Apple's MacBook business grew 39% in the September quarter

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple's Mac notebook segment grew 39% year-over-year in the third quarter of 2020 amid similar increases across the industry, according to new data from Strategy Analytics.

Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider


The company maintained its spot as the fourth-largest manufacturer of notebook computers during the period, shipping a total of six million macOS devices from July through September. That period corresponds with Apple's fourth quarter.

Apple's 39% growth is in line with the trend across the notebook industry. Between the top five notebook manufacturers globally, the total rate of year-over-year growth during Q3 2020 was 34%, Strategy Analytics reported.

Credit: Strategy Analytics
Credit: Strategy Analytics


HP saw the highest rate of growth during the third quarter with a 43% increase year-over-year, which allowed it to edge out Lenovo and become the number-one notebook vendor. Lenovo, Dell, Apple, and Acer filled out the rest of the top five, in that order.

Apple maintained 9.7% of the total notebook market share during Q3 2020, up from 9.3% the previous year. HP and Lenovo both tied for first with 23.6%, while Dell came in before Apple with 13.7%. In total, HP shipped about 14.7 million units during Q3 2020, Lenovo shipped 14.6 million, Dell shipped 8.5 million, and Acer shipped 4.9 million.

Growth during the third quarter was largely driven by new work-from-home and remote education trends during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. During the period, vendors were actually constrained by supply issues because of the record-breaking demand.

Credit: Strategy Analytics
Credit: Strategy Analytics


"The third quarter would have been even more productive for some vendors if they were able to deliver more devices to meet high demand. Supply will remain a key concern as demand is expected to stay high... consumers have started their purchases before the holiday season to prepare for the new 'normal' of working and studying from home," said Chirag Upadhyay, a senior research analyst at Strategy Analytics.

During its Oct. 29 earnings call, Apple reported record-smashing revenue of $9 billion for the Mac during the September quarter, up 29% year-over-year. Apple CEO Tim Cook did admit that the company was seeing supply constraints across its products, including in the Mac segment.

In November, Apple unveiled a new lineup of Apple Silicon Mac devices equipped with the first-generation M1 chip. Those models are shipping out to customers as of the week of Nov. 16.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    XedXed Posts: 1,184member
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. 📈
    Beatstmaywatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 21
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,858member
    De facto corporate purchasing. Nothing to be gained from this info.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,698member
    mcdave said:
    De facto corporate purchasing. Nothing to be gained from this info.
    Oh so these sales don’t count?
    ronn
  • Reply 4 of 21
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. 📈
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 5 of 21
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. 📈
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    tmayronnwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 6 of 21
    XedXed Posts: 1,184member
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. 📈
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    That’s right, you claimed that the processors would cost Apple more. They don’t, as we see either lower or the same price point with other improved features with much improved performers and power efficiency (as I predicted).

    Core i3 with 8 GiB RAM. LOL I can’t believe that’s still your line in the sand on where could hit on performance despite plenty of proof showing you the superiority of the M-series SoC.

    A huge story for every Apple customer, Apple shareholders, for Intel, and the WinPC market as a whole. You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers is neither something I understand or willing to fix. Instead I’ll let you wallow in your misery as you ramp up your trolling.
    tmayronnwatto_cobraDetnatorjony0
  • Reply 7 of 21
    Beats said:
    mcdave said:
    De facto corporate purchasing. Nothing to be gained from this info.
    Oh so these sales don’t count?
    You and I agree. I must re-evaluate my life. But this fellow's thesis has flaws:

    1. Corporations buy Macs too. In fact, journalism, Hollywood and similar creative industries rely on them exclusively. Companies - and divisions thereof - that develop iPhone and iPad apps to also. 

    2. That would make corporate purchasing is responsible for the ChromeOS 16% market share too right? Yeah ... try again.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    larryjw said:
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Increasing but a small number percentagewise. The other stuff you were stating isn't relevant to the argument, which was the number of Mac sales were going to explode due to Apple making their own chips.
  • Reply 9 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,559member
    cloudguy said:
    larryjw said:
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Increasing but a small number percentagewise. The other stuff you were stating isn't relevant to the argument, which was the number of Mac sales were going to explode due to Apple making their own chips.
    I only found out that you belong to "The Church of Marketshare" about a week ago.

    Me, I belong to the "Church of the Wonderful User Experience", but I'm also a member of the "Church of Margins and Profitability". 

    I"m not too worried about your prostelytizing, but I'm thinking that you come off looking like the "Reverend GasBagGuy", as seen on youtube.

    What, there isn't a "Reverend GasBagGuy" on youtube?

    That's a huge financial opportunity awaiting you!


    Rayz2016ronnmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 10 of 21
    Xed said:
    That’s right, you claimed that the processors would cost Apple more. They don’t, as we see either lower or the same price point with other improved features with much improved performers and power efficiency (as I predicted).

    Core i3 with 8 GiB RAM. LOL I can’t believe that’s still your line in the sand on where could hit on performance despite plenty of proof showing you the superiority of the M-series SoC.

    A huge story for every Apple customer, Apple shareholders, for Intel, and the WinPC market as a whole. You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers is neither something I understand or willing to fix. Instead I’ll let you wallow in your misery as you ramp up your trolling.
    They don't cost more? Are you sure? Because it seems to me that Apple had the same price for the $999 MacBook Air Mac Mini despite taking a bunch of other components out and integrating them into M1

    A huge story for Apple customers and shareholders? Obviously. For everyone else? Not so much ...

    You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers  ...

    No. It is great for Mac fans! But for the 92-95% of people in any given quarter who do not buy Macs not so much. 

    "or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers"

    Yeah, if you think that there is going to be this stampede from Windows laptop owners to pay $999 for MacBooks for the privilege of running iPad apps - on a non touchscreen UX/UI no less! - instead of better, more powerful x86 applications that are actually built for personal computers and not mobile devices then you really don't know people who actually own and use Windows laptops very well? I suppose rather than maybe changing your social and professional circles then that is something that you might want to understand or be willing to fix. 

    Look, I have seen this site's archives. I have also been on other Apple-centric sites. It is always the same thing: declarations that with each new Apple advance, the competition (whether Android or Windows) is going to dry up and blow away. Why? The presumption is that everyone else loves Apple products as much as you do and all they need is something, some push or incentive or anything to liberate them from the misery that they are wallowing in and join the happy existence of Apple users.

    What folks like this never realize is that Windows (and Android) users are happy already. They like their products. They like using them. They have the same anticipation towards buying new ones that you do. They even have the benefit of something that you don't, which is OEMs with great R&D departments that compete against each other for their attention and dollar. And Apple fans fundamentally misunderstand them.

    For example: you folks love to say "Windows and Android devices are cheaper than Apple devices upfront ... but you are not considering the total cost of ownership ... Apple devices are more reliable because they last 5-7 years or more."

    Makes perfect sense, right? TO YOU. But they are not you.

    Windows fan: who wants to wait 7 years to replace my laptop? I like replacing my laptop every 3 years so I can get the latest Threadripper from AMD and really be able to play the latest Steam games!

    Android fan: hold onto a smartphone for 5 years? LG/Samsung/Pixel/Huawei/Motorola etc. etc. etc. come out with cool new features every year! And you only need to spend $200 on the latest decent Android phone to get them!

