1) We'd get more software which is Mac compatible.
2) We'd get more web sites which are Mac compatible.
Both of those are inaccurate or at least red herrings.
1. There is no reason to believe there would be more titles and more publishers aiming at the Mac market, only more copies sold of existing titles.
2. Websites, if done correctly, will adhere to web standards and will work on all platforms so long as each platform has browsers that adhere to web standards. Also developers need to avoid doing things that are platform dependent. We never -want- there to be "Mac-specific" websites that don't work on other platforms. We'd just be lowering ourselves to Microsoft's level at that point.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If Macs had more significantly more marketshare, you can bet there'd have been a Mac version of this software, and I wouldn't have had to settle for running this on my PC.
This is also not likely to be the case. However, I agree with what I think is your premise, that if the Mac's market share were bigger then it would be more attractive to develop for. But I just don't think it automatically equates to Mac ports. There might be more smaller companies making Mac-specific applications...like more Panics, more Omnis... etc.
Marketshare is undeniably important. Although it's importance is much greater at the extremes - like an asymptote. Right now there are a few titles not available for the mac, other titles are released later than the windows counterpart.
If 1,000,000 people used apple and 1 person used windows or vice versa, it's clear who everybody would make products for.
Everybody that remembers when Apple was losing $700 million a quarter, was watching developers leave en masse, was struggling to bring it's latest vaporware next gen OS to market, and was producing beige boxes that took a double jointed person to open raise your hand. Those that can't can STFU. Seriously, some of us know how close Apple was to not existing.
How many times do we need to hear this crap?
Let's make this nice and simple. Apple lost the war. However, Apple has settled into a nice little niche that allows them to stay mildly profitable and majority influential. They have developed "the next big thing" it's called the fucking iPod. Apple sold more iPods last quarter then Macs.
Now what does this all mean? Stop bitching, if you really can't find the software that you want to use on a Mac it's not the right tool for you. If you can, use it. 30 million people think it's the right tool.
Sometimes just reading these threads feels like this:
1. There is no reason to believe there would be more titles and more publishers aiming at the Mac market, only more copies sold of existing titles.
No reason? I think the reasoning is very clear: Software development costs depend almost entirely on the complexity of the product, not on the number of people you're selling to.
The home design software I linked to earlier is very complex and feature-rich. At a rough guess, I'd bet it would take 10 or more man years of effort (say a team of five very good Mac people for two years) to do a really good Mac OS X port. Consider salaries, benefits, other expenses, and let's say it would be a US$2,000,000 development effort.
If the software company can make $100 for each copy of the home design software that they sell, will they find 20,000 Mac OS X users to buy it, so they can at least break even? This isn't the kind of software lots of people are going to be interested in, so they'll only sell to a small percentage of all Mac OS X users, which is already a small percentage of the overall market.
The bigger the market share that Macs have, the more likely software companies will be to go through calculations like the above and come out saying, "Yes, doing a Mac version is worth the effort."
Quote:
2. Websites, if done correctly, will adhere to web standards and will work on all platforms so long as each platform has browsers that adhere to web standards. Also developers need to avoid doing things that are platform dependent. We never -want- there to be "Mac-specific" websites that don't work on other platforms. We'd just be lowering ourselves to Microsoft's level at that point.
First of all, I'm not talking about Mac-specific web sites. Simply web sites that don't rule out using a Mac.
Secondly, if done correctly is a big if. There are a lot of purely Microsoft-minded web developers out there who've learned everything the Microsoft way from day one. It barely occurs to them to think about anyone using anything other than IE on a Windows box. And guess what? They can often get away with thinking that way, because a lot of companies don't consider Mac users important enough to worry about -- low Mac market share is the major reason for that.
In addition, there's the element of web site testing. Even if you have very carefully followed standards, you can't be absolutely sure the web browsers people are using are also properly following those standards, to what degree the browsers that try to be compliant are truly compliant, or what web browser bugs that you might run into.
What does this mean? It means it's a very good idea to pay QA people to test your web site against a wide variety of web browsers. But what if you want to save money and can't afford that much QA? You can either simply hope that your web site works on browsers you haven't tested, or you can actively disallow users who enter to your web site using an untested browser.
The latter choice is popular with banks and other financial web sites, because they're scared that unforeseen bugs could lead nasty customer service headaches and other financial repercussions.
