When you're customer case mainly consists of creative professionals and affluent "I don't want to mess with it" types, you eventually hit the brick wall.
When you're customer case mainly consists of creative professionals and affluent "I don't want to mess with it" types, you eventually hit the brick wall.
Hey this is a miniscule sample I know but relevant to your once true comment. The five new MacBook users I know just locally (previously Windows users) just read e-mail and visit web sites... They just wanted to be free of all the constant problems they had. All now absolutely love using their Macs.
Hey this is a miniscule sample I know but relevant to your once true comment. The five new MacBook users I know just locally (previously Windows users) just read e-mail and visit web sites... They just wanted to be free of all the constant problems they had. All now absolutely love using their Macs.
And... they are also the best PC's they've ever had!8)
I sell an educational and printing utility both for OSX and Windows. Despite a fairly decent windows web presence, the Mac:PC ratios are 70:30 and 40:60 for the edu and printing one, respectively.
I know that some people refuse to admit that marketshare is important. But it is.
Computers are NOT cars, and I wish those stupid analogs would stop.
Computers need software, and software depends on computer platform. Developers, unless they work on a platform because of a preference, which most don't do, will go for marketshare.
It isn't just a matter of numbers, it's also a matter of percentage, and costs.
The costs for developing, supporting, and marketing to 5% of the possible user base can cost almost as much as doing the same for the other 90+%.
While some programs are used much more on Macs per capita, it may not make up for those costs.
Limited software limits computer sales, and the circle goes round and round.
As marketshare rises, so does available software (and hardware).
If the computer sales rise, but do so at the same speed as the larger market, the overall balance remains the same.
If, as had happened for too many years for Apple until recently, sales dropped slightly over the years, or remained about the same, while the rest of the market expanded, the marketshare dropped, from about 12% to 3%. We lost developers at an alarming rate.
Their share has been much lower and is generally increasing, and additionally, quarterly data are more volatile and less indicative of trends, so stop whining.
I sell an educational and printing utility both for OSX and Windows. Despite a fairly decent windows web presence, the Mac:PC ratios are 70:30 and 40:60 for the edu and printing one, respectively.
So much for the macc ratio being 5:95, huh?
But you aren't a market research firm - so what would you know.
Their share has been much lower and is generally increasing, and additionally, quarterly data are more volatile and less indicative of trends, so stop whining.
what i don't understand about this headline is this:
it's 28% year over year growth. Sequencial quarter growth is meaningless.
I think we'll all take 28% annual growth. What's that 65% in two years? doubling in less than 3?
Any market that is doubling in size every few years will start to bring in developers. What kills me is that apple doesn't make a little more of a push for marketshare on the mac side. Maybe sacrifice a bit of margin and bring out an xmac or lower the prices/specs on the macpros. Apple has the high and low ends covered, but the middle ground is weak.
Please note in the following post, 'Q's refer to financial quarters, not calendar quarters. Apple's financial quarters are almost exactly three months ahead of the calendar - i.e. we are in calendar Q1 and Apple financial Q2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
it's 28% year over year growth. Sequencial quarter growth is meaningless.
I beg to differ. Comparing quarter-to-quarter units is pointless. Comparing quarter-to-quarter share is not. Do not forget that last year's Q1 quarter (the quarter we are comparing to to get 28% share growth), PPC Macs were all you could buy.
There was a lot of pent-up demand for Intel Macs, and the change to the ubiqutous x86 platform has also attracted a few more switchers due to negative perceptions they had of PPC performance, and being able to run Windows natively.
This meant that Q2 '06, Q3 '06, Q4 '06 and Q1 '07 all saw significant year-over-year growth due to the release of this pent up demand. Q2 '07 will be the first quarter where we get to compare two year-over-year quarters where Intel Macs were shipping. Even then, the whole line didn't go Intel until Q3 '06.
However, this result, that shows a sequential drop in market share, could indicate that there are still significant problems in making the platform more attractive to the market. It could be an indication that the pent-up demand in the installed user-base is pretty much spent, and that the platform isn't attracting as many switchers as originally hoped. It could be a sign that from next quarter onwards, we won't see anything like the year-over-year growth we saw in Q2 '06 through Q1 '07.