    Sorry, but Apple was only able to dominate the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet and smartwatch markets because there were no established products by large well known companies in them prior. You had Blackberry, Android Wear and a bunch of other stuff even more obscure. But Apple has never been able to achieve the sort of mass migration from one established product or platform to another that you are talking about. The closest that we have seen to that is the AirPod. The reason: you need to give people a compelling incentive or reason to switch. Meaning that you need to give people a reason to give up a successful product that they already fundamentally like for a product that they like better.

    Android - for example - accomplished that by offering the combination of much bigger screens and substantially lower prices. 
    What doesn't accomplish that is to have people pay more money for machines to run software that they don't use and/or have no interest in faster.

    "Hey Billy, put down that $750 gaming PC and buy this $1000 MacBook Air instead."

    "Can I play Rocket League on it"?

    "No but Apple design the CPU!"

    "Can I play The Division on it"?

    "No, but you won't get viruses and it doesn't have a fan!" 

    "Can I at least get my copy of Windows going in VirtualBox on it so I can use the programs that I need for work on it?"

    "No but it runs a ton of iPhone and iPad apps that your job absolutely doesn't use! And you can use Continuity to hand off from your iPad and iPhone to your Mac!"

    "All right fine but can I dual boot, upgrade the RAM or add an eGPU?"

    "No but you will be able to use it for 5 years and still sell it for $500!"

    See above. You have failed to explain how switching from Windows to macOS makes his life better. Instead, you are making the case why he should completely change his computing use case - the reasons why he buys his computers in the first place, which is to game and to use software that his job requires - around becoming a consumer of Apple hardware. Please realize that nearly no one is going to do that no matter how fast Macs are.

    Now note that I did say nearly. You do have some people who want and need the most powerful machine they can get their hands on without having to deal with the difficulty or expense of an actual workstation or server and don't need much in the way of consumer facing or workspace specific software. For those people - developers are a great example of this, although not right now as a lot of the software and tools that they need aren't on the M1 Macs, can't be translated with Rosetta 2 (or don't want them to be for performance reasons) and won't be for awhile yet - the M1 Macs as well as Macs with the even better chips that Apple will release starting next year will be great. The problem is that there aren't very many such people. I will say it again: the number of people who actually need a chip faster than an Intel Core i5 or i7 and who won't be convenienced by giving up their Windows software isn't very big.

    Just do the whole Venn diagram thing ... most people who want a faster chip than the i7 also want/need to hold onto their Windows software. Most people who have no real ties to Windows software don't want/need fast performance in the first place. And - this will really get you - most people who need the fastest performance they can get and don't need Windows software are so because they are in the creative industries and as a result have Macs already!

    So yeah, I am trolling you I guess. But this "troll" has actual experience working with macOS (and its predecessors), iOS, Windows (and its predecessors MS-DOS and IBM PC-DOS), Linux, various mainframes, Android and ChromeOS. And being around a bunch of coworkers, students etc. who have the same. My guess is ... you don't? So, my trolling comes from the perspective of the 95% (give or take depending upon the product) of people who don't exclusively use Apple products and actually likes the non-Apple products that we do use and likes them a lot. And that is a perspective that you do not have. I repeat: if you think that there is this whole sea of people out there who hate Wintel or love Apple as much as you do and are just itching and dying to switch, you need to first ask yourself why they haven't jumped ship already. If they hated Windows that badly, they could have switched to macOS at any time. Since they didn't ... shouldn't you presume that they don't hate Windows at all then? 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 11 of 21
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    That’s right, you claimed that the processors would cost Apple more. They don’t, as we see either lower or the same price point with other improved features with much improved performers and power efficiency (as I predicted).

    Core i3 with 8 GiB RAM. LOL I can’t believe that’s still your line in the sand on where could hit on performance despite plenty of proof showing you the superiority of the M-series SoC.

    A huge story for every Apple customer, Apple shareholders, for Intel, and the WinPC market as a whole. You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers is neither something I understand or willing to fix. Instead I’ll let you wallow in your misery as you ramp up your trolling.
    They don't cost more? Are you sure? Because it seems to me that Apple had the same price for the $999 MacBook Air Mac Mini despite taking a bunch of other components out and integrating them into M1

    A huge story for Apple customers and shareholders? Obviously. For everyone else? Not so much ...

    You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers  ...

    No. It is great for Mac fans! But for the 92-95% of people in any given quarter who do not buy Macs not so much. 

    "or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers"

    Yeah, if you think that there is going to be this stampede from Windows laptop owners to pay $999 for MacBooks for the privilege of running iPad apps - on a non touchscreen UX/UI no less! - instead of better, more powerful x86 applications that are actually built for personal computers and not mobile devices then you really don't know people who actually own and use Windows laptops very well? I suppose rather than maybe changing your social and professional circles then that is something that you might want to understand or be willing to fix. 

    Look, I have seen this site's archives. I have also been on other Apple-centric sites. It is always the same thing: declarations that with each new Apple advance, the competition (whether Android or Windows) is going to dry up and blow away. Why? The presumption is that everyone else loves Apple products as much as you do and all they need is something, some push or incentive or anything to liberate them from the misery that they are wallowing in and join the happy existence of Apple users.

    What folks like this never realize is that Windows (and Android) users are happy already. They like their products. They like using them. They have the same anticipation towards buying new ones that you do. They even have the benefit of something that you don't, which is OEMs with great R&D departments that compete against each other for their attention and dollar. And Apple fans fundamentally misunderstand them.

    For example: you folks love to say "Windows and Android devices are cheaper than Apple devices upfront ... but you are not considering the total cost of ownership ... Apple devices are more reliable because they last 5-7 years or more."

    Makes perfect sense, right? TO YOU. But they are not you.

    Windows fan: who wants to wait 7 years to replace my laptop? I like replacing my laptop every 3 years so I can get the latest Threadripper from AMD and really be able to play the latest Steam games!

    Android fan: hold onto a smartphone for 5 years? LG/Samsung/Pixel/Huawei/Motorola etc. etc. etc. come out with cool new features every year! And you only need to spend $200 on the latest decent Android phone to get them!

    Sorry, but Apple was only able to dominate the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet and smartwatch markets because there were no established products by large well known companies in them prior. You had Blackberry, Android Wear and a bunch of other stuff even more obscure. But Apple has never been able to achieve the sort of mass migration from one established product or platform to another that you are talking about. The closest that we have seen to that is the AirPod. The reason: you need to give people a compelling incentive or reason to switch. Meaning that you need to give people a reason to give up a successful product that they already fundamentally like for a product that they like better.

    Android - for example - accomplished that by offering the combination of much bigger screens and substantially lower prices. 
    What doesn't accomplish that is to have people pay more money for machines to run software that they don't use and/or have no interest in faster.

    "Hey Billy, put down that $750 gaming PC and buy this $1000 MacBook Air instead."

    "Can I play Rocket League on it"?

    "No but Apple design the CPU!"

    "Can I play The Division on it"?

    "No, but you won't get viruses and it doesn't have a fan!" 

    "Can I at least get my copy of Windows going in VirtualBox on it so I can use the programs that I need for work on it?"

    "No but it runs a ton of iPhone and iPad apps that your job absolutely doesn't use! And you can use Continuity to hand off from your iPad and iPhone to your Mac!"

    "All right fine but can I dual boot, upgrade the RAM or add an eGPU?"

    "No but you will be able to use it for 5 years and still sell it for $500!"

