OS X and it came out faster them some of the Apple powerbooks from only a few years back. Mine with 2GB RAM should hopefully be faster then that, we will see.

EDIT: It also included the XP install disk and the XP license. Solid deal!

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 01:55 PM

Market share is by unit, but cash made is reporting in income and profits. You are talking about the total income of Apple as opposed to Dell and HP. That is NOT market share. That is income. If 1/3 dollars went to Apple, they have 33% income compared to Dell and HP.
Well, technically both methods file under "market share":

"Market share, in strategic management and marketing, is the percentage or proportion of the total available market or market segment that is being serviced by a company. It can be expressed as a company's sales revenue (from that market) divided by the total sales revenue available in that market. It can also be expressed as a company's unit sales volume (in a market) divided by the total volume of units sold in that market."

bruinsrme

Apr 16, 2009, 01:57 PM

Is the slipping really surprising news?

I am not sure about anyone else frequenting the forum but my discretionary spending is near zero for the past 7 months. Being a tech junkie my want to buy has turned into do I need to buy.

randyhudson

Apr 16, 2009, 01:58 PM

Uh... nobody has redefined the PC. A netbook is a PC that runs the exact same OS you'd find on a regular laptop or desktop. It's only a "netbook" when the processor is too weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing. Put an Atom processor in a MacBook Air and voilá, you have a netbook.

According to wikipedia:
A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer

You just proved my point by redefining PC to include devices where "the processor is to weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing". At the same time, you failed to define it as something which doesn't also describe a PS3.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 01:58 PM

Well, technically both methods file under "market share":

Touche

Trinity

Apr 16, 2009, 02:03 PM

It's a bad economy. More people got cheap PCs for Christmas. Oh well.

and an outdated product line maybe... Mac Pro box is six years old, Mini four, iMac five. The prices are too high and no big inventions have been introduced in the past years. Maybe they will discontinue the whole hardware division soon...

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:03 PM

According to wikipedia:
A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer

You just proved my point by redefining PC to include devices where "the processor is to weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing".

How is that "redefining"? A PC has always been a PC regardless if it was underpowered and couldn't run all apps.

A PC is a computer that can run computer apps. Laptops, desktops, and netbooks all can do that. Game consoles can't do that, can they?

Since a game console can't run computer apps, I'd hardly call it a "general purpose computer". It's a game console that can run a browser.

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 02:05 PM

And have you kept XP on it, or "upgraded"? (wink, wink)

Honestly, I love XP...It's been around for 8+ years and has always worked fine on my work and home machines.

I know I can hack the Mini9 into running OSX but I'm not interested...I mainly use the Mini9 for streaming iTunes into my home stereo, toting it around on vacations, and couch surfing. Nothing at all that would require any type of upgrade.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:05 PM

Maybe they will discontinue the whole hardware division soon...

Who, Apple? You do realize the computer hardware division is what makes the majority of profits for Apple, right?

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:06 PM

Honestly, I love XP...It's been around for 8+ years and has always worked fine on my work and home machines.

I know I can hack the Mini9 into running OSX but I'm not interested...I mainly use the Mini9 for streaming iTunes into my home stereo, toting it around on vacations, and couch surfing. Nothing at all that would require any type of upgrade.

Thanks, I was just wondering. For a machine that is mostly surfing, the OS isn't as critical.

How is the box for video playback? What rez does it max out at?

ravenvii

Apr 16, 2009, 02:06 PM

and an outdated product line maybe... Mac Pro box is six years old, Mini four, iMac five. The prices are too high and no big inventions have been introduced in the past years. Maybe they will discontinue the whole hardware division soon...

Are you serious? Where did you get that? Within the past 5 years, the iMac got a internal webcam, a remote, a aluminum enclosure. The MacBooks got an unibody enclosure and internal webcams. Mac Pros do not need innovation, they are all about power, and they are definitely powerful. The Mac mini has finally recently been updated, and is worthwhile again.

Newbies fail once again.

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 02:07 PM

Dell "MacBook Mini" 9. Just bought it off eBay. 16GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.5.6, $350 to my door.

Repeat, $350 to my door.

haha, I am very excited, I have used Mini 9's with OS X before as my friend has one, and this is a very neat little computer. He benchmarked his with 1GB RAM and OS X and it came out faster them some of the Apple powerbooks from only a few years back. Mine with 2GB RAM should hopefully be faster then that, we will see.

