once the g5s are more readily available...

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Do you think intel will be posting skewed benchmarks to disprove they are the best? Or would they have access to them now? do you think apple would give intel some g5s for testing purposes?



I think if intel WERE to do this, and produced results contrary to apples(in intels favor) regardless of cheating, apple would lose a lot of the rep they have been gaining.



what do you think?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    ryukyuryukyu Posts: 448member
    I think people worry about benchmarks too much.

    The aspect that interested me more was the results that were shown with real world apps like the Luxology folks were showing.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    Intel do not care about Apple. However, if the IBM 970 Linux blade servers beat the crap out of Xeons they will take notice8)
  • Reply 3 of 17
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robust

    Do you think intel will be posting skewed benchmarks to disprove they are the best? Or would they have access to them now? do you think apple would give intel some g5s for testing purposes?



    I think if intel WERE to do this, and produced results contrary to apples(in intels favor) regardless of cheating, apple would lose a lot of the rep they have been gaining.



    what do you think?




    I think the Intel world doesn't see Apple as a threat. Apple is the one interested in comparing against Intel because it hopes performance will make some people switch to the Mac. I think the vast majority of people will continue to buy Intel CPUs regardless of what the G5 performance is. As a Mac user I am interested in performance of G5 versus G3 and G4, not versus Intel CPUs.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robust

    Do you think intel will be posting skewed benchmarks to disprove they are the best?...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by DrBoar

    Intel do not care about Apple...



    Exactly! MS, Intel, AMD, Dell, etc., all view Apple as little more than a strange curiosity. With <4% market share, Apple is no threat to anyone. The Windows "SWITCH" campaign has done little. Apple can't even switch the majority from OS9 to OSX.



    Apple might substantially increase market share with some real price/performance improvements in their hardware. The iBook, eMac, and Dual G5 (when available) are good starts.



    At least Apple Execs have publicly 'proclaimed' Mac Market Share is a top priority. Execs should happily tie their compensation to: (1) Windows Switchers, (2) OS9 to OSX Switchers, and (3) Mac Market Share!



    Please forgive grumpiness ... carry on.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    Locomotive is quite correct in his outlook. The market share picture is getting really, pathetically tiring. Apple needs to capture market share long before yesterday. The 63 and counting Apple stores are wonderful, and I give the BoD credit for that. But stores alone won't bring people in. Higher priceerformance and deeper cuts in prices for education (institutions) and enterprise will make people give Apple a second thought. It's high time the company take greater risks in favor of long term growth and market share.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    I have alwasy wondered something about market share. How is it figured? They can't possibly have been keepeiong track of ever purchased computer ever (how do they determine when it breaks done, etc). So it must only be on new purchases (by quarter, by year?) Does the "count" reset on a yearly basis?



    If it is only new sales, does anyone know of any numbers comparing consumer purchases? Meaning, purchases for home, small office, etc, not counting large educational purchases (like the Maine/Apple deal), large businesses purchases, or large governmental purchases. Why? Because I always here the stupid market share argument thrown at us for game development. If you narrow it down to machines that would actually run the games (no government, business, or education), then I wonder how much more level the field is (maybe 90/10...80/20...?) Hell, I might do this if I could find some quartly reports on the big guys (Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony....anyone else?)
  • Reply 7 of 17
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    You'd also have to factor in all the DIY'ers who build their own computers, and all the littler manufacturers, and so on.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    I have alwasy wondered something about market share. How is it figured? They can't possibly have been keepeiong track of ever purchased computer ever (how do they determine when it breaks done, etc). So it must only be on new purchases (by quarter, by year?) Does the "count" reset on a yearly basis?



    If it is only new sales, does anyone know of any numbers comparing consumer purchases? Meaning, purchases for home, small office, etc, not counting large educational purchases (like the Maine/Apple deal), large businesses purchases, or large governmental purchases. Why? Because I always here the stupid market share argument thrown at us for game development. If you narrow it down to machines that would actually run the games (no government, business, or education), then I wonder how much more level the field is (maybe 90/10...80/20...?) Hell, I might do this if I could find some quartly reports on the big guys (Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony....anyone else?)




    Market share is figured by the amount of people who invest in apple stock. People that buy the share at $21 dollars a pop or whatever, giving apple money as an investment, that hopefully they(apple) will turn out something happening that will cause more people to invest and thus raising the market share, so that the original investors can sell some of their shares, and make a profit.



    that's the overly simplified version of course, but that's the general idea.







    as for intel not caring about apple, I guess you guys are right, apple is small potatoes, but I don't know, there has been soo much flak distributed since apple released those benchs, you'd think intel would want to do something about it, if only to satisfy the anti-apple naysayers.



    I don't know, maybe not\
  • Reply 9 of 17
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robust

    Market share is figured by the amount of people who invest in apple stock. People that buy the share at $21 dollars a pop or whatever, giving apple money as an investment, that hopefully they(apple) will turn out something happening that will cause more people to invest and thus raising the market share, so that the original investors can sell some of their shares, and make a profit.



    that's the overly simplified version of course, but that's the general idea.





    We're not talking about price per share in the stock market. That's something totally different from computer market share. Market share is calculated quarterly, according to how many machines are sold by each firm. So it does not, of course, indicate what the installed base is (installed base is the number of people actively using the computers of a given platform). In the bad old days just prior to the Return of Jobs, it was estimated that the Mac's installed base was around 29,000,000.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    ahaha, that's really funny, what a goof.



    right right, market share, yes...my bad.





    (can't believe I mistook that)



  • Reply 11 of 17
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    You'd also have to factor in all the DIY'ers who build their own computers, and all the littler manufacturers, and so on.



