Well, in terms of laptops: DELL, HP, Acer, Toshiba, and I'm sure many others, make Apple laptop equivalents in addition to offering a variety of models with lower specs and prices.
We shall see. I'm sure these laptops will sell well and there will be unit sales increases. I don't think they can hit 10% without expanding the range. 10% is what I'd be aiming at initially.
Or developers (including hardware and website developers) who currently only target Windows. I think these two segments are vital. Apparently you do not. Fair enough.
Well, I'd say Dell's situation is debatable considering how bad their last financial announcments were. Selling a ton of boxes isn't that great if you're not making a profit on it. And do all those companies make it all the way down to the dirt cheap low end? They can't all be the cheapest, can they?
Are you seriously saying that apple is only shipping machines that meet the needs of 10% of consumers? What subgroups are they missing that are so huge they make up 90% of the market? At least on the laptop side, it seems like apple has the high end covered pretty well, and I'm not convinced that the low end is that big a part of the market.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens.
I'm curious, what do you consider the range where apple ceases to be "too small" in marketshare numbers? I agree that apple must maintain a certain base of users so that software is written. But I don't think it's essential for them to try to meet the needs of 100% of customers to grow that market share.
And do all those companies make it all the way down to the dirt cheap low end? They can't all be the cheapest, can they?
What's that got to do with it? The point I was making was that all those companies offer a range (i.e., not just one or two) of laptop models that are less powerful than the $1099 MacBook, and are subsequently less expensive.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Are you seriously saying that apple is only shipping machines that meet the needs of 10% of consumers? What subgroups are they missing that are so huge they make up 90% of the market? At least on the laptop side, it seems like apple has the high end covered pretty well, and I'm not convinced that the low end is that big a part of the market.
I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor.
There can be twenty competitors, and the percentage for each would be the entire Mac market.
It's never the case that the market is equally divided amongst that many competitors though. You've usually got a couple of big players and then some also rans that compete on price, not features. Blind concentration on 'market share' is just that, blind.
You have to look at your potential market - the number of sales you expect to make - not how much share you can grab. Share is a by-product NOT a metric that you should pay much attention to. It's useful for willy waving contests with your competitors and that's about it. Why analysts have concentrated on it as some kind of holy grail of business is beyond me. I think it's coming back to haunt them as market share is now proving not to equal profitability except in a few exceptional cases where a company has massive market share.
Apple aren't the kind of company that you should slavishly attach market share to IMHO.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The assumption that you are making here is that your point is correct, which is is not.
Ditto. You're just not understanding it.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens. The analogy is flawed. It doesn't matter what you mean by it. You might use network tv, or some other industry where declining marketshare means long term problems.
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
Ferrari's market SHARE goes up and down too but what is important to them is the number of buyers they can sell to, not that Ford is selling more cars than them. Ford incidentally are losing scads of money despite their market share.
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
The problem is, that whether it is intelligent or not, hardware, software, website and service developers look at market share, and think that % isn't worth bothering with.
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05? Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
Another thing is press coverage. In the UK, newspaper articles that I see about computers (offering advice on security, software, hardware etc.) never even mention OS X. People don't realise that they have an option of not using windows. If the market share of OS X were higher, the articles would be more along the lines of, "if you're using Windows, do this. If you're using OS X, do this."
I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor.
If that's the case, every computer since about 1998 has been over-specced for half the market. Consumerism eh!
I'd have said the same but then my partner, who isn't very computer literate, likes to burn DVDs with photos from iPhoto and music from iTunes. She loves audio and video chats too. In some ways she needs more computing power than I do. Sometimes technology you think is excessive pushes computing into new uses. For myself, storing 200 GB of video on my hard disk wasn't something I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago. Now I'm thinking a 1TB network drive might be useful.
I reckon Apple is up to something with putting a camera in all it's computers. I just hope they convert iChatAV into a decent SIP client and multi protocol IM. Apple has been pretty good at pushing new technology and creating new markets instead of following the mainstream.
Then buy a macbook pro or a desktop. have fun playing on 13.3"
Thanks. If they offered a MacBook Pro at 13.3 inches with dedicated graphics I would buy one and be happy on my 13 inch screen. I also already own a desktop but it would be nice to be able to game occasionally when I am not at home.
