Apple's US Market Share Slips in 1Q 2009

[Anuba]

Milo, go on then.
Precisely what meaning can be read into a set of numbers that equates a $200 netbook to a $5000 workstation?

For the umpteenth time, it's a measure of how OS X is doing in the war against Windows. In most people's minds that's the best indicator on how successful the Mac is, how many users have done the PC>Mac switch, etc.
If you're primarily interested in revenue, good for you but for others it may be a snooze-fest. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with those aspects that you can't even acknowledge other points of view than that of a Wall Street investor.

I guess Steve Jobs has been out of his mind all these years when he starts every keynote address by talking about how many iTunes songs, iPods, iPhones and Macs have been sold, when what he really should've done is run a long list of revenue numbers. "We have sold $10 billion worth of Macs!" How captivating.

 

[milo]

Precisely what meaning can be read into a set of numbers that equates a $200 netbook to a $5000 workstation?

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

When we talk about the housing market, should we equate a mansion to a trailer.

So you honestly think that the only housing numbers that should ever be looked at are prices? You seriously think any stats based on the actual number of houses are completely meaningless?

Wow.

I don't really use it for any type of video stuff...just web surfing and iTunes.

I think the max rez is 1024x800

again, it's only a 9" screen. Everything is small enough already...no need for 1920x1600 on a 9" screen

Thanks. I was just wondering if it could handle standard definition video at a watchable resolution.

 

[IrishSniper87]

All one has to do to put these number in perspective (ie. a good explanation of Apple's decreasing marketshare) is read the quoted post above. Now, the average consumer would probably not go through the lengths to install a hacked version of OS X on a PC, but they're also not going to be as willing to drop $1500 on a MacBook that does little more for them than a $350 Dell netbook.

True. I also know a guy who had a unibody macbook, then bought a Mini 9. He then hackintoshed it and eventually preferred it to his macbook and turned around and sold the macbook on eBay.

Probably an extreme case, but is that a testament to how powerful these computers really are or that for the majority of consumers out there, we dont NEED Core 2 Duo processors and backlight keyboards, we just need to be able to use the internet on the go.

I mean, sure someone will find the advantage of a 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo over even a 2.0 Core 2 Duo, but for most people, such specs are wasted.

I personally would prefer a situation where I own a MacBook or MBP and then use a dell mini for couch surfing, class and travel and save the macbook for situations where I want to do some light bootcamp gaming or when I want to sit down and really do work. Even though a macbook is portable, it's still more annoying to take to class then a Dell Mini 9 and I'm a lot more concerned about losing or breaking the MacBook.

However, there are situations where I would prefer to take a MacBook or a fullsize laptop somewhere, but for the majority of the time, I think I'd use a MacBook more like a desktop. I mean, If I want to check a message board I could use a Dell Mini 9, but if I wanted to watch DVD's or play games I could use a MacBook. Both are portable, but one is more powerful and does everything and the other is for certain situations. I like having the choice honestly. Plus, as handy as a Mini 9 is, the keyboard sucks and the screen does get to you after awhile.

 

[dejo]

And is that a mainstream use provided by Sony or is it a hack?

Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

 

[IrishSniper87]

Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

You know, not installing Linux on a PS3 to surf the net.

Mainstream use would be using the PS3 to game.

 

[gnasher729]

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

 

[milo]

Oh, sorry. Must've missed in your definition of a PC where you stated "must be mainstream use and not a hack".

What is "mainstream use" anyways?

So is that an answer to my question....it IS a hack?

 

[Vkrati]

This might sound cynical, but i like a small market share. Imagine apple would have the marketshare of the Windows OS, hackers would be busy around the clock cracking it open. And they could, since there is always a way. Don't say it's just not possible. So quite egoistic, but i have mine, and would love the market share to stay stable.

I'm definitely not some Apple fanboy, but this is pure hidden reasoning you better don't say because you don't make yourself popular with it. But hey, whatever...

 

[dejo]

So is that an answer to my question....it IS a hack?

Sure, it's a hack. But still, by your definition, also a PC.

 

[Carniphage]

Unit sales tell you how many machines there are from each company, which in this particular case tells you how many with each operating system.

That info is extremely useful to companies deciding which OS to support with apps or peripherals.

So what you are saying is that if a hundred penniless students buy bargain basement netbooks ....
...and ten wealthy business types, buy horrendously expensive workstations...

You are going to target your new software at the penniless students because, after all, the netbook market share is ten times bigger!

NOW! I see your flawless logic. Brilliant!

C.

 

[seedster2]

Here we go again... let the fanatics quickly discount these stats when they aren't favorable. I agree that market share is not Apple's primary focus, but to say it's meaningless is ridiculous.

they're likely making more $$/unit sold, but there are fewer and fewer people in emerging markets and the struggling markets looking to buy a MP. This doesnt bode well for immediate sales.

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?

