I really don't see the correlation to Lion. Lion isn't really a selling point for switchers or first time buyers, which is pretty much the only way to increase your percentage of the installed base. Those types of buyers are just buying the Apple brand. They probably have not even heard about Lion. It is not advertised on TV. In my opinion Lion is actually quite screwed up, but hopefully that won't deter Mac sales growth.
I brought up Lion because its still generating buzz and sales. I think this will trend upwardly.
I have my issues with Lion as well but it is still a very nice OS. I still prefer SL over any other OS out there. I keep going back and forth between SL and Lion.:-)
I never "switched" -- I started on the Mac, my first computer was a Macintosh LC II, 16MHz 4MB RAM, 40MB Hard Drive, when I was 10 years old. Every computer I have owned was a Mac, I have only been exposed to Windows a few times, and that was on school computers, etc when we had to use it.
I remember those. I had a Mac Plus when I was a kid, well it wasn't mine, but I got to use it everyday.
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period....they would have to hit the low price points to be able to compete on a series "takeover market-share" level with the PC market. When you can buy a 15" or 17" PC laptop for under $500, and the MacBook Pros of this size range go for $1799 - $2799....most people simply can't justify spending this much for a laptop (and I am talking about most of the worldwide computer base)...in some countries of the world, that is more money than they would make in a YEAR....so....Apple must lower their price points if they seriously want to compete on the PC side of things in taking over more market share with the Mac.
This has always been the issue with Mac and the much-lower market share: Very high price-points that discourage the average user from investing in a Macintosh.
And, the Mac Mini doesn't count....I am talking about a full machine like the iMac or a flagship machine hitting the sub-$500 price point.
Yay...worldwide, Apple are now 1% above being statistically irrelevant. ...
Life must be fun with the blinders on.
The thing about the market share figures for desktop OS's is that they are always heavily weighted towards industry and business. Call centres, and businesses of al kinds run huge numbers of windows machines that skew the numbers towards Windows, making the market share figures not really representative of consumer choice.
In 2008 for instance, Apple's market share for desktop OS's was much lower, yet one in every four consumer desktop computer purchases (roughly 25%), was a Mac that year.
Theses new numbers, indicate that Macs have an even higher adoption rate now and as with most things to do with share, the trend is far more important than the absolute share numbers.
There is no way to spin this other than it being a very serious problem for MS Windows. You can scoff all you like, but by the time the numbers get high enough for even *you* to be worried, Windows will already be too far behind to matter.
I bet that 13% share in the US would be a really interesting number to decompose. My hunch is that it is heavily concentrated among higher income consumers. In fact, among that demographic, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's share is in the ballpark of 50%.
These high-end consumers are Apple's best (and right now only) "boots on the ground" for getting Macs into business.
Even though Apple's most visible marketing efforts are focused on consumers and iOS, Apple has been quietly increasing the number of business-friendly checkboxes that Macs can satisfy (as clients, of course, not as servers). Every checkbox that gets checked (one recent important one was full disk encryption -- something that matters very little to consumers but quite a bit to business and government) makes it easier for these high-end employees who use Macs at home to win the argument with IT to get Macs inside a company.
I would hope that Apple might start taking this stealth move into business out of the shadows and begin more actively pursuing business customers. I don't mean through television ads, but rather through a more overt business-centric sales and support effort. It might also make sense to change some aspects of Mac marketing, for example to become a little less secretive about future plans for features of OSX that matter to business users, so that business customers can see a long term commitment to them (which they need more than consumers).
I think Steve Jobs was (understandably) extraordinarily disgusted by business customers based on his experiences at NeXT. I'm not sure that he would have ever made a serious effort to pursue this market. Perhaps one upside to his stepping down as CEO might be that Apple can now go after this market.
The thing about the market share figures for desktop OS's is that they are always heavily weighted towards industry and business. Call centres, and businesses of al kinds run huge numbers of windows machines that skew the numbers towards Windows, making the market share figures not really representative of consumer choice.
In 2008 for instance, Apple's market share for desktop OS's was much lower, yet one in every four consumer desktop computer purchases (roughly 25%), was a Mac that year.
Yeah, and they had 99% of WHITE consumer desktop purchases.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period
Which planet do you live on where Apple has not been gaining market share for the past 5 years?
The fact is that in spite of your cheapskate whining, Apple IS doing very well. And, unlike most of the PC vendors, they're making money - which means that their future is pretty well assured.