EDIT: It also included the XP install disk and the XP license. Solid deal!

That's cool...however, that's 1)illegal (OSX running on non-Apple sanctioned machines) and 2)not a commercial product.

I really am stressing #2 above...

But I hear ya that it's a good price.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 02:08 PM

According to wikipedia:
A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer

You just proved my point by redefining PC to include devices where "the processor is to weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing". At the same time, you failed to define it as something which doesn't also describe a PS3.
It has a screen, and a keyboard, and a pointing device, and runs a standard version of Windows. It's weaker than a regular PC notebook due to the Atom processor, but it's also snappier than a 5 year old PC notebook. If weak processing power is a disqualifying factor, then you have redefined the PC. Suddenly, millions of old tower PCs became "netbooks".

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 02:10 PM

Thanks, I was just wondering. For a machine that is mostly surfing, the OS isn't as critical.

How is the box for video playback? What rez does it max out at?

Wanna know what my favorite feature is of a sub-$300 netbook? If it gets stolen, wooped-dee-doo...I'm out $300...not $800 or $1200 or $2000. Besides, my credit card would cover the theft anyway. And not that I am made of money.

Of course you could substitue the word "stolen" for "dropped in the pool". :)

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:11 PM

Wanna know what my favorite feature is of a sub-$300 netbook? If it gets stolen, wooped-dee-doo...I'm out $300...not $800 or $1200 or $2000. Besides, my credit card would cover the theft anyway. And not that I am made of money.

Of course you could substitue the word "stolen" for "dropped in the pool". :)

I hear you, that's a major part of the appeal.

So how is video playback?

Trinity

Apr 16, 2009, 02:12 PM

Are you serious? Where did you get that? Within the past 5 years, the iMac got a internal webcam, a remote, a aluminum enclosure. The MacBooks got an unibody enclosure and internal webcams. Mac Pros do not need innovation, they are all about power, and they are definitely powerful. The Mac mini has finally recently been updated, and is worthwhile again.

Newbies fail once again.

Probably I fail but this is my feeling. A camera and an aluminium case are not big things for me. The only way to make OSX a success is let it install in other brand PC's and then there's no sense to build their own PC's moreover if they don't let much profit compared to other products like the iPhone.

davidbrummy

Apr 16, 2009, 02:13 PM

+1.

These will definitely cost 100-200 dollars more than an iPhone (not less) as they are going to be larger (more materials) and likely have more processing power.

Often small devices cost more as the manufactoring process is much more expensive and so are the parts.

Lordillingworth

Apr 16, 2009, 02:13 PM

i dont think apple cares about market shares, they worry more about making great products.

i think you have those statements the wrong way around.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 02:15 PM

That's cool...however, that's 1)illegal (OSX running on non-Apple sanctioned machines) and 2)not a commercial product.

I really am stressing #2 above...

But I hear ya that it's a good price.

Haha, yeah, I know it's illegal. eBay cancelled the auction after I paid but the seller gave me the tracking number today. I'm hoping it works well.

Hackintoshing is illegal, but so is underage drinking and other stuff everyone has done. While that doesnt make it ok, some offenses are worse then others. Hackintoshing a Dell Mini or murder? Which is worse?

Anyway, I suggest getting a mini for yourself, XP on it works ok anyway, and a little program called object-dock can give you a mac-esque dock bar. If you limit the number of Icons and increase the icon size, it works wonderfully for couch surfing and travel.

EDIT: I just know it runs OS X beautifully and if the mini I bought didn't already have OS X I would do it myself. Heck, if it comes messed up, I will re-install OS X myself.

It really is a surprising OS X machine.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 02:16 PM

You can repeat that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

As it has been pointed out. Market share by revenue *is* valid, if we are looking at the relative strengths of two companies, then the size of their revenue is a much better indicator than the number of boxes they ship.

These figures imply that Apple is in a weaker position than Acer. People wince and think Apple is doing badly. But by revenue Apple is making more revenue than Dell.

Yes - profitability is another good indication of relative strengths.
If Apple sells an iPhone for $599 and makes $300 profit - and Dell sells a netbook for $300 and makes $50 profit - then it might be fair to conclude that Apple was more profitable.

