To be fair, Apple chooses not to participate in the corporate market to the vast degree that Microsoft does. Businesses that strictly use Macs do so on their own volition. That said, I agree with what was said previously, it's the value of that 3-5% market increase that really matters. Apple's customers just spend more money, plain and simple, and with that comes nice revenue. Unfortunately, the premium prices are what is keeping Apple's market share from increasing much beyond where its been, because the percentage of those who can afford to blow $1000+ on computing solutions is only so big.
Are you saying Apple computers cost more now? I'm always hearing that refuted on here. You can't have it both ways.
Are you saying Apple computers cost more now? I'm always hearing that refuted on here. You can't have it both ways.
I wasn't saying anything like that, and I don't know how you could extract that from what I posted. If anything, Apple keeps reducing the prices of their products, with a stay in pricing being justified by offering new hardware.
How on earth centralizing money within Microsoft will boom the economy is beyond me. Perhaps you are speaking of renewed importance on IT shops, new kinds of problems, etc. I don't think it's worth it. At all.
Geeze guys, it's "boon" not "boom". This is not a Steve keynote.
Corporate America looks for the cheapest solutions. Cost-cutting. Cheap boxes to run company software. IT departments depend on this model. Hence, the preference for an ancient, 8-year old OS in the enterprise.
Apple and IT don't mix, and not just because of cost.
most of the profit on a Mac is from the software like Garage Band or iLife. Most businesses don't care about this so they will want a nice discount for not using this software. Apple wants the margins.
the way the corporate market works is you buy PCs or servers on the cheap and then buy a site license from Microsoft. the OEM copy of WIndows doesn't include the server CAL's so you still need a site license. you pay per employee and depending on the tier you paid for, you can install as much servers of that software in the tier and you are covered for all server licenses and CAL's. and since you pay per year you can upgrade as soon as the new version comes out. 2003 - 2008 was a dry spell for a lot of releases, but since 2008 MS is back on it's regular release schedule and even accelerated it with some products like SQL server.
Apple's server hardware is crap compared to HP and Dell
The table does not appear to show a positive correlation between Microsoft Windows releases and Mac sales. But what it does show is probably even more important: growth in Mac sales which are unimpeded by anything Microsoft has tried to stop it. For all of Ballmer's groaning about "rounding errors," you can be sure that one of Microsoft's goals is stopping the slow but steady bleeding of Windows sales to the Mac. The data can't be very encouraging. The only solution for Microsoft is to continue to live in denial and profess that it doesn't matter.
Considering it is pain in the ass to switch from XP to Win7 I can see why Mac sales would rise.
More likely that people assess getting the Windows 7 upgrade but decide their computer is too old and that they need a new computer. Also some people might have held back to see how Windows 7 panned out before getting a new computer.
A small portion of these people then decide to get a Mac instead, for various reasons. In the past two years for some the reason has been that Vista is rubbish. For many it could be that they're sick of Windows in whatever variant. Windows 7 does look to be a good release however, so I don't see people being driven from that platform like with Vista.
The ultimate result is a boost in sales for the Mac when Windows gets updated. I think there will be a small boost this time around, rather than the big boost from Vista.
More likely that people assess getting the Windows 7 upgrade but decide their computer is too old and that they need a new computer. Also some people might have held back to see how Windows 7 panned out before getting a new computer.
A small portion of these people then decide to get a Mac instead, for various reasons. In the past two years for some the reason has been that Vista is rubbish. For many it could be that they're sick of Windows in whatever variant. Windows 7 does look to be a good release however, so I don't see people being driven from that platform like with Vista.
The ultimate result is a boost in sales for the Mac when Windows gets updated. I think there will be a small boost this time around, rather than the big boost from Vista.
Exactly - and if 7 is a hit this means a MAJOR, MAJOR boost in Microsoft sales in every aspect of the idustry from corporate training, percentage of PCs sold, etc.
Apple's server hardware is crap compared to HP and Dell
That is a very general assertion. What exactly is crap Apple servers? There are many server niches. HP and Dell both make decent servers but so does Apple. The best server choice can depend on a lot of factors. Small companies with 1-2 servers, large installations with blades, internet hosting with throw away computers, scientific research. All kinds of situations. I personally have worked with several of the aforementioned solutions and I do like the xServe very much. I'm glad they got out of the storage business though.
