They've actually done it once already, and they quickly put a stop to it. They thought that by monitoring exactly who was producing Mac clones, they could still have a standard of quality control, but it didn't work out so well.
Quality control was NOT the problem with clones (there were many people who swore by Power Computing, and Apple's QC was already well on the downslope at that time, where it still remains). The problem with cloners was that they were able/willing to use the latest technologies/chips in their computers, make them with the features the users wanted (lots of expansion). They didn't look as 'cool' as Apple's computers (but, then again, Apple's computers at the time looked like your standard crap anyway), but they were better and cheaper. Apple couldn't compete (even with the $$$ they got per computer sold) to keep their own revenue streams going.
And, remember, Steve killed the program. Most likely because he wanted to control all the hardware, as is his personality.
Quality control was NOT the problem with clones (there were many people who swore by Power Computing, and Apple's QC was already well on the downslope at that time, where it still remains). The problem with cloners was that they were able/willing to use the latest technologies/chips in their computers, make them with the features the users wanted (lots of expansion). They didn't look as 'cool' as Apple's computers (but, then again, Apple's computers at the time looked like your standard crap anyway), but they were better and cheaper. Apple couldn't compete (even with the $$$ they got per computer sold) to keep their own revenue streams going.
And, remember, Steve killed the program. Most likely because he wanted to control all the hardware, as is his personality.
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need.
You have to show that increased marketshare also means increased profitability and long term stability.
You'd also have to show that Apple management is capable of guiding such an action. Something they have been consistently poor at.
Quote:
Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want.
The "crap that people don't need" is likely deemed necessary by Apple for the Mac experience. People seem to want macs given the sale rankings on Amazon. Currently 1,2,3,6,9, and 10. It seems the MacBook has driven Mac mini sales down.
Quote:
There are many computer users who'd love to go mac if they could get one that (a) didn't cost an arm and a leg, and (b) was upgradable (in any sense of the word) to handle newer technologies as they come about.
You could say a) about any prestige type brand. b) exists but only as a G5 powermac today (or an older G4). And technically, it is less than $2000. I hope there is a $1600 conroe based power mac in the future but we'll see.
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need. Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want. There are many computer users who'd love to go mac if they could get one that (a) didn't cost an arm and a leg, and (b) was upgradable (in any sense of the word) to handle newer technologies as they come about.
What does having a "cheap" (as in price) mac, or offering several new offerings outside the stupid product constraints they have now (Pro's apparently do not need/want 13" laptops, consumers don't want/need 15" laptops???), blow up brand quality? (And what 'quality' are you speaking of, the quality used to create the whining/hissing macbooks? or the quality used to create the exploding capacitor imacs?)
How would having a mac that could take a PCI card, or have upgradable graphics, for less than $2000, be considered a bad thing? In fact, if Apple weren't so enthralled with style over substance, maybe they could produce a "Pro" computer with more then three USB ports and didn't weigh 60 pounds, or increase the size of the mini from 3 inches to 5 inches, and increase the base an inch, so it could take a standard hard drive, thus allowing for larger drives? Or, hell, couldn't they just screw the freakin' bottom on, so you could open it without the need for a sharpened putty knife???
No matter how many times one this is explained, some people won't get it.
But, for the heck of it, I'll try once more.
Apple...Can...Not...Compete...On...Price!
If Apple ever does what you are talking about, the company will be dead in a year. They could release the type of Mac you are talking about and their profits would not increase an iota! Market share is *irrelevant* if you are not making money. Do you not understand this? GM is the biggest auto maker on Earth. They have the largest market share. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
Ford...second or third largest automaker in the world. Second or third largest market share in the world. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
And the overall trend in the PC market has been exactly the same. Gateway isn't going to last much longer. Dell's sales have finally begun to be flat. Numerous other companies have been bought or simply tanked.
Steve Jobs said, about ten years or so ago I think, that, evenutally no one would be left excpet for Apple and Dell. Apple would survive by making unique hardware and Dell would survive by being Wal-Mart. And he's been exactly right.
