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 Marketshare Gains in 2006
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple really wants to gain significant market share, it's going to have to advertise to people other than yuppies. I AM a yuppie and Apple's advertising and general attitude are a huge turn off for me.
Working class America is intimidated by snobbery and will always feel more comfortable with down-to-earth, Wal-Marty companies. If Apple wants to gain users, it needs to find an innovative way to advertise to both it's existing yuppie constituency and common consumers. Otherwise they can forget about rising higher than a low double digit percentage.
Working class America is intimidated by snobbery and will always feel more comfortable with down-to-earth, Wal-Marty companies. If Apple wants to gain users, it needs to find an innovative way to advertise to both it's existing yuppie constituency and common consumers. Otherwise they can forget about rising higher than a low double digit percentage.
jellomizer
macrumors 6502
I would think that a large portion would be new Mac Users. If it was people upgrading you will see a noticeable drop in market share right after apple announced the switch to intel. (With everyone waiting for the intel chips) but any drop from that anouncement didn't seem to effect much. So I would assume that it is from new people. Because now the PC vs. Mac arguments are getting really picky.
Old Arguments.
Intel Chips vs. Power PC chips in speed: Argument resolved Apple is now all Intel.
One Mouse button: Argument resolved with OS X supporting 2 button mice, Mighty Mouse alling right and left mouse clicks, Macbook Pros two finger click to emulate right mouse click.
Price: Mostly resolved. Now with the ability to judge the systems spec to spec it is easier to show that Macs are competive in price with their PC Counterparts.
New Arguments.
Video: Slow /underclocked video cards. And not the greatest resolution for laptop displays.
Keyboard size: The keyboards are slightly smaller then PC keyboards.
Choices: Most apples are not as configurable as PC. You cant have a barebone el Cheapo system. Or something that is slightly better then a MacMini but not quite a iMac.
But these new arguments are much more minor. So it should increase new sales for people waiting for the arguments to be resolved. Also by the fact that boot camp allows windows to run. It allows them to have a comfort catch if they really hate OS X they can always run windows like they did before.
FoxyKaye
macrumors 68000
I do to, though I wonder how much this matters. Since Apple's recent acendency in pop culture, even if the marketshare numbers are slightly inflated by PPC Mac users switching to Intel Macs, I doubt this is something that new Apple consumers consider. Rather, all they hear is the press and Apple saying, "our market share has increased" and it somewhat diminishes the notion in their minds that Apple is just too small of a company with too little support for its platform to invest in a Mac.
re: Mac haters
Absolutely ... and in all honesty, I think many had good reason to become "Mac haters" too. I was a hard-core PC user back in 1996 or 97, when I decided to take the plunge and try a Mac. (Wondered what all the fuss was about, and wanted to learn something new.) I bought a whole Performa tower system with color printer, etc. I think I put up with that for a whole 3 months before gladly selling it at a loss to someone else! Gag... non-upgradeable video with too little VRAM, worse multitasking under MacOS 8.x than my Windows PC before it had, etc.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
Absolutely ... and in all honesty, I think many had good reason to become "Mac haters" too. I was a hard-core PC user back in 1996 or 97, when I decided to take the plunge and try a Mac. (Wondered what all the fuss was about, and wanted to learn something new.) I bought a whole Performa tower system with color printer, etc. I think I put up with that for a whole 3 months before gladly selling it at a loss to someone else! Gag... non-upgradeable video with too little VRAM, worse multitasking under MacOS 8.x than my Windows PC before it had, etc.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
I don't see Apple getting more than 10% marketshare anytime soon unless they do something significant.
I don't know anybody who has switched. I've known a few people who seriously considered it, but when they learned they'd have to spend another $200 for Windows XP so they can run their 'XP Only' things, they settled on a PC.
Price and functionality. That's what drives todays computer market.
Yes, you'll have people buying the Intel iMac.. most of the 'switchers' will do so just because it's a neat looking box. They'll still be using Windows on it.
PC sales are always down on the eve of a new OS release. Nobody wants to buy a new computer with yesterdays OS on it.
The people i've talked with aren't interested in running dual OS's. They aren't interested in having to restart their computer to run this app, then restart again to run that other app.
