The Mac has NEVER had more than 10% worldwide market share in 30 years. No arguments there.
I think the Mac marketshare numbers might be low because companies buy hundreds or even thousands of PCs. I wonder what the Mac marketshare would be if you only considered private individuals.
I imagine that Apple would become far more affordable in some countries and far less affordable in others, because currencies would reflect the state of the market more accurately. At the moment, it's absurd that Greece has the same currency as Germany, to give an extreme example.
Why? Prices reflect the state of the market as much as the currency they're marked in.
How is it any more absurd than urban New York, rural Mississippi and beachfront Hawaii sharing the same currency? Or indeed, its use as the defacto or majority reserve currency in many other countries?
I imagine that Apple would become far more affordable in some countries and far less affordable in others, because currencies would reflect the state of the market more accurately. At the moment, it's absurd that Greece has the same currency as Germany, to give an extreme example.
Why? Prices reflect the state of the market as much as the currency they're marked in.
How is it any more absurd than urban New York, rural Mississippi and beachfront Hawaii sharing the same currency? Or indeed, its use as the defacto or majority reserve currency in many other countries?
Because the currency acts as a leveller.
It doesn't matter so much if there are different levels of affluence, so long as the currency level is accurate enough for a majority of people, but when that isn't the case, it can be deleterious. So the end result is that Germany are paying too much for their consumer goods, whereas Greece is paying too little. This is what led to the bubble and subsequent collapse in Europe in the first place.
This also explains why the iPhone isn't nearly as popular in Germany as it would be, or should be, even. Yes, there is a big political reason, too, what with the security angle, but really, Apple's marketshare in Germany would be much higher, I believe, if they still had the mark, because the mark would be much stronger, and therefore imports cheaper. And if Greece reverted to their original currency, logic says that they would have a much smaller share of Apple than they currently do.
As it is, Germany is effectively subsidising Greece, which distorts the market to a dangerous degree.
I think the Mac marketshare numbers might be low because companies buy hundreds or even thousands of PCs. I wonder what the Mac marketshare would be if you only considered private individuals.
Yeah that's true. Corporate and enterprise sales have never been the Mac's strong suit.
Overall... there were almost 80 million PCs shipped worldwide last quarter... with the Mac only representing 5.5 million of those.
Another reason the Mac has maintained such low market share is because of price. Apple doesn't do cheap.
While Apple's laptops are the most inexpensive they've ever been... it still costs $900 for a Macbook Air. And that's for an 11" model.
But that's the game Apple has always played. And as a result... they sell fewer expensive things while the other guys sell more cheaper things.
It's kinda difficult to compare Apple to the rest of the PC industry anyway. Apple is the only company who makes Macs... while there are a dozen companies who make Windows PCs. And as I said before... Apple only sells rather expensive computers while everyone else has a wider range of prices.
It's the same sorta thing in the smartphone world too... except there are 60 companies moving 300 millions smartphones a quarter.
And only one Apple making iPhones.
That's why I never put too much emphasis on the market share number itself... and instead focus on the results from that market share.
We've all seen the headlines announcing Android's 85% smartphone market share. But there's not much of a story afterwards.
Now look at what the iPhone has obtained while NEVER being the market share leader. It's actually quite remarkable.
It doesn't matter so much if there are different levels of affluence, so long as the currency level is accurate enough for a majority of people, but when that isn't the case, it can be deleterious. So the end result is that Germany are paying too much for their consumer goods, whereas Greece is paying too little. This is what led to the bubble and subsequent collapse in Europe in the first place.
This also explains why the iPhone isn't nearly as popular in Germany as it would be, or should be, even. Yes, there is a big political reason, too, what with the security angle, but really, Apple's marketshare in Germany would be much higher, I believe, if they still had the mark, because the mark would be much stronger, and therefore imports cheaper. And if Greece reverted to their original currency, logic says that they would have a much smaller share of Apple than they currently do.
As it is, Germany is effectively subsidising Greece, which distorts the market to a dangerous degree.
