Mac Market Share Update

[javierbds]

European market share

I agree with most Europeans that market share here is not going to grow much ... 🙁
The fact is most marketing Apple does is US centered, they only stuff Apple has in Europe that I know of is the online shop in Ireland ... The fact is (flame me) most US multinationals are US centered (with asian workforces, and some salesforces around)... The fact is US companies thinks they are making the world US centered but they cannot 😡

Not that I think Europe is that important ... 😎 but hey, there are some europeople around here ...

 

[achmafooma]

That's the whole point-- your circle of friends is not a random sample of the PC market as a whole; you are part of a small subsegment. I work in the IT industry and as I read through these forums it is clear that only a tiny minority of the participants have an inkling of how PCs are purchased by big business. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of advertising or any other tactic within Apple's control will ever get them back into the mainstream of IT. That shipped has sailed, and only a total, unpredictable technological paradigm shift could ever turn that around. Apple's strength and opportunity is in niche markets which include creative, K-12, and home. So share of total market is an extremely crude measurement of success. I would be much more interested in seeing how Apple has been doing in the Home market anyway. That's the only place the "halo" effect could have any value, and that's likely where your buddies reside, achmafooma (I'm guessing). I don't think any IT director is going to drive his company to "switch" just because he's plugged into iTunes.

You are correct on many points -- essentially all the Macs I see are in the home or school markets. My company owns 2 as test machines. The government agencies my company works for don't use them (with the notable exception of the Army -- army.mil and Army Knowledge Online are hosted on Xserves, as are the two Army sites my office support).

But I take issue with part of your argument -- the 'that ship has sailed' argument. None of the executives making purchasing decisions today have interest in Macs, but many of the lower- and mid-level developers in our office -- an IT contracting firm for the US government -- do use them at home. We even use them for work sometimes instead of the company-provided PCs. Those lower- and mid-level employees will be the IT directors and VPs in a few years, and that's when we'll start seeing the shift.

Business/government IT buyers don't pay any attention to Macs today, but the buyers of the future are increasingly using and respecting them and will give them serious consideration when making those decisions later in their careers.

Five years ago, none of my webdev peers were Mac users at home -- Macs were a 'toy' computer. Today, many of them have become Mac users at home and -- even if they haven't switched -- take the Macs seriously as potential IT machines. The tide is, indeed, turning; I just wish it turned faster!

 

[sonnys]

Not smoking anything. Perhaps that's why I have the presence of mind to question that kind of oversimplification.

The problem with drawing any conclusions from this--good or bad--is that we have no idea where the growth in the PC market is coming from. The PC market includes home, educational, government and business/server sales. If all this growth in the market is coming from business/server sales (where Apple is a relatively small player) then these numbers are basically meaningless (in regard to Apple, at least.) If it's all in home and educational sales, then you might be right.

Do you have an exact break-down of the PC market growth numbers you would like to share with us to back up your asssertion that this is a a bad thing for Apple? If you don't, I'm puzzled as to why you're so inisistent about this. What makes you so sure of your position that you would be insulting to everyone about it?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but regardless of where the overall industry growth is coming from, the Mac still shows a .2% YEAR-OVER-YEAR drop iin market share, which means the Mac has LESS market share this quarter than it did a year ago.

This quarter's numbers may be better than last quarter, but overall the Mac is in worse shape this year than last year in terms of market share. Why is everyone happy about this?

 

[BenjyD]

Very simply, throughout most of the world it is very difficult to buy a Mac.

The main UK PC store is PC World. You struggle to buy a Mac there.

Places to buy Macs are becoming more common in the UK. The Apple shop on Regent Street in London has always been packed when I've seen it, so I think the demand is there. I believe Apple has an agreement with Tescos to put ministores in supermarkets here, and places like John Lewis generally feature Apple stuff very prominently.

That said, I agree that Apple computers are far too rare in shops.

 

[McDave]

But share of which market?...

I keep hearing this 2% and it's starting to annoy me.

