no, you're not missing anything. You actually understand, unlike some laughable asses that are posting on this thread
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's Marketshare Up to 5.6%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no, you're not missing anything. You actually understand, unlike some laughable asses that are posting on this thread
A whole host of reasons.. maybe they don't find the story interesting, don't believe the statistics... however..
however... there are still these elitist mac users who don't want Apple's marketshare to grow and to always remain at a pitiful 3%. In other words, to satisfy their own egos. They don't like the idea of Apple computers to be mass market.
That's completely untrue. Any iMac, back to the very original version released in 1998, can run at least Mac OS X 10.3 Panther. There's no way I would give a computer like an iMac to anyone with the Classic Mac OS when Panther can run fine on it. It's slow, but it's more than enough for browsing the internet, getting e-mail, and doing word processing on it. Way more than enough. (6 GB of disk space leaves a couple of gigs extra even if you decide to install all languages on it; and if you don't, you save another gig or two.)
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger introduced the requirement for built-in FireWire, so that leaves Rev. A-D iMacs out in the cold as well as some of the lower-end models of the re-designed Kihei iMacs that were released in 1999. But Panther is still a damn good version of Mac OS X. If you're interested, I wrote an article about Panther on an original bondi blue iMac a couple of years ago.
But it's so untrue that Mac OS X cannot run on some specific version of iMac. It can run and runs well on any iMac ever made.
I hate to toot my own horn but I hope my recent MBP purchase last month helped these figures.
*beep* *beep*
And my personal move from Dell to Apple in June 2007.
um... when has it happened to apple? they've never been dominant.
regardless, i don't see it happening anytime soon. they have at least 4 core markets, and they're solid in each:
1. desktops. not dominant in the market, but dominant in their niche. high quality. not much room for market movement, up or down. no risk of backlash.
2. notebooks. not dominant, but very good, and on the upswing, there's not a lot of room for movement up or down here -- so again, not much to lose.
3. mp3 players. i guess we call them "iPods" now. not only totally dominant, but has tons of lock-in: AAC content protection, iTunes, computer halo effect, current cool factor, brand recognition... there's so many technological and cultural issues working in AAPL's favor here it's almost ridiculous. amazingly, they even have room for growth here into the video market. one's tempted to say that there's nowhere to go but down for the iPod segment, but it's at the same time difficult to see what the weakness is.
4. iphone. expectations were and are high, but here, there's not really anywhere to go but up, now that we're past the initial reception. and, in addition to the ipod-type lock-in, there's a 2-year contract lock-in here.
two really amazing things about that list:
1. independence. each of the core businesses is probably profitable on its own (although the margins in the desktop market suck), and there's not much room for loss in any of them -- market share might fall, but AAPL doesn't have its neck far out on anything. --and considering their COH, they could probably weather storms even if this wasn't the case.
2. synergy. each of the four areas tends to reinforce the others. not just the computer <-> portable interaction, but itunes, isync, etc. more to the point, it's very easy to see how each area falls within a core competency. (unlike, say, the XBox...). as far as moving forward, most advances on one front (even R&D and design) tend to have effects across the business, so there's fewer risky internal decisions to make -- not that Jobs' record on that score has been bad...
to top it all off, AAPL isn't facing a major threat from any of its direct competitors (and by some accounts, some of them are floundering independently -- but given the recent quarterly reports, we don't need to go there) and appears to have a bunch of tricks left in the bag (Leopard is obvious, but expanding iPhone coverage and models is also an easy one, to say nothing of all the patent apps, potential 'ultraportable', etc.). they have no obvious weaknesses. their track record so far has also been astonishing.
in short, your "bigger they are, harder they fall" objection is an interesting cliche and worth keeping in mind, i suppose -- but unless you have more specific objections, it's a pretty empty notion.
/fanboy off
Why do people care about who rates the threads?
Bingo!
Personally, after having switched hundreds of people over the years (was a reseller), it's nice for friends and family to now tell me I was right all along.
... it seems like you're somewhat neutral on the lifetime issue, but this is an interesting point of comparison -- if you had a stock, middle-of-the-road PC from 2000, would it run Vista? mine sure wouldn't have, as i recall, and it wasn't even middle-of-the-road.
also worth mentioning that AAPL's build quality and system lifetime is exceptionally good (a few bugs like the old iBook logic board notwithstanding, but they have decent support as well, and the retail expansion will help drive door-to-door support), which is also another reason those market-share numbers are deceptive.
i.e., it's hard to say how often the apples are dying compared to the Dells, the Gateways, the HPs... based on the evidence (which is very hard to judge), this shakes out well for AAPL too.
another interesting point here is that business adoption of Macs has been abysmal -- and that's a huge market. however, that's another area I didn't even consider where AAPL really has nowhere to go but up. that's absolutely huge. the longer they keep up their current streak, the more companies will take the leap and change over (TCO from XP -> Vista is a really big issue here), and voila! -- more lock-in. lots of potential here, relatively little downside considering the current minimal market penetration.
Personally, after having switched hundreds of people over the years (was a reseller), it's nice for friends and family to now tell me I was right all along.
as for the elitism factor -- AAPL caters to this in a huge way, i think, though maybe not from the perspective of current users. if you own a PC, they pretty much all look the same, desktop or laptop, with the exception of a few ultraportables and some of the VAIOs, etc. the distinctive silver of a MBP, though, is widely recognizable as cool.
i've never really felt the "cool" factor -- and nothing until the TiBooks *really* my taste anyway -- but i agree that the "vindication" factor is far more important to me.