Aside from not taking into account many, many other factors, that doesn't answer my question at all. Why is it any more absurd than using the dollar across the USA, where there is also disparity in the purchasing power of the same dollar in different areas.
It doesn't matter so much if there are different levels of affluence, so long as the currency level is accurate enough for a majority of people, but when that isn't the case, it can be deleterious. So the end result is that Germany are paying too much for their consumer goods, whereas Greece is paying too little. This is what led to the bubble and subsequent collapse in Europe in the first place.
This also explains why the iPhone isn't nearly as popular in Germany as it would be, or should be, even. Yes, there is a big political reason, too, what with the security angle, but really, Apple's marketshare in Germany would be much higher, I believe, if they still had the mark, because the mark would be much stronger, and therefore imports cheaper. And if Greece reverted to their original currency, logic says that they would have a much smaller share of Apple than they currently do.
As it is, Germany is effectively subsidising Greece, which distorts the market to a dangerous degree.
Aside from not taking into account many, many other factors, that doesn't answer my question at all. Why is it any more absurd than using the dollar across the USA, where there is also disparity in the purchasing power of the same dollar in different areas.
Really? It doesn't have a single currency? It doesn't have similar inequalities? It doesn't span a huge geography? It doesn't have a single central bank, monetary policy, and minting authority (by Europe, I'm taking you to mean the Eurozone since we're talking about the Euro)?
What are the differences that create such a compelling difference between the euro in the Eurozone, and the dollar in the USA that one might be considered "dangerous" (your words) and the other not?
Really? It doesn't have a single currency? It doesn't have similar inequalities? It doesn't span a huge geography? It doesn't have a single central bank, monetary policy, and minting authority (by Europe, I'm taking you to mean the Eurozone since we're talking about the Euro)?
What are the differences that create such a compelling difference between the euro in the Eurozone, and the dollar in the USA that one might be considered "dangerous" (your words) and the other not?
The differences between the different countries of Europe, both in the EU and outside, are much greater than the states of America.
They are much more different politically, economically, geographically, geopolitically and in relation the rest of the world. Europe is made up of many very different cultures that don't blend well as a homogenous fiscal unit, which is why Europe has been such a political and economic disaster for the past twenty years.
You don't think Utah is different from California and New Jersey politically? You don't think there are economic disparities between Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the cotton fields? You don't think there are a melting pot of cultures in the USA that don't always blend well, like in Missouri right now? You don't think the USA, from Alaska to Nevada to the Great Lakes to Florida, is geographically diverse?!?!
The USA doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. Hell, my household doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. That's why it's a good idea to form a fiscal unit, it smooths off the edges, it allows Germany to subsidise Greece while they sort themselves out instead of falling through the floor. Free movement of labour and capital around the Eurozone means overall it works.
Just like in the USA, which once upon a time had a number of different dollars, until they started falling apart and they found more strength in unity and cooperative support.
You don't think Utah is different from California and New Jersey politically? You don't think there are economic disparities between Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the cotton fields? You don't think there are a melting pot of cultures in the USA that don't always blend well, like in Missouri right now? You don't think the USA, from Alaska to Nevada to the Great Lakes to Florida, is geographically diverse?!?!
The USA doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. Hell, my household doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. That's why it's a good idea to form a fiscal unit, it smooths off the edges, it allows Germany to subsidise Greece while they sort themselves out instead of falling through the floor. Free movement of labour and capital around the Eurozone means overall it works.
Just like in the USA, which once upon a time had a number of different dollars, until they started falling apart and they found more strength in unity and cooperative support.
Why should Germany bail out Greece? It's completely unfair. The two countries have quite different work ethics, not to mention levels of affluence. As such, it has created huge resentment, quite reasonably.
There's a good reason why the UK is likely going to leave the EU; because the EU is hopelessly corrupt and has taken advantage of the upstanding Brits.
Why should Bavaria, the industrial powerhouse and economic marvel of Germany, support the relatives laggard Eastern states of Saxony or MV?
