Apple market share is down, again

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 107
    Spin this anyway you want. This is bad news. Apple's marketshare is like a final countdown. That number is one indicator of its health. In some circles thats the only number that matters. Apple has compelling hardware and software. Yet continually fails to get its message across to the masses. Award winning commerials are not enough. A 30 second spot cannot boil down the mac experience. Perhaps a infomercial is the answer where apple does a lot of hand holding to convince switchers. Apples retail stores is the right path. The overall mac retail presence is poor or non existant. Temporary mac kiosks at large mall should be considerred. I've seen Dell and HP kiosks during the holidays. These should be used to educate people about the mac. The HP kiosk didn't even sell anything. And if they do want to buy, make the sale thru the online store or direct them to the nearest dealer. Lastly price. What more can be said about apple's freaking prices!
  • Reply 42 of 107
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kung Fu Guy

    That number is one indicator of its health.



    You're 100% incorrect. Even % of Adobe's revenue isn't valid, because Adobe's revenue on Mac software could be rising while the % of total revenue is decreasing.
  • Reply 43 of 107
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    Yeah, Apple needs to capture 90% of China's population...hmm, imagining 1 billion Macs sold.



    No offense. But I really think a lot of people in North America over estimate China.



    Yes the population is high (like 1.2 billion) but the number of people who are able to afford basic living item is low. Number of people who can afford luxury items is VERY LOW. Thanks to the extremely corrupted government.
  • Reply 44 of 107
    Yep, bad news. I always thought that when the percentage slipped below 5 percent, it would require a miracle to save the platform. Admittedly, the lack of a consumer desktop is probably costing Apple several hundred thousand sales a year, but other than that, Apple's got everything in place, and still marketshare drops.



    If Corel cancels Painter for Mac, that will be the first BIG cancellation since I have been a mac user. I hope they don't do that. Even without outright cancellations, though, there is less and less effort going into Mac development now. I don't know if any of you use Maple, but there never was a version 8 for Os X and version 9 is the lousiest port I have ever seen. To a lesser extent, I see this attitude going on with many other software vendors: just be grateful there is a mac version, even if it is released late, completely unstable, feature incomplete, and absolutely inconsistent with the Mac UI.



    I remember (not too well) an interview with Jobs back when he was with NeXT. When asked, he said he would basically ride the Mac thing as long as possible and use it as the jumping off point for the next big thing. I kinda get a real sense that some of that is going on now with the whole digital music thing.
  • Reply 45 of 107
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Smaller market share doesn't mean fewer computers sold, nor does it indicate anything about the installed base. It means, in this context, that the overall number of machines shipped last quarter grew faster than the overall number of Macs shipped.



    Please note that the numbers above are from 2003 as a whole and that includes two quarters with virtually no Power Macs sold.
  • Reply 46 of 107
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    CorelDraw, poof.



    I don't think that many Mac users would use it even if Apple had a 10% market share.



    They came too late.
  • Reply 47 of 107
    The whole marketshare thing makes me scratch my head.



    iPod is a good example of how to do it right. Apple didn't arrive first...but they didn't arrive too late either. It's cool, cheaper than a Mac/affordable and is perceived as cool by those who buy it. It's a quality product with elegant software and a seamless integration with iTunes and purchasing online music.



    And. It works on Windows. And. Apple have landed it's first clone license to HP. (The last two things should not be overlooked. Because give Apple a bigger market to aim at and potential for growth. Distribution and somebody on their side to help out.)



    It's the ultimate Apple 'Mac'.



    Alot of 'Macs' look great. But cpus are slower than Wintel alternatives in much of the lines. Screens are inferior in laptops. Prices are higher. Entry to the low end Apple tower market is £1395 compared to £295 in the PC market. Ram is frequently less in Macs. Graphics cards stingier in supposedly 'high end/top of the line' products.



    Macs aren't compatible with Windows PCs. Or rather, 'X' isn't. Isn't licensed either.



    Compare the 'Mac' product to the iPod product and you can see why one is stagnant and the other achieving record growth. One market is saturated and the other quite young.



    What's the answer?



    Apple needs to offer more in their hardware. BMW prices WITH BMW components and performance.



    To at least get specs in parity and within 10% of PC major vendors pricing.



    Exposure.



    More choice.



    But before that, Macs have got to be ready.



    The iMac2 isn't it. The eMac isn't it.



    Apple need to offer more choice in towers. A more flexible consumer desktop product.



