Well, Apple does not only consist of Mac as they are monopolists in other markets but generally I do agree. They've positioned themselves in a highly profitable niche and are doing quite well obviously being a company with one of the highest profit margin and total profit. I sometimes get the impression tough that among some of the AI residents there seems to be some kind of internal conflict. On the one hand they do appreciate being elitists where being the minority is a prerequisite but on the other hand they seek affirmation in growing market share as this would ultimately prove that Apple was right and Microsoft (and everybody else) wrong if you want to think in this kind of categories.
Microsoft enthusiasts are much simpler. If Apple gains market share its "well we still have 95% share." If Apple sells a bunch of iPods its "well we still have 95% share." At least they're consistent!
It doesn't really matter, because if they (Acer, Samsung) get €5, that is €5 that someone else doesn't get
It does matter. If the same resources, capabilities, and effort could have produced €50 - then that's €45 they left on the table for someone else, say, such as an Apple.
It does matter. If the same resources, capabilities, and effort could have produced ?50 - then that's ?45 they left on the table for someone else, say, such as an Apple.
No they wouldn't have. They couldn't sell those netbooks for much more to gain a bigger profit, they are almost at full laptop prices now.
In which markets is Apple a 'monopolist'? Do you even know the meaning of the word?
Well, they *had* a monopoly on both the music player as well as the digital music market which was protected by technical measures (FairPlay) which shut out competitors on both markets. Now that DRM has been removed from the music it's less of an issue though.
No they wouldn't have. They couldn't sell those netbooks for much more to gain a bigger profit, they are almost at full laptop prices now.
Let me ask you this: Suppose you could devote a day of your time to do two similar things that give you income: One will give you, say $100/hour, the other $200 per hour. Which one would you rather spend time on?
And, if your answer is the "$100/hour activity", why do you think that might be?
The larger point I am trying to make is that there is an opportunity cost to the use of resources and effort. Apple seems to somehow be able to use it more wisely to produce a higher profit. In other words, they are not content to chase the ?5 if they can figure out a way to chase (and get) the ?45.
I honestly don't think Apple is directly trying to gain as much market share as possible. I think they try to build the best product they can, and make the best possible profit off their premium products. They understand some people will pay the price for it, others won't. They don't want to make crappy (in their eyes), inexpensive products that would increase the share. In the end if they gain market share in the process, its an indirect result. At least this is my interpretation of the situation.
Yes, exactly. Apple is not trying to be Microsoft, which many of us think is actually a good thing. (How many Microsofts does the world need anyway?) Some people seem to forget that the object of business to make profits and to grow those profits. Apple is doing a brilliant job at what actually counts.
Let me ask you this: Suppose you could devote a day of your time to do two similar things that give you income: One will give you, say $100/hour, the other $200 per hour. Which one would you rather spend time on?
Well that little speech would work if you could compare it to the netbook/notebook comparison wouldn't it.
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
Well that little speech would work if you could compare it to the netbook/notebook comparison wouldn't it.
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
"Speech?" Don't understand the concept of opportunity cost, do you? And, while you're at it, think about whether product differentiation matters, and how companies can achieve it. A "sticker" is not enough.
An yet another thread ruined by Teckstud. How a post about PC vendor sales in Europe becomes a Windows v. Macs debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
From a performance perspective a cheap notebook yields you more than a netbook. $400 USD can get you a 15?-16? with a dual-core CPU.
Actually, the netbook makers have gone up the ladder with more expensive netbooks since Win7 dropped. Not sure how well they are going to sell with Atom CPUs and cramped keyboards and trackpads, but they are some now with better build quality and nice displays.
The Sony Vaio X f the more outrageous ones. Looks nice, but with an Atom CPU and VGA out, not even HDMI, and a price tag wel over $1000 USD it?s seems to be a non-starter. Even the Vaio W starts at $500 USD, 80% more than the typical netbook was selling last year in the US.
From a performance perspective a cheap notebook yields you more than a netbook. $400 USD can get you a 15?-16? with a dual-core CPU.
Actually, the netbook makers have gone up the ladder with more expensive netbooks since Win7 dropped. Not sure how well they are going to sell with Atom CPUs and cramped keyboards and trackpads, but they are some now with better build quality and nice displays.
The Sony Vaio X f the more outrageous ones. Looks nice, but with an Atom CPU and VGA out, not even HDMI, and a price tag wel over $1000 USD it?s seems to be a non-starter. Even the Vaio W starts at $500 USD, 80% more than the typical netbook was selling last year in the US.