I think sometimes people just write about what they *want* Apple to make for their personal benefit instead of thinking of what is actually *possible* for a company their size in their position.
And, for the record, if you do any research whatsoever, you will see that the iMac, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook are *very* competitive price-wise whe one looks at specs and features. No, Apple does not offer a 'bare bones' PC and they never will.
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains. The products you speak of will come, but only when the technology and development allows for for unique capabilities and design values and not 'me too' products.
What 'technology' and 'developement' do they need to offer an $800 entry level tower? Subnotebook? The current products are appealing but there are too many holes in the product lineup. It's not a lack of technology keeping Apple from filling these holes.
This is a rehash of previous discussions and those that argue that market share isn't important ( or not as important as profitability) have a valid arguement(although I disagree with it). However the reason market share is languishing is obvious and isn't going to change until Apple's business strategy changes. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.
I'm not so sure it was a good decision. It might have been better if Apple modified the license terms instead.
There were businesses that were taking up the Mac at the time, that were buying both Apple Macs and clones. When Apple closed down the clones, businesses closed down their use of Macs. Many businesses don't like the idea of single sourcing. Several clone manufacturers were willing to do what Apple still won't do. That's sad. Apple could be selling twice as many machines, or more, if they gave way on a few things.
I could actually care less about market share. It's units only - what if it was dollar value? How would Apple rank then? Or how would they rank if market share was based on profitability?
The simple fact is that Apple is on a very good wicket in terms of their computer business. Sure, it has taken a hit with the shift to Intel (not addressed in market share ratings), but it looks to have a strong future.
I think, however, that Apple needs to address some gaps in their offerings. Before I switched to Macs I used a 3 pound X Series ThinkPad and that was an excellent design. About as small as a book, easy to fit in a briefcase and it did all I asked it to do. I think Apple needs a MacBook Mini that will address that market. Since IBM delivered the X Series years ago it's not a question of technology either.
They also need to come up with a good mid-range headless Mac for those of us with 23" or 30" displays that don't want to spend $3,000 and don't want a huge case around the desk. Between the Mac mini and PowerMac.
I think that Apple will have a sub-$1,000 MacBook when Intel refreshes their ships and related prices. I only see a Solo chip in education versions so there is a need to wait until Intel's pricing goes down. That is going to happen far faster that we saw with the PPC ranges so I'm not that worried about that issue.
Overall Apple is in very good shape and their potential hasn't looked this good in years. To hell with market share.
No matter how many times one this is explained, some people won't get it.
But, for the heck of it, I'll try once more.
Apple...Can...Not...Compete...On...Price!
If Apple ever does what you are talking about, the company will be dead in a year. They could release the type of Mac you are talking about and their profits would not increase an iota! Market share is *irrelevant* if you are not making money. Do you not understand this? GM is the biggest auto maker on Earth. They have the largest market share. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
Ford...second or third largest automaker in the world. Second or third largest market share in the world. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
And the overall trend in the PC market has been exactly the same. Gateway isn't going to last much longer. Dell's sales have finally begun to be flat. Numerous other companies have been bought or simply tanked.
Steve Jobs said, about ten years or so ago I think, that, evenutally no one would be left excpet for Apple and Dell. Apple would survive by making unique hardware and Dell would survive by being Wal-Mart. And he's been exactly right.
I think sometimes people just write about what they *want* Apple to make for their personal benefit instead of thinking of what is actually *possible* for a company their size in their position.
And, for the record, if you do any research whatsoever, you will see that the iMac, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook are *very* competitive price-wise whe one looks at specs and features. No, Apple does not offer a 'bare bones' PC and they never will.
There would be *no* business sense in doing so.
