Apple's 3rd Quarter 2007 U.S. Marketshare Up to 8.1%

[skinnylegs]

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

Agreed. There is a wide margin between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Given the move to Intel based processors, I would think Apple might make a move to nab a bit of the gaming market which seems to fuel new technology. Case in point: I love my iMac but I'm getting ready to purchase a new PC for gaming because Apple simply doesn't offer anything compelling.

 

[phillipjfry]

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

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

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

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

 

[FoxyKaye]

Kinda takes the sting out of the 1990s a bit, doesn't it?

 

[SolRayz]

I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

 

[angelwatt]

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

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

 

[phillipjfry]

I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

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


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

 

[Bosunsfate]

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite. Pretty soon though.

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

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

 

[Zadillo]

It does make you kind of wonder where Apple could put themselves marketshare-wise if they could churn out some more $500-700 laptops like the low-end stuff Dell and HP sell.

-Zadillo

 

[Zadillo]

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


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

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

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

-Zadillo

 

[kevinwiz]

im worried people will start developing more viruses for apple products the more popular it gets

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

 

[WannaGoMac]

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

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

The rest of your reasoning is sound.

 

[Zadillo]

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

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

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

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

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

-Zadillo

 

[DTphonehome]

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

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

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

 

[JeffTL]

It does make you kind of wonder where Apple could put themselves marketshare-wise if they could churn out some more $500-700 laptops like the low-end stuff Dell and HP sell.

-Zadillo

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

 

[mm1250]

I'm Sorry Guys But Those Numbers Are Way Off!!

I'm sorry to bust everyones bubble but the numbers released by Garnter and IDC shows they haven't really done any homework. I'm not even sure where they pulled those numbers out of.

Simple research will show the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sososowhat]

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

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

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

Gartner's numbers are for US only sales, while yours are for worldwide sales.

 

[cameronjpu]

wonder what the stats would look like if businesses were taken out of the equation.

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

 

[offwidafairies]

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

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

 

[IJ Reilly]

I hope when Apple makes it to the top, their product line remains top quality. I fear any company that becomes too successful...Micro$haft comes to mind.

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

 

[offwidafairies]

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

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


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

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

 

[inkswamp]

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

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

 

[inkswamp]

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

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

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

Gee, I think I see a pattern.

 

[hulugu]

AAPL closes up 3.17 point to $172.75

That's a 30 point gain in 1 month.

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

Wait for the split.

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

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

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

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

 

[Mac Kiwi]

With growth at this rate {not there yet] I see third party graphic card offerings coming our way.If Apple can come to an agreement with the suitor that is.


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

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

From here.

MacRumors:

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