Can Apple ever increase its market share?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Yeah, I know many on the Mac forums will be ecstatic when Apple releases Powermacs with the 1.8gig IBM processor, but will it help Apple to increase its market share?



Unfortunately I don't think so as this portion of an article from MacWorld attests, consumers will not think a 1.8gig processor will compete with what will probably be a 3.6gig Intel P4, even if the Mac is close in speed.



Lets face it the consumer is used to clock speed to distinguish which is the fastest processor, I don't know if this will ever change.

----------------------------------------------



As part of its 10-K filing, Apple must outline factors that may affect the company's future results and financial condition. SEC regulations require Apple to outline just about any plausible circumstance where it might suffer adverse financial conditions. While Apple specified general economic conditions, the competitive nature of the personal computer marketplace, and myriad other factors, the company also noted an issue that has long been a sore spot for Mac enthusiasts and industry analysts familiar with Apple's products -- the clock speed deficit that its systems suffer compared to their Intel-based competitors.



"[Apple] believes that many of its current and potential customers believe that the relatively slower MHz rating or clock speed of the microprocessors it utilizes in its Macintosh systems compares unfavorably to those utilized by Windows-based systems and translates to slower overall system performance. There have been instances in recent years where the inability of the Company's suppliers to provide advanced G4 and G3 microprocessors with higher clock speeds in sufficient quantity has had significant adverse effects on the Company's results
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 85
    I couldnt be bothered reading your whole post. So I will just answer the post of this topic.





    No. I am sorry to say it but Apple Will probably never increase it's market share greatly. Yes it will increase slowly over the years but it wwill never increase so greatly that it will overtake the PC market.



    Just my .02
  • Reply 2 of 85
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Moving to General Discussion.
  • Reply 3 of 85
    I think with competent management and a business plan that isn?t as discredited as Reaganomics the sky is the limit for Apple, I am just worried that Apple will be destroyed before that can happen.



    Send Steve Jobs to look for life on Jupiter?s moons, send him as a peace envoy to the middle east, make him senator from Utah, I don?t care just get him and his merry band of idiots the hell away from Apple.



    Compare Apple today, to Apple in the early 80?s, the problems at Apple are all the fault on one man and he wears a black turtleneck,
  • Reply 4 of 85
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    Yes, if the price performance ratio improves.



    Either

    1) Price falls

    2) performance improves

    3) or both



  • Reply 5 of 85
    Marketing .... APPL sucks at it.



    Maybe I'm just too old (my god, i'm 34 already), but are these "switch" ads really a hit (besides Ellen) ?



    I don't have the answer, but they need to find some way to get the message out that clock speed doesn't matter (comparing Intel speed to PPC speed is like comparing KPH to MPH ... it just doesn't work).



    If they could get the (uneducated) masses to understand this, APPL might stand a chance ... after all, nobody eally argues that the product isn't superior, they just think that Intel performs better because it has a bigger number (mHtz).
  • Reply 6 of 85
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    perhaps apple will focus on this more when their top pro machine with two processors can beat a top pc machine with 1 processor
  • Reply 7 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>Compare Apple today, to Apple in the early 80?s, the problems at Apple are all the fault on one man and he wears a black turtleneck,</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Please be specific about what, in your expert view, is currently wrong with Apple that an entire management team change would solve?
  • Reply 8 of 85
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>perhaps apple will focus on this more when their top pro machine with two processors can beat a top pc machine with 1 processor</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Precisely. When you don't have the goods, you spin the focus on other issues. In this case, Apple is pushing the digital hub, ease of use and iapps.

    Given with what they've got, I don't think they're doing that bad of a job marketing. If they can ride out the storm and eventually catch up in processor speed, perhaps they can hit 5-10% market share someday.
  • Reply 9 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>perhaps apple will focus on this more when their top pro machine with two processors can beat a top pc machine with 1 processor</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That would be a great plan, unfortunetly that just isn't the case anymore. Even mid-range and even some low-end PC systems trash the DP 1.25ghz
  • Reply 10 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>



    Please be specific about what, in your expert view, is currently wrong with Apple that an entire management team change would solve?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple doesn't have a real management team, that is why the made the list of the worst corporate boards in America, there is Steve Jobs and his sycophants, who all follow Steves lead on everything.



    Marketshare is eroding as a whole, Dell is chasing Apple out of education and publishing with a pitchfork, pricing on most hardware is so far removed from reality as is much of the hardware regaurdless of price that they boarder on irrelivent.



    The problem with Apple today is the same as the problems of the early 80's, problems are mounting and rather than deal with the problems Steve Jobs ignores the problems and pretends they don't exist.



    In Steveo world, the iMac is the best selling computer in the world, the G4 is the fastest, Apple is synonomous with education and publishing and Dell is just some funky little upstart in Texas.



