[quote] How long is Microsoft obliged to make office for mac ? If Apple starts making serious in-roads microsofts biggest weapon is to pull production or at least release a crippled version. The courts might have something to say about that however. <hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's at issue here - Microsoft is a software company...if Macs ever became even close to dominant, they would still make a bundle off of Office:Mac. It's actually a highly profitable product for them, and that's turned into the reason why they've been so good with it lately - not because they have to.
As for Apple's marketshare...we'll see. I was in my local Apple Store the other day talking to the manager; A lot of people are going into Apple's retail stores lately who are fed up with XP's price and lack of compatability and ease of use. He also said they get a lot of "I didn't know you guys were still around," and stuff like that. So I think that Apple is definitely in a period of growth right now where they are re-creating the brand awareness that they once had. And OS X is attracting a lot of users - my parents have been very reluctant to switch from PC, but my father just chose an iMac for his personal computer at his office because the OS was so much slicker and stable.
And, obviously, the more new customers Apple gets, and the more visibility they have (stores), the more word will spread that the products are not just for graphics ... we have the best versions of Office, iApps, etc. And also that Apple can be price-competitive as well, especially with the iMac.
I think 50% is aiming a little high right now. But I could see Apple climing another 7%-10% in the next few years (that's a significant chunk).
One of the main points made seem to be getting Macs into the business mainstream.
The question then is, how.
Aggressive pricing and faster machines always help, but there's more.
Perceptions need to be changed about Apple that it's not just a computer for creative types.
My problem is that I somehow don't see Jobs actually being interested in targeting big business or governments. His aim is squarely targeted at those in the music, arts and educational markets.
Maybe Apple is destined to always be a niche player specifically catering to those markets. Just like BMW, Audi etc..are successful in the luxury car market (automotive parts just like software is not readily available)
That's not such a bad thing, as long as we are still supported by the major software developers.
One thing about getting into business and all that stuff...they need to try harder. If they could stuff a G4 into a cube, how tough could it really be to build a rackmount server like everyone else? Talk about minimal R&D...I love Apple, but really...
Apple will not get 50% share until there are mac available for less $ than PC's. Even if the G5's come out and trounce Intel & AMD in speed for years to come, if they are $3000 and up, the performance will only be incentive enough for low-midrange servers and graphics/audio professionals to choose Mac. For all the email/text editing client stations set up in office buildings around the world, important issues are, in the following order: compatability, basic functionality, price, stability, speed, form factor. That means, as long as the thing can read MS word and MS excel files, and you can hook up to the email server, the cheapest machine wins.
So until I can build a mac myself for under $500 (ie clone parts Mfacturing), like I can (if I wanted to) with a PC, Apple will never have 50% of the market.
And as mentioned above, Apple is not currently ready to handle 50%, even if they could get there. Manufacturing shortcomings, anti-trust issues (it could be said that as OS X only runs on apple HW, that they are "bundling" like MS did w/ IE. Just a SW/HW bundle, instead of an OS/browser bundle)
I would love to see Windows either : 1)die. 2) buy BeOS and actually start working like an OS is supposed to. Either way the current Windows ideals should have died 30 years ago with dumb terminal hardware. Why the hell does 90% of the computer market put up with windows? Half of them don't know better, and the other half don't get a choice.
<strong>How long is Microsoft obliged to make office for mac ? If Apple starts making serious in-roads microsofts biggest weapon is to pull production or at least release a crippled version. The courts might have something to say about that however.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Microsoft's shareholders might have something to say about it too. MS has a lot to lose and very little to gain by either a) terminating Mac software development or b) buying Apple outright (an idea for which I have yet to hear a single rational justification). In fact, the MacBU at Microsoft is responsible for much if not most of the good press MS has received over the past year or so. What was the last PC application/OS Microsoft wrote that garnered the kind of praise earned by office:mac v.X?
from the mid-90's movie "sneakers" (paraphrased here - sorry, it's been a while since i saw the movie):
"life is based, not on reality, but the perception of reality."