Since this topic is about Europe, and the UK, you should provide examples that are in Euro or Sterling, the prices in these regions are quite different that the US
From a producer point of view, sure. But I'd like to reiterate an important argument made by someone else here: 95 percent of the computer market simply refuse Apple's offering. It's not important for the argument that Apple's market has an extremely high profitability as should hell freeze over and Microsoft collapse I'd say that a massively backed Linux distribution (e.g. Chrome OS) would have a far better chance to fill the void than Apple. People had the chance to buy Apple Redux computers for the past 10 years and Intel computers for the last 3 but something apparently was and is lacking in Apple's offering for the majority of consumers, be it a greater price differentiation or use cases which are not served by OS X as 92 percent market share vs. 5 can't really be interpreted as people moving to Apple in flocks. Apple gained less than 1 percent market share in the past 12 months, mostly at the expense of Microsoft. At this rate they'll take decades to overtake Redmond.
Depends what metric you use. Market cap overtake MS in maybe 12 - 18 months, revenue 2 -3 years, profit 3 - 4 years. That's assuming that Apple doesn't hit a home run with the tablet and Microsoft doesn't do a PanAm.
Your metrics, if Apple grew by 1% to a total of 5% last year then they grew 25% in that year. If Apple grows 25% per year for a few years well - get a spreadsheet out.
Furthermore your metrics apply to the stagnant computer industry, the smartphone industry is another ballgame altogether.
BTW the only way that Linux gets "massively backed" for consumer users is if MS really f**ks it up bigtime more than they have done already. Dell, HP maybe consider 'massively backing' Linux but providing that MS is still circulating the pan rather than being flushed they are a better option.
You're going to have to explain to me why you think this is relevant?
In the US for example, Apple "only" has 9.5% market share, but that has little, if anything, to do with Microsoft. Why?
Well Apple gets 33 cents in every dollar spent on computers in the US, despite having less than 10% of the market. How many cents does MS get for every dollar spent on a computer in the US? It's probably barely 10%.
Apple is competing against HP, Dell, Acer etc in hardware, and in terms of profits on computer sales, is the leader, by far.
If we're just interested in the kind of argument a pair of 12 year olds might havem then fair enough... let's all "LOL" @ Microsoft's 1% Zune market share... or their rapidly declining share in SmartPhones... how many albums did they sell last year?
Sorry for the whole quote but I though they were spot on. People.... its profits that count not market share.... Now all things being equal (Acer, Dell, HP) yes market share is an easy indicator.
But Apple is making much more for each computer than the other companies. Even Dell complained that it hates compacts/netbooks as it does not make any money on them.
Apple has 90% share of the over #1000 laptops and that means PROFITS. Bucks in the bank.
PS, if market share means that much to you.... do you have a cockroach for a pet or a dog/cat??? After all since there are so many more cockroaches in the world...... they must be better. Right.???
Well, they *had* a monopoly on both the music player as well as the digital music market which was protected by technical measures (FairPlay) which shut out competitors on both markets. Now that DRM has been removed from the music it's less of an issue though.
SORRY but Apple has NEVER had a monopoly on mp3 players. They just made a better player and a better jutebox player (iTunes) and people came in droves. They are still doing that today.
Yes, people say that Apple is doomed cause they sold less iPods than last year.... Still they have well over 70% of the market world wide and 40 million iPods is still a pretty good number. Just saying. :-)
PS Apple led the charge on dropping DRM and only was able to drop DRM after it talked the industry into LETTING them drop it. Get your facts straight people. Apple does not care where you buy your music, they are just happy that you use an iPod to play it on.
Yes, people say that Apple is doomed cause they sold less iPods than last year.... Still they have well over 70% of the market world wide and 40 million iPods is still a pretty good number. Just saying.
But they don?t consider the cannibalizing from the iPhone.
From a producer point of view, sure. But I'd like to reiterate an important argument made by someone else here: 95 percent of the computer market simply refuse Apple's offering. It's not important for the argument that Apple's market has an extremely high profitability as should hell freeze over and Microsoft collapse I'd say that a massively backed Linux distribution (e.g. Chrome OS) would have a far better chance to fill the void than Apple. People had the chance to buy Apple Redux computers for the past 10 years and Intel computers for the last 3 but something apparently was and is lacking in Apple's offering for the majority of consumers, be it a greater price differentiation or use cases which are not served by OS X as 92 percent market share vs. 5 can't really be interpreted as people moving to Apple in flocks. Apple gained less than 1 percent market share in the past 12 months, mostly at the expense of Microsoft. At this rate they'll take decades to overtake Redmond.
