The problem with your comments is that revenue share shows how much of that market's money you're getting. If you have a revenue share of 10% and a market share of 1%, that's 10x better money (at least cash flow) than a market share of 10% and a 1% revenue share.
As it is, for 2008, it looks like Apple had half the revenue of Dell, despite having a lot less than a quarter of Dell's market share. We'll probably see similar levels of net profit between the two as well.
So what?.. If dell has more profit, why would they care how much market share does it take to generate that profit?. Now you are getting into profit margins. The reason that there is more software written for pc than mac is because of market share, not cause of profit margins. I think apple fans are mistaking trees for forest. Yes, profit margin is nice but market share is the holy grail. Apple wants to redefine the game, that's fine.. they can play their game while everyone else is playing the main game. Even when apple was in danger during the mid 90's, their profit margin was better than Dell. I'm sure dell is quaking in their boots at the thought that apple market share is dropping but their profit margins is still healthy.. wow, even Microsoft is having sleepless nights at the thought of apple profit margins. If apple goal is lower market share and better profit margins, Microsoft would be very happy to accommodate that goal (just like Toyota is happy to let BMW have healthier profit margin at the expense of market share).
So what?.. If dell has more profit, why would they care how much market share does it take to generate that profit?
Assuming here is more net profit, I think it's actually pretty close. I also think there's a diminishing return on economies of scale, Apple already produces millions of each kind of computer, I don't expect that multiplying it by five or ten would lead to significant reduction in incremental costs, or significantly reduce the ammortized up-front costs.
Oh it's a strategy. BMW uses that strategy too but i doubt they will generate as much revenue as Toyota or as much profit.
The other problem with the Apple-as-BMW car analogy is the issue of creating a critical market. BMW doesn't need to sell a certain number of BMWs to compel people to make roads and gas stations "BMW-compatible." The nature of cars as a market is so different from computers as to make comparisons inherently silly.
Since Apple has made itself the sole source of computers running the Mac OS platform, it has given itself a second responsibility in selling computers: in addition to profit margins, it must ensure the critical mass of computers that make the Mac a viable platform. When Dell loses a sale to HP, the Windows platform isn't harmed because it's still a Windows PC sale. When Apple loses a sale to HP, the Mac platform IS harmed, as it is less attractive to developers.
If Apple doesn't respond to the market's new price points, then future sales (and with them, the continued viability of the platform) will have been mortgaged to the short term expediency of higher profit margins.
You seems to know a lot, are you running one of the big five computer companies, what is your vision of the computer industry and where it is heading and what are the innovations likely in these challenging time ahead?
Talk is cheap so show us the money.
It's unlikely your post was directed to me, but, ah well why not...
I can imagine that before that long computers will consist from the individual users standpoint as about two inch long variably flourescent or at least alternatingly brightly coloured stems, about the thickness of the lead in a standard pencil, slightly flexible, that will be widely available and contain eneough power (both energy wise and computing wise) to transmit any personal data to a "cloud","sky" or whatever system names there are,ie massive computing network. These "strands" or "stems" will contain a slight bulge at one end containing all the computing power you need to operate any devices around you and to connect to the "cloud" etc. Screens will be activated around you at your request and will be widespread and shared in public and amongst family members. These stems will access your personal data by being gently rolled between your index finger and thumb to give a verified finger print match and synchronizing with your bank card.
I, of course am no CEO (more the starving artist type) and see lavish spending on the decline generally, though folks are just too damb stubborn to stop themselves from buying that MacBook Pro!
Oh it's a strategy. BMW uses that strategy too but i doubt they will generate as much revenue as Toyota or as much profit. The more of something you can sell, the cheaper you can sell it while maintaining your profit. Allow me to explain to the slow among you..
If person A sells 10 items at $50 profit/item, then person A makes $500 profit.
If person B can sell 100 item at $20 profit/item, then person B makes
$2000 profit.
That is why everyone except Apple fans look at market share.. do you realize in terms of units the difference a 1% market share has?.. 1% probably represents over 1 million units. At that scale, you can definetly still make more profit while selling each item at a lower price. I realize this is a difficult concept for apple fans to grasp, hence why i included basic economics for dummies above.
Your example is fine and dandy for comparing two separate venders. But what happens if it's the same vender selling two products. If 40 people decided not to buy your $50 profit item (because they switch to your $20 profit item) it will completely wipe out the profit of 100 people buying your $20 profit item. Those 60 market shares gained did not add a penny to your bottom line. Another way to look at it is that you have to sell 5 items at $20 profit to make up every 2 $50 profit item you lose.