Apple wouldn't be competing only on price. That's the differnce between Apple and Gateway. Gateway can only compete with Dell on price, quality and support. IMO, most pc vendors only focus on price and not the latter two and Dell has historically crushed the competition. Apple can focus on other factors such as design, ease of use, quality, and support. Not on price alone. Apple just is ignoring the sub $1000 market. Many feel this is a psycological break point and many buyers simply will not look at anything over this. It can be done and done profitably. This has been shown numerous times and really needs no further discussion.
WEll, at lease Jobs seems to understand that marketshare is important, even if he doesn't always know how to increase it. In his last interview, marketshare was all he spoke about when asked about sales.
The computer industry id different from most others. Compatability with softwarte and hardware id most important. Without enough marketshare other companies are less inclined to make sure their products work with yours.
I know some people her don't believe that, but it's been happening for quite a while. It's only been the increase in marketshare that partly reversed it.
I am at work using my PC, while my new Macbook sits next to me. I cant use it at work because IT wont let me have it on the network.
Not to be a smartass, but I think you answered your own question.
I think far more computers are sold to companies than are sold to the general public. Companies don't buy Macs, plain and simple. Personally, I think that's why marketshare numbers are misleading.
I'm interested in seeing marketshare numbers for the consumer market only...I know Apple is still a minority, but the iPod and related products are going to increase their marketshare there...but I would wager that even a significant consumer marketshare increase won't look so hot in terms of total marketshare, because 99% of the computers sold to companies are going to continue to be Windows machines.
Apple should sell Windows machines IF it wants to increase its market share.
But it may not. Apple is a profitable company. Neither the iMac, iPod nor OSX - three of the greatest achievements in design and ease of use - has made any significant difference in Mac marketshare. This coupled with the fact that Msoft is YEARS overdue with their next gen OS. Everything has gone Apple's way in the last few years, but they haven't had the kind of success you would expect with all those things going for it. Vista sounds like a train wreck, but PC users are very curious - and they will flock to it.
If Apple sells the same box as a Mac or Windows option, PC users can always pick up a nifty OSX/iLife bundle that they can try. They'll get way more OSX converts that way than through Boot Camp, and they'll get a lot of hardware sales that will fatten their coffers. Seems very win-win-win (for fans of "The Office (US)" out there).
Madness it's gotta be madness! What level of market would you be happy with? One user? LOL!
This is the year they gotta do it. Vista is sunk for the foreseeable. Lot's of people looking ot upgrade their equipment = great chance to increase market share, Bootcamp for those who are worried about their prior owned windows software.
Generally, Mac market share gains are not short-term - once you get people on Macs they don't go back! quite simply. Maybe they start thinking about it when the comapny is about to go out of business...
These results are encouraging because of the transition. Now Apple should do eveything to crank-up market share this year. Hopefully they will make the right choices. Macbook is a major improvement with easy Ram/Hard-drive upgrades being great choices. Next up (before end of year) a revised MacBook Pro with more expandability/upgrades in different sizes
I always find these numbers interesting since it seems like more and more people I know are switching to the Mac. 5 years ago, no one I knew was using one.
Of course, this is just my American demographic.
But I wonder if Apple is doing better in the way that matters to them: their target addressable market. And if there are enough folks using OSX--which there clearly is--there will be a healthy third party developer community.
The tide has already changed direction. You'll see the Mac market share start to rise this quarter. The most popular Mac, the iBook, has finally been updated with the Macbook. I was holding-out for this upgrade and I'm sure many many others were too.
With the switch to Intel Apple has no excuse to have a more brisk refresh schedule of their offerings. Intel releases better CPU product every quarter so Apple should be tagging along with the Windows bandwagon with updates.
More bang for the buck will be Apple's slogan. They raised the base prices of almost all of their Intel Macs over their respective systems. To me, this means they're padding their coffers because they plan on frequent system upgrades. You have already seen it with the Macbook Pro.
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need. Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want.
