Simply put, Apple's share of the high end market is 70%+. This is where computer profits are being made. It is not in volume. That's a loser's game.
An amazing argument.
Even if Apple's share of the "high end market" is 70%+ it is still a fraction of the overall market. Without unbundling it is unlikley to ever be better.
It's quite comical how these little companies that emerge feel as if they can just pick up Mac OS X and just build a computer, install it on there on just go about there damn business knowing the haven't even discussed what the are doing with Apple and thinking they won't take legal action because they are "expanding their marketshare"? Is this guy drunk or something. I mean, it sounds like he really believes that he is doing Apple a favor! Far out little man...Far out...
As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?
It hit Microsoft 10 years ago and is likely to hit Apple within 10 years.
I'm no lawyer, but a monopoly is more than just marketshare, it's a company uses unfair and/or predatory practices to gain and maintain dominance and ABUSES the power of dominance.
Microsoft is an example of ALL of it.
There's a long history (and list) of companies damaged or put out of business by Microsoft's policies.
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
I'm no lawyer, but a monopoly is more than just marketshare, it's a company uses unfair and/or predatory practices to gain and maintain dominance and ABUSES the power of dominance.
Microsoft is an example of ALL of it.
There's a long history (and list) of companies damaged or put out of business by Microsoft's policies.
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
Right. A monopoly itself isn't a problem. It's abuses of that monopoly that is the problem.
Even if Apple's share of the "high end market" is 70%+ it is still a fraction of the overall market. Without unbundling it is unlikley to ever be better.
Well It's certainly conceivable that Apple could grab a few more percentage points, but certainly nothing approaching 10-15% more than their greatest share over the last 3 years. I don;t see Apple, with their current business model, going north of 20% US. Not even 15%, assuming Apple's highest was 10% US over the last three years. Not while MS is in the picture. But Apple doesn't need to. Just a couple of percent more means an absolute galaxy of profit for Apple (there are already 35-40 million Mac users.) And this is a good thing for Apple, and an argument can be made that this is a good thing for the consumer, too. You've got a Premium-positioned brand in a #2 spot that is just as conspicuous as MS, but branded far more effectively, commanding greater desirability and far greater product loyalty, and dealing successfully in margins.
It's a brilliant game Apple has going on. It's a careful balance between exposure and dilution of the brand name. Accessible but not too common. And this brings with it the aura of exclusivity, specialness, desirability. And for the most part Apple delivers on this.
I certainly agree that if Apple untethers OS X from Apple hardware, you'd probably see greater market share for a time. Until OS X becomes a Windows clone. Apple giving away their core business like that will not only irreparably hurt Mac sales, but will also kill most of what differentiates OS X from everything else out there. There's a difference between having these little Psystars and Quos out there, and licensing out OS X to everyone and their dog. Eventually it will become a Windows-like experience. You can't prevent that in a Windows-like open system that uses a horizontal model, wherein you're dependent on the hardware manufacturers delivering a good chunk of the user experience on all kinds of hardware in a sea of different configurations and drivers. OS X desirability will tank. Just another OS with the same issues as the other ones. And Apple can say goodbye to nearly 50% of their revenue.The whole point of OS X, indeed the entire user experience from unboxing to years of enjoyable use, depends on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. Apple controls the experience, delivering a specific, exact level of user experience to everyone, across the board. Provided this user-experience is a good one - and clearly it is - there's no way Apple can go wrong with this. And by the looks of it they've been doing very well by it for years.
Another reason to continue along the same road (among others every year):
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
Prior to the election, it was widely being reported that, no matter who won the election, the antitrust case was going to lose its teeth. The people who were shocked at the outcome are the same people who have a tantrum right after a Stevenote, stamping their feet, saying "But I'd heard the new laptop was gonna use OLED and cost $300! What a rip-off!" Improper reality checking leads to much bitterness.
The whole point of OS X, indeed the entire user experience from unboxing to years of enjoyable use, depends on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. Apple controls the experience, delivering a specific, exact level of user experience to everyone, across the board. Provided this user-experience is a good one - and clearly it is - there's no way Apple can go wrong with this. And by the looks of it they've been doing very well by it for years.
Whether you're right or not, I think that's clearly the belief at Apple. And it may well be correct. A part of me would like to believe that it's possible to create a computer OS that would run nicely and enjoyably, without having to control the entire widget. Because you're right, I think Apple's marketshare has an innate cap on it (I hope it's north of 20%, because it was, once, but who's to know).
