It's not as different as you think. If you look at the use of browsers, you can get a decent estimate of marketshare. Even given the obvious fact that not all Mac users use Safari, the vast majority do. With that, the numbers are about what the marketshare numbers show. You can throw another percent or so in for that "other browser" usage, but you end up with about 2.7 - 3% worldwide, and 4 to 5% USA marketshare.
I have a theory about that though.
Since many people browse the net at work where they're far more likely to be on Windows and also have their browser choice restricted by IT, Windows and IE will show a much larger percentage for visits than other browsers.
It'd be interesting to see how browser choice differs outside of office hours. I've personally not looked at this in depth in a few years but from running a few big general non-techie content sites you could see quite a shift away from Windows and IE in the evenings when users got home from work.
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.
You forgot the part where Apple wouldn't let the major PC companies sell Macs thereby limiting the potential audience. We ended up with a scanner maker, a startup, a major company who really never sold computers, and an Apple that didn't want to change with the times.
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And a damned good decision it was.
At the time. Now that Apple has been transformed, not so much.
I have a hunch that the MacBook is selling pretty well.
But, there's a difference between Mac selling pretty well and industry selling well. What we cal selling well doesn't make a dent in the overall sales of computers.
Spot on! The cry for cheap Macs is pointless as it would hurt Apple's bottom line while increasing unreliablity and the "cool" factor. The point that is missed is that no matter the PC, it still uses Windows, thus while "cheap and Windows" may be the average person's goal it is not in Apple's interests to take OSX and its computers on that route. But, if Apple hits, say, 15% or more market share, they will then need the support of others to manufacture computers and that is when licensing of OSX becomes a realistic option for Apple-- and then will come the cheapo computers-- but not Apple branded.
The idea of a plethora of Mac models, cheap, upgradeable, using any parts the user wants, is simply not on. If Apple EVER did that, their decline into oblivion would become the legendary case taught in classes about what NOT to do with a proven classy working model.
I strongly support this opinion. Anytime a thread begins with
whining about price tag and clamoring for cheap Macs i cringe.
Oh Man this world is so bloody wrongful, because i don't get my new
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.
Toyota is number two, and is eminently profitable (12 billion dollars in 2005). They sell a wide range of cars, from the cheapest to the most expensive.
Since many people browse the net at work where they're far more likely to be on Windows and also have their browser choice restricted by IT, Windows and IE will show a much larger percentage for visits than other browsers.
It'd be interesting to see how browser choice differs outside of office hours. I've personally not looked at this in depth in a few years but from running a few big general non-techie content sites you could see quite a shift away from Windows and IE in the evenings when users got home from work.
That's a fun thought, but I doubt it changes things much. You could say the opposite thing for schools. Apple's high marketshare there could skew the numbers as well. Students go on line all the time for work on projects, then go home and use Windows.
Toyota is number two, and is eminently profitable (12 billion dollars in 2005). They sell a wide range of cars, from the cheapest to the most expensive.
And IBM is the biggest computer company, and is very profitable as well.
I don't think it would affect the iMac's sales much, if at all. People are buying the iMac because of its integration. They wouldn't go for seperate components instead.
There's only 1 extra component over the iMac...its called a monitor. You have to really be smoking something if you really believe a $750 core duo mac wont impact sales of a $1299 and $1699 imacs that will have roughly the same performance.
The only big difference between the Mac Mini and an iMac is the vid card.
Quote:
You can look at the audio market. Cheap pre-amps, tuners, and power amps don't make the person who wants the integration of a receiver, switch.
That's because a reciever is cheaper than seperate pre-amp, tuner, amp and the top end recievers have better quality than the bottom end seperates from Radio Shack. This is a dumb analogy.
Quote:
The Mini's sales would be affected though. And that would be a good thing.
How would it be a good thing? The sales would go down, probably too low to bother supporting the mini. And you're still cannibalizing a $799 machine with a $750 that's more expensive to make.
Quote:
As long as it were big enough for a full length graphics card, we would have many more choices again, because of the simple fact that there would be many more Macs sold that could accept one.
I believe that this would be a very popular desktop machine. A mini tower with one Express graphic and one other open slot fits many market segments, including business.
Well no kidding this would be popular. You'd get a $1200-$1600 machine for $750 + monitor. Assuming that you can increase unit sales to make up the difference in revenue stream is still an unsupported gamble.
Having formerly worked at an Apple store, I can fairly safely say that one of the biggest selling points of Apple computers is that they do have such a small market share, and the things that a small market share brings. The virus concern amongst the Windows population is huge, and the easiest way to get people to consider buying a Mac is simply to tell them that there aren't viruses for the Mac. Nevermind the fact that its not because the OS itself is invulnerable (although a product of significantly better programming and much less vulnerable), but because hackers don't bother writing malicious code for computers that no one uses.