These figures put a misleadingly negative spin on Apple's performance when it's HP and Dell who are in real trouble. Their revenue per unit sale is declining fast.

The netbook craze is great for consumers - and I am sure adds percentage points to these "market-share" figures. But this race to the bottom is more likely to kill HP than Apple.

C.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 02:19 PM

I hear you, that's a major part of the appeal.

So how is video playback?

Hulu works wonderfully on a hackintosh mini 9. I assume it also works wonderfully on an xp or linux mini 9.

diemos

Apr 16, 2009, 02:20 PM

that is a surprise! wow, I mean it is recession and come on, lower the prices on high end macs and laptops by $100 to $200 and u'll c that increase again.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:21 PM

As it has been pointed out. Market share by revenue *is* valid

Now you're agreeing with me - I said that market share by revenue and by units are BOTH valid. You keep insisting that "units are meaningless" but that's simply not true.

These figures imply that Apple is in a weaker position than Acer. People wince and think Apple is doing badly. But by revenue Apple is making more revenue than Dell.

People may misinterpret these numbers, but that doesn't make them invalid or meaningless.

And there are advantages to higher units sold.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:23 PM

Hulu works wonderfully on a hackintosh mini 9. I assume it also works wonderfully on an xp or linux mini 9.

I assume that resolution is probably a flavor of 480?

applecultvictim

Apr 16, 2009, 02:43 PM

It has a screen, and a keyboard, and a pointing device, and runs a standard version of Windows. It's weaker than a regular PC notebook due to the Atom processor, but it's also snappier than a 5 year old PC notebook. If weak processing power is a disqualifying factor, then you have redefined the PC. Suddenly, millions of old tower PCs became "netbooks".

The atom is nowhere near more powerful than the 5 year old pentium m at 1.7 ghz or so.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 02:45 PM

As it has been pointed out. Market share by revenue *is* valid, if we are looking at the relative strengths of two companies, then the size of their revenue is a much better indicator than the number of boxes they ship.

These figures imply that Apple is in a weaker position than Acer. People wince and think Apple is doing badly. But by revenue Apple is making more revenue than Dell.

Yes - profitability is another good indication of relative strengths.
If Apple sells an iPhone for $599 and makes $300 profit - and Dell sells a netbook for $300 and makes $50 profit - then it might be fair to conclude that Apple was more profitable.

These figures put a misleadingly negative spin on Apple's performance when it's HP and Dell who are in real trouble. Their revenue per unit sale is declining fast.

The netbook craze is great for consumers - and I am sure adds percentage points to these "market-share" figures. But this race to the bottom is more likely to kill HP than Apple.

C.

That much is true. But saying market share by unit is not a valid stat is a little overboard.

Either way, Apple is doing things their own way, but I think iPods and iPhones have been more important to their business then macs have of late, and they have the benefit of being able to weather the recession storm with those iPod's providing tons of extra cash, which is something HP does NOT have the luxury of. Apple literally took some cheap parts, slapped some fancy looking software in them, made them the "in" thing with some slick marketing, way overpriced them and just rolled in the cash. Solid business on their part.

However, HP and Dell get a LOT of business from supplying businesses with cheap computers. This netbook craze effects the consumer market more so then the professional side. Most professionals do not use Macs, they use PC's. Only limited graphics professionals and a few other small businesses use macs. The recession has forced businesses to cut back on IT budgets and forced consumers to cut back on spending. The Macs being sold are mainly being purchased by the wealthy, who have money even in a recession. Apples numbers should only slightly be affected while HP and Dell should be getting killed. However, when things improve, Dell and HP should once again make huge leaps in units moved as companies look to upgrade those aging devices they have held off on getting replaced. By then, Apples marketshare should continue to be about the same unless they release something else that is cutting edge and exciting.

On a whole the recession hasn't been to bad to Apple, but when people get money again and things turn up, the benefit they receive is also minimal. They need a new device thats does something right if they want higher marketshare.

Further work on the iPhone as well as other very portable computers is probably the wave of the future anyway, so Apple ignoring such a sector can't help them in the long run. Unless of course they wait until it's been explored and then do it the Apple way which then sets the standard. IDK, there are so many scenarios.