Now this is all a moot point if you're not selling any $50 profit items. But as long as you have compelling reasons for people to keep buying your $50 profit item, why sell for it less profit or sell a cheaper version at less profit. And if OSX is the main reason why people are willing to buy your $50 profit item, then it would make no sense at all to put OSX on a cheaper item at less profit. This would only take away sales from your $50 profit item.
You learn this kind of stuff after you grasp basic economic for dummies.
Your example is fine and dandy for comparing two separate venders. But what happens if it's the same vender selling two products. If 40 people decided not to buy your $50 profit item (because they switch to your $20 profit item) it will completely wipe out the profit of 100 people buying your $20 profit item. Those 60 market shares gained did not add a penny to your bottom line. Another way to look at it is that you have to sell 5 items at $20 profit to make up every 2 $50 profit item you lose.
Now this is all a moot point if you're not selling any $50 profit items. But as long as you have compelling reasons for people to keep buying your $50 profit item, why sell for it less profit or sell a cheaper version at less profit. And if OSX is the main reason why people are willing to buy your $50 profit item, then it would make no sense at all to put OSX on a cheaper item at less profit. This would only take away sales from your $50 profit item.
You learn this kind of stuff after you grasp basic economic for dummies.
Apple must factor this all in, look at the much cheaper MacBook to the MacBook Pro, people opt for the cheaper one and their profit margins are down in comparison to a MacBook Pro sale, so how much does Apple fear an Apple netbook? My guess is not much, rather, in fact the reverse, representing a substantial new market place that wouldn't depreciate it's other sales dispraportionately to it's new profits. Given the netbook popularity is in part due to it's lightweight and nine inches or so screen size, hence portability but diminished performance, Apple could see those Windows users who buy at lower prices jumping ship and snatching them up as a now affordable alternative, even if their not the cheapest netbooks on the market. Personaly, I'd like to see Apple do it's thing by throwing in some innovation and having a product that you might want to save for just a little longer and get.
Apple must factor this all in, look at the much cheaper MacBook to the MacBook Pro, people opt for the cheaper one and their profit margins are down in comparison to a MacBook Pro sale, so how much does Apple fear an Apple netbook? My guess is not much, rather, in fact the reverse, representing a substantial new market place that wouldn't depreciate it's other sales dispraportionately to it's new profits. Given the netbook popularity is in part due to it's lightweight and nine inches or so screen size, hence portability but diminished performance, Apple could see those Windows users who buy at lower prices jumping ship and snatching them up as a now affordable alternative, even if their not the cheapest netbooks on the market. Personaly, I'd like to see Apple do it's thing by throwing in some innovation and having a product that you might want to save for just a little longer and get.
How much of the netbook market is "new" is yet to be seen. Once laptops became affordable. it was a new market. As many people that own desk tops also started to buy laptops. But now many people are buying laptops only. So today, many of the laptop sales comes at the expense of desk top sales. Which is fine with most PC venders as the margin on a laptop is usually greater than that of a similarily priced desktop. But that's not true on the margin of a netbook.
The other thing that Apple has to consider is that a netbook usually complements the system you're already using. Since a netbook, for most people, can not replace a desk top. (Or a laptop if you not using a desk top.) With this in mind, Apple is not going to switch over a lot of PC users with a cheap netbook. Most PC users are looking for a netbook that complements their PC (Be it a desk top or laptop.). Even if all they need it for is E-mail, music, online surfing and minor word processing while at Starbucks. It's not like an Apple netbook can replace their PC.
But I can see a lot of Mac users wanting a small format Apple netbook to complement their Macs. (Be it a desk top or laptop.) But that's not a huge market to develop a new and low margined product towards.
How much of the netbook market is "new" is yet to be seen. Once laptops became affordable. it was a new market. As many people that own desk tops also started to buy laptops. But now many people are buying laptops only. So today, many of the laptop sales comes at the expense of desk top sales. Which is fine with most PC venders as the margin on a laptop is usually greater than that of a similarily priced desktop. But that's not true on the margin of a netbook.
The other thing that Apple has to consider is that a netbook usually complements the system you're already using. Since a netbook, for most people, can not replace a desk top. (Or a laptop if you not using a desk top.) With this in mind, Apple is not going to switch over a lot of PC users with a cheap netbook. Most PC users are looking for a netbook that complements their PC (Be it a desk top or laptop.). Even if all they need it for is E-mail, music, online surfing and minor word processing while at Starbucks. It's not like an Apple netbook can replace their PC.
But I can see a lot of Mac users wanting a small format Apple netbook to complement their Macs. (Be it a desk top or laptop.) But that's not a huge market to develop a new and low margined product towards.