As for the software issue, I have all the software I need, and with very few exceptions is there a type of software that doesn't exist somewhere in the Mac realm in one form or another, its just a matter of looking.
Having formerly worked at an Apple store, I can fairly safely say that one of the biggest selling points of Apple computers is that they do have such a small market share, and the things that a small market share brings.
p.s. please don't eat me
LOL! But you've got to make you didn't sell too many..
I haven't read all the trends yet. But here are some of my thoughts:
1. People won't buy Mac's if they use Wintel at school or on the job.
2. Apple's hardware products are ridiculously overprice compared to the competition. In fact, PC hardware offers more bang for your buck than what Apple does.
3. For 95% of the computer users out there, Windows is good enough.
4. Just a guess, but I think that a large number of PC users buy cheap hardware only to install illegal or bootleg software on them.
5. Apple can't market the Mac, iLife, Pro Apps, or Mac OS X.
You can assume Dell, HP, etc outsells Apple. /shrug Do you have a better source for overall market behavior? Can you say which computer and laptop has the most overall sales?
Besides, I made that comment to refute that Apple ignores what people want. If they truly ignored what everyone wanted then rebates or not they wouldn't be top sellers anywhere BUT the Apple Store. The volume would be too low to show up much on Amazon if they truly sucked.
Just because an analyst uses Amazon as an example doesn't necessarily say anything good about the analyst or Amazon. I would expect that an analyst would have better sources. Overall market behavior can't be sampled properly at one internet store, there is a likely chance that the demographics of people that buy at Amazon is very different than those of B&Ms, and then there's the direct marketing, which Dell is doing very aggressively by advertising just about every medium I see.
The very fact that Apple products are topping Amazon carts despite Apple being a very small fraction of the overall computer market is a vast enough of a disparity for me to disregard Amazon's rankings as highly anomalous and suspect as a source of good information.
The very fact that Apple products are topping Amazon carts despite Apple being a very small fraction of the overall computer market is a vast enough of a disparity for me to disregard Amazon's rankings as highly anomalous and suspect as a source of good information.
Lets see...Dell is 33% of the US market. They don't sell on Amazon.
HP is 20% followed by Gateway 6%, Levono 4.1%, Apple 4%, Toshiba 3.5%. Gateway doesn't sell on Amazon (except one model laptop probably an associate site). Evidently neither does Levono.
So looking at the Amazon top 25 we see whom? HP/Compaq, Apple, Toshiba, Acer, Sony.
OMFG...Apple?!? How totally unexpected!
Given that Apple has concentrated its models I think you have a good indication of how Apple does with its peers outside of the business market. It is plausible that they can capture the top sellers at Amazon and still only be #5 because they have few models and compete in a limited segment of the overall market (upper end of consumer, edu and content creation).
If you don't like Amazon as a data source, fine. Name a better source that doesn't cost thousands of dollars to look at.
Bottom line is Apple is 4% of the upper end of the US market share and expected to beat the market in 2006. Whining about how their product line (not necessarily you Jeff, unless you did) is too small or their execution is just bizzare when the company is doing well and the transition not the total disaster it could have been.
Ya think maybe switching over their entire flipping product line in a year is too easy that they should also abandon their old market strategy and embark on a hell for bent drive on market share at the same time?
There's only 1 extra component over the iMac...its called a monitor. You have to really be smoking something if you really believe a $750 core duo mac wont impact sales of a $1299 and $1699 imacs that will have roughly the same performance.
The only big difference between the Mac Mini and an iMac is the vid card.
That's because a reciever is cheaper than seperate pre-amp, tuner, amp and the top end recievers have better quality than the bottom end seperates from Radio Shack. This is a dumb analogy.
How would it be a good thing? The sales would go down, probably too low to bother supporting the mini. And you're still cannibalizing a $799 machine with a $750 that's more expensive to make.
Well no kidding this would be popular. You'd get a $1200-$1600 machine for $750 + monitor. Assuming that you can increase unit sales to make up the difference in revenue stream is still an unsupported gamble.
And you say you're a stockholder?
Vinea
You haven;'t made one good argument yet. These aren't worth debating.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
One reason Amazon doesn't apply as an example is that it's the only way to get a decent discount on Apple computers.
In the USA that's true.
On amazon.co.uk that isn't true. No discounts.