If that's the case, every computer since about 1998 has been over-specced for half the market. Consumerism eh!
I'd have said the same but then my partner, who isn't very computer literate, likes to burn DVDs with photos from iPhoto and music from iTunes. She loves audio and video chats too. In some ways she needs more computing power than I do. Sometimes technology you think is excessive pushes computing into new uses. For myself, storing 200 GB of video on my hard disk wasn't something I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago. Now I'm thinking a 1TB network drive might be useful.
I reckon Apple is up to something with putting a camera in all it's computers. I just hope they convert iChatAV into a decent SIP client and multi protocol IM. Apple has been pretty good at pushing new technology and creating new markets instead of following the mainstream.
You do need something more powerful than from 1998 for a decent web, music and photo experience. I'd say it's only in the last couple of years that low-end machines have been powerful enough to do everything that most people would ever want.
I'm not some luddite who's afraid of progress, I'm just saying that most people don't think they want this stuff, so why force it on them? Why not offer something with lower specs, and let people have it if they want it?
The problem is, that whether it is intelligent or not, hardware, software, website and service developers look at market share, and think that % isn't worth bothering with.
Says who?
I'm a software developer and website developer. I don't go by market share. I go by who I can sell stuff to. If it's big enough a market then that's great for me.
Adobe don't think that a 3% market share is an issue. They understand that Mac users buy software and there's enough to justify very expensive development.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05?
YES. If the were still selling a million macs a quarter as they are, the market for Mac software would remain growing at the same rate it did even if Microsoft sold a gazillion more copies of Windows.
You could argue that it would make more sense to also make Windows software but it doesn't change the profitability or the market for Mac software.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
There probably is and I think they are stupid if they base their decision on just market share.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Another thing is press coverage. In the UK, newspaper articles that I see about computers (offering advice on security, software, hardware etc.) never even mention OS X. People don't realise that they have an option of not using windows. If the market share of OS X were higher, the articles would be more along the lines of, "if you're using Windows, do this. If you're using OS X, do this."
And the irony is that most journalists I know use Macs to write their copy. I'm not sure it'd be terribly interesting if every article had On Windows do this, on Mac do that, On Linux do this, On Windows Vista do that but certainly it'd be nice to get back to the days of more general computing magazines like Byte or PCW of the early 80s. Problem is, I think the web is better for that anyway. The magazine business is in terminal decline in most sectors.
There probably is and I think they are stupid if they base their decision on just market share.
Most developers are stupid when it comes to this, it seems.
What about video cards?
TV tuner cards?
TV tuner USB sticks?
3G mobile connectivity cards?
Internet banking?
Financial software?
Tax software?
Route-planning software?
You can get most of these for OS X, but on the hardware and software side the options are severely limited and are more expensive. It would be crazy to deny that a larger market share would expand the choice and lower prices.
On the internet banking site, it is just choice that is limited. There are some banks that use Windows-only technologies.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The magazine business is in terminal decline in most sectors.
I'm not talking about tech magazines, I'm talking about newspapers, and therefore the general public's awareness of the existence of OS X as an alternative to Windows.
so it is $150 more expensive. i usually keep my computers at least three years... so that's 36 months or 1095 days, generally speaking. means you're paying about $4.17 per month to have a really cool-looking black case. or about $0.14 per day. hey if you like the color and you'll use it almost everyday, you might as well pay the daily $0.14.
i suspect a lot of people will choose the black one. and in time (maybe november, holiday season) there will be a black case option for the mid-range model too, specially if it's really popular.
-that screen will sell!! people like shiny screens, they look like tvs.
-great update over iBook!!! congratulations apple, you have a winner.
if i was in the market for a computer, i'd buy one. not sure which one of the three. hope it doesn't run too hot!
Most developers are stupid when it comes to this, it seems.
What about video cards?
What about them? Is there something you want other than Intel, nVidia or ATI ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
TV tuner cards?
TV tuner USB sticks?
Haupage, Miglia, Elgato. Take your pick.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
3G mobile connectivity cards?