Why should London, a pre-eminent global city, be held back by bumpkins from the West Country, or the depressed North?
Why should I, a rich and hardworking man, have to share the world with all these poor lazy men?
Alternatively, and away from this tangent of subsidisation and economic elitism, Greece has problems, and it is suffering for them. Complete currency collapse would make things worse and bring a lot of misery to a lot of people who played no part in the countries economic woes. Germany knows this pain better than most from their hyperinflation in the 20s. Currency union staves off that one fear.
"Upstanding Brits" my eye. There's more corruption in the City Of London than in a hundred Brussels and Strasbourgs put together.
I've seen charts before detailing iOS marketshare, and it's pretty easy to see that in many cases, the poorer the country, the lower the marketshare for iOS.
Actually the median wealth in Spain is about 50% higher than in the US. The median wealth in Italy and France is about 200% higher than in the US. Mr Average in Spain, France, and Italy has a lot more disposable income than in the US.
While many of the top 1% in terms of wealth live in the US, the standard of living int the US is one of the lowest in the developed world. China is the only country in the table that has a lower standard of living than the US.
People in Italy, Spain, France and Germany are wealthier and better educated than their US counterparts, but simply choose Android above iOS
I've seen charts before detailing iOS marketshare, and it's pretty easy to see that in many cases, the poorer the country, the lower the marketshare for iOS.
Actually the median wealth in Spain is about 50% higher than in the US. The median wealth in Italy and France is about 200% higher than in the US. Mr Average in Spain, France, and Italy has a lot more disposable income than in the US.
While many of the top 1% in terms of wealth live in the US, the standard of living int the US is one of the lowest in the developed world. China is the only country in the table that has a lower standard of living than the US.
People in Italy, Spain, France and Germany are wealthier and better educated than their US counterparts, but simply choose Android above iOS
You're making a causal relation that doesn't exist.
The main reason iOS is much more popular in the States than Europe is simply because Apple products are much more expensive in Europe.
You're making a causal relation that doesn't exist.
The main reason iOS is much more popular in the States than Europe is simply because Apple products are much more expensive in Europe.
I am not making a causal relationship, simply dispelling the causal relationships made by Apple][ - "Yes, it's basically because they're poor" .
And iPhones are not 200% more expensive in Italy or France, while the median wealth in those countries is 200% more than the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Yes, it's basically because they're poor.
I've seen charts before detailing iOS marketshare, and it's pretty easy to see that in many cases, the poorer the country, the lower the marketshare for iOS.
Comments
According to the chart in this article... the only country where Windows Phone is actually beating the iPhone is Italy.
The only other country where Windows Phone is even remotely close to the iPhone is Spain.
There were reports a while ago saying that Windows Phone is beating the iPhone in Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa and the Ukraine.
The rest of the world? Complete bloodbath.
We should be hearing Windows Phone's 2014 worldwide year-end numbers soon. I doubt they will be too impressive, though.
So yeah... I agree with SpamSandwich. The customer has spoken... and they're not saying Windows Phone very much.
Oh. How the tables have turned. If windows phone OS market share is a bloodbath where is the Mac?
Oh it's a bloodbath too... numerically speaking.
The Mac has NEVER had more than 10% worldwide market share in 30 years. No arguments there.
The difference is... Apple was still able to develop a vibrant culture around the Mac... despite its low market share.
There are plenty of developers who focus on the Mac... including Mac-only developers. There are plenty of Mac accessory makers too.
Apple sells more than enough Macs to keep them around. (compared to the other guys who are struggling selling cheap commodity PCs)
Having low market share isn't exactly the death sentence you'd think it is. Apple is able to DO something with whatever market share they have.
And much like the Mac... the iPhone has NEVER had a market share advantage either.
But look at all the stuff the iPhone has going for it: Developer support. Accessory support. Customer satisfaction. The list goes on.
Yes... the iPhone has lower market share than Android... but it's still a vibrant, well-performing platform.
Windows Phone has lower market share than BOTH those other platforms... but it doesn't have any of those accolades.
