Apple's Current Market Share...really 3%?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by BaghdadBob, Apr 25, 2003.

  1. BaghdadBob macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #1
    I found this article on SpyMac. I don't know what it's validity is, which is why I'm posting here, to see if anyone else has/buys these kinds of numbers.

    Quoteth the 9/17/02 Spymac article:

    "Of the 275 million personal computers in the world today, 32 million of them run some version of the Mac OS. Folks, that's not 5%, like the urban legend has it; that's 11.6% of the worldwide personal computer market (emphasis added). And, it's certainly not the 3% or so recently published as the Mac's share of new computer sales."

    Any thoughts/facts?
     
  2. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #2
    Well, infact that might have that much but what they are telling you is almost how much apple is selling in total for the year, quarter, etc.

    Many places say with '____'s' stats we show you.

    You can make numbers anything you want them to be, really.
     
  3. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #3
    Yes, I see, 3% would be current sales volume and 11.6% (if true) would be established user base. If sales are still 3% then it will still make a difference to many developers who make bleeding edge programs for the masses (*cough* games), because they want to know where the latest hardware is. I wonder where they come up with those numbers on existing computers? It does seem to me that Macs are..."retired" at a later date than PCs...hmmmm...

    Chalk some of that up to quality of hardware, and most of it to cost-to-replace.
     
  4. beez7777 macrumors 6502a

    beez7777

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Location:
    Notre Dame
  5. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #5
    I thought some numbers looked familiar there....that article is by Jack Campbell, the author of the SpyMac article linked above...
     
  6. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #6
    -BaghdadBob

    I've seen these numbers before as well.

    Remember, there is a big difference between Market Share (current market=buyers looking to buy now), and Installed Base (those who were but no longer in the market, and left as a result of making a purchase).

    The real question is which is more important.

    I has been argued that Market Share is less important now that the computer market has oficially graduated to a commodity market.

    But I ask again, which is more important..?
     
  7. pmac933 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    #7
    According to this article, the research firm Dataquest announced that worldwide shipments of personal computers in 2002 totaled 132.4 million units, of which the U.S. accounted for 46.5 million units. The research firm International Data Corp. (IDC) announced that worldwide shipments of personal computers in 2002 totaled 136 million units, of which the U.S. accounted for 47.9 million units.

    According to Apple's Annual Report (SEC form 10-K) for fiscal year 2002, they sold 3.1 million personal computers worldwide, of which the U.S. accounted for 1.73 million units. Using the Dataquest data, Apple Computer accounts for 2.34% of new personal computer sales worldwide and 3.72% of new personal computer sales domestically. Using the IDC data, Apple Computer accounts for 2.28% of new personal computer sales worldwide and 3.61% of new personal computer sales domestically.

    I do realize that the Dataquest and IDC data are for the year 2002, while the Apple Computer data is for their fiscal year 2002 (Oct.2001 - Sept.2002). Anyone is welcome to find out Apple Computer's sales for the whole calendar year 2002 and recalculate my numbers if you like. Also, I realize that I'm not covering total installed user base here, but if there were 132.4 million computers sold in 2002 and 128.9 million computers sold in 2001 (according to Dataquest), then I'd have to believe that there are far more than 275 million personal computers being used in the World today.
     
  8. Raiwong macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    #8
    its true tthat many people are reluctant to leave their old macs and nowadays few maccers buy new hard ware, because there are no significant improvements. While this is same for windows they have games which constantly require new hardware, while the games and software on macs are less demanding
     
  9. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #9
    there is one reason we dont get lots of games, we dont have direct x. if microsoft released direct x out to us, we would have games in the masses.

    iJon
     
  10. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #10
    Why doesn't Apple have their own version? Or is it just a matter of not having to duplicate the work (kinda like porting a game based on the Quake engines)?

    And on further thought, is it a matter of MS not wanting to give it to us or Apple not wanting to ask?
     
  11. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #11
    quake games are build on opengl, thats why we get them and they play so well. direct x is a set of api's that microsoft has, and they dont release it to anyone. if they released it to linux we could get more games, but they wont, thats why macs and linux boxes arent premiere gaming machines. we get such few games an this is why. that is why real pc wont be that well, because direct x wont be made for our processors and it will still be an emulator and games will still play like trash.

    iJon
     
  12. Jaykay macrumors 6502a

    Jaykay

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    So what about Virtual PC? Now that they are owned by microsoft, would it not make sense for them to release DirectX as part of that seeing that everybody who wanted to play the most recent games on a mac would have to buy a microsoft product.... but then again that would probably take away one of microsoft's biggest current advantages over the mac, Games.
     
  13. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #13
    dont count on it, plus, virtual pc is still a emulator. ever look at the video ram assigned to virtual pc? its 16mb. 16mb is trash for games these days. 128mb is soon becoming not enough for games in the upcomg future. unless we get direct x for the core system os mac osx, or unless open gl becomes the standard for games, we wil always have the short end stick for games.

    iJon
     
  14. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #14
    I hate these market share threads. The way I see it, statistics can be played around with too much to be 100% certain of what is actually going on. On any given day, Apple could have anywhere between 1% and 20% market share. I've stopped buying into what websites say about statistics.

    P-Worm
     
  15. mmmdreg macrumors 65816

    mmmdreg

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #15

    Try jack Kennedy dude.
    on another note, not the most accurate source of information, but under the Dnetc rc5-72 distributed (like SETI, folding etc) stats,
    of course the type of people who run the program are not exactly the every day type of person but that's just one source that has been accurately calculated off the usage of a particular app...
     
  16. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #16
    Jack K may be at the top, but check the source of data at the bottom.
     
  17. mmmdreg macrumors 65816

    mmmdreg

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #17
    OK I get where you're coming from...So the two articles are by two different people, Jack K's being sourced from Jack C's info. All good.
     

Share This Page