think about it -- every morning, you wake up and hear about the latest email virus destroying microsoft outlook servers and clients across the globe, windows xp with "unprecedented" security holes, sluggish upgrade sales, etc., etc. etc. this kind of perception erodes marketshare and new purchases, just like the same stories of stability, incompatibilities, and whatnot made everyone believe that apple was dead in the mid-to-late 90's.
meanwhile, apple is the golden child of the technology sector. they are always bucking the trend of all the other companies each quarter, their products are head-turning, and they don't have a yammering j@ckass for a ceo.
this kind of publicity always helps the underdog. will it ever get to be 50%? only if apple sacrifices a lot of what they value to infiltrate the big-businesses who don't care about style, quality manufacturing, or user-freindliness as opposed to the bottom line.
and, hell, that's why i still use macs, and probably always will.
If the kids are using Apples at school, they will know that they are not just for graphics etc.
No way, school computer set ups always suck. Alcimedes said it correctly, Apple needs schools for market share in education not for future market share.
The market hare grows if Apple sells to schools, it needs that on the quarterly results for Wall Street to see.
<strong>Maybe Apple is destined to always be a niche player specifically catering to those markets. Just like BMW, Audi etc..are successful in the luxury car market (automotive parts just like software is not readily available)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, Apple has always been a niche player. Even back when they had 25%, it was a niche. I'd like them to get to 10%, but I don't see it happening in the next year or two.
interesting thoughts, but a few things i'd like to clear up.
first, you do not have to drop the prices on macs to compete with PC's. that's a load of crap. the cost of the hardware is not the most important aspect of a computer purchase. what matters is what is the total cost of the setup you're going to use to get something done.
if apple can bring a hardware/OS/software combination to the table that is cheaper to do a job (not initially purchase) than a PC setup, apple will gain market share. simple market economic forces. for example, company A uses macs. company B uses PC's. the macs make the work at company A get done 20% faster than at company B. company A can then undercut company B's prices and still make a profit. all other things being equal, company B either buys macs or goes out of business.
second, the car analogy sucks as a market share analogy. simply because any car you buy can drive on any road. (car = computer, road = OS)
if you buy a PC, you can't run the MacOS on it. so the fact that apple has a 5% marketshare means that it would be similar to a car that can only run on 5% of the roads. that sucks.
now, name a sucessful car out there that can only run on 5% of the roads. the car analogy only works when comparing one IBM compatible to another, not macs.
and finally, who do you think will provide users with a better setup? a fortune 500 company run by ruthless business grads, making billions a year, that is driven by profit, and works constantly for every possible edge over their competition.
or an elementary school, staffed by elementary ed. grads, who wait for state handouts every year for their budget needs and always somehow manage to land a million or two short?
<strong>And as mentioned above, Apple is not currently ready to handle 50%, even if they could get there. Manufacturing shortcomings, anti-trust issues (it could be said that as OS X only runs on apple HW, that they are "bundling" like MS did w/ IE. Just a SW/HW bundle, instead of an OS/browser bundle)</strong><hr></blockquote>
M$ doesn't bundle IE in the same way as Apple bundles iMovie. iMovie is not built into OS X. All of its code and files are independent of the OS. This is legal. What M$ did was put the code for IE inside Windows itself, forcing Windows users to use it for file/internet navigation. This would be equivilent to Apple replacing the Finder with an all purpose web-browser. Apple does not force users to use it's bundled apps. There is nothing which Apple does that is in any way monopolistic. They can legally choose not to license their OS to other hardware suppliers. What you can't do is threaten to stop licensing your OS in order to control a PC maker. M$ did that.
<strong>interesting thoughts, but a few things i'd like to clear up.
first, you do not have to drop the prices on macs to compete with PC's. that's a load of crap. the cost of the hardware is not the most important aspect of a computer purchase. what matters is what is the total cost of the setup you're going to use to get something done.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, for a reason you state later:
[quote]<strong>
and finally, who do you think will provide users with a better setup? a fortune 500 company run by ruthless business grads, making billions a year, that is driven by profit, and works constantly for every possible edge over their competition.
or an elementary school, staffed by elementary ed. grads, who wait for state handouts every year for their budget needs and always somehow manage to land a million or two short?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Businesses do care about the costs of hardware. Purchasing agents sit in their cubicles ringing nickels out of suppliers. Until executives learn to look at the big picture, cost will always be a Big issue in Big Business.