Yeah, and they had 99% of WHITE consumer desktop purchases.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
Your snarkiness notwithstanding, I think that Business v. Consumer is quite a legitimate breakdown to explore, while white v. non-white is not. It is quite possible that a non-trivial part of the low profit margins for Windows-based PC-makers is explained by their dependence on business sales (indeed, it would be interesting to see data on their profit margins in the B v. C segment).
I am not sure that Apple should aspire to be a seller to businesses. I just don't think they'll do well on that front since - this probably sounds a bit squishy - it's just not a part of their corporate DNA.
Which planet do you live on where Apple has not been gaining market share for the past 5 years?
The fact is that in spite of your cheapskate whining, Apple IS doing very well. And, unlike most of the PC vendors, they're making money - which means that their future is pretty well assured.
I think it goes without saying that the OP meant market share picking up above "tiny" or maybe above 10% or so. The correct response is that Apple doesn't want, or need, market share that gets too high, because it will imply lower profitability. If Apple could price each computer individually, then it could sell someone a $1200 computer and someone else a $500 computer, based on their willingness to pay and their finances. But since that is not possible, Apple would end up selling both of those users $500 computers, and you can see quite clearly that Apple would much rather sell 1 $1200 computer than two $500 ones, and will happily continue doing so.
Your snarkiness notwithstanding, I think that Business v. Consumer is quite a legitimate breakdown to explore, while white v. non-white is not. It is quite possible that a non-trivial part of the low profit margins for Windows-based PC-makers is explained by their dependence on business sales (indeed, it would be interesting to see data on their profit margins in the B v. C segment).
Quite a legitimate breakdown to explore? What does that mean? Of course it's a legitimate breakdown, but that doesn't mean it holds any value in this discussion. Apple doesn't have high market share of the entire PC market, and it never will, because there are a TON of sales that Apple can't compete for. Period. You can't just say "oh if we just ignore all these says where Apple doesn't have a competitive offering, Apple has GREAT market share!" It makes no sense and it's just deluding yourself.
Quote:
I am not sure that Apple should aspire to be a seller to businesses. I just don't think they'll do well on that front since - this probably sounds a bit squishy - it's just not a part of their corporate DNA.
Of course they shouldn't. But it's stupid to ignore that fact and claim that Apple has high market share of some small and arbitrary segment of a huge market.
Apple earns all the profits and an outsize portion of the revenue in the PC market. That's all anyone needs to worry about. Unit market share is unimportant as long as Apple doesn't suffer from a lack of network effects, which they don't.
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period....
This wouldn't have looked quite as silly if you'd posted it ten years ago.
Given the increase in marketshare, both U.S. and internationally, over the past three or four years, it just looks like either a poor troll, or failed sarcasm.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
Sure, but they don't all count equally.
You can shove a lot of bare bones boxes into call centers and onto warehouse inventory desks for relatively little. Each one doesn't help the bottom line (or stock price) nearly as much as do sales to end users who want what a slightly more expensive system can provide them.
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period....they would have to hit the low price points to be able to compete on a series "takeover market-share" level with the PC market. When you can buy a 15" or 17" PC laptop for under $500, and the MacBook Pros of this size range go for $1799 - $2799....most people simply can't justify spending this much for a laptop (and I am talking about most of the worldwide computer base)...in some countries of the world, that is more money than they would make in a YEAR....so....Apple must lower their price points if they seriously want to compete on the PC side of things in taking over more market share with the Mac.
This has always been the issue with Mac and the much-lower market share: Very high price-points that discourage the average user from investing in a Macintosh.
And, the Mac Mini doesn't count....I am talking about a full machine like the iMac or a flagship machine hitting the sub-$500 price point.
They do...they have the iPad....it is their foray into that market and they are doing quite well with it....
It's encouraging that over 50% of people are still using XP. That probably means they have old computers, and may be looking to upgrade at some point. The Win 7 people are those who have recently upgraded and already decided against a Mac.
Comments
No doubt. With only 92% of the market they should be in a total panic.
13.5% in the US is significant, as it's 1 in 6 PCs. Up from what? 4-5% just a few years ago.
The trend is bad for Microsoft, especially in a key market.
Who cares what they use in Africa, India or China. They probably didn't pay for it.
I really don't see the correlation to Lion. Lion isn't really a selling point for switchers or first time buyers, which is pretty much the only way to increase your percentage of the installed base. Those types of buyers are just buying the Apple brand. They probably have not even heard about Lion. It is not advertised on TV. In my opinion Lion is actually quite screwed up, but hopefully that won't deter Mac sales growth.