They just want to sit down and use the computer to do whatever it is they want to do, then get on with life.
And they want to do it without spending a bunch of money.
As long as Micro$oft keeps making Windows, and HP/Compaq/Dell keep making $499 computers, the WinTel platform will be the dominant platform.
If I were Apple, I would have made an AMD powered, or fast single core HT capable Intel Mini and introduced it in the sub $400 price range and sold them right along side the X Boxes and PS2's at WalMart.
Selling such a unit, in such an accessable venue would certianly increase marketshare, and with increased marketshare comes increased software development.. which does nothing add value to their higher end, high margin systems like the iMac and Mac Pro.
I don't know anybody who has switched. I've known a few people who seriously considered it, but when they learned they'd have to spend another $200 for Windows XP so they can run their 'XP Only' things, they settled on a PC.
Price and functionality. That's what drives todays computer market.
Yes, you'll have people buying the Intel iMac.. most of the 'switchers' will do so just because it's a neat looking box. They'll still be using Windows on it.
PC sales are always down on the eve of a new OS release. Nobody wants to buy a new computer with yesterdays OS on it.
The people i've talked with aren't interested in running dual OS's. They aren't interested in having to restart their computer to run this app, then restart again to run that other app.
They just want to sit down and use the computer to do whatever it is they want to do, then get on with life.
And they want to do it without spending a bunch of money.
As long as Micro$oft keeps making Windows, and HP/Compaq/Dell keep making $499 computers, the WinTel platform will be the dominant platform.
If I were Apple, I would have made an AMD powered, or fast single core HT capable Intel Mini and introduced it in the sub $400 price range and sold them right along side the X Boxes and PS2's at WalMart.
Selling such a unit, in such an accessable venue would certianly increase marketshare, and with increased marketshare comes increased software development.. which does nothing add value to their higher end, high margin systems like the iMac and Mac Pro.
plinden
macrumors 601
People who are happy with Wal-Marty companies are going to buy the cheapest thing they can find, so they will go for the $500 laptops and $350 desktops.
Apple is not in the business of massive marketshare, it is in the business of making money. It is doing quite well with its current offerings AND current marketing, so it is unlikely to go downmarket. Consider, 58% of its income and most likely a similar percentage of profits come from Macs, so that's 546x.58 = $317 million. Compare this to Gateway - similar number of PCs sold, but it made a loss of $7 million last quarter.
Increased profits come with increased market, but only up to a point.
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
If they have the richest 10% than that's important as they probably buy 50% of software, to Apple $499 machines don't matter as the users are (generally) ignorant (as they don't want to spend a lot on a computer so generally don't care about them) and are therefore more likely to get Spyware/Viruses, they also don't buy any software (except possibly Office), Apple *wants* those users on Windows.
Also their laptop share is already 12% in the US, with more stores that could grow to about 20% easily.
Hehe at this rate of increase, Bill Gates and his gang in Redmond, WA should be worried now. 😀 😛
I think Apple is more concern with building beautiful computers and fabulously looking music player than they are about selling large amount of PCs or mp3 players. Case in point, my office mate has a dell laptop and when we place our laptops next to one another (mine is a black MacBook) you can definitely tell. Personally, the reason why I brought the MacBook instead of a HP laptop that cost $500 less is because the HP laptop is ugly. It is simple. I don't care about the amazing video card that has a trillion bytes of RAM that I will never see. My MacBook works well (iLife, Safari and Office suite) and looks gorgeous!
If Apple continues to create stylist electronic devices that are simple to use and help people do things easily, they will gain marketshare albeit not by much.
Cinch
lmalave
macrumors 68000
They still neeed to double or triple their marketshare, atl least. At 5% marketshare, they can still be ignored by many software makers. At 15% or even 20% market share, though, you'll hit some critical point where almost every software maker will port their software to OS X.
jonharris200
macrumors 6502
But Apple could do even better.
Good points. Apple are doing great, but the lack of dedicated graphics in consumer-priced Macs aimed at switchers & students, many of whom will already own PC games, is an oversight. Otherwise, Apple's marketshare could be far higher.