Is that "roughly 4%" Apple market share true? I think the last I saw on Ars Technica, they were saying 3.4% worldwide albeit the quarterly sales percentages the past couple years have beaten that number handily.
Hello? Yes? What are you trying to say? I don't read non- descriptive internet links unless you state why I should. If it's for one example of a surveillance app - what is your point?
And if Apple were going after the bottom end, you wouldn't see premium prices. As they've said, they aren't interested in the mid or bottom-end. This is done deliberately and is absolutely true.
And if product satisfaction is somehow confused with elitism, then there's really nothing that can be done about it. Oh well.
Don't underestimate mindhsare. It's yet another factor in the equation of success. And if you've got plenty of it at the Premium end, you're in a position to dictate the direction of the market, bar none.
So Apple bought their own chip making company BUT chooses to use Intel chips....why again? To appeal to more mainstream computer buying public to gain market share and to be able to use "Dual Boot" with Windows as a selling point! I don't have the numbers but wonder what the sales figure are for Apple computer before Intel chips and then after Intel chips were introduced.
If Apple wanted to remain "Premium" and capture "mindshare" they would have developed their own chips and used everything in house but they went after a braoder more mainstream market!
And how exactly does Apple dictae the market? They don't. They follow buying trends like everyonne else does. Which market are they dicating?? They do dictate in music players with the iPod but certainly not in the desktop space. They are selling a ton more laptops now days but so is everyome else..... that is the trend!
Please provide figures as to what market they are dictating to the rest of the computing world by dominating it!
Major textbook example of denial and/or warped reality - take your pick.
I'd like to know what you would consider your viewpoint to be...
The best indicator for the mac ads would be Apples profit, not market share. You know... the concept of comparing Apples with Apples, or in this case $ with $, and not $ with %. I hear that Apple is doing quite well in the profit department, which is a positive indicator for the large sums of money spent on ads. Of course many other factors come into play, but Apples record profits of late can't be construed to indicate that Apples advertising strategy is somehow faulty.
As for the business market. It is not the "ultimate premium market" as you define it. It is a volume market. Premium usually indicates a higher than average price of an individual product, or higher than average profit gained from an individual product. The business market is not this. Of course Apple would like to sell more computers in the business market, there are a ton of computers to be sold there. However, they would also like to do it on their terms, which would be a higher profit margin than typically seen in the business market. Look at netbooks, Apple isn't in that market. A $300 mac would sell like hotcakes and increase Apples market share significantly, but the profits would be razor thin. The same goes for the desktop market where Apple avoids a mid range desktop for similar reasons. Instead they choose to stick with the higher margin all-in-ones and high end desktops.
You constantly accuse others of having a distorted view of reality, but fail to acknowledge your own. Apple lost the market share race, they stopped pursuing it, instead choosing to focus on the most profitable segments of the market. In a similar manner, you should stop using it as a metric for measuring Apples success. It is like racing against someone who is just out for a light jog in the park and has no clue that someone is racing them (meaningless).
I guess the article's premise is true, but it is also true that Mac sales, in that same time period, have grown as I age, as IBM advertises, as Google grows...
Hopefully Apple and Macs keep on growing, and I keep on aging.
I hit the big 40, 9 years ago and I can honestly say you don't want to keep aging! Nothing good comes from it. Growing sales or grow better processors is good, an aging body sucks!
If Apple wanted to remain "Premium" and capture "mindshare" they would have developed their own chips and used everything in house but they went after a braoder more mainstream market!
That is one of the most distorted arguments I've ever read. Premium doesn't mean that you develop everything in house, it means that people are willing to pay a "premium" to acquire your products. If Apple felt that more people would pay the "Apple tax" with an intel mac, then why wouldn't Apple switch?
