or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Overall Mac OS usage market share declining?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Overall Mac OS usage market share declining? - Page 2

post #41 of 98
Market share stats are so unreliable. Look at this marketshare graph for firefox:



The difference between the highest and lowest value provided for Jan 2006 is 16%! I'm not sure a drop of 0.02% can mean much...

I'd wait and see some more stats.
post #42 of 98
walk into an Apple store and tell me that market share is declining...or anywhere there is wifi...I see more macs than I ever did.
post #43 of 98
Complete BS! One of the things that annoys Microsoft is how long it takes their users to adopt new versions of Windows. Most corporations wait for one or even two service packs before considering an enterprise-wide change to a new OS. Microsoft is praying that the seemingly infinite beta period for Vista will convince people that it's safe to upgrade, but the high system requirements should keep Vista out of most enterprises for another couple of years. XP hasn't got and, if Vista ships in the next year, never will reach 85% of the Windows market let alone 85% of the overall OS market.
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad

Complete BS! One of the things that annoys Microsoft is how long it takes their users to adopt new versions of Windows. Most corporations wait for one or even two service packs before considering an enterprise-wide change to a new OS. Microsoft is praying that the seemingly infinite beta period for Vista will convince people that it's safe to upgrade, but the high system requirements should keep Vista out of most enterprises for another couple of years.

Most large organizations are generally conservative with their software upgrade schedule. I don't think the slow updating is relegated to just Microsoft products, though they most deserve the conservatism. It takes a while to prove that it's worthwhile and to make sure that all their software works or has been updated for a new OS. There is the testing against all the software used by the organization, licencing costs and the time to migrate the updates and make sure it doesn't mess up somewhere. Retraining costs and a short term loss of productivity getting used to the updated software are considerations.
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Quote:
it's simply not possible to know the "overall usage" to any degree of precision, or the Mac OS usage by segment, much less within *two decimal places.*

WE HAVE A WINNAH

A percent is a small number multiplied by 100 to put it into a range people can deal with. This study implies that they can determine market share to FOUR SIGNIFICANT FIGURES! With most physical phenomena, you are lucky to get three sigfigs, unless you have access to high precision devices and have some way to exert fine control over the experiment.

Opinion pollsters take over a thousand samples to have a margin of error of several percentage points.

To think that they can determine a squishy statistic like market share to a higher degree of precision than many scientists and engineers can with hard science is just insane. For that reason alone, I believe the results are wholly untrustworthy.

Besides, the recent sales figures of Macintoshes suggest that the size of the Mac market is growing. In that case, market share is of little importance.
post #46 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha

Hang about, Windows 98 has a lower market share than Mac OS X? I find that extremely hard to believe. I still know plenty of people who are stuck on Win98.


Yes, but they don't use the internet.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kainjow

I call BS. From my own personal experience, Mac is up, and PC is down. I don't know anyone who is or has dropped a Mac and gone to PC, but I certainly know plenty who have switched to Mac.

Ditto.
I always have the right answers; you just sometimes ask the wrong questions.
Reply
I always have the right answers; you just sometimes ask the wrong questions.
Reply
post #48 of 98
Is .02 even above the error of this survey? What does Shaw Wu say about this? I'd like to hear his take.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #49 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Laptop at an all time high...low market share...does not compute.


I've been watching Net Applications a lot lately and I don't think they're monitoring is unbiased.

It's actually quite difficult to know OS usage by looking at site logs...unless you monitor all sites on the internet...which is not the case...so...ya know...these numbers mean nothing.

The desktop sales are not that high. More than half of Apple's sales at this time are laptops. That's one reason why they refreshed the iMac line with Meroms before they did the laptops.
post #50 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp

Are there any business PhDs lurking in these forums? If so could someone please explain once again why market share seems to be THE indicator of success or failure for a company? BMW has a much lower market share than GM in terms of sales yet GM is in the toilet and BMW just keeps chugging along. Why is Apple considered a complete, total failure as a company because it doesn't have the market share of Dell? As a card carrying member of the Joe Public fraternity I just don't get it.

One doesn't have to be a PhD to understand this.

First of all:

Auto's can't be compared to computers. It would be nice if people finally understood that.

If BMW couldn't use the same gas other cars used, or the same air for their tires, or couldn't run on the same roads, or use the same water for their radiators, then the comparison would be valid. As it is, it's not.

