Mac Market Share Update

[Krizoitz]

What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

 

[steve_hill4]

The question is would Apple go for 99% market share and tons of virus, adware and security problems or stick to 5% and be relatively trouble free?

I think 10% is a good level to aim for and Apple would be happy if in a few years this were the case. I have noted here may times recently that more people are at least considering Macs. Certainly there is a much higher increase in Mac interest than in general PC market interest increases.

What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

Partly sales, but also if you check the visitor stats of any website, they often tell you what operating systems people visiting them are using. Not entirely based on one thing, but the figures all add up.

 

[nagromme]

What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

Current "market share" means sales by definition--and it's a limited measure as you say, but still useful in at least two ways:

1. It influences Apple's profits.

2. It's an indicator of trends and changes, and can help judge things like how well Apple is weathering challenges (like the "Intel slump" that was predicted to be so terrible).

Now, for OTHER purposes, "installed base" is more important, and is higher for the reasons you state.

For software developers, for instance, installed base is who they are selling to. But marketshare is still a useful tool to judge the RECENT installed base (newer, faster, more capable Macs) and to judge FUTURE installed base.

For instance, the installed base now is big enough for developers to make nice profits and support the Mac. But is that base shrinking? No. Sales/market share help show that the base is INCREASING. Maybe not any faster than the Windows base is (for right now) increasing. But increasing equally at the least. Thus, level market share is a good sign for installed base--especially when we can expect that the MacBook and Mac Pro have pent-up demand behind them that will cause a nice increase, as will Photoshop CS 3, Leopard, and probably the continued disappointments of Vista too.

 

[netdog]

What I want to know is how they calculate "share" do they actually do a scientific survey and ask what kind of computers you use, or is it just data from what computers have sold in the last year. If its the former, fine, but if its the later it completely ignores the fact that there are alot of computers allready out there, Mac's tend to last longer and people use them longer AND unlike a PC that people get rid of, alot of Mac users continue to use old machines even when they get a new one.

This study isn't about installed base size. It is about sales in a particular quarter.

 

[Marx55]

The Final Strategy To Increase Market Share

There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

 

[tristan]

You can see it in Apple's financials - sales and profits declined in Q1. I think sales will improve when the entire lineup goes to Intel.

 

[beatle888]

"The Halo" effect may be what is allowing Apple to remain competitive at this point (as in, it may be what has allowed Apple to turn in okay numbers during a quarter when most users were waiting for more intel products.

isnt that exactly what the original post says?

 

[mandis]

There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

Linux runs natively on any PC and it is of cource Open Source and it is for free...
yet nobody really want's to use it...
An OS is only a means to an end and never the end in itself. It doesn't matter if OSX is better or if it is the most advanced piece of software in the whole galaxy. For as long as there aren't enough apps to suit peoples needs it will not be accepted. It's not windows that i'm interested in, it's Photoshop, Illustrator, 3d Studio, Cinema 4D, Autocad and SketchUp that i use. Others use other apps. Some apps work on OSX and most don't. The most important reason (IMHO) apple's market share has remained stagnant, is due to the lack of high profile software.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

There is one and only one way to boost Mac market share:

1. Allow Mac OS X to run natively on any PC out there.

2. Open Mac OS X (including Aqua).

3. Give Mac OS X for free (as Linux).

That way the Mac OS X will reach almost 100% market share in just six years.

Otherwise, it will be the incredible shrinking market share!

You may be correct,lets face it Apples OS is better then windows but 2% of world market makes sure you are on the sidelines. If not for Pods Apple would be in a royal mess.

 

[Steven1621]

Seeing the reality of the mac market share is always sobering as my general market share observations are a bit skewed. The students at my college widely use macs. A 35% market share would be a reasonalbe guess. Granted, my college isn't the best place for comparision to the average computing public.

 

[yg17]

I'm fine with the market share staying put.

If less people use Macs, fewer viruses/spyware for us. Apple's not struggling to stay alive or anything, so I think we're at a perfect spot right now as far as market share goes.

 

[Cinch]

You can see it in Apple's financials - sales and profits declined in Q1. I think sales will improve when the entire lineup goes to Intel.

I don't see how switching to the Intel is going to increase sale and result in increase market share.

I've have been using Window XP on a Dell Optiplex at work for sometime now. I used Apple computers in my previous job. I like the snappy feel of being online with IE. I'm sorry guys, but that is the truth. XP/Dell is pretty good so long as you keep up with latest updates and run virus software. No it is not a pretty setup. Anyhow, I walk into the school computer store yesterday and browse at the new black MacBook, and the first I notice is how slow Safari took to load a page (google.com/ig). Okay, so it was a wireless connection (but with good signal). I have ethernet connection in my office and it very snappy. To tell you the true, I was turn off by this sluggish performance of Safari, and I think the majority of people will feel the same way I did. I guess I just want things to be snappy (second most annoying thing about OSX is the bouncing app icon when you launch it, just open the darn thing..I dont' really care for the graphic effect).