When I buy my groceries & electrical gadgets the till is a Windows machine.
When my colleagues produce spreadsheets for sales projections they'll never hit they use a Windows machine
When my Nephews play video games they use a Windows machine
When a local Government Department recently rolled out 3,500 computers for their army of public servants they used Windows machines

All of these have one thing in common - they have nothing to do with why I use a computer.

I use my machine as my "digital hub", for production & management of home digital media, to listen to and manage music, photos and produce DVDs to bore my folks rigid back home. I don't play games or use MS Office or leave it sitting in the corner for web/email/chat and pirating music & videos. If I wanted those killer apps, I would probably have bought a Windows machine.

The real question for me is - what is Apple's market share in my market area? i.e. of all the machines sold to people who are now actually producing a home DVD every couple of months (as opposed to those who bought a machine to do it which now sits in the corner because those 'hundreds of software titles' that might exist out there in internet-land were mostly crap). That statistic is of relevance to me.

As far as overall market share is concerned, Apple should stop being so US-centric and get the retail presence/advertising/full iTMS (including TV shows) rolled out globally and stop stalling so they don't blow their one window of opportunity, pre-vista market capture.

Rant over but if anyone knows where I can get relevant market stats, please tell me.

McD

 

[Analog Kid]

I think what's being missed when comparing the market share of OS X to Linux is the fact that these numbers are based on sales. A large component of the Linux install base comes from post purchase installations. I'm assuming the numbers in the report reflect installed systems at the time of sale. As a result the reality of the Linux numbers are likely higher because of the nature with which many deploy Linux systems.

I would like to see a bigger breakdown of the numbers but as was pointed out earlier I think it's bad that there was a .2% reduction in US market share. While with the increase in over all sales for personal computers exists and thus a larger number of Macs sold it's still a reduction over the same quarter the previous year. You can argue the Intel transition all you want and Leopard too but I am confident that most of your average Mac (or PC customers for that matter) aren't holding off purchases because of Leopard or Vista.

A lot of the estimates of installed base for operating systems now comes from Web server logs. If you as Google what the percentages are of Mac/Win/Linux machines hitting their site, they could give you a pretty good sense of what machines are out there and what they're running...

This, of course, has it's own biases-- a lot of Linux machines are servers that will never go to the web, for example, but it's not a bad approach if you look at high traffic sites.

The market share numbers that started this discussion are based on hardware sales and ignore OSs.

 

[Analog Kid]

First of, people dont get rid of pc's any faster than macs.

Last I saw, the Software Publishers Association estimated Apple had about 16% of the installed base. If they have less than 4% marketshare, and 16% of the installed base then people are getting rid of their PCs faster than Macs.

I know I've been keeping my Macs for 5 or more years, while I had to trash my PCs every 3 or so. Since switching my work machine to a Mac, I'm watching folks around me need to replace their PCs much more often because of failing components.

One thing to look at is the support the company gives to older machines-- Apple supports very, very old machines for a very long time. Even if this means writing emulation software to support changing processors and OS architectures...

The components in a dell computer do not corrode or rust or somehow break apart.

Uh, yes they do. That's why I convinced my boss to let me go Mac at work. Tired of screws falling out of my Dell laptop, and parts failing. That's pretty much exactly what happened-- parts corroded or broke apart.

Secondly, marketshare is a function of sales. No one cares about installed base (except developers), Apple stock price will not go up unless they make more sales, irrespective of the number of old mac computers existing.

Actually, everyone cares about installed base except hardware manufacturers. Apple's stock price will rise with growing installed base-- Apple sells all kinds of stuff to continuing customers. Applications, OS updates, Applecare, displays, and, um... iPods. About half of Apple's revenue is iPod related now, right? Would the iPod have taken off the way it had if there weren't a bunch of Mac users out there who could use the original Mac-only iPod?

If these pc users are getting rid of their machines faster (as you claim) why aren't they replaceing them with macs?.

Ooo. This is a trick question isn't it... Uh... Is it because, um, because they're PC users?

That's the whole point of marketshare.. how long before a pc or mac is replaced is irrelevant.. it's what people buy when looking for replacement..