Maybe a cheap Apple netbook with an iPhone like spring board and a modified OS X version will blow the competition out of the water and set a new netbook standard. We could see that kind of device in a few weeks or not for another few years.

Either way there will still be about another 30 pages of people debating something they have ZERO control over, and trying to prove to others why their opinions are better. Maybe we should just let Apple be Apple and buy what we want.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 02:47 PM

People may misinterpret these numbers, but that doesn't make them invalid or meaningless.

From reading this board *everyone* is misinterpreting these numbers. They see 7% shake their head and conclude that Apple ought to slash prices to "compete" with Acer.

Would we see the same reaction if the report said 1 in 3 computer dollars now goes to Apple. Apple now second biggest computer manufacturer?

These figures are deeply misleading, because they equate a $200 netbook to a $5000 Mac Pro. Both count as one unit. In what sense is that meaningful?

Unit sales don't tell us anything about the relative strengths of the companies. If a report is by analysts, there ought to be just a bit of analysis in it.

Going by unit sales, we might conclude that General Motors was doing just fine.

C.

mrwalker

Apr 16, 2009, 02:51 PM

This hopefully works as a wakeup call for Apple. I have no doubt that market share will rise further if Apple starts again to focus on quality AND give people what they want (choice, instead of telling them what they should want).

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 02:57 PM

Dell "MacBook Mini" 9. Just bought it off eBay. 16GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.5.6, $350 to my door.

Repeat, $350 to my door.

haha, I am very excited, I have used Mini 9's with OS X before as my friend has one, and this is a very neat little computer. He benchmarked his with 1GB RAM and OS X and it came out faster them some of the Apple powerbooks from only a few years back. Mine with 2GB RAM should hopefully be faster then that, we will see.

EDIT: It also included the XP install disk and the XP license. Solid deal!

All one has to do to put these number in perspective (ie. a good explanation of Apple's decreasing marketshare) is read the quoted post above. Now, the average consumer would probably not go through the lengths to install a hacked version of OS X on a PC, but they're also not going to be as willing to drop $1500 on a MacBook that does little more for them than a $350 Dell netbook.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:57 PM

From reading this board *everyone* is misinterpreting these numbers. They see 7% shake their head and conclude that Apple ought to slash prices to "compete" with Acer.

Would we see the same reaction if the report said 1 in 3 computer dollars now goes to Apple. Apple now second biggest computer manufacturer?

These figures are deeply misleading, because they equate a $200 netbook to a $5000 Mac Pro. Both count as one unit. In what sense is that meaningful?

Unit sales don't tell us anything about the relative strengths of the companies. If a report is by analysts, there ought to be just a bit of analysis in it.

Going by unit sales, we might conclude that General Motors was doing just fine.

And nothing you just said backs up the claim that unit sales numbers are "meaningless".

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 02:57 PM

A PC is a computer that can run computer apps. Laptops, desktops, and netbooks all can do that. Game consoles can't do that, can they?
The PS3 can run Linux, which can run computer apps, so...?

081440

Apr 16, 2009, 02:59 PM

Why would you want to see the numbers without Netbooks? They are going to be an huge part of the future of computers.

That's like saying a few years ago that you want to see the desktop numbers without laptops.

IMHO Apple needs a $399-$499 Netbook with the following.

9 or 10' screen
1GB RAM
16GB SSD
Intel Atom Processor (I'd love better, but that is doubtful)
Mac OS X Leopard
Integrated camera

E-Mail, internet, iLife, iChat, word processing in a (more) portable casing (then MacBook) with a much cheaper price then the MacBook

I don't know if Apple would do it, and if they did, they would add a few small features and probably ask $699 or $799 for it

While all that sounds great! I would HATE to use iLife on a Netbook, and forget about trying to put pictures into a word document while vid chatting with a friend. this is exactly the kind of scenario that makes you want to take one of those mini netbooks and throw it at someone. And that is exactly why Apple refuses to enter the market until they can make one that won't get you aggravated and behind schedule whenever you try and do something the slightest bit challenging on it. And with iLife being a major selling point for Macs, they can't release a netbook without it, but with iLife on a netbook the Atom processor would catch fire! :eek:

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:04 PM

The PS3 can run Linux, which can run computer apps, so...?

And is that a mainstream use provided by Sony or is it a hack?

