Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Holds Third-Place Ranking Among U.S. PC Manufacturers in 1Q 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but my point was that there are too many people offering Windows. Some people don't like Windows, and Apple offer an alternative.
But people go into computer shops and don't know what to buy. It's not as simple as: HP makes great video editors, Dells make great gaming machines, Asus makes great netbooks. It's not very clear-cut.
You made a good point though - and thanks for not just hating on what I said
Well, and to be fair, that's why I say apple makes the best Windows laptop. Their hardware is some of the best constructed and most versatile. That does come at a price though. Unless someone is on a budget, Macbooks are my recommend laptop.
You're right. Shopping for PC laptops is a bit of a banged knee. Apple is always on top of their game; compared to PC manufactures where some years they put out a good product, and other years they just seem to produce crap.
In regards to a comment I made about Apple's apparent approach of telling people what they need, and locking everything else out. It should be said though that they have a pretty good grasp on the needs of most consumers and their products reflect that pretty well. On my iphone, there are times I wish the ecosystem was a little more open, but the times I wish that don't outweigh the times I love the ecosystem they've built up. I look at android, I think back to the days of palm, and I shudder. They offer a tight experience that most other manufactures can't.
Which comes back to laptops. It's been mentioned about the bloatware that manufactures include on their laptop. Someone needs to slap them for this. I love apple for the fact that they don't do this.
All empires eventually come crashing down.
i.e. Microsoft
haha.I do see your point though, and my response is, it is entirely a personal decision based on a professional need or a recreational need or even an aesthetic need. So yes, you are right... but for you. Just as I was right, for me. It all depends what you use/want it for. They both have strengths and weaknesses.
To a degree, yes, market share is important as it can reflect the level of profit made. i.e. Apple market share has progressively risen (especially in their short term) resulting in higher profits since they are meeting demand which is being pulled, not pushed. Whereas if you are losing market share it is pretty safe to assume you are earning smaller profit margins.
It is also important to realize market share has a better long-term effect on a company than profits made in any particular year or quarter. Market share serves as a solid indicator for company performance as opposed to a profit figure, which is of course a good indicator as well, but covers a much narrower view of overall company performance.
Its all interconnected. But yes, everyone can be ignorant now and again.
i.e. Microsoft
I do see your point though, and my response is, it is entirely a personal decision based on a professional need or a recreational need or even an aesthetic need. So yes, you are right... but for you. Just as I was right, for me. It all depends what you use/want it for. They both have strengths and weaknesses.
I kind of wonder about these sorts of things sometime. Eventually Microsoft will have to fall. They're so big though, it's a little weird to think about. And what then? Will Apple become as big and cumbersome as Microsoft is? How big can Apple get and still maintain the ideology that makes them a great company now?So far they've done well at fending off the plague that befalls most large corporations. Even with the passing of Steve Jobs (who I think was the biggest influence at preventing apple from falling to that trap) it still seems they are able to hold them at bay, but it does make one wonder, for how long?
One thing that's really great about Apple is they've indirectly forced a lot of companies to step their game up. I think if Apple didn't exist as it does today, there would have been innovative products still, but not to the point that causes the industry as a whole to react as they've had to when faced against Apple. The troubling thing is these companies step their game up in reaction to Apple rather than any sort of self desire to produce a better product.
There are a number of smaller companies and design firms though that understand the importance of design. From every aspect of a product, from packaging to the actual product. I wish they weren't in such a minority.
Astro Design is one of those companies. I bought a pair of Astro headphones and was surprised the care and attention given to each part and the packaging itself. I'd dare to say their packaging in some areas was even better than what Apple provides. Looking at some of their competition, uggh, uggly. I think they have a pretty impressive portfolio.
No one is ignorant here. Just people with differing opinions. So please stop that talk.
Secondly by profits I mean profit trends over a long period like 10 years or more. One quarter or year does not say all that much on it's own. And you can lose market share a little but make more profits. It could be more cost effective R&D, resolving overstaffing issues, selling less overall but more higher profit items etc etc. So market share on it's own does not mean much.
Actually a really high market share can be a bittersweet thing. Great cause it's high and lots of money to be made there. But bad because there is less room for future growth unless you move into different markets. Because you can't have more then 100% of a particular market.