Coming from someone who uses PC at work, I don't see any compelling reason to buy an Apple Computer other than the look. Yes, there are reasons e.g. iLife but not enough to spring $1199 for a MacBook. On a brighter note, I don't see any reason to buy a Dell either or any PC anytime soon.

Cinch,

 

[Abstract]

I think this is BS. I see more Macs around today than ever before, so while the computer market may be growing overall, the percentage of Macs out there are definitely on the rise.

Either way, I really don't care. I'd rather have a smaller market, much like iGary said. There's no benefit for me if Apple's marketshare gets bigger, only the potential for people to start writing viruses for Mac OSX.

 

[plinden]

Remember that business is practically 100% Windows. We are all given Windows PCs at work, but many of us wipe Windows and install Linux instead, or at least dual boot.

So is there any way of finding out retail sales percentages, i.e. sales to individuals? Out of six of us at lunch the other day, four of us had Intel Macs, one was considering buying one and the sixth was rebuilding his PC and didn't have the spare cash to buy one, although he said he found them tempting.

That's not common admittedly, since we are software engineers who program in Linux and are technically adept.

 

[Cinch]

Remember that business is practically 100% Windows. We are all given Windows PCs at work, but many of us wipe Windows and install Linux instead, or at least dual boot.

come on, let see the stat on this....I think what you meant to say is that some IT guys like to intall linux, which is less than 1% of 1% of all business PCs

Cinch

 

[Silencio]

If Apple can't gain a 10% share by 2008, they never will.

I liked them better pre iPod and at 2%

People always overlook how large the computer market really is, and it's constantly growing. Expressing it as a percentage really diminishes the impact of its scope. If Apple were to jump from ~3% to 10%, they would be clocking an additional $7 billion to perhaps $10 billion in annual revenue. For Apple to outgrow the larger market for a long enough period to achieve 10% marketshare would be a colossal accomplishment.

I find it encouraging that they're maintaining their rate of growth despite the uncertainty of the Intel transition. A large chunk of Apple's potential market is waiting for Adobe CS3.

I don't like Apple at 2% at all. I want them selling enough Macs to support a healthy ecosystem of compatible hardware and software. 10% would be wonderful, but, like I said, I would be a bit surprised to see them get there in 2 years.

Personally, I think Intel will provide enough CPU options to finally allow Apple to diversity their product lines in a meaningful manner, giving customers many more choices while allowing Apple to maintain a reasonable profit margin. I hope Apple steps to these opportunities aggressively.

 

[nsjoker]

Indeed. Along with a greater market share comes rushed products to please all of those buyers, and I'd rather Apple take their time providing software and hardware I'll be happy using.

yikes, apple's quality control has gone to crap lately so i don't even know if they can provide quality hardware. pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem. it's almost like they use those early adopters as guinea pigs to fund their quality control.

 

[plinden]

come on, let see the stat on this....I think what you meant to say is that some IT guys like to intall linux, which is less than 1% of 1% of all business PCs

Cinch

I wasn't using the example of business to say that wiping Windows reduces the percentages in any significant way. Rather that IT departments are just going to go Windows 100% of the time, because that's all they know. That inflates the number of Windows machines, since they are mostly used in work not as personal machines.

Of more interest is the market share of individuals. What percentage of people buying their own computers buy Macs?

As for installing Linux, I was only giving the example of my work in particular. Starting off, we are given Windows PCs, but we need to program for Linux, so we install VMWare, or dual boot. Finding VMWare too slow for development, or dual boot too onerous, many of us (at least half the developers) install Linux as our main OS. Like I acknowledged in my last sentence, this is not typical.

 

[Cinch]

Personally, I think Intel will provide enough CPU options to finally allow Apple to diversity their product lines in a meaningful manner, giving customers many more choices while allowing Apple to maintain a reasonable profit margin. I hope Apple steps to these opportunities aggressively.

I find this hard to comprehend, and how is this giving people more choices? Afterall, an Apple computer with Intel chip inside still runs OSX.

I think the computer market has pretty become commoditized circa 2001. For Apple to grow with respect to sharholder value, they need to invent, innovate and develop compelling products (past success and we all know this iPod and iTunes). Possible but certainly not in scale is the Nike shoe with iPod Nano wireless connection. I'm a runner and use Asics Kayano, but will be a switcher to Nike shoe if it fits


Cinch

 

[jaydub]

yikes, apple's quality control has gone to crap lately so i don't even know if they can provide quality hardware. pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem. it's almost like they use those early adopters as guinea pigs to fund their quality control.

