I think there's both short-term and long-term attempts to address this problem, and that Apple is working on both of these.
Short-term is obviously the iMac problem. Apple goofed with the flat-panel iMac; they haven't been able to bring costs down to nearly the level of competing PC desktops. I'd expect the next iMac revision to be a fairly radical one, and one that reduces the cost of entry to switching.
Long-term, Apple has lost the desktop war; there's no chance of ever gaining market share against cheap PCs running the industry "standard" OS. Apple knows this. All they can do is make OS X as compatible as possible, keep the most important software available, and forge ahead keeping just slightly ahead of Windows -- all this they've done. They're staying alive, keeping the brand exciting, and gathering much admiration for their products.
The only way out is release
So what next? They're:
- Increasing amount of sales from PCs to peripherals and software
I think Apple is trying to get way from their strict dependance on Macintosh line hardware for these reasons. I'm not saying they're trying to dump the Mac, nor that they'll start making OS X for other hardware, just that they need some financial independence from its hardware sales to support the rest of the company.
At the same time, it's obvious Apple is betting on both the digital hub stuff, the success of console gaming systems and stuff like TiVO to split the computer market into more specialized ones. Apple has more of a fighting chance if people's definition of a computer is changed from a swiss army knife white box to more specific roles that go by brand or use. Apple would probably love it if people stopped talking about buying a "computer" and started talking about buying a digital console, a media center, a TiVO, a Macintosh or whatnot. Consider that this market share stuff doesn't account for markets in terms of what the stuff is used for, it measures the market as a lump sum of all sales of what are designated computers, used for any role. That's not to dismiss the numbers, but would it help Apple and others to consider more carefully where the computers are being sold and what they're being used for, how the sales break down in terms of price and abilities?
If Apple sells 3 times as many Macs next quarter, that's great. But if the rest of the industry sells 4 times more, they lose market share. So it it better or worse in that case? Well, I also hope Apple can make it through all this for many years to come. At least I'm doing my part (or will again soon)!
Apple can take advantage of the fact that the needs people have at the low end no longer require the power of a full PC. This ties into what BuonRotto is getting at: The Macintosh is actually becoming too powerful to be a mass-market PC. So Apple has an opportunity here to redefine the low end with an appliance.
And the appliance won't be called "Macintosh," because people know that Macintoshes are "expensive" and "only good for graphics." It will have its own name, it will work with PCs, and it will, of course, work really well with Macs.
It does all come back to the Mac eventually. But it's important to realize that Apple has much better luck doing an end run around the problem of the "Macintosh" than they do tackling it head on. iPod has taught them that if they get out of the "Macintosh" name they can command the market (and there are still people who ask me if the iPod works with PCs - wait'll more people discover that). Furthermore, if they have solid revenue streams coming in from other products, they can subsidize the Mac by various means (although not to the extent that they'd let it remain a money loser - Apple doesn't play that game), and at the very least they aren't so dependent on its fortunes.
What's not proven yet is that iPod is an effective "trojan horse," although there is early evidence that it is. If iPod buyers become Mac buyers, then Apple has even more reason to release more things like iPods.
Yes, Apple's share of this expanding market is 'shrinking'. Does this mean that there are fewer people buying Apple computers or less software bought or less developers?
I honestly don't know, but I think the answers deserve more thought and analysis than big number good!, small number bad!
Here are some numbers if it will help... Remember that these marketshare numbers are for the whole year, not just the 1Q number we saw in the article.
2000
Mac: 3,840,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.99%
2001
Mac: 3,174,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.51%
2002
Mac: 3,098,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.37%
2003
Mac: 3,098,000 computers sold. Sales were flat the last couple of years.
Apple can take advantage of the fact that the needs people have at the low end no longer require the power of a full PC. This ties into what BuonRotto is getting at: The Macintosh is actually becoming too powerful to be a mass-market PC. So Apple has an opportunity here to redefine the low end with an appliance.
And the appliance won't be called "Macintosh," because people know that Macintoshes are "expensive" and "only good for graphics." It will have its own name, it will work with PCs, and it will, of course, work really well with Macs.
It does all come back to the Mac eventually. But it's important to realize that Apple has much better luck doing an end run around the problem of the "Macintosh" than they do tackling it head on. iPod has taught them that if they get out of the "Macintosh" name they can command the market (and there are still people who ask me if the iPod works with PCs - wait'll more people discover that). Furthermore, if they have solid revenue streams coming in from other products, they can subsidize the Mac by various means (although not to the extent that they'd let it remain a money loser - Apple doesn't play that game), and at the very least they aren't so dependent on its fortunes.