Apple occupy the top 4 spots on amazon.co.uk for laptops and 6 of the top ten slots.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...414435-3701515
Originally posted by melgross
It's not as different as you think. If you look at the use of browsers, you can get a decent estimate of marketshare. Even given the obvious fact that not all Mac users use Safari, the vast majority do. With that, the numbers are about what the marketshare numbers show. You can throw another percent or so in for that "other browser" usage, but you end up with about 2.7 - 3% worldwide, and 4 to 5% USA marketshare.
I have a theory about that though.
Since many people browse the net at work where they're far more likely to be on Windows and also have their browser choice restricted by IT, Windows and IE will show a much larger percentage for visits than other browsers.
It'd be interesting to see how browser choice differs outside of office hours. I've personally not looked at this in depth in a few years but from running a few big general non-techie content sites you could see quite a shift away from Windows and IE in the evenings when users got home from work.
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.
You forgot the part where Apple wouldn't let the major PC companies sell Macs thereby limiting the potential audience. We ended up with a scanner maker, a startup, a major company who really never sold computers, and an Apple that didn't want to change with the times.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And a damned good decision it was.
At the time. Now that Apple has been transformed, not so much.
Originally posted by netdog
I have a hunch that the MacBook is selling pretty well.
But, there's a difference between Mac selling pretty well and industry selling well. What we cal selling well doesn't make a dent in the overall sales of computers.
Originally posted by rjwill246
Spot on! The cry for cheap Macs is pointless as it would hurt Apple's bottom line while increasing unreliablity and the "cool" factor. The point that is missed is that no matter the PC, it still uses Windows, thus while "cheap and Windows" may be the average person's goal it is not in Apple's interests to take OSX and its computers on that route. But, if Apple hits, say, 15% or more market share, they will then need the support of others to manufacture computers and that is when licensing of OSX becomes a realistic option for Apple-- and then will come the cheapo computers-- but not Apple branded.
The idea of a plethora of Mac models, cheap, upgradeable, using any parts the user wants, is simply not on. If Apple EVER did that, their decline into oblivion would become the legendary case taught in classes about what NOT to do with a proven classy working model.
I strongly support this opinion. Anytime a thread begins with
whining about price tag and clamoring for cheap Macs i cringe.
Oh Man this world is so bloody wrongful, because i don't get my new
Mercedes for k5$ bucks.
Originally posted by mattjumbo
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.
Toyota is number two, and is eminently profitable (12 billion dollars in 2005). They sell a wide range of cars, from the cheapest to the most expensive.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I have a theory about that though.
Since many people browse the net at work where they're far more likely to be on Windows and also have their browser choice restricted by IT, Windows and IE will show a much larger percentage for visits than other browsers.
It'd be interesting to see how browser choice differs outside of office hours. I've personally not looked at this in depth in a few years but from running a few big general non-techie content sites you could see quite a shift away from Windows and IE in the evenings when users got home from work.
That's a fun thought, but I doubt it changes things much. You could say the opposite thing for schools. Apple's high marketshare there could skew the numbers as well. Students go on line all the time for work on projects, then go home and use Windows.
Originally posted by kukito
Toyota is number two, and is eminently profitable (12 billion dollars in 2005). They sell a wide range of cars, from the cheapest to the most expensive.
And IBM is the biggest computer company, and is very profitable as well.
Originally posted by melgross
And IBM is the biggest computer company, and is very profitable as well.
Shit I thought IBM was in business consulting.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't think it would affect the iMac's sales much, if at all. People are buying the iMac because of its integration. They wouldn't go for seperate components instead.
There's only 1 extra component over the iMac...its called a monitor. You have to really be smoking something if you really believe a $750 core duo mac wont impact sales of a $1299 and $1699 imacs that will have roughly the same performance.
The only big difference between the Mac Mini and an iMac is the vid card.
You can look at the audio market. Cheap pre-amps, tuners, and power amps don't make the person who wants the integration of a receiver, switch.
That's because a reciever is cheaper than seperate pre-amp, tuner, amp and the top end recievers have better quality than the bottom end seperates from Radio Shack. This is a dumb analogy.
The Mini's sales would be affected though. And that would be a good thing.
How would it be a good thing? The sales would go down, probably too low to bother supporting the mini. And you're still cannibalizing a $799 machine with a $750 that's more expensive to make.
As long as it were big enough for a full length graphics card, we would have many more choices again, because of the simple fact that there would be many more Macs sold that could accept one.
I believe that this would be a very popular desktop machine. A mini tower with one Express graphic and one other open slot fits many market segments, including business.
Well no kidding this would be popular. You'd get a $1200-$1600 machine for $750 + monitor. Assuming that you can increase unit sales to make up the difference in revenue stream is still an unsupported gamble.