Ha ha. Where do you get off thinking that your average consumer knows what they "need" in a mac? The average consumer doesn't know jack about what they need in their computer. Apple is equipping their consumer end models with what people will need to do iLife (iMovie, iPhoto, Podcasting, Multi-way Video Conference chatting, Dashboarding, etc.) They can't do that by selling el cheapo 300 dollar machines!!!!!!
"there are 3 types of opperating systems. one is for the less creatice, dumb people, one is for the creative, and one is for the techies. ill let you figure out which is which =]"
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
Apples own hardware is now PC hardware, you need a different argument now. They had that OS running on PC for 5 years Jobs said. Making a great product but not selling it was stupid. While Microsoft Steers this ship Apple is still on the dock Imagine where Apple would be without its PODS.
The computer industry id different from most others. Compatability with softwarte and hardware id most important. Without enough marketshare other companies are less inclined to make sure their products work with yours.
I know some people her don't believe that, but it's been happening for quite a while. It's only been the increase in marketshare that partly reversed it.
This is true but Apple suffers primarily in the niches it does not try to compete in and hardware is less an issue today because of the Intel shift.
Within the markets that Apple does compete in, it does have sufficient share to get vendor support (like Adobe, etc). It has Office, it has browsers, it has database packages, etc.
In some business software segments there are few or no offerings on the Mac but that's because its not a niche Apple is striving to meet. But I'm of the mind of "so what?" To compete in that arena requires competing against Dell for the lowest common denominator business desktop.
In that environment I wonder how much advantage OSX really has over Windows and Linux. I see advantages in the content creation domain and for overall usability but folks are moving toward a web paradigm to reduce deployment and TCO costs in the business domain.
"there are 3 types of opperating systems. one is for the less creatice, dumb people, one is for the creative, and one is for the techies. ill let you figure out which is which =]"
my oppinion: windows, mac, linux;respectively.
most techies however use windows more than linux. Linux is not very usable as a primary OS. It has potential, for the life of me I don't know why they don't get on the ball! They need to accept the fact that not everyone will use the terminal. It's incredibly difficult to even install a program in linux without the terminal! What's the deal with that?!
Comments
Originally posted by xanthohappy
They've actually done it once already, and they quickly put a stop to it. They thought that by monitoring exactly who was producing Mac clones, they could still have a standard of quality control, but it didn't work out so well.
Quality control was NOT the problem with clones (there were many people who swore by Power Computing, and Apple's QC was already well on the downslope at that time, where it still remains). The problem with cloners was that they were able/willing to use the latest technologies/chips in their computers, make them with the features the users wanted (lots of expansion). They didn't look as 'cool' as Apple's computers (but, then again, Apple's computers at the time looked like your standard crap anyway), but they were better and cheaper. Apple couldn't compete (even with the $$$ they got per computer sold) to keep their own revenue streams going.
And, remember, Steve killed the program. Most likely because he wanted to control all the hardware, as is his personality.
Originally posted by Louzer
Quality control was NOT the problem with clones (there were many people who swore by Power Computing, and Apple's QC was already well on the downslope at that time, where it still remains). The problem with cloners was that they were able/willing to use the latest technologies/chips in their computers, make them with the features the users wanted (lots of expansion). They didn't look as 'cool' as Apple's computers (but, then again, Apple's computers at the time looked like your standard crap anyway), but they were better and cheaper. Apple couldn't compete (even with the $$$ they got per computer sold) to keep their own revenue streams going.
And, remember, Steve killed the program. Most likely because he wanted to control all the hardware, as is his personality.
And a damned good decision it was.
Originally posted by Aurora
Building the best OS but not wanting to sell it
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by Louzer
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need.
You have to show that increased marketshare also means increased profitability and long term stability.
You'd also have to show that Apple management is capable of guiding such an action. Something they have been consistently poor at.
Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want.
The "crap that people don't need" is likely deemed necessary by Apple for the Mac experience. People seem to want macs given the sale rankings on Amazon. Currently 1,2,3,6,9, and 10. It seems the MacBook has driven Mac mini sales down.