    I was only worried about the larger companies. I would bet that the DIY market is a lot less than 1 million worldwide per year, and therefore really wouldn't make much of a difference. I could be off, but I would bet this market is pretty small compared to the larger pcture. Further, I doubt that any of the "market share" reports even think to take either of those into account.



    Ok, I have found some numbers:



    Consumer Market - 2001 (this is only laptops and desktops, servers aren't counted)



    HP - 10.6% of worldwide market

    Compaq - 9.1% of worldwide market

    Dell - 8.9% of worldwide market

    Apple - 7% of worldwide market

    Fujitsu Siemens - 6.1% of worldwide market



    44.1 million consumer units shipped worldwide



    If you decide to try a similar approach, make sure you don't count overall PC sales. I found lots of figures for overall PC sales (which counted desktops, laptops, and server sales), but that doesn't help in this calculation. The figures above were collected from a few articles, and some SEC 10-K filings. Apple's % was figured from their SEC 10-K filing divided by total consumer units shipped (as listed by IDC).



    This estimated market share is at least a better estimate than total PC sales (which counts servers according to dataquest and gartner). So it looks like Apple is fairing a bit better than the often quoted 2%. I am not saying that my findings are 100% correct, but I feel pretty confident in my methods and findings.



    Just for comparisons sake, if you look at overall PC sales:



    Compaq/HP - 16.2%

    Dell - 15.2%

    IBM - 6%

    NEC - 3.4%

    Toshiba - 3.2%

    Apple - 2.40% (aprox)



    And we get our nice 2% number. So if you look at the more fitting market share numbers, Apple is fairing pretty well. I just wish developers would look at consumer numbers instead of the other ones...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Big Mac

    In the bad old days just prior to the Return of Jobs, it was estimated that the Mac's installed base was around 29,000,000.



    An interesting find:



    Apple units shipped



    2002 - 3,101,000

    2001 - 3,087,000

    2000 - 4,558,000

    1999 - 3,448,000

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

    14,194,000 units shipped in 4 years.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    An interesting find:



    Apple units shipped

    2002 - 4,558,000

    2001 - 3,087,000

    2000 - 4,558,000

    1999 - 3,448,000

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

    15,651,000 units shipped in 4 years.






    as i found in the 10-Q SEC...

    9 months ended 02 ... unit sales total: 2,367,000

    9 months ended 03 ... unit sales total: 2,225,000



    how on earth could apple reach 4,5 million shipped units in 2002 when the actual number after 9 months was 2367 million? ...
  • Reply 13 of 17
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    once the g5 are more readily available...I'll buy ten more!
  • Reply 14 of 17
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy

    as i found in the 10-Q SEC...

    9 months ended 02 ... unit sales total: 2,367,000

    9 months ended 03 ... unit sales total: 2,225,000



    how on earth could apple reach 4,5 million shipped units in 2002 when the actual number after 9 months was 2367 million? ...




    Oops, just relisted the 2000 results.



    It doens't effect my other findings, as that was all based around 2001 findings.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    To me, market share means roughly:



    Number of Macs Sold

    -------------------- x 100 = X %

    Total Computers Sold



    during some time interval. As has been pointed out above, the definition of "computer" and "time interval" may vary with different people.



    For Apple's benefit, I think "computer" should include only desktops and laptops -- not workstations or servers (yet). Also, "market share" seems more fair than tracking only units shipped because each manufacturer is subject to similar challenges: economy, terrorism, earth quakes, blackouts, chip shortages, etc., (remember, Apple chose Moto).



    There are 2 things in slight conflict here: Apple's Business and the Mac's Market. Apple's business may be helped by various diversions -- I mean diversifications -- iPods, iStores, iTunes, etc. This part may affect profits, prospects, stockholders, etc.



    Mac market share has slightly different consequences. It affects Mac users, peripheral vendors, software peddlers, and computer stores (not yet squashed). While it should help Apple profits to sell a few high-end Power Macs and PowerBooks, the rest of the Mac community may be more interested in the total number of Mac boxes sold and in use every day. If it no longer makes sense to develop special peripherals, drivers, games, and software for the Mac -- the whole Mac system will collapse.



    I believe both Apple's CEO and CFO forecast improving market share some time back. This is very important to the Mac community.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    Oops, just relisted the 2000 results.



    It doens't effect my other findings, as that was all based around 2001 findings.




    no problem - just wondering



    however - apple sold 133.000 PowerMacs in Q3 ... interesting is, that they already have 100.000 preOrders for G5-PowerMacs now .... that will increase the absolute sales in 2003 a bit i think... would be a good&trade; thing
  • Reply 17 of 17
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    DIYers are certainly a small market, but the garage ( or white box ) is estimated at 50% of the PC market. Dell isnt afraid of HP or gateway taking market dhare off of them, they are afraid of the ridiculously low margin white box market, whose share had been growing steadily.



    The thing about market share is that it doesnt turn around over night.

    It takes years to piss it away, and years to get it back.



    My rule of thumb is that it takes five years to implement a good plan in a manufacturing business. Apple have been holding it together, and are nearly there.



    OS X and the 2001 ibook represent the start of the plan, they've only got a couple of years to go. That point marks the end of the bleeding. Regaining the confidence of their customers, and of potential customers. At the end of that period I think we can expect to see the worm turn, as long as they have an ongoing plan.



    My prediction is that the Apple recovery will take up to ten years, and management at Apple need to be looking out that far. At the end of ten years, Apple will be roaring.
Sign In or Register to comment.