Both Orange and Vodafone's card worked for me. They're usually just rebadged cards with Broadcom chips in or similar.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Internet banking?
Financial software?
Tax software?
MYOB for me. No Sage or anything like that but no great loss IME of Sage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Route-planning software?
I've Route-66 on my Mac. It's ok. Could be better.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
You can get most of these for OS X, but on the hardware and software side the options are severely limited and are more expensive. It would be crazy to deny that a larger market share would expand the choice and lower prices.
Again with 'market share'. It's not about share, it's about market. Numbers not percent.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
On the internet banking site, it is just choice that is limited. There are some banks that use Windows-only technologies.
So change banks, there's plenty to choose from. Tell them why you're leaving.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I'm not talking about tech magazines, I'm talking about newspapers, and therefore the general public's awareness of the existence of OS X as an alternative to Windows.
Neither was I. All sectors are in decline, even newspapers. For a mainstream magazine you need upwards of 20,000 sales a copy before most mags or papers are even doable. You also usually have to print twice your sales with the remainder going to pulp. Specialist mags, 10000 copies is about base. Bear in mind MacWorld sells about 25,000 copies now and it's the biggest in the UK. Back in 2001 it was selling 34,000. The net has killed tech mag sales.
What about them? Is there something you want other than Intel, nVidia or ATI ?
?
Haupage, Miglia, Elgato. Take your pick.
?
Both Orange and Vodafone's card worked for me. They're usually just rebadged cards with Broadcom chips in or similar.
?
MYOB for me. No Sage or anything like that but no great loss IME of Sage.
?
I've Route-66 on my Mac. It's ok. Could be better.
?
Again with 'market share'. It's not about share, it's about market. Numbers not percent.
?
So change banks, there's plenty to choose from. Tell them why you're leaving.
Well, thanks for all that. You will note that I did say that all these things are available on the Mac platform.
The thing that you ignored, and that you will not be able to refute, is that the options are limited and the options that are available are expensive compared to the PC side, and this is a direct result of Apple's low market share.
Surely you agree that if Apple's market share was 50% or higher, nearly all (instead of just some) hardware manufacturers would ensure their devices worked with OS X, and that most software developers would target both platforms equally instead of offering a second-class OS X version or no OS X version at all? In that case, you must also agree that the tipping point is somewhere between the market share we have now, and a 50% or higher market share.
The thing that you ignored, and that you will not be able to refute, is that the options are limited and the options that are available are expensive compared to the PC side, and this is a direct result of Apple's low market share.
The options are more limited but not always more expensive. Why do you think it's a direct result of market SHARE though and not the actual market Apple users occupy or that Apple themselves only support certain hardware?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Surely you agree that if Apple's market share was 50% or higher, nearly all (instead of just some) hardware manufacturers would ensure their devices worked with OS X, and that most software developers would target both platforms equally instead of offering a second-class OS X version or no OS X version at all?
Probably. Do I care though? No. As long as the Mac market is big enough that you've some hardware manufacturers and developers producing Mac versions then I'm not concerned. I'd rather have a few quality products than hundreds of inferior ones.
And hardware compatibility has been such a non-issue since about 1999 that I'm surprised you even raise it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
In that case, you must also agree that the tipping point is somewhere between the market share we have now, and a 50% or higher market share.
Nope. Totally disagree. As a business you look at how many customers you can sell to and your return on investment, not market share. Take TV cards. Most of the PC market is computers stuck in offices where there's no need for a TV card. Therefore, the fact the PC has a 97% market share is meaningless.
You went from "probably" to "totally disagree". Which is it?
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
As a business you look at how many customers you can sell to and your return on investment, not market share. Take TV cards. Most of the PC market is computers stuck in offices where there's no need for a TV card. Therefore, the fact the PC has a 97% market share is meaningless.
Then how come PC TV card makers only bother to ensure compatibility with Windows?
The reason I'm talking about market share is that I think most developers just look at that number, as it's the only reliable one they've got. No one really knows what the installed user-base of OS X is vs. Windows in the home.
Maybe I am focussing on market share too much, and should just be talking about unit volume. But either way, the numbers are too low and need to be significantly higher.