Here's an interesting word problem you can use to practice for the SATs-- There are 100 people using computers and they replace their computers every 2 years. What is the average number of computers sold every month? What would this average be if the computers were replaced every 5 years?

in fact, if apple becomes more appealing, then they might want pc users to replace their pcs at a faster rate if they would replace them with a mac.

Yup. Or, they may be happy with the difference in replacement rates they're seeing now, figure it's enough that when PC users get tired of replacing their machines so often they see the longer lifetime of a Mac as a selling point.

People have been determining market share for a long, long time.. how stupid of them not to consult you first on how to do their job. Everybody always think they know how to do the other guys job. I assure you, the method of measuring market share is tested and time proven... i'm sure Gartner analysts would welcome your comments though on how to do their job better.

Considering that he started his comment by saying he wanted to know how they calculate these things, I'd say the sarcasm is a little misplaced here. It's also worth noting that market share can be calculated and reported in a lot of different ways to support a lot of different agendas. In this case, Gartner is reporting market share data for investors to monitor the performance of the various PC makers and we've been trying to use these numbers to draw a bunch of other conclusions. Drawing the distinction between the reported market share and the installed base was relevant to some of the preceding threads.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm an engineering student, and I cannot do any electrical nor audio engineering on a Mac.

What are you trying to do?

 

[Switcher2001]

Apple = "The BMW of Computers"

BMW and Mercedes each have around 5% of the world auto market (give or take, depending on the month and the news article you read), but they are recognized as elite vehicles the world over. Why complain that Apple computers only make up a small percentage of the world market? I agree that Apple could position themselves more strategically or market themselves better, I guess, but they are recognized as makers of fine, sexy, cool computers and gadgets. And hey, even if I had to run Windows, I'd rather run it on a Mac!

 

[rayz]

Just goes to show ....

... how hanging around on the 'net can really screw with your perception. ...😕

In the wider world, the Mac market share is still falling, and WinTel machines still continue to set records. Why this is, I have no idea; wouldn't it be wiser to hang on to your money and wait for Vista to land?

Now unless I say "don't bother", someone will feel the need to say

"Well, I bought a Windows machine, and the second I plugged it in, it caught a million viruses, a thousand spyware programs, kicked my dog then choked on BSOD".

So just don't bother. okay?

Windows is robust, stable, has excellent PnP and unparalleled industry support. There is not going to be a mass exodus to the Mac or Linux. MS knows this, and Apple knows this.

Why doesn't Apple advertise MacOSX? Because outside of the loyal Mac community, the advantages aren't that great. Nothing you could put into a thirty second commercial anyway. The machines however .. that's something you can show. Immediate visual impact; that's what this advertising lark is all about.

This is why Apple has stopped fighting for market share, and has focussed on something more important; profitability.

All this marketshare figure shows, is that ONE single company, does not sell machines at the same rate as THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of other companies put together. Why does that surprise anybody? The only real surprise here, is that Apple can sell enough machines to show up at all. They're in the top five sellers! Does anyone have any idea how many other companies are BENEATH them, and still making good money? I buy machines from a UK company, that doesn't even register on the marketshare figures, and has still managed to stay in business for twenty years.

What's really important is that Apple sells more machines one year, than they did in the previous year. Apple's market share can carry on dropping and they can still be increasing sales, and so increase the size of the user base.

 

[Analog Kid]

BMW and Mercedes each have around 5% of the world auto market (give or take, depending on the month and the news article you read), but they are recognized as elite vehicles the world over. Why complain that Apple computers only make up a small percentage of the world market? I agree that Apple could position themselves more strategically or market themselves better, I guess, but they are recognized as makers of fine, sexy, cool computers and gadgets. And hey, even if I had to run Windows, I'd rather run it on a Mac!

The problem would come in if the highway you drive to work only accepted Fords... Because the auto industry is highly standardized this doesn't happen, but no auto manufacturer has 90% market share either...