There are many computer users who'd love to go mac if they could get one that (a) didn't cost an arm and a leg, and (b) was upgradable (in any sense of the word) to handle newer technologies as they come about.
You could say a) about any prestige type brand. b) exists but only as a G5 powermac today (or an older G4). And technically, it is less than $2000. I hope there is a $1600 conroe based power mac in the future but we'll see.
Vinea
Originally posted by Louzer
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need. Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want. There are many computer users who'd love to go mac if they could get one that (a) didn't cost an arm and a leg, and (b) was upgradable (in any sense of the word) to handle newer technologies as they come about.
What does having a "cheap" (as in price) mac, or offering several new offerings outside the stupid product constraints they have now (Pro's apparently do not need/want 13" laptops, consumers don't want/need 15" laptops???), blow up brand quality? (And what 'quality' are you speaking of, the quality used to create the whining/hissing macbooks? or the quality used to create the exploding capacitor imacs?)
How would having a mac that could take a PCI card, or have upgradable graphics, for less than $2000, be considered a bad thing? In fact, if Apple weren't so enthralled with style over substance, maybe they could produce a "Pro" computer with more then three USB ports and didn't weigh 60 pounds, or increase the size of the mini from 3 inches to 5 inches, and increase the base an inch, so it could take a standard hard drive, thus allowing for larger drives? Or, hell, couldn't they just screw the freakin' bottom on, so you could open it without the need for a sharpened putty knife???
No matter how many times one this is explained, some people won't get it.
But, for the heck of it, I'll try once more.
Apple...Can...Not...Compete...On...Price!
If Apple ever does what you are talking about, the company will be dead in a year. They could release the type of Mac you are talking about and their profits would not increase an iota! Market share is *irrelevant* if you are not making money. Do you not understand this? GM is the biggest auto maker on Earth. They have the largest market share. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
Ford...second or third largest automaker in the world. Second or third largest market share in the world. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
And the overall trend in the PC market has been exactly the same. Gateway isn't going to last much longer. Dell's sales have finally begun to be flat. Numerous other companies have been bought or simply tanked.
Steve Jobs said, about ten years or so ago I think, that, evenutally no one would be left excpet for Apple and Dell. Apple would survive by making unique hardware and Dell would survive by being Wal-Mart. And he's been exactly right.
I think sometimes people just write about what they *want* Apple to make for their personal benefit instead of thinking of what is actually *possible* for a company their size in their position.
And, for the record, if you do any research whatsoever, you will see that the iMac, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook are *very* competitive price-wise whe one looks at specs and features. No, Apple does not offer a 'bare bones' PC and they never will.
There would be *no* business sense in doing so.
Originally posted by vinney57
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains. The products you speak of will come, but only when the technology and development allows for for unique capabilities and design values and not 'me too' products.
What 'technology' and 'developement' do they need to offer an $800 entry level tower? Subnotebook? The current products are appealing but there are too many holes in the product lineup. It's not a lack of technology keeping Apple from filling these holes.
This is a rehash of previous discussions and those that argue that market share isn't important ( or not as important as profitability) have a valid arguement(although I disagree with it). However the reason market share is languishing is obvious and isn't going to change until Apple's business strategy changes. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And a damned good decision it was.
I'm not so sure it was a good decision. It might have been better if Apple modified the license terms instead.
There were businesses that were taking up the Mac at the time, that were buying both Apple Macs and clones. When Apple closed down the clones, businesses closed down their use of Macs. Many businesses don't like the idea of single sourcing. Several clone manufacturers were willing to do what Apple still won't do. That's sad. Apple could be selling twice as many machines, or more, if they gave way on a few things.
That would make it better for all of us.
The simple fact is that Apple is on a very good wicket in terms of their computer business. Sure, it has taken a hit with the shift to Intel (not addressed in market share ratings), but it looks to have a strong future.