I'm curious, what do you consider the range where apple ceases to be "too small" in marketshare numbers? I agree that apple must maintain a certain base of users so that software is written. But I don't think it's essential for them to try to meet the needs of 100% of customers to grow that market share. [/B]
I would think that if Apple could get to 7 or 8%, it would get interesting.
Apple has a problem though. You know about the idea of "rising expectations".
As Apple does better, they are expected to continue to do doing better. Much as the position Dell finds itself in now. If Apple stops doing better, people are going to take a step back and think that they are in trouble. you know what happens then. My feeling is that as long as Apple can show that their sales are rising, and that they are growing at just above the industry rate, they will do very well. But, that also has the consequences of bringing their share up a full digit every two years or so. Where will they top off? Who knows?
But, if they can somehow maintain a reputation of being FAIRLY free of malware over a longer term, they could do better then we would think.
I would like them to continue making good machines, but, at the same time, I would like to see them show that they are serious about markets that they have either abandoned, or never bothered to enter. The excuse that they can't do more is no longer true. They are now a large corporation. $14 billion last year, close to $20 billion this year, possibly $25-28 billion next year. Lots of cash and investments. No long term debt. Excellent reputation. Great name recognition. As Jobs himself said when explaining the timing of the transition; (paraphrasing) The time to do this is when we are on the way up.
Apple must take its servers more seriously. Business support. I know companies that have considered Macs, but decided against it, because Apple won't guarantee product and price stability over the time of a purchase plan. Every other company does that. Why not Apple?
There are many things Apple can do. Ask their potential customers, for one.
It's never the case that the market is equally divided amongst that many competitors though. You've usually got a couple of big players and then some also rans that compete on price, not features. Blind concentration on 'market share' is just that, blind.
You have to look at your potential market - the number of sales you expect to make - not how much share you can grab. Share is a by-product NOT a metric that you should pay much attention to. It's useful for willy waving contests with your competitors and that's about it. Why analysts have concentrated on it as some kind of holy grail of business is beyond me. I think it's coming back to haunt them as market share is now proving not to equal profitability except in a few exceptional cases where a company has massive market share.
Apple aren't the kind of company that you should slavishly attach market share to IMHO.
Marketshare certainly isn't everything.
But, whether the market is large or small, share is looked at as being important. If there are ten customers, and one has your machine, and the other nine have the other one, and they are incompatible, then companies making accessories are much more likely to make them for the machine that has the 90% share. The same is true if the market consists of 100 million.
You don't respond to the problems of lack of apps, and hardware. That's the telling point, however, because that's the lifeblood of the platform.
And, sure, I know that the customer base won't be divided up evenly, that was just an example.
Quote:
Ditto. You're just not understanding it.
No, I do understand it. It's just wrong. But, if you really do believe that, explain it more thoroughly.
Quote:
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
Yes. Their sale are going up. Except for this transition, their marketshare rose significantly as well. You might not pay attention to it, but that is the number most quoted. Why is it that every industry publication, analyst, market manager, and even software companies make note of the marketshare of Apple as being important? They can't all be wrong, and you right.
Quote:
Ferrari's market SHARE goes up and down too but what is important to them is the number of buyers they can sell to, not that Ford is selling more cars than them. Ford incidentally are losing scads of money despite their market share.
[/quote]
Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, and other companies of that ilk, don't even care about how many cars they sell. you have to order in advance, often, be approved, and then wait, sometimes for months, or in the case of Aston Martin, sometimes years! You also pay many times what equivalent types of cars sell for.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, in terms of laptops: DELL, HP, Acer, Toshiba, and I'm sure many others, make Apple laptop equivalents in addition to offering a variety of models with lower specs and prices.
We shall see. I'm sure these laptops will sell well and there will be unit sales increases. I don't think they can hit 10% without expanding the range. 10% is what I'd be aiming at initially.
Or developers (including hardware and website developers) who currently only target Windows. I think these two segments are vital. Apparently you do not. Fair enough.
Well, I'd say Dell's situation is debatable considering how bad their last financial announcments were. Selling a ton of boxes isn't that great if you're not making a profit on it. And do all those companies make it all the way down to the dirt cheap low end? They can't all be the cheapest, can they?