Also, as 0010101 posted earlier, there'll be huge numbers of people holding back from buying PCs due to Vista's delay. Let's see if Apple can repeat their current success next year, when millions of PCs pre-loaded with Vista hit the shops. IMO, without significant upgrades to consumer-priced Macs, Apple's marketshare is unlikely to continue growing beyond the busy pre-Xmas retail season.
Good points. Apple are doing great, but the lack of dedicated graphics in consumer-priced Macs aimed at switchers & students, many of whom will already own PC games, is an oversight. Otherwise, Apple's marketshare could be far higher.
Also, as 0010101 posted earlier, there'll be huge numbers of people holding back from buying PCs due to Vista's delay. Let's see if Apple can repeat their current success next year, when millions of PCs pre-loaded with Vista hit the shops. IMO, without significant upgrades to consumer-priced Macs, Apple's marketshare is unlikely to continue growing beyond the busy pre-Xmas retail season.
dernhelm
macrumors 68000
In respect to the dedicated graphics card, I totally agree with you here. I keep saying it, but a dedicated gaming machine made in the Apple style would absolutely vault them 5% in share overnight. Maybe more.
However in my experience, fewer people are waiting on Vista for a new machine than you may think. I'm really surprised at how little buzz Vista is getting. I've got several friends with HIGH END hardware running Vista beta now, and the all think it works great except for Aero, which to a person they have all turned off. Every single one of them complains about the speed, but say it is very solid crash-wise, especially for a beta. But when I press them if they will actually buy Vista the day it comes out, all but one said no. The main reason is that there is just nothing all that compelling there. And what with significant evidence that they have completely re-written their networking stack, I think I'll be with them on the sidelines waiting for a while until they work the bugs out.
So at least in my limited experience, people who need new hardware are buying it now - and not really waiting for Vista, which may be 9-12 months off for them anyway. What this means to me is that Apple's marketshare increases can be written off as an anomaly all that easily.
SMM
macrumors 65816
Growing marketshare is a lot more difficult than some of you (not all) may imagine. If Apple had a sudden increase, they would not be able to support it. They would find some suppliers who would be unable to quickly ramp up for the extra demand. Their assembly plants would be overwhelmed, as would their transportation infrastructure.
Growing their business must be performed in a strategic and systematic way. On the plus side, they have a solid cash reserve to this. But, they are extremely diverse and have new products coming down the line. The best thing they can do is increase sales in new markets, keep their profits high, maintain their lead in engineering and start increasing capacity.
Many people have posted about having a mid-level tower, highly configurable, and placed between the imac and Mac Pro. I suspect Apple would like this as well. However, it takes a different kind of assembly line to make machines like this, and still keep the price low. It also takes more work in the sales to work order process to make it happen efficiently. I think this may be a possibility once Apple can get the infrastructure in-place to manage it. They most certainly need additional manufacturing capacity right now. This could very well be in work.
Regardless, I believe Apple will end up with a significant market share and it will not be a linear growth. Going from 6%-12% will be the toughest period for them.
Growing their business must be performed in a strategic and systematic way. On the plus side, they have a solid cash reserve to this. But, they are extremely diverse and have new products coming down the line. The best thing they can do is increase sales in new markets, keep their profits high, maintain their lead in engineering and start increasing capacity.
Many people have posted about having a mid-level tower, highly configurable, and placed between the imac and Mac Pro. I suspect Apple would like this as well. However, it takes a different kind of assembly line to make machines like this, and still keep the price low. It also takes more work in the sales to work order process to make it happen efficiently. I think this may be a possibility once Apple can get the infrastructure in-place to manage it. They most certainly need additional manufacturing capacity right now. This could very well be in work.
Regardless, I believe Apple will end up with a significant market share and it will not be a linear growth. Going from 6%-12% will be the toughest period for them.
definitely a lot of switchers in my book. I know at least 5 friends who have switched in the past year, and 3 more (including myself) who will be switching by the end of the year 😛
The important pieces to note about the marketshare is that this definitely is coming from switchers, not from upgraders. If you look at the data, you will see that it's broken up between MacOS and MacIntel. The data for MacOS is just PPC people, and that actually remained constant throughout the year:
while the marketshare for MacIntel has been a nice parabolic curve:
for full information go here:http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
while the marketshare for MacIntel has been a nice parabolic curve:
for full information go here:http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
amac4me
macrumors 65816
Deimo,
The link you provide is what I referenced in my post. It's important for people to realize that Net Applications breaks down Apple's operating system into Mac OS (PowerPC) and MacIntel (Intel).