    See above. You have failed to explain how switching from Windows to macOS makes his life better. Instead, you are making the case why he should completely change his computing use case - the reasons why he buys his computers in the first place, which is to game and to use software that his job requires - around becoming a consumer of Apple hardware. Please realize that nearly no one is going to do that no matter how fast Macs are.

    Now note that I did say nearly. You do have some people who want and need the most powerful machine they can get their hands on without having to deal with the difficulty or expense of an actual workstation or server and don't need much in the way of consumer facing or workspace specific software. For those people - developers are a great example of this, although not right now as a lot of the software and tools that they need aren't on the M1 Macs, can't be translated with Rosetta 2 (or don't want them to be for performance reasons) and won't be for awhile yet - the M1 Macs as well as Macs with the even better chips that Apple will release starting next year will be great. The problem is that there aren't very many such people. I will say it again: the number of people who actually need a chip faster than an Intel Core i5 or i7 and who won't be convenienced by giving up their Windows software isn't very big.

    Just do the whole Venn diagram thing ... most people who want a faster chip than the i7 also want/need to hold onto their Windows software. Most people who have no real ties to Windows software don't want/need fast performance in the first place. And - this will really get you - most people who need the fastest performance they can get and don't need Windows software are so because they are in the creative industries and as a result have Macs already!

    So yeah, I am trolling you I guess. But this "troll" has actual experience working with macOS (and its predecessors), iOS, Windows (and its predecessors MS-DOS and IBM PC-DOS), Linux, various mainframes, Android and ChromeOS. And being around a bunch of coworkers, students etc. who have the same. My guess is ... you don't? So, my trolling comes from the perspective of the 95% (give or take depending upon the product) of people who don't exclusively use Apple products and actually likes the non-Apple products that we do use and likes them a lot. And that is a perspective that you do not have. I repeat: if you think that there is this whole sea of people out there who hate Wintel or love Apple as much as you do and are just itching and dying to switch, you need to first ask yourself why they haven't jumped ship already. If they hated Windows that badly, they could have switched to macOS at any time. Since they didn't ... shouldn't you presume that they don't hate Windows at all then? 
    Odd that this reads as the same long-winded, 80s-think drivel as that LinuxPlatform chap. 
    tmaylkruppronnwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 12 of 21
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,555member
    larryjw said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. ߓ覬t;/div>
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Since half of Mac buyers are new to the Mac, why is it Apple's share isn't increasing exponentially? Half of Mac users being new to the Mac could also mean only half of current Mac users buy another Mac - which seems likely considering Apple's share isn't increasing. That also means just as many are switching to the Mac as are switching back to Windows. I have several friends who are switchers from Windows, but they don't want to pay $1100 for a computer that is just as functional for them as a $600 Windows PC, and so are switching back. I've tried to convince them to keep Macs, but it is a really hard sell. The fanboys here will say "well just get a PC then", and that is exactly the issue - too many Mac users are "just getting a PC" because they can't justify the price (and in some cases Apple's software decisions don't help). Plus, I hate saying this but it's true, Windows isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The gulf between macOS and Windows just isn't as wide as it used to be.

    The Mac share has been steady at around 6-7% since about 2013, after a climb when Macs were cheaper in the late Jobs/early Intel era - when you could get an iMac for £799 and a Macbook for £699, Mac Minis were just £399! They were all selling like hot cakes. It was glorious. The Mini is now £699, it was £799 until the M1 transition. Macs were cheaper than equivalently specced PCs, they were amazing value, but not so much now. And in any case as @Cloudguy said, the vast majority of people don't worry about the specs of their computer, they just know even the cheapest new one will be fast enough (except the low and mid-range 24" iMacs up until 2019  - as they were dog-slow as they still had a 5400RPM HDD in 2019 ffs). People will pay a £200 premium for a Mac, but they won't pay double.

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users. This ends up a vicious circle for anyone who uses their Mac with more than just Apple software: less users = less developers = people being more likely to need Windows for their work = less users (especially since Macs can no longer run Windows) and so on. In the mid 90's Apple had serious issues with lack of third party devs, a lot of software that was once had a Mac and Windows version became Windows only because it just wasn't worth the cost of producing the software for the few users that used macOS. 

    Apple doesn't need to have the Mac at all. Cook would be happy to axe it, I'm quite sure. It's just a sideline. Unfortunately that means they don't need to be competitive in any way, and right now, they really aren't.
    edited November 2020 avon b7
  • Reply 13 of 21
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,860member
    cloudguy said:
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    *yawn*
    bageljoeyronnwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 14 of 21
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    sflocal said:
    cloudguy said:
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    *yawn*
    Exactly.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 15 of 21
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    elijahg said:
    larryjw said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. ߓ覬t;/div>
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Since half of Mac buyers are new to the Mac, why is it Apple's share isn't increasing exponentially? Half of Mac users being new to the Mac could also mean only half of current Mac users buy another Mac - which seems likely considering Apple's share isn't increasing. That also means just as many are switching to the Mac as are switching back to Windows. I have several friends who are switchers from Windows, but they don't want to pay $1100 for a computer that is just as functional for them as a $600 Windows PC, and so are switching back. I've tried to convince them to keep Macs, but it is a really hard sell. The fanboys here will say "well just get a PC then", and that is exactly the issue - too many Mac users are "just getting a PC" because they can't justify the price (and in some cases Apple's software decisions don't help). Plus, I hate saying this but it's true, Windows isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The gulf between macOS and Windows just isn't as wide as it used to be.

    The Mac share has been steady at around 6-7% since about 2013, after a climb when Macs were cheaper in the late Jobs/early Intel era - when you could get an iMac for £799 and a Macbook for £699, Mac Minis were just £399! They were all selling like hot cakes. It was glorious. The Mini is now £699, it was £799 until the M1 transition. Macs were cheaper than equivalently specced PCs, they were amazing value, but not so much now. And in any case as @Cloudguy said, the vast majority of people don't worry about the specs of their computer, they just know even the cheapest new one will be fast enough (except the low and mid-range 24" iMacs up until 2019  - as they were dog-slow as they still had a 5400RPM HDD in 2019 ffs). People will pay a £200 premium for a Mac, but they won't pay double.

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users. This ends up a vicious circle for anyone who uses their Mac with more than just Apple software: less users = less developers = people being more likely to need Windows for their work = less users (especially since Macs can no longer run Windows) and so on. In the mid 90's Apple had serious issues with lack of third party devs, a lot of software that was once had a Mac and Windows version became Windows only because it just wasn't worth the cost of producing the software for the few users that used macOS. 

    Apple doesn't need to have the Mac at all. Cook would be happy to axe it, I'm quite sure. It's just a sideline. Unfortunately that means they don't need to be competitive in any way, and right now, they really aren't.
    Always nice to see the old 'marketshare' tropes making the rounds after each transitions. Kinda makes you nostalgic for the days when folk thought it was an important measure.

    Right, let's start from the beginning. 

    Market share is not a measure of how many computers from one company are in existence; it is simply the share of sales over a particular period of time in relation to other vendors. Apple's share figure won't increase exponentially because during the same period, other vendors will sell more machines. And this brings us to the other problem with relying on market share; it doesn't actually tell you which of the vendors is the most profitable. The reason that most vendors sell more machines than Apple is the same reason that Android outsells the iPhone – they're cheaper. 
    Now if you consider that these marketshare figures are largely based on machines in a price range  in which Apple does not complete, and that the market is made up of thousands of vendors (most of whom Apple outsells every quarter) then the real question is how they manage to score on the marketshare chart at all.