And you say you're a stockholder?
Vinea
As for the software issue, I have all the software I need, and with very few exceptions is there a type of software that doesn't exist somewhere in the Mac realm in one form or another, its just a matter of looking.
p.s. please don't eat me
Originally posted by area51boy2000
Having formerly worked at an Apple store, I can fairly safely say that one of the biggest selling points of Apple computers is that they do have such a small market share, and the things that a small market share brings.
p.s. please don't eat me
LOL! But you've got to make you didn't sell too many..
1. People won't buy Mac's if they use Wintel at school or on the job.
2. Apple's hardware products are ridiculously overprice compared to the competition. In fact, PC hardware offers more bang for your buck than what Apple does.
3. For 95% of the computer users out there, Windows is good enough.
4. Just a guess, but I think that a large number of PC users buy cheap hardware only to install illegal or bootleg software on them.
5. Apple can't market the Mac, iLife, Pro Apps, or Mac OS X.
Dave
Originally posted by vinea
You can assume Dell, HP, etc outsells Apple. /shrug Do you have a better source for overall market behavior? Can you say which computer and laptop has the most overall sales?
Besides, I made that comment to refute that Apple ignores what people want. If they truly ignored what everyone wanted then rebates or not they wouldn't be top sellers anywhere BUT the Apple Store. The volume would be too low to show up much on Amazon if they truly sucked.
Just because an analyst uses Amazon as an example doesn't necessarily say anything good about the analyst or Amazon. I would expect that an analyst would have better sources. Overall market behavior can't be sampled properly at one internet store, there is a likely chance that the demographics of people that buy at Amazon is very different than those of B&Ms, and then there's the direct marketing, which Dell is doing very aggressively by advertising just about every medium I see.
The very fact that Apple products are topping Amazon carts despite Apple being a very small fraction of the overall computer market is a vast enough of a disparity for me to disregard Amazon's rankings as highly anomalous and suspect as a source of good information.
Originally posted by JeffDM
The very fact that Apple products are topping Amazon carts despite Apple being a very small fraction of the overall computer market is a vast enough of a disparity for me to disregard Amazon's rankings as highly anomalous and suspect as a source of good information.
Lets see...Dell is 33% of the US market. They don't sell on Amazon.
HP is 20% followed by Gateway 6%, Levono 4.1%, Apple 4%, Toshiba 3.5%. Gateway doesn't sell on Amazon (except one model laptop probably an associate site). Evidently neither does Levono.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20051406
So looking at the Amazon top 25 we see whom? HP/Compaq, Apple, Toshiba, Acer, Sony.
OMFG...Apple?!? How totally unexpected!
Given that Apple has concentrated its models I think you have a good indication of how Apple does with its peers outside of the business market. It is plausible that they can capture the top sellers at Amazon and still only be #5 because they have few models and compete in a limited segment of the overall market (upper end of consumer, edu and content creation).
If you don't like Amazon as a data source, fine. Name a better source that doesn't cost thousands of dollars to look at.
Bottom line is Apple is 4% of the upper end of the US market share and expected to beat the market in 2006. Whining about how their product line (not necessarily you Jeff, unless you did) is too small or their execution is just bizzare when the company is doing well and the transition not the total disaster it could have been.
Ya think maybe switching over their entire flipping product line in a year is too easy that they should also abandon their old market strategy and embark on a hell for bent drive on market share at the same time?
That seems bright.
Vinea
Originally posted by backtomac
Shit I thought IBM was in business consulting.
to a certain extent, all computer companies are. The question is how sucessful they are.
Originally posted by vinea
There's only 1 extra component over the iMac...its called a monitor. You have to really be smoking something if you really believe a $750 core duo mac wont impact sales of a $1299 and $1699 imacs that will have roughly the same performance.
The only big difference between the Mac Mini and an iMac is the vid card.
That's because a reciever is cheaper than seperate pre-amp, tuner, amp and the top end recievers have better quality than the bottom end seperates from Radio Shack. This is a dumb analogy.
How would it be a good thing? The sales would go down, probably too low to bother supporting the mini. And you're still cannibalizing a $799 machine with a $750 that's more expensive to make.
Well no kidding this would be popular. You'd get a $1200-$1600 machine for $750 + monitor. Assuming that you can increase unit sales to make up the difference in revenue stream is still an unsupported gamble.
And you say you're a stockholder?
Vinea
You haven;'t made one good argument yet. These aren't worth debating.
Originally posted by melgross
You haven;'t made one good argument yet. These aren't worth debating.
On top form as usual.