Apple says they grew at 28%, 3x the industry. That means that they grew marketshare, plane and simple. If they're growing faster than the industry they're gaining marketshare. How can an analyst say something different?
In the US is was much stronger, Apple said they grew 30+% in the US and the US market grew at 3%. That would be a huge market share gain.
I read another report this morning that said Apple market share was up to 4.7%. I don't remember the qualifiers. It was probably in the US market.
Still, any of these numbers contradict the notion that Apple is losing marketshare. Is this from the same people that said iTunes sales are down?
Macrumors just posted a similar story showing market share GAINS, not losses...
Apple says they grew at 28%, 3x the industry. That means that they grew marketshare, plain and simple. If they're growing faster than the industry they're gaining marketshare. How can an analyst say something different?
In the US it was much stronger, Apple said they grew 30+% in the US and the US market grew at 3%. That would be a huge market share gain.
I read another report this morning that said Apple market share was up to 4.7%. I don't remember the qualifiers. It was probably in the US market.
Still, any of these numbers contradict the notion that Apple is losing marketshare. Is this from the same people that said iTunes sales are down?
1.606/0.024 = 66.92M
1.611/0.028 = 57.54M
66.92/57.54 - 1 = 16.3%
Some IDC mumbers;
2005 PC growth = 15.9%
2006 2nd quarter PC growth = 13%
2006 3rd quarter PC growth = 9.1%
So perhaps PiperJaffray market share numbers are rounded somewhat (to an even number), so for example;
1.606/0.0245 = 65.55M
1.611/0.0275 = 58.58M
65.55/58.58 - 1 = 11.3%
So, all in all, the PiperJaffray and IDC numbers are in rough agreement.
28%/9.1% ~ factor of 3 (Apple placing their growth in the best possible light perhaps?)
66.92M - 57.54M = 9.38M incremental increase in total PC volume versus 1.606M - 1.611M = -0.005M in total Mac volume in successive quarters.
9.38M (incremental PC shipments) - 1.606M (Apple total shipments) /1.606 - 1 = 3.84 times the volume of Apple total shipments. Inotherwords incremental PC shipments were 3.84 times Apple's TOTAL shipments.
Have the Q1 unit sales been released for Dell, HP and Gateway? As I recall, Apple was the 4th largest OEM of personal computers and poised to take Gateway out of 3rd place sometime this year.
Computers need software, and software depends on computer platform. Developers, unless they work on a platform because of a preference, which most don't do, will go for marketshare.
Are 20 mediocre software packages better than 1 good one?
Some of the most significant percentage gains were actually in 2005/6 before and just after the Intel Switch was announced when Apple were still selling PPC hardware. I don't think most people actually care what CPU is in their computer.
Q3 2005, Q4 2005 and Q1 2006 were actually higher than Q2 2006 (ie. Spring last year) despite the first Intels not being released till Q2 2006. Back then the G5 was still up there with the best from Intel and G4 laptops were kind of ok against Pentium Ms. Sure, we'd be in trouble now if Apple hadn't switched most likely since there's been no new PPC chips that compete with Intel Core but back then it was roughly 'mano y mano'.
People were already switching in droves a long time before they could run Windows on the Mac and a long time before we got rid of those apparently 'slow PowerPCs'. Personally I think the growth is more to do with dissatisfaction with Windows (old, viruses, malware, no shiny) than Mac hardware. In 2005 people just got fed up and finally sought out something else.
That gives me pause for thought in 2007 now that Vista is finally coming out but I think Apple will still show great growth as they've got momentum now. Vista upgrades are going to be hell for some people to the point that they may just think about getting a whole new PC instead and some will be thinking they may as well go Mac instead of getting poked by the pointy Microsoft stick again.
given that vista is a 200-300$ upgrade requiring pretty beefy hardware, i think a lot of people will just go out and buy a new machine. that's a great opportunity for apple and osx to pick up consumers.
unless vista has something like time machine in it, it's going to be seriously inferior as soon as leopard comes out. That single feature alone is worth the cost to me.
re: year over year numbers, that was a good point about the intel transition, and in my own experience with people switching in teh last year, of whom i know a lot of folks - the selling point has been boot camp and/or parallels. That's huge.