I brought up Lion because its still generating buzz and sales. I think this will trend upwardly.
I have my issues with Lion as well but it is still a very nice OS. I still prefer SL over any other OS out there. I keep going back and forth between SL and Lion.:-)
Who cares what they use in Africa, India or China. They probably didn't pay for it.
And score one more for the list of people no one should take seriously due to beliefs.
Who cares what they use in Africa, India or China. They probably didn't pay for it.
"Who cares?" Apple does, for sure. In the first half of 2011, Greater China accounted for 10% of Apple sales, a growth of over 4x from the prior year.
What an ignorant little post. Your first, at that.
I never "switched" -- I started on the Mac, my first computer was a Macintosh LC II, 16MHz 4MB RAM, 40MB Hard Drive, when I was 10 years old. Every computer I have owned was a Mac, I have only been exposed to Windows a few times, and that was on school computers, etc when we had to use it.
I remember those. I had a Mac Plus when I was a kid, well it wasn't mine, but I got to use it everyday.
Because taking 1/3 of the world's PC profits means they are a failure.
Hmmm?1/3 of worldwide PC profits is the number that should make Apple shareholders and stakeholders smile.
This has always been the issue with Mac and the much-lower market share: Very high price-points that discourage the average user from investing in a Macintosh.
And, the Mac Mini doesn't count....I am talking about a full machine like the iMac or a flagship machine hitting the sub-$500 price point.
Yay...worldwide, Apple are now 1% above being statistically irrelevant. ...
Life must be fun with the blinders on.
The thing about the market share figures for desktop OS's is that they are always heavily weighted towards industry and business. Call centres, and businesses of al kinds run huge numbers of windows machines that skew the numbers towards Windows, making the market share figures not really representative of consumer choice.
In 2008 for instance, Apple's market share for desktop OS's was much lower, yet one in every four consumer desktop computer purchases (roughly 25%), was a Mac that year.
Theses new numbers, indicate that Macs have an even higher adoption rate now and as with most things to do with share, the trend is far more important than the absolute share numbers.
There is no way to spin this other than it being a very serious problem for MS Windows. You can scoff all you like, but by the time the numbers get high enough for even *you* to be worried, Windows will already be too far behind to matter.
These high-end consumers are Apple's best (and right now only) "boots on the ground" for getting Macs into business.
Even though Apple's most visible marketing efforts are focused on consumers and iOS, Apple has been quietly increasing the number of business-friendly checkboxes that Macs can satisfy (as clients, of course, not as servers). Every checkbox that gets checked (one recent important one was full disk encryption -- something that matters very little to consumers but quite a bit to business and government) makes it easier for these high-end employees who use Macs at home to win the argument with IT to get Macs inside a company.
I would hope that Apple might start taking this stealth move into business out of the shadows and begin more actively pursuing business customers. I don't mean through television ads, but rather through a more overt business-centric sales and support effort. It might also make sense to change some aspects of Mac marketing, for example to become a little less secretive about future plans for features of OSX that matter to business users, so that business customers can see a long term commitment to them (which they need more than consumers).
I think Steve Jobs was (understandably) extraordinarily disgusted by business customers based on his experiences at NeXT. I'm not sure that he would have ever made a serious effort to pursue this market. Perhaps one upside to his stepping down as CEO might be that Apple can now go after this market.
Life must be fun with the blinders on.
The thing about the market share figures for desktop OS's is that they are always heavily weighted towards industry and business. Call centres, and businesses of al kinds run huge numbers of windows machines that skew the numbers towards Windows, making the market share figures not really representative of consumer choice.
In 2008 for instance, Apple's market share for desktop OS's was much lower, yet one in every four consumer desktop computer purchases (roughly 25%), was a Mac that year.
Yeah, and they had 99% of WHITE consumer desktop purchases.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period
Which planet do you live on where Apple has not been gaining market share for the past 5 years?
The fact is that in spite of your cheapskate whining, Apple IS doing very well. And, unlike most of the PC vendors, they're making money - which means that their future is pretty well assured.
Yeah, and they had 99% of WHITE consumer desktop purchases.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
Your snarkiness notwithstanding, I think that Business v. Consumer is quite a legitimate breakdown to explore, while white v. non-white is not. It is quite possible that a non-trivial part of the low profit margins for Windows-based PC-makers is explained by their dependence on business sales (indeed, it would be interesting to see data on their profit margins in the B v. C segment).