As a rule I think your right on most points, but there's still plenty of wiggle room, especially as we're talking Apple.
I'd like to see two (or more) magnetically attatchable backs (one holding a thin battery,no fan etc) running just OS X and one holding a thicker (with fan and larger battery etc) holding both Mac OS X and OS X combined) With the pricing options of buying them seperately (if say you couldn't afford the extra $300 for the Mac OSX but wanted it later when you could afford it. I'd also like to see it with a magnetically attatchable keyboard (again offered for sale seperately) say a 60% reduced chicklet style that would also act to hold the screen up at a normal laptop angle and as a screen protector too.
I've no idea whether it would be possible (but maybe with a firmware update) to allow iPhone and iPod Touch users to connect to the new devices larger screen (through Bluetooth, wi-fi or wired) without having any backs (or even if you have a back connected) making it even more versatile- so long as the screen was plugged in to a power source if it had no back on it). Most people shouldn't require that, especially if they bought the back with just the OS X with an ample battery, but for those that didn't they get a very thin and lightweight device but it would have to be wired to (maybe someday!) to the iPhone etc for power.
Global PC sales Q4 2008 : 77.694 million (Annual growth rate: 0.35%)
Apple Mac sales Q4 2007 : 2.319 million
Apple Mac sales Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2007 : 75.105 million
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
I will fill in the blanks later. Looking forward to all of the armchair CEO theories explaining Apple's poor performance.
2.611 million Mac units sold in fiscal year 2008 Q4 that's an over 20% rise over 2007 Q4. iPods up 8% ( around 11 million sold) in unit growth sales over Q4 2007 and iPhone sales up from a bit over 1 million in Q4 2007 to over 6 million in Q4 2008.
Comments
The problem with your comments is that revenue share shows how much of that market's money you're getting. If you have a revenue share of 10% and a market share of 1%, that's 10x better money (at least cash flow) than a market share of 10% and a 1% revenue share.
As it is, for 2008, it looks like Apple had half the revenue of Dell, despite having a lot less than a quarter of Dell's market share. We'll probably see similar levels of net profit between the two as well.
So what?.. If dell has more profit, why would they care how much market share does it take to generate that profit?. Now you are getting into profit margins. The reason that there is more software written for pc than mac is because of market share, not cause of profit margins. I think apple fans are mistaking trees for forest. Yes, profit margin is nice but market share is the holy grail. Apple wants to redefine the game, that's fine.. they can play their game while everyone else is playing the main game. Even when apple was in danger during the mid 90's, their profit margin was better than Dell. I'm sure dell is quaking in their boots at the thought that apple market share is dropping but their profit margins is still healthy.. wow, even Microsoft is having sleepless nights at the thought of apple profit margins. If apple goal is lower market share and better profit margins, Microsoft would be very happy to accommodate that goal (just like Toyota is happy to let BMW have healthier profit margin at the expense of market share).
So what?.. If dell has more profit, why would they care how much market share does it take to generate that profit?
Assuming here is more net profit, I think it's actually pretty close. I also think there's a diminishing return on economies of scale, Apple already produces millions of each kind of computer, I don't expect that multiplying it by five or ten would lead to significant reduction in incremental costs, or significantly reduce the ammortized up-front costs.
Oh it's a strategy. BMW uses that strategy too but i doubt they will generate as much revenue as Toyota or as much profit.
The other problem with the Apple-as-BMW car analogy is the issue of creating a critical market. BMW doesn't need to sell a certain number of BMWs to compel people to make roads and gas stations "BMW-compatible." The nature of cars as a market is so different from computers as to make comparisons inherently silly.
Since Apple has made itself the sole source of computers running the Mac OS platform, it has given itself a second responsibility in selling computers: in addition to profit margins, it must ensure the critical mass of computers that make the Mac a viable platform. When Dell loses a sale to HP, the Windows platform isn't harmed because it's still a Windows PC sale. When Apple loses a sale to HP, the Mac platform IS harmed, as it is less attractive to developers.
If Apple doesn't respond to the market's new price points, then future sales (and with them, the continued viability of the platform) will have been mortgaged to the short term expediency of higher profit margins.
You seems to know a lot, are you running one of the big five computer companies, what is your vision of the computer industry and where it is heading and what are the innovations likely in these challenging time ahead?
Talk is cheap so show us the money.
It's unlikely your post was directed to me, but, ah well why not...