If Apple made Windows machines so that the same software would run on them, the situation would be different as well.

If you go to a banking site, and it doesn't work with a Mac, or if you buy a game, and it doesn't work with a Mac, or anything else that you would like doesn't work with a Mac, but does work with a PC, then you have some idea as to why marketshare matters.

While some think that all that should matter is the number of machines out there, most companies supplying the software, hardware, or services that we want, don't agree.

It all comes down to percentage. If development costs are about the same for the Mac as for a PC, but the PC market is 20 times larger, which market will they work with? The same for advertising, support, etc.

That doesn't mean that there won't be companies that prefer the Mac for their products. If the Mac is strong in a particular area, then we see development. Or if a small developer finds it easier to compete in the smaller market, they will.

Otherwise it doesn't work out.

Over the past few years as Apple's marketshare plunged in this country from about 12% to about 2.8%, even as Apple's sales remained about the same. Developers fled in droves.

With it starting to come back again, we are gaining more than are leaving.

It had hit a wall the March quarter, as growth over the last years quarter was only about 5%. That was below the industrie's growth of about 10%. So marketshare declined slightly. The last quarter (June) saw growth of about 11% over last year's quarter, about inline with the PC industry. This quarter should see greater growth.
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha

Hang about, Windows 98 has a lower market share than Mac OS X? I find that extremely hard to believe. I still know plenty of people who are stuck on Win98.

I knew about a dozen people using it as little as a year ago. But now, all of them have moved to XP.

There will always be a few people using old machines, like the "classic" computer users.

I knew a guy that was using DOS until his last machine finally died, and we almost forced him to get a new machine with XP. And no, I couldn't convince him to get a Mache still uses XYright!
post #52 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro

Zero mention of Linux anyone? By most accounts still a larger userbase than OS X, that missing alone is a red flag of galatic proportions.

It's impossible to measure Linux distro usage properly. All anyone can do is guess.
post #53 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Even if BMW only sold 1 car every year, that 1 car could drive on pretty much any road it wanted to. It might be hard to get an oil change at Jiffy Lube however as they don't stock oil filters for the 1 BMW on the road.

Now take the car analogy and apply it to the computer industry. Because there are so few Mac users, many web developers don't hesitate to require the use of ActiveX controls or even muck up their Java! so that it only works on a PC running Internet Explorer 6 or higher. In the same way have you seen any new software released for the Amiga lately? No, because it isn't economically feasible to devote a lot of resources to a tiny potential market.

This is why you can't get AutoCad for Mac. They used to make AutoCad for the Mac but becuse the marketshare dipped so low they stopped developing it.

Johnny, I didn't get to your post before I posted mine. But some reinforcement never hurts.
post #54 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by gruth

The graph shows that Mac OS has 3.71%, while the article talks about 4.33%. For me, this makes the article even more bogus -- unless these are actually measurements of different things, and I'm missing some detail somewhere.

Not everyone uses Safari, and some even use the internet on a PC, even though they may have a Mac.
post #55 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbravo556

I have a fairly popular site that caters to no specific platform and doesn't exclude any browser.

From my own stats, the Mac usage share has been climbing steadily for the last 2 years (since the Mac Mini was released). The lowest it ever been on my site was 3.98%. It currently stands at 5.06%; the highest I've ever seen since I started tracking browser and platform numbers.

I don't get my numbers from analysing logs. I have the data stored in the database whenever a user logs in. The number of users is about 130,000 so it's a fairly representative slice of users.

And for the person that couldn't believe the low number of windows 98 users. Their share stands at 5.01% currently.

Granted, this is a single site, but it's a large one, and platform-neutral and browser-neutral.

As far as I can tell from my own data, there can be no explanation to their numbers other than incompetence or bias.

What is seen at one site, even if it is fairly popular, isn't representitive of what is seen at many sites.
post #56 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad

Complete BS! One of the things that annoys Microsoft is how long it takes their users to adopt new versions of Windows. Most corporations wait for one or even two service packs before considering an enterprise-wide change to a new OS. Microsoft is praying that the seemingly infinite beta period for Vista will convince people that it's safe to upgrade, but the high system requirements should keep Vista out of most enterprises for another couple of years. XP hasn't got and, if Vista ships in the next year, never will reach 85% of the Windows market let alone 85% of the overall OS market.

This is an easy one.