 

[Analog Kid]

All this marketshare figure shows, is that ONE single company, does not sell machines at the same rate as THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of other companies put together. Why does that surprise anybody? The only real surprise here, is that Apple can sell enough machines to show up at all. They're in the top five sellers! Does anyone have any idea how many other companies are BENEATH them, and still making good money? I buy machines from a UK company, that doesn't even register on the marketshare figures, and has still managed to stay in business for twenty years.

Apple is in a different position than your UK company though... If your UK company was selling a proprietary architecture and a unique but excellent OS, they probably wouldn't survive long. Ironically, that company survives because of Dell and HP.

What's amazing to me is that Apple has found a niche and kept it all this time. They peaked at 10% market share like 15 years ago, and since then they've been consistently below 5% and reportedly have an installed base around 16%. There has to be a number below which they'll fade out and die, and a number above which they'd blossom and grow substantially.

How is it they've stayed in the same place for so long-- not crossing either threshold? Is it intentional? Is it an artifact of some marketing formula? Makes you wonder if they're setting their prices, or doing something else, to maintain the status quo.

I really don't have the background in economics or the visibility into Apple's finances to know for sure, but I do notice that the biggest companies have stopped innovating in their products. Dell is clearly nothing more than a manufacturing company-- there may be innovation in their production methods but their products are pretty mediocre. HP spun off their "science" division into Agilent. Microsoft innovates, but not at a rate commensurate with their size difference relative to Apple. IBM is another innovator, but they're much broader than a PC company.

I wonder if Apple's management sets their margins in such a way that they have enough loose cash around to innovate the way they want to and have simply fully captured the demographic that a company of that type will appeal too-- namely the people willing to pay more and suffer some inconvenience in exchange for using a unique product.

 

[wnurse]

wnurse, I know I am taking out of context your words ... But the 'professional' 'static' 'boring' way you look at this stuff bores me 😛
With POV's like yours everything will ever stay the same ever ...


Can you back this up with data?
No really, this is a very interesting aspect:
*When do people stop buying new sw as a function of the age of their computer: a) they have all the sw they need, b) New sw will not run properly on their machine

*When do people decide to upgrade their computer and for what reason as a f...?
a) price drop on components, b) to run new sw

*When do people start using less and less their computer as it is a pain in their a** as a f ...? a) virus, malware b) bad maintenance c) fragmentation ...

*When do people decide they need a new computer as a f(t)?

*How do people evaluate the market offer when they are going after a new computer? a) if they had OS Y and app Z, do they look for alternatives ...
...
These are the kind of marketing studies any developer/ hw vendor would be interested in knowing




Every user should worry about developers ... (If they interested in sw for their machines)
No one cares about stock price except investors (except when it gets 'Sun' low).


It is relevant to evaluate if using OS X is really more expensive. I think they call it TCO ...



I'm tired of most market analysts, business analysts, auditing companies (they say more or less what they are paid to say, Enron ...), statistics (there are little lies, big lies and statistics) ...
Of course, we know, nobody gets fired for buying MS in IT ... Or was it IBM?

Just an innocent question. Do you base your shopping on market share? 😎

Is this an investment forum?

One simple question. Does anyone anywhere know of any study or analysis of market share that took installed base into account?.

 

[wnurse]

Last I saw, the Software Publishers Association estimated Apple had about 16% of the installed base. If they have less than 4% marketshare, and 16% of the installed base then people are getting rid of their PCs faster than Macs.

I know I've been keeping my Macs for 5 or more years, while I had to trash my PCs every 3 or so. Since switching my work machine to a Mac, I'm watching folks around me need to replace their PCs much more often because of failing components.

One thing to look at is the support the company gives to older machines-- Apple supports very, very old machines for a very long time. Even if this means writing emulation software to support changing processors and OS architectures...

Uh, yes they do. That's why I convinced my boss to let me go Mac at work. Tired of screws falling out of my Dell laptop, and parts failing. That's pretty much exactly what happened-- parts corroded or broke apart.

