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

[jellomizer]

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

Agreed Dell and HP are very big into the corporate sales. While the others then to be in the Consumer Sales. Lets face it Apples Business relations Sucks, there education relation stinks too. I really like my MacBook Pro and use it for work all the time but I would never advise a company to go Apple, even if they were to be boot-camped into windows (taking the bulk of migration costs out of the picture)

1. Apple keeps their products secrete to the last minute. This site is proof of that. Businesses want to know when the new model is coming out Months before then.

2. They need a company that will give price cuts to their models while they are depreciating. For example the XServe and the MacPro prices should have been reduced by now. Because they are aging, and expected to be updated soon.

3. Small product line. Most companies need a Tower systems that is more upgradable with user replaceable parts then an iMac but not as powerful as a MacPro. Business like the ability to upgrade, so after 3 years they can get 3 or more years out of the system if they can put in a new Video Card, and Some more Ram, and perhaps a card that now supports new devices. Or replace parts that fail.

There are other things too. But those are the big ones. If you add having them use Parallels and OS X then there are more issues we need to deal with. (Mostly because most people doesn't understand how virtualization works)

 

[72930]

Thankfully in my line of work (well, being a student) the percentage of people who are Mac users is more like 20%

 

[Digitalclips]

A steady climb? That's a jump high enough to give you nose bleed!

I just flew from US to UK and back with long waits at various airports. It was amazing, both sides of the Atlantic I saw Mac laptops everywhere being used by waiting passengers and even several pilot types checking flight data. They far out numbered PC laptops by 10 to 1. I thought I was hallucinating! Last time I flew this trip a few years back I had the only Mac I saw. Man this is sweet

 

[guzhogi]

true, but OS X architechture, which is a Unix one, is way better for security than windows' is...

While Mac OS X is based on Unix, I wonder how many security holes Apple may have opened when adapting Unix to use as a Mac.

Simple question: is this 8.1% tell how much of the computers sold last quater were Macs or is it how much of all computers currently running Macs? If it's just computers sold this quater, I want what the marketshare is for the installed base.

 

[Zadillo]

While Mac OS X is based on Unix, I wonder how many security holes Apple may have opened when adapting Unix to use as a Mac.

Simple question: is this 8.1% tell how much of the computers sold last quater were Macs or is it how much of all computers currently running Macs? If it's just computers sold this quater, I want what the marketshare is for the installed base.

Remember, it's not like OS X was just developed from scratch. NeXT/Apple already had years of experience with it as NeXTStep. I guess you are suggesting possible security holes added by adding in the new API's, etc. but I haven't heard of too many problems coming up like this (it seems like when you do hear about security holes in OS X, they are often more standard UNIX security issues).

The marketshare figure represents computers sold during that quarter.

I think "installed base" is much harder to figure out though. You'd have to have an accurate way to survey people and find out what systems they were actually using.

This actually used to be one of the common complaints when people talked about Apple's low marketshare numbers. Historically speaking, Mac users tended to hold on to and use their Macs for much longer, so the quarterly marketshare figures of new purchased Macs often were fairly low. But it didn't tell the whole picture, since it didn't reflect necessarily how many people were actually using Macs.

-Zadillo

 

[DTphonehome]

I think "installed base" is much harder to figure out though. You'd have to have an accurate way to survey people and find out what systems they were actually using.

Plus, besides for developers and bragging rights, it's a useless measure. Apple as a company needs SALES to survive, not installed base.

 

[wPod]

What about Acer who bought Gateway who bought Packard Bell? This accumulation is supposed to end up as 3rd largest market share under Dell and HP. But this buyout has just happened so I am curious to see th next round of numbers. I am sure Apple's market share will continue to rise, but I am curious if they will be able to hold on to the 3rd place spot!

 

[Zadillo]

Plus, besides for developers and bragging rights, it's a useless measure. Apple as a company needs SALES to survive, not installed base.

Well, I wouldn't underestimate the importance for developers though in terms of how it relates to sales.

