I'm not interested in new hardware.

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I've come to realize that in the long run Apple's computer hardware offerings don't really have an effect on their marketshare. These are the things that may eventually permanently raise Apple's marketshare:



-- Consumer solutions like iMovie and iPod

-- Finding ways to reach customers like the retail stores

-- New programs that a person would buy a computer just to use like Maya or Final Cut Pro or iDVD.

-- More compatibility such as OS X's Unix compatibility





Apple's marketshare at any time is really based on how well it can match PCs on price and specs. In 1997 before the iMac when Macs were still ridiculously overpriced Apple''s marketshare was 2.7% I think you have a faithful core of users who will always keep it at that level. Apple's best marketshare since 1997 was 4.0 in the Christmas 1999 quarter. The original iBook had just come out and was priced similar to PC notebooks, the iMac's 15 inch screen wasn't outdated, and the MHZ gap had not opened up yet.



Apple's marketshare has varied in the 3.x range mostly. When they come out with new products it goes up, when the products get old but the price stays the same it drops.



So let's say we get faster processors and an LCD iMac. Maybe marketshare will go up to around 4.0 again. But eventually the computers get old and it drops again. That's why I am more interested in hearing about Apple trying to broaden it's appeal through software or peripherals or marketing.



At the next MacWorld I'll really be disappointed if we just get new hardware. I want to hear that there will be 100 more Apple Stores. I hope they lower the iPod to $299 and come out with another must -have peripheral. I want a handheld and OS X on another platform, maybe even x86. I want a to hear plans of how they will enter the business market. I want some kind of deal with Sony or Aol or someone. I want AppleWorks to have feature parity with Office and be free with every Mac.



Steve Jobs said recently "We have just begun to build the marketplace for OS X." I want to see something big at MacWorld

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    alright, whatever
  • Reply 2 of 19
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    I agree, although I think that new hardware is also important, but yes, we need to look beyond Power Macs for Apple's growth, well beyond.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I actually tend to agree with spindler on this one. I bought my Pismo 18 month ago and it is probably going to take another 18 month before I get a new mac. What keeps me from buying a PC is not the fact that the PM is at 866 mhz but that I now got X, Office:X, iTunes, iMovie II and hopefull iPod II. If I was stuck with 9.1 and all the rest I had one year ago I would start considering if not a PC would be better for me. The hardware part is something I think about when I reach the time where I have to consider what to buy next. And I am confident that the iBook 18 month from now will have a G4-like chip and will be a fantastic computer. But I really hope that Apple have done as much on the non-computer-hardware and software side as they have done for the past 18 month. Thats whats keeping me from the dark side, not giant speed boosts.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>alright, whatever</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Just trying to get your post count up with that highly informative post? Nothing good to contribute?



    Anyway, I agree that the solution is not really innovative computers, but the stuff outside of the normal computer experience. It doesn't take Apple to come out with a nice all-in-one LCD computer. The advantage that Apple has is their control over the entire set up. Integration between their devices, be it software and the OS or hardware and software, should be flawless. Sometimes, as in the iPod and iTunes, it is. Sometimes, as in Appleworks and OS X it isn't. Apple has to do more ipod-esque stuff and less appleworks-esque stuff if they are going to succeed. Their marketshare comes when people can see these products and their ease in action (case in point: my sister's friend was anti-mac just because and now she loves them because of what it can do with image capture and itools' homepage. It's that easy).
  • Reply 5 of 19
    This is nearly dead-on. Hardware doesn't do JACK to increase market share.



    NO ONE except current Mac-users (and only a minority of us) are guessing or even care what might be coming up at this MacWorld.



    You gotta get 'em in the fold first (via Mac-only iApps, retail stores, iPods, etc.) and THEN the cool hardware will get them to upgrade to their second Mac sooner than they really want or need to (not that I would know anything about that, myself...)
  • Reply 6 of 19
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    If Apple came out with a 20 GHz computer today, I'm not sure it would swing even 10% of the market to the Mac.



    Why?



    When it comes to computers, people seem to be set on the thinking that "Macs suck". Most people have never even USED a Mac, but they hear people say it, so they repeat it.



    Would developers flock to the system if it was that fast? Not neccesarily. Would users flock to the system? Not without the apps (read: games).



    My younger cousin got a brand new Indigo iMac for Christmas yesterday. I went over and installed 512 MB of RAM for him bringing the total up to 768. The thing was smoking! :eek:



    He put Diablo II in, installed it, brought his character over from the PC, and his older brothers who both own HP PCs said to him: "It looks and sounds better on my computer".



    At that point, I was installing 512 MB of RAM in one of their PCs. Even though the machine supposedly had a 133 MHz Bus, it was using PC 100 RAM. I pointed out to him that his machine had no 3d accelerator card (built into the motherboard), and no Sound card (built in sound on the motherboard). RAM was being used to create 'virtual' VRAM to power games like Everquest. I put the RAM in the machine, and it didn't even see it. I took the RAM back out, along with his original 128 MB of memory. I then put the RAM in by itself. The machine would not boot. HP claims it was because the memory was PC 133 and not PC 100. I told them that the PC had a 133 MHz Bus as advertised on the sticker on the case. They told me I was 'mistaken' and to buy PC 100 RAM and hung up. So he booted back up with his '127 MB RAM' and started going on to his little brother about how his computer was so much better because it could run "Everquest".



    Despite the fact that every game they have happens to be cross platform except Everquest, the idea that they could go out and buy more games than what is on the Mac is what drives their argument that 'Macs suck'.