I'm sure there are plenty of ATM machines that are just PC hardware that is capable of running linux or windows, but that doesn't mean anyone would consider them to be PCs.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 03:05 PM

I assume that resolution is probably a flavor of 480?

The mini has an Intel integrated 945 chipset, which is modest. I havent checked resolution when I borrowed my buddy's Mini 9, but when mine comes in with OS X on it and 2 GB RAM, I'll let you know what it can do.

I believe I was told that you can get better then 480 on playback, but I cant confirm.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 03:05 PM

And nothing you just said backs up the claim that unit sales numbers are "meaningless".

Milo, go on then.
Precisely what meaning can be read into a set of numbers that equates a $200 netbook to a $5000 workstation?

When we talk about the housing market, should we equate a mansion to a trailer. Yeah that's meaningful.:rolleyes:

C.

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 03:05 PM

The atom is nowhere near more powerful than the 5 year old pentium m at 1.7 ghz or so.
Well, sure, but even a 17 year old 486 50 MHz is by definition a PC. The argument was that Gartner was cheating by including netbooks in total PC sales. I say it's a PC, albeit a slow one. Had it been based on the Windows Mobile platform it would be a different story.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 03:06 PM

While all that sounds great! I would HATE to use iLife on a Netbook, and forget about trying to put pictures into a word document while vid chatting with a friend. this is exactly the kind of scenario that makes you want to take one of those mini netbooks and throw it at someone. And that is exactly why Apple refuses to enter the market until they can make one that won't get you aggravated and behind schedule whenever you try and do something the slightest bit challenging on it. And with iLife being a major selling point for Macs, they can't release a netbook without it, but with iLife on a netbook the Atom processor would catch fire! :eek:

Maybe not include all of iLife into a netbook. Maybe just iCal and Mail and stuff.

Make it so its NOT a full featured computer, but charge less for it might get some people to buy it as a second computer.

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 03:07 PM

And that is exactly why Apple refuses to enter the market until they can make one that won't get you aggravated and behind schedule whenever you try and do something the slightest bit challenging on it.

Like the iPhone, right? ;)

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 03:08 PM

It's a bad economy. More people got cheap PCs for Christmas. Oh well.

Not entirely true...December was Q4 2008 (which is not Q1 2009). Q4 wasn't bad for Apple...but it was the BEGINNING of the downward turn.

Any Christmas purchases were likely made in Nov or early Dec...

Also, the economy wasn't anywhere near as bad in November/December 2008 as it was in any day in 2009.

I think the economy has hit bottom, however.

-Eric

ericinboston

Apr 16, 2009, 03:12 PM

Thanks, I was just wondering. For a machine that is mostly surfing, the OS isn't as critical.

How is the box for video playback? What rez does it max out at?

I don't really use it for any type of video stuff...just web surfing and iTunes.

I think the max rez is 1024x800

again, it's only a 9" screen. :) Everything is small enough already...no need for 1920x1600 on a 9" screen :)

Anuba

Apr 16, 2009, 03:14 PM

Milo, go on then.
Precisely what meaning can be read into a set of numbers that equates a $200 netbook to a $5000 workstation?
For the umpteenth time, it's a measure of how OS X is doing in the war against Windows. In most people's minds that's the best indicator on how successful the Mac is, how many users have done the PC>Mac switch, etc.
If you're primarily interested in revenue, good for you but for others it may be a snooze-fest. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with those aspects that you can't even acknowledge other points of view than that of a Wall Street investor.

I guess Steve Jobs has been out of his mind all these years when he starts every keynote address by talking about how many iTunes songs, iPods, iPhones and Macs have been sold, when what he really should've done is run a long list of revenue numbers. "We have sold $10 billion worth of Macs!" How captivating.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:15 PM

Precisely what meaning can be read into a set of numbers that equates a $200 netbook to a $5000 workstation?

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

When we talk about the housing market, should we equate a mansion to a trailer.

So you honestly think that the only housing numbers that should ever be looked at are prices? You seriously think any stats based on the actual number of houses are completely meaningless?

Wow.

I don't really use it for any type of video stuff...just web surfing and iTunes.

I think the max rez is 1024x800

again, it's only a 9" screen. :) Everything is small enough already...no need for 1920x1600 on a 9" screen :)

Thanks. I was just wondering if it could handle standard definition video at a watchable resolution.