You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Secondly, i know people that have had their pc's for a long, long time.. in fact, i bet the same amount of people keep their pc as long as those that keep their macs (not difficult given that pc's marketshare overall is huge).. secondly, there are people that replace their macs often.. not becuase it is obselete but because they want the latest.. same with pc's. pc's are so much cheaper that people can replace them more often. In fact, the majority of pc users replace their pc's faster than macs not because their pc's corrode (hahahaha.. man, i am laughing with tears streaming down my face as i am typing this reply.. that is sooo funny!!) or becuase their pc's become useless.. but becuase they want to upgrade to the new faster computer out there.. many, many households have multiple computers.. i had a client who had 5 pc's in his home.. ranged from windows 95 to XP. From desktop to laptop. He did not throw out his old computer, it did not corrode (ok, whew.. that was a good laugh).. I have a mac.. it cost me 5000. I'm gonna keep it for a while not because it is usefull or because i don't want a new mac (i'm dying for a new mac) but cause it COST SO DAMN MUCH!!!.. had this been a pc i bought for 800 bucks, i would have upgraded/bought a new computer a long time ago.

 

[ictiosapiens]

Apple is in a different position than your UK company though... If your UK company was selling a proprietary architecture and a unique but excellent OS, they probably wouldn't survive long. Ironically, that company survives because of Dell and HP.

What's amazing to me is that Apple has found a niche and kept it all this time. They peaked at 10% market share like 15 years ago, and since then they've been consistently below 5% and reportedly have an installed base around 16%. There has to be a number below which they'll fade out and die, and a number above which they'd blossom and grow substantially.

How is it they've stayed in the same place for so long-- not crossing either threshold? Is it intentional? Is it an artifact of some marketing formula? Makes you wonder if they're setting their prices, or doing something else, to maintain the status quo.

I really don't have the background in economics or the visibility into Apple's finances to know for sure, but I do notice that the biggest companies have stopped innovating in their products. Dell is clearly nothing more than a manufacturing company-- there may be innovation in their production methods but their products are pretty mediocre. HP spun off their "science" division into Agilent. Microsoft innovates, but not at a rate commensurate with their size difference relative to Apple. IBM is another innovator, but they're much broader than a PC company.

I wonder if Apple's management sets their margins in such a way that they have enough loose cash around to innovate the way they want to and have simply fully captured the demographic that a company of that type will appeal too-- namely the people willing to pay more and suffer some inconvenience in exchange for using a unique product.

Even if the market suddenly changed and decided to all go Mac, there's a limit in apple's capacity. You guys are comparing a company that makes both hardware and os, to a million companies that make hardware and another one that makes the os for those other millions...


Even if apple all of the sudden hypnotized the whole world to buy a Mac, they could not satisfy that demand, they just don't have the capacity, not until they license their os, that is the only way they could break that 5 or 6% threshold. But this may not be in their best interest, because they seem to be happy with that 5% or because they don't seem confident that people will continue to buy apple hardware if they can boot Mac os on a cheaper pc.

I don't know its all a bit weird at the moment with apple bringing hardware more in line with pc hardware, so its going to be harder for them to justify the premium price. At the same time, they are letting people run windows on the Macs. Anything could happen, they could start licensing Mac os, or they could stop making Mac os altogether (NOT LIKELY, just hypothesizing) my point is that with the Intel and boot camp move, apple is in a very interesting position, with both scenarios making some kind of business sense. With the first one, becoming more of a Microsoft kind of company with its main product being the OS and apps, and also making hardware on the side(pretty much what Microsoft seems to want to do with the 360) or with the 2nd(and extremely unlikely scenario of them becoming a pure hardware company dell style.

And I definitely don’t think that apple are just happy with their 5% niche, if they were they wouldn’t be spending money on massive stores all over the world, and massive TV/radio/add campaigns they do want more, and mr. Jobs has implied it just by mentioning the market share figures on his keynotes...

 

[rolandf]

As I emphasised several times, the transition to Intel will only help in the short to middle run. Certainly it is a reasonable hedge. But so-far, I haven't got the impression, that Apple would have been treated better than other Intel customers, so they get the things at the same time. Therefore they should keep open the AMD option as-well.

On a personal side, the Intel macs lost there charisma, they don't convey that special feeling anymore. The new 15,4 inch power-book doesn't look so nice anymore.