Are you seriously saying that apple is only shipping machines that meet the needs of 10% of consumers? What subgroups are they missing that are so huge they make up 90% of the market? At least on the laptop side, it seems like apple has the high end covered pretty well, and I'm not convinced that the low end is that big a part of the market.
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens.
I'm curious, what do you consider the range where apple ceases to be "too small" in marketshare numbers? I agree that apple must maintain a certain base of users so that software is written. But I don't think it's essential for them to try to meet the needs of 100% of customers to grow that market share.
Originally posted by minderbinder
And do all those companies make it all the way down to the dirt cheap low end? They can't all be the cheapest, can they?
What's that got to do with it? The point I was making was that all those companies offer a range (i.e., not just one or two) of laptop models that are less powerful than the $1099 MacBook, and are subsequently less expensive.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Are you seriously saying that apple is only shipping machines that meet the needs of 10% of consumers? What subgroups are they missing that are so huge they make up 90% of the market? At least on the laptop side, it seems like apple has the high end covered pretty well, and I'm not convinced that the low end is that big a part of the market.
I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor.
Originally posted by melgross
There can be twenty competitors, and the percentage for each would be the entire Mac market.
It's never the case that the market is equally divided amongst that many competitors though. You've usually got a couple of big players and then some also rans that compete on price, not features. Blind concentration on 'market share' is just that, blind.
You have to look at your potential market - the number of sales you expect to make - not how much share you can grab. Share is a by-product NOT a metric that you should pay much attention to. It's useful for willy waving contests with your competitors and that's about it. Why analysts have concentrated on it as some kind of holy grail of business is beyond me. I think it's coming back to haunt them as market share is now proving not to equal profitability except in a few exceptional cases where a company has massive market share.
Apple aren't the kind of company that you should slavishly attach market share to IMHO.
Originally posted by melgross
The assumption that you are making here is that your point is correct, which is is not.
Ditto. You're just not understanding it.
Originally posted by melgross
Ferrari can have a small marketshare, Apple cannot. It's only when Apple's marketshare starts to go up that we see developers coming over, and hardware manufacturers write drivers. when their marketshare starts to go down, the opposite happens. The analogy is flawed. It doesn't matter what you mean by it. You might use network tv, or some other industry where declining marketshare means long term problems.
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
Ferrari's market SHARE goes up and down too but what is important to them is the number of buyers they can sell to, not that Ford is selling more cars than them. Ford incidentally are losing scads of money despite their market share.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
The problem is, that whether it is intelligent or not, hardware, software, website and service developers look at market share, and think that
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05? Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
Another thing is press coverage. In the UK, newspaper articles that I see about computers (offering advice on security, software, hardware etc.) never even mention OS X. People don't realise that they have an option of not using windows. If the market share of OS X were higher, the articles would be more along the lines of, "if you're using Windows, do this. If you're using OS X, do this."
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think at least 50% of computers in the home are used for e-mail, web surfing, music, photos, possibly word processing, and nothing more. You don't need a powerful computer for that. You don't need an iSight, you don't need Front Row, you don't need masses of hard-drive space, and you don't need a Core Duo processor.
If that's the case, every computer since about 1998 has been over-specced for half the market. Consumerism eh!
I'd have said the same but then my partner, who isn't very computer literate, likes to burn DVDs with photos from iPhoto and music from iTunes. She loves audio and video chats too. In some ways she needs more computing power than I do. Sometimes technology you think is excessive pushes computing into new uses. For myself, storing 200 GB of video on my hard disk wasn't something I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago. Now I'm thinking a 1TB network drive might be useful.
I reckon Apple is up to something with putting a camera in all it's computers. I just hope they convert iChatAV into a decent SIP client and multi protocol IM. Apple has been pretty good at pushing new technology and creating new markets instead of following the mainstream.
Originally posted by dmwogan
Then buy a macbook pro or a desktop. have fun playing on 13.3"
Thanks. If they offered a MacBook Pro at 13.3 inches with dedicated graphics I would buy one and be happy on my 13 inch screen. I also already own a desktop but it would be nice to be able to game occasionally when I am not at home.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If that's the case, every computer since about 1998 has been over-specced for half the market. Consumerism eh!