Comments
When you're customer case mainly consists of creative professionals and affluent "I don't want to mess with it" types, you eventually hit the brick wall.
Hey this is a miniscule sample I know but relevant to your once true comment. The five new MacBook users I know just locally (previously Windows users) just read e-mail and visit web sites... They just wanted to be free of all the constant problems they had. All now absolutely love using their Macs.
... and now want to 'play' with iLife apps!
Hey this is a miniscule sample I know but relevant to your once true comment. The five new MacBook users I know just locally (previously Windows users) just read e-mail and visit web sites... They just wanted to be free of all the constant problems they had. All now absolutely love using their Macs.
And... they are also the best PC's they've ever had!8)
And... they are also the best PC's they've ever had!8)
Right! BUT you should have heard the comments when I pointed out the could still run Windoze
Right! BUT you should have heard the comments when I pointed out the could still run Windoze
Furthermore, their Windows using friends start having thoughts. Dangerous stuff - thoughts!
Furthermore, their Windows using friends start having thoughts. Dangerous stuff - thoughts!
That's exactly why the original one is now 5 8)
I sell an educational and printing utility both for OSX and Windows. Despite a fairly decent windows web presence, the Mac:PC ratios are 70:30 and 40:60 for the edu and printing one, respectively.
So much for the mac
I know that some people refuse to admit that marketshare is important. But it is.
Computers are NOT cars, and I wish those stupid analogs would stop.
Computers need software, and software depends on computer platform. Developers, unless they work on a platform because of a preference, which most don't do, will go for marketshare.
It isn't just a matter of numbers, it's also a matter of percentage, and costs.
The costs for developing, supporting, and marketing to 5% of the possible user base can cost almost as much as doing the same for the other 90+%.
While some programs are used much more on Macs per capita, it may not make up for those costs.
Limited software limits computer sales, and the circle goes round and round.
As marketshare rises, so does available software (and hardware).
If the computer sales rise, but do so at the same speed as the larger market, the overall balance remains the same.
If, as had happened for too many years for Apple until recently, sales dropped slightly over the years, or remained about the same, while the rest of the market expanded, the marketshare dropped, from about 12% to 3%. We lost developers at an alarming rate.
Their share has been much lower and is generally increasing, and additionally, quarterly data are more volatile and less indicative of trends, so stop whining.
Repeat after me: Windows users dont buy software.
I sell an educational and printing utility both for OSX and Windows. Despite a fairly decent windows web presence, the Mac:PC ratios are 70:30 and 40:60 for the edu and printing one, respectively.
So much for the mac
But you aren't a market research firm - so what would you know.
(That's a joke - hope you get it!)
Their share has been much lower and is generally increasing, and additionally, quarterly data are more volatile and less indicative of trends, so stop whining.
Don't be an idiot! I'm not whining.
If you can't partake here, don't post drivel.
it's 28% year over year growth. Sequencial quarter growth is meaningless.
I think we'll all take 28% annual growth. What's that 65% in two years? doubling in less than 3?
Any market that is doubling in size every few years will start to bring in developers. What kills me is that apple doesn't make a little more of a push for marketshare on the mac side. Maybe sacrifice a bit of margin and bring out an xmac or lower the prices/specs on the macpros. Apple has the high and low ends covered, but the middle ground is weak.
it's 28% year over year growth. Sequencial quarter growth is meaningless.
I beg to differ. Comparing quarter-to-quarter units is pointless. Comparing quarter-to-quarter share is not. Do not forget that last year's Q1 quarter (the quarter we are comparing to to get 28% share growth), PPC Macs were all you could buy.
There was a lot of pent-up demand for Intel Macs, and the change to the ubiqutous x86 platform has also attracted a few more switchers due to negative perceptions they had of PPC performance, and being able to run Windows natively.
This meant that Q2 '06, Q3 '06, Q4 '06 and Q1 '07 all saw significant year-over-year growth due to the release of this pent up demand. Q2 '07 will be the first quarter where we get to compare two year-over-year quarters where Intel Macs were shipping. Even then, the whole line didn't go Intel until Q3 '06.
However, this result, that shows a sequential drop in market share, could indicate that there are still significant problems in making the platform more attractive to the market. It could be an indication that the pent-up demand in the installed user-base is pretty much spent, and that the platform isn't attracting as many switchers as originally hoped. It could be a sign that from next quarter onwards, we won't see anything like the year-over-year growth we saw in Q2 '06 through Q1 '07.