When MS came out with XP, just as they had done with all of their OS's before, they stopped supplying 2000 for ALL retail machines. By the time XP came out, more machines were being sold retail tyhan direct to large businesses. Small business owners have to buy retail, meaning all machines including white box ones supplied by stores and small manufacturers.

Over the next few years large corporations had upped their usage of XP to over 50%.

So, most are using XP by now. What the exact number is, I don't know, but 85% doesn't sound all that far off. It is likely a bit high, but not by much.

The same thing will happen to Vista. When 2000 came out, they were saying the same thing about requirements, also with XP.

In fact, they said the same thing about all of IBM and MS's OS's. You likely don't know about the fights about the heavy requirements for the first rev of NT.
post #57 of 98
Mactel people uses bootcamp, could be the reason? If so, I am not surprised as I used OS/2 back in the day.

We couldn't make any company code anything for OS/2 as there was perfect , better than real DOS and windows (3.1) compatibility.

They simply sent instructions how to install windows support to OS/2 to make their program work (!).
post #58 of 98
something stinks in here, and I think it's that pie chart...
post #59 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In the same newsletter, the firm erroneously reported that Apple's iPod unit shipments hit an all time high at 12 million units in one quarter before stumbling.

"iPod sales peaked at over 12 million units for the 4th quarter of 2005, but have stumbled to 8.5 million and 8.1 million units the most recent two quarters," the firm wrote.

iPod sales actually peaked during Apple's first fiscal quarter of 2006, in which it sold over 14 million of the players.

Technically what was written is true. The company's first fiscal quarter for 2006 is the last calendar quarter of 2005. So, it depends whether you're talking calendar or fiscal. But the last quarter of 2005 did sell over 12 million units (14 million is over 12 million, right?)
post #60 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Johnny, I didn't get to your post before I posted mine. But some reinforcement never hurts.

As a software dev I call BS on the road argument. First there's java. Second there's gcc and portage. Third there's mono. Fourth there's Firefox. Fifth there is Parallels. Sixth there's Boot Camp. Finally, there's Apple which has not been too shy about writing software it considers critical.

Plenty of "roads" and being the one of the few "gas station" on those roads can be very profitable. So long as there is sufficiently large market base there will be sufficient software.

There is nothing wrong with the BMW analogy and Apple is happily profitable pursuing that strategy.

Vinea
post #61 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

It's impossible to measure Linux distro usage properly. All anyone can do is guess.

Somewhat true, and this is the case for all questions of userbase. Period.

Statistics can be useful for guessing close though and I can't concieve of any valid methodologies that would yeild anything like the numbers reported by these bozos.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #62 of 98
Even thought Apple laptop sales are up that does not mean their % of market share had gotten bigger when compared to the overall market in general. Now before you flame me think about what I'm saying. Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen. It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown. Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.

\tSomeone on this thread basically said PC's are declining and that is far from the truth. PC sales are very strong. PC's are pushing hardware to the edge and pushing tech like SLI, etc... If PC's are declining then why are there so many PC motherboard(Asus, Abit, Gigabyte,....), video card, sound card, chipset makers, etc... companies which are still growing strong?

\tIf Apple wants more market share then they should either have a better selection with a better variety of hardware or release OSX to run on any hardware thus making a lot of money off OSX.

\tThe bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.

\tIf Apple wants to win a PC user over then Apple should rethink it's hardware policies. Right now PC hardware(minus M$...so let's not get into that tired debate) is better than Apple's hardware in that the user has a choice. It's pathetic the new Power Mac only supports a few video cards and no Crossfire or SLI. This must change if Apple wants to grow.

\tBy the way Apple hardware and PC hardware are equal today. The myth that Apple hardware is better is just a myth. Actually PC hardware is more advanced in that PC's are always ahead of Apple because Apple is always dragging their feet.

If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!
post #63 of 98
As far as the % chart is concerning I would like to get more info from the creator of this chart.
post #64 of 98
Now that I think about it, I think the low numbers can be explained by the global reach of internet sites, because Apple's market share worldwide is about 3%. So that Netsomething chart may actually be pretty close to the installed base.

Apple's notable notebook successes were in the US and might only be static compared to the global market.
post #65 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkane

Even thought Apple laptop sales are up that does not mean their % of market share had gotten bigger when compared to the overall market in general. Now before you flame me think about what I'm saying. Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen. It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown. Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.

