Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Share of Computer Sales Surpasses 10% in U.S.

PlipPlop said:
OSX 10 was dreadful it was only until 10.1 came out was it usable. You couldn't even burn disks with 10 and it crashed a lot.
Click to expand...

I disagree. OS X was still completely useless until Panther - we used to joke about how bad MS' code is and yet Apple manages to release even worse products release after release and were betting on how long they will stay alive if their music and gadget business does not take off... then came Panther and I was very surprised, they managed to release an actually usable OS, with most atrocious bugs fixed, new features working at a reasonable speed etc.
 
kamm said:
I disagree. OS X was still completely useless until Panther - we used to joke about how bad MS' code is and yet Apple manages to release even worse products release after release and were betting on how long they will stay alive if their music and gadget business does not take off... then came Panther and I was very surprised, they managed to release an actually usable OS, with most atrocious bugs fixed, new features working at a reasonable speed etc.
Click to expand...

I must admit I dont really remember which version is which seeing as its hard to keep track of each version. I still have the massive boxes they all came in with the big flap showing some of the features. Its good they started releasing the new upgrades at a cheap price because they not really worth what they used to charge.
 
kamm said:
I disagree. OS X was still completely useless until Panther - we used to joke about how bad MS' code is and yet Apple manages to release even worse products release after release and were betting on how long they will stay alive if their music and gadget business does not take off... then came Panther and I was very surprised, they managed to release an actually usable OS, with most atrocious bugs fixed, new features working at a reasonable speed etc.
Click to expand...

Mac users also seem to complain lots of stuff didnt work when Vista was released. OS X was just as bad if not worse with the classic environment emulator. So many old applications didn't work correctly. You also lost hardware graphics support under the classic environment so games either didnt run or had to use software rendering.
 
sysadmins cost money

macsmurf said:
Macs don't really make much sense in an enterprise setting. It's hard to get qualified system administrators and the tools are not as good, nor as mature as the windows administration tools.
Click to expand...
It has been shown that you don't need as many sysadmins with a non-windows environment.

macsmurf said:
A major problem is that Apple refuses to tell anyone about their plans in advance. That simply isn't acceptable for most companies.
Click to expand...
yea, that blows---- agreed.
macsmurf said:
Most employees use the computer for internet and office, anyway. What would macs buy a company?
Click to expand...
for reduced system administration cost
macsmurf said:
Professional system administrators keep the computers virus free so that's not it.
Click to expand...
the cost/training of those sysadmins is significant.

macsmurf said:
For the enterprise to switch from (mostly) Windows to Macs there has to be a compelling reason. A compelling reason involves saving money or making more money. There isn't one.

It's not been stodgy. It's being sensible.
Click to expand...
again: cost of system administration.
http://enterprisedesktopalliance.co...ors-macs-have-lower-management-costs-than-pcs

j
 
kamm said:
This 10% is pathetic in my eyes - I thought they must have at least 20% with this crazy PR and marketing budget...


...but apparently not even in the US (forget worldwide) they managed to get out of the single-digit ghetto.

Kinda sad performance after 30 years of existence and again, it turns pathetic when you consider how much money they blow on marketing and feeding Mossberg-type slimeballs to push their stuff in the media.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's pathetic that Apple is worth more than Dell and Microsoft combined. Pathetic.
 
jp102235 said:
It has been shown that you don't need as many sysadmins with a non-windows environment.


yea, that blows---- agreed.

for reduced system administration cost

the cost/training of those sysadmins is significant.


again: cost of system administration.
http://enterprisedesktopalliance.co...ors-macs-have-lower-management-costs-than-pcs

j
Click to expand...

A company isn't going to switch technologies just on sys admin costs. Repeat - JUST on sys admin costs.

It really all depends on how that company has set up its infrastructure. If the employees can access their information via web applications or via software that is cross platform - then yes. Without a doubt there is impetus to switch. It also depends on their licensing agreements (SLAs too) and the cost/benefit ratio of migrating. Not all software packages run on both Mac and PCs. And some software companies don't offer a 1:1 exchange/change for license. Which can increase initial costs exponentially if they have to buy all new licenses. Just a few factors.
 
kamm said:
This 10% is pathetic in my eyes - I thought they must have at least 20% with this crazy PR and marketing budget...


...but apparently not even in the US (forget worldwide) they managed to get out of the single-digit ghetto.

Kinda sad performance after 30 years of existence and again, it turns pathetic when you consider how much money they blow on marketing and feeding Mossberg-type slimeballs to push their stuff in the media.
Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you do some investigation.