I think, however, that Apple needs to address some gaps in their offerings. Before I switched to Macs I used a 3 pound X Series ThinkPad and that was an excellent design. About as small as a book, easy to fit in a briefcase and it did all I asked it to do. I think Apple needs a MacBook Mini that will address that market. Since IBM delivered the X Series years ago it's not a question of technology either.
They also need to come up with a good mid-range headless Mac for those of us with 23" or 30" displays that don't want to spend $3,000 and don't want a huge case around the desk. Between the Mac mini and PowerMac.
I think that Apple will have a sub-$1,000 MacBook when Intel refreshes their ships and related prices. I only see a Solo chip in education versions so there is a need to wait until Intel's pricing goes down. That is going to happen far faster that we saw with the PPC ranges so I'm not that worried about that issue.
Overall Apple is in very good shape and their potential hasn't looked this good in years. To hell with market share.
Originally posted by mattjumbo
No matter how many times one this is explained, some people won't get it.
But, for the heck of it, I'll try once more.
Apple...Can...Not...Compete...On...Price!
If Apple ever does what you are talking about, the company will be dead in a year. They could release the type of Mac you are talking about and their profits would not increase an iota! Market share is *irrelevant* if you are not making money. Do you not understand this? GM is the biggest auto maker on Earth. They have the largest market share. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
Ford...second or third largest automaker in the world. Second or third largest market share in the world. Guess what? They are barely able to stay above water.
And the overall trend in the PC market has been exactly the same. Gateway isn't going to last much longer. Dell's sales have finally begun to be flat. Numerous other companies have been bought or simply tanked.
Steve Jobs said, about ten years or so ago I think, that, evenutally no one would be left excpet for Apple and Dell. Apple would survive by making unique hardware and Dell would survive by being Wal-Mart. And he's been exactly right.
I think sometimes people just write about what they *want* Apple to make for their personal benefit instead of thinking of what is actually *possible* for a company their size in their position.
And, for the record, if you do any research whatsoever, you will see that the iMac, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook are *very* competitive price-wise whe one looks at specs and features. No, Apple does not offer a 'bare bones' PC and they never will.
There would be *no* business sense in doing so.
Apple wouldn't be competing only on price. That's the differnce between Apple and Gateway. Gateway can only compete with Dell on price, quality and support. IMO, most pc vendors only focus on price and not the latter two and Dell has historically crushed the competition. Apple can focus on other factors such as design, ease of use, quality, and support. Not on price alone. Apple just is ignoring the sub $1000 market. Many feel this is a psycological break point and many buyers simply will not look at anything over this. It can be done and done profitably. This has been shown numerous times and really needs no further discussion.
The computer industry id different from most others. Compatability with softwarte and hardware id most important. Without enough marketshare other companies are less inclined to make sure their products work with yours.
I know some people her don't believe that, but it's been happening for quite a while. It's only been the increase in marketshare that partly reversed it.
Originally posted by saleski
I don't get it ?
I am at work using my PC, while my new Macbook sits next to me. I cant use it at work because IT wont let me have it on the network.
Not to be a smartass, but I think you answered your own question.
I think far more computers are sold to companies than are sold to the general public. Companies don't buy Macs, plain and simple. Personally, I think that's why marketshare numbers are misleading.
I'm interested in seeing marketshare numbers for the consumer market only...I know Apple is still a minority, but the iPod and related products are going to increase their marketshare there...but I would wager that even a significant consumer marketshare increase won't look so hot in terms of total marketshare, because 99% of the computers sold to companies are going to continue to be Windows machines.
But it may not. Apple is a profitable company. Neither the iMac, iPod nor OSX - three of the greatest achievements in design and ease of use - has made any significant difference in Mac marketshare. This coupled with the fact that Msoft is YEARS overdue with their next gen OS. Everything has gone Apple's way in the last few years, but they haven't had the kind of success you would expect with all those things going for it. Vista sounds like a train wreck, but PC users are very curious - and they will flock to it.