Then there's one more BIG issue: LICENSING
Do you really think Apple alone can make even 25% of all computers in the world? How insane is that, Steverophically speaking!? What's Dell's worldwide market share? Or Hew-paq? Apple barely makes enough to supply their current 5% demand. Does one really think in a relatively mature market that a single company as large as Apple and increase sales five-fold?
Dear Ladies & Gents, I know it's Christmas time, but let's leave the land of Sugar Plum Fairies back to the Snake infested Garden of Microsoft we're currently doomed to. My most optimistic number would be 10%, and only after Mr. Bill "I'm not really the Spawn of Satan" Gates steps down entirely.
You wouldn't want Apple to have 50% of the PC market. Apple's offerings would be uninspired and unemarkable. You would have a computer that your neighbor has...and his neighbor, and his neighbor. Apple would lose much of its identity.
Nah, never 50. But each percentage point they can grow would be a big deal for Apple. Also, remember, computers (as we know them) will continue to be less a part of the equation. Apple will grow and prosper in this changing market. That's all that matters. Besides, if they got fifty percent, those of us who like thinking different would probably try to resurrect the BeOS. I'm a soldier for the underdog. I love trying to rub peecee users faces in the things that make them jealous. Help, Steve! I need more ammo! Hand me that G5 and that iPad now!
Only if they provide the best computer at the cheapest price. The difference has to be significant, like budget PC's are to iMacs today. Thus all macs have to be 50% cheaper than PC counterparts, yet provide 50% better performance at the same time. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
Then again, processor power may be largely irrelevant in 10 years time, then it comes down to ease of use, open standards, quality of components, support, etc etc...
I think Apple will triple its market share to the 10-15% range in the next 10 years. One good strategy may be to develop a cheap computer for the Chinese and Indian Markets. Very few people have computers there. Even among the affluent. Not that many will but comps, but if you could get an Apple into the hands of 5% of the population, thats 100 Million new users between those two countries alone. No one really has a foothold either. Not M$, not linux, or at least not a strong one. In that market, it's frontier time all over again. A great opportunity to gain world wide market share and many of the goods that come with it.
Apple could meet 50% market share and surpass it! And no, I'm not smoking anything, and I'm not talking about Garden of Eden type scenarios. We don't need divine intervention for massive market share growth (although it couldn't hurt) - all Apple needs is to aggressively position itself as the empowerer of the individual while Microsoft foolishly pursues .NET and Passport.
Even though SJ told us we're not competing with MS on the OS front anymore, everyone knows that was a conveinent lie. The market could change over night, if Apple would play its cards right. Microsoft is bent on total desktop domination, through its .NET initiative, and I refuse to believe than any even semi-intelligent populace would be into such a horrible vision of the future of computing. And neither would the major PC industry players, for that matter.
Every third party that goes along with MS in the future must know that MS is working against its interests. .NET hopes to radically redefine computing as a Microsoft only playing field, with Gates and Monkey Boy Ballmer dictating all of the rules. So we must let the forces of the free market teach Microsoft a thing or two.
Apple is the only viable competition to Microsoft on the desktop. But Apple is under the radar now, because Redmond believes it is unstoppable. While they go ahead with .NET, Apple must aggressively manufacture top quality machines coupled with tremenouds advertising campaigns. I'm envisioning kick-ass spots very, very much like 1984. In fact, 1984 is probably the most apropo, except Apple was battling the wrong juggernaut originally (IBM instead of MS).
If Apple puts the proper market forces on, then all of the pieces will fall into place. I believe you'll see a domino effect of formerly Wintel developers coming over exclusively to the Mac, and the momentum will be hard to shift at that point. My premise for them switching over is two fold: 1) That there is a majorly diminished profit incentive for the entire third party hardware and software industry if .NET becomes pervasive; 2) That the terms Microsoft will dictate to the rest of the market will be so draconian that there will be no choice but to switch. Apple is the only place to go.