Not that you're trying to make it so simple, but I'll go ahead and beat this dead horse again: clearly, part of the problem at Microsoft isn't simply the "we don't own the whole widget" thing. Even when they do own the whole widget (Zune), they don't produce best-of-breed products. They simply lack vision and originality. If they've got some originality, they're not letting it peek out the doors.
Right. A monopoly itself isn't a problem. It's abuses of that monopoly that is the problem.
Not to be too tedious about this, but monopoly isn't a very useful term in this context, since it has multiple definitions none of which really apply to antitrust law. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent abuses of market power. A subtle but important difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
Prior to the election, it was widely being reported that, no matter who won the election, the antitrust case was going to lose its teeth.
Now there's a completely fact-free assertion. Quite to the contrary, it was clear before the election that if Bush won that his Antitrust Division of the DOJ would get out of Microsoft's way. He as much as said so during the campaign. He was true to his word -- shortly after he took office, the government offered up a toothless settlement, which Microsoft gratefully accepted.
Quo computers ? Quo in latin means "something". Something sure is.
My guess is that it is short for "Quid pro quo", a latin term loosely meaning something for something of equal value. If true it would be something of an inside joke to the backers and owners of Quo.
Either way, the timing is ridiculously suspicious.
Not to be too tedious about this, but monopoly isn't a very useful term in this context, since it has multiple definitions none of which really apply to antitrust law. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent abuses of market power. A subtle but important difference..
Apple's average consumer isn't asking for one. There isn't enough demand for a mid-sized headless desktop. And when a clone maker like Psystar offered one, no one was buying. Certainly not enough to keep them in business, never mind enough to cover their legal fees.
How do you know what Apple's average consumer is asking for, please cite your or anybody else's study. Where have you shown that Psystar didn't sell any, please cite numbers. Could be that Psystar did not sell major numbers because of the extra trouble involved in dealing with its set-up - this has no relation to what quantities Apple might sell - this is an illogical argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The tech enthusiats that frequent internet forums like this are only fraction of Apple's market. Otherwise we'd be seing one already. And Apple needs to be careful with how many models they put out, anyway. It's unfortunate, maybe, but that's how it is.
Again cite numbers, how do you know that only tech enthusiasts frequent these sites, I'm not, I'm here, how many others, I don't know, neither do you. No, Apple wouldn't be selling one otherwise, a very solid case may be made that Apple, aka Steve Jobs, has a position that consumer computers should be like appliances and is diametrically opposed to a consumer desktop tower in any configuration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Macs as they are have been selling well. Apple has no incentive to put out a mid-range headless desktop that might eat in to Mac Pro sales. What, people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing in order to achieve Mac Pro-like power?? LOL.
Yes, Mac laptops have been selling extraordinarily well, desktops not so much. Who said ,"people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing". You did. Most people aren't, haven't and continue to hope Apple would make an upper end consumer to low end pro computer. Another false argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It's not about market share. It's about selling on margin vs. selling on volume.
Yes, except repeatedly Apple executives have stated their desire to increase market share in quarterly conference calls. Apple was in laptops, until the net book craze.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Macs have been Apple's biggest moneymaker for years now, accounting for nearly half of their revenue. And Mac computer sales are experiencing the smallest contraction in the entire industry in this recession. Apple caters to the Premium end of the market. Consumers with average or above-average disposable income. Apple owns this area. It's where the money is. The top of the market pyramid will always be narrower (but far more lucrative) than the bottom end.
Yes, Apple caters to the premium end of the consumer market, but only those who will accept an AIO computer. How's that going on the Windows side? Seems to me not very well, take a stroll down the aisles in Best Buy or Fry's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
If you want to examine "market share", then do so by dividing the market accordingly (it's not just one big market with the same demographics and characteristics across the board), and understand the principle of selling on margin. That's how things work at the Premium end. Apple makes a killing with their market share, and is prospering while junk-box makers like Dell are dying at the bottom end. Look at Dell's recent numbers. Sad. And they've been sad for quite a while now.
Almost no one is advocating Apple introduce " junk-box ", another false argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple has ignored the low end market for a very good reason. Nobody in that market is making any money. Look at Dell's margins, then look at Apple's. Dell is barely keeping afloat. Apple gross margins average 33%, while Dell struggles to achieve 18%.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Simply put, Apple's share of the high end market is 70%+. This is where computer profits are being made. It is not in volume. That's a loser's game.
I need to see the sales of high end, > $799, desktop computers here broken down to believe Apple has 70% of this market.
Comments
Troll
A great answer - make your mum proud?
I am a Mac user but I have long fallen out of love with Apple.
Simply put, Apple's share of the high end market is 70%+. This is where computer profits are being made. It is not in volume. That's a loser's game.
An amazing argument.