A web site's owner can easily decide that they won't lose that much business by not letting Mac users use their web site, that development and QA costs would be higher than the profits from dealing with Macs, and that playing it safe by simply blocking Mac users is the way to go.
Quote:
But I just don't think it automatically equates to Mac ports. There might be more smaller companies making Mac-specific applications...like more Panics, more Omnis... etc.
Of course there's nothing automatic, but a bigger market share for Macs certainly makes Mac software development more tempting, and makes Mac users harder to ignore.
Getting more small developers to develop for Macs is important. This is a good example of the "80/20 rule": Figure that (roughly) 80% of a computer user's needs can be met by 20% of the software titles out there. Those commonly-used top-20% titles are the kinds of things for which you usually can find Mac versions.
But 20% of a user's needs will likely be found amoung the remaining 80% of titles, the more specialized and smaller-market products.
As it stands today, Mac users often have a hard time with that last 20% of their software needs. Filling in that last 20% of needs -- and 80% of titles -- is where Mac market share matters. (Please remember I'm using rough illustrative values, not real statistics).
How many times does it have to be explained that hoping market share rises, and saying that the sky is falling, are two different things?
I don't think market share has to rise, at least in the near term, for Apple and the Mac platform to survive. (If it never rises at all, that could be bad news as the years continue to wear on, however.)
There are better things than mere survival to hope for. however. Like, for instance, that the home design software I just had to buy as a Windows product had been available for Mac.
More Mac market share would very likely save me from having to choose Windows software in the future when I'd really rather be running native OS X apps that do what I want to do instead.
Let's make this nice and simple. Apple lost the war. However, Apple has settled into a nice little niche that allows them to stay mildly profitable and majority influential.
See marketshare really shouldn't be the biggest concern for Apple users. The thing is, if Apple were actually selling an increasing number of computers every year - even if it didn't match the PC sector growth - I would say they'd have "settled" into a nice little corner of the industry.
But the thing is... they're not. They're selling 30% fewer computers now than in their heyday of the mid-nineties. And OS:X/iMac/G5/etc. hasn't reversed this trend. The bottom line is that Apple is slowly, very slowly, getting shoved out of the computer biz.
Quote:
They have developed "the next big thing" it's called the ****ing iPod. Apple sold more iPods last quarter then Macs.
Yay. Lemme know when I can run Quark, Photoshop or Indesign on that iPod.
The *last* think I want is for Apple to turn into the gadget-du-jour company.
How many times does it have to be explained that hoping market share rises, and saying that the sky is falling, are two different things?
I don't think market share has to rise, at least in the near term, for Apple and the Mac platform to survive. (If it never rises at all, that could be bad news as the years continue to wear on, however.)
There are better things than mere survival to hope for. however. Like, for instance, that the home design software I just had to buy as a Windows product had been available for Mac.
More Mac market share would very likely save me from having to choose Windows software in the future when I'd really rather be running native OS X apps that do what I want to do instead.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but the fate of the platform does not rest on some home design software. Yes it would be nice to have, but there are some Mac alternatives and if there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need. I also doubt that if Apple's share suddenly doubled this software would make it over. Similarly, I've found that interacting with developers, of say that home designing software, and letting them know that you would pay for a Mac version has a lot more influence than Apple's latest unit shipments. I don't know maybe I'm just jaded because I remember when developers like Quark, Adobe, and Microsoft were seriously considering pulling all support for the Mac.
See marketshare really shouldn't be the biggest concern for Apple users. The thing is, if Apple were actually selling an increasing number of computers every year - even if it didn't match the PC sector growth - I would say they'd have "settled" into a nice little corner of the industry.
But the thing is... they're not. They're selling 40% fewer computers now than in their heyday of the mid-nineties. And OS:X/iMac/G5/etc. hasn't reversed this trend. The bottom line is that Apple is slowly, very slowly, getting shoved out of the computer biz.
What does it matter how many they are selling as long as they are selling enough to sustain the current user base and they continue to remain profitable? In the mid 90's we had real concerns. When was the last time you read an article about 101 ways to save Apple? It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when Apple would die back then. Apple is getting back into the computer biz slowly, very slowly, and if it weren't for unimaginable market inertia and that bitch known as the network effect they would be doing better. Why do you think that MS is stuck keeping backwards compatibility all the way back to DOS?
Quote:
Yay. Lemme know when I can run Quark, Photoshop or Indesign on that iPod.