    But once you understand what the market share measure actually is, then you understand why the Apple's market share can shrink (the other 99.999% of PC vendors collectively sell more machines) while its installed base can continue to grow. Which leads us to your second mistake:

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users.

    Nope.

    The installed base is increasing, even if the percentage of sales they make every quarter does not. So the number of devs is increasing along with the user base. Devs aren't interested in the sales per quarter, they're interested in the total size of the user base for the product they've chosen to make, and though you try to dismiss it, they're even more interested in folk who're actually willing to pay money for that software. Apple has locked up the most profitable base of users on the planet, which is why Google is happy to pay through the nose for having their search engine show up first (and I suspect that this will be coming to an end in about two years), and this user base is increasing, and this is because Apple (who don't do anything first) looked at the mistakes that caused Microsoft's universal platform to crash and die, and went a different route.

    The tired marketshare arguments have been slowly dying because folk realised that sales in relation to unrelated products are a poor measure of viability. But analysts will keep focussing on them because that's what they understand. Techies will continue focussing on the speed of the ASi because that's what they understand. Both groups will fail to see the big picture, and unfortunately, you've done the same thing.

    You  can only see the Mac developers, but with access to a platform that scales from jewellery to servers, what you're actually looking at is Apple platform developers. And what these folk are slowly beginning to realise is that if they stick with ASi and the associated frameworks then they have access to the largest and most affluent user base of any platform, Windows included.

    ronntmaywatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 16 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,001member
    Rayz2016 said:

    elijahg said:
    larryjw said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. ߓ覬t;/div>
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Since half of Mac buyers are new to the Mac, why is it Apple's share isn't increasing exponentially? Half of Mac users being new to the Mac could also mean only half of current Mac users buy another Mac - which seems likely considering Apple's share isn't increasing. That also means just as many are switching to the Mac as are switching back to Windows. I have several friends who are switchers from Windows, but they don't want to pay $1100 for a computer that is just as functional for them as a $600 Windows PC, and so are switching back. I've tried to convince them to keep Macs, but it is a really hard sell. The fanboys here will say "well just get a PC then", and that is exactly the issue - too many Mac users are "just getting a PC" because they can't justify the price (and in some cases Apple's software decisions don't help). Plus, I hate saying this but it's true, Windows isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The gulf between macOS and Windows just isn't as wide as it used to be.

    The Mac share has been steady at around 6-7% since about 2013, after a climb when Macs were cheaper in the late Jobs/early Intel era - when you could get an iMac for £799 and a Macbook for £699, Mac Minis were just £399! They were all selling like hot cakes. It was glorious. The Mini is now £699, it was £799 until the M1 transition. Macs were cheaper than equivalently specced PCs, they were amazing value, but not so much now. And in any case as @Cloudguy said, the vast majority of people don't worry about the specs of their computer, they just know even the cheapest new one will be fast enough (except the low and mid-range 24" iMacs up until 2019  - as they were dog-slow as they still had a 5400RPM HDD in 2019 ffs). People will pay a £200 premium for a Mac, but they won't pay double.

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users. This ends up a vicious circle for anyone who uses their Mac with more than just Apple software: less users = less developers = people being more likely to need Windows for their work = less users (especially since Macs can no longer run Windows) and so on. In the mid 90's Apple had serious issues with lack of third party devs, a lot of software that was once had a Mac and Windows version became Windows only because it just wasn't worth the cost of producing the software for the few users that used macOS. 

    Apple doesn't need to have the Mac at all. Cook would be happy to axe it, I'm quite sure. It's just a sideline. Unfortunately that means they don't need to be competitive in any way, and right now, they really aren't.
    Always nice to see the old 'marketshare' tropes making the rounds after each transitions. Kinda makes you nostalgic for the days when folk thought it was an important measure.

    Right, let's start from the beginning. 

    Market share is not a measure of how many computers from one company are in existence; it is simply the share of sales over a particular period of time in relation to other vendors. Apple's share figure won't increase exponentially because during the same period, other vendors will sell more machines. And this brings us to the other problem with relying on market share; it doesn't actually tell you which of the vendors is the most profitable. The reason that most vendors sell more machines than Apple is the same reason that Android outsells the iPhone – they're cheaper. 
    Now if you consider that these marketshare figures are largely based on machines in a price range  in which Apple does not complete, and that the market is made up of thousands of vendors (most of whom Apple outsells every quarter) then the real question is how they manage to score on the marketshare chart at all.

    But once you understand what the market share measure actually is, then you understand why the Apple's market share can shrink (the other 99.999% of PC vendors collectively sell more machines) while its installed base can continue to grow. Which leads us to your second mistake:

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users.

    Nope.

    The installed base is increasing, even if the percentage of sales they make every quarter does not. So the number of devs is increasing along with the user base. Devs aren't interested in the sales per quarter, they're interested in the total size of the user base for the product they've chosen to make, and though you try to dismiss it, they're even more interested in folk who're actually willing to pay money for that software. Apple has locked up the most profitable base of users on the planet, which is why Google is happy to pay through the nose for having their search engine show up first (and I suspect that this will be coming to an end in about two years), and this user base is increasing, and this is because Apple (who don't do anything first) looked at the mistakes that caused Microsoft's universal platform to crash and die, and went a different route.

    The tired marketshare arguments have been slowly dying because folk realised that sales in relation to unrelated products are a poor measure of viability. But analysts will keep focussing on them because that's what they understand. Techies will continue focussing on the speed of the ASi because that's what they understand. Both groups will fail to see the big picture, and unfortunately, you've done the same thing.

    You  can only see the Mac developers, but with access to a platform that scales from jewellery to servers, what you're actually looking at is Apple platform developers. And what these folk are slowly beginning to realise is that if they stick with ASi and the associated frameworks then they have access to the largest and most affluent user base of any platform, Windows included.

    Has Apple ever defined its installed base numbers?

    It's something they have permanently up to date information on but I've never seen Apple explain what constitutes 'installed base'. 

    Maybe it's me. Let me know if you've ever seen it defined. 

    The reason is that I have have a fleet of Macs but only two are in 'daily' use. 

    The rest do start up and connect to Apple services in one way or another but very rarely. Also, they are not receiving updates in any way or using paid services.

    I suppose Apple could be including them in its installed base. 

    In the same way that 'unique visitors' to web pages are important so must be Apple IDs. 

    Has Apple ever revealed how many active AppleIDs there are? Or is that where the 'installed base' number comes from in the first place?


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,559member
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:

    elijahg said:
    larryjw said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. ߓ覬t;/div>
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Since half of Mac buyers are new to the Mac, why is it Apple's share isn't increasing exponentially? Half of Mac users being new to the Mac could also mean only half of current Mac users buy another Mac - which seems likely considering Apple's share isn't increasing. That also means just as many are switching to the Mac as are switching back to Windows. I have several friends who are switchers from Windows, but they don't want to pay $1100 for a computer that is just as functional for them as a $600 Windows PC, and so are switching back. I've tried to convince them to keep Macs, but it is a really hard sell. The fanboys here will say "well just get a PC then", and that is exactly the issue - too many Mac users are "just getting a PC" because they can't justify the price (and in some cases Apple's software decisions don't help). Plus, I hate saying this but it's true, Windows isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The gulf between macOS and Windows just isn't as wide as it used to be.