I don't understand all the conflicting reports.
Apple says they grew at 28%, 3x the industry. That means that they grew marketshare, plane and simple. If they're growing faster than the industry they're gaining marketshare. How can an analyst say something different?
In the US is was much stronger, Apple said they grew 30+% in the US and the US market grew at 3%. That would be a huge market share gain.
I read another report this morning that said Apple market share was up to 4.7%. I don't remember the qualifiers. It was probably in the US market.
Still, any of these numbers contradict the notion that Apple is losing marketshare. Is this from the same people that said iTunes sales are down?
Macrumors just posted a similar story showing market share GAINS, not losses...
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/...18132008.shtml
I don't understand all the conflicting reports.
Apple says they grew at 28%, 3x the industry. That means that they grew marketshare, plain and simple. If they're growing faster than the industry they're gaining marketshare. How can an analyst say something different?
In the US it was much stronger, Apple said they grew 30+% in the US and the US market grew at 3%. That would be a huge market share gain.
I read another report this morning that said Apple market share was up to 4.7%. I don't remember the qualifiers. It was probably in the US market.
Still, any of these numbers contradict the notion that Apple is losing marketshare. Is this from the same people that said iTunes sales are down?
1.606/0.024 = 66.92M
1.611/0.028 = 57.54M
66.92/57.54 - 1 = 16.3%
Some IDC mumbers;
2005 PC growth = 15.9%
2006 2nd quarter PC growth = 13%
2006 3rd quarter PC growth = 9.1%
So perhaps PiperJaffray market share numbers are rounded somewhat (to an even number), so for example;
1.606/0.0245 = 65.55M
1.611/0.0275 = 58.58M
65.55/58.58 - 1 = 11.3%
So, all in all, the PiperJaffray and IDC numbers are in rough agreement.
1.606M (Apple 1st Q 07)/ 1.254M (Apple 1st Q 06) -1 = 28%
28%/9.1% ~ factor of 3 (Apple placing their growth in the best possible light perhaps?)
66.92M - 57.54M = 9.38M incremental increase in total PC volume versus 1.606M - 1.611M = -0.005M in total Mac volume in successive quarters.
9.38M (incremental PC shipments) - 1.606M (Apple total shipments) /1.606 - 1 = 3.84 times the volume of Apple total shipments. Inotherwords incremental PC shipments were 3.84 times Apple's TOTAL shipments.
Anyway you cut it, these numbers are believable.
Computers need software, and software depends on computer platform. Developers, unless they work on a platform because of a preference, which most don't do, will go for marketshare.
Are 20 mediocre software packages better than 1 good one?
Are 20 mediocre software packages better than 1 good one?
Probably, if the initial cost is the only consideration (and IMHO it usually is).
Q3 2005, Q4 2005 and Q1 2006 were actually higher than Q2 2006 (ie. Spring last year) despite the first Intels not being released till Q2 2006. Back then the G5 was still up there with the best from Intel and G4 laptops were kind of ok against Pentium Ms. Sure, we'd be in trouble now if Apple hadn't switched most likely since there's been no new PPC chips that compete with Intel Core but back then it was roughly 'mano y mano'.
People were already switching in droves a long time before they could run Windows on the Mac and a long time before we got rid of those apparently 'slow PowerPCs'. Personally I think the growth is more to do with dissatisfaction with Windows (old, viruses, malware, no shiny) than Mac hardware. In 2005 people just got fed up and finally sought out something else.
That gives me pause for thought in 2007 now that Vista is finally coming out but I think Apple will still show great growth as they've got momentum now. Vista upgrades are going to be hell for some people to the point that they may just think about getting a whole new PC instead and some will be thinking they may as well go Mac instead of getting poked by the pointy Microsoft stick again.
unless vista has something like time machine in it, it's going to be seriously inferior as soon as leopard comes out. That single feature alone is worth the cost to me.
re: year over year numbers, that was a good point about the intel transition, and in my own experience with people switching in teh last year, of whom i know a lot of folks - the selling point has been boot camp and/or parallels. That's huge.