If Apple sells the same box as a Mac or Windows option, PC users can always pick up a nifty OSX/iLife bundle that they can try. They'll get way more OSX converts that way than through Boot Camp, and they'll get a lot of hardware sales that will fatten their coffers. Seems very win-win-win (for fans of "The Office (US)" out there).
To hell with market share.
Madness it's gotta be madness! What level of market would you be happy with? One user? LOL!
This is the year they gotta do it. Vista is sunk for the foreseeable. Lot's of people looking ot upgrade their equipment = great chance to increase market share, Bootcamp for those who are worried about their prior owned windows software.
Generally, Mac market share gains are not short-term - once you get people on Macs they don't go back! quite simply. Maybe they start thinking about it when the comapny is about to go out of business...
These results are encouraging because of the transition. Now Apple should do eveything to crank-up market share this year. Hopefully they will make the right choices. Macbook is a major improvement with easy Ram/Hard-drive upgrades being great choices. Next up (before end of year) a revised MacBook Pro with more expandability/upgrades in different sizes
Of course, this is just my American demographic.
But I wonder if Apple is doing better in the way that matters to them: their target addressable market. And if there are enough folks using OSX--which there clearly is--there will be a healthy third party developer community.
With the switch to Intel Apple has no excuse to have a more brisk refresh schedule of their offerings. Intel releases better CPU product every quarter so Apple should be tagging along with the Windows bandwagon with updates.
More bang for the buck will be Apple's slogan. They raised the base prices of almost all of their Intel Macs over their respective systems. To me, this means they're padding their coffers because they plan on frequent system upgrades. You have already seen it with the Macbook Pro.
Good times are ahead.
Originally posted by Louzer
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need. Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want.
Ha ha. Where do you get off thinking that your average consumer knows what they "need" in a mac? The average consumer doesn't know jack about what they need in their computer. Apple is equipping their consumer end models with what people will need to do iLife (iMovie, iPhoto, Podcasting, Multi-way Video Conference chatting, Dashboarding, etc.) They can't do that by selling el cheapo 300 dollar machines!!!!!!
"there are 3 types of opperating systems. one is for the less creatice, dumb people, one is for the creative, and one is for the techies. ill let you figure out which is which =]"
my oppinion: windows, mac, linux;respectively.
Originally posted by McHuman
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
Apples own hardware is now PC hardware, you need a different argument now. They had that OS running on PC for 5 years Jobs said. Making a great product but not selling it was stupid. While Microsoft Steers this ship Apple is still on the dock
Originally posted by melgross
The computer industry id different from most others. Compatability with softwarte and hardware id most important. Without enough marketshare other companies are less inclined to make sure their products work with yours.
I know some people her don't believe that, but it's been happening for quite a while. It's only been the increase in marketshare that partly reversed it.
This is true but Apple suffers primarily in the niches it does not try to compete in and hardware is less an issue today because of the Intel shift.
Within the markets that Apple does compete in, it does have sufficient share to get vendor support (like Adobe, etc). It has Office, it has browsers, it has database packages, etc.
In some business software segments there are few or no offerings on the Mac but that's because its not a niche Apple is striving to meet. But I'm of the mind of "so what?" To compete in that arena requires competing against Dell for the lowest common denominator business desktop.
In that environment I wonder how much advantage OSX really has over Windows and Linux. I see advantages in the content creation domain and for overall usability but folks are moving toward a web paradigm to reduce deployment and TCO costs in the business domain.
Vinea
Originally posted by iridedasupabus
well, how my teacher today basically put it
"there are 3 types of opperating systems. one is for the less creatice, dumb people, one is for the creative, and one is for the techies. ill let you figure out which is which =]"
my oppinion: windows, mac, linux;respectively.
most techies however use windows more than linux. Linux is not very usable as a primary OS. It has potential, for the life of me I don't know why they don't get on the ball! They need to accept the fact that not everyone will use the terminal. It's incredibly difficult to even install a program in linux without the terminal! What's the deal with that?!