I'd have said the same but then my partner, who isn't very computer literate, likes to burn DVDs with photos from iPhoto and music from iTunes. She loves audio and video chats too. In some ways she needs more computing power than I do. Sometimes technology you think is excessive pushes computing into new uses. For myself, storing 200 GB of video on my hard disk wasn't something I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago. Now I'm thinking a 1TB network drive might be useful.
I reckon Apple is up to something with putting a camera in all it's computers. I just hope they convert iChatAV into a decent SIP client and multi protocol IM. Apple has been pretty good at pushing new technology and creating new markets instead of following the mainstream.
You do need something more powerful than from 1998 for a decent web, music and photo experience. I'd say it's only in the last couple of years that low-end machines have been powerful enough to do everything that most people would ever want.
I'm not some luddite who's afraid of progress, I'm just saying that most people don't think they want this stuff, so why force it on them? Why not offer something with lower specs, and let people have it if they want it?
Originally posted by Mr. H
The problem is, that whether it is intelligent or not, hardware, software, website and service developers look at market share, and think that
Says who?
I'm a software developer and website developer. I don't go by market share. I go by who I can sell stuff to. If it's big enough a market then that's great for me.
Adobe don't think that a 3% market share is an issue. They understand that Mac users buy software and there's enough to justify very expensive development.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Do you think everything would be O.K. if Apple were still making a profit but slipped to 0.5% market share? 0.05?
YES. If the were still selling a million macs a quarter as they are, the market for Mac software would remain growing at the same rate it did even if Microsoft sold a gazillion more copies of Windows.
You could argue that it would make more sense to also make Windows software but it doesn't change the profitability or the market for Mac software.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Do you agree there is some cut-off where mainstream developers just wouldn't bother any more?
There probably is and I think they are stupid if they base their decision on just market share.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Another thing is press coverage. In the UK, newspaper articles that I see about computers (offering advice on security, software, hardware etc.) never even mention OS X. People don't realise that they have an option of not using windows. If the market share of OS X were higher, the articles would be more along the lines of, "if you're using Windows, do this. If you're using OS X, do this."
And the irony is that most journalists I know use Macs to write their copy. I'm not sure it'd be terribly interesting if every article had On Windows do this, on Mac do that, On Linux do this, On Windows Vista do that but certainly it'd be nice to get back to the days of more general computing magazines like Byte or PCW of the early 80s. Problem is, I think the web is better for that anyway. The magazine business is in terminal decline in most sectors.
I think they largely want people who will use iLife, isight, and faster CPU's.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
There probably is and I think they are stupid if they base their decision on just market share.
Most developers are stupid when it comes to this, it seems.
What about video cards?
TV tuner cards?
TV tuner USB sticks?
3G mobile connectivity cards?
Internet banking?
Financial software?
Tax software?
Route-planning software?
You can get most of these for OS X, but on the hardware and software side the options are severely limited and are more expensive. It would be crazy to deny that a larger market share would expand the choice and lower prices.
On the internet banking site, it is just choice that is limited. There are some banks that use Windows-only technologies.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The magazine business is in terminal decline in most sectors.
I'm not talking about tech magazines, I'm talking about newspapers, and therefore the general public's awareness of the existence of OS X as an alternative to Windows.
-the black model looks sick!! retro is good.
so it is $150 more expensive. i usually keep my computers at least three years... so that's 36 months or 1095 days, generally speaking. means you're paying about $4.17 per month to have a really cool-looking black case. or about $0.14 per day. hey if you like the color and you'll use it almost everyday, you might as well pay the daily $0.14.
i suspect a lot of people will choose the black one. and in time (maybe november, holiday season) there will be a black case option for the mid-range model too, specially if it's really popular.
-that screen will sell!! people like shiny screens, they look like tvs.
-great update over iBook!!! congratulations apple, you have a winner.
if i was in the market for a computer, i'd buy one. not sure which one of the three. hope it doesn't run too hot!
Originally posted by Mr. H
Most developers are stupid when it comes to this, it seems.
What about video cards?
What about them? Is there something you want other than Intel, nVidia or ATI ?