It is not accurate to say that 95% of the computer market "refuses Apple offering" when over 50% of that market doesn't have any viable choice in what Apple has to offer. And Apple has no inclination to offer them any choices that are viable. This 50% of the market consist mainly of the gamers and businesses.
Computer gamers want a computer that they can upgrade with the newest and fastest technology when they become available. Plus they want to play the newest games as soon they they come out. Apple has nothing to offer for these computer users.
Businesses computers mainly consist of networked PC's on desk. These computers only need to do the basic office suites and configured with the bare minimum and cheapest parts. Not even Dell, HP or Acer makes money selling these business PC's. They make their money selling the service to these. Along with the server and network service. These PC's are considered throw aways after the service contract expires. Apple offers nothing that businesses can use to replace their cheap dummy networked PC's. And they make up about 50% of all the PC's sold. Now the laptops that business managers carry around is a different matter and Apple has a decent percentage of those computers.
And a good percent of the computer users like to tinker with their computers. Though their numbers are way down from the 80's and 90's, they are still out there in decent numbers. These are the computer users that build their own computers (or buy a no name brand) so that they can tinker with them. They actually have no need to but just like to do it as a hobby. Apple has nothing to offer to these tinkerers.
So when you get down to it, only about 40% of the computer users that can feasiblly switch to a Mac, aren't doing so. For now.
And let's not forget that Apple is in the hardware business. So their market shares should be compared to the likes of Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc.. If I recall last, the computer maker with the largest market share at one time was Compaq back in the 90's. With about 37%. Right now no maker owns over 30%. HP and Dell owns about 25% each. But if you take away the business computers percentage from HP and Dell market share, you'll see that Apple market share is not that far behind. Apple market share in the consumer computer market is enough to give both Dell and HP a headache. Specially when most of Apple market share consist of computers costing over $1000. Even if Apple market share is only a "rounding error" to MS.
Comments
And you posting how its still only 90/10
Can you see me in your rear view mirror like MS sees APPLE?
Unit share.
Who made big gains? Acer and Samsung. Why did they make gains? Netbooks. Cheap-ass laptops. Aspire Ones and NC10s.
I'd like to see the market share in terms of revenue.
It doesn't really matter, because if they (Acer, Samsung) get ?5, that is ?5 that someone else doesn't get
Well, Apple does not only consist of Mac as they are monopolists in other markets but generally I do agree. They've positioned themselves in a highly profitable niche and are doing quite well obviously being a company with one of the highest profit margin and total profit. I sometimes get the impression tough that among some of the AI residents there seems to be some kind of internal conflict. On the one hand they do appreciate being elitists where being the minority is a prerequisite but on the other hand they seek affirmation in growing market share as this would ultimately prove that Apple was right and Microsoft (and everybody else) wrong if you want to think in this kind of categories.
Microsoft enthusiasts are much simpler. If Apple gains market share its "well we still have 95% share." If Apple sells a bunch of iPods its "well we still have 95% share." At least they're consistent!
Well, Apple does not only consist of Mac as they are monopolists in other markets ....
In which markets is Apple a 'monopolist'? Do you even know the meaning of the word?
It doesn't really matter, because if they (Acer, Samsung) get €5, that is €5 that someone else doesn't get
It does matter. If the same resources, capabilities, and effort could have produced €50 - then that's €45 they left on the table for someone else, say, such as an Apple.
It does matter. If the same resources, capabilities, and effort could have produced ?50 - then that's ?45 they left on the table for someone else, say, such as an Apple.
No they wouldn't have. They couldn't sell those netbooks for much more to gain a bigger profit, they are almost at full laptop prices now.
In which markets is Apple a 'monopolist'? Do you even know the meaning of the word?
Well, they *had* a monopoly on both the music player as well as the digital music market which was protected by technical measures (FairPlay) which shut out competitors on both markets. Now that DRM has been removed from the music it's less of an issue though.
No they wouldn't have. They couldn't sell those netbooks for much more to gain a bigger profit, they are almost at full laptop prices now.
Let me ask you this: Suppose you could devote a day of your time to do two similar things that give you income: One will give you, say $100/hour, the other $200 per hour. Which one would you rather spend time on?
And, if your answer is the "$100/hour activity", why do you think that might be?
The larger point I am trying to make is that there is an opportunity cost to the use of resources and effort. Apple seems to somehow be able to use it more wisely to produce a higher profit. In other words, they are not content to chase the ?5 if they can figure out a way to chase (and get) the ?45.