    Radical.



    Apple really need to 'think different' if they are ever going to reach 10% marketshare.



    License to HP to make a 'blue' PPC Mac reach a broader PC market.



    License Panther Server to IBM to take care of Business/Enterprise acceptance.



    Obvious as it sounds. Make a compelling 'switcher' box that students and thrifty consumers can buy.



    An iMac2 priced above the 'sweet spot' aint it by Fred's own admission.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 48 of 107
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    License to HP to make a 'blue' PPC Mac reach a broader PC market



    Not a new idea (people have been floating the idea around with IBM and Motorola as the distribution partners), but I guess it's more possible than ever now. With Apple marketshare continuing to decline, and them demonstrating a willingness to strike partnerships with competitors like HP, hmm...



    1) The HP boxes would have to cut massive corners because they'd still be more expensive than whitebox and even brandname x86 PCs.



    2) The clones would be strictly for overseas markets where Apple has a weak presence. Asia, South America, etc. Maybe education and government too...



    Eh, still not a realistic proposition.
  • Reply 49 of 107
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    1) The HP boxes would have to cut massive corners because they'd still be more expensive than whitebox and even brandname x86 PCs.



    Why?
  • Reply 50 of 107
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Why?



    Seen the prices of decently spec'd PCs lately?
  • Reply 51 of 107
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:

    Seen the prices of decently spec'd PCs lately



    Yup I have and unless Apple gets some balls on the lowend to midrange machines their marketshare will continue to dwindle every year.



    The thing that bothers me the most is Apple talks a different game than what they walk. They want switchers and make it seem like their on an all out assault for computer users but their actions tell me they fear putting out powerful lowend computers for fear of cannibalization.



    We'll see what the next revision of the PM bring and what that allows the eMac and iMac to ascend to.



    I think Apple should create a Business Mac. Make them Headless and purchaseable in lots of 3 or more. Basic audio. Ethernet/Firewire. Small form factor. AGP and One PCI, Airport. Standard Monitor connectivity. They need to start shipping boxes flat out.
  • Reply 52 of 107
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Seen the prices of decently spec'd PCs lately?



    So? The PPC is cheaper than a P4, so I can't see why HP couldn't produce Macs in the same price range as their Intel computers.
  • Reply 53 of 107
    Quote:

    Not a new idea (people have been floating the idea around with IBM and Motorola as the distribution partners), but I guess it's more possible than ever now. With Apple marketshare continuing to decline, and them demonstrating a willingness to strike partnerships with competitors like HP, hmm..



    Limited cloning licenses. One for broader distribution and mindshare. ie HP. Another for business acceptance ie IBM. Limited execution outside of Apple's traditional markets.



    I think Apple seriously going to have to 'think different' if they are going to overcome Amorphs retorical 'inertia' syndrome.



    Hmurchison is right. Apple's gonna have to grow some balls. Steve says he's after 10%. HOW is he going to reach it? It's alright talking the talk. But perhaps they could learn a lesson from Dell in executing the 'walk the talk.' They launch the iMac 2. But, in reality, for the best part of its two year life the iMac 2 has been static regarding it's specs. Stingy ram. Graphics card hasn't changed that much. Cpu gone from 800mhz to a measly 1.25? Motherboard creaked up a mhz or two. The low end model has failed to down size in price like the original iMac did. Guess what? Surprise. Sales have been mediocre. Even the PowerMac has been outselling (please discout eMac sales...) the iMac 2! Unhread of in the original iMac run.



    What boils me is that Apple has the best OS, the best software, the most seamless software/hardware integration user experience out there, the best stores, the best 'looking' machines in almost every class. THE laptops ('cool'), THE music store and player...fanatical fanbase, the most talked about computer company setting the hottest trends...and..?



    Looking at Macs, you'd think they'd be considered to the computers what the iPod is to music players. But, it ISN'T the same. iPod is available to Wintel. 'X' and 'iLife' isn't.



    The cost of entry to Mac land is: Mac versions of all the PC software I use, a low-end tower that costs twice the amount of a decent PC tower... These aren't small costs. Where is the compelling 'cheap enough' 'toe-in-the-water' 'risk-free' Apple option? There's no earth-quaking 'switcher-box'.



    They're scraping around with 3.2% world share of the computer market?



    In some ways, I ask why aren't they on 15% by now.



    In other ways? I can see why the Mac market is struggling to gain traction.



    The stores and iPod and iTunes and renewed iLife are good strategies as is the focus on laptops.