What's not proven yet is that iPod is an effective "trojan horse," although there is early evidence that it is. If iPod buyers become Mac buyers, then Apple has even more reason to release more things like iPods.
I like the idea of this. To start, the product would need to generate revenue from both hardware and the software (just like iPod and iTunes Music Store). This would ensure the Apple's solution wouldn't be matched very easily.
With that being said though, I am not really sure it could be successfully implemented. Why? Because I don't think that there is anything left in the consumer space that hasn't been tried successfully or is currently being done now by others (with maybe the exception of an online book store that downloads to an Apple branded portable book reader).
Apple can take advantage of the fact that the needs people have at the low end no longer require the power of a full PC. This ties into what BuonRotto is getting at: The Macintosh is actually becoming too powerful to be a mass-market PC. So Apple has an opportunity here to redefine the low end with an appliance.
Exactly!
So why doesn't Apple do it? There's a new consumer on the market. That consumer only wants a computer to surf the web with, download pictures from a digital camera and e-mail. This market is HUGE! This is what the $500 PC is for. Apple could very well offer a system at $500 that is fast enough to do the above. Call it something else if they want, but put it out there already. Apple is losing ground on this front.
There are two different kinds of speed. There is pure number-crunching speed, and there is interface responsiveness. It's in this second category that Apple cannot skimp. XP is Snappy (on a clean install, without all the adware that will accumulate over one week of usage), and people can feel that. A $599 Mac must not feel significantly slower than a PowerMac. Even if it takes 30-50% longer to run a Photoshop filter, it still needs to be able to render websites quickly. This comes down to software optimizations.
The main computer in my house is a 17" iMac, 800MHz, 768MB RAM, and IIRC cost $1800 at the time. My sister has a $499 grey box built by a friend, and my mom complains that my sister's computer is faster than the iMac. She thinks it's just plain foolish that my dad and I are both die-hard Mac people, because after all, the PC is "faster" than the iMac and my Ti800.
Personally, I think they could improve OS X's responsiveness just by toning down some of the animation, but that's just me....
With that being said though, I am not really sure it could be successfully implemented. Why? Because I don't think that there is anything left in the consumer space that hasn't been tried successfully or is currently being done now by others (with maybe the exception of an online book store that downloads to an Apple branded portable book reader).
well, i think there's still room in the consumer video camera space. seriously, those things give me a headache. i just want to point, zoom, click, roll and playback.
i also find digital cameras screwing up their interfaces, but they're getting ridiculously cheap and small that i don't think apple could cost-effectively compete. and that is what is at issue here.
You guys are being very pessimistic about the whole big picture. Apple is not just riding out what they have, remaining profitable for as long as possible, and then will somehow become acquired by Sony or something.
They have smaaaaarrrrttt people working for them, there are strategies in place. Jobs wouldnt be at the San Fran store opening if Apple was so doomed, unless of course, Apple becomes the next Enron...LOL not gonna happen.
HDTV is going to move consoles to the fore in a whole new way. The "home computer" will change dramatically in the period between 2006-2010.
Small, hermetically sealed boxes with fast I/O and slick interfaces will eventually dominate. Those are all Apple strengths. Unfortunately those boxes will cost 500 bucks, NOT an Apple strength.
Apple could easily sell a headless Mac with a 1.25 Gig G4 for $500. This speed would be comparable to the $500 PCs, maybe even faster.
Apple just needs to realize that the number of consumers in the market for this is in the same category as the iPod. HUGE market.
Apple CAN'T do this. The lowend eMac is selling for $799. It doesn't cost Apple $300 for the eMac monitor (assuming your headless Mac would be priced at $499). Apple doesn't make a whole lot of money on eMacs (while I don't know the specific numbers, I believe the PowerMac G5 margins are the highest of all Apple desktops).
well, i think there's still room in the consumer video camera space. seriously, those things give me a headache. i just want to point, zoom, click, roll and playback.
i also find digital cameras screwing up their interfaces, but they're getting ridiculously cheap and small that i don't think apple could cost-effectively compete. and that is what is at issue here.
Okay, you have two hardware ideas or possible ideas. Now would will be the the software side of equation (i.e., Apple Hardware + Apple Software = Apple Solution that is difficult for competion to match).