...although, i have a PM G4 (which is the hottest stock desktop in the world, IMO), and a 12" G4 (which, to my glee, remains one-of-a-kind -- although i'd buy one of the rumored ultraportables in a flash).
I agree. I gave my mom my blueberry iMac DV (1998, 400 MHz, 9.5 GB), which we've since upgraded to 512 MB of RAM. It runs Tiger decently, though slowly. (It has since been given to a friend, and my mom has my old iMac G5.)
In fairness (though I disagree with opening OS X or selling it for PC), Apple makes as much money (in terms of revenue at least from iPod+iPhone, which would be unaffected by this. So at worst their revenue/earnings would be cut in half.
i think apple has a potential share of around 10%-15%...anything higher than that and it means people, by and large, prefer them over PC's
short of macs becoming near equal in price with PC's (near impossible), or a huge shift of popular opinion towards macs
the growth we see today is apple gathering back what it lost in the 90's
short of macs becoming near equal in price with PC's (near impossible), or a huge shift of popular opinion towards macs
the growth we see today is apple gathering back what it lost in the 90's
Interesting that there was no mention of what percentage was generated by Apple Specialist (Apple Authorized Resellers). During our ASCM meeting this year an Apple rep along with Service reps aired out their laundry by giving us a lambasting and essentially labeling us as red headed step child of the Apple family.
Needless to say the exchange of conversation stayed just below colorful, but some skeletons quickly started coming out of the closet. There is a fine line between celebrating your numbers and being out right arrogant. To add insult to injury Apple did not allow us to sell the iPhone.
There still isn't a break down of how many systems went into homes versus going to creative professionals, companies or business.
Needless to say the exchange of conversation stayed just below colorful, but some skeletons quickly started coming out of the closet. There is a fine line between celebrating your numbers and being out right arrogant. To add insult to injury Apple did not allow us to sell the iPhone.
There still isn't a break down of how many systems went into homes versus going to creative professionals, companies or business.
But does Apple or some industry analyst perform surveys? I don't recall ever being asked any questions about my purchases.
so is there any point buying apple shares now?
It would have been... in 2001
But I guess shares will keep going up... until, at least, the iPhone is old news...
At Gateway and our current internal business management software we have a matrix system that has check boxes where you can select Business, Individual Government and Education (Tax Exempt as well). I can't speak for Gateway today, but we had a similar system when I worked there (98-2001).
In the Showroom I'll select whether its a Business or Individual, we no longer do Education (every once in a while) or Government as Apple pulled the rug out from under us on that to (they know our margin). Our Outside Sales Reps also use the matrix system, however since they are mostly business then the matrix will account for the sale by default.
We are fortunate because we deal with most of the creative professionals in Atlanta, to include CNN, Tuner Broadcasting, The Cartoon Network and various recording/video studios. We also work with local celebrities and sports figures as well as various News Papers.
The Atlanta Public School system is the only major account we have, the rest are just teachers or students. We also do Mac service repair for most of the Universities and Businesses in the local area. When you made your purchase you probably wouldn't know if someone selected a matrix.
Interesting, thanks. Of course they'd only obtain this info based on the name on the invoice. An individual might well be purchasing for their small business, so this would be a hidden business sale. I suspect Apple has historically done well with SOHO businesses but I wonder if they have any concrete idea how well. They sure don't market to people running these sorts of businesses as if they know.
Highest of the last decade
Back in the day they were on double digits... bring back the 80's!
Well, the problem is that you cannot compare the "modern era" to that of the 1980s (any more than you could the 1970s) because there was no computer standard at all.
The 1980s is so completely different than today that anyone not around in the computer world back then wouldn't be able to appreciate it, let alone even recognize the computer world of that era.
Everyone today is so gung-ho about Apple increasing their market percentage, but what you're really trying to say is "increase it relative to Microsoft's percentage". You cannot take that as a workable concept when talking about any time up to approximately 1992-1994. Microsoft was in no better a position than Apple, and maybe even worse. Back then, Commodore (remember them?) and Tandy (remember them?) probably had as good a percentage as Apple or anyone else.
Looked at another way, even when you are trying to factor percentages, it's also a bit like movie successes at the box office. In the 1970s and 1980s, if a movie did a million dollars (or whatever) on opening weekend or any period of time thereafter, it meant they had a higher number of people viewing the movie than it does today, and that's specifically because of the cost of movie tickets. Also, production expenses weren't as high, so a movie could have cost less than a million dollars to make but it could still easily have been an "A" movie. Nowadays, any movie that costs less than several million is probably nothing more than a "B" or less.
Everything has changed. You have to keep that in focus when trying to look back at how successful Apple was relative to today.
Speaking strictly for myself, I think Apple is better off not having achieved a ridiculous percentage of market penetration, and especially a dominance in terms of having the most customers, and the reason for that is there's a *huge* number of potential users out there who are undesirable to have as customers. They are the "trailer trash" of the computer world, and should be avoided like the plague.
I like the fact that there's a certain bar of admittance. This, more than anything, helps to keep out the riff-raff and the garbage.
Anyone here who is (or has been) a computer tech -- or, for that matter, anyone here who's ever worked with the general public -- knows I speak the truth on this matter. I'd rather have a smaller user base comprised of the intelligent and savvy than a larger user base compromised by retarded, self-important ignoramouses.
Just my 2¢.
I like the fact that there's a certain bar of admittance. This, more than anything, helps to keep out the riff-raff and the garbage.
Anyone here who is (or has been) a computer tech -- or, for that matter, anyone here who's ever worked with the general public -- knows I speak the truth on this matter. I'd rather have a smaller user base comprised of the intelligent and savvy than a larger user base compromised by retarded, self-important ignoramouses.
Just my 2¢.