Lemme know how your ability to run Quark, Photoshop, or Indesign are impacted by Apple's unit shipments at all. Seems to me that even if Apple went belly up tomorrow your Mac would keep on chugging along. My point was that there is tons of bitching coming from the 'Mac faithful' for Apple to whip up the 'next big thing'. Well they did it. It's the iPod. Apple finally has a chance to start over on a new platform. If anything the iPod shows how difficult Apple's fight for market share really is. When given a chance by the consumer to compete on a level playing field Apple can and will kick ass. When tied down by 20 years of FUD, mismanagement, and and a hostile environment Apple can't win. Nothing short of a DoJ 180 or a catastrophic, read hundreds of millions of wintel boxes being rendered permanently destroyed, virus outbreak Apple is not going make a huge breakthrough. That's ok. As long as Apple makes a box that suits your need you're fine.
Quote:
The *last* think I want is for Apple to turn into the gadget-du-jour company.
C.
I could care less if Apple became a gadget company as long as my Mac continues to run and I continue to get my work done. The Mac is a tool. A wintel box is a tool. Find the right tool for your needs and use it.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but the fate of the platform does not rest on some home design software.
You can't get away from this "fate of the platform" thing, can you? While I think there may indeed be some concerns there, let me repeat it once more: HOPING FOR MORE MAC MARKET SHARE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING MACS ARE DOOMED.
The home design software is only one example. There are plenty of niche products that just don't exist for Mac. Fate of the platform or not, there's no way it's a good thing to have fewer choices and fewer product niches filled.
What is it about hoping for more Mac market share, and hoping for the increased software, hardware, and web support that would most likely come with more market share, that sends so many other Mac people into a defensive stance about the viability of the Mac platform being attacked?
Quote:
Yes it would be nice to have, but there are some Mac alternatives and if there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need.
Don't you see you're making my point without even realizing it? If there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need.
Guess what? More market share for Macs makes demand for Mac versions of products bigger.
Suppose only 0.1% of Windows users want to buy home design software. Balanced against software development costs, even 0.1% is HUGE demand. With Mac market share being what it is, however, 0.1% of Mac users -- particularly of Mac OS X users if you're hoping for native OS X software -- isn't huge.
Quote:
I also doubt that if Apple's share suddenly doubled this software would make it over.
It's hard to tell with any specific example, but having twice as many potential buyers to offset the essentially the same development cost has got to make a difference for a lot of potential Mac products.
Quote:
Similarly, I've found that interacting with developers, of say that home designing software, and letting them know that you would pay for a Mac version has a lot more influence than Apple's latest unit shipments.
More Mac market share would also mean more Mac people clamoring for more Mac products. Developers wouldn't have to be watching Apple sales reports to get the message.
Quote:
I don't know maybe I'm just jaded because I remember when developers like Quark, Adobe, and Microsoft were seriously considering pulling all support for the Mac.
Those are examples of major products, the kinds of things that are most resistant to a small Mac market share. But wouldn't it be better to have more niche product areas filled in as well?
I could care less if Apple became a gadget company as long as my Mac continues to run and I continue to get my work done. The Mac is a tool. A wintel box is a tool. Find the right tool for your needs and use it.
If you're going to talk about these things as tools, let's use a tool analogy: Think about Windows as a power screwdriver that you don't find very comfortable to use, but you can find nearly every kind of bit for every kind of screw and bolt out there.
Think of the Mac as a much more comfortable, better crafted power screwdriver, but it's a less popular brand with only bits for the most common screws and bolts available. It works great for you most of the time, but when you run into a 0.243 mm seven-sided star-head screw, you're out of luck.
So, what do you do? Buy both screwdrivers? Give up the one you like using the most because fills fewer needs that the better-supported but less comfortable brand?
If the market share for your favorite power screwdriver was bigger, you'd be less likely to face this dilemma. You could have the best of both worlds.
Just because concerned Mac users want increased marketshare does not me they want 100% marketshare. We're talking small steps. Get up to 5%, then 10%, then maybe 15%. That certainly wouldn't make everyone a Mac user.
Apple has talked the talk, but it has not walked the walk. It was just a year ago that Anderson proclaimed that Apple's goal would be to grow the company to a 20Billion company with 10% marketshare. The company continues on its backward slide in this regard (7% in mid 90s to around 2%).
People like discredit the cry wolf predictions that Apple is going out of business, but profit margins ain't gonna cut it if its marketshare shrinks to 0% (it's already at two and running out of breathing room).