A report that came out earlier this year noted that Apple's marketing budget was on the average 1/10th that of any other major manufacturer. The fact that they don't waste money on huge marketing schemes means that they keep their profits for other purposes--like offering better customer service. Apple's best marketing is Word of Mouth--people actually using Apple's products and telling their friends and family how good it works for them. This isn't paid marketing like Advertising, but it is paid by making their customers happy as often as they can.

On the other hand, I have to admit I'm getting annoyed when I watch certain network TV programming and see the exact same ad 2, 3 and sometimes as often as 6 times during any one show. Apple's latest ads are so attention-grabbing that it appears to be the worst of the bunch, even though the same group of lesser commercials run right along-side it.
 
Vulpinemac said:
On the other hand, I have to admit I'm getting annoyed when I watch certain network TV programming and see the exact same ad 2, 3 and sometimes as often as 6 times during any one show. Apple's latest ads are so attention-grabbing that it appears to be the worst of the bunch, even though the same group of lesser commercials run right along-side it.
Click to expand...

Get a DVR, then ads are a thing of the past. :)
 
PowerGamerX said:
Oooo I really bet you probably never used OS X when it came out. It was a piece of **** until 10.3 and 10.4, and although 10.4 was decent, and I never liked 10.3 very much, and neither were as good as Windows XP SP2 in my honest opinion. I consider Leopard the first complete version of OS X. I don't find OS X much cleaner than Vista or 7, just slightly easier on the eyes due to less plain white, I have trouble with bright white.

I might be in the minority, but I've had more problems with OS X than I ever had with any version of Windows. Granted, that doesn't mean Windows is better by any margin, I love my Apple stuff, but I've never had any problems with Microsoft or their products.
Click to expand...

I used 10.0 and on, every major and almost every minor revision, all the way up to my current 10.6.4 system. 10.1 was useful, 10.2 shined compared to everything I'd ever used previous (having started with System 7.1, and again using practically every major and minor revision from then on), including Windows of course and a few flavors of Linux. 10.3 actually didn't add much in my opinion, then 10.4 came along and really made everything smoother (plus of course Spotlight was indispensable), and as I've already stated earlier (or was it another thread), 10.5 and 10.6 just added to and improved the experience.

Just so you're aware that your view of OS X's history is certainly not shared by everyone, and IMHO is quite incorrect. Windows XP, for reference, was about as stable and useful as 10.0 in my experience. I only had more trouble with Windows ME than with XP.

jW
 
kamm said:
This 10% is pathetic in my eyes - I thought they must have at least 20% with this crazy PR and marketing budget...


...but apparently not even in the US (forget worldwide) they managed to get out of the single-digit ghetto.

Kinda sad performance after 30 years of existence and again, it turns pathetic when you consider how much money they blow on marketing and feeding Mossberg-type slimeballs to push their stuff in the media.
Click to expand...

Its pathetic that the 2nd biggest company (soon to be 1st) in America gets so much media coverage. I wonder why the tech media adores Apple, oh yes because they produce such stunning technology.

The 10% figure just shows how much room for growth Apple has. :cool:

The iPhone is THE consumer product of the last few years but the iPad is going to surpass it and become THE product of the 21st Century. No 1st gen product has been this good and this popular.
 
apple1990 said:
Its pathetic that the 2nd biggest company (soon to be 1st) in America gets so much media coverage.
Click to expand...

Stock value is only one way of measuring the size of a company - and it's often not the clearest measure.

Many lists of "largest companies" are ranked by revenue (to wit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue).

This is really quite reasonable - for example, what would happen to Apple's market cap if the news tonight reported that Steve Jobs had a heart attack? The stock would plummet, but revenue would probably be almost unaffected.
 
AidenShaw said:
Stock value is only one way of measuring the size of a company - and it's often not the clearest measure.

Many lists of "largest companies" are ranked by revenue (to wit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue).

This is really quite reasonable - for example, what would happen to Apple's market cap if the news tonight reported that Steve Jobs had a heart attack? The stock would plummet, but revenue would probably be almost unaffected.
Click to expand...

What your list doesn't take into effect is income. This and future growth is why apples market cap is so high. The fact is the stock market values it as the second most valuable company in the us and this counts many factors including revenues.
 
apple1990 said:
What your list doesn't take into effect is income. This and future growth is why apples market cap is so high. The fact is the stock market values it as the second largest company in the us and this counts many factors including revenues.
Click to expand...

Let me fix it for you:

The fact is the stock market values it as the second largest most valuable company in the us and this counts many factors including revenues.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back