Larger installed base = more potential customers for developers to develop software for.

More software support = more future sales from people who are willing to buy Macs because the software they want is available for it.

So Apple needs sales AND installed base.

 

[macUser2007]

Eh, so why the difference in reported numbers? Is it 8+% or 6+%?

I've always had Apples, but for HTPC I've switched to Windows a while back. Apple just sucks for HTPC and Leopard is doing nothing to fix that. Plus, they have left the only HTPC-apt Mac, the Mini, to rot. I just replaced mine (which was dedicated HTPC running Vista MCE), with an AOPEN 965-based mini-PC, so I can run Hi-Def DVDs.

In fairness, I feel that MS is far more responsive to their customers. MS has their people helping and taking suggestions from end-users on third-party sites, like thegreenbutton.com, while Apple can't be bothered to have someone helping on their own forums.

As to security, there are various surveys showing that MS responds significantly faster and more aggressively to security holes, than Apple does.

Not bashing Apple here, just setting some facts straight.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Hey there, this is great news.

more importantly the 8.1% marketshare. could mean even better numbers when you look at the consumer market.

the 8.1% could in consumer market mean 10-12%

 

[MattJessop]

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

I don't think you'll have to worry about that for a while. Linux's share of servers and 'critical' workstations that companies rely on in the background is quite high I'd assume. This would make it a prime target for hackers who want to disrupt companies. Yet Linux is secure, and very few to no viruses are reported.

OS X is based on the same architecture as Linux, so it would be safe to assume that it'll be pretty safe for a while. Especially with Apple introducing a limited form of Application signing in Leopard.

Windows meanwhile relies on WinNT. Thank the heavens its not Win9x. *Shakes head* those were the days.

 

[MattJessop]

Eh, so why the difference in reported numbers? Is it 8+% or 6+%?

I've always had Apples, but for HTPC I've switched to Windows a while back. Apple just sucks for HTPC and Leopard is doing nothing to fix that. Plus, they have left the only HTPC-apt Mac, the Mini, to rot. I just replaced mine (which was dedicated HTPC running Vista MCE), with an AOPEN 965-based mini-PC, so I can run Hi-Def DVDs.

In fairness, I feel that MS is far more responsive to their customers. MS has their people helping and taking suggestions from end-users on third-party sites, like thegreenbutton.com, while Apple can't be bothered to have someone helping on their own forums.

As to security, there are various surveys showing that MS responds significantly faster and more aggressively to security holes, than Apple does.

Not bashing Apple here, just setting some facts straight.

I agree. While Apple are great at what they do, there are certain things that they lack. While they led with 802.11n and other technologies. Hi-Def DVDs for example they lack, possibly because they're just sitting on the fence.

And again, while Apple may have the better security to begin with, Microsoft do respond faster. This possibly may just be to help with businesses, who MS hold a far higher marketshare.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

2. They need a company that will give price cuts to their models while they are depreciating. For example the XServe and the MacPro prices should have been reduced by now. Because they are aging, and expected to be updated soon.

3. Small product line. Most companies need a Tower systems that is more upgradable with user replaceable parts then an iMac but not as powerful as a MacPro. Business like the ability to upgrade, so after 3 years they can get 3 or more years out of the system if they can put in a new Video Card, and Some more Ram, and perhaps a card that now supports new devices. Or replace parts that fail.

2- Regarding pricing, Apple needs to drop pricing when model are lagging. It is the same as other computers or cameras. AS models get older, and tech doesnt get upgraded. Lower the price. its the right thing to do.

3- I wholeheartedly agree. Apple needs a midrange tower which is user upgradeable. Something that a nice graphics card and more can be put into. not everyone needs 4 hard drive bays and etc.

it would be great to have one with 2-3 card slots and 2 hard drive bays. Allow people to put in nicer graphics cards. obviously needing mac drivers

 

[WannaGoMac]

I don't think you'll have to worry about that for a while. Linux's share of servers and 'critical' workstations that companies rely on in the background is quite high I'd assume. This would make it a prime target for hackers who want to disrupt companies. Yet Linux is secure, and very few to no viruses are reported.

