Microsoft would likely win in that comparison. I guarantee Microsoft's profit margin far outweighs what Apple makes per unit on OS sales alone. Microsoft's profit on software, according to Apple (in previous court documents), is something like 90 percent. Apple is making the OS, to sell the hardware. It has a healthy profit margin on the hardware, but that is lessoned if you throw in development cost for the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0
Would be interested to see this as market share by profit not units. Ballmer was blustering on this - but then we know what happened regarding iPhone vs Windows Mobile phones a few years ago...
I think you hit the nail on the head. The consumer market is such a small piece of the pie, but it's where all the profit is. Businesses, corporation, governments... they don't care about anything but the upfront cost of the machine, and Apple will never win that battle against $250-$300 per unit Dells. The thing of that, though, is that if you don't also sell support and services along with the machine, there is no profit in that market.
Boy, what you said couldn't be much less true. First, the consumer market is not where all the profit is. Exactly the opposite. Also, it's very much untrue to say that businesses only care about the upfront cost of anything. In fact, businesses have the ability, through their tax laws (with amortization of assets) to care a LOT less than most consumers do about the upfront price of technology. This is why business clients are so highly prized in air travel, why most consumers would blanch at the price of "enterprise" laptops and why Wal Mart is installing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of solar panels on their roofs.
Business laptops are the only models that PC makers sell in the $1000+ price range anymore. For business users, time is money. Home users are the ones buying $400 laptops.
It's still a possibility until Apple plugs the PDF-exploit hole discovered last week. It doesn't require anything from the user except clicking on a pdf file. That's all that's needed.
I've worked at two large companies during this year, and both of them over the last couple years have been moving everyone to virtual desktops. The local machine might as well be a Pentium 4 running XP. You spend all day logged in via Citrix to a 64-processor back-end server that virtualizes dozens and dozens of desktops.
In that world, there's not a lot of room for Apple.
Actually I'd say the opposite. The rise of Citrix and virtualization is actually making it easier for Apple to penetrate the enterprise. As companies move people to work from home for one or two days a week (as many do), they are starting to subsidize employee computer purchases - potentially including Apples.
It's still a possibility until Apple plugs the PDF-exploit hole discovered last week. It doesn't require anything from the user except clicking on a pdf file. That's all that's needed.
Still doesn't reach the extreme level of a self-propagating virus, which goes exponential.
Microsoft would likely win in that comparison. I guarantee Microsoft's profit margin far outweighs what Apple makes per unit on OS sales alone. Microsoft's profit on software, according to Apple (in previous court documents), is something like 90 percent. Apple is making the OS, to sell the hardware. It has a healthy profit margin on the hardware, but that is lessoned if you throw in development cost for the OS.
Yes, but by the same token, the proper comparison is Apple vs. Dell vs. HP vs. Acer, etc etc etc. It's not Apple vs Microsoft if you are going to compare unit sales. Their "units" are different things. So, if we are going to compare hardware "units" between the above mentioned companies, you better believe that it is increasingly important to include tablets. And Microsoft apparently agrees. That is the previous poster's point.
And that 11% doesn't even include the iPad. Amazing.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Netbooks count as laptops, right? Even netbooks that were sold with Ubuntu rather than OSX or Windows, right? Granted, there weren't many of them, but there were a few and they counted.
How much longer with iPads (and tablets in general) continue to NOT be seen as computers?
In the end, it doesn't matter. All that matters is money, and Apple makes money whether an iPad is considered a tablet, laptop, netbook or some other silly term. I come across more and more people who carry around an iPad because it's easier than carrying around a laptop. It's just another kind of computer.
I never really understood why HP always has such a market share command.
Their laptops have had the worst keyboards for years, up until just recently, and they are notorious for overheating.
Funny thing is, I have one! And I totally hate the keyboard and trackpad. A random key falls off every once in a while, too.
I guess it was the performance/dollar? I do still think HP has better customization options at a better price than Dell.
Why do I keep answering my own questions?
I dunno.
Because a positive user experience is difficult to put on a spec sheet. To HP's credit, a few years back they found a way to cut costs and still make their machine "look" as good or better than their direct competitor.
It's the same reason that asshats will say that Apple and their users don't care about specs or that you only buying aesthetics when you get a Mac. Those people never consider the real world use of the product, just what can be listed on a spec sheet.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Netbooks count as laptops, right? Even netbooks that were sold with Ubuntu rather than OSX or Windows, right? Granted, there weren't many of them, but there were a few and they counted.
How much longer with iPads (and tablets in general) continue to NOT be seen as computers?
In the end, it doesn't matter. All that matters is money, and Apple makes money whether an iPad is considered a tablet, laptop, netbook or some other silly term. I come across more and more people who carry around an iPad because it's easier than carrying around a laptop. It's just another kind of computer.
Then again... so is an iPhone...
With iOS 5.0 the "but you need a computer to activate and sync it" group will no longer have a platform. Then there is MS who is not making an OS designed from the ground up for a tablet, but instead making a web code-based UI for Windows 8 that will work on tablets.
With these two things in play could we actually see the analysts change their categorical stance? I'm gonna say no because even Apple doesn't call it a "PC" but instead a "Post PC device."