    The Mac share has been steady at around 6-7% since about 2013, after a climb when Macs were cheaper in the late Jobs/early Intel era - when you could get an iMac for £799 and a Macbook for £699, Mac Minis were just £399! They were all selling like hot cakes. It was glorious. The Mini is now £699, it was £799 until the M1 transition. Macs were cheaper than equivalently specced PCs, they were amazing value, but not so much now. And in any case as @Cloudguy said, the vast majority of people don't worry about the specs of their computer, they just know even the cheapest new one will be fast enough (except the low and mid-range 24" iMacs up until 2019  - as they were dog-slow as they still had a 5400RPM HDD in 2019 ffs). People will pay a £200 premium for a Mac, but they won't pay double.

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users. This ends up a vicious circle for anyone who uses their Mac with more than just Apple software: less users = less developers = people being more likely to need Windows for their work = less users (especially since Macs can no longer run Windows) and so on. In the mid 90's Apple had serious issues with lack of third party devs, a lot of software that was once had a Mac and Windows version became Windows only because it just wasn't worth the cost of producing the software for the few users that used macOS. 

    Apple doesn't need to have the Mac at all. Cook would be happy to axe it, I'm quite sure. It's just a sideline. Unfortunately that means they don't need to be competitive in any way, and right now, they really aren't.
    Always nice to see the old 'marketshare' tropes making the rounds after each transitions. Kinda makes you nostalgic for the days when folk thought it was an important measure.

    Right, let's start from the beginning. 

    Market share is not a measure of how many computers from one company are in existence; it is simply the share of sales over a particular period of time in relation to other vendors. Apple's share figure won't increase exponentially because during the same period, other vendors will sell more machines. And this brings us to the other problem with relying on market share; it doesn't actually tell you which of the vendors is the most profitable. The reason that most vendors sell more machines than Apple is the same reason that Android outsells the iPhone – they're cheaper. 
    Now if you consider that these marketshare figures are largely based on machines in a price range  in which Apple does not complete, and that the market is made up of thousands of vendors (most of whom Apple outsells every quarter) then the real question is how they manage to score on the marketshare chart at all.

    But once you understand what the market share measure actually is, then you understand why the Apple's market share can shrink (the other 99.999% of PC vendors collectively sell more machines) while its installed base can continue to grow. Which leads us to your second mistake:

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users.

    Nope.

    The installed base is increasing, even if the percentage of sales they make every quarter does not. So the number of devs is increasing along with the user base. Devs aren't interested in the sales per quarter, they're interested in the total size of the user base for the product they've chosen to make, and though you try to dismiss it, they're even more interested in folk who're actually willing to pay money for that software. Apple has locked up the most profitable base of users on the planet, which is why Google is happy to pay through the nose for having their search engine show up first (and I suspect that this will be coming to an end in about two years), and this user base is increasing, and this is because Apple (who don't do anything first) looked at the mistakes that caused Microsoft's universal platform to crash and die, and went a different route.

    The tired marketshare arguments have been slowly dying because folk realised that sales in relation to unrelated products are a poor measure of viability. But analysts will keep focussing on them because that's what they understand. Techies will continue focussing on the speed of the ASi because that's what they understand. Both groups will fail to see the big picture, and unfortunately, you've done the same thing.

    You  can only see the Mac developers, but with access to a platform that scales from jewellery to servers, what you're actually looking at is Apple platform developers. And what these folk are slowly beginning to realise is that if they stick with ASi and the associated frameworks then they have access to the largest and most affluent user base of any platform, Windows included.

    Has Apple ever defined its installed base numbers?

    It's something they have permanently up to date information on but I've never seen Apple explain what constitutes 'installed base'. 

    Maybe it's me. Let me know if you've ever seen it defined. 

    The reason is that I have have a fleet of Macs but only two are in 'daily' use. 

    The rest do start up and connect to Apple services in one way or another but very rarely. Also, they are not receiving updates in any way or using paid services.

    I suppose Apple could be including them in its installed base. 

    In the same way that 'unique visitors' to web pages are important so must be Apple IDs. 

    Has Apple ever revealed how many active AppleIDs there are? Or is that where the 'installed base' number comes from in the first place?


    iPhone base

    https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/10/26/a-billion-iphone-users

    "iPhone Installed Base

    While quarterly iPhone unit sales contain an inherent amount of volatility, installed base totals do a better job of monitoring iPhone fundamentals over the long run. The iPhone installed base is defined as the total number of people using an iPhone (both new and used iPhones). A shrinking iPhone installed base would raise a number of warning signs for Apple as it would suggest people have been switching to Android. A growing iPhone installed base would suggest Apple continues to see new users embrace the iPhone for the first time. 

    Two variables are needed to estimate and track the iPhone installed base:

    1. The number of people who purchase (and continue to use) a new iPhone from Apple or a third-party retailer.

    2. The number of people who are using an iPhone obtained via the gray market. These iPhones have either been passed down through families and friends or resold to new users via a web of retailers and distributors. 

    By combining the two groups, one is able to derive estimates for the total number of iPhones in the wild. Although Apple does not disclose this installed base figure on a quarterly basis, the company did mention that the iPhone installed base surpassed 900M devices by the end of FY1Q19. As shown in Exhibit 3, which displays my estimates for the Apple installed base over the years, the iPhone installed base has grown each year since launch and recently surpassed a billion people."


    Neil is a very respected analyst, and it you want the details of his base prediction model(s), unfortunately, you have to become a subscriber. I am not a subscriber.

    I'd argue that Apple is only counting active devices, that have connected to their servers within a certain period of time. iPhones that are deprecated are still able to use services.

    For the record, I have a dozen, more or less, deprecated devices that have connected to Apple in years, and I don't expect those to be counted. 

    The main point of all this is that Apple continues to see growth of the iPhone base, even as users have kept their iPhones longer between upgrades.

    I assume that Neil also has a model for Apple's Mac user baee, and I've seen a number around 100 million, and growing. The M1 might spur new users and upgrades, but that will be decided once the bulk of the large software houses like Adobe transition their apps. I'm interested in the M series tailored to the iMac, as I intend to transition my Windows 7 engineering apps over to the iMac, via Parallels, getting rid of some hulking Lenovo workstations "heating" my office, the benefits of 5 nm vs 32 nm Xeon Westmere technology.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    That’s right, you claimed that the processors would cost Apple more. They don’t, as we see either lower or the same price point with other improved features with much improved performers and power efficiency (as I predicted).

    Core i3 with 8 GiB RAM. LOL I can’t believe that’s still your line in the sand on where could hit on performance despite plenty of proof showing you the superiority of the M-series SoC.

    A huge story for every Apple customer, Apple shareholders, for Intel, and the WinPC market as a whole. You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers is neither something I understand or willing to fix. Instead I’ll let you wallow in your misery as you ramp up your trolling.
    They don't cost more? Are you sure? Because it seems to me that Apple had the same price for the $999 MacBook Air Mac Mini despite taking a bunch of other components out and integrating them into M1

    A huge story for Apple customers and shareholders? Obviously. For everyone else? Not so much ...

    You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers  ...

    No. It is great for Mac fans! But for the 92-95% of people in any given quarter who do not buy Macs not so much. 