OS X is based on the same architecture as Linux, so it would be safe to assume that it'll be pretty safe for a while. Especially with Apple introducing a limited form of Application signing in Leopard.

Windows meanwhile relies on WinNT. Thank the heavens its not Win9x. *Shakes head* those were the days.

Actually OS X is based on BSD, not Linux.

Just because there are no viruses, doesn't mean they won't be prone to hacking. I agree viruses are unlikely for UNIX based OSes.

I have friends in the computer security industry that have told me that it is actually EASIER in many ways to hack a Unix box than a Windoze. Though they do say both systems are vulnerable in unique ways...

 

[surferfromuk]

your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

 

[virduk]

I wonder what the picture looks like outside the U.S?

I wonder if all that growth is in laptops.

I also wonder if these figures include non-branded systems? Now it may just be vastly differently in the US, but here I almost never see 'branded' systems. Even in education its far more common to see system that are put together by local outfits rather than brand names.

 

[DTphonehome]

your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

Not sure about your numbers, but that's why I'm accumulating AAPL...the future is VERY bright.

 

[gnasher729]

Larger installed base = more potential customers for developers to develop software for.

Actually, installed base is not _that_ important for software development. People who are too tight to replace a five year old computer are less likely to pay for new software. People who buy new computers are much more likely to buy new software.

But since Gateway etc. were mentioned: The average price for a Gateway computer is much less than for a Mac. And again, people who bought the cheapest PC they can find are less likely to pay for new software than people who paid more money, for example for a Macintosh. I wouldn't try to make a living writing software for people who bought $400 PCs.

 

[gnasher729]

This actually used to be one of the common complaints when people talked about Apple's low marketshare numbers. Historically speaking, Mac users tended to hold on to and use their Macs for much longer, so the quarterly marketshare figures of new purchased Macs often were fairly low. But it didn't tell the whole picture, since it didn't reflect necessarily how many people were actually using Macs.

These marketshare numbers also don't consider the value of the computers sold. An eight core MacPro with 3,000GB harddisk space, 16GB RAM and two 30" monitors = one computer sold. A $400 crappy PC = one computer sold. Apple's share at total computer revenue is much higher, and Apple's share at total computer profit is higher still. Like Gateway makes about $1 profit per computer sold in a good quarter.

 

[Bill Av]

Where's Sony? Under "Others"? I thought they'd be bigger than that.

 

[MacsAttack]

3- I wholeheartedly agree. Apple needs a midrange tower which is user upgradeable.

Ahh... No.

The whole market is shifting to laptops at a growing pace. Apple's most popular models are now the laptops - they account for over half the sales now. With firewire and USB there is very little you can't "add" externally - and it is far more user friendly than grubbing about in the guts of a system.

A midrange tower is a small and poorly defined niche market item. Apple would be barking to consider producing such a system. It goes against their entire (apparent) strategy/business.

1. Support. By keeping the number of systems and their configurations down to a minimum it simplifies support and repair.

2. Retail Market Model. Apple have taken a very different approach to that of - say - Dell. Dell operate a tight stock managment system that also has them frequently updating their products. In a direct sales environment this works as their are no large piles of inventory. Apple one the other hand have a retail market model - with a long stock tail. Combined with their own stores, there are all the third party resellers to consider. Frequent updates are not possible in this environment - the retail end of things would forever be selling products at end-of-line discount. Products thus have a long lifecycle between updates.

3. Target Market. Dell built market share by pitching at the low end. Sure they sell top of the line systems too - but most of their sales are right at the low end. Problem is the margins there have been shrinking. Dell may not be in a death spiral, but thay have seen their profits cut by half. Apple just does not play in that market - so no "mini tower". The Mini is sold as much on the form factor as price. It is typical Apple in that it is not a typical low end machine. The iMac - well - is the iMac. No other company has produced a sucessful line of all-in-one desktops. The Mac Pro is the industrial-grade rig. And then there is the laptop range. None of this stuff is pitched at the low end of the market. Apple focus on where there is a profit to be made. Never forget that in the end - that is Apple's overriding consideration.

