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

Anuba said:
Perhaps, but in this case the market share dictates the size of the OS X install base, which in turn dictates a lot of factors that directly or indirectly make up the sum total of the Mac experience. With a small market share for OS X, the network effect benefits will remain limited:


iChat may be great, but 99% of your friends are still on Windows Messenger. More OS X users means more software, more games, more peripherals and other third-party gadgets. The more people have Macs, the more value each individual gets out of his or her Mac. The only thing Mac users get out of the market share remaining small is an illusion of exclusivity, plus less exposure to malware. All other effects are negative.
Click to expand...

Well said. I, personally, would love to see the Mac market share go up and stabilize at around 25%. I think maintaining a market share of less than 10% creates the potential of your platform going the way of the dinosaur at some point in the future, depending on what competing systems (and newly developed systems) may have to offer down the road.

As a business application developer, I would love to switch to developing apps primarily for OS X, but with less than 10% market share (and much less in business computing), I just don't see the payback and security in switching to developing in Objective-C, solely for OS X. I have made the switch to OS X for my primary OS, but I still develop for other platforms to pay the bills.

Also, I find it interesting that many of the people on this forum (I am guessing) who say market share does not matter, also have negative feelings towards Microsoft. But yet, these same users probably also run MS Windows on their Mac (either through Bootcamp or Virtualization) - and pay Microsoft for a license for it's 'inferior' OS, just to get many basic tasks done. I would imagine that if the Mac had a market share of 25% or better, the need for buying Windows to run on your Mac would be much less. Also we would not have to purchase a license for Windows and contribute to the beast and its ads that irk so many here.

I think when you are at less than 10% market share, market share is important for the user base, even if it is not important to the profitability of Apple, the company. I really don't care if Apple becomes the most profitable company in the world, with the highest margins, if they kill OS X in the process. I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, by any stretch, but lets just say I was not a big fan of Apple removing 'Computer' from its name...

Just my thoughts...
 
stagi said:
I agree with most of you that netbooks are the reason for this and Apple should produce a netbook or small table like device soon to be competitive, but I don't think they need a $399 product. Something different from the competition and priced at $599 still could fly off the shelves even in tight times and still be a profitable product for apple.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I dont see any Apple netbook product coming in under $499, there is a chance the absolute light weight one might be $399 but based on their pricing models for computers they will be wanting to be priced around $150 more than the Windows versions which will be around $200 more expensive than the Linux ones.

They also need to price relative the iPod Touch which is in effect a netbook of sorts.
 
dejo said:
Even the part about "Posts saying "I agree", "+1", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed"?
Click to expand...

point well taken, I missed that...look if people want to get anal about it 99% of us here at some point of other have broken the rules and a lot of us should even be banned according to the letter of rules, but of course what is important is the spirit in which these are written. :apple:
 
AlphaBob said:
Do they want to fall to 5th place 6 months from now, or do they want to grow and recapture 3rd place?

If they continue to ignore the $350 Netbook they are ignoring the bulk of the growth.

And, if they had a $500 Netbook ($150 premium) I would immediately buy two (one for each of my kids).

Think of it this way, when Acer ships a $350 netbook, they have paid a ransom to Microsoft for XP. Apple doesn't have that cost burden with OS-X
Click to expand...

I heard XP costs $25 per license for netbooks.
 
rhpenguin said:
They did. It's called the Boxter.
Click to expand...

I resemble that remark! There is really nothing budget about the BoxSter except it's comparable price to the venerable 911. I have owned both (Porsche Fanatic). Now back to our regularly scheduled program. :D
 
applecultvictim said:
point well taken, I missed that...look if people want to get anal about it 99% of us here at some point of other have broken the rules and a lot of us should even be banned according to the letter of rules, but of course what is important is the spirit in which these are written. :apple:
Click to expand...

Good luck with that argument here.
 
Higher market share with lower prices doesn't always mean less profits. With a higher market share Apple has the opportunity to sell more software and hardware accessories to offset any lower profits.
 
OldMike said:
Well said. I, personally, would love to see the Mac market share go up and stabilize at around 25%. I think maintaining a market share of less than 10% creates the potential of your platform going the way of the dinosaur at some point in the future, depending on what competing systems (and newly developed systems) may have to offer down the road.

As a business application developer, I would love to switch to developing apps primarily for OS X, but with less than 10% market share (and much less in business computing), I just don't see the payback and security in switching to developing in Objective-C, solely for OS X. I have made the switch to OS X for my primary OS, but I still develop for other platforms to pay the bills.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 25% is the magic number, I think.