It's clear that PowerPC Mac use has remained fairly unchanged for the past year (slightly down) but Intel based Macs are on the rise. This makes sense considering that Apple no longer sells PowerPC based Macs.
Two things are likely occuring:
Let's not forget Apple's recently reported Q4 Fiscal 2006 earnings that showed a record 1.61 Million Macs sold during the months of July - September.
It's clear that Apple's popularity is on the rise and more and more people are buying Macs. This is just the beginning.
Thanks to MacRumors for linking to my article.
The link you provide is what I referenced in my post. It's important for people to realize that Net Applications breaks down Apple's operating system into Mac OS (PowerPC) and MacIntel (Intel).
It's clear that PowerPC Mac use has remained fairly unchanged for the past year (slightly down) but Intel based Macs are on the rise. This makes sense considering that Apple no longer sells PowerPC based Macs.
Two things are likely occuring:
- People who own PowerPC Macs are still using them, even if they have purchased an Intel based Mac
- The number of people new to Mac is growing with each passing month
Let's not forget Apple's recently reported Q4 Fiscal 2006 earnings that showed a record 1.61 Million Macs sold during the months of July - September.
It's clear that Apple's popularity is on the rise and more and more people are buying Macs. This is just the beginning.
Thanks to MacRumors for linking to my article.
Thanks for the interesting podcast link. I wasn't unaware of Vista's possible security problems, I just never realized how bad the worst case scenario could be...despite all the delayed launches. Yes, potentially a hackers paradise, but I'd still be surprised if the final version of Vista wasn't far more secure than previous versions of W$.
I think you're right that some people will be wary of becoming early adopters of Vista in light of all the cited beta-version problems. Many may wait for a Vista SP edition (some 12 months away). Also, there's bound to be some initial confusion for less savvy PC users when faced with 6 different versions of Vista. Despite this, I still expect many millions to be swayed by M$'s mass advertizing campaigns to take the plunge soon after launch.
But like you, I think none of this need greatly affect Apple's steady rise in marketshare. For sure, Mac OS X will remain the best & most secure OS there is. I just have growing doubts about whether Apple's lack of dedicated graphics in their consumer Macs, combined with the novelty of M$'s new baby, won't cost Apple dearly in the long term. - I very much hope I'll be proved wrong.
I've followed the computer industry for 26+ years.. I remember a time when Apples marketshare was thru the roof. I also remember a company called Commodore that is still the best selling personal computer of all time.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
So many of the switchers are college kids. A few
months ago they had an article about how the
market share in college is really falling more toward
mac, more than ever before. Apple is getting them
young, and that will pay off in the long run. I got
my first Mac when I started college and now that
I finished, I got a new one. The new laptops have
made a huge dent in this age group, so that is what
a lot of this whole market share increase is caused by.
months ago they had an article about how the
market share in college is really falling more toward
mac, more than ever before. Apple is getting them
young, and that will pay off in the long run. I got
my first Mac when I started college and now that
I finished, I got a new one. The new laptops have
made a huge dent in this age group, so that is what
a lot of this whole market share increase is caused by.
lmalave
macrumors 68000
Harvard and Princeton have both recently reported that 50% of sales at their campus computer stores are Macs.
lmalave
macrumors 68000
Hmm...interesting idea. Maybe Apple could offer a $100 upgrade to a decent video card in the MacBook and Mac mini. And brand those as the "gaming" versions of those machines. I think this would be worth it for Apple. Even though it would cannibalize some MBP sales, I think the increase in MacBook sales would be much larger than the slight drop in MBP sales...
EDIT: And hey, what about if in order to highlight the multithreaded Open GL capabilities in OS X, the "gaming versions" came with World of Warcraft preinstalled and optimized for multithreading? It would be a boon for Apple since WoW is so popular, and it would be good marketing for Blizzard, since WoW makes most of its money from subscriptions anyway...
MikeTheC
Guest
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and f*** everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than 2006, but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and f*** everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than 2006, but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.