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 Sales and Marketshare Up (IDC)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see Apple holding onto its marketshare, even if the ipod eventually does fade away. (I still think that's a long ways off, seeing the current development of music phones, :: cough :: ROKR :: cough :
Switchers who go from windows -> mac will probably purchase a good amount of software. Even with programs like openoffice, I still can't live without the MS Office suite. And speaking from the point of view from a relatively new switcher (July of this year) I wouldn't switch back to windows, even if windows got alot more competitive, simply because I've invested into software for mac already.
Switchers who go from windows -> mac will probably purchase a good amount of software. Even with programs like openoffice, I still can't live without the MS Office suite. And speaking from the point of view from a relatively new switcher (July of this year) I wouldn't switch back to windows, even if windows got alot more competitive, simply because I've invested into software for mac already.
Ipod halo effect? Maybe not completely
Not sure if it's been mentionned or not, but if you ask me, a part of this just has to be the "Mac mini" effect.
Prior to the Mac mini, there was only all-in-one choices for consumers (almost nobody will buy a PowerMac to play run iTunes, iPhoto and Doom 3).
Not sure if it's been mentionned or not, but if you ask me, a part of this just has to be the "Mac mini" effect.
Prior to the Mac mini, there was only all-in-one choices for consumers (almost nobody will buy a PowerMac to play run iTunes, iPhoto and Doom 3).
steve_hill4 said:
It's already happened. The iMac G5 originally had a major problem with capacitors blowing out due to overheating and the Powermac G5's 1.8ghz single model had a poorly designed SMU that would cause the machine to malfunction and crash regularly (the iMac G5s got new boards but the G5 1.8s are slowly and very quietly replaced with dual 2s if anything)..
With the powermacs they should have recalled but didn't....
Market Share Numbers Are Useless
Market share is a totally useless number. All Apple cares about is how much of its TARGET MARKET is being converted. It couldn't give a rat's behind about total market share, and here's why:
Apple's a niche player. It targets 3 specific demographics: 1) young children and students, through its educational programs, and 2) young adults - with quite a bit of disposable income 3) artistic/graphic professionals.
Apple would not make ANY money by focusing on increasing overall personal computer market share. Because, frankly, most of the world does not consist of young well-to-do people with large amounts of disposable income - the proverbial "rich kids." For a father raising a family of 3, Apple computers mean nothing to him. For $400, you can get a usable machine at Best Buy. Why the hell do you bother with a Mac? Plus, he's got Microsoft Works from his last computer and a couple of free versions of Quicken.
That's where the iPod "halo" effect comes in. Young adults are sucked in via the digital music aspect and converted to using Apple computers because they have the money and the mental flexibility to switch platforms. For a middle-aged person, like a mother, they MIGHT get the iPod for the music, if that at all. But if they do, the halo doesn't effect them.
Therefore, it's completely irrelevant what the market share figures are, because Apple remains a niche player. What Apple should measure itself by is really how many people in their target market they are reaching - this is how Apple is earning money. They are not going to earn money attempting to get "normal" households to buy into their Mac system. And this is partly why Apple seldom touts its market share numbers during quarterly reports.
Market share is a totally useless number. All Apple cares about is how much of its TARGET MARKET is being converted. It couldn't give a rat's behind about total market share, and here's why:
Apple's a niche player. It targets 3 specific demographics: 1) young children and students, through its educational programs, and 2) young adults - with quite a bit of disposable income 3) artistic/graphic professionals.
Apple would not make ANY money by focusing on increasing overall personal computer market share. Because, frankly, most of the world does not consist of young well-to-do people with large amounts of disposable income - the proverbial "rich kids." For a father raising a family of 3, Apple computers mean nothing to him. For $400, you can get a usable machine at Best Buy. Why the hell do you bother with a Mac? Plus, he's got Microsoft Works from his last computer and a couple of free versions of Quicken.
That's where the iPod "halo" effect comes in. Young adults are sucked in via the digital music aspect and converted to using Apple computers because they have the money and the mental flexibility to switch platforms. For a middle-aged person, like a mother, they MIGHT get the iPod for the music, if that at all. But if they do, the halo doesn't effect them.
Therefore, it's completely irrelevant what the market share figures are, because Apple remains a niche player. What Apple should measure itself by is really how many people in their target market they are reaching - this is how Apple is earning money. They are not going to earn money attempting to get "normal" households to buy into their Mac system. And this is partly why Apple seldom touts its market share numbers during quarterly reports.
memos said:
I was going to say:
"Ba mhaith linn Macs nua ghairmiúil"... except that also means "We would like new professional sons"...