I'm in the process of buying a new laptop and a new workstation this year to replace my Dell machines. I already have an iMac and a Mini, so this would be an MBP 17" and a Mac Pro. Then I started looking around at all the stuff I use -- mice, keyboards, speakers etc, and noticed that not even 50% of them have OS X drivers available. My business software is Windows-only (there is no Swedish bookkeeping and accounting software for OS X, period), my favorite audio editor (Steinberg WaveLab) is Windows-only, the software suite for one of my cellphones is Windows-only... Office 2008 for OS X is a toy compared to Office 2007 for Win... and don't get me started on all my games. Fine, there's BootCamp and Parallels but I thought I was buying a Mac, not a PC. Not only is it built from generic PC components, it also needs Windows to get my job done. Not really feeling the benefits of the small market share here.
 
feraca said:
Macworld reporting increased marketshare - who is right?
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/macworld...pplemarketsharerisesslightlyaspcshipmentsfall
Click to expand...

Both are wrong.

Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.
These figures are meaningless.

Imagine this tiny market.
Two computers are sold. A 17" Macbook pro for $3000 and a Dell Netbook for $300
In this scenario, do Dell and Apple have an equal share of the market? - or does Apple have ten times the Market share?

C.
 
Welp, show's over folks.

Everyone switch back to Windows.

Don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. [/sarcasm]
 
Let's redefine PC some more

Hey Gartner, why not include sales of game consoles in your PC sales report too!?! After all, I can send e-mail and surf the web with my PS3. In fact, I can install Linux on my PS3, and it's already installed on my DishNetwork receiver. Are you sure my satellite receiver isn't a PC too?

I wonder if Gartner is trying to make their reports seem relevant.
 
Carniphage said:
Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.
Click to expand...

Actually, either dollars or units are valid measures of market share. It's not "meaningless", it's just measuring something different than one based on dollars.
 
dejo said:
Which doesn't disprove my premise that claiming "Macs are too expensive for this economy" is a not a valid excuse. Unless one thinks "Dells are too expensive for this economy" as well.
Click to expand...

^^^^ Nice logical fallacy! ^^^^

Dell could be losing market share for reasons other than that they are too expensive for this economy--regardless of why Apple is losing markey share.
 
Carniphage said:
Both are wrong.

Market share should be measured by dollars spent - not on units purchased.
These figures are meaningless.

Imagine this tiny market.
Two computers are sold. A 17" Macbook pro for $3000 and a Dell Netbook for $300
In this scenario, do Dell and Apple have an equal share of the market? - or does Apple have ten times the Market share?

C.
Click to expand...
The reason why anyone is even interested in Apple's market share in the first place is that it's a measure of the current standings in the OS X vs Windows war. Therefore dollars spent is utterly useless info but units purchased is interesting.

Wall Street yuppies may be more interested in the $$$ measure, though.
 
randyhudson said:
Hey Gartner, why not include sales of game consoles in your PC sales report too!?! After all, I can send e-mail and surf the web with my PS3. In fact, I can install Linux on my PS3, and it's already installed on my DishNetwork receiver. Are you sure my satellite receiver isn't a PC too?

I wonder if Gartner is trying to make their reports seem relevant.
Click to expand...
Uh... nobody has redefined the PC. A netbook is a PC that runs the exact same OS you'd find on a regular laptop or desktop. It's only a "netbook" when the processor is too weak to handle anything other than surfing and mailing. Put an Atom processor in a MacBook Air and voilá, you have a netbook.
 
I know so many people who want to buy their first Mac but want a tower without the high price tag of the MacPros. I know it's almost gotten to the point of being taboo to mention this around here, but a mid-range tower (literally, just the components of the iMac in a box without screen for about $1000) would be such a massive boost to Apple's share. That wouldn't compete for the high-end customers who need the MacPros. I work with people like that and they want the best they can get, and cost is irrelevant.

I think there are a lot of PC users out there who just want something they can relate to--a tower form factor--at a price they can also relate to. For a company that likes to focus on the switchers they attract, it's surprising that Apple doesn't offer such a machine.
 
Anuba said:
The reason why anyone is even interested in Apple's market share in the first place is that it's a measure of the current standings in the OS X vs Windows war. Therefore dollars spent is utterly useless info but units purchased is interesting.

Wall Street yuppies may be more interested in the $$$ measure, though.
Click to expand...

Bunkum dude.
Units are meaningless. Companies can churn out low-cost netbooks, claim a massive market share, and be losing cash faster than General Motors.

If one in every three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple. That means Apple has a 33% market share.

C.
 
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