Must be new math. So in order for HP to gain share it must out sell Apple, Dell and Gateway combined? Or perhaps Apple simply needs to grow slightly faster than the PC market...which in the US it apparently did since it increased share from 4.4% to 4.8%. In any case, as long as the user base continues to grow it can stay healthy. The big loser in 2006? Dell. But they'll bounce back...Dell has fixed a lot of the problems it had the last couple years and got their eye back on customer satisfaction.

Quote:
The bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.

Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.

Quote:
If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!

No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.

Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.

And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.

Vinea
post #66 of 98
Must be new math. So in order for HP to gain share it must out sell Apple, Dell and Gateway combined? Or perhaps Apple simply needs to grow slightly faster than the PC market...which in the US it apparently did since it increased share from 4.4% to 4.8%. In any case, as long as the user base continues to grow it can stay healthy. The big loser in 2006? Dell. But they'll bounce back...Dell has fixed a lot of the problems it had the last couple years and got their eye back on customer satisfaction.

No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.

Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.


Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.

No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.

BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.

Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.

Agree.

And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.


Thats because Linux has the some fan boys wanting to keep Linux an elitist hobby instead of working to unify a driver base(rpm vs. tar) etc.... Look at the Linux sound driver issues and you will see what I'm talking about. Linux has grown just take a look at business use and compare it to OSX Server use. Don;t take my word for it read and research for yourself.

So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you? OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.

It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.

I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!

Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....
post #67 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkane

Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.

It doesn't matter. Apple makes more money per computer but on fewer computers. Maybe they can drop the price some, but there's never a guarantee that the additional sales will make up for the difference. I think Dell has a little higher profit than Apple, but they also sell 10x as many computers, and they certainly don't have 10x the net profits. Most of the consumer computer industry is on razor thin margins, Dell and Apple are the rare exceptions.
post #68 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkane

Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be?

Apple's market cap is a good 20-25% bigger than Dell's, so they must be doing SOMETHING right.

Also, wtf would be the point of having 6x the market share if you're making 1/6th the cash? You of all people should not be telling anyone to do math. OS X profits = negligible. Hardware profits = sexy.
post #69 of 98
since Marketshare has nothing at all to do with what people are using, but just what is sold... how does web site traffic hits by certain browsers give you marketshare?

They are trying to show usage, not market share.

anyways, even their data is reported to look bad... they are saying total shaare (Mac OS + Macintel figures) is now 4.33%, when a year ago (Dec) it was 4.35%. They skip every other report between those times when it was up and down, sometimes up much more than .02 and sometimes much further down than .02.... this is competely not new...

Next month is could be up .05.. then the next month down .02 and theyll skip a month and report... Another .02 down!!! this is the end!!
post #70 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123

since Marketshare has nothing at all to do with what people are using, but just what is sold... how does web site traffic hits by certain browsers give you marketshare?

They are trying to show usage, not market share.

Correct. Their numbers are not market share ones.
post #71 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro

Somewhat true, and this is the case for all questions of userbase. Period.

Statistics can be useful for guessing close though and I can't concieve of any valid methodologies that would yeild anything like the numbers reported by these bozos.

The main problem with counting Linux, rather than sold systems, is that there is no way to gauge whether someone is actually using it or not. With Windows or X, there are sales numbers which should be pretty close to the user base at the time.
post #72 of 98
Hey everyone! Of course Apple's market share is in decline.

While more and more upper-middleclass people from Europe and North America might be using Macintosh, the numbers of new users in those regions/demographics are not that significant, when you compare it to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of potential new computer owners in exploding markets such as India, China and South America. Apple has almost 0 penetration in those markets. If you want to order an Apple product in India, it must be ordered/shipped from Indonesia or Australia! Apple don't ship from INDIA!

The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $750 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.

So, even if 1 000 000 people in Europe and USA were to switch to Mac, there are probably 10 000 000 people in developing countries buying their first ever computer with Windows on it. (the pie chart probably didn't even show pirated Windows, which is also very popular in China!). That means Apple's market share goes down. If the study was monitoring Chinese and Indian websites (which it probably wasn't, because they probably can't read Cantonese, Hindi or Tamil...), i'm sure Apple's share would have been even lower.

Additionally, Linux has a very minimal market share! It is mainly used by "PowerUser" types that have a problem with Microsoft and are willing to go to the trouble of downloading, and updating, and using a totally new system. Those people in the tiny tiny tiny minority.