Even if Apple's share of the "high end market" is 70%+ it is still a fraction of the overall market. Without unbundling it is unlikley to ever be better.
rather than try to differentiate itself from Apple, the California startup is priding itself on how closely it will copy Apple's practices.
Well, at least they admit it, not like some companies. Are you listening BING??
Apple needs to add some custom parts to their hardware, that will put a stop to this.
Ha that wouldnt change a thing software hacks easily make their way around any hardware issues
As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?
It hit Microsoft 10 years ago and is likely to hit Apple within 10 years.
I'm no lawyer, but a monopoly is more than just marketshare, it's a company uses unfair and/or predatory practices to gain and maintain dominance and ABUSES the power of dominance.
Microsoft is an example of ALL of it.
There's a long history (and list) of companies damaged or put out of business by Microsoft's policies.
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
I'm no lawyer, but a monopoly is more than just marketshare, it's a company uses unfair and/or predatory practices to gain and maintain dominance and ABUSES the power of dominance.
Microsoft is an example of ALL of it.
There's a long history (and list) of companies damaged or put out of business by Microsoft's policies.
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
Right. A monopoly itself isn't a problem. It's abuses of that monopoly that is the problem.
Ha that wouldnt change a thing software hacks easily make their way around any hardware issues
It depends, if the OS evolves around parallel processors and custom controllers, then you would have to make a motherboard that corresponds to that.
I highly doubt Quo will be able to offer all of the little flourishes that make Apple customer service so great.
Little flourishes like still being in business next year, for one thing.
An amazing argument.
Even if Apple's share of the "high end market" is 70%+ it is still a fraction of the overall market. Without unbundling it is unlikley to ever be better.
Well It's certainly conceivable that Apple could grab a few more percentage points, but certainly nothing approaching 10-15% more than their greatest share over the last 3 years. I don;t see Apple, with their current business model, going north of 20% US. Not even 15%, assuming Apple's highest was 10% US over the last three years. Not while MS is in the picture. But Apple doesn't need to. Just a couple of percent more means an absolute galaxy of profit for Apple (there are already 35-40 million Mac users.) And this is a good thing for Apple, and an argument can be made that this is a good thing for the consumer, too. You've got a Premium-positioned brand in a #2 spot that is just as conspicuous as MS, but branded far more effectively, commanding greater desirability and far greater product loyalty, and dealing successfully in margins.
It's a brilliant game Apple has going on. It's a careful balance between exposure and dilution of the brand name. Accessible but not too common. And this brings with it the aura of exclusivity, specialness, desirability. And for the most part Apple delivers on this.
I certainly agree that if Apple untethers OS X from Apple hardware, you'd probably see greater market share for a time. Until OS X becomes a Windows clone. Apple giving away their core business like that will not only irreparably hurt Mac sales, but will also kill most of what differentiates OS X from everything else out there. There's a difference between having these little Psystars and Quos out there, and licensing out OS X to everyone and their dog. Eventually it will become a Windows-like experience. You can't prevent that in a Windows-like open system that uses a horizontal model, wherein you're dependent on the hardware manufacturers delivering a good chunk of the user experience on all kinds of hardware in a sea of different configurations and drivers. OS X desirability will tank. Just another OS with the same issues as the other ones. And Apple can say goodbye to nearly 50% of their revenue. The whole point of OS X, indeed the entire user experience from unboxing to years of enjoyable use, depends on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. Apple controls the experience, delivering a specific, exact level of user experience to everyone, across the board. Provided this user-experience is a good one - and clearly it is - there's no way Apple can go wrong with this. And by the looks of it they've been doing very well by it for years.
Another reason to continue along the same road (among others every year):
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph..._for_2nd_year/
The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.
Prior to the election, it was widely being reported that, no matter who won the election, the antitrust case was going to lose its teeth. The people who were shocked at the outcome are the same people who have a tantrum right after a Stevenote, stamping their feet, saying "But I'd heard the new laptop was gonna use OLED and cost $300! What a rip-off!" Improper reality checking leads to much bitterness.
The whole point of OS X, indeed the entire user experience from unboxing to years of enjoyable use, depends on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. Apple controls the experience, delivering a specific, exact level of user experience to everyone, across the board. Provided this user-experience is a good one - and clearly it is - there's no way Apple can go wrong with this. And by the looks of it they've been doing very well by it for years.
Whether you're right or not, I think that's clearly the belief at Apple. And it may well be correct. A part of me would like to believe that it's possible to create a computer OS that would run nicely and enjoyably, without having to control the entire widget. Because you're right, I think Apple's marketshare has an innate cap on it (I hope it's north of 20%, because it was, once, but who's to know).
