topicolo said:
It is not even necessary that there _are_ alternatives. It is enough if others _could_ enter the market if they wanted. In that situation, you cannot increase prices as you like, because at that point others _would_ enter the market.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Marketshare Increasing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is not even necessary that there _are_ alternatives. It is enough if others _could_ enter the market if they wanted. In that situation, you cannot increase prices as you like, because at that point others _would_ enter the market.
mrblah said:
Many people who buy PC buy pricy ones.. were they could buy a Mac for the price of the Dell/HP/ect
That said i doubt Apple will have 50% of the market in the next few years simply becase that would mean Mac sales would need to up but a ton AND PC sales would be to pretty much stop. Also that would be more then any hardwre maker currently has... look for 10% in the next few years
Rain, rain, rain
As a Mac fan-boy I'd love to think Apple actually picked up sustainable market share, but as an actual technology product manager who does forecasts for a living, I've got to look askew at the data:
* Mac market share was DOWN the previous quarter
* The attributed cause of the share drop the previous quarter was the transition to Intel
* Therefore the previous quarter share drop represented pent-up demand that would rematerialize once the Intel transition stabilized
* Therefore one would expect a corresponding one-time blip UP in the corresponding quarter to resolve the pent-up demand
* And low and behold, the marketshare "increase" just about corresponds to the resolution of the previous quarter's pent-up demand.
In other words, to keep the same long-term share, the current quarter's share would have to temporarily rise to make-up for last quarter's drop.
Sorry, amigos, I'll wait to see next quarter's data before I pop the cork...
As a Mac fan-boy I'd love to think Apple actually picked up sustainable market share, but as an actual technology product manager who does forecasts for a living, I've got to look askew at the data:
* Mac market share was DOWN the previous quarter
* The attributed cause of the share drop the previous quarter was the transition to Intel
* Therefore the previous quarter share drop represented pent-up demand that would rematerialize once the Intel transition stabilized
* Therefore one would expect a corresponding one-time blip UP in the corresponding quarter to resolve the pent-up demand
* And low and behold, the marketshare "increase" just about corresponds to the resolution of the previous quarter's pent-up demand.
In other words, to keep the same long-term share, the current quarter's share would have to temporarily rise to make-up for last quarter's drop.
Sorry, amigos, I'll wait to see next quarter's data before I pop the cork...
Havent looked at PC prices in awhile? Most PC's these days are less than $1000 and come with a monitor. The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same). Mini's are $600 and dont come with a monitor, keyboard, or mouse, they mainly appeal to old PC owners wanting to try a mac. PC's are very cheap these days, just take a stroll through dell's site to see what people can get for less than $800 and what Apple will need to do if they expect to compete.gnasher729 said:
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.mrblah said:
Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.
dynamicv said:
And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.
2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
being able to choose what you want to do instead of having everything dictated to you by Steve Jobs.
And you're really going to use all that are you? With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers. So all that space in the case just translates to lost space in the home. I'm a pretty average computer user at home and with the exception of my camera, iPod and printer, I have no external devices. Although I will be purchasing an external firewire drive at some point, I'd much rather have a small squarish metallic box on display behind my iMac than lose an extra three square feet of floor space due to needing a bigger desk. Perhaps when you factor in the cost, the lost square footage of the room your computer is in should be taken into account.BenRoethig said:
dynamicv said:
Few even upgrade their HD's, i think apple users upgrade the RAM but that's only because Apple have *never* sold a computer (at least since the original iMac) with enough RAM.
One interesting think I have realised from going back to a PC laptop (i'm borrowing it and waiting for new MBP's/MB's) is how annoying many of the applications are, for example WinSCP, when you move a file across it brings up a dialog to confirm where you want to copy it to, even though the odds are 99.99% that you want to move it from the visible directory on the left to the visible directory on the right. An OS X application (eg Fugu or Cyberduck in this case) would never do that. Basically even if Vista is superior to Leopard in ease of use and features (which ain't gonna happen
) because OS X app's are in general designed better I'd probably keep using a Mac, this is an excellent reason to switch too.dynamicv said:
What if he is?