Yes, Apple wows 'em with great innovation- how about you wow us with your prices! $2k dual 3ghz, anyone?
Note to Apple, ITS THE PRICING/PLACING/MARKETING stupid!
Quote:
[/B] It'd just be nice to see Apple selling more machines....Apple has innovative designs for its Macs, but as for competitive pricing and good marketing.... I don't think so \ [/B]
The question is, whatever happened to good old-fashioned unit sales? There is no correlation between unit sales and market share, so market share does not address the question.
There is no correlation between Mac market share and the market for any particular application. As shetline himself said above, developers want absolute numbers of sales, not percentages. If there are enough Mac users in absolute terms, then it doesn't matter what the percentage of the overall market is.
There is no correlation between Mac market share and whether or not Apple is selling more Macs. Furthermore, there is no absolute correlation between the number of Macs sold per quarter and the growth of the platform. Crap computers get replaced more often, so there are more sales into the same installed base (i.e., it barely grows), but quarterly market share will be very high (because people keep having to buy them). Developers, as above, want an installed base to sell into.
As shetline points out above, a small percentage of an immense market is still a pretty big base in real terms. Real terms are what actually matter.
If you break Apple's share down by market, you might have something more interesting to talk about. And I won't deny that growing market share would be nice simply because it would necessarily mean that the installed base was growing like gangbusters. But right now, the installed base is growing, Apple is gaining new markets and recovering others (like higher ed). As long as that remains true, Apple will do fine.
What does it matter how many they are selling as long as they are selling enough to sustain the current user base and they continue to remain profitable?
You can't expect to sell fewer computers every year and remain viable indefinitely (at least not in that market).
Quote:
In the mid 90's we had real concerns. When was the last time you read an article about 101 ways to save Apple?
The media's cry of "Apple is doomed" is eternal... Do a Google search. "iPods won't save Apple" ring a bell? Remember... they we're still selling *more* computers back then.
Quote:
Apple is getting back into the computer biz slowly, very slowly,...
What are you talking about!?! Apple's *never* had a more compelling array of products and still the unit sales dwindle. This isn't getting back into it, this is getting pushed out.
Quote:
Lemme know how your ability to run Quark, Photoshop, or Indesign are impacted by Apple's unit shipments at all. Seems to me that even if Apple went belly up tomorrow your Mac would keep on chugging along.
*My* Mac is at work. And if Apple went belly up tomorrow it wouldn't be long before our clients went 100% PC, therefore us as well. Needless to say I have some more vested interest in their prosperity than the typical web surfing home user.
Quote:
My point was that there is tons of bitching coming from the 'Mac faithful' for Apple to whip up the 'next big thing'. Well they did it. It's the iPod.
Which is exactly what to a [b]Mac[/i] user? Hey, I like the iPod as much as the next person but I'm afraid it's not going to be much help in my line of work.
Nevertheless, it makes more sense now than it has for a solid decade for developers to stick around. Evidence? They're flocking to the Mac in droves. Sun's Java team? All Macs. The Perl team? All Macs. Linus Torvalds has a G5. Etc. Apple has never had this kind of developer attention before. Not ever.
I have to say this sounds like a lot of conjecture and typical "the sky is falling, Apple is doomed" FUD. Care to back this up with any concrete numbers or cite some real examples beyond personal experiences? unkie...
I have to say this sounds like a lot of conjecture and typical "the sky is falling, Apple is doomed" FUD. Care to back this up with any concrete numbers or cite some real examples beyond personal experiences?
Here are more real numbers:
Percentage of Adobe revenues by platform:
1997 - 49%/51% (Mac/Win)
1998 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
1999 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
2000 - 37%/63% (Mac/Win)
2001 - 30%/70% (Mac/Win)
2002 - 29%/71% (Mac/Win)
2003 - 26%/74% (Mac/Win)
Adobe is selling less and less of its software to Macintosh customers. Are these numbers real enough for you to see a problem with Apple's marketshare?
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
1) We'd get more software which is Mac compatible.
2) We'd get more web sites which are Mac compatible.
Both of those are inaccurate or at least red herrings.
1. There is no reason to believe there would be more titles and more publishers aiming at the Mac market, only more copies sold of existing titles.
2. Websites, if done correctly, will adhere to web standards and will work on all platforms so long as each platform has browsers that adhere to web standards. Also developers need to avoid doing things that are platform dependent. We never -want- there to be "Mac-specific" websites that don't work on other platforms. We'd just be lowering ourselves to Microsoft's level at that point.