The Mac has NEVER had more than 10% worldwide market share in 30 years. No arguments there.
I think the Mac marketshare numbers might be low because companies buy hundreds or even thousands of PCs. I wonder what the Mac marketshare would be if you only considered private individuals.
I imagine that Apple would become far more affordable in some countries and far less affordable in others, because currencies would reflect the state of the market more accurately. At the moment, it's absurd that Greece has the same currency as Germany, to give an extreme example.
Why? Prices reflect the state of the market as much as the currency they're marked in.
How is it any more absurd than urban New York, rural Mississippi and beachfront Hawaii sharing the same currency? Or indeed, its use as the defacto or majority reserve currency in many other countries?
I imagine that Apple would become far more affordable in some countries and far less affordable in others, because currencies would reflect the state of the market more accurately. At the moment, it's absurd that Greece has the same currency as Germany, to give an extreme example.
Why? Prices reflect the state of the market as much as the currency they're marked in.
How is it any more absurd than urban New York, rural Mississippi and beachfront Hawaii sharing the same currency? Or indeed, its use as the defacto or majority reserve currency in many other countries?
Because the currency acts as a leveller.
It doesn't matter so much if there are different levels of affluence, so long as the currency level is accurate enough for a majority of people, but when that isn't the case, it can be deleterious. So the end result is that Germany are paying too much for their consumer goods, whereas Greece is paying too little. This is what led to the bubble and subsequent collapse in Europe in the first place.
This also explains why the iPhone isn't nearly as popular in Germany as it would be, or should be, even. Yes, there is a big political reason, too, what with the security angle, but really, Apple's marketshare in Germany would be much higher, I believe, if they still had the mark, because the mark would be much stronger, and therefore imports cheaper. And if Greece reverted to their original currency, logic says that they would have a much smaller share of Apple than they currently do.
As it is, Germany is effectively subsidising Greece, which distorts the market to a dangerous degree.
Yeah that's true. Corporate and enterprise sales have never been the Mac's strong suit.
Overall... there were almost 80 million PCs shipped worldwide last quarter... with the Mac only representing 5.5 million of those.
Another reason the Mac has maintained such low market share is because of price. Apple doesn't do cheap.
While Apple's laptops are the most inexpensive they've ever been... it still costs $900 for a Macbook Air. And that's for an 11" model.
But that's the game Apple has always played. And as a result... they sell fewer expensive things while the other guys sell more cheaper things.
It's kinda difficult to compare Apple to the rest of the PC industry anyway. Apple is the only company who makes Macs... while there are a dozen companies who make Windows PCs. And as I said before... Apple only sells rather expensive computers while everyone else has a wider range of prices.
It's the same sorta thing in the smartphone world too... except there are 60 companies moving 300 millions smartphones a quarter.
And only one Apple making iPhones.
That's why I never put too much emphasis on the market share number itself... and instead focus on the results from that market share.
We've all seen the headlines announcing Android's 85% smartphone market share. But there's not much of a story afterwards.
Now look at what the iPhone has obtained while NEVER being the market share leader. It's actually quite remarkable.
Because the currency acts as a leveller.
It doesn't matter so much if there are different levels of affluence, so long as the currency level is accurate enough for a majority of people, but when that isn't the case, it can be deleterious. So the end result is that Germany are paying too much for their consumer goods, whereas Greece is paying too little. This is what led to the bubble and subsequent collapse in Europe in the first place.
This also explains why the iPhone isn't nearly as popular in Germany as it would be, or should be, even. Yes, there is a big political reason, too, what with the security angle, but really, Apple's marketshare in Germany would be much higher, I believe, if they still had the mark, because the mark would be much stronger, and therefore imports cheaper. And if Greece reverted to their original currency, logic says that they would have a much smaller share of Apple than they currently do.
As it is, Germany is effectively subsidising Greece, which distorts the market to a dangerous degree.
Aside from not taking into account many, many other factors, that doesn't answer my question at all. Why is it any more absurd than using the dollar across the USA, where there is also disparity in the purchasing power of the same dollar in different areas.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/national/breaking-down-the-dollars-value-across-the-united-states
Because the USA is nothing like Europe.