Originally posted by Mr. H
TV tuner cards?
TV tuner USB sticks?
Haupage, Miglia, Elgato. Take your pick.
Originally posted by Mr. H
3G mobile connectivity cards?
Both Orange and Vodafone's card worked for me. They're usually just rebadged cards with Broadcom chips in or similar.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Internet banking?
Financial software?
Tax software?
MYOB for me. No Sage or anything like that but no great loss IME of Sage.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Route-planning software?
I've Route-66 on my Mac. It's ok. Could be better.
Originally posted by Mr. H
You can get most of these for OS X, but on the hardware and software side the options are severely limited and are more expensive. It would be crazy to deny that a larger market share would expand the choice and lower prices.
Again with 'market share'. It's not about share, it's about market. Numbers not percent.
Originally posted by Mr. H
On the internet banking site, it is just choice that is limited. There are some banks that use Windows-only technologies.
So change banks, there's plenty to choose from. Tell them why you're leaving.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I'm not talking about tech magazines, I'm talking about newspapers, and therefore the general public's awareness of the existence of OS X as an alternative to Windows.
Neither was I. All sectors are in decline, even newspapers. For a mainstream magazine you need upwards of 20,000 sales a copy before most mags or papers are even doable. You also usually have to print twice your sales with the remainder going to pulp. Specialist mags, 10000 copies is about base. Bear in mind MacWorld sells about 25,000 copies now and it's the biggest in the UK. Back in 2001 it was selling 34,000. The net has killed tech mag sales.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
What about them? Is there something you want other than Intel, nVidia or ATI ?
?
Haupage, Miglia, Elgato. Take your pick.
?
Both Orange and Vodafone's card worked for me. They're usually just rebadged cards with Broadcom chips in or similar.
?
MYOB for me. No Sage or anything like that but no great loss IME of Sage.
?
I've Route-66 on my Mac. It's ok. Could be better.
?
Again with 'market share'. It's not about share, it's about market. Numbers not percent.
?
So change banks, there's plenty to choose from. Tell them why you're leaving.
Well, thanks for all that. You will note that I did say that all these things are available on the Mac platform.
The thing that you ignored, and that you will not be able to refute, is that the options are limited and the options that are available are expensive compared to the PC side, and this is a direct result of Apple's low market share.
Surely you agree that if Apple's market share was 50% or higher, nearly all (instead of just some) hardware manufacturers would ensure their devices worked with OS X, and that most software developers would target both platforms equally instead of offering a second-class OS X version or no OS X version at all? In that case, you must also agree that the tipping point is somewhere between the market share we have now, and a 50% or higher market share.
Originally posted by Mr. H
The thing that you ignored, and that you will not be able to refute, is that the options are limited and the options that are available are expensive compared to the PC side, and this is a direct result of Apple's low market share.
The options are more limited but not always more expensive. Why do you think it's a direct result of market SHARE though and not the actual market Apple users occupy or that Apple themselves only support certain hardware?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Surely you agree that if Apple's market share was 50% or higher, nearly all (instead of just some) hardware manufacturers would ensure their devices worked with OS X, and that most software developers would target both platforms equally instead of offering a second-class OS X version or no OS X version at all?
Probably. Do I care though? No. As long as the Mac market is big enough that you've some hardware manufacturers and developers producing Mac versions then I'm not concerned. I'd rather have a few quality products than hundreds of inferior ones.
And hardware compatibility has been such a non-issue since about 1999 that I'm surprised you even raise it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
In that case, you must also agree that the tipping point is somewhere between the market share we have now, and a 50% or higher market share.
Nope. Totally disagree. As a business you look at how many customers you can sell to and your return on investment, not market share. Take TV cards. Most of the PC market is computers stuck in offices where there's no need for a TV card. Therefore, the fact the PC has a 97% market share is meaningless.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Probably.
?
Nope. Totally disagree.
You went from "probably" to "totally disagree". Which is it?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
As a business you look at how many customers you can sell to and your return on investment, not market share. Take TV cards. Most of the PC market is computers stuck in offices where there's no need for a TV card. Therefore, the fact the PC has a 97% market share is meaningless.