    Apple is becomming irrelivent in their core markets, and they are doing NOTHING to help the situation, if anything they are making it an awful lot worse.



    That is why the entire management team has to go, Steve Jobs has a Stalinist grip on the running of the company, and no one on the board isn't a personal friend of his. So no one will try to stop him.



    When Apple was in it's little death spiral, they had 7% to 11% marketshare, under Steveo they have gone to a little under 3% marketshare. They have gone from unshakable dominance in education and publishing to near irrelivence in both.



    Apple needs to be run by business men, not a bunch of people still recovering from all the drugs they used in the 60's. People who understand that high margins are only a good thing when you are actually moving a consiterable amount of merchandise and bad thing when you can barely sell any. Apple needs management that understands that their core customer bases are being eroded to bedrock and it will take more than iPods and cute computers to hang onto those customers.
  • Reply 11 of 85
    Sure they can increase their market share. Just release OS X for Intel CPUs

  • Reply 12 of 85
    Whew! First of all SOMEone needs to cut back on teh caffeine.



    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    Apple doesn't have a real management team, that is why the made the list of the worst corporate boards in America, there is Steve Jobs and his sycophants, who all follow Steves lead on everything.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is true that their board was voted one of the worst. But this was an opinion offered by Business Week. An educated opinion, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless. Secondly this did not speak directly to the management team (those responsible for day to day management).





    [quote]<strong>

    Marketshare is eroding as a whole, Dell is chasing Apple out of education and publishing with a pitchfork, pricing on most hardware is so far removed from reality as is much of the hardware regaurdless of price that they boarder on irrelivent.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is true, and a problem to be addressed. However, Apple is also navigating a significant transitional period with the move to OS X. In fact, in some ways, one might consider Apple to be a "start-up" company. I suspect the "new Apple" will look markedly different than the old Apple.



    [quote]<strong>

    The problem with Apple today is the same as the problems of the early 80's, problems are mounting and rather than deal with the problems Steve Jobs ignores the problems and pretends they don't exist.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    And what are those problems. Rather than spouting this general statement, please be specific.



    [quote]<strong>

    In Steveo world, the iMac is the best selling computer in the world, the G4 is the fastest, Apple is synonomous with education and publishing and Dell is just some funky little upstart in Texas.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I can't argue with you here...since I am unable to read "Steveo's" mind.





    [quote]<strong>

    Apple is becomming irrelivent in their core markets, and they are doing NOTHING to help the situation, if anything they are making it an awful lot worse.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    How are they "making it an awful lot worse" exactly? Haven't they produced a MUCH improved operating system with solid, secure, modern underpinnings? Haven't they continued to produce hardware that will run this OS?





    [quote]<strong>

    That is why the entire management team has to go, Steve Jobs has a Stalinist grip on the running of the company, and no one on the board isn't a personal friend of his. So no one will try to stop him.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Again, unlike you, I am not privy to the inner circle of Apple Computer and unable to debate this point of Steve Jobs' "Stalinist grip".





    [quote]<strong>

    When Apple was in it's little death spiral, they had 7% to 11% marketshare, under Steveo they have gone to a little under 3% marketshare. They have gone from unshakable dominance in education and publishing to near irrelivence in both.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The fact is that this downward spiral began BEFORE Steve's return to Apple. In fact, after Steve returned: For the full year, Apple earned $309m, compared to a loss of nearly $1.05bn, the previous year.



    Additionally, we need to be careful when throwing around percentages (repeated by the press). For example, one article points out that:



    Apple's percentage of computers in use (installed base) is much higher than its current market share (Apple puts it at around 5%). Doesn't it sound better to say there are 25 million Macs out in the world instead of saying Apple has a 3% market share?



    The market share often quoted is the "current sales share" (a better phrase, in my opinion). And then there is the "install base share" (which is the number referenced above).



    Then there is this (http://www.spymac.com/comments.php?id=P215_0_5_0_C) thoughtful article suggesting an even higher number (for the "install base share") of almost 12%!



    Here is another thoughtful article on this subject: <a href="http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/01/06/15/"; target="_blank">http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/01/06/15/</a>;



    Finally, there is this snippet (from last spring):



    IDC's latest research shows that Apple has gained a small amount of market share in the United States. For the current quarter, Apple is in sixth place and has gained 0.4 points, bringing it up to 3.48%. This is a 0.25 point increase from last year.



    Apple has 2.4% and is in ninth place around the world.



    The most interesting point being that Apple is within the TOP TEN computer sellers worldwide.





    [quote]<strong>

    Apple needs to be run by business men, not a bunch of people still recovering from all the drugs they used in the 60's. People who understand that high margins are only a good thing when you are actually moving a consiterable amount of merchandise and bad thing when you can barely sell any. Apple needs management that understands that their core customer bases are being eroded to bedrock and it will take more than iPods and cute computers to hang onto those customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I suppose that "consiterable [sic] amount of merchandise" is a matter of perspective. Apple sells 3-4 MILLION computers a year.