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 03:18 PM

All one has to do to put these number in perspective (ie. a good explanation of Apple's decreasing marketshare) is read the quoted post above. Now, the average consumer would probably not go through the lengths to install a hacked version of OS X on a PC, but they're also not going to be as willing to drop $1500 on a MacBook that does little more for them than a $350 Dell netbook.

True. I also know a guy who had a unibody macbook, then bought a Mini 9. He then hackintoshed it and eventually preferred it to his macbook and turned around and sold the macbook on eBay.

Probably an extreme case, but is that a testament to how powerful these computers really are or that for the majority of consumers out there, we dont NEED Core 2 Duo processors and backlight keyboards, we just need to be able to use the internet on the go.

I mean, sure someone will find the advantage of a 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo over even a 2.0 Core 2 Duo, but for most people, such specs are wasted.

I personally would prefer a situation where I own a MacBook or MBP and then use a dell mini for couch surfing, class and travel and save the macbook for situations where I want to do some light bootcamp gaming or when I want to sit down and really do work. Even though a macbook is portable, it's still more annoying to take to class then a Dell Mini 9 and I'm a lot more concerned about losing or breaking the MacBook.

However, there are situations where I would prefer to take a MacBook or a fullsize laptop somewhere, but for the majority of the time, I think I'd use a MacBook more like a desktop. I mean, If I want to check a message board I could use a Dell Mini 9, but if I wanted to watch DVD's or play games I could use a MacBook. Both are portable, but one is more powerful and does everything and the other is for certain situations. I like having the choice honestly. Plus, as handy as a Mini 9 is, the keyboard sucks and the screen does get to you after awhile.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:21 PM

And is that a mainstream use provided by Sony or is it a hack?
Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 03:24 PM

Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

You know, not installing Linux on a PS3 to surf the net. ;)

Mainstream use would be using the PS3 to game.

gnasher729

Apr 16, 2009, 03:28 PM

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:30 PM

Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

So is that an answer to my question....it IS a hack?

Vkrati

Apr 16, 2009, 03:31 PM

This might sound cynical, but i like a small market share. Imagine apple would have the marketshare of the Windows OS, hackers would be busy around the clock cracking it open. And they could, since there is always a way. Don't say it's just not possible. So quite egoistic, but i have mine, and would love the market share to stay stable.

I'm definitely not some Apple fanboy, but this is pure hidden reasoning you better don't say because you don't make yourself popular with it. But hey, whatever...

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:36 PM

So is that an answer to my question....it IS a hack?
Sure, it's a hack. But still, by your definition, also a PC. :D

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 03:40 PM

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

So what you are saying is that if a hundred penniless students buy bargain basement netbooks ....
...and ten wealthy business types, buy horrendously expensive workstations...

You are going to target your new software at the penniless students because, after all, the netbook market share is ten times bigger!

NOW! I see your flawless logic. Brilliant!

C.

seedster2

Apr 16, 2009, 03:42 PM

Here we go again... let the fanatics quickly discount these stats when they aren't favorable. I agree that market share is not Apple's primary focus, but to say it's meaningless is ridiculous.

they're likely making more $$/unit sold, but there are fewer and fewer people in emerging markets and the struggling markets looking to buy a MP. This doesnt bode well for immediate sales.

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?

I hope they have continued success but not at my wallet's sake. thusly, I purchased an EOL MP instead of the Nahelam

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 03:44 PM

So what you are saying is that if a hundred penniless students buy bargain basement netbooks ....
...and ten wealthy business types, buy horrendously expensive workstations...

You are going to target your new software at the penniless students because, after all, the netbook market share is ten times bigger!

NOW! I see your flawless logic. Brilliant!

C.

Or you can just target only the high end crowd when 90% of machines don't even run that OS.

Genius!

Fishrrman

Apr 16, 2009, 03:47 PM

kas23 wrote:
"As netbooks become more powerful (and cheaper), their marketshare is going to continue to increase. It is not as "nascent" as Apple thought - they better hurry up and get into the game. And we still don't even know for a fact if Apple is going to indeed release one."

I think that Apple _is_ planning on "getting into the game", and that is-it-or-isn't-it-real "Macbook mini" represents a pretty good idea of what the upcoming Apple netbook will be like.