I am not sure that Apple should aspire to be a seller to businesses. I just don't think they'll do well on that front since - this probably sounds a bit squishy - it's just not a part of their corporate DNA.
Which planet do you live on where Apple has not been gaining market share for the past 5 years?
The fact is that in spite of your cheapskate whining, Apple IS doing very well. And, unlike most of the PC vendors, they're making money - which means that their future is pretty well assured.
I think it goes without saying that the OP meant market share picking up above "tiny" or maybe above 10% or so. The correct response is that Apple doesn't want, or need, market share that gets too high, because it will imply lower profitability. If Apple could price each computer individually, then it could sell someone a $1200 computer and someone else a $500 computer, based on their willingness to pay and their finances. But since that is not possible, Apple would end up selling both of those users $500 computers, and you can see quite clearly that Apple would much rather sell 1 $1200 computer than two $500 ones, and will happily continue doing so.
Your snarkiness notwithstanding, I think that Business v. Consumer is quite a legitimate breakdown to explore, while white v. non-white is not. It is quite possible that a non-trivial part of the low profit margins for Windows-based PC-makers is explained by their dependence on business sales (indeed, it would be interesting to see data on their profit margins in the B v. C segment).
Quite a legitimate breakdown to explore? What does that mean? Of course it's a legitimate breakdown, but that doesn't mean it holds any value in this discussion. Apple doesn't have high market share of the entire PC market, and it never will, because there are a TON of sales that Apple can't compete for. Period. You can't just say "oh if we just ignore all these says where Apple doesn't have a competitive offering, Apple has GREAT market share!" It makes no sense and it's just deluding yourself.
I am not sure that Apple should aspire to be a seller to businesses. I just don't think they'll do well on that front since - this probably sounds a bit squishy - it's just not a part of their corporate DNA.
Of course they shouldn't. But it's stupid to ignore that fact and claim that Apple has high market share of some small and arbitrary segment of a huge market.
Apple earns all the profits and an outsize portion of the revenue in the PC market. That's all anyone needs to worry about. Unit market share is unimportant as long as Apple doesn't suffer from a lack of network effects, which they don't.
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period....
This wouldn't have looked quite as silly if you'd posted it ten years ago.
Given the increase in marketshare, both U.S. and internationally, over the past three or four years, it just looks like either a poor troll, or failed sarcasm.
If you narrow down your "market" you can come up with ever more positive numbers, but the fact is, there's no reason why you would disallow all those "unimportant" business sales that make up over half the market. I mean, how dumb!?! Those sales COUNT!
Sure, but they don't all count equally.
You can shove a lot of bare bones boxes into call centers and onto warehouse inventory desks for relatively little. Each one doesn't help the bottom line (or stock price) nearly as much as do sales to end users who want what a slightly more expensive system can provide them.
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500, period....they would have to hit the low price points to be able to compete on a series "takeover market-share" level with the PC market. When you can buy a 15" or 17" PC laptop for under $500, and the MacBook Pros of this size range go for $1799 - $2799....most people simply can't justify spending this much for a laptop (and I am talking about most of the worldwide computer base)...in some countries of the world, that is more money than they would make in a YEAR....so....Apple must lower their price points if they seriously want to compete on the PC side of things in taking over more market share with the Mac.
This has always been the issue with Mac and the much-lower market share: Very high price-points that discourage the average user from investing in a Macintosh.
And, the Mac Mini doesn't count....I am talking about a full machine like the iMac or a flagship machine hitting the sub-$500 price point.
They do...they have the iPad....it is their foray into that market and they are doing quite well with it....
Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales 20K, not 2 Million
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392422,00.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ung-galaxy-tab
The Mac market share will NEVER pick up unless Apple can sell a fully functional Mac OS X desktop or laptop for under $500
Slow Internet connection you have there. You hit send in 2003 and it just now got here.
most people simply can't justify spending this much for a laptop
But they can justify paying $500 every two years while the MacBook Pro owner goes five or six without needing to update?
Apple must lower their price points if they seriously want to compete on the PC side of things in taking over more market share with the Mac.
Good thing Apple's not trying to do that at all, then. Otherwise we'd have a real problem.
And, the Mac Mini doesn't count
Except it does.
I am talking about a full machine like the iMac or a flagship machine hitting the sub-$500 price point.
You keep thinking that.