Without the software side, Apple's unique better take on digit camera/camcorder would be copied 20X over within 9 months by the competition.
What if Apple dumped the "Macintosh", "Mac", "iMac", ... names, in favour of something new? Same Macs as we have now, but a new name for the future. ... I mean, a lot of people hear the "Mac" name and cringe. It is amazing how much the name of a product can influence opinion... m.
Yes, the "macintosh" name has carved out a niche for itself, both with good and bad connotations. problem is, the people looking to enter the mac user base have done a lot of research and generally have more taste and savvy than the average pc user, and they would still say "well, yeah, that's what it says on the box, but it's really just a mac" (i have memories of the performa line in this instance). essentially, if apple wants something different, it MUST be DIFFERENT. very different. like iPod.
and dave, i agree that any device for video would have to have a software backside to drive sales (recall steve said they run the itunes music store at a LOSS to sell ipods... which is why online music sales-only companies haven't made it really well).
i think there could be a market for a personal video player device, especially with hollywood taking a very riaa approach of saying "don't steal movies" and every bloody suv these days coming with a theater in the back so parents don't have to talk to their kids..., er, i mean, so the kids can be entertained and quiet. but also, like steve said, the technology just isn't there yet to supply that kind of media fast and well enough. once they clear that hurdle, then i think we'll see it happen.
Long-term, Apple has lost the desktop war; there's no chance of ever gaining market share against cheap PCs running the industry "standard" OS. Apple knows this. All they can do is make OS X as compatible as possible, keep the most important software available, and forge ahead keeping just slightly ahead of Windows -- all this they've done. They're staying alive, keeping the brand exciting, and gathering much admiration for their products.
I wonder what your definition of "long-term" is.
I think Microsoft is vulnerable now, since Windows Longhorn will take a minimum of two years to appear.
They have already discussed a bridge-the-gap version of Windows that will probably be nothing but smoke and mirrors. That will push Longhorn (with its genuine enhancements) even farther to the future, since it's the same people working with both.
The emergence of Linux desktop and free office apps in business and government, if successful, will draw a lot of eyes to the part of the computer that people currently take as given: the OS and the "standard" office apps. I think if people start asking questions and comparing options, Apple will grow marketshare.
Comments
Short-term is obviously the iMac problem. Apple goofed with the flat-panel iMac; they haven't been able to bring costs down to nearly the level of competing PC desktops. I'd expect the next iMac revision to be a fairly radical one, and one that reduces the cost of entry to switching.
Long-term, Apple has lost the desktop war; there's no chance of ever gaining market share against cheap PCs running the industry "standard" OS. Apple knows this. All they can do is make OS X as compatible as possible, keep the most important software available, and forge ahead keeping just slightly ahead of Windows -- all this they've done. They're staying alive, keeping the brand exciting, and gathering much admiration for their products.
The only way out is release
So what next? They're:
- Increasing amount of sales from PCs to peripherals and software
At the same time, it's obvious Apple is betting on both the digital hub stuff, the success of console gaming systems and stuff like TiVO to split the computer market into more specialized ones. Apple has more of a fighting chance if people's definition of a computer is changed from a swiss army knife white box to more specific roles that go by brand or use. Apple would probably love it if people stopped talking about buying a "computer" and started talking about buying a digital console, a media center, a TiVO, a Macintosh or whatnot. Consider that this market share stuff doesn't account for markets in terms of what the stuff is used for, it measures the market as a lump sum of all sales of what are designated computers, used for any role. That's not to dismiss the numbers, but would it help Apple and others to consider more carefully where the computers are being sold and what they're being used for, how the sales break down in terms of price and abilities?
If Apple sells 3 times as many Macs next quarter, that's great. But if the rest of the industry sells 4 times more, they lose market share. So it it better or worse in that case? Well, I also hope Apple can make it through all this for many years to come. At least I'm doing my part (or will again soon)!
And the appliance won't be called "Macintosh," because people know that Macintoshes are "expensive" and "only good for graphics." It will have its own name, it will work with PCs, and it will, of course, work really well with Macs.
It does all come back to the Mac eventually. But it's important to realize that Apple has much better luck doing an end run around the problem of the "Macintosh" than they do tackling it head on. iPod has taught them that if they get out of the "Macintosh" name they can command the market (and there are still people who ask me if the iPod works with PCs - wait'll more people discover that). Furthermore, if they have solid revenue streams coming in from other products, they can subsidize the Mac by various means (although not to the extent that they'd let it remain a money loser - Apple doesn't play that game), and at the very least they aren't so dependent on its fortunes.