Not that you're trying to make it so simple, but I'll go ahead and beat this dead horse again: clearly, part of the problem at Microsoft isn't simply the "we don't own the whole widget" thing. Even when they do own the whole widget (Zune), they don't produce best-of-breed products. They simply lack vision and originality. If they've got some originality, they're not letting it peek out the doors.
Right. A monopoly itself isn't a problem. It's abuses of that monopoly that is the problem.
Not to be too tedious about this, but monopoly isn't a very useful term in this context, since it has multiple definitions none of which really apply to antitrust law. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent abuses of market power. A subtle but important difference.
Prior to the election, it was widely being reported that, no matter who won the election, the antitrust case was going to lose its teeth.
Now there's a completely fact-free assertion. Quite to the contrary, it was clear before the election that if Bush won that his Antitrust Division of the DOJ would get out of Microsoft's way. He as much as said so during the campaign. He was true to his word -- shortly after he took office, the government offered up a toothless settlement, which Microsoft gratefully accepted.
Quo computers ? Quo in latin means "something". Something sure is.
My guess is that it is short for "Quid pro quo", a latin term loosely meaning something for something of equal value. If true it would be something of an inside joke to the backers and owners of Quo.
Either way, the timing is ridiculously suspicious.
Not to be too tedious about this, but monopoly isn't a very useful term in this context, since it has multiple definitions none of which really apply to antitrust law. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent abuses of market power. A subtle but important difference..
Ah, point taken.
Apple's average consumer isn't asking for one. There isn't enough demand for a mid-sized headless desktop. And when a clone maker like Psystar offered one, no one was buying. Certainly not enough to keep them in business, never mind enough to cover their legal fees.
How do you know what Apple's average consumer is asking for, please cite your or anybody else's study. Where have you shown that Psystar didn't sell any, please cite numbers. Could be that Psystar did not sell major numbers because of the extra trouble involved in dealing with its set-up - this has no relation to what quantities Apple might sell - this is an illogical argument.
The tech enthusiats that frequent internet forums like this are only fraction of Apple's market. Otherwise we'd be seing one already. And Apple needs to be careful with how many models they put out, anyway. It's unfortunate, maybe, but that's how it is.
Again cite numbers, how do you know that only tech enthusiasts frequent these sites, I'm not, I'm here, how many others, I don't know, neither do you. No, Apple wouldn't be selling one otherwise, a very solid case may be made that Apple, aka Steve Jobs, has a position that consumer computers should be like appliances and is diametrically opposed to a consumer desktop tower in any configuration.
Macs as they are have been selling well. Apple has no incentive to put out a mid-range headless desktop that might eat in to Mac Pro sales. What, people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing in order to achieve Mac Pro-like power?? LOL.
Yes, Mac laptops have been selling extraordinarily well, desktops not so much. Who said ,"people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing". You did. Most people aren't, haven't and continue to hope Apple would make an upper end consumer to low end pro computer. Another false argument.
It's not about market share. It's about selling on margin vs. selling on volume.
Yes, except repeatedly Apple executives have stated their desire to increase market share in quarterly conference calls. Apple was in laptops, until the net book craze.
Macs have been Apple's biggest moneymaker for years now, accounting for nearly half of their revenue. And Mac computer sales are experiencing the smallest contraction in the entire industry in this recession. Apple caters to the Premium end of the market. Consumers with average or above-average disposable income. Apple owns this area. It's where the money is. The top of the market pyramid will always be narrower (but far more lucrative) than the bottom end.
Yes, Apple caters to the premium end of the consumer market, but only those who will accept an AIO computer. How's that going on the Windows side? Seems to me not very well, take a stroll down the aisles in Best Buy or Fry's.
If you want to examine "market share", then do so by dividing the market accordingly (it's not just one big market with the same demographics and characteristics across the board), and understand the principle of selling on margin. That's how things work at the Premium end. Apple makes a killing with their market share, and is prospering while junk-box makers like Dell are dying at the bottom end. Look at Dell's recent numbers. Sad. And they've been sad for quite a while now.
Almost no one is advocating Apple introduce " junk-box ", another false argument.
Apple has ignored the low end market for a very good reason. Nobody in that market is making any money. Look at Dell's margins, then look at Apple's. Dell is barely keeping afloat. Apple gross margins average 33%, while Dell struggles to achieve 18%.
See above.
Simply put, Apple's share of the high end market is 70%+. This is where computer profits are being made. It is not in volume. That's a loser's game.
I need to see the sales of high end, > $799, desktop computers here broken down to believe Apple has 70% of this market.