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

Apple's US Market Share Slips in 1Q 2009

Can someone please tell me what software I am supposed to be spending my money to keep my PCs running?
 
clevin said:
depends on what you want to do.

for professional work, u might need to pay for software in each field.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I looked at Mac last summer but the hardware didn't match my wants and needs. I never looked into the software side.
Many posters keep saying that the TCO for a windows machinge because of the software needed delutes any savings from the initial purchase.
 
ikramerica said:
$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.
Click to expand...

bruinsrme said:
Can someone please tell me what software I am supposed to be spending my money to keep my PCs running?
Click to expand...

Norton antivirus would be a good start.
 
bruinsrme said:
I get Mcafee suite for free from my ISP, up to 5 licenses
Click to expand...

On my eeePC running XP, I use Avira. It's free and does everything it's supposed to. That is one good thing about Windows, there us always an alternative free software that runs just as well as the non-free software.
 
I see a lot of people expecting Apple to release a netbook at a $399 price range, I laugh. If and when they do, it will probably retail for $599 knowing Apple, it will have the exact same specs, but will "look cooler" then other netbooks.

Anyone can have a Mac netbook, there are distro's out there of OSX86 made specifically for some of them, the MSi Wind and Acer Aspire One to name a few, and OSX runs great on them.
 
Hard-Hat-Mac said:
Share is all relative - Netbooks really are the cause IMHO.

How many Dell Mini's and HP Mini's flew off the shelf to increase market share.

Apple REALLY needs to get on the ball with a $399 Netbook.

They would FLY off the shelves. I would buy two immediately.

HHM
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I'm in for one. No need to build a hackintosh if you can buy a 399 portable mac with an atom processor.
 
What does Apple expect? Everyone else is lowering prices and offering more for your money and Apple RAISES prices a LOT and offers the same poor sets of hardware choices with little to no expandability, laptop performance on everything except the $2k+ Mac Pro and pretty much seems to be clueless about how to compete with high powered $800-1500 PCs that can run circles around all Macs except those in the $2400-3200 range (and even there they can game circles around those same $2k-4k Mac Pros since NO Mac offers competitive GPU performance).

The only way for Apple to gain market share in the long term (one can only imagine how much they'll lose if Windows7 is actually usable...most of these gains are due to Vista being AWFUL plus the success and cachet surrounding the iPhone) is if they offer actual COMPETITIVE hardware. The OS will only get them so far for so long if the hardware is so darn uneven. If they offered REASONABLY comparable models to average PC hardware, their sales would probably triple overnight. But they offer INSULTS to people's intelligence instead by selling $400 computers for $900 and $1200 computers for $2400.

I love the Mac operating system, but Apple's hardware options just plain SUCK. I would never have bought my MBP except that I got almost $600 off due to the clearance sale surround the last "upgrade" (if you can call dropping the dedicated firewire 400 port and matte screens an "upgrade" for a 10-12% speed increase for $600 more plus higher memory costs). The MB should be $800 and the MBP should cost no more than $1500 in today's market, IMO. More than anything, though, they NEED a midrange tower Mac for $1500 or less.
 
kas23 said:
They can't include the iTouch as a "computer" because it is not a free-standing unit (it relies on another "computer") and the iTouch does not run a full-fledged OS - it runs a much watered-down version. A netbook does not rely on another computer for syncing or any other use. And netbooks run the same OS as a desktop. For basic use, a netbook is no different than a desktop.

I'm sure ASUS is not complaining about a 50% increase in sales. I'm 100% positive that they are not "barely making any money off them." And yes, they do increase profits by selling a new model in subsequent years. It is a lot easier for a consumer to economically justfy replacing a $299 device every 1-2 years than a $1500 device every 1-2 years.
Click to expand...

Good point about the iTouch not being freestanding. However, I also wouldn't say "a netbook is no different than a desktop for basic use." Most have keyboards made for 8 year olds, and lack optical drives to, well, play a movie, install a game, or listen to a cd.

I am sure ASUS isn't complaining either, an increase in sales is always good. But, if you are 100% sure they are barely making money off them, then take a look at the profit margins. Just google it. The market for netbooks is very competitive and forces extremely low prices, much like the flash memory market.

For developers who are saying that install base is an important factor, I think it is also important to maybe dig a little deeper. Remember the studies that iPhone users surf the internet like 10x more than other smartphone users. So it isn't just important how MANY people own the platform, but the likelihood they are going to find your stuff, and buy it.
 