I can imagine that before that long computers will consist from the individual users standpoint as about two inch long variably flourescent or at least alternatingly brightly coloured stems, about the thickness of the lead in a standard pencil, slightly flexible, that will be widely available and contain eneough power (both energy wise and computing wise) to transmit any personal data to a "cloud","sky" or whatever system names there are,ie massive computing network. These "strands" or "stems" will contain a slight bulge at one end containing all the computing power you need to operate any devices around you and to connect to the "cloud" etc. Screens will be activated around you at your request and will be widespread and shared in public and amongst family members. These stems will access your personal data by being gently rolled between your index finger and thumb to give a verified finger print match and synchronizing with your bank card.
I, of course am no CEO (more the starving artist type) and see lavish spending on the decline generally, though folks are just too damb stubborn to stop themselves from buying that MacBook Pro!
Oh it's a strategy. BMW uses that strategy too but i doubt they will generate as much revenue as Toyota or as much profit. The more of something you can sell, the cheaper you can sell it while maintaining your profit. Allow me to explain to the slow among you..
If person A sells 10 items at $50 profit/item, then person A makes $500 profit.
If person B can sell 100 item at $20 profit/item, then person B makes
$2000 profit.
That is why everyone except Apple fans look at market share.. do you realize in terms of units the difference a 1% market share has?.. 1% probably represents over 1 million units. At that scale, you can definetly still make more profit while selling each item at a lower price. I realize this is a difficult concept for apple fans to grasp, hence why i included basic economics for dummies above.
Your example is fine and dandy for comparing two separate venders. But what happens if it's the same vender selling two products. If 40 people decided not to buy your $50 profit item (because they switch to your $20 profit item) it will completely wipe out the profit of 100 people buying your $20 profit item. Those 60 market shares gained did not add a penny to your bottom line. Another way to look at it is that you have to sell 5 items at $20 profit to make up every 2 $50 profit item you lose.
Now this is all a moot point if you're not selling any $50 profit items. But as long as you have compelling reasons for people to keep buying your $50 profit item, why sell for it less profit or sell a cheaper version at less profit. And if OSX is the main reason why people are willing to buy your $50 profit item, then it would make no sense at all to put OSX on a cheaper item at less profit. This would only take away sales from your $50 profit item.
You learn this kind of stuff after you grasp basic economic for dummies.
Your example is fine and dandy for comparing two separate venders. But what happens if it's the same vender selling two products. If 40 people decided not to buy your $50 profit item (because they switch to your $20 profit item) it will completely wipe out the profit of 100 people buying your $20 profit item. Those 60 market shares gained did not add a penny to your bottom line. Another way to look at it is that you have to sell 5 items at $20 profit to make up every 2 $50 profit item you lose.
Now this is all a moot point if you're not selling any $50 profit items. But as long as you have compelling reasons for people to keep buying your $50 profit item, why sell for it less profit or sell a cheaper version at less profit. And if OSX is the main reason why people are willing to buy your $50 profit item, then it would make no sense at all to put OSX on a cheaper item at less profit. This would only take away sales from your $50 profit item.
You learn this kind of stuff after you grasp basic economic for dummies.
Apple must factor this all in, look at the much cheaper MacBook to the MacBook Pro, people opt for the cheaper one and their profit margins are down in comparison to a MacBook Pro sale, so how much does Apple fear an Apple netbook? My guess is not much, rather, in fact the reverse, representing a substantial new market place that wouldn't depreciate it's other sales dispraportionately to it's new profits. Given the netbook popularity is in part due to it's lightweight and nine inches or so screen size, hence portability but diminished performance, Apple could see those Windows users who buy at lower prices jumping ship and snatching them up as a now affordable alternative, even if their not the cheapest netbooks on the market. Personaly, I'd like to see Apple do it's thing by throwing in some innovation and having a product that you might want to save for just a little longer and get.
Apple must factor this all in, look at the much cheaper MacBook to the MacBook Pro, people opt for the cheaper one and their profit margins are down in comparison to a MacBook Pro sale, so how much does Apple fear an Apple netbook? My guess is not much, rather, in fact the reverse, representing a substantial new market place that wouldn't depreciate it's other sales dispraportionately to it's new profits. Given the netbook popularity is in part due to it's lightweight and nine inches or so screen size, hence portability but diminished performance, Apple could see those Windows users who buy at lower prices jumping ship and snatching them up as a now affordable alternative, even if their not the cheapest netbooks on the market. Personaly, I'd like to see Apple do it's thing by throwing in some innovation and having a product that you might want to save for just a little longer and get.
How much of the netbook market is "new" is yet to be seen. Once laptops became affordable. it was a new market. As many people that own desk tops also started to buy laptops. But now many people are buying laptops only. So today, many of the laptop sales comes at the expense of desk top sales. Which is fine with most PC venders as the margin on a laptop is usually greater than that of a similarily priced desktop. But that's not true on the margin of a netbook.