What's not proven yet is that iPod is an effective "trojan horse," although there is early evidence that it is. If iPod buyers become Mac buyers, then Apple has even more reason to release more things like iPods.
From you of all people I expect better than this.
Yes, Apple's share of this expanding market is 'shrinking'. Does this mean that there are fewer people buying Apple computers or less software bought or less developers?
I honestly don't know, but I think the answers deserve more thought and analysis than big number good!, small number bad!
Here are some numbers if it will help... Remember that these marketshare numbers are for the whole year, not just the 1Q number we saw in the article.
2000
Mac: 3,840,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.99%
2001
Mac: 3,174,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.51%
2002
Mac: 3,098,000 computers sold.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.37%
2003
Mac: 3,098,000 computers sold. Sales were flat the last couple of years.
Mac Worldwide Marketshare: 2.08%
C.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
I just want apple to be around when I'm older
Haven't you heard? Apple has been going out of business since 1996.
Haven't you heard? Apple has been going out of business since 1996.
What's disheartening is that they were selling 40% more computers back then and had double digit marketshare...
C.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple can take advantage of the fact that the needs people have at the low end no longer require the power of a full PC. This ties into what BuonRotto is getting at: The Macintosh is actually becoming too powerful to be a mass-market PC. So Apple has an opportunity here to redefine the low end with an appliance.
And the appliance won't be called "Macintosh," because people know that Macintoshes are "expensive" and "only good for graphics." It will have its own name, it will work with PCs, and it will, of course, work really well with Macs.
It does all come back to the Mac eventually. But it's important to realize that Apple has much better luck doing an end run around the problem of the "Macintosh" than they do tackling it head on. iPod has taught them that if they get out of the "Macintosh" name they can command the market (and there are still people who ask me if the iPod works with PCs - wait'll more people discover that). Furthermore, if they have solid revenue streams coming in from other products, they can subsidize the Mac by various means (although not to the extent that they'd let it remain a money loser - Apple doesn't play that game), and at the very least they aren't so dependent on its fortunes.
What's not proven yet is that iPod is an effective "trojan horse," although there is early evidence that it is. If iPod buyers become Mac buyers, then Apple has even more reason to release more things like iPods.
I like the idea of this. To start, the product would need to generate revenue from both hardware and the software (just like iPod and iTunes Music Store). This would ensure the Apple's solution wouldn't be matched very easily.
With that being said though, I am not really sure it could be successfully implemented. Why? Because I don't think that there is anything left in the consumer space that hasn't been tried successfully or is currently being done now by others (with maybe the exception of an online book store that downloads to an Apple branded portable book reader).
Now only if Apple could make a $799 LCD iMac and actually advertise it.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple can take advantage of the fact that the needs people have at the low end no longer require the power of a full PC. This ties into what BuonRotto is getting at: The Macintosh is actually becoming too powerful to be a mass-market PC. So Apple has an opportunity here to redefine the low end with an appliance.
Exactly!
So why doesn't Apple do it? There's a new consumer on the market. That consumer only wants a computer to surf the web with, download pictures from a digital camera and e-mail. This market is HUGE! This is what the $500 PC is for. Apple could very well offer a system at $500 that is fast enough to do the above. Call it something else if they want, but put it out there already. Apple is losing ground on this front.
The main computer in my house is a 17" iMac, 800MHz, 768MB RAM, and IIRC cost $1800 at the time. My sister has a $499 grey box built by a friend, and my mom complains that my sister's computer is faster than the iMac. She thinks it's just plain foolish that my dad and I are both die-hard Mac people, because after all, the PC is "faster" than the iMac and my Ti800.
Personally, I think they could improve OS X's responsiveness just by toning down some of the animation, but that's just me....
Apple just needs to realize that the number of consumers in the market for this is in the same category as the iPod. HUGE market.
Originally posted by Dave K.
With that being said though, I am not really sure it could be successfully implemented. Why? Because I don't think that there is anything left in the consumer space that hasn't been tried successfully or is currently being done now by others (with maybe the exception of an online book store that downloads to an Apple branded portable book reader).
well, i think there's still room in the consumer video camera space. seriously, those things give me a headache. i just want to point, zoom, click, roll and playback.
i also find digital cameras screwing up their interfaces, but they're getting ridiculously cheap and small that i don't think apple could cost-effectively compete. and that is what is at issue here.