    Furthermore, I often here people claim that Apple needs to cut their margins, yet still want all of the same benefits that Apple delivers in their products. These same people will also complain when Apple starts bleeding money like it did BEFORE Steve Jobs and the current management team came into being.





    Now, I am concerned about some things with Apple too. Specifically the following:



    1. Marketing



    I would like to see Apple do a better job of communicating the benefits and features of its products.





    2. Technology



    Clearly Apple needs to deal in world where MHz/GHz apparently are the key path to manhood. Whether this is useful or not has been debated endlessly. But they must offer SOME kind of answer to this the customer base.





    3. Diversification



    I'd like to see an "elightened" Apple that thinks of itself as something more than simply a compouter company (and not just a software company either). I think iPod is a step in this direction. I think Apple has the skills and experience that can be brought to bear in a number of product categories. They have proven this with iPod.





    But that said, Apple computer is a PROFITABLE company. While this past year (and probably the year ahead) will be difficult...they have been (and will be) for many companies in this business. Shareholders want PROFIT (and yes they want growth too).



    Steve and his team did turn Apple around from its death spiral and have worked to re-invent Apple in some fashion. Whether this re-invention will work is yet to be judged.



    Apple is NOT Dell (and Dell is NOT Apple). The comparison is unfair (to BOTH of them, quite frankly).



    It is commonly agreed that Apple will probably always be a niche player. The real question is how big does the niche have to be for them to survive well?
  • Reply 13 of 85
    jccbinjccbin Posts: 476member
    Remember econ 101?



    The number of units sold is DIRECTLY related to the perceived value at a given price.







    To significantly increase the number of units sold (the only way to increase marketshare UNLESS the industry collapses), you have to lower prices and improve the perceived value.



    Steve Jobs' biggest mistake in the 80's was that he believed that the Mac was so much better than everything else that it was worth the high price.

    "People will PAY for quality!" he allegedly said.



    Yes, they will pay for quality, but there is a big difference between paying for the quality of a Chevy Malibu and the quality of a Jaguar. Jobs chose to charge Jaguar prices for a Jaguar of computers and sold a limited amount of very profitable computers.



    Time goes by, Windows grows more mature, selling to the lowest common denominator user - MS practically gave away Windows to PC makers - all to gain marketshare. And, Windows was (and is) good enough for most people. They were happy with a less expensive OS.



    Jobs returns in 1997 and, within months, unveils the LEAST EXPENSIVE Macintosh ever: the iMac. It is a strong success, saving the company, motivating engineers, improving morale, etc, and bringing in modest profits.



    Over time the iMac price drops modifications are made, more units are sold, UNTIL the machine is seen as out-of-date, then numbers begin to drop precipitously. Here comes a new, flat-panel iMac.



    But it doesn't sell as well. The original imac entered the market at a price point just slightly above the PC-level for its competitors. The flat-panel iMac is sometimes twice the price of it's competitors (Dell has a flat panel for $799).



    Even if the FP iMac is a nice machine, the MARKET has placed the entry price for consumer computers between 600-800 dollars, well below the price of ANY Flat Panel iMac.







    Apple's prices limit the number of units they can sell. They NOW cannot significantly improve their marketshare without lowering prices.



    They had hoped that the added value of the iApps, Mac OS X, and the internal advantages would help, but they don't, not very much.



    Buying a computer is more like buying a house, psychologically, than like buying a car.



    Having a good roof, working appliances and the like is EXPECTED when pricing a house. If you don't have those things, you can deduct from the value, but the you can NEVER add to the value just because everything works like it should.



    Mac OS X and the iApps do what they should do, nothing more. In the eyes of Windows users, they are just different, like a Mansion is different from a trailer. If you can only afford a trailer, looking at a Mansion is useless.



    [ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by jccbin:

    <strong>Remember econ 101?



    The number of units sold is DIRECTLY related to the perceived value at a given price.







    To significantly increase the number of units sold (the only way to increase marketshare UNLESS the industry collapses), you have to lower prices and improve the perceived value.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You can do either or both, but you do not necessarily HAVE to do BOTH.



    [quote]<strong>

    Steve Jobs' biggest mistake in the 80's was that he believed that the Mac was so much better than everything else that it was worth the high price.

    "People will PAY for quality!" he allegedly said.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Couple of points on this. As I have read about the history of this. Steve originally wanted a price of $1995 for the Mac. Sculley pushed for $2495. Component costs also played a factor as I understand it.



    Finally, Jobs was gone from Apple by the end of 1985.