With these two things in play could we actually see the analysts change their categorical stance? I'm gonna say no because even Apple doesn't call it a "PC" but instead a "Post PC device."
Apple needs to start calling them Tablet Computers or TCs - not a PC but not somehow subordinate - and the fact that T comes after P is a subtle cue that they're more advanced
As a Marketeer myself I'm always amazed that when dealing with computers, Units are the measurement standard.
I have always been more interested in dollars sold. Dollars sold is a much fairer comparison.
In all other business that I deal with the typical powerpoint slide is never or seldom units sold but almost always dollar sales. Yet IDC never supplies that info.
From Apple's perspective you are absolutely right. From the perspective of Apple's aftermarket the market share is more important, but more important still would be the installed base. I would love to see that as a number. Mac OS X has the potential of showing favorably there, because the average length of ownership is much longer with Macs than with generic PCs running Windows.
Apple needs to start calling them Tablet Computers or TCs - not a PC but not somehow subordinate - and the fact that T comes after P is a subtle cue that they're more advanced
I think that would be a major strategic error. Apple already has a massive lead in a category they effectively created, to the extent that iPad is now virtually synonymous with the concept of a tablet computer. Placing that category within in a generic wrapper could only serve to weaken Apple's strong position.
I never really understood why HP always has such a market share command.
HP has been milking their reputation for quality equipment for years. That reputation ended more than a decade ago, when they sacrificed the decades of respectability its founders built the company upon, in return for short-term profitability.
One of their own recent annual reports practically bragged about the amount of profit they make - from ink.
HP is no longer a technology leader and their reputation for quality is long gone. They build cheap disposable junk and compete for the tiniest of margins... just like all the other Windows boxmakers. That's why they're the #1 PC seller.
I think that would be a major strategic error. Apple already has a massive lead in a category they effectively created, to the extent that iPad is now virtually synonymous with the concept of a tablet computer. Placing that category within in a generic wrapper could only serve to weaken Apple's strong position.
I'm not suggesting they be included in PC numbers, I'm just saying that the new category isn't 'Media Tablet', it's TC. The last thing Apple wants is for iPad to become a synonym for tablet computer - that way lies the kind of genericization that destroys trademarks.
Comments
Would be interested to see this as market share by profit not units. Ballmer was blustering on this - but then we know what happened regarding iPhone vs Windows Mobile phones a few years ago...
I think you hit the nail on the head. The consumer market is such a small piece of the pie, but it's where all the profit is. Businesses, corporation, governments... they don't care about anything but the upfront cost of the machine, and Apple will never win that battle against $250-$300 per unit Dells. The thing of that, though, is that if you don't also sell support and services along with the machine, there is no profit in that market.
Boy, what you said couldn't be much less true. First, the consumer market is not where all the profit is. Exactly the opposite. Also, it's very much untrue to say that businesses only care about the upfront cost of anything. In fact, businesses have the ability, through their tax laws (with amortization of assets) to care a LOT less than most consumers do about the upfront price of technology. This is why business clients are so highly prized in air travel, why most consumers would blanch at the price of "enterprise" laptops and why Wal Mart is installing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of solar panels on their roofs.
Business laptops are the only models that PC makers sell in the $1000+ price range anymore. For business users, time is money. Home users are the ones buying $400 laptops.
It's still a possibility until Apple plugs the PDF-exploit hole discovered last week. It doesn't require anything from the user except clicking on a pdf file. That's all that's needed.
That's only on iOS I believe, not on OS-X.
I've worked at two large companies during this year, and both of them over the last couple years have been moving everyone to virtual desktops. The local machine might as well be a Pentium 4 running XP. You spend all day logged in via Citrix to a 64-processor back-end server that virtualizes dozens and dozens of desktops.
In that world, there's not a lot of room for Apple.
Actually I'd say the opposite. The rise of Citrix and virtualization is actually making it easier for Apple to penetrate the enterprise. As companies move people to work from home for one or two days a week (as many do), they are starting to subsidize employee computer purchases - potentially including Apples.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06...taff_get_macs/
As more and more of the messy legacy stuff is virtualized, it matters less that the firm maintains a homogenous desktop population.
The Mac now has 35% of the enterprise PC market.
erm - no
The Mac now has 35% of the enterprise PC market.
Only if "tablets are PCs"
And that 11% doesn't even include the iPad. Amazing.
Nearly 11%. It'll be news again when it breaks 11.0%
It's still a possibility until Apple plugs the PDF-exploit hole discovered last week. It doesn't require anything from the user except clicking on a pdf file. That's all that's needed.
Still doesn't reach the extreme level of a self-propagating virus, which goes exponential.
Thompson
Microsoft would likely win in that comparison. I guarantee Microsoft's profit margin far outweighs what Apple makes per unit on OS sales alone. Microsoft's profit on software, according to Apple (in previous court documents), is something like 90 percent. Apple is making the OS, to sell the hardware. It has a healthy profit margin on the hardware, but that is lessoned if you throw in development cost for the OS.