The other thing that Apple has to consider is that a netbook usually complements the system you're already using. Since a netbook, for most people, can not replace a desk top. (Or a laptop if you not using a desk top.) With this in mind, Apple is not going to switch over a lot of PC users with a cheap netbook. Most PC users are looking for a netbook that complements their PC (Be it a desk top or laptop.). Even if all they need it for is E-mail, music, online surfing and minor word processing while at Starbucks. It's not like an Apple netbook can replace their PC.
But I can see a lot of Mac users wanting a small format Apple netbook to complement their Macs. (Be it a desk top or laptop.) But that's not a huge market to develop a new and low margined product towards.
How much of the netbook market is "new" is yet to be seen. Once laptops became affordable. it was a new market. As many people that own desk tops also started to buy laptops. But now many people are buying laptops only. So today, many of the laptop sales comes at the expense of desk top sales. Which is fine with most PC venders as the margin on a laptop is usually greater than that of a similarily priced desktop. But that's not true on the margin of a netbook.
The other thing that Apple has to consider is that a netbook usually complements the system you're already using. Since a netbook, for most people, can not replace a desk top. (Or a laptop if you not using a desk top.) With this in mind, Apple is not going to switch over a lot of PC users with a cheap netbook. Most PC users are looking for a netbook that complements their PC (Be it a desk top or laptop.). Even if all they need it for is E-mail, music, online surfing and minor word processing while at Starbucks. It's not like an Apple netbook can replace their PC.
But I can see a lot of Mac users wanting a small format Apple netbook to complement their Macs. (Be it a desk top or laptop.) But that's not a huge market to develop a new and low margined product towards.
As a rule I think your right on most points, but there's still plenty of wiggle room, especially as we're talking Apple.
I'd like to see two (or more) magnetically attatchable backs (one holding a thin battery,no fan etc) running just OS X and one holding a thicker (with fan and larger battery etc) holding both Mac OS X and OS X combined) With the pricing options of buying them seperately (if say you couldn't afford the extra $300 for the Mac OSX but wanted it later when you could afford it. I'd also like to see it with a magnetically attatchable keyboard (again offered for sale seperately) say a 60% reduced chicklet style that would also act to hold the screen up at a normal laptop angle and as a screen protector too.
I've no idea whether it would be possible (but maybe with a firmware update) to allow iPhone and iPod Touch users to connect to the new devices larger screen (through Bluetooth, wi-fi or wired) without having any backs (or even if you have a back connected) making it even more versatile- so long as the screen was plugged in to a power source if it had no back on it). Most people shouldn't require that, especially if they bought the back with just the OS X with an ample battery, but for those that didn't they get a very thin and lightweight device but it would have to be wired to (maybe someday!) to the iPhone etc for power.
Source: Gartner and IDC. Combined figures.
Global PC sales Q4 2007 : 77.424 million
Global PC sales Q4 2008 : 77.694 million (Annual growth rate: 0.35%)
Apple Mac sales Q4 2007 : 2.319 million
Apple Mac sales Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2007 : 75.105 million
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
I will fill in the blanks later. (SEE POST BELOW) Looking forward to all of the armchair CEO theories explaining Apple's poor performance.
Here are a few PC market figures for Q4 2007/8
Source: Gartner and IDC. Combined figures.
Global PC sales Q4 2007 : 77.424 million
Global PC sales Q4 2008 : 77.694 million (Annual growth rate: 0.35%)
Apple Mac sales Q4 2007 : 2.319 million
Apple Mac sales Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2007 : 75.105 million
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2008 : 0.000 million (Annual growth rate: n/a)
I will fill in the blanks later. Looking forward to all of the armchair CEO theories explaining Apple's poor performance.
2.611 million Mac units sold in fiscal year 2008 Q4 that's an over 20% rise over 2007 Q4. iPods up 8% ( around 11 million sold) in unit growth sales over Q4 2007 and iPhone sales up from a bit over 1 million in Q4 2007 to over 6 million in Q4 2008.
Source: Gartner and IDC. Combined figures.
Global PC sales Q4 2007 : 77.424 million
Global PC sales Q4 2008 : 77.694 million (Annual growth rate: 0.35%)
Apple Mac sales Q4 2007 : 2.319 million
Apple Mac sales Q4 2008 : 2.524 million (Annual growth rate: 8.84%)
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2007 : 75.105 million
PC sales MINUS Mac Q4 2008 : 75.170 million (Annual growth rate: 0.087%)
An observation: Year to year, the PC industry sold 270,000 more computers in the quarter... 205,000 were Macs.