They have smaaaaarrrrttt people working for them, there are strategies in place. Jobs wouldnt be at the San Fran store opening if Apple was so doomed, unless of course, Apple becomes the next Enron...LOL not gonna happen.
Perhaps Hedron. I think that sounds good. Hmmm, xHedron instead of iMac, and eHedron instead of eMac, Power Hedron instead of Power Mac, etc...
For this would dispel any preconceptions regarding historical myths pertaining to ye olde Macintosh days.
I mean you don't hear any Apple IIs on the market anymore do you... Perhaps the Macintosh name is worn out?
I mean, a lot of people hear the "Mac" name and cringe.
It is amazing how much the name of a product can influence opinion... m.
But I'd be fine with a name change if the OS evolves enough to warrant it.
Small, hermetically sealed boxes with fast I/O and slick interfaces will eventually dominate. Those are all Apple strengths. Unfortunately those boxes will cost 500 bucks, NOT an Apple strength.
Originally posted by iPeon
Apple could easily sell a headless Mac with a 1.25 Gig G4 for $500. This speed would be comparable to the $500 PCs, maybe even faster.
Apple just needs to realize that the number of consumers in the market for this is in the same category as the iPod. HUGE market.
Apple CAN'T do this. The lowend eMac is selling for $799. It doesn't cost Apple $300 for the eMac monitor (assuming your headless Mac would be priced at $499). Apple doesn't make a whole lot of money on eMacs (while I don't know the specific numbers, I believe the PowerMac G5 margins are the highest of all Apple desktops).
Originally posted by rok
well, i think there's still room in the consumer video camera space. seriously, those things give me a headache. i just want to point, zoom, click, roll and playback.
i also find digital cameras screwing up their interfaces, but they're getting ridiculously cheap and small that i don't think apple could cost-effectively compete. and that is what is at issue here.
Okay, you have two hardware ideas or possible ideas. Now would will be the the software side of equation (i.e., Apple Hardware + Apple Software = Apple Solution that is difficult for competion to match).
Without the software side, Apple's unique better take on digit camera/camcorder would be copied 20X over within 9 months by the competition.
Originally posted by Merovingian
What if Apple dumped the "Macintosh", "Mac", "iMac", ... names, in favour of something new? Same Macs as we have now, but a new name for the future. ... I mean, a lot of people hear the "Mac" name and cringe. It is amazing how much the name of a product can influence opinion... m.
Yes, the "macintosh" name has carved out a niche for itself, both with good and bad connotations. problem is, the people looking to enter the mac user base have done a lot of research and generally have more taste and savvy than the average pc user, and they would still say "well, yeah, that's what it says on the box, but it's really just a mac" (i have memories of the performa line in this instance). essentially, if apple wants something different, it MUST be DIFFERENT. very different. like iPod.
and dave, i agree that any device for video would have to have a software backside to drive sales (recall steve said they run the itunes music store at a LOSS to sell ipods... which is why online music sales-only companies haven't made it really well).
i think there could be a market for a personal video player device, especially with hollywood taking a very riaa approach of saying "don't steal movies" and every bloody suv these days coming with a theater in the back so parents don't have to talk to their kids..., er, i mean, so the kids can be entertained and quiet. but also, like steve said, the technology just isn't there yet to supply that kind of media fast and well enough. once they clear that hurdle, then i think we'll see it happen.
Originally posted by Hobbes
Long-term, Apple has lost the desktop war; there's no chance of ever gaining market share against cheap PCs running the industry "standard" OS. Apple knows this. All they can do is make OS X as compatible as possible, keep the most important software available, and forge ahead keeping just slightly ahead of Windows -- all this they've done. They're staying alive, keeping the brand exciting, and gathering much admiration for their products.
I wonder what your definition of "long-term" is.
I think Microsoft is vulnerable now, since Windows Longhorn will take a minimum of two years to appear.
They have already discussed a bridge-the-gap version of Windows that will probably be nothing but smoke and mirrors. That will push Longhorn (with its genuine enhancements) even farther to the future, since it's the same people working with both.
The emergence of Linux desktop and free office apps in business and government, if successful, will draw a lot of eyes to the part of the computer that people currently take as given: the OS and the "standard" office apps. I think if people start asking questions and comparing options, Apple will grow marketshare.