I expect the Macbook mini to debut in June or July, in time to fall into the hands of all those college-bound kids next fall.

For those who say "horsefeathers", I would like to offer this example:
Remember, not so many years ago, about the "rumors" that from the very beginning of OS X, that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of the Mac OS that would run on Intel processors? Remember how adamantly Apple denied it? Remember how much the Mac fanboy choir shouted down anyone who suggested that this could be possible? What kind of processor is the Mac OS running on today?

Again, expect the Macbook mini to arrive sometime this summer, as a direct and powerful-enough replacement for the soon-to-be-discontinued Macbook Air.

- John

canucksfan88

Apr 16, 2009, 03:49 PM

ha! hope their market share drops more.
then they will know they're not giving consumers what they want..

and to the people who are saying ignore the netbook, well, its apples fault for failing to realize the potential in that market and not getting into it sooner

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:50 PM

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

Probably less than those buying more expensive machines. But that doesn't make knowing the size of the user base meaningless.

Sure, it's a hack. But still, by your definition, also a PC. :D

Not by my definition. You take a PC out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a netbook out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a PS3 out of the box, and it does not run PC apps. Sure, a tiny fraction of a percent of PS3 owners will jump through hoops to hack it to run linux apps, but that doesn't make it a PC any more than an ATM is a PC just because the hardware could be hacked to run linux apps.

So what you are saying is...

No, please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is merely that knowing unit sales is not "meaningless". And plenty of examples have been provided showing how the unit sales numbers can be useful.

But if you are writing a dirt cheap (or free, or ad-based) app aimed at students and your goal is maximum use, then yeah, the larger pool of users is more appealing.

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?

While I agree with the rest of your post, Apple does break down ipod versus computer sales. And their computer revenues are still greater.

ikramerica

Apr 16, 2009, 03:51 PM

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

$1000 !

Seriously, it's a good point.

Apple market share has held steady, sales have held steady, despite the "high price." The only way the other companies have gained ground is by selling zero margin $400 laptops, most running XP. HP, Acer, etc. If anyone wants to really see where the "loss of market share" is going, just look at Acer's numbers. One of the leaders in the zero-margin Netbook market, their market share has soared. But are these people going to buy a lot of software to run on those things? Hardly.

Numbers should be broken out as such:
Overall
Large Corporation
Point of Sale
SoHo
Consumer

And in the consumer/SoHo market,
Desktop/AIO
Laptop
Sub-laptop (and why doesn't this category include the iPhone/iPod Touch, for example...)

You'll find Apple still gaining market share in the areas in which they compete. They don't compete in Large Corporation or POS (and don't want to), but they do compete in SoHo and Comsumer. And that market share is growing when the "Sub-Laptop" is taken out. And it is this subgroup that buys the most off the shelf software. It's this group that should be targeted by developers.

Large companies? They buy bulk licenses to Office and Windows, and then go to IT companies for custom software packages.
Point of Sale? They get ONE application installed and that's it. That the machines run XP or Vista or Linux is not relevant. They must run some sort of OS to work, but that's all they will ever do. You can't really count POS as "OS market share" unless you also count cash registers in these sales figures, and who does that?

Here's a prime example: My sister runs a tennis club. I helped her buy her systems. We bought HP machines to run the club management software and quickbooks. Club management is a custom app that includes POS. No other programs run on these 2 computers other than MS Office on the main machine in the office for the manager to run. Just club management and Quickbooks money went to anyone but MS in terms of software purchases. Her personal machine is a Mac. On this machine, she builds her website using various adobe apps, does newsletters and spreadsheets (using Office and iWork), etc., and logs into the quickbooks computer via GoToMyPC. (And the graphics people who send her the graphics for her company use Macs to do that, too. More Adobe money...) Her husband is the head pro. He has a PC laptop, the cheapest we could find, so he can do email and internet on the road (HP). Had netbooks been out when we got it, we might have gotten him one instead. He has purchased no software for this machine at all. Zero dollars spent on software. So on 4 computers sold to her company, only one computer has any expensive off the shelf software installed on it other than quickbooks, and one other machine has ONE piece of . The Mac brings in all the money to the big software developers. 25% market share in this business, 75% software market share, almost 100% of the off the shelf software market share. And if you look at the margins on the machines, it's quite likely Apple made as much on that one iMac 20" as HP made on the 3 computers we bought from them...