I honestly don't think Apple is directly trying to gain as much market share as possible. I think they try to build the best product they can, and make the best possible profit off their premium products. They understand some people will pay the price for it, others won't. They don't want to make crappy (in their eyes), inexpensive products that would increase the share. In the end if they gain market share in the process, its an indirect result. At least this is my interpretation of the situation.
Yes, exactly. Apple is not trying to be Microsoft, which many of us think is actually a good thing. (How many Microsofts does the world need anyway?) Some people seem to forget that the object of business to make profits and to grow those profits. Apple is doing a brilliant job at what actually counts.
Let me ask you this: Suppose you could devote a day of your time to do two similar things that give you income: One will give you, say $100/hour, the other $200 per hour. Which one would you rather spend time on?
Well that little speech would work if you could compare it to the netbook/notebook comparison wouldn't it.
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
Well that little speech would work if you could compare it to the netbook/notebook comparison wouldn't it.
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
"Speech?" Don't understand the concept of opportunity cost, do you? And, while you're at it, think about whether product differentiation matters, and how companies can achieve it. A "sticker" is not enough.
The cost of building a netbook, and the cost of building a notebook are different, so you have to do more work, you just can't start selling you netbook for ?500 more, because people won't buy it (well unless you stick an apple sticker on the top)
From a performance perspective a cheap notebook yields you more than a netbook. $400 USD can get you a 15?-16? with a dual-core CPU.
Actually, the netbook makers have gone up the ladder with more expensive netbooks since Win7 dropped. Not sure how well they are going to sell with Atom CPUs and cramped keyboards and trackpads, but they are some now with better build quality and nice displays.
The Sony Vaio X f the more outrageous ones. Looks nice, but with an Atom CPU and VGA out, not even HDMI, and a price tag wel over $1000 USD it?s seems to be a non-starter. Even the Vaio W starts at $500 USD, 80% more than the typical netbook was selling last year in the US.
From a performance perspective a cheap notebook yields you more than a netbook. $400 USD can get you a 15?-16? with a dual-core CPU.
Actually, the netbook makers have gone up the ladder with more expensive netbooks since Win7 dropped. Not sure how well they are going to sell with Atom CPUs and cramped keyboards and trackpads, but they are some now with better build quality and nice displays.
The Sony Vaio X f the more outrageous ones. Looks nice, but with an Atom CPU and VGA out, not even HDMI, and a price tag wel over $1000 USD it?s seems to be a non-starter. Even the Vaio W starts at $500 USD, 80% more than the typical netbook was selling last year in the US.
Since this topic is about Europe, and the UK, you should provide examples that are in Euro or Sterling, the prices in these regions are quite different that the US
From a producer point of view, sure. But I'd like to reiterate an important argument made by someone else here: 95 percent of the computer market simply refuse Apple's offering. It's not important for the argument that Apple's market has an extremely high profitability as should hell freeze over and Microsoft collapse I'd say that a massively backed Linux distribution (e.g. Chrome OS) would have a far better chance to fill the void than Apple. People had the chance to buy Apple Redux computers for the past 10 years and Intel computers for the last 3 but something apparently was and is lacking in Apple's offering for the majority of consumers, be it a greater price differentiation or use cases which are not served by OS X as 92 percent market share vs. 5 can't really be interpreted as people moving to Apple in flocks. Apple gained less than 1 percent market share in the past 12 months, mostly at the expense of Microsoft. At this rate they'll take decades to overtake Redmond.
Depends what metric you use. Market cap overtake MS in maybe 12 - 18 months, revenue 2 -3 years, profit 3 - 4 years. That's assuming that Apple doesn't hit a home run with the tablet and Microsoft doesn't do a PanAm.
Your metrics, if Apple grew by 1% to a total of 5% last year then they grew 25% in that year. If Apple grows 25% per year for a few years well - get a spreadsheet out.
Furthermore your metrics apply to the stagnant computer industry, the smartphone industry is another ballgame altogether.
BTW the only way that Linux gets "massively backed" for consumer users is if MS really f**ks it up bigtime more than they have done already. Dell, HP maybe consider 'massively backing' Linux but providing that MS is still circulating the pan rather than being flushed they are a better option.
.
You're going to have to explain to me why you think this is relevant?
In the US for example, Apple "only" has 9.5% market share, but that has little, if anything, to do with Microsoft. Why?
Well Apple gets 33 cents in every dollar spent on computers in the US, despite having less than 10% of the market. How many cents does MS get for every dollar spent on a computer in the US? It's probably barely 10%.
Apple is competing against HP, Dell, Acer etc in hardware, and in terms of profits on computer sales, is the leader, by far.