Really? It doesn't have a single currency? It doesn't have similar inequalities? It doesn't span a huge geography? It doesn't have a single central bank, monetary policy, and minting authority (by Europe, I'm taking you to mean the Eurozone since we're talking about the Euro)?
What are the differences that create such a compelling difference between the euro in the Eurozone, and the dollar in the USA that one might be considered "dangerous" (your words) and the other not?
The differences between the different countries of Europe, both in the EU and outside, are much greater than the states of America.
They are much more different politically, economically, geographically, geopolitically and in relation the rest of the world. Europe is made up of many very different cultures that don't blend well as a homogenous fiscal unit, which is why Europe has been such a political and economic disaster for the past twenty years.
You don't think Utah is different from California and New Jersey politically? You don't think there are economic disparities between Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the cotton fields? You don't think there are a melting pot of cultures in the USA that don't always blend well, like in Missouri right now? You don't think the USA, from Alaska to Nevada to the Great Lakes to Florida, is geographically diverse?!?!
The USA doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. Hell, my household doesn't blend well into a homogenous fiscal unit. That's why it's a good idea to form a fiscal unit, it smooths off the edges, it allows Germany to subsidise Greece while they sort themselves out instead of falling through the floor. Free movement of labour and capital around the Eurozone means overall it works.
Just like in the USA, which once upon a time had a number of different dollars, until they started falling apart and they found more strength in unity and cooperative support.
Why should Germany bail out Greece? It's completely unfair. The two countries have quite different work ethics, not to mention levels of affluence. As such, it has created huge resentment, quite reasonably.
There's a good reason why the UK is likely going to leave the EU; because the EU is hopelessly corrupt and has taken advantage of the upstanding Brits.
Why should Bavaria, the industrial powerhouse and economic marvel of Germany, support the relatives laggard Eastern states of Saxony or MV?
Why should London, a pre-eminent global city, be held back by bumpkins from the West Country, or the depressed North?
Why should I, a rich and hardworking man, have to share the world with all these poor lazy men?
Alternatively, and away from this tangent of subsidisation and economic elitism, Greece has problems, and it is suffering for them. Complete currency collapse would make things worse and bring a lot of misery to a lot of people who played no part in the countries economic woes. Germany knows this pain better than most from their hyperinflation in the 20s. Currency union staves off that one fear.
"Upstanding Brits" my eye. There's more corruption in the City Of London than in a hundred Brussels and Strasbourgs put together.
Yes, it's basically because they're poor.
I've seen charts before detailing iOS marketshare, and it's pretty easy to see that in many cases, the poorer the country, the lower the marketshare for iOS.
Actually the median wealth in Spain is about 50% higher than in the US. The median wealth in Italy and France is about 200% higher than in the US. Mr Average in Spain, France, and Italy has a lot more disposable income than in the US.
While many of the top 1% in terms of wealth live in the US, the standard of living int the US is one of the lowest in the developed world. China is the only country in the table that has a lower standard of living than the US.
People in Italy, Spain, France and Germany are wealthier and better educated than their US counterparts, but simply choose Android above iOS
It is because apple provides good services and best technology first.
Latest new on Apple Patent Technology to prevent cracked screen
You're making a causal relation that doesn't exist.
The main reason iOS is much more popular in the States than Europe is simply because Apple products are much more expensive in Europe.
You're making a causal relation that doesn't exist.
The main reason iOS is much more popular in the States than Europe is simply because Apple products are much more expensive in Europe.
I am not making a causal relationship, simply dispelling the causal relationships made by Apple][ - "Yes, it's basically because they're poor" .
And iPhones are not 200% more expensive in Italy or France, while the median wealth in those countries is 200% more than the US.
Yes, it's basically because they're poor.
I've seen charts before detailing iOS marketshare, and it's pretty easy to see that in many cases, the poorer the country, the lower the marketshare for iOS.