Apple is not a large enough company to compete in all markets. What should really be impressive in these numbers is that Apple has maintained it's sales during this recession, that Dell is fading, that HP is the new leader, and that Acer is rapidly growing by selling computers with little profit potential (what cost market share?)

If Apple were doing poorly, MS wouldn't be so freaking scared and running those silly ads that don't even talk about why Windows is worth running.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 03:51 PM

Or you can just target only the high end crowd when 90% of machines don't even run that OS.

Genius!

Yep.
Business chases money. That's what it does. Units don't matter. Only the green stuff.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.
This seems to indicate that Apple buyers might actually have money to spend on software and peripherals.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

C.

dejo

Apr 16, 2009, 03:52 PM

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?
But they do. Every quarter. In their quarterly results report.

Here's their breakdown from their last quarter: http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q109data_sum.pdf

More of these here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/

Not by my definition. You take a PC out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a netbook out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a PS3 out of the box, and it does not run PC apps. Sure, a tiny fraction of a percent of PS3 owners will jump through hoops to hack it to run linux apps, but that doesn't make it a PC any more than an ATM is a PC just because the hardware could be hacked to run linux apps.
You're still being needlessly vague. What are "PC apps?"

redrabbit

Apr 16, 2009, 03:52 PM

Somewhat off topic, but I will be another Mac emigrant soon, with plans to sell my 1st gen MBP and buy a Asus eee 1000HE instead (and build myself a gaming PC).

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 03:53 PM

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

I'm on an eeePC right now. The only software I bought for this was XP (back when XP was not included with the eeePC). All other software I download for free. As for hardware/peripherals, I bought 1GB of extra RAM (for a total of 2GB) for $30 (it's now selling for $15), a 16GB SDHC card ($60 at the time), and a used DVD player off ebay (for less than $50).

Performance-wise, I just mainly fart around on it. But for internet and downloading, it's much faster than my PowerBook G4.

Carniphage

Apr 16, 2009, 03:57 PM

http://www.irelandwestlocations.com/us1Q2009.jpg

This data (averaging IDC and Gartner) seems to suggest that even by-unit, Apple's market share has risen (albeit fractionally).

C.

kas23

Apr 16, 2009, 04:01 PM

Yep.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.

But does this actually mean anything for the big picture? Asus's marketshare increased by 49% and basically none of their computers are over $1000. That's telling me less and less people are willing to spend over $1000 on a computer while more are buying cheap ones. Introducing the new 17 inch MacBook Pro a little bit ago probably didn't help the situation either.

milo

Apr 16, 2009, 04:04 PM

You'll find Apple still gaining market share in the areas in which they compete.

Using that logic, when cars came along, the horse and buggy makers were still doing just fine.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

So tell me. How many cross platform apps have the mac version outselling the PC version? It must be a lot since Apple has such a big share of "the market".

You're still being needlessly vague. What are "PC apps?"

Is it really so hard to figure out?

Apps that run on either windows, OSX, or linux. Mac and PCs (including netbooks) can do that straight out of the box. A PS3 can't.

Example. I buy a mac or PC and I can install cubase. I buy a PS3 and I can't install cubase. Get it now?

IrishSniper87

Apr 16, 2009, 04:07 PM

Yep.
Business chases money. That's what it does. Units don't matter. Only the green stuff.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.
This seems to indicate that Apple buyers might actually have money to spend on software and peripherals.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

C.

Really? Wow.

Realistically you would rather target the largest audience, so target businesses that use cheap machines in bulk but require specific software that is more advanced then basic offerings. That and it also works on every single computer running Windows! Which also happens to include modern Macs! Brilliant. Why write software for a machine that costs $2000 when the amount of people using that machine is 10% of the market? Assuming they have money makes them more likely to splurge on software is just a guess on your part. Not to mention, since most macs in use today are now intel inside, if you create an amazing piece of windows software, mac users can still have access to it. Why limit who you target to such a small amount of people?

Just cuz Apple sells more machines at prices over $1000 doesnt mean they will buy more software then someone using an $800 laptop. Especially when the fact of the matter is that Windows machines outnumber Mac machines roughly 9 to 1. And Mac machines include more software out of the box then windows machines anyway, so they may actually be less included to buy add-on software.