(i.e. Mac->Macintosh->Macintosh Apples->John McIntosh's orchard->McIntosh surname->"Mac an toshach"->"Son of the chief")
Evangelion said:
Nope. I was going to disagree with kiwi-in-uk, but I rethought your fuel analogy, which has a major fault. You could stop making Mac applications today, and you could still run your existing Mac 5 years from now. I've got clients that still run OS 8.6 on their old iMacs. Just because they can't go out and buy any new apps for it doesn't mean they can't use their computer. Oddly enough, they are quite content.
Take away the fuel and a car quits running, period. So, the analogy needs to be modified.
But, even so, market share is important for continued Mac development. It doesn't have to be a big market share though, as long as companies feel there is enough of an installed base to make a profit writing software, AND as long as it's a growing marketshare.
A steady growth to 8-10% would be a nice change for this long time Mac user
fatfish said:
How would control be any different if you were selling 10 million iMacs as opposed to 1 million? It's not as if you have to do something different to each and every one of them. Are you're forgetting that increasing market share doesn't mean having to support platforms built by multiple vendors?
CHess said:
Same reason it affects MS; loads more applications doing exactly the same thing, some are well written some are trash, the more trash that gets written the worse the experience. A larger market share will not produce anymore Adobe's, but every man and his dog will be providing trash for the platform. Even if you don't use the trash yourself, others will and when you produce a document that doesn't do what it should on another mac, you will be forced to use your own applications in a different manner.
nagromme said:
No it doesn't.
The stats are for hardware unit sales, non mac units are counted regardless of whether they run a legitimate copy of windows, an illegal copy, another OS or even if they have no OS and were just purchased to sit idle and unused on a movie set.
Lacero said:It's only been 8 years since Jobs took back the helm of Apple. Who'd guess Apple would be where it is today? I wonder what the next 8 years has in store for us.
You are very alert and on the ball there Lacero.
Yes, I will be 65. It doesn't seem likes it been eight years though. So I imagine that the next eight will go just as fast. I expect that we have many surprises ahead of us. 2006 is only the beginning.
I'm not sure if something to this affect has already been posted (because I didn't have time to read this whole thread) but I think this increase is due to the "coolness" factor of Apple, and their ability to effectively market the iPod. In music today, you're not cool unless you have an iPod. This idea is spreading to the computer world. Its amazing, because around my school (Miami University in Oxford, Ohio) I see more people sporting Apple PowerBooks and iBooks than any type of Window's 'books combined. Its a really cool and neat time to be an Apple user.
the stats
I haven't read the report yet, but is it split between portables and desktops too?
I can defenitely say that arround my workplace, from the people who buy a new laptop, approx. 25% buy a mac, which is more than a few years ago, when I was the only one with a (then G3) powerbook.
How the 4.3% marketshare translates to this I do not know, and is this global or US only?
I only hope that Apple can do something about it's snobbish sales personel, enhusiasm is good, and yes, windows sucks, but you've got to be careful not to offend potential switchers, first get them to switch, they'll appreciate the difference in time themselves!
I haven't read the report yet, but is it split between portables and desktops too?
I can defenitely say that arround my workplace, from the people who buy a new laptop, approx. 25% buy a mac, which is more than a few years ago, when I was the only one with a (then G3) powerbook.
How the 4.3% marketshare translates to this I do not know, and is this global or US only?
I only hope that Apple can do something about it's snobbish sales personel, enhusiasm is good, and yes, windows sucks, but you've got to be careful not to offend potential switchers, first get them to switch, they'll appreciate the difference in time themselves!
spencecb said:
There were many factors for people not buying a mac. The perception of non compatibility, the cost but in the majority of cases people simply didn't know they existed.
The ipod has more or less removed the anonymity for Apple, prices are more competitive than they were and the mac is more compatible.
The notion of Apple being "cool" is a good point, but I suspect without the benefit of being a quality product, no-one would have given Apple the "cool" tag
k2k koos said:
Don't think it actually says, but given the numbers it seems it would be for both LT's and DT's. Of considerable note though, is that these figures are for Q3, Apples Q4 figures were better than their Q3's.
Lacero said:It's only been 8 years since Jobs took back the helm of Apple. Who'd guess Apple would be where it is today? I wonder what the next 8 years has in store for us.
It's been eight years,
I feel aged. 