Yes, but by the same token, the proper comparison is Apple vs. Dell vs. HP vs. Acer, etc etc etc. It's not Apple vs Microsoft if you are going to compare unit sales. Their "units" are different things. So, if we are going to compare hardware "units" between the above mentioned companies, you better believe that it is increasingly important to include tablets. And Microsoft apparently agrees. That is the previous poster's point.
Thompson
And that 11% doesn't even include the iPad. Amazing.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Netbooks count as laptops, right? Even netbooks that were sold with Ubuntu rather than OSX or Windows, right? Granted, there weren't many of them, but there were a few and they counted.
How much longer with iPads (and tablets in general) continue to NOT be seen as computers?
In the end, it doesn't matter. All that matters is money, and Apple makes money whether an iPad is considered a tablet, laptop, netbook or some other silly term. I come across more and more people who carry around an iPad because it's easier than carrying around a laptop. It's just another kind of computer.
Then again... so is an iPhone...
Their laptops have had the worst keyboards for years, up until just recently, and they are notorious for overheating.
Funny thing is, I have one! And I totally hate the keyboard and trackpad. A random key falls off every once in a while, too.
I guess it was the performance/dollar? I do still think HP has better customization options at a better price than Dell.
Why do I keep answering my own questions?
I dunno.
It's a geography thing.
And, the café even uses an iPad with the Square app as a cash register!
I never really understood why HP always has such a market share command.
Their laptops have had the worst keyboards for years, up until just recently, and they are notorious for overheating.
Funny thing is, I have one! And I totally hate the keyboard and trackpad. A random key falls off every once in a while, too.
I guess it was the performance/dollar? I do still think HP has better customization options at a better price than Dell.
Why do I keep answering my own questions?
I dunno.
Because a positive user experience is difficult to put on a spec sheet. To HP's credit, a few years back they found a way to cut costs and still make their machine "look" as good or better than their direct competitor.
It's the same reason that asshats will say that Apple and their users don't care about specs or that you only buying aesthetics when you get a Mac. Those people never consider the real world use of the product, just what can be listed on a spec sheet.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Netbooks count as laptops, right? Even netbooks that were sold with Ubuntu rather than OSX or Windows, right? Granted, there weren't many of them, but there were a few and they counted.
How much longer with iPads (and tablets in general) continue to NOT be seen as computers?
In the end, it doesn't matter. All that matters is money, and Apple makes money whether an iPad is considered a tablet, laptop, netbook or some other silly term. I come across more and more people who carry around an iPad because it's easier than carrying around a laptop. It's just another kind of computer.
Then again... so is an iPhone...
With iOS 5.0 the "but you need a computer to activate and sync it" group will no longer have a platform. Then there is MS who is not making an OS designed from the ground up for a tablet, but instead making a web code-based UI for Windows 8 that will work on tablets.
With these two things in play could we actually see the analysts change their categorical stance? I'm gonna say no because even Apple doesn't call it a "PC" but instead a "Post PC device."
With these two things in play could we actually see the analysts change their categorical stance? I'm gonna say no because even Apple doesn't call it a "PC" but instead a "Post PC device."
Apple needs to start calling them Tablet Computers or TCs - not a PC but not somehow subordinate - and the fact that T comes after P is a subtle cue that they're more advanced
As a Marketeer myself I'm always amazed that when dealing with computers, Units are the measurement standard.
I have always been more interested in dollars sold. Dollars sold is a much fairer comparison.
In all other business that I deal with the typical powerpoint slide is never or seldom units sold but almost always dollar sales. Yet IDC never supplies that info.
From Apple's perspective you are absolutely right. From the perspective of Apple's aftermarket the market share is more important, but more important still would be the installed base. I would love to see that as a number. Mac OS X has the potential of showing favorably there, because the average length of ownership is much longer with Macs than with generic PCs running Windows.
Apple needs to start calling them Tablet Computers or TCs - not a PC but not somehow subordinate - and the fact that T comes after P is a subtle cue that they're more advanced
I think that would be a major strategic error. Apple already has a massive lead in a category they effectively created, to the extent that iPad is now virtually synonymous with the concept of a tablet computer. Placing that category within in a generic wrapper could only serve to weaken Apple's strong position.
I never really understood why HP always has such a market share command.
HP has been milking their reputation for quality equipment for years. That reputation ended more than a decade ago, when they sacrificed the decades of respectability its founders built the company upon, in return for short-term profitability.
One of their own recent annual reports practically bragged about the amount of profit they make - from ink.
HP is no longer a technology leader and their reputation for quality is long gone. They build cheap disposable junk and compete for the tiniest of margins... just like all the other Windows boxmakers. That's why they're the #1 PC seller.
Cheaper always wins... for a while.
I think that would be a major strategic error. Apple already has a massive lead in a category they effectively created, to the extent that iPad is now virtually synonymous with the concept of a tablet computer. Placing that category within in a generic wrapper could only serve to weaken Apple's strong position.
I'm not suggesting they be included in PC numbers, I'm just saying that the new category isn't 'Media Tablet', it's TC. The last thing Apple wants is for iPad to become a synonym for tablet computer - that way lies the kind of genericization that destroys trademarks.