U.S. PC Manufacturers
That should read: U.S.-based PC Manufacturers.
Apple, Dell and HP don't manufacture computers in the US.
U.S. PC Manufacturers
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
All empires eventually come crashing down.
It's funny these people all say % market share is all important. When the fact is Apple is killing them all in the profit department. And that's the most important thing.
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.
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.You're not getting support from Apple on your product in 10 years, much less 20 years. There's a big difference between what you just said now and what you said earlier. You just went from a "Apple gets the most money so market share isn't a big deal!" to discussing sustainability of the manufacturer. HP and Dell, while not pulling in Apple level profits, are still very sustainable.
However, you're ignoring the other aspect. It does not matter that Apple gets the lion share of profits in the industry, I don't care about that, nor should you if you're not a share holder. Market share however kinda garantees relevency of your product in the overall industry, which means added support from 3rd parties.
This support can extend beyond the manufacturer's own support 10 years, 20 years later.
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.Apple will always cater to what is profitable. That's what companies do. Apple is not special.
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.
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.
I don't care at all for a corporations profits'. Neither should you unless you're a share holder.
----------
Unless you've got some other rocket science definition of a corporation...I think all corporations core goal is to attain profit...they're not flippin charities. So what else would a person care about in a "corporation" if one cares at all?
Imagine owning a HP machine.. ugh
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.
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.
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