On the other hand, giving IBM away, was not a smart move in any case. If there is a computer superpower that is IBM, a company that is able to help innovative companies in critical situations. AMD wouldn't probably be alive without IBM backing them. To innovate, Apple should have embraced something like the CELL, to introduce new product categories, like they did with the iPod.

The arrival of Windows Vista will take away a lot of the motivation to switch to Apple. Their OS can only keep an edge in conjunction with cutting-edge hardware, that isn't mainstream, and x86 is main-main-main-stream.

Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.

So, I think after all the Intel hype and FLOPS per Watt etc., it would be better to introduce the next bigger thing, with strong long-term partners, who also know, how to make an OS around a good processor, but are not that keen on how their boxes look like.

 

[ictiosapiens]

Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.

Not only 1-1 to the Euro, but nearly 1-1.2 to the Pound Sterling!!! I know we get charge VAT and all the rest, but still, it makes them very, VERY expensive!!!

 

[inkswamp]

You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Why argue about it then? What will that prove? If you want a definitive answer, go look at Consumer Reports. Apple computers have hardware failures far less often than their PC counterparts, especially in terms of critical failures. That's just a fact. Argue it all you want, but the evidence is not in your favor.

And that has been my experience. At work, I have a PC and a Mac on my desktop. In two years, the Mac has required no tech support. The PC has needed help many, many times. In fact, just this last week, its video card started to die (something that our tech guy seemed unsurprised by but something I have never witnessed on a Mac.)

On top of that, I have worked in a mixed Mac and PC environment and I can assure you that the PC hardware fails *far* more often than the Macs.

[Edit: I'm posting this on my 6-year-old iBook, 500Mhz G3 running Tiger like a champ--and has never had a hardware failure. None of my PC using friends have laptops that old that have survived. Must be my dumb luck, huh?]

 

[k2k koos]

Don't forget Steve!

Reading all discussions about what Apple may or may not do in terms of market share, I think the answer to what Apple wants to accieve eventually lies in the drive of Steve Jobs.
Just read the book "Accidental Empires' by Robert X Cringely for a few juicy stories. While I do not fully agree with Robert in his descriptions of Steve and Apple, there is some underlying truth there. In a nut shell, Steve Jobs wants to show the world a better way of computing, and even better, would love the whole world to use computers that completely match his vision of what this thing should be. The Mac is awfully close to this 'ideal machine' allready, and it continues to innovate (particulary on the software side, which is the soul of the machine). Software is key for the sales of Apple computers.
Steve as the drive to push his vision forward, and opening up several new stores all over the place (starting in the US), and adding flagship stores slowly but surely arround the globe, will increase Apple's presence, and lure potential buyers inside. In there lies the key, Apple increase its presence, and Steve to push the Mac to the next level together will be a very healthy start for increased market share. It will not come overnight, and Vista's launch will no doubt be a major factor, but I think Apple will succeed in eventually getting a marketshare of 10%, in the next 5 years, although Steve would like to see that even higher. If not, I'll still buy a Mac!

 

[backspinner]

Another point is the price. It is simply unbelievable what Apple charges in Europe. Their exchange rate euro to dollar is 1-1, and anybody can look up, what that means on a daily basis.

It's not, it's just right. I guess you forget that in Europe we have to include the VAT or whatever it's called localy, and in the USA you don't.

MacBook: 1099 dollar and 923 euro, a nice rate of about 1:1.2

 

[riversky]

Still good news!

If the market for personal computers (desks and notebooks) is growing (the whole pie is getting bigger) then even if Apple stays at their current market share, or even a little less, that means there are still MORE new Macs in use.

Slice of pie is out of a LARGER total.

 

[backspinner]

I'm posting this on my 6-year-old iBook, 500Mhz G3 running Tiger like a champ--and has never had a hardware failure. None of my PC using friends have laptops that old that have survived. Must be my dumb luck, huh?

Well I'm typing this on a 4+ year old powerbook that is regularly failing from a broken logic board, broken DVD player and a broken case and hinges. I have seen multiple PC laptops that do not have these problems... since these lay around somewhere collecting dust (because the OS won't keep running) and not being used and moved around and beaten 10 hours a day for four years long.