Apple has always been about making solutions that empower the individual, and the Apple - MS dichotomy will finally come to a head as MS continues to push insane licensing schemes and outrageous MS distributed, monolithic networking. Hardened PC people are already starting to realize that MS is going in a very scary direction.
Apple is the company that can knock Wintel out in the coming years, but if they fail to do so, an upstart eventually will - let's hope Apple doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past by snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. I?m ready for the third desktop revolution, anyone else?
<strong>Hardened PC people are already starting to realize that MS is going in a very scary direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wish I could agree with you. Hard-core PC users are just like us hard-core Mac users, they'll never switch. Most of them (probably 80% or more) will blindly follow Microshaft down into .NET hell. Of the ones that don't, most will go Linux. The rest will come to us.
Apple has a larger market share than you might think. Problably around 10-13%. Think of all those people that are still using the old PowerPC's, the grandma's on the 68k's and all those 5 Million iMac's that have been sold.
Apple has a really good shot at 15-17% market share in the next two years....
Comments
2. At what percentage share would 'clones' need to be bought back into the equasion?
3. Apple has an 'arrorant' stance with its 5% share, do you fancy that multiplied by 10? (Not my opinion, but a common compliant)
4. Motorola's capacity? IBM? AMD?
5. Antitrust issues if Apple is only mac manufacturer?
I don't think that's at issue here - Microsoft is a software company...if Macs ever became even close to dominant, they would still make a bundle off of Office:Mac. It's actually a highly profitable product for them, and that's turned into the reason why they've been so good with it lately - not because they have to.
As for Apple's marketshare...we'll see. I was in my local Apple Store the other day talking to the manager; A lot of people are going into Apple's retail stores lately who are fed up with XP's price and lack of compatability and ease of use. He also said they get a lot of "I didn't know you guys were still around," and stuff like that. So I think that Apple is definitely in a period of growth right now where they are re-creating the brand awareness that they once had. And OS X is attracting a lot of users - my parents have been very reluctant to switch from PC, but my father just chose an iMac for his personal computer at his office because the OS was so much slicker and stable.
And, obviously, the more new customers Apple gets, and the more visibility they have (stores), the more word will spread that the products are not just for graphics ... we have the best versions of Office, iApps, etc. And also that Apple can be price-competitive as well, especially with the iMac.
I think 50% is aiming a little high right now. But I could see Apple climing another 7%-10% in the next few years (that's a significant chunk).
-S
One of the main points made seem to be getting Macs into the business mainstream.
The question then is, how.
Aggressive pricing and faster machines always help, but there's more.
Perceptions need to be changed about Apple that it's not just a computer for creative types.
My problem is that I somehow don't see Jobs actually being interested in targeting big business or governments. His aim is squarely targeted at those in the music, arts and educational markets.
Maybe Apple is destined to always be a niche player specifically catering to those markets. Just like BMW, Audi etc..are successful in the luxury car market (automotive parts just like software is not readily available)
That's not such a bad thing, as long as we are still supported by the major software developers.
-S
So until I can build a mac myself for under $500 (ie clone parts Mfacturing), like I can (if I wanted to) with a PC, Apple will never have 50% of the market.
And as mentioned above, Apple is not currently ready to handle 50%, even if they could get there. Manufacturing shortcomings, anti-trust issues (it could be said that as OS X only runs on apple HW, that they are "bundling" like MS did w/ IE. Just a SW/HW bundle, instead of an OS/browser bundle)
I would love to see Windows either : 1)die. 2) buy BeOS and actually start working like an OS is supposed to. Either way the current Windows ideals should have died 30 years ago with dumb terminal hardware. Why the hell does 90% of the computer market put up with windows? Half of them don't know better, and the other half don't get a choice.
<strong>How long is Microsoft obliged to make office for mac ? If Apple starts making serious in-roads microsofts biggest weapon is to pull production or at least release a crippled version. The courts might have something to say about that however.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Microsoft's shareholders might have something to say about it too. MS has a lot to lose and very little to gain by either a) terminating Mac software development or b) buying Apple outright (an idea for which I have yet to hear a single rational justification). In fact, the MacBU at Microsoft is responsible for much if not most of the good press MS has received over the past year or so. What was the last PC application/OS Microsoft wrote that garnered the kind of praise earned by office:mac v.X?