Comments
To be fair, Apple chooses not to participate in the corporate market to the vast degree that Microsoft does. Businesses that strictly use Macs do so on their own volition. That said, I agree with what was said previously, it's the value of that 3-5% market increase that really matters. Apple's customers just spend more money, plain and simple, and with that comes nice revenue. Unfortunately, the premium prices are what is keeping Apple's market share from increasing much beyond where its been, because the percentage of those who can afford to blow $1000+ on computing solutions is only so big.
Are you saying Apple computers cost more now? I'm always hearing that refuted on here. You can't have it both ways.
Apple specializes in the home/consumer sphere.
Corporate America looks for the cheapest solutions. Cost-cutting. Cheap boxes to run company software. IT departments depend on this model.
Apple and IT don't mix, and not just because of cost.
Major textbook example of denial and/or warped reality - take your pick.
Major textbook example of denial and/or warped reality - take your pick.
Can I choose both?
Are you saying Apple computers cost more now? I'm always hearing that refuted on here. You can't have it both ways.
I wasn't saying anything like that, and I don't know how you could extract that from what I posted. If anything, Apple keeps reducing the prices of their products, with a stay in pricing being justified by offering new hardware.
So taxes are a boom for industry, now?
How on earth centralizing money within Microsoft will boom the economy is beyond me. Perhaps you are speaking of renewed importance on IT shops, new kinds of problems, etc. I don't think it's worth it. At all.
Geeze guys, it's "boon" not "boom". This is not a Steve keynote.
Completely different market.
Apple specializes in the home/consumer sphere.
Corporate America looks for the cheapest solutions. Cost-cutting. Cheap boxes to run company software. IT departments depend on this model. Hence, the preference for an ancient, 8-year old OS in the enterprise.
Apple and IT don't mix, and not just because of cost.
most of the profit on a Mac is from the software like Garage Band or iLife. Most businesses don't care about this so they will want a nice discount for not using this software. Apple wants the margins.
the way the corporate market works is you buy PCs or servers on the cheap and then buy a site license from Microsoft. the OEM copy of WIndows doesn't include the server CAL's so you still need a site license. you pay per employee and depending on the tier you paid for, you can install as much servers of that software in the tier and you are covered for all server licenses and CAL's. and since you pay per year you can upgrade as soon as the new version comes out. 2003 - 2008 was a dry spell for a lot of releases, but since 2008 MS is back on it's regular release schedule and even accelerated it with some products like SQL server.
Apple's server hardware is crap compared to HP and Dell
cite your sources
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1075...ad-budget-wars
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...hic_ready.html
For the umpteenth time!!!!!
Considering it is pain in the ass to switch from XP to Win7 I can see why Mac sales would rise.
More likely that people assess getting the Windows 7 upgrade but decide their computer is too old and that they need a new computer. Also some people might have held back to see how Windows 7 panned out before getting a new computer.
A small portion of these people then decide to get a Mac instead, for various reasons. In the past two years for some the reason has been that Vista is rubbish. For many it could be that they're sick of Windows in whatever variant. Windows 7 does look to be a good release however, so I don't see people being driven from that platform like with Vista.
The ultimate result is a boost in sales for the Mac when Windows gets updated. I think there will be a small boost this time around, rather than the big boost from Vista.
More likely that people assess getting the Windows 7 upgrade but decide their computer is too old and that they need a new computer. Also some people might have held back to see how Windows 7 panned out before getting a new computer.
A small portion of these people then decide to get a Mac instead, for various reasons. In the past two years for some the reason has been that Vista is rubbish. For many it could be that they're sick of Windows in whatever variant. Windows 7 does look to be a good release however, so I don't see people being driven from that platform like with Vista.
The ultimate result is a boost in sales for the Mac when Windows gets updated. I think there will be a small boost this time around, rather than the big boost from Vista.
Exactly - and if 7 is a hit this means a MAJOR, MAJOR boost in Microsoft sales in every aspect of the idustry from corporate training, percentage of PCs sold, etc.
.
Apple's server hardware is crap compared to HP and Dell
That is a very general assertion. What exactly is crap Apple servers? There are many server niches. HP and Dell both make decent servers but so does Apple. The best server choice can depend on a lot of factors. Small companies with 1-2 servers, large installations with blades, internet hosting with throw away computers, scientific research. All kinds of situations. I personally have worked with several of the aforementioned solutions and I do like the xServe very much. I'm glad they got out of the storage business though.