    [quote]<strong>The flat-panel iMac is sometimes twice the price of it's competitors (Dell has a flat panel for $799).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple's lowest price FP iMac is $1199. A nearly equivalently configured Dell Dimension 2350 is $859. I don't know if the graphics chip set is as good. The Apple has 10 more GB of disk space, the Dell has a 2GHz Celeron.



    I also don't know how Windows XP Home (vs. Profressional) compares to OS X. If Professional is more appropriate, add $60. Point here is that the price is not 2X (as your statement implies).



    Finally, for the $340 less (from Dell) you have to consider the value of the all-in-one design. This is valuable for some (me...I HATE cables and clutter). And running Mac OS X vs. Windows. In this example is Apple worth $340 MORE? For some it will be. I'd like to see Apple get a little closer, but I don't think they need to be equal.





    [quote]<strong>

    Apple's prices limit the number of units they can sell. They NOW cannot significantly improve their marketshare without lowering prices.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your statement contains two assumptions:



    1. Price is the ONLY thing keeping people from buying Macs, all otehr things being equal.



    2. Apple will not lose money at the lower prices.



    Not necessarily valid assumptions.





    [quote]<strong>

    Having a good roof, working appliances and the like is EXPECTED when pricing a house. If you don't have those things, you can deduct from the value, but the you can NEVER add to the value just because everything works like it should.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Given this argument, almost NO ONE would buy a PC!



    [ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Chris Cuilla ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 85
    I wonder what Matsu thinks about all of this....
  • Reply 16 of 85
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    You know, I know, Steve knows, everybody knows. Thanks.



    Price. Value. Cost. Variations on a theme. In the end prices have to come down for a number of reasons.
  • Reply 17 of 85
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Apple is pretty much doomed. They are letting their advantages disappear and there is no way anyone is going to let them back in this time around.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 85
    strange thread; i get the feeling i've been reading the betamax user group hot discussion about the threat of vhs.



    i think most posts on this thread have missed the point. it's not about processor speed or (to a large extent) price, as far as i see the big brutal world out there, it is predominantly to do with peer conformity. for anyone new to computers to step out of the norm against the advice offered by peers who (most commonly) use wintel and buy a mac is a brave and perceptually foolish move.



    it's us (you!), who have the brain cells to question and autonomously assess the value of hardware or processor speed or blah blah, that buy macs.



    apple is there (thankfully) to offer a viable alternative to the one horse race and keep the wintel hegemony from becoming a standard. they (apple) fulfill a market for us as well as newcomers to computers and people who have thought to themselves 'there must be an alternative to the pain that this ****ing peecee is giving me' by offering superior software on superior hardware.



    as a side issue, does anyone here still use betamax?
  • Reply 19 of 85
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>I think with competent management and a business plan that isn?t as discredited as Reaganomics the sky is the limit for Apple, I am just worried that Apple will be destroyed before that can happen.



    Send Steve Jobs to look for life on Jupiter?s moons, send him as a peace envoy to the middle east, make him senator from Utah, I don?t care just get him and his merry band of idiots the hell away from Apple.



    Compare Apple today, to Apple in the early 80?s, the problems at Apple are all the fault on one man and he wears a black turtleneck,</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, I see the same pattern forming. Jobs is a smart guy but not a very smart businessman. He really doesn't care what his customers actually want, only what he believes they should want.



    Apple will always remain a niche player until they come out with an inexpensive tower! Such a simple thing to build and Apple refuses to do it. It doesn't have to be a $600 POS. It can cost $899 and folks would buy it because of the OS and Apples rep for making sturdy products.



    Apple needs to focus their marketing efforts on OSX and its superiority. They can't keep making new more interesting hardware to get slow sales going, they need to focus on their main asset-the OS. People still prefer a tower with uogradeability more than an all in one. Just make the damn consumer tower already!.............................
  • Reply 20 of 85
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>



    Yes, I see the same pattern forming. Jobs is a smart guy but not a very smart businessman. He really doesn't care what his customers actually want, only what he believes they should want.



    Apple will always remain a niche player until they come out with an inexpensive tower! Such a simple thing to build and Apple refuses to do it. It doesn't have to be a $600 POS. It can cost $899 and folks would buy it because of the OS and Apples rep for making sturdy products.



    Apple needs to focus their marketing efforts on OSX and its superiority. They can't keep making new more interesting hardware to get slow sales going, they need to focus on their main asset-the OS. People still prefer a tower with uogradeability more than an all in one. Just make the damn consumer tower already!.............................</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Gosh people have been begging, clamoring, screaming, hoping for this so long.



    I remember the number of,"I've got the card ready please let it be true" responses from before the Cube was announced.



    Talk about mass disappointment... people praying for an inexpensive minitower (or cube as it was) where they could simply do what PC owners do: Upgrade graphic cards, processors, hd's and so forth without a ton of trouble.



    People have been begging Apple for this forever and it doesn't fit in Steve's little box of the Mac universe.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.