I guess my point was that as share increased, these problems are likely to increase too.JoeG4 said:It's already happened. The iMac G5 originally had a major problem with capacitors blowing out due to overheating and the Powermac G5's 1.8ghz single model had a poorly designed SMU that would cause the machine to malfunction and crash regularly (the iMac G5s got new boards but the G5 1.8s are slowly and very quietly replaced with dual 2s if anything)..
With the powermacs they should have recalled but didn't....
Q4's figures showed a slightly higher number of Laptop sales over Desktops, I think that was the main reasoning behind the new iMacs. They really need to boost those dektop sales if they want to become massive again.fatfish said:
Maybe...but let's compare it exactly how it would be...Evangelion said:Your car-analogy fails. Even though BMW has low market-share, you can still use same gasoline as other cars do. and you can use same tires. And if you know how to drive any other car, you know how to drive a BMW. But suppose that BMW's required special BMW-fuel. special BMW-tires and it's controls vere different from other cars. What would happen if the biggest chain of gas-stations decided that they are not going to bother with BMW-fuel anymore and if Goodyear and Michelin decided to drop their support for BMW's? It would make the car that much less appealing, and it could trigger a downward spiral.
Posted from my Nokia 9300 Communicator while sitting in a train
What if...
The Gas stations that carried "special" BMW gas were bp (Arco), Cheveron, and Shell. And the companies that carried tires for BMW were Michelin, Goodyear, and Firestone. Now you have a analogy. All/Most of the good Hardware/Software is made for Apple, and it isn't that hard to find.
I also agree it would be in Apple's best interest to get a higher market share, no doubt about it. I was just pointing out that oter companies that have similar low market shares seem to be doing just fine (infact, most of them are the cars we consider top-of-the-line).Evangelion said:
Halo Effect Bah!
I hate the term "halo effect."
It seems to carry with it a sense of uninformed people buying something foolishly because they liked the iPod.
How about saying, "People are buying Apple computers because of their customer satisfaction with the iPod"? Isn't that what it's really about?
I hate the term "halo effect."
It seems to carry with it a sense of uninformed people buying something foolishly because they liked the iPod.
How about saying, "People are buying Apple computers because of their customer satisfaction with the iPod"? Isn't that what it's really about?
agreed.Mgmax said:
What about making it the other way...
People are buying iPods because of thier customer satisfaction with their iMac.
---That explains me atleast
That's only a problem (if at all) if Mac users on a significant scale are willing to accept trash when something better is available. I think that won't happen.fatfish said:
Are you sure that's what these particular numbers are? But regardless, it's an excellent point--SOME numbers may be from Microsoft, but others will ignore OS. When looking at market share, that's an important level of complexity to realize and take into account. Good point.fatfish said:
But "halo effect" is a LOT easier to sayMgmax said:
"Halo effect" doesn't say anything bad to me. I'm not even sure EXACTLY what is meant by it, other than simply iPod owners being more likely to consider Macs.
It could mean that the "light" of the iPod success has a surrounding "halo" of indirect Mac success.
It could mean that the iPod gives Apple a halo in people's minds, leading them to look at the company's other products.
Neither one is a very good metaphor in my view, but the term has stuck.
Like it or not, the halo and devil effects are very real. People really do tend to form overall impressions about other people and things based on a small, possibly irrelevant subset of the information available to them. It's the reason why first impressions matter, brand loyalty exists and celebrity spokespeople are effective. The only real oddness is that the term seems to be applied almost exclusively to Apple these days when the effect is everywhere.Mgmax said:
wdlove, I hear ya.wdlove said:
You know, I arrived in Japan last week. That was about 17 years ago.
YIKES!
Time sure passes by quickly.
I was the proud owner of a Bondi Blue iMac. Incredible how the iMac has evolved and improved in 8 short years. Looking forward to the next 8 years!
The laptop evolution is also very interesting to me. It seems like a few years ago everyone wanted a laptop that was small and light weight even at the expense of a CD drive and other features. Now it seems that most folks want a full featured laptop. Of course they want this full featured laptop to be very fast, have a lot of RAM, a huge HD, battery life in days, and of course weigh a feather. But who knows in 8 years. My PB170 looks like a brick compared to my PB15 in what 12 years.
On a side note, I wonder if Apple will re-introduce the Newton by then?
Sushi
Likewise.wdlove said:
My uncle that I grew up with always said that he lived during the best timeframe for man. He started out with horse and buggies as a kid and saw a man land on the moon before he died.wdlove said:
I wonder what would equate in our day that would have the same impact?
MSFT goes under, perhaps!
Seriously, I wonder what would be the equivalent of that transition today?
Sushi