"life is based, not on reality, but the perception of reality."
think about it -- every morning, you wake up and hear about the latest email virus destroying microsoft outlook servers and clients across the globe, windows xp with "unprecedented" security holes, sluggish upgrade sales, etc., etc. etc. this kind of perception erodes marketshare and new purchases, just like the same stories of stability, incompatibilities, and whatnot made everyone believe that apple was dead in the mid-to-late 90's.
meanwhile, apple is the golden child of the technology sector. they are always bucking the trend of all the other companies each quarter, their products are head-turning, and they don't have a yammering j@ckass for a ceo.
this kind of publicity always helps the underdog. will it ever get to be 50%? only if apple sacrifices a lot of what they value to infiltrate the big-businesses who don't care about style, quality manufacturing, or user-freindliness as opposed to the bottom line.
and, hell, that's why i still use macs, and probably always will.
If the kids are using Apples at school, they will know that they are not just for graphics etc.
No way, school computer set ups always suck. Alcimedes said it correctly, Apple needs schools for market share in education not for future market share.
The market hare grows if Apple sells to schools, it needs that on the quarterly results for Wall Street to see.
<strong>Maybe Apple is destined to always be a niche player specifically catering to those markets. Just like BMW, Audi etc..are successful in the luxury car market (automotive parts just like software is not readily available)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, Apple has always been a niche player. Even back when they had 25%, it was a niche. I'd like them to get to 10%, but I don't see it happening in the next year or two.
first, you do not have to drop the prices on macs to compete with PC's. that's a load of crap. the cost of the hardware is not the most important aspect of a computer purchase. what matters is what is the total cost of the setup you're going to use to get something done.
if apple can bring a hardware/OS/software combination to the table that is cheaper to do a job (not initially purchase) than a PC setup, apple will gain market share. simple market economic forces. for example, company A uses macs. company B uses PC's. the macs make the work at company A get done 20% faster than at company B. company A can then undercut company B's prices and still make a profit. all other things being equal, company B either buys macs or goes out of business.
second, the car analogy sucks as a market share analogy. simply because any car you buy can drive on any road. (car = computer, road = OS)
if you buy a PC, you can't run the MacOS on it. so the fact that apple has a 5% marketshare means that it would be similar to a car that can only run on 5% of the roads. that sucks.
now, name a sucessful car out there that can only run on 5% of the roads. the car analogy only works when comparing one IBM compatible to another, not macs.
and finally, who do you think will provide users with a better setup? a fortune 500 company run by ruthless business grads, making billions a year, that is driven by profit, and works constantly for every possible edge over their competition.
or an elementary school, staffed by elementary ed. grads, who wait for state handouts every year for their budget needs and always somehow manage to land a million or two short?
-alcimedes
<strong>And as mentioned above, Apple is not currently ready to handle 50%, even if they could get there. Manufacturing shortcomings, anti-trust issues (it could be said that as OS X only runs on apple HW, that they are "bundling" like MS did w/ IE. Just a SW/HW bundle, instead of an OS/browser bundle)</strong><hr></blockquote>
M$ doesn't bundle IE in the same way as Apple bundles iMovie. iMovie is not built into OS X. All of its code and files are independent of the OS. This is legal. What M$ did was put the code for IE inside Windows itself, forcing Windows users to use it for file/internet navigation. This would be equivilent to Apple replacing the Finder with an all purpose web-browser. Apple does not force users to use it's bundled apps. There is nothing which Apple does that is in any way monopolistic. They can legally choose not to license their OS to other hardware suppliers. What you can't do is threaten to stop licensing your OS in order to control a PC maker. M$ did that.
[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
<strong>interesting thoughts, but a few things i'd like to clear up.
first, you do not have to drop the prices on macs to compete with PC's. that's a load of crap. the cost of the hardware is not the most important aspect of a computer purchase. what matters is what is the total cost of the setup you're going to use to get something done.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, for a reason you state later:
[quote]<strong>
and finally, who do you think will provide users with a better setup? a fortune 500 company run by ruthless business grads, making billions a year, that is driven by profit, and works constantly for every possible edge over their competition.
or an elementary school, staffed by elementary ed. grads, who wait for state handouts every year for their budget needs and always somehow manage to land a million or two short?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Businesses do care about the costs of hardware. Purchasing agents sit in their cubicles ringing nickels out of suppliers. Until executives learn to look at the big picture, cost will always be a Big issue in Big Business.