I hope they have continued success but not at my wallet's sake. thusly, I purchased an EOL MP instead of the Nahelam

 

[IrishSniper87]

So what you are saying is that if a hundred penniless students buy bargain basement netbooks ....
...and ten wealthy business types, buy horrendously expensive workstations...

You are going to target your new software at the penniless students because, after all, the netbook market share is ten times bigger!

NOW! I see your flawless logic. Brilliant!

C.

Or you can just target only the high end crowd when 90% of machines don't even run that OS.

Genius!

 

[Fishrrman]

RE: Apple's US Market Share

kas23 wrote:
"As netbooks become more powerful (and cheaper), their marketshare is going to continue to increase. It is not as "nascent" as Apple thought - they better hurry up and get into the game. And we still don't even know for a fact if Apple is going to indeed release one."

I think that Apple _is_ planning on "getting into the game", and that is-it-or-isn't-it-real "Macbook mini" represents a pretty good idea of what the upcoming Apple netbook will be like.

I expect the Macbook mini to debut in June or July, in time to fall into the hands of all those college-bound kids next fall.

For those who say "horsefeathers", I would like to offer this example:
Remember, not so many years ago, about the "rumors" that from the very beginning of OS X, that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of the Mac OS that would run on Intel processors? Remember how adamantly Apple denied it? Remember how much the Mac fanboy choir shouted down anyone who suggested that this could be possible? What kind of processor is the Mac OS running on today?

Again, expect the Macbook mini to arrive sometime this summer, as a direct and powerful-enough replacement for the soon-to-be-discontinued Macbook Air.

- John

 

[canucksfan88]

ha! hope their market share drops more.
then they will know they're not giving consumers what they want..

and to the people who are saying ignore the netbook, well, its apples fault for failing to realize the potential in that market and not getting into it sooner

 

[milo]

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

Probably less than those buying more expensive machines. But that doesn't make knowing the size of the user base meaningless.

Sure, it's a hack. But still, by your definition, also a PC.

Not by my definition. You take a PC out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a netbook out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a PS3 out of the box, and it does not run PC apps. Sure, a tiny fraction of a percent of PS3 owners will jump through hoops to hack it to run linux apps, but that doesn't make it a PC any more than an ATM is a PC just because the hardware could be hacked to run linux apps.

So what you are saying is...

No, please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is merely that knowing unit sales is not "meaningless". And plenty of examples have been provided showing how the unit sales numbers can be useful.

But if you are writing a dirt cheap (or free, or ad-based) app aimed at students and your goal is maximum use, then yeah, the larger pool of users is more appealing.

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?

While I agree with the rest of your post, Apple does break down ipod versus computer sales. And their computer revenues are still greater.

 

[ikramerica]

Break down the numbers, the story will be different...

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

$1000 !

Seriously, it's a good point.

Apple market share has held steady, sales have held steady, despite the "high price." The only way the other companies have gained ground is by selling zero margin $400 laptops, most running XP. HP, Acer, etc. If anyone wants to really see where the "loss of market share" is going, just look at Acer's numbers. One of the leaders in the zero-margin Netbook market, their market share has soared. But are these people going to buy a lot of software to run on those things? Hardly.

Numbers should be broken out as such:
Overall
Large Corporation
Point of Sale
SoHo
Consumer

And in the consumer/SoHo market,
Desktop/AIO
Laptop
Sub-laptop (and why doesn't this category include the iPhone/iPod Touch, for example...)

You'll find Apple still gaining market share in the areas in which they compete. They don't compete in Large Corporation or POS (and don't want to), but they do compete in SoHo and Comsumer. And that market share is growing when the "Sub-Laptop" is taken out. And it is this subgroup that buys the most off the shelf software. It's this group that should be targeted by developers.

Large companies? They buy bulk licenses to Office and Windows, and then go to IT companies for custom software packages.
Point of Sale? They get ONE application installed and that's it. That the machines run XP or Vista or Linux is not relevant. They must run some sort of OS to work, but that's all they will ever do. You can't really count POS as "OS market share" unless you also count cash registers in these sales figures, and who does that?

Here's a prime example: My sister runs a tennis club. I helped her buy her systems. We bought HP machines to run the club management software and quickbooks. Club management is a custom app that includes POS. No other programs run on these 2 computers other than MS Office on the main machine in the office for the manager to run. Just club management and Quickbooks money went to anyone but MS in terms of software purchases. Her personal machine is a Mac. On this machine, she builds her website using various adobe apps, does newsletters and spreadsheets (using Office and iWork), etc., and logs into the quickbooks computer via GoToMyPC. (And the graphics people who send her the graphics for her company use Macs to do that, too. More Adobe money...) Her husband is the head pro. He has a PC laptop, the cheapest we could find, so he can do email and internet on the road (HP). Had netbooks been out when we got it, we might have gotten him one instead. He has purchased no software for this machine at all. Zero dollars spent on software. So on 4 computers sold to her company, only one computer has any expensive off the shelf software installed on it other than quickbooks, and one other machine has ONE piece of . The Mac brings in all the money to the big software developers. 25% market share in this business, 75% software market share, almost 100% of the off the shelf software market share. And if you look at the margins on the machines, it's quite likely Apple made as much on that one iMac 20" as HP made on the 3 computers we bought from them...