Then how come PC TV card makers only bother to ensure compatibility with Windows?
The reason I'm talking about market share is that I think most developers just look at that number, as it's the only reliable one they've got. No one really knows what the installed user-base of OS X is vs. Windows in the home.
Maybe I am focussing on market share too much, and should just be talking about unit volume. But either way, the numbers are too low and need to be significantly higher.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I'm curious, what do you consider the range where apple ceases to be "too small" in marketshare numbers? I agree that apple must maintain a certain base of users so that software is written. But I don't think it's essential for them to try to meet the needs of 100% of customers to grow that market share. [/B]
I would think that if Apple could get to 7 or 8%, it would get interesting.
Apple has a problem though. You know about the idea of "rising expectations".
As Apple does better, they are expected to continue to do doing better. Much as the position Dell finds itself in now. If Apple stops doing better, people are going to take a step back and think that they are in trouble. you know what happens then. My feeling is that as long as Apple can show that their sales are rising, and that they are growing at just above the industry rate, they will do very well. But, that also has the consequences of bringing their share up a full digit every two years or so. Where will they top off? Who knows?
But, if they can somehow maintain a reputation of being FAIRLY free of malware over a longer term, they could do better then we would think.
I would like them to continue making good machines, but, at the same time, I would like to see them show that they are serious about markets that they have either abandoned, or never bothered to enter. The excuse that they can't do more is no longer true. They are now a large corporation. $14 billion last year, close to $20 billion this year, possibly $25-28 billion next year. Lots of cash and investments. No long term debt. Excellent reputation. Great name recognition. As Jobs himself said when explaining the timing of the transition; (paraphrasing) The time to do this is when we are on the way up.
Apple must take its servers more seriously. Business support. I know companies that have considered Macs, but decided against it, because Apple won't guarantee product and price stability over the time of a purchase plan. Every other company does that. Why not Apple?
There are many things Apple can do. Ask their potential customers, for one.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's never the case that the market is equally divided amongst that many competitors though. You've usually got a couple of big players and then some also rans that compete on price, not features. Blind concentration on 'market share' is just that, blind.
You have to look at your potential market - the number of sales you expect to make - not how much share you can grab. Share is a by-product NOT a metric that you should pay much attention to. It's useful for willy waving contests with your competitors and that's about it. Why analysts have concentrated on it as some kind of holy grail of business is beyond me. I think it's coming back to haunt them as market share is now proving not to equal profitability except in a few exceptional cases where a company has massive market share.
Apple aren't the kind of company that you should slavishly attach market share to IMHO.
Marketshare certainly isn't everything.
But, whether the market is large or small, share is looked at as being important. If there are ten customers, and one has your machine, and the other nine have the other one, and they are incompatible, then companies making accessories are much more likely to make them for the machine that has the 90% share. The same is true if the market consists of 100 million.
You don't respond to the problems of lack of apps, and hardware. That's the telling point, however, because that's the lifeblood of the platform.
And, sure, I know that the customer base won't be divided up evenly, that was just an example.
Quote:
Ditto. You're just not understanding it.
No, I do understand it. It's just wrong. But, if you really do believe that, explain it more thoroughly.
Quote:
I disagree. Market SHARE is a percentage it can go up and down and not have any bearing at all on the number of buyers there are in the market. Fact is, Apple are selling more Macs than ever. The market for Mac software is bigger than it's been in years.
Yes. Their sale are going up. Except for this transition, their marketshare rose significantly as well. You might not pay attention to it, but that is the number most quoted. Why is it that every industry publication, analyst, market manager, and even software companies make note of the marketshare of Apple as being important? They can't all be wrong, and you right.
Quote:
Ferrari's market SHARE goes up and down too but what is important to them is the number of buyers they can sell to, not that Ford is selling more cars than them. Ford incidentally are losing scads of money despite their market share.
[/quote]
Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, and other companies of that ilk, don't even care about how many cars they sell. you have to order in advance, often, be approved, and then wait, sometimes for months, or in the case of Aston Martin, sometimes years! You also pay many times what equivalent types of cars sell for.
Is that what you want from Apple? I don't.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2397
although gotta pick up some ram faster than i expected,