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