If Apple is smart, they get in on the NetBook craze. If they do it the Apple-Way and price it at $699, then they obviously do not get it.

Sorry, but it's hard to justify a MacBook when I can get a little netbook that does the same damn thing, yes I know it's Windows, and I never usually say this, but Apple has to step it up just a notch.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
What does Apple expect? Everyone else is lowering prices and offering more for your money and Apple RAISES prices a LOT and offers the same poor sets of hardware choices with little to no expandability, laptop performance on everything except the $2k+ Mac Pro and pretty much seems to be clueless about how to compete with high powered $800-1500 PCs that can run circles around all Macs except those in the $2400-3200 range (and even there they can game circles around those same $2k-4k Mac Pros since NO Mac offers competitive GPU performance).

The only way for Apple to gain market share in the long term (one can only imagine how much they'll lose if Windows7 is actually usable...most of these gains are due to Vista being AWFUL plus the success and cachet surrounding the iPhone) is if they offer actual COMPETITIVE hardware. The OS will only get them so far for so long if the hardware is so darn uneven. If they offered REASONABLY comparable models to average PC hardware, their sales would probably triple overnight. But they offer INSULTS to people's intelligence instead by selling $400 computers for $900 and $1200 computers for $2400.

I love the Mac operating system, but Apple's hardware options just plain SUCK. I would never have bought my MBP except that I got almost $600 off due to the clearance sale surround the last "upgrade" (if you can call dropping the dedicated firewire 400 port and matte screens an "upgrade" for a 10-12% speed increase for $600 more plus higher memory costs). The MB should be $800 and the MBP should cost no more than $1500 in today's market, IMO. More than anything, though, they NEED a midrange tower Mac for $1500 or less.
Click to expand...

I can see where you are coming from but I disagree with the idea that Apple is selling $400 computers for $900 and $1200 computers for $2400.

I have tried to prove to myself, having recently been shopping for Macs, that they are considerably overpriced. What I found, though, was that if I took the exact same configuration (say 24" Core 2 Duo All in One, or dual quad core Nehalem Workstation) prices were very similar to other brands such as Dell and HP. Apple was sometimes actually cheaper, and the Macs come with a full version OS and the iLife apps which would make up any other differences in price.

The problem with Apple isn't so much that they are overpriced, it's that the hardware configurations that I would choose are not offered - and those that are offered are either the most expensive configurations or configurations that I would consider to have the least bang for the buck, such as laptop hardware pretending to be a desktop.

That being said, I finally ended up with a 24" iMac. I had previously bad-mouthed, ridiculed and thought very little of the all-in-one designs, but I decided to give it a try anyway. I'm actually amazed at how nice it is - and can now appreciate the concepts associated with the all-in-one design (though it still would not have been my first pick if a real Mac desktop were available)

So, from the price comparisons I have done in the past - the Macs are actually price competitive for identical hardware from other manufacturers. It's just that they are not competitive at all in offering configurations that most consumers want.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
What does Apple expect? Everyone else is lowering prices and offering more for your money and Apple RAISES prices a LOT and offers the same poor sets of hardware choices with little to no expandability, laptop performance on everything except the $2k+ Mac Pro and pretty much seems to be clueless about how to compete with high powered $800-1500 PCs that can run circles around all Macs except those in the $2400-3200 range (and even there they can game circles around those same $2k-4k Mac Pros since NO Mac offers competitive GPU performance).

The only way for Apple to gain market share in the long term (one can only imagine how much they'll lose if Windows7 is actually usable...most of these gains are due to Vista being AWFUL plus the success and cachet surrounding the iPhone) is if they offer actual COMPETITIVE hardware. The OS will only get them so far for so long if the hardware is so darn uneven. If they offered REASONABLY comparable models to average PC hardware, their sales would probably triple overnight. But they offer INSULTS to people's intelligence instead by selling $400 computers for $900 and $1200 computers for $2400.

I love the Mac operating system, but Apple's hardware options just plain SUCK. I would never have bought my MBP except that I got almost $600 off due to the clearance sale surround the last "upgrade" (if you can call dropping the dedicated firewire 400 port and matte screens an "upgrade" for a 10-12% speed increase for $600 more plus higher memory costs). The MB should be $800 and the MBP should cost no more than $1500 in today's market, IMO. More than anything, though, they NEED a midrange tower Mac for $1500 or less.
Click to expand...