And most computer-users use Windows, so maybe we should all switch to Windows? Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems. To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.
What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks. Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.
Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.
Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items. And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.
Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.
BenRoethig said:
iMac is perfect for most home users.. few "home users"(people who buy a computer and use it, not super up to date about it) upgrade anything..maybe RAM and Harddrive but thats really it
Evangelion said:
2 Mac Mini should still be very small.. but i would love to see a Cube sized Mac agian..maybe this time it would sell.
zap2 said:
Imagine two Mac Mini back-to-back. That is how much desk-space the tower would consume. Now, it could be as high as four Mini's stacked on top of each other, so the volume would be eight times as much as the Mini has, but the actual space needed on the desktop would be just two Mini's worth.
Then good for him, but if he's that much of a power user, he's looking at a redesign of the PowerMac case, not a mini-tower.Evangelion said:
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?Evangelion said:
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs? Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result. Keeping the range small means they have tight control on inventory and can dedicate the Apple Stores to showing what Macs can do. So far it's brought the company a lot of money.Evangelion said:
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.Evangelion said:
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?Evangelion said:
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.Evangelion said:
Yeah, I used to have one of those, then I realised how much wasted space it was causing and ditched it for a smaller one. You obviously live in a bigger place than me, but then for me it's location, location, locationEvangelion said:
I don't care about "all-in-one elegance". I didn't buy an iMac because it matches the curtains. I just want something that takes up minimum space. The iMac does that perfectly.Evangelion said:
But only SOME of you. Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower? Jobs' arrogance or because they don't think it'll sell in enough quantity to justify it? As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.Evangelion said:
Let's wait and see what comes out at WWDC. The G5 case had to be enormous for cooling reasons. The MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.
dynamicv said:
Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.
There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?
No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?
Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.
Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?
Coming up maybe?
Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?
And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?
Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".
Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.
Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.
What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.
brepublican said:I'm not too sure I agree with the reason you give though. My main concern is quality control. Even with the paltry share increase Apple has seen during the past year, quality control has become an issue. Would not like to see how much poorer with a 10% share thats all
Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers...
backdraft said:Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers...
Oh... dear... lord...
The MBP's whine (arguably the biggest problem, barring heat) was caused by either: 1) the inverter for the LCD backlight, or 2) power regulation for the CPU, which (believe it or not) the G-series also required very similar parts. Neither of these components were designed or built by Intel. If you want to blame someone, blame Foxconn/Hon Hai/Asustek/whoever built the system. I'd probably put money on that company also having built PPC systems for Apple at some point.
The heat? Well, again, depending on who you believe regarding the cause, that's either dodgy thermal paste application (blame Asustek/whoever again), or... well, let's say that the Core line are rather toasty no matter who's using it.... but again, for the computing power, the Core is a great piece of work. Before the switch, there was zero chance of us having a laptop with this amount of computational power at *any* heat output.
Wonky 'eject' key on the MBP's? Asustek/whoever again.
The switch to Intel had zero bearing on quality control. QC's performed by the system builder.
Let's look back a bit through the mists of time...
Apple-designed logic boards. Were they somehow sprinkled with the magic fairy-dust of goodness? No. iBook and eMac failures?
Apple-designed chipsets: sub-par USB2 performance, even on the G5.
Apple-designed power systems: G5 chirping.
QC is a problem across the industry. Apple's used to be exemplary (many years ago... I'm talking Pismo/Wallstreet era). Now it's merely average or -- depending on the studies/surveys you believe -- slightly above-average.