If we're just interested in the kind of argument a pair of 12 year olds might havem then fair enough... let's all "LOL" @ Microsoft's 1% Zune market share... or their rapidly declining share in SmartPhones... how many albums did they sell last year?
Sorry for the whole quote but I though they were spot on. People.... its profits that count not market share.... Now all things being equal (Acer, Dell, HP) yes market share is an easy indicator.
But Apple is making much more for each computer than the other companies. Even Dell complained that it hates compacts/netbooks as it does not make any money on them.
Apple has 90% share of the over #1000 laptops and that means PROFITS. Bucks in the bank.
PS, if market share means that much to you.... do you have a cockroach for a pet or a dog/cat??? After all since there are so many more cockroaches in the world...... they must be better. Right.???
Just a thought.
en
Well, they *had* a monopoly on both the music player as well as the digital music market which was protected by technical measures (FairPlay) which shut out competitors on both markets. Now that DRM has been removed from the music it's less of an issue though.
SORRY but Apple has NEVER had a monopoly on mp3 players. They just made a better player and a better jutebox player (iTunes) and people came in droves. They are still doing that today.
Yes, people say that Apple is doomed cause they sold less iPods than last year.... Still they have well over 70% of the market world wide and 40 million iPods is still a pretty good number. Just saying. :-)
PS Apple led the charge on dropping DRM and only was able to drop DRM after it talked the industry into LETTING them drop it. Get your facts straight people. Apple does not care where you buy your music, they are just happy that you use an iPod to play it on.
Just a thought.
en
Yes, people say that Apple is doomed cause they sold less iPods than last year.... Still they have well over 70% of the market world wide and 40 million iPods is still a pretty good number. Just saying.
But they don?t consider the cannibalizing from the iPhone.
But they don?t consider the cannibalizing from the iPhone.
The iPhone is an iPod - where've you been?
From a producer point of view, sure. But I'd like to reiterate an important argument made by someone else here: 95 percent of the computer market simply refuse Apple's offering. It's not important for the argument that Apple's market has an extremely high profitability as should hell freeze over and Microsoft collapse I'd say that a massively backed Linux distribution (e.g. Chrome OS) would have a far better chance to fill the void than Apple. People had the chance to buy Apple Redux computers for the past 10 years and Intel computers for the last 3 but something apparently was and is lacking in Apple's offering for the majority of consumers, be it a greater price differentiation or use cases which are not served by OS X as 92 percent market share vs. 5 can't really be interpreted as people moving to Apple in flocks. Apple gained less than 1 percent market share in the past 12 months, mostly at the expense of Microsoft. At this rate they'll take decades to overtake Redmond.
It is not accurate to say that 95% of the computer market "refuses Apple offering" when over 50% of that market doesn't have any viable choice in what Apple has to offer. And Apple has no inclination to offer them any choices that are viable. This 50% of the market consist mainly of the gamers and businesses.
Computer gamers want a computer that they can upgrade with the newest and fastest technology when they become available. Plus they want to play the newest games as soon they they come out. Apple has nothing to offer for these computer users.
Businesses computers mainly consist of networked PC's on desk. These computers only need to do the basic office suites and configured with the bare minimum and cheapest parts. Not even Dell, HP or Acer makes money selling these business PC's. They make their money selling the service to these. Along with the server and network service. These PC's are considered throw aways after the service contract expires. Apple offers nothing that businesses can use to replace their cheap dummy networked PC's. And they make up about 50% of all the PC's sold. Now the laptops that business managers carry around is a different matter and Apple has a decent percentage of those computers.
And a good percent of the computer users like to tinker with their computers. Though their numbers are way down from the 80's and 90's, they are still out there in decent numbers. These are the computer users that build their own computers (or buy a no name brand) so that they can tinker with them. They actually have no need to but just like to do it as a hobby. Apple has nothing to offer to these tinkerers.
So when you get down to it, only about 40% of the computer users that can feasiblly switch to a Mac, aren't doing so. For now.
And let's not forget that Apple is in the hardware business. So their market shares should be compared to the likes of Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc.. If I recall last, the computer maker with the largest market share at one time was Compaq back in the 90's. With about 37%. Right now no maker owns over 30%. HP and Dell owns about 25% each. But if you take away the business computers percentage from HP and Dell market share, you'll see that Apple market share is not that far behind. Apple market share in the consumer computer market is enough to give both Dell and HP a headache. Specially when most of Apple market share consist of computers costing over $1000. Even if Apple market share is only a "rounding error" to MS.
Good Job!
Keep taking that 0.1% every year!