Originally posted by shetline
If Macs had more significantly more marketshare, you can bet there'd have been a Mac version of this software, and I wouldn't have had to settle for running this on my PC.
This is also not likely to be the case. However, I agree with what I think is your premise, that if the Mac's market share were bigger then it would be more attractive to develop for. But I just don't think it automatically equates to Mac ports. There might be more smaller companies making Mac-specific applications...like more Panics, more Omnis... etc.
If 1,000,000 people used apple and 1 person used windows or vice versa, it's clear who everybody would make products for.
How many times do we need to hear this crap?
Let's make this nice and simple. Apple lost the war. However, Apple has settled into a nice little niche that allows them to stay mildly profitable and majority influential. They have developed "the next big thing" it's called the fucking iPod. Apple sold more iPods last quarter then Macs.
Now what does this all mean? Stop bitching, if you really can't find the software that you want to use on a Mac it's not the right tool for you. If you can, use it. 30 million people think it's the right tool.
Sometimes just reading these threads feels like this:
Originally posted by johnq
1. There is no reason to believe there would be more titles and more publishers aiming at the Mac market, only more copies sold of existing titles.
No reason? I think the reasoning is very clear: Software development costs depend almost entirely on the complexity of the product, not on the number of people you're selling to.
The home design software I linked to earlier is very complex and feature-rich. At a rough guess, I'd bet it would take 10 or more man years of effort (say a team of five very good Mac people for two years) to do a really good Mac OS X port. Consider salaries, benefits, other expenses, and let's say it would be a US$2,000,000 development effort.
If the software company can make $100 for each copy of the home design software that they sell, will they find 20,000 Mac OS X users to buy it, so they can at least break even? This isn't the kind of software lots of people are going to be interested in, so they'll only sell to a small percentage of all Mac OS X users, which is already a small percentage of the overall market.
The bigger the market share that Macs have, the more likely software companies will be to go through calculations like the above and come out saying, "Yes, doing a Mac version is worth the effort."
2. Websites, if done correctly, will adhere to web standards and will work on all platforms so long as each platform has browsers that adhere to web standards. Also developers need to avoid doing things that are platform dependent. We never -want- there to be "Mac-specific" websites that don't work on other platforms. We'd just be lowering ourselves to Microsoft's level at that point.
First of all, I'm not talking about Mac-specific web sites. Simply web sites that don't rule out using a Mac.
Secondly, if done correctly is a big if. There are a lot of purely Microsoft-minded web developers out there who've learned everything the Microsoft way from day one. It barely occurs to them to think about anyone using anything other than IE on a Windows box. And guess what? They can often get away with thinking that way, because a lot of companies don't consider Mac users important enough to worry about -- low Mac market share is the major reason for that.
In addition, there's the element of web site testing. Even if you have very carefully followed standards, you can't be absolutely sure the web browsers people are using are also properly following those standards, to what degree the browsers that try to be compliant are truly compliant, or what web browser bugs that you might run into.
What does this mean? It means it's a very good idea to pay QA people to test your web site against a wide variety of web browsers. But what if you want to save money and can't afford that much QA? You can either simply hope that your web site works on browsers you haven't tested, or you can actively disallow users who enter to your web site using an untested browser.
The latter choice is popular with banks and other financial web sites, because they're scared that unforeseen bugs could lead nasty customer service headaches and other financial repercussions.
A web site's owner can easily decide that they won't lose that much business by not letting Mac users use their web site, that development and QA costs would be higher than the profits from dealing with Macs, and that playing it safe by simply blocking Mac users is the way to go.
But I just don't think it automatically equates to Mac ports. There might be more smaller companies making Mac-specific applications...like more Panics, more Omnis... etc.
Of course there's nothing automatic, but a bigger market share for Macs certainly makes Mac software development more tempting, and makes Mac users harder to ignore.
Getting more small developers to develop for Macs is important. This is a good example of the "80/20 rule": Figure that (roughly) 80% of a computer user's needs can be met by 20% of the software titles out there. Those commonly-used top-20% titles are the kinds of things for which you usually can find Mac versions.
But 20% of a user's needs will likely be found amoung the remaining 80% of titles, the more specialized and smaller-market products.