    But the neglect and fumbling on the consumer desktops is woeful. The reason the original iMac sales started to dwindle was because Apple took too long to follow up the iMac and when they did? The answer wasn't quite compelling enough for the price asked.



    Apple needs a computer that can get in 10 million plus homes like the original Commodore 64. A console style iBox to offer home computer entertainment. I don't see Apple Macs getting traction at their current price points. There's not enough choice or flexibility. They don't have enough partners for the penetration they're looking for.



    10%?



    It looks like a dream.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 54 of 107
    With Steve at the helm, I think they have no intention of reversing its marketshare, or producing the computer for the rest of us, or dominating in any market it chooses. Apple's mission statement read like this: " We will be the r&d arm of silicon valley and allow our rivals to popularize our innovations. We will make our name with innovation. Show how it should be done. Let our rivals do the grunt work (sales, marketing, logistics, retail, support)."



    It's sad to see apple not fight for its life. They're unwilling to pull out all the stops and fight like an underdog should. Of all the classic business battles, Apple should be more like Pepsi. The perrenial underdog and number 2. But you'll always find them next to their rivals on the shelf. Pepsi has plenty of mindshare. They sponsor many public events. Mention apple and you'll get, "They still around?"
  • Reply 55 of 107
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I don't think this is the problem, although there is (or shouldn't be) any debate that Apple's sub-PowerMac desktop line needs help.



    I think the cannibalization fear was an artifact of the compression of the line by the G4, and I think that fear was justified at the time. I don't think there's any cause for concern now.



    Every line updated since the PowerMac G5 was introduced seems to be going full blast (note: The PMG5 was not introduced since the PMG5 ) so I have high hopes for the eMac and iMac, or for whatever replace them.



    However, I think we should account for the significant and accelerating trend toward laptops. The iBook is fast becoming the iMac. It's certainly the poster-child switcher machine, as it has been since the chiclet style bowed in in May 2001. This is a trend that you have to consider when coming up with desktops. They have to offer things that laptops don't at the same price. They have to take advantage of the fact that they're desktops: Higher capacities, higher speeds, bigger monitors, even *gasp* detachable monitors are all things you can't really get from an iBook.



    But we should be prepared for the possibility that no iMac sells as well as the old gumdrop. As long as the iBook sells strongly, that's OK; it means the mantle has been passed. If neither sells strongly, then we have cause for concern.



    And the battle against the momentum of the Windows network effect will go on.



    Kung Fu Guy: Funny you should mention Pepsi and mindshare. They'll be loaning Apple a little of that shortly.
  • Reply 56 of 107
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    So? The PPC is cheaper than a P4, so I can't see why HP couldn't produce Macs in the same price range as their Intel computers.



    PPC is cheaper how?



    A 2.4 GHz Celeron is $70 retail

    A board for that Celeron is $40 retail



    1 GHz MPC7457s are still around $140 each in quantity.

    Custom boards? How much would those cost?



    Cheap G5s maybe? Hah! For $70? ROFL! AMD's budget chips are even cheaper.
  • Reply 57 of 107
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Yeah, Apple needs to capture 90% of China's population...hmm, imagining 1 billion Macs sold.



    Apple could and should do something about it. MacOS X is really stellar at world fonts and languages and other nationality components. They could be the market share majority in China easily, I can see it happening.
  • Reply 58 of 107
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    It's a legitimate concern, allowing even one clone maker.



    1) Compatibility issues.

    2) Apple marketshare doesn't grow even if OS X's does...in the near term. How successful will they be at keeping the clones out of their existing markets?

    3) Can Apple survive #2 to reap the eventual benefits? Maybe they would be better off as a software and CE company...see Microsoft.
  • Reply 59 of 107
    I just did a quote in the UK applestore for a dual 1.8 with 2mb of ram and 2 250gig drives. I did the same in the US store and the difference was around $1700



    This is why I don't have a G5. I'd love to have one though.
  • Reply 60 of 107
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    PPC is cheaper how?



    A 2.4 GHz Celeron is $70 retail

    A board for that Celeron is $40 retail



    1 GHz MPC7457s are still around $140 each in quantity.

    Custom boards? How much would those cost?



    Cheap G5s maybe? Hah! For $70? ROFL! AMD's budget chips are even cheaper.




    Jesus, comparing a G5 to a Celeron? How about looking at the price of the 3.2GHz P4?



Sign In or Register to comment.