4. Component/Design Re-Use. Just take a look at the lineup. The Mac Mini and MacBook are esentially the same hardware. Just packaged up differntly. The same is true of the iMac and MacBook Pro. This re-use saves Apple money on development and support. It saves them money on percurment as they can wring the maximum savings on bulk orders. The Mac Pro is the only exception - but then it does have a high sticker price.

The case against the midrange tower...

Ground up product design. This would be a system that uses virtually no component with any of the other Apple systems (hard disks and optical drives aside). No point in a multiprocessor system - that is what the Mac Pro is. A "smaller" Mac Pro would not cost very much less. No. the midrange tower would use a different processor (Intel desktop 2 or 4 core) - which is not used in any existing Mac. A different chipset - which is not used in any existing Mac. A different kind of memory - which is not used in any existing - Mac. A differnet case. In short this would be a ground up design with none of the cost savings that Apple enjoys on the other lines.

OS/Software. Being an all-new system, Apple has support it in software in the OS. That adds to their costs.

After sales support. Yet another product line. More support requirments. Training. Spares. Etc.

So adding a midrange tower would be a non-trivial undertaking. For such a niche system (aside from switching graphics cards to make it a "killer gaming rig", nobody has ever defined just what this mythical beast is suppored to do that cannot be done with an existing system), it just does present a good business case.

On the other hand - if the numbers are correct - Apple have increased their market share from 5% to 8% (that is a 60% growth) without the aid of a midrange tower. Considering that Apple have done so without targeting the low end of the maket with low cost/low margin products (which is what the midrange would be), but is doing so with its slow product cycles and high margins.

Sounds like a company with a working business plan to me.

If some people don't like it, I hear Dell are still in business (for the time being).

 

[MacsAttack]

These marketshare numbers also don't consider the value of the computers sold. An eight core MacPro with 3,000GB harddisk space, 16GB RAM and two 30" monitors = one computer sold. A $400 crappy PC = one computer sold. Apple's share at total computer revenue is much higher, and Apple's share at total computer profit is higher still. Like Gateway makes about $1 profit per computer sold in a good quarter.

A valid point. And Gateway are being bought by Packard Bell. Meanwhile Dell have seen their profits drop by half.

Apple on the other hand...

 

[MacsAttack]

your all forgetting one thing :by the year 2010 Apple will have sold 300 million iPods and 100 million iPhones - And that means halo sales of 50 million macs worldwide. After that the exponential growth will be staggering.

I'm not sold on the "halo effect" - well not that one. Halo 3 has stimulated X-Box 360 sales I understand. I did not buy a Mac because of the iPod. I don't know anyone who has.

I did buy a Nano after getting a Mac though - Reverse halo effect? No. More like the Nano was the right price and the right form factor. No surprise that it was the Nano - and to a lesser extent the Mini - that made the iPod the success it is.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Ahh... No.

The whole market is shifting to laptops at a growing pace. Apple's most popular models are now the laptops - they account for over half the sales now.

While laptops are on pace in the industry to outsell desktops. I think this is mainly because the larger volume purchasers (corporations) are buying mainly laptops.

As for Apple laptops outselling the "desktops", I think it is because if you have to buy an all-in-one people think they might as well buy a portable one. Apple desktops are hardly desktops, more like non-mobile laptops.

 

[djlu]

From here.

MacRumors:

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

It seems as if IDC is wrong. If you assume that US/International revenue mix is close to unit mix. 2.164 million computers * 60% = 1.2984 domestic units.

I would actually tend to think its probably a slight bit higher than 60% unit mix since int'l price per machine is slightly higher than US. Meaning less units per revenue.

IDC's number would be around a 52% US and would be around 62% for Gartner.