A tower is more disirable to people who are new to computers because it looks like youre getting more for your money. Obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, and saying such sacrilige on a Mac forum is going to get a lot of strange looks since the audience would be part of the "not everyone" crowd. But if you actually look at what SELLS rather than what you think people want then youll see that towers are the most sought after among the people looking for maximum value rather than style. People dont care what their computers look like, if they did then why would Dell have such a big market share with their ass ugly cases? PC's arent a fashion statement, theyre a tool. PowerMacs are absurdly priced and will never make a dent in the market share, so those are only options for rich people or enthusiasts that are willing to pay such prices.
Regardless of anyones opinion on how perfect iMacs are for new computer users, new computer users dont see it that way. They want value and upgradability since that means even more value in the long run. They dont know if they are going to upgrade anything in the future, the fact is that they buy a computer THINKING they will. You cant expect these people to know what you know, or to know that Apple has better quality parts than Dell or HP, they look at things and see computers and thats it. Not Windows, not OSX, just computers with already high prices.
Regardless of anyones opinion on how perfect iMacs are for new computer users, new computer users dont see it that way. They want value and upgradability since that means even more value in the long run. They dont know if they are going to upgrade anything in the future, the fact is that they buy a computer THINKING they will. You cant expect these people to know what you know, or to know that Apple has better quality parts than Dell or HP, they look at things and see computers and thats it. Not Windows, not OSX, just computers with already high prices.
Mr Blah, your name seems to be appropriate. No one looks at a tower and says, "Hey, that looks like a really innovative computer." However, how many people think that (maybe not in those exact words, but the idea) about the iMac? I'd venture to guess a lot more than ever thought that about a Dell. That's why Apple's viewed as the leader in the computer industry even by a lot of people who don't have or even want Macs. If Apple sacrificed that for the sake of perceived benefit on the part of the same people that go for Dells because they're "tools", they're not going to gain anything. Apple survives and flourishes by being the technology leaders, not by copying overused designs like towers.
jW
jW
backdraft said:Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers...
Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.
Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy. Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality. People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly? I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need? Hes probably in no rush to make mroe money), but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.
BenRoethig said:
An iMac is NOT suitable for the sort of computer use you are intending! As an experienced computer technician who works mostly on PCs, I can assure you that any new Dell, HP or Gateway tower is even less suited to handle the upgrades you are suggesting, with the exclusion of RAM upgrades.
New PCs are products of out-of-control cost cutting and nothing more. If you want upgradability, you must spend at least $2000 and get one from ABS or another semi-custom shop.
Finally, the Mac Pro tower is coming out soon. Then, many of your complaints about the Mac's faults will be dealt with. While I am a fan of the Mac platform, I run a custom dual-xeon PC that I built myself and I can say that, from my perspective, I would take any computer over a sub-$1500 PC.
I've got a fried Dell P4 Motherboard sitting at home b/c Dell decided to use proprietary pin configs with a standard ATX power connector (not my mistake
). Mass-manufactured PCs are made to be fortresses, preventing user upgrade. The Mac is a nice, good-looking alternative among only a few alternatives. Atleast you know the each of those external devices is going to work right as soon as you plug it in. With PCs today, esp. from dell, You have no such guarantee on any of the upgrades you suggested. People are making a mistake when they buy a cheap PC, whether you believe they ought to be buying a mac or not!Macrumors said:
Along with the recent encouraging 3Q 2006 financial results from Apple on Wednesday, independent research firms Gartner and IDC have recently reported on 2Q 2006 market share (via MacWorld). Both firms report solid gains from 1 year ago, with IDC reporting a jump from 4.4 to 4.8% U.S. Marketshare and Gartner reporting a jump from 4.3 to 4.6%, making the Mac maker the 4th largest maker of computers behind Dell (32%), HP (18.9%), and Gateway (6.2%).
This is the first reported gains in marketshare for Apple since the Intel transition, as last quarter saw minor losses. From last quarter, it appears as though Apple has gained an entire percentage point in market share (up from 3.5-3.6% 1Q 2006).
Digg This
is that good or bad?
mrblah said:
This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.
I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.
If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.
Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.
A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.
Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.
(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)