Apple is not a large enough company to compete in all markets. What should really be impressive in these numbers is that Apple has maintained it's sales during this recession, that Dell is fading, that HP is the new leader, and that Acer is rapidly growing by selling computers with little profit potential (what cost market share?)

If Apple were doing poorly, MS wouldn't be so freaking scared and running those silly ads that don't even talk about why Windows is worth running.

 

[Carniphage]

Or you can just target only the high end crowd when 90% of machines don't even run that OS.

Genius!

Yep.
Business chases money. That's what it does. Units don't matter. Only the green stuff.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.
This seems to indicate that Apple buyers might actually have money to spend on software and peripherals.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

C.

 

[dejo]

Also, since apple doesn't give a breakdown of their total sales, who can say that much of their astounding revenue isn't due to ipods and iphones?

But they do. Every quarter. In their quarterly results report.

Here's their breakdown from their last quarter: http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q109data_sum.pdf

More of these here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/

Not by my definition. You take a PC out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a netbook out of the box and it runs PC apps. You take a PS3 out of the box, and it does not run PC apps. Sure, a tiny fraction of a percent of PS3 owners will jump through hoops to hack it to run linux apps, but that doesn't make it a PC any more than an ATM is a PC just because the hardware could be hacked to run linux apps.

You're still being needlessly vague. What are "PC apps?"

 

[redrabbit]

Somewhat off topic, but I will be another Mac emigrant soon, with plans to sell my 1st gen MBP and buy a Asus eee 1000HE instead (and build myself a gaming PC).

 

[kas23]

How much do you think are people going to spend on apps and peripherals after spending $299 on a netbook?

I'm on an eeePC right now. The only software I bought for this was XP (back when XP was not included with the eeePC). All other software I download for free. As for hardware/peripherals, I bought 1GB of extra RAM (for a total of 2GB) for $30 (it's now selling for $15), a 16GB SDHC card ($60 at the time), and a used DVD player off ebay (for less than $50).

Performance-wise, I just mainly fart around on it. But for internet and downloading, it's much faster than my PowerBook G4.

 

[Carniphage]

Apple Market Share BY UNIT

This data (averaging IDC and Gartner) seems to suggest that even by-unit, Apple's market share has risen (albeit fractionally).

C.

 

[kas23]

Yep.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.

But does this actually mean anything for the big picture? Asus's marketshare increased by 49% and basically none of their computers are over $1000. That's telling me less and less people are willing to spend over $1000 on a computer while more are buying cheap ones. Introducing the new 17 inch MacBook Pro a little bit ago probably didn't help the situation either.

 

[milo]

You'll find Apple still gaining market share in the areas in which they compete.

Using that logic, when cars came along, the horse and buggy makers were still doing just fine.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

So tell me. How many cross platform apps have the mac version outselling the PC version? It must be a lot since Apple has such a big share of "the market".

You're still being needlessly vague. What are "PC apps?"

Is it really so hard to figure out?

Apps that run on either windows, OSX, or linux. Mac and PCs (including netbooks) can do that straight out of the box. A PS3 can't.

Example. I buy a mac or PC and I can install cubase. I buy a PS3 and I can't install cubase. Get it now?

 

[IrishSniper87]

Yep.
Business chases money. That's what it does. Units don't matter. Only the green stuff.
2 out of ever 3 dollars spend on computers over $1000 goes to Apple.
This seems to indicate that Apple buyers might actually have money to spend on software and peripherals.

If you are a product developer - it might be sensible to take that into account. - And not, like Milo, look at the 7% figure and assume that Apple has a tiny share of "the market".

C.

Really? Wow.

Realistically you would rather target the largest audience, so target businesses that use cheap machines in bulk but require specific software that is more advanced then basic offerings. That and it also works on every single computer running Windows! Which also happens to include modern Macs! Brilliant. Why write software for a machine that costs $2000 when the amount of people using that machine is 10% of the market? Assuming they have money makes them more likely to splurge on software is just a guess on your part. Not to mention, since most macs in use today are now intel inside, if you create an amazing piece of windows software, mac users can still have access to it. Why limit who you target to such a small amount of people?

Just cuz Apple sells more machines at prices over $1000 doesnt mean they will buy more software then someone using an $800 laptop. Especially when the fact of the matter is that Windows machines outnumber Mac machines roughly 9 to 1. And Mac machines include more software out of the box then windows machines anyway, so they may actually be less included to buy add-on software.

 

[redrabbit]

Apps that run on either windows, OSX, or linux. Mac and PCs (including netbooks) can do that straight out of the box. A PS3 can't.

Hey, how can I get Fallout 3 running on my mac "straight out of the box?" Because being required to purchase and install other apps first doesn't count as that. Thanks for the help!