Then there's one more BIG issue: LICENSING
Do you really think Apple alone can make even 25% of all computers in the world? How insane is that, Steverophically speaking!? What's Dell's worldwide market share? Or Hew-paq? Apple barely makes enough to supply their current 5% demand. Does one really think in a relatively mature market that a single company as large as Apple and increase sales five-fold?
Dear Ladies & Gents, I know it's Christmas time, but let's leave the land of Sugar Plum Fairies back to the Snake infested Garden of Microsoft we're currently doomed to. My most optimistic number would be 10%, and only after Mr. Bill "I'm not really the Spawn of Satan" Gates steps down entirely.
I think 10%-15% is a reasonable figure for a future Apple market share. 5 years from now, if things keep going in the right direction.
[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: macway ]</p>
Sometimes it's not bad being a niche.
Then again, processor power may be largely irrelevant in 10 years time, then it comes down to ease of use, open standards, quality of components, support, etc etc...
I think Apple will triple its market share to the 10-15% range in the next 10 years. One good strategy may be to develop a cheap computer for the Chinese and Indian Markets. Very few people have computers there. Even among the affluent. Not that many will but comps, but if you could get an Apple into the hands of 5% of the population, thats 100 Million new users between those two countries alone. No one really has a foothold either. Not M$, not linux, or at least not a strong one. In that market, it's frontier time all over again. A great opportunity to gain world wide market share and many of the goods that come with it.
Even though SJ told us we're not competing with MS on the OS front anymore, everyone knows that was a conveinent lie. The market could change over night, if Apple would play its cards right. Microsoft is bent on total desktop domination, through its .NET initiative, and I refuse to believe than any even semi-intelligent populace would be into such a horrible vision of the future of computing. And neither would the major PC industry players, for that matter.
Every third party that goes along with MS in the future must know that MS is working against its interests. .NET hopes to radically redefine computing as a Microsoft only playing field, with Gates and Monkey Boy Ballmer dictating all of the rules. So we must let the forces of the free market teach Microsoft a thing or two.
Apple is the only viable competition to Microsoft on the desktop. But Apple is under the radar now, because Redmond believes it is unstoppable. While they go ahead with .NET, Apple must aggressively manufacture top quality machines coupled with tremenouds advertising campaigns. I'm envisioning kick-ass spots very, very much like 1984. In fact, 1984 is probably the most apropo, except Apple was battling the wrong juggernaut originally (IBM instead of MS).
If Apple puts the proper market forces on, then all of the pieces will fall into place. I believe you'll see a domino effect of formerly Wintel developers coming over exclusively to the Mac, and the momentum will be hard to shift at that point. My premise for them switching over is two fold: 1) That there is a majorly diminished profit incentive for the entire third party hardware and software industry if .NET becomes pervasive; 2) That the terms Microsoft will dictate to the rest of the market will be so draconian that there will be no choice but to switch. Apple is the only place to go.
Apple has always been about making solutions that empower the individual, and the Apple - MS dichotomy will finally come to a head as MS continues to push insane licensing schemes and outrageous MS distributed, monolithic networking. Hardened PC people are already starting to realize that MS is going in a very scary direction.
Apple is the company that can knock Wintel out in the coming years, but if they fail to do so, an upstart eventually will - let's hope Apple doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past by snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. I?m ready for the third desktop revolution, anyone else?
<strong>Hardened PC people are already starting to realize that MS is going in a very scary direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wish I could agree with you. Hard-core PC users are just like us hard-core Mac users, they'll never switch. Most of them (probably 80% or more) will blindly follow Microshaft down into .NET hell. Of the ones that don't, most will go Linux. The rest will come to us.
Apple has a really good shot at 15-17% market share in the next two years....
I also think Apple could be very successful and profitable with 10% market share.