Well I'm perfectly happy with my problem-free MacBook Pro.

 

[Cinch]

Of more interest is the market share of individuals. What percentage of people buying their own computers buy Macs?

Can't you combine this number into the overall PC sold. Perhaps in the distance future where this scenario comes true, and lay people starts to demand Apple computer at work place because they use them personally. I think every Apple computer user had this fantasy at least once except me of course .

Cinch

 

[MacManTexas56]

In reality, I'm not sure why any home user wouldn't buy a Mac, unless they are heavy duty gamers.

If they play their cards right, there's no reason why they shouldn't be #1 in the home consumer market after Leopard.

most home users don't want to pay $1300 for a computer. All they want to do is get on the internet to check email and do some quicken here and there. why pay $1300 when you could pay $400 or $500 from dell for something that will work just how you want it. That's the problem apple is facing. MOST home users don't know anything about computers and could care less if there is a webcam built into the display. If apple is trying to increase marketshare in the home market they will have to come up with a cheaper solution bc even now with intel a basic mac mini is still $599 and doesn't include a mouse, keyboard or even a monitor. Add all those up and you're up to $1,000. again it goes back to why would i pay $1,000 when I could go to dell or hp or compaq, heck even emachines and get a decent machine for half or even $600 cheaper. i love apple, their prices are just too high for basic users to even think about switching.

 

[anikgol]

dont think Apple ever reaches more than 6 percent

this whole thing about apple gaining market share is bollocks. i never believed in the hallow effect either. apple needs to lower prices.


i dont think that apple will ever reach 6-7 percent market share.


if apple doesnt increase the market share to 4-5 within two years, then it wont ever happen. time is running out.


this is definately not good news. most likely Apple has lost market share in recent months too. wont be surprised to see apple have market share around 2%.

I dont give a **** about US but i am talking about world wide market shares. thats the important thing.


apple will NEVER increase its share with these insane prices. specially here in Europe were you can buy computers that are at least as "good" half the apple price. insane arrogant bunch of people, expecting switchers and all.

 

[Silencio]

I find this hard to comprehend, and how is this giving people more choices? Afterall, an Apple computer with Intel chip inside still runs OSX.

What's so hard to comprehend about this statement? Look at the range, pricing, and availability of G4 and G5 CPUs available from Freescale and IBM; compare and contrast with Intel's short-term roadmap with Yonah, Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest, then get back to me.

Are you saying that Apple won't succeed until they license Mac OS X or otherwise jettison their hardware business? At this point, that strategy is corporate suicide. I don't see it happening except for a wildly optimistic scenario where Apple has gained so much momentum in the market that licensing Mac OS X will be their "finishing move" on Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop.

Microsoft uses Windows to sell Office, which is where they make their real money. The iPod may be a big success and all, but it can't subsidize Mac OS X as a loss leader in that way.

Apple is smart not to play by M$'s or Dell's rules.

And by the by, an "Apple Computer with Intel chip inside" can natively run Mac OS X, Windows XP, many many varieties of UNIX and Linux, Solaris, et al. Running Mac OS X by definition saves Apple hardware from commoditization at this point.

I think the computer market has pretty become commoditized circa 2001. For Apple to grow with respect to sharholder value, they need to invent, innovate and develop compelling products (past success and we all know this iPod and iTunes).

Again, the range of products Intel has to offer should really help Apple here, if they so choose. Maybe Apple can make an expandable mini-tower geared towards businesses with a Conroe Solo CPU and sell it for under $1K. Maybe Apple can bring back the 12" iBook form factor with a lower-powered/clocked Yonah Solo or Duo for $700-800. Maybe

 

[nagromme]

if apple doesnt increase the market share to 4-5 within two years, then it wont ever happen. time is running out.

I see a lot of people here posting that same assertion. So you think there's an opportunity right now, but that there will never be other opportunities in the future?

What time is running out? The challenges Apple faces seem to be diminishing (Intel "slump" passing is the big one) rather than increasing. Meanwhile, Microsoft's challenges DO seem to be increasing.

pretty much every revision A product they release has some problem.

Not true, but the "squeaky wheel" syndrome does create that impression in online forums. (Why make noise on a forum about your LACK of problems? People only post when they have something that needs solving--or at least venting.) Version A problems need to be put into perspective: they are more common than version B problems, so waiting has benefits, BUT most ver A buyers still get a trouble-free machine. It's a choice of "very few" problems in ver A vs. "very very few" in ver B.

Realize that the first version of ANY product from ANY company has more problems than later versions. That's just obvious logic--more people catching more problems, and more time to improve them. So of course a later refinement of a given model (car, TV, whatever) is likely to be more reliable.

Apple's hardware reliability is the best in the industry. If you think they're bad, you REALLY don't want to try another brand