As it stands today, Mac users often have a hard time with that last 20% of their software needs. Filling in that last 20% of needs -- and 80% of titles -- is where Mac market share matters. (Please remember I'm using rough illustrative values, not real statistics).
Originally posted by HOM
How many times do we need to hear this crap?
How many times does it have to be explained that hoping market share rises, and saying that the sky is falling, are two different things?
I don't think market share has to rise, at least in the near term, for Apple and the Mac platform to survive. (If it never rises at all, that could be bad news as the years continue to wear on, however.)
There are better things than mere survival to hope for. however. Like, for instance, that the home design software I just had to buy as a Windows product had been available for Mac.
More Mac market share would very likely save me from having to choose Windows software in the future when I'd really rather be running native OS X apps that do what I want to do instead.
Originally posted by HOM:
Let's make this nice and simple. Apple lost the war. However, Apple has settled into a nice little niche that allows them to stay mildly profitable and majority influential.
See marketshare really shouldn't be the biggest concern for Apple users. The thing is, if Apple were actually selling an increasing number of computers every year - even if it didn't match the PC sector growth - I would say they'd have "settled" into a nice little corner of the industry.
But the thing is... they're not. They're selling 30% fewer computers now than in their heyday of the mid-nineties. And OS:X/iMac/G5/etc. hasn't reversed this trend. The bottom line is that Apple is slowly, very slowly, getting shoved out of the computer biz.
They have developed "the next big thing" it's called the ****ing iPod. Apple sold more iPods last quarter then Macs.
Yay. Lemme know when I can run Quark, Photoshop or Indesign on that iPod.
The *last* think I want is for Apple to turn into the gadget-du-jour company.
C.
Originally posted by shetline
How many times does it have to be explained that hoping market share rises, and saying that the sky is falling, are two different things?
I don't think market share has to rise, at least in the near term, for Apple and the Mac platform to survive. (If it never rises at all, that could be bad news as the years continue to wear on, however.)
There are better things than mere survival to hope for. however. Like, for instance, that the home design software I just had to buy as a Windows product had been available for Mac.
More Mac market share would very likely save me from having to choose Windows software in the future when I'd really rather be running native OS X apps that do what I want to do instead.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but the fate of the platform does not rest on some home design software. Yes it would be nice to have, but there are some Mac alternatives and if there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need. I also doubt that if Apple's share suddenly doubled this software would make it over. Similarly, I've found that interacting with developers, of say that home designing software, and letting them know that you would pay for a Mac version has a lot more influence than Apple's latest unit shipments. I don't know maybe I'm just jaded because I remember when developers like Quark, Adobe, and Microsoft were seriously considering pulling all support for the Mac.
Originally posted by Concord
See marketshare really shouldn't be the biggest concern for Apple users. The thing is, if Apple were actually selling an increasing number of computers every year - even if it didn't match the PC sector growth - I would say they'd have "settled" into a nice little corner of the industry.
But the thing is... they're not. They're selling 40% fewer computers now than in their heyday of the mid-nineties. And OS:X/iMac/G5/etc. hasn't reversed this trend. The bottom line is that Apple is slowly, very slowly, getting shoved out of the computer biz.
What does it matter how many they are selling as long as they are selling enough to sustain the current user base and they continue to remain profitable? In the mid 90's we had real concerns. When was the last time you read an article about 101 ways to save Apple? It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when Apple would die back then. Apple is getting back into the computer biz slowly, very slowly, and if it weren't for unimaginable market inertia and that bitch known as the network effect they would be doing better. Why do you think that MS is stuck keeping backwards compatibility all the way back to DOS?
Yay. Lemme know when I can run Quark, Photoshop or Indesign on that iPod.
Lemme know how your ability to run Quark, Photoshop, or Indesign are impacted by Apple's unit shipments at all. Seems to me that even if Apple went belly up tomorrow your Mac would keep on chugging along. My point was that there is tons of bitching coming from the 'Mac faithful' for Apple to whip up the 'next big thing'. Well they did it. It's the iPod. Apple finally has a chance to start over on a new platform. If anything the iPod shows how difficult Apple's fight for market share really is. When given a chance by the consumer to compete on a level playing field Apple can and will kick ass. When tied down by 20 years of FUD, mismanagement, and and a hostile environment Apple can't win. Nothing short of a DoJ 180 or a catastrophic, read hundreds of millions of wintel boxes being rendered permanently destroyed, virus outbreak Apple is not going make a huge breakthrough. That's ok. As long as Apple makes a box that suits your need you're fine.