    "or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers"

    Yeah, if you think that there is going to be this stampede from Windows laptop owners to pay $999 for MacBooks for the privilege of running iPad apps - on a non touchscreen UX/UI no less! - instead of better, more powerful x86 applications that are actually built for personal computers and not mobile devices then you really don't know people who actually own and use Windows laptops very well? I suppose rather than maybe changing your social and professional circles then that is something that you might want to understand or be willing to fix. 

    Look, I have seen this site's archives. I have also been on other Apple-centric sites. It is always the same thing: declarations that with each new Apple advance, the competition (whether Android or Windows) is going to dry up and blow away. Why? The presumption is that everyone else loves Apple products as much as you do and all they need is something, some push or incentive or anything to liberate them from the misery that they are wallowing in and join the happy existence of Apple users.

    What folks like this never realize is that Windows (and Android) users are happy already. They like their products. They like using them. They have the same anticipation towards buying new ones that you do. They even have the benefit of something that you don't, which is OEMs with great R&D departments that compete against each other for their attention and dollar. And Apple fans fundamentally misunderstand them.

    For example: you folks love to say "Windows and Android devices are cheaper than Apple devices upfront ... but you are not considering the total cost of ownership ... Apple devices are more reliable because they last 5-7 years or more."

    Makes perfect sense, right? TO YOU. But they are not you.

    Windows fan: who wants to wait 7 years to replace my laptop? I like replacing my laptop every 3 years so I can get the latest Threadripper from AMD and really be able to play the latest Steam games!

    Android fan: hold onto a smartphone for 5 years? LG/Samsung/Pixel/Huawei/Motorola etc. etc. etc. come out with cool new features every year! And you only need to spend $200 on the latest decent Android phone to get them!

    Sorry, but Apple was only able to dominate the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet and smartwatch markets because there were no established products by large well known companies in them prior. You had Blackberry, Android Wear and a bunch of other stuff even more obscure. But Apple has never been able to achieve the sort of mass migration from one established product or platform to another that you are talking about. The closest that we have seen to that is the AirPod. The reason: you need to give people a compelling incentive or reason to switch. Meaning that you need to give people a reason to give up a successful product that they already fundamentally like for a product that they like better.

    Android - for example - accomplished that by offering the combination of much bigger screens and substantially lower prices. 
    What doesn't accomplish that is to have people pay more money for machines to run software that they don't use and/or have no interest in faster.

    "Hey Billy, put down that $750 gaming PC and buy this $1000 MacBook Air instead."

    "Can I play Rocket League on it"?

    "No but Apple design the CPU!"

    "Can I play The Division on it"?

    "No, but you won't get viruses and it doesn't have a fan!" 

    "Can I at least get my copy of Windows going in VirtualBox on it so I can use the programs that I need for work on it?"

    "No but it runs a ton of iPhone and iPad apps that your job absolutely doesn't use! And you can use Continuity to hand off from your iPad and iPhone to your Mac!"

    "All right fine but can I dual boot, upgrade the RAM or add an eGPU?"

    "No but you will be able to use it for 5 years and still sell it for $500!"

    See above. You have failed to explain how switching from Windows to macOS makes his life better. Instead, you are making the case why he should completely change his computing use case - the reasons why he buys his computers in the first place, which is to game and to use software that his job requires - around becoming a consumer of Apple hardware. Please realize that nearly no one is going to do that no matter how fast Macs are.

    Now note that I did say nearly. You do have some people who want and need the most powerful machine they can get their hands on without having to deal with the difficulty or expense of an actual workstation or server and don't need much in the way of consumer facing or workspace specific software. For those people - developers are a great example of this, although not right now as a lot of the software and tools that they need aren't on the M1 Macs, can't be translated with Rosetta 2 (or don't want them to be for performance reasons) and won't be for awhile yet - the M1 Macs as well as Macs with the even better chips that Apple will release starting next year will be great. The problem is that there aren't very many such people. I will say it again: the number of people who actually need a chip faster than an Intel Core i5 or i7 and who won't be convenienced by giving up their Windows software isn't very big.

    Just do the whole Venn diagram thing ... most people who want a faster chip than the i7 also want/need to hold onto their Windows software. Most people who have no real ties to Windows software don't want/need fast performance in the first place. And - this will really get you - most people who need the fastest performance they can get and don't need Windows software are so because they are in the creative industries and as a result have Macs already!

    So yeah, I am trolling you I guess. But this "troll" has actual experience working with macOS (and its predecessors), iOS, Windows (and its predecessors MS-DOS and IBM PC-DOS), Linux, various mainframes, Android and ChromeOS. And being around a bunch of coworkers, students etc. who have the same. My guess is ... you don't? So, my trolling comes from the perspective of the 95% (give or take depending upon the product) of people who don't exclusively use Apple products and actually likes the non-Apple products that we do use and likes them a lot. And that is a perspective that you do not have. I repeat: if you think that there is this whole sea of people out there who hate Wintel or love Apple as much as you do and are just itching and dying to switch, you need to first ask yourself why they haven't jumped ship already. If they hated Windows that badly, they could have switched to macOS at any time. Since they didn't ... shouldn't you presume that they don't hate Windows at all then? 

    [At the time of writing this, I haven't read comments past the above post I'm quoting, so after posting this it'll be interesting to see what others have to say.  But want to post this before I read on and have my thoughts otherwise influenced.  So...]

    Y'know @cloudguy, sometimes on these forums (idk what you're like in real life so no assumptions there) you come across as an arrogant, obnoxious jerk, ;-) but sometimes you make some well thought out, well expressed and generally good points, and you've done so in this post.  You've given it a lot of thought and presented your explanation very clearly and logically.  For what it's worth I appreciate that.

    At the risk of pouring it on a little too thick (not my intention, just speaking my mind) in particular I appreciate and agree with your exposition of how different people have different priorities and your acknowledgement that Apple meets the priorities of some people really well and Windows etc. meet the priorities of the other people really well. It would serve many over the top Apple fans well to figure that out and get over themselves.

    All that said, I'd venture to say that I think sometimes you read more into some people's posts than is there.  I agree that plenty of Apple fans have this incorrect idea every time Apple comes out with some new thing that it'll finally be the thing that brings the mass switch.  I'm just not seeing how the posts you're responding to in this instance are claiming that. I just wonder if you're a little over the top on the defensive sometimes.  But feel free to ignore that opinion if you disagree.  Just a consideration.

    Now all that said… my opinions for what they're worth…

    I agree that very few people if any who are in the market for a $500 laptop will buy a $1K MBA just because it's faster (and/or whatever else) now than it was before.  Because the person who wants the $500 laptop doesn't want what the $1K MBA - or what any $1K laptop - brings to the table.  Apple has never competed in that market and has no desire to.

    But then there IS a large market for $1K+ laptops, and I just wonder how many people who might have been in the market for a $1K Dell or HP or Lenovo, might now consider a $1K MBA if it delivers practically 2-3x the performance.  Or how many people in the market for a larger more performant $2K Dell or HP or Lenovo might now consider a $1.5K MBP because it brings better performance for less.  Or a $2K MBP (when they arrive next year) because it brings much better performance for the same price.

    It won't be a mass switch, but I suspect it won't be insignificant.  Maybe Apple's PC market share will hit double digits again, but it won't be much more than that.  But the good news for Apple shareholders is, even a few more percentage points will significantly improve Apple's bottom line.