There is a big difference between "Apple gets the most money so market share isn't a big deal!" and "sustainability of the manufacturer." But they are both linked. In a hard way. By money. And Apple proved on the Mac front that super high market share is not a requirement for a sustainable manufacturer. It's the old debate of "fewer higher profit margin sales vs many cheap low profit margin sales". Both models of business have their pros and cons. And the fact is Apple (on the Mac side) has done the "fewer higher profit margin sales" very well.
I do agree with you that market share does link into product relevancy. Prestige also is a factor into product relevancy though. We cal rattle off many luxury brands from the top of our heads. And we all know the excellent service and products they provide. Why is this? Not because of their market share. But because they are still in business after so many years and because of their good product and brand reputations.
And yes you're not getting direct support on a 20 year old Mac. No computer get manufacturer support when it's 20 years old. But you do want to know the platform (or OS) you are investing in will be around still in 10 or 20 years time. And that it's still of a good standard. It costs a lot of money to swap to another platform when you have already invested in one. That's the long term thought process that people should be thinking of. Because in the future the money might not be rolling in anymore to make such a platform switch. (loss of your job, hard economic times etc etc).
I agree 100%. And for Apple that has always been higher profit margin items. And not high volume low margin items. If Apple ever changed to the low profit margin high volume method of business I'd be very worried. I don't know if they could make that viable, with keeping their current annual profits and excellent product build quality.
Yeah absolutely. You can think of it as the life cycle of business where there is creation and an ultimate end. In theory, good management and proper business models can allow a company to survive and with companies like Apple and Microsoft, there will always be those loyal to the brand. Microsoft may lose market share to Apple to such an extent that the company as a whole will need to reduce it's infrastructure and overhead, but that all depends how willing the management is to make those decisions. But then again, they may totally revamp their line and OS to oust Apple. Who knows, time will tell.
Apple is definitely setting the bar that other companies are being forced to meet. tablets probably would have popped up anyway, but years down the road and not to the spec that have already met.
Thats the beauty of American business competition, consumers always win (or at least they should *cough*greatrecession*cough*)
Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, not my intention. But I do think occasionally people can get a bit carried away, even myself.
It is a bit silly though that you consider high market share to be a bittersweet thing in terms of a limit of growth potential in a given market. Of course, you can't go beyond 100% of the market, but then again, what company has come even close to 100% of the market of a given industry? That is essentially a monopoly, like PG&E (which even then is government regulated so expansion and profits isn't necessarily at the forefront of their issues) and... not many others. The remainder of dominant companies are oligopolies at best which will be in the 50/50, 60/40 range of market share.
Even if, theoretically, you get to 100% market share, even with government regulation... Job Well Done! Haha. That is a positioning dream for any company, I don't care who you are. Consider your future pretty wrapped up!
Thank you for your honesty.
"what company has come even close to 100% of the market of a given industry?"
Apple - Portable music player market (with the iPod)
Apple - Personal computer tablet market (with the iPad)
Just 2 examples. But otherwise I do agree with what you are saying here. Getting to 100% market share though is not equivalent to huge profits though if you make 2¢ profit on each item (ie low margins high volume sales). But I still say even then it would be a celebration. Because most times the government cries monopoly (ie anti-trust lawsuit) long before you get to 100% market share.
Yeah, definitely.
Just a heads up though, Nook, Kindle, Galaxy, Xoom, Eee Pad Sony S, are all competitors for the iPad. Careful with the 100% market share claim with that one. I don't know the numbers, but I know not everyone can afford the iPad.
But I'll give you iPod
I did. It was awful. You can't put the words "fine product" in the same sentence as HP. Anyone who thinks an HP tower is a fine product needs to have their head examined.
No, they're not. Being sustainable has nothing to do with profit share. As long as a company is sustainable, it doesn't need to be 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the industry. That is quite irrelevant.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My point was:
High marketshare and company sustainability are very different things. But both linked by money. Macs are not the highest selling PC by a long shot. But they make the most profits. And it's these profits that keep the company sustainable.
So Apple (and others) have proved market share does not make a company always sustainable. Many high marketshare companies have folded. And Apple with a lower Mac market share is making lots of profits there. But without profits (ie money) a company will fold regardless of anything else.
----------
Yeah, definitely.
Just a heads up though, Nook, Kindle, Galaxy, Xoom, Eee Pad Sony S, are all competitors for the iPad. Careful with the 100% market share claim with that one. I don't know the numbers, but I know not everyone can afford the iPad.
But I'll give you iPod
You forgot to mention the JooJoo tablet