The *last* think I want is for Apple to turn into the gadget-du-jour company.
C.
I could care less if Apple became a gadget company as long as my Mac continues to run and I continue to get my work done. The Mac is a tool. A wintel box is a tool. Find the right tool for your needs and use it.
Originally posted by HOM
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but the fate of the platform does not rest on some home design software.
You can't get away from this "fate of the platform" thing, can you? While I think there may indeed be some concerns there, let me repeat it once more: HOPING FOR MORE MAC MARKET SHARE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING MACS ARE DOOMED.
The home design software is only one example. There are plenty of niche products that just don't exist for Mac. Fate of the platform or not, there's no way it's a good thing to have fewer choices and fewer product niches filled.
What is it about hoping for more Mac market share, and hoping for the increased software, hardware, and web support that would most likely come with more market share, that sends so many other Mac people into a defensive stance about the viability of the Mac platform being attacked?
Yes it would be nice to have, but there are some Mac alternatives and if there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need.
Don't you see you're making my point without even realizing it? If there was a huge demand for it you would see some company filling the need.
Guess what? More market share for Macs makes demand for Mac versions of products bigger.
Suppose only 0.1% of Windows users want to buy home design software. Balanced against software development costs, even 0.1% is HUGE demand. With Mac market share being what it is, however, 0.1% of Mac users -- particularly of Mac OS X users if you're hoping for native OS X software -- isn't huge.
I also doubt that if Apple's share suddenly doubled this software would make it over.
It's hard to tell with any specific example, but having twice as many potential buyers to offset the essentially the same development cost has got to make a difference for a lot of potential Mac products.
Similarly, I've found that interacting with developers, of say that home designing software, and letting them know that you would pay for a Mac version has a lot more influence than Apple's latest unit shipments.
More Mac market share would also mean more Mac people clamoring for more Mac products. Developers wouldn't have to be watching Apple sales reports to get the message.
I don't know maybe I'm just jaded because I remember when developers like Quark, Adobe, and Microsoft were seriously considering pulling all support for the Mac.
Those are examples of major products, the kinds of things that are most resistant to a small Mac market share. But wouldn't it be better to have more niche product areas filled in as well?
Originally posted by HOM
I could care less if Apple became a gadget company as long as my Mac continues to run and I continue to get my work done. The Mac is a tool. A wintel box is a tool. Find the right tool for your needs and use it.
If you're going to talk about these things as tools, let's use a tool analogy: Think about Windows as a power screwdriver that you don't find very comfortable to use, but you can find nearly every kind of bit for every kind of screw and bolt out there.
Think of the Mac as a much more comfortable, better crafted power screwdriver, but it's a less popular brand with only bits for the most common screws and bolts available. It works great for you most of the time, but when you run into a 0.243 mm seven-sided star-head screw, you're out of luck.
So, what do you do? Buy both screwdrivers? Give up the one you like using the most because fills fewer needs that the better-supported but less comfortable brand?
If the market share for your favorite power screwdriver was bigger, you'd be less likely to face this dilemma. You could have the best of both worlds.
Originally posted by eVo
Just because concerned Mac users want increased marketshare does not me they want 100% marketshare. We're talking small steps. Get up to 5%, then 10%, then maybe 15%. That certainly wouldn't make everyone a Mac user.
Apple has talked the talk, but it has not walked the walk. It was just a year ago that Anderson proclaimed that Apple's goal would be to grow the company to a 20Billion company with 10% marketshare. The company continues on its backward slide in this regard (7% in mid 90s to around 2%).
People like discredit the cry wolf predictions that Apple is going out of business, but profit margins ain't gonna cut it if its marketshare shrinks to 0% (it's already at two and running out of breathing room).
Yes, Apple wows 'em with great innovation- how about you wow us with your prices! $2k dual 3ghz, anyone?
Note to Apple, ITS THE PRICING/PLACING/MARKETING stupid!
[/B] It'd just be nice to see Apple selling more machines....Apple has innovative designs for its Macs, but as for competitive pricing and good marketing.... I don't think so
Amen my brother!! I've said this much before.
There is no correlation between Mac market share and the market for any particular application. As shetline himself said above, developers want absolute numbers of sales, not percentages. If there are enough Mac users in absolute terms, then it doesn't matter what the percentage of the overall market is.