    Then there's the question of whether or not Windows will come to ASi.  It could come through emulation of x86.  It could come through MS finally getting ARM Windows even remotely right.  And if these ASi chips are as good as they seem to be, I wonder how many people in the $1K+ market might buy Apple hardware just to run Windows at 2-3x the performance of similarly priced PC's.  I'm not pushing that idea.  Just speculating possibilities. (You touch on these points too, and correctly note that those people aren't very many.)  If nothing else, if Parallels, VMWare, or someone, can figure out emulating x86, and if these ASi chips are as fast as they seem, then even emulating x86 Windows on ASi could be as fast as it is on native Intel chips and that coupled with everything a Mac brings to the table will bring some switchers too.  But agreed again, not en masse.

    Whatever happens, it will be really interesting to see how this plays out.  I for one am looking forward to it all, tentatively.

    edited November 2020 ronn
  • Reply 19 of 21

    Rayz2016 said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    That’s right, you claimed that the processors would cost Apple more. They don’t, as we see either lower or the same price point with other improved features with much improved performers and power efficiency (as I predicted).

    Core i3 with 8 GiB RAM. LOL I can’t believe that’s still your line in the sand on where could hit on performance despite plenty of proof showing you the superiority of the M-series SoC.

    A huge story for every Apple customer, Apple shareholders, for Intel, and the WinPC market as a whole. You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers is neither something I understand or willing to fix. Instead I’ll let you wallow in your misery as you ramp up your trolling.
    They don't cost more? Are you sure? Because it seems to me that Apple had the same price for the $999 MacBook Air Mac Mini despite taking a bunch of other components out and integrating them into M1

    A huge story for Apple customers and shareholders? Obviously. For everyone else? Not so much ...

    You’re inability to understand why a $999 MacBook Air with no fan outperforming a loaded 16” MBP is a good thing for customers  ...

    No. It is great for Mac fans! But for the 92-95% of people in any given quarter who do not buy Macs not so much. 

    "or how the ability to run iOS and IPadOS apps on the M1 Macs will attract switchers"

    Yeah, if you think that there is going to be this stampede from Windows laptop owners to pay $999 for MacBooks for the privilege of running iPad apps - on a non touchscreen UX/UI no less! - instead of better, more powerful x86 applications that are actually built for personal computers and not mobile devices then you really don't know people who actually own and use Windows laptops very well? I suppose rather than maybe changing your social and professional circles then that is something that you might want to understand or be willing to fix. 

    Look, I have seen this site's archives. I have also been on other Apple-centric sites. It is always the same thing: declarations that with each new Apple advance, the competition (whether Android or Windows) is going to dry up and blow away. Why? The presumption is that everyone else loves Apple products as much as you do and all they need is something, some push or incentive or anything to liberate them from the misery that they are wallowing in and join the happy existence of Apple users.

    What folks like this never realize is that Windows (and Android) users are happy already. They like their products. They like using them. They have the same anticipation towards buying new ones that you do. They even have the benefit of something that you don't, which is OEMs with great R&D departments that compete against each other for their attention and dollar. And Apple fans fundamentally misunderstand them.

    For example: you folks love to say "Windows and Android devices are cheaper than Apple devices upfront ... but you are not considering the total cost of ownership ... Apple devices are more reliable because they last 5-7 years or more."

    Makes perfect sense, right? TO YOU. But they are not you.

    Windows fan: who wants to wait 7 years to replace my laptop? I like replacing my laptop every 3 years so I can get the latest Threadripper from AMD and really be able to play the latest Steam games!

    Android fan: hold onto a smartphone for 5 years? LG/Samsung/Pixel/Huawei/Motorola etc. etc. etc. come out with cool new features every year! And you only need to spend $200 on the latest decent Android phone to get them!

    Sorry, but Apple was only able to dominate the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet and smartwatch markets because there were no established products by large well known companies in them prior. You had Blackberry, Android Wear and a bunch of other stuff even more obscure. But Apple has never been able to achieve the sort of mass migration from one established product or platform to another that you are talking about. The closest that we have seen to that is the AirPod. The reason: you need to give people a compelling incentive or reason to switch. Meaning that you need to give people a reason to give up a successful product that they already fundamentally like for a product that they like better.

    Android - for example - accomplished that by offering the combination of much bigger screens and substantially lower prices. 
    What doesn't accomplish that is to have people pay more money for machines to run software that they don't use and/or have no interest in faster.

    "Hey Billy, put down that $750 gaming PC and buy this $1000 MacBook Air instead."

    "Can I play Rocket League on it"?

    "No but Apple design the CPU!"

    "Can I play The Division on it"?

    "No, but you won't get viruses and it doesn't have a fan!" 

    "Can I at least get my copy of Windows going in VirtualBox on it so I can use the programs that I need for work on it?"

    "No but it runs a ton of iPhone and iPad apps that your job absolutely doesn't use! And you can use Continuity to hand off from your iPad and iPhone to your Mac!"

    "All right fine but can I dual boot, upgrade the RAM or add an eGPU?"

    "No but you will be able to use it for 5 years and still sell it for $500!"

    See above. You have failed to explain how switching from Windows to macOS makes his life better. Instead, you are making the case why he should completely change his computing use case - the reasons why he buys his computers in the first place, which is to game and to use software that his job requires - around becoming a consumer of Apple hardware. Please realize that nearly no one is going to do that no matter how fast Macs are.

    Now note that I did say nearly. You do have some people who want and need the most powerful machine they can get their hands on without having to deal with the difficulty or expense of an actual workstation or server and don't need much in the way of consumer facing or workspace specific software. For those people - developers are a great example of this, although not right now as a lot of the software and tools that they need aren't on the M1 Macs, can't be translated with Rosetta 2 (or don't want them to be for performance reasons) and won't be for awhile yet - the M1 Macs as well as Macs with the even better chips that Apple will release starting next year will be great. The problem is that there aren't very many such people. I will say it again: the number of people who actually need a chip faster than an Intel Core i5 or i7 and who won't be convenienced by giving up their Windows software isn't very big.

    Just do the whole Venn diagram thing ... most people who want a faster chip than the i7 also want/need to hold onto their Windows software. Most people who have no real ties to Windows software don't want/need fast performance in the first place. And - this will really get you - most people who need the fastest performance they can get and don't need Windows software are so because they are in the creative industries and as a result have Macs already!

    So yeah, I am trolling you I guess. But this "troll" has actual experience working with macOS (and its predecessors), iOS, Windows (and its predecessors MS-DOS and IBM PC-DOS), Linux, various mainframes, Android and ChromeOS. And being around a bunch of coworkers, students etc. who have the same. My guess is ... you don't? So, my trolling comes from the perspective of the 95% (give or take depending upon the product) of people who don't exclusively use Apple products and actually likes the non-Apple products that we do use and likes them a lot. And that is a perspective that you do not have. I repeat: if you think that there is this whole sea of people out there who hate Wintel or love Apple as much as you do and are just itching and dying to switch, you need to first ask yourself why they haven't jumped ship already. If they hated Windows that badly, they could have switched to macOS at any time. Since they didn't ... shouldn't you presume that they don't hate Windows at all then? 
    Odd that this reads as the same long-winded, 80s-think drivel as that LinuxPlatform chap. 
    Interesting, @Rayz2016 I nearly always agree with everything you post, as it's usually quite sensible, and you get Apple and their target market, etc. but in this case, I don't think you're being particularly fair.  Yes it was a little long-winded, but don't you think he's made some pretty valid points?  Where is he particularly off the mark?
  • Reply 20 of 21

    Rayz2016 said:

    elijahg said:
    larryjw said:
    cloudguy said:
    Xed said:
    I expect M-series Macs will make this j7mp considerably higher. ߓ覬t;/div>
    Why? Despite months of claiming otherwise - and my warning against it - the cost of entry for a MacBook remains $999, twice as much as a Windows or ChromeOS notebook with (the former MBA entry level specs) an Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM.