    So without the developers, you won't win over the user base, no matter how much better your machines are.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    I think Apple's biggest problem now is supporting machines it promised that would be supported. I am sure as hell not going to buy a new Mac any time soon until this is straightened out. Who want to buy a new computer when a year later the OS wont support it? I remember when I could install a new Mac OS on a 4/5 year old computer and it would be fully supportive of that computer. That is what I liked about Apple and it's full control of the software AND hardware. When the benefits of doing this aren't there the point is moot.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac?
  • Reply 9 of 19
    jrcjrc Posts: 804member
    I can tell you my inlaws don't think macs suck today. I spent Christmas ridding them of the badtrans virus on their wintel. All the while saying, "My mac wouldn't have this problem".
  • Reply 10 of 19
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    i can't believe that anyone could honestly believe that if Macs had a 5x faster chip (at an affordable price) than PC's, people wouldn't come flocking over.......



    hmm, actually, now that i think about it, maybe not. i just realized that computers have basically hit the speed limit for what's necessary for 98% of all Office/Business uses. the only ones left who still need more speed are video/graphics types and gamers. what good does it do me to have a 5Ghz machine while i'm opening up e-mail, and web browsing?



    the only real driving force in the computer industry (for new hardware at least) is the gaming industry.



    guess apple needs to get some games, but i've been saying that for years.



    that being said, if apple did have way better hardware, and could court a few game developers to at least releasing cross platform versions of games, i think the mac platform would take off. but games won't go anywhere without hardware advances, and hardware advances have almost no real drive anymore outside of games. (and those graphics folk)



    it's hard to argue with the guy who just blew your head off 5 rounds in a row 'cause of his better sound/video card that you have a better machine.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Fran441:

    <strong>So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well that's what Scott H is doing.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    I think it's still up to the developers. Once key software (such as morpheus and kazaa ARGHHH) come to mac, people will realize that they can run day to day applications that are made for windows on a mac.



    I am also very pissed that I can't load Armenian fonts on OSX because there just aren't any. When developers make windows apps and start releasing them alongside with mac, I think we will see increased marketshare.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    [quote]So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac?<hr></blockquote>



    Why should they?



    Apple isn't supporting the original machines that such videoboards often came with.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by torifile:

    <strong>



    Just trying to get your post count up with that highly informative post? Nothing good to contribute?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    not for nothing but I find that insulting. Of all people to accuse me of posting quick blurbs of garbage to get my post count up? Perhaps other members here do that but I certainy don't and I'm sorry you don't realize that.



    [quote]This is nearly dead-on. Hardware doesn't do JACK to increase market share.<hr></blockquote>



    in what world? So if Apple stayed at 867 Mhz you don't think their marketshare would decrease? give me a break. If Apple had some competitive hardware in performance and priced it competitively they WOULD see a marketshare increase. the iBook and Powerbook have increased portable and education marketshare for that sole reason.



    [quote]So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac? <hr></blockquote>



    Apple is repsonible for supporting all integrated chipsets and OEM cards.





    [quote]If Apple came out with a 20 GHz computer today, I'm not sure it would swing even 10% of the market to the Mac.



    <hr></blockquote>



    you're wrong. it would.... if Apple could build enough.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    applenut,

    I was just joking. That's what the smilie was for. Sorry if my attempt didn't work. I was just commenting that you didn't have anything else to say and that's unusual for you... Now, if you were EmAn, that would have been a different story.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I think we all agree that the hardware prevents attrition, but it doesn't seem to have a huge pull towards a larger customer base. It doesn't hurt, but it isn't helping like some would like to think.



    To this day, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons people don't buy Macs are:



    1. "no software" (if refuted, move to?)

    2. "too pricey" (if refuted, move to?)

    3. "not Windows" (most people being familiar with Windows)



    Even if numbers 1 and 2 are overcome, there will always be #3. You can't get past #3 unless you revived the Red Box rumors and effectively killed Mac OS, then Apple would be just another PC maker, and likely die anyway out from disinterest if not for reason #2 again. It's a cycle that can't be broken. The hardware comes into play for #2, to a more limited extent for #1 (CPU chips mainly) and has nothing to do with #3, the last line of defense.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    the only way to beat #3 is to make people use it.



    the only way to make people use macs is to make them a cost effective solution for business tasks.



    that or make them the best damn gaming platform out there.



    most guys i know really into computer gaming spend at least a grand a year or so on hardware, after their machine purchase.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]Apple is repsonible for supporting all integrated chipsets and OEM cards.<hr></blockquote>



    I can't find anything on Apple's website to support this claim.



    In fact, <a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/radeon/radeon_mac_edition_drivers.html?cboOS=MAC+OS&cboPr oducts=RADEON+MAC+EDITION&cmdNext=GO%21" target="_blank">th is ATI web page</a> seems to indicate otherwise.



    While they do not make the drivers available in anything other than Mac OS X, they have made drivers available for the 'classic' Mac OS.



    ATI writes the drivers for their chipsets. If ATI does not make the drivers available to the older cards, why is it Apple's responsibility to make them (even if they can)?



    [quote]you're wrong. it would.... if Apple could build enough. <hr></blockquote>



    I'd argue this, but your point is a little vague. What good is a 20 GHz computer to people if the apps/games they want to run don't work? They need developer support more than an unbelievably fast machine.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>To this day, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons people don't buy Macs are:



    1. "no software" (if refuted, move to?)

    2. "too pricey" (if refuted, move to?)

    3. "not Windows" (most people being familiar with Windows)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    4. "no two button mouse"



    I swear, that's the number 1 thing I hear all the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.