There is no correlation between Mac market share and whether or not Apple is selling more Macs. Furthermore, there is no absolute correlation between the number of Macs sold per quarter and the growth of the platform. Crap computers get replaced more often, so there are more sales into the same installed base (i.e., it barely grows), but quarterly market share will be very high (because people keep having to buy them). Developers, as above, want an installed base to sell into.
As shetline points out above, a small percentage of an immense market is still a pretty big base in real terms. Real terms are what actually matter.
If you break Apple's share down by market, you might have something more interesting to talk about. And I won't deny that growing market share would be nice simply because it would necessarily mean that the installed base was growing like gangbusters. But right now, the installed base is growing, Apple is gaining new markets and recovering others (like higher ed). As long as that remains true, Apple will do fine.
Originally posted by HOM:
What does it matter how many they are selling as long as they are selling enough to sustain the current user base and they continue to remain profitable?
You can't expect to sell fewer computers every year and remain viable indefinitely (at least not in that market).
In the mid 90's we had real concerns. When was the last time you read an article about 101 ways to save Apple?
The media's cry of "Apple is doomed" is eternal... Do a Google search.
Apple is getting back into the computer biz slowly, very slowly,...
What are you talking about!?! Apple's *never* had a more compelling array of products and still the unit sales dwindle. This isn't getting back into it, this is getting pushed out.
Lemme know how your ability to run Quark, Photoshop, or Indesign are impacted by Apple's unit shipments at all. Seems to me that even if Apple went belly up tomorrow your Mac would keep on chugging along.
*My* Mac is at work. And if Apple went belly up tomorrow it wouldn't be long before our clients went 100% PC, therefore us as well. Needless to say I have some more vested interest in their prosperity than the typical web surfing home user.
My point was that there is tons of bitching coming from the 'Mac faithful' for Apple to whip up the 'next big thing'. Well they did it. It's the iPod.
Which is exactly what to a [b]Mac[/i] user? Hey, I like the iPod as much as the next person but I'm afraid it's not going to be much help in my line of work.
Originally posted by Amorph
Nevertheless, it makes more sense now than it has for a solid decade for developers to stick around. Evidence? They're flocking to the Mac in droves. Sun's Java team? All Macs. The Perl team? All Macs. Linus Torvalds has a G5. Etc. Apple has never had this kind of developer attention before. Not ever.
Where did you get your info from?
Originally posted by Brad
I have to say this sounds like a lot of conjecture and typical "the sky is falling, Apple is doomed" FUD. Care to back this up with any concrete numbers or cite some real examples beyond personal experiences? unkie...
My wife's school went from all Mac to all Dell.
Originally posted by Concord
You can't expect to sell fewer computers every year and remain viable indefinitely (at least not in that market).
Apple is selling more than they did a year ago.
Originally posted by Dave K.
Where did you get your info from?
Somone from Sun recently said in an interview that they all had Macs - but that was at home, not at work.
But I do know that James Gosling uses a Mac.
Originally posted by Brad
I have to say this sounds like a lot of conjecture and typical "the sky is falling, Apple is doomed" FUD. Care to back this up with any concrete numbers or cite some real examples beyond personal experiences?
Here are more real numbers:
Percentage of Adobe revenues by platform:
1997 - 49%/51% (Mac/Win)
1998 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
1999 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
2000 - 37%/63% (Mac/Win)
2001 - 30%/70% (Mac/Win)
2002 - 29%/71% (Mac/Win)
2003 - 26%/74% (Mac/Win)
Adobe is selling less and less of its software to Macintosh customers. Are these numbers real enough for you to see a problem with Apple's marketshare?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the pdf links I got the info from:
2003 and 2002
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invr...fs/2003_ar.pdf
2001 and 2000
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invr...fs/2001_ar.pdf
1999, 1998, and 1997
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invr...pfinancial.pdf
Originally posted by Dave K.
Here are more real numbers:
Percentage of Adobe revenues by platform:
1997 - 49%/51% (Mac/Win)
1998 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
1999 - 42%/58% (Mac/Win)
2000 - 37%/63% (Mac/Win)
2001 - 30%/70% (Mac/Win)
2002 - 29%/71% (Mac/Win)
2003 - 26%/74% (Mac/Win)
Adobe is selling less and less of its software to Macintosh customers.
Remember that Acrobat is a big seller in corporate environments. That alone means a lot if you look at the Mac/Win share as a total.
I would like to see the Creative Suite numbers.