 

[inkswamp]

Well I'm typing this on a 4+ year old powerbook that is regularly failing from a broken logic board, broken DVD player and a broken case and hinges. I have seen multiple PC laptops that do not have these problems... since these lay around somewhere collecting dust (because the OS won't keep running) and not being used and moved around and beaten 10 hours a day for four years long.

Well, to be clear, I was citing my own anecdotal evidence after pointing out that Consumer Reports pretty much definitively shows this to be the case. If anyone wants to make the case that Macs are every bit as likely to fall apart as the average PC, they will need to show some numbers to back it up.

 

[Analog Kid]

You are joking right?. Even if i were to amuse you by believing your story, is your experience typical?. Do you know of a forum that discusses the corrosion of dell computers. You are a funny guy. Computers do not corrode, even the cheapest ones. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt.

Happy to amuse you.

Given the numbers I quoted above, 16% installed base with a 4% market share indicating that people dispose of their Macs less frequently than people dispose of their PCs, and your solid evidence of a client who keeps their PCs as long as they still run, I'd say that my experience is typical.

When I look around the office at the outdated machines, most of them are Thinkpads. The Dells barely survive until they depreciate. Their desktops do a little better. There aren't enough Macs in the office to talk statistically-- just my personal experience there...

 

[Analog Kid]

Even if apple all of the sudden hypnotized the whole world to buy a Mac, they could not satisfy that demand, they just don't have the capacity, not until they license their os, that is the only way they could break that 5 or 6% threshold. But this may not be in their best interest, because they seem to be happy with that 5% or because they don't seem confident that people will continue to buy apple hardware if they can boot Mac os on a cheaper pc.

Granted, if the change in demand happened suddenly there would be a shortage, but if it happened over years, as is more likely, this capacity isn't an issue. Apple doesn't manufacture much of anything, if anything at all-- they contract it out. As long as there is factory capacity in the world, there will be enough Macs to go around.

I don't know its all a bit weird at the moment with apple bringing hardware more in line with pc hardware, so its going to be harder for them to justify the premium price. At the same time, they are letting people run windows on the Macs. Anything could happen, they could start licensing Mac os, or they could stop making Mac os altogether (NOT LIKELY, just hypothesizing) my point is that with the Intel and boot camp move, apple is in a very interesting position, with both scenarios making some kind of business sense. With the first one, becoming more of a Microsoft kind of company with its main product being the OS and apps, and also making hardware on the side(pretty much what Microsoft seems to want to do with the 360) or with the 2nd(and extremely unlikely scenario of them becoming a pure hardware company dell style.

I agree with you that Bootcamp is an interesting development. I think it's just a way of dealing with the inevitable. Props to Apple for thinking ahead and developing this on their own, but I do notice they waited until users figured out how to dual boot on their own before releasing it. I think it fits into the larger Apple strategy-- building systems. Apple's strength is in delivering a complete "experience" from hardware and peripherals to the OS and key applications. Once it became clear that people were going to dual boot, they wanted control over how it was done-- either to ensure that the experience was satisfactory (at least until the Windows startup chime) or to ensure that the proper drivers were in place so their hardware fared well in the head to head benchmarking that was sure to follow.

That might help answer your the other dichotomy you pose-- a hardware or software company. There's probably places in the forum archives where I asserted that Apple is a hardware company, but that's just where their revenue comes from. At its heart they're a systems company and I expect they always will be as long as the Old Guard, Jobs in particular, is still around. They can't seem to deal with someone else coming in and marring the "perfect" Apple experience.

And I definitely don’t think that apple are just happy with their 5% niche, if they were they wouldn’t be spending money on massive stores all over the world, and massive TV/radio/add campaigns they do want more, and mr. Jobs has implied it just by mentioning the market share figures on his keynotes...

Yeah, my speculation was just a mental exercise... Trying to find a reason why the company has stayed in essentially the same place for so very long. To me, staying Apple sized seems harder to do than either growing bigger or fading away. I can't really explain it.