Right and that's why Corporate America and The US Government still uses Windows computers- Get Real.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...veillance.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...veillance.html
Hello? Yes? What are you trying to say? I don't read non- descriptive internet links unless you state why I should. If it's for one example of a surveillance app - what is your point?
It helps to know your Intel-Apple history.
And if Apple were going after the bottom end, you wouldn't see premium prices. As they've said, they aren't interested in the mid or bottom-end. This is done deliberately and is absolutely true.
And if product satisfaction is somehow confused with elitism, then there's really nothing that can be done about it. Oh well.
Don't underestimate mindhsare. It's yet another factor in the equation of success. And if you've got plenty of it at the Premium end, you're in a position to dictate the direction of the market, bar none.
So Apple bought their own chip making company BUT chooses to use Intel chips....why again? To appeal to more mainstream computer buying public to gain market share and to be able to use "Dual Boot" with Windows as a selling point! I don't have the numbers but wonder what the sales figure are for Apple computer before Intel chips and then after Intel chips were introduced.
If Apple wanted to remain "Premium" and capture "mindshare" they would have developed their own chips and used everything in house but they went after a braoder more mainstream market!
And how exactly does Apple dictae the market? They don't. They follow buying trends like everyonne else does. Which market are they dicating?? They do dictate in music players with the iPod but certainly not in the desktop space. They are selling a ton more laptops now days but so is everyome else..... that is the trend!
Please provide figures as to what market they are dictating to the rest of the computing world by dominating it!
Major textbook example of denial and/or warped reality - take your pick.
I'd like to know what you would consider your viewpoint to be...
The best indicator for the mac ads would be Apples profit, not market share. You know... the concept of comparing Apples with Apples, or in this case $ with $, and not $ with %. I hear that Apple is doing quite well in the profit department, which is a positive indicator for the large sums of money spent on ads. Of course many other factors come into play, but Apples record profits of late can't be construed to indicate that Apples advertising strategy is somehow faulty.
As for the business market. It is not the "ultimate premium market" as you define it. It is a volume market. Premium usually indicates a higher than average price of an individual product, or higher than average profit gained from an individual product. The business market is not this. Of course Apple would like to sell more computers in the business market, there are a ton of computers to be sold there. However, they would also like to do it on their terms, which would be a higher profit margin than typically seen in the business market. Look at netbooks, Apple isn't in that market. A $300 mac would sell like hotcakes and increase Apples market share significantly, but the profits would be razor thin. The same goes for the desktop market where Apple avoids a mid range desktop for similar reasons. Instead they choose to stick with the higher margin all-in-ones and high end desktops.
You constantly accuse others of having a distorted view of reality, but fail to acknowledge your own. Apple lost the market share race, they stopped pursuing it, instead choosing to focus on the most profitable segments of the market. In a similar manner, you should stop using it as a metric for measuring Apples success. It is like racing against someone who is just out for a light jog in the park and has no clue that someone is racing them (meaningless).
I guess the article's premise is true, but it is also true that Mac sales, in that same time period, have grown as I age, as IBM advertises, as Google grows...
Hopefully Apple and Macs keep on growing, and I keep on aging.
I hit the big 40, 9 years ago and I can honestly say you don't want to keep aging! Nothing good comes from it. Growing sales or grow better processors is good, an aging body sucks!
Dave
Apple lost the market share race, they stopped pursuing it, instead choosing to focus on the most profitable segments of the market.
Oh right- I forgot, 3 plus years of "I'm a Mac, Youre a PC" ads had nothing to do with market share.
Boot camp has nothing to do with market share.
If Apple wanted to remain "Premium" and capture "mindshare" they would have developed their own chips and used everything in house but they went after a braoder more mainstream market!
That is one of the most distorted arguments I've ever read. Premium doesn't mean that you develop everything in house, it means that people are willing to pay a "premium" to acquire your products. If Apple felt that more people would pay the "Apple tax" with an intel mac, then why wouldn't Apple switch?