I agree, I got the new MBP few months ago from my work. It has some problems, but it's cool and nice. If I'd be buying a new laptop with my own money, would I buy a similar MBP? No.
 
Just like I predicted... Apple is overpriced for a bad economy and Microsoft is poised for a comeback if Apple doesn't do something about pricing.

When people have NO MONEY, they make MORE MONEY-based decisions, not necessarily good ones, but still ones that are not in Apple's favor right now.
Of course Macs are better, but people won't make decisions based on that in tough times.

Apple needs an inexpensive laptop and that inexpensive mythical midrange mini-tower that people have been clamoring for years and years!

Why is it so difficult for Apple to do this when Apple uses the SAME PARTS as DELL and HP? See one of the things about the INTEL switch is there really is no excuse for not having products in these categories, especially, when Apple previously had products in these categories BEFORE the INTEL switch!

No excuses Apple! DO IT!
I'm not sure Steve Jobs running Apple during a recession is his forte either.

Hasn't he failed at that at least once before ?
 
So sales slip, a trend common with just about EVERYTHING in this economy, and the doomsday predictions come up like clockwork.

"APPLE IS GOING TO DIE!

LOWER PRICES AND SAVE THE COMPANY STEVE!"

I just, really, really don't get it.

Also, how does the company with a 95%+ marketshare make a "comeback" :confused:
 
Apple rocks

They have some great products and 32GB iPhone expected to launch in June.
Kindle The Electronic Reader Now On Apple iPhone.
I think they can revive

Lily
techunits.com
 
Anuba said:
Meh, it's just classic Apple apologism at its finest. When Apple's market share goes up, it's "wohoo, go Apple! Keep pushing!". When it goes down it's "oh but didn't you know? Apple doesn't care about market share at all". When Macs don't have Blu-Ray, it's "who needs Blu-Ray anyway?". When they do get Blu-Ray at some point in the future, it'll be "woah, Blu-Ray!!! How could I live without it before?"
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I don't get this "fanboyism".
Apple reduced the capabilities (FW ports, glossy displays, etc) of their computers because, as they said, the average consumer does not need this (screwing up professionals). They claim that glossy displays show more vivid colors for the average consumer, and don't care what the professional thinks. If that is not aimed to gain market share...
One thing is obvious: if you make expensive products AND you sell more of them, you make MORE MONEY. So, obviously to anyone who knows a single word of economics, Apple is after increasing market share. The 'Get a Mac" comercials are intended for that. They did not say: "please don't get a Mac if you are poor, it won't look good in your neighbourhood".
Peripherals, software, etc., increase their sales if more Macs are out there, that's obvious too.
This is, as you say, typical Apple fanboyism: everything Apple does is good, even if a month ago I said it was bad because Apple was not doing it.
When only PC makers used glossy screens, they were crap, like mirrors, etc. Now Apple use them and the color are so good and they look so clear, bla, bla. Blu-ray is a dead format that is gonna disappear due to HD downloads... Just until the very first day Apple introduces a Blu-ray drive on a computer: this is great, now I can see HD movies on my wonderful glossy screen.

Apple is acompany who wants to make money. YOUR MONEY, DON'T FORGET THAT. They don't care about your needs, as long as you buy the computer, which some of you buy blindly just because it has an Apple sign on it.
 
NT1440 said:
So sales slip, a trend common with just about EVERYTHING in this economy, and the doomsday predictions come up like clockwork.

"APPLE IS GOING TO DIE!

LOWER PRICES AND SAVE THE COMPANY STEVE!"

I just, really, really don't get it.

Also, how does the company with a 95%+ marketshare make a "comeback" :confused:
Click to expand...

Dude you have to wonder. :rolleyes:
 
Remember everyone here "poo-pooed" my idea of a small tower machine that looks like a reduced-sized Mac Pro costing somewhere between US$700 and US$1,100? It appears from the Apple sales figures that such a machine now makes more sense than ever.

I mean, think about it: compared to an iMac, the only additional thing you need to set up for a small tower machine from Apple is connect up the external monitor, which is not that hard to do nowadays, what with either DVI-D or Mini DisplayPort connectors.
 
SactoGuy18 said:
Remember everyone here "poo-pooed" my idea of a small tower machine that looks like a reduced-sized Mac Pro costing somewhere between US$700 and US$1,100? It appears from the Apple sales figures that such a machine now makes more sense than ever.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. From the sales figures, it shows that a Netbook makes more sense than ever, since that is what resulted in a market share drop even though sales remained stable.
 
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