    Also - despite what Apple fans have spent the last 20 years being determined to believe - interest in iPods, iPhones, iPads, AirPods and the Apple Watch have not increased the demand for macOS as a PC platform. Similarly, people who would rather spend $1200 on a Dell XPS right now aren't going to be any more likely to switch to a MacBook Air or Pro just because Apple designed the chip. You have to be an Apple fan to even care that Apple is making the chip instead of Intel (or AMD or whoever) and people like that own Macs already anyway.

    The Mac being faster will increase the market share some but realize that most people don't buy computers based on raw horsepower any more than - say - most people buy smartphones for it. (Remember when the iPhone SE 2020 was supposed to turn the smartphone world on its head and lure all those platform switchers by providing an A13 chip for $399? Didn't happen.)

    I have stated it more than a few times: Apple using their own CPUs in their computers is a huge story for diehard Apple fans - which includes most of the media - but not much of one for the market at large. 
    Apple doesn't agree with you. The number of first time Apple laptop buyers that are switchers has been increasing. Apple doesn't sell the most smart phones either. And Apple has shown their owners are not as price conscious as those buying into the PC market. And Apple's ROI is higher. 

    I don't know what stats you expect to see? Apple will never have a top-selling laptop -- they don't need to. 
    Since half of Mac buyers are new to the Mac, why is it Apple's share isn't increasing exponentially? Half of Mac users being new to the Mac could also mean only half of current Mac users buy another Mac - which seems likely considering Apple's share isn't increasing. That also means just as many are switching to the Mac as are switching back to Windows. I have several friends who are switchers from Windows, but they don't want to pay $1100 for a computer that is just as functional for them as a $600 Windows PC, and so are switching back. I've tried to convince them to keep Macs, but it is a really hard sell. The fanboys here will say "well just get a PC then", and that is exactly the issue - too many Mac users are "just getting a PC" because they can't justify the price (and in some cases Apple's software decisions don't help). Plus, I hate saying this but it's true, Windows isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The gulf between macOS and Windows just isn't as wide as it used to be.

    The Mac share has been steady at around 6-7% since about 2013, after a climb when Macs were cheaper in the late Jobs/early Intel era - when you could get an iMac for £799 and a Macbook for £699, Mac Minis were just £399! They were all selling like hot cakes. It was glorious. The Mini is now £699, it was £799 until the M1 transition. Macs were cheaper than equivalently specced PCs, they were amazing value, but not so much now. And in any case as @Cloudguy said, the vast majority of people don't worry about the specs of their computer, they just know even the cheapest new one will be fast enough (except the low and mid-range 24" iMacs up until 2019  - as they were dog-slow as they still had a 5400RPM HDD in 2019 ffs). People will pay a £200 premium for a Mac, but they won't pay double.

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users. This ends up a vicious circle for anyone who uses their Mac with more than just Apple software: less users = less developers = people being more likely to need Windows for their work = less users (especially since Macs can no longer run Windows) and so on. In the mid 90's Apple had serious issues with lack of third party devs, a lot of software that was once had a Mac and Windows version became Windows only because it just wasn't worth the cost of producing the software for the few users that used macOS. 

    Apple doesn't need to have the Mac at all. Cook would be happy to axe it, I'm quite sure. It's just a sideline. Unfortunately that means they don't need to be competitive in any way, and right now, they really aren't.
    Always nice to see the old 'marketshare' tropes making the rounds after each transitions. Kinda makes you nostalgic for the days when folk thought it was an important measure.

    Right, let's start from the beginning. 

    Market share is not a measure of how many computers from one company are in existence; it is simply the share of sales over a particular period of time in relation to other vendors. Apple's share figure won't increase exponentially because during the same period, other vendors will sell more machines. And this brings us to the other problem with relying on market share; it doesn't actually tell you which of the vendors is the most profitable. The reason that most vendors sell more machines than Apple is the same reason that Android outsells the iPhone – they're cheaper. 
    Now if you consider that these marketshare figures are largely based on machines in a price range  in which Apple does not complete, and that the market is made up of thousands of vendors (most of whom Apple outsells every quarter) then the real question is how they manage to score on the marketshare chart at all.

    But once you understand what the market share measure actually is, then you understand why the Apple's market share can shrink (the other 99.999% of PC vendors collectively sell more machines) while its installed base can continue to grow. Which leads us to your second mistake:

    Remember also with a small share it reduces the number of devs for the platform, and reduces likelihood a company will produce software for the Mac, even if Mac users are more willing to pay for software than Windows users.

    Nope.

    The installed base is increasing, even if the percentage of sales they make every quarter does not. So the number of devs is increasing along with the user base. Devs aren't interested in the sales per quarter, they're interested in the total size of the user base for the product they've chosen to make, and though you try to dismiss it, they're even more interested in folk who're actually willing to pay money for that software. Apple has locked up the most profitable base of users on the planet, which is why Google is happy to pay through the nose for having their search engine show up first (and I suspect that this will be coming to an end in about two years), and this user base is increasing, and this is because Apple (who don't do anything first) looked at the mistakes that caused Microsoft's universal platform to crash and die, and went a different route.

    The tired marketshare arguments have been slowly dying because folk realised that sales in relation to unrelated products are a poor measure of viability. But analysts will keep focussing on them because that's what they understand. Techies will continue focussing on the speed of the ASi because that's what they understand. Both groups will fail to see the big picture, and unfortunately, you've done the same thing.

    You  can only see the Mac developers, but with access to a platform that scales from jewellery to servers, what you're actually looking at is Apple platform developers. And what these folk are slowly beginning to realise is that if they stick with ASi and the associated frameworks then they have access to the largest and most affluent user base of any platform, Windows included.

    Some good points about the relevance of marketshare.  But that said, y'know I'd really like to see what Apple's marketshare is in each of the markets it actually competes in.  That is, if we could redefine the markets at little more granularly to the point where the market for $500 laptops (for example) is distinct from the marketshare of the more "premium" models and brands.

    Kind of like cars.  No one takes any meaning from comparing Toyota's and Hyundai's marketshare with BMW's and Mercedes. There's such a thing as "premium" cars that are markets in themselves - where BMW, Mercedes and Lexus (Toyota's premium brand) compete.

    Like BMW and Mercedes with cars, Apple competes in the premium computer market. In cars, Toyota competes in both - premium (Lexus) and budget (Toyota) or whatever the term is - and most PC makers do too (though they don't brand them differently like Toyota does).  Same with phones, tablets, etc.

    So... I just wonder what we get if we compare like with like. It won't be quite this simple to be meaningful but even as a start: strip out all the budget PCs and what's left? And then what percentage of that market does Apple have vs the others?

    It does bother me a little that there's no comparisons like this typically made in the tech world, like it seems reasonable to do in the car world.  I agree with you @Rayz2016 that marketshare isn't particularly meaningful, especially in the ways many people try to make it so, but I'm curious - and I wonder if it might be meaningful if these distinctions were made, such that the markets we're comparing in made this kind of sense.  
Sign In or Register to comment.