Finally - Microsoft is the king of Networks - most large companies use PCs for networking, because it gives much more cost flexibility to use a SuperServer + cheap, weak slave PCs, (which fits pretty much everyone's needs, except design professionals fine), and is way cheaper than giving a bunch of secretaries or telemarketers their own iMacs. Even the lowest powered, cheapest Mac has way more power than the average office worker needs for daily tasks.

Apple has a great market share - among upper/middle-class, predominantly white, western individuals..
post #73 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass

The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $1000 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.

Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.
post #74 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.

Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
post #75 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass

Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...

Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.

I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.

And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?
post #76 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.?

I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.

And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?

The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.
post #77 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass

I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.

I am a shareholder, and I'm closely watching the company. From what I can see, they've been doing a great job in the recent years.

Quote:
The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.

Obviously, but that's more of a political problem than anything else.
post #78 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkane

No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.

Mkay...this is what you wrote:

Quote:
Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen.

Well lets see...that's incorrect. First, while they make the bulk of PC sales they don't represent the entire market. They only compose 57.1% of the market (2Q06 - Gartner). That means that there is a third of the market for Apple to gain from. Second, Dell's growth (6.3%) has been slower than HP (15.2%), Gateway (16.3) and Apple (15.4%) from 2Q2005-2Q2006 and trailed average growth (6.4%). HP, Gateway and Apple all gained share, Dell didn't.

Quote:
It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown.

Gartner disagrees.

Quote:
Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.

Again, false statement. Apple needs to grow faster than the industry in order to gain share...not out sell all PC's. For the period we're looking at it did: 15.4% vs 6.4%.

Quote:
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.

They make commercials to sell computers...which leads to profits. Quite healthy ones in comparison to Dell, HP and Gateway. If Apple could keep its margins AND capture 32% market share of both hardware and software, yes it would make a boatload more money.

Your strategy of selling OSX for all PCs essentially eliminates the hardware sales revenues. You know...the really profitable part. lets take Q3 2005 as an example. This was OSX best launch and highest sales (Tiger launch): $345M out of $3.2B total revenue of which 1.5B was mac sales.

Someone did the math for 2002...in order for Apple to stay the same size they would have to sell 10X the number of copies of OSX that they do today if the per unit margin was $50 per copy of OSX.

http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/04/08.1.shtml

These share gains are required just to stay at current levels...not actually perform better as a business.

Quote:
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.

BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.

A 3x+ share increase simply to stay even. Against Microsoft and Linux. You lose control of the hardware platform and you can't even assume simple things. Like a iSight on each Mac. Yes, I think Apple revenue would tank if they released OSX into the wild to run on any intel platform leading to less R&D money and ability to manuver into new markets or create the software required to maintain the platform.

Quote:
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.

Agree.

Mmm...that's sarcasm. Sun's gain in share has very little to do with Solaris X86 and a lot more to do with their hardware.

Quote:
So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you?

Nope. OSX certainly is better than Windows and Linux but the advantages aren't as great as they were a decade ago...when Apple commanded double diget share and lost it to Microsoft.

Quote:
OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.

Because it makes for poor business strategy? What compelling reason should one move from XP to OSX for $130? Even if you got a few bucks back from not installing XP Home its still more expensive.

Or do you believe that Apple can compete with Microsoft on OEM pricing?

Quote:
It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.

Research...done it. Face it, the OS wars were lost long ago. A paradigm shift is required to change the ratios and that's not going to be simply releasing OSX to run on any intel box. If it happens it will likely because of the set top convergence. Apple has a large war chest and is very profitable. It can explore new markets almost as well as Microsoft as its more skillful at it with Jobs at the helm.

Massive share growth for Apple will occur when we move from PCs to the next thing. PC market share in the future will be as meaningful as mainframe market share is today. A nice profitable market but not the major growth market.

Quote:
I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!

Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....

Its not hard, just misinformed.

Vinea
post #79 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass

Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...

depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....

There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.

So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.
post #80 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123

depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....

There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.

So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.

Yeah, my point was in reference to my earlier post, basically, it's not that hard to believe that Apple's market share is decreasing when the global computer markets fastest and largest growth sector is currently in developing economies like India, China, etc. There were lots of people in this thread getting worked up over the news that the market share was going down and calling it bullshit because every one on campus and at the local Starbucks, and at the fitness centre etc. has a mac, but not thinking about the millions of new users in places where the extra cost of a mac makes it not so viable an option...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Overall Mac OS usage market share declining?