TThe Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
Now that is a brilliant question, sir. (I can predict some of the snotty answers that will follow).Now that is a brilliant question, sir. (I can predict some of the snotty answers that will follow).
Actually, its not a brilliant question as it assumes that market share, by itself, is a business goal. 100% market share and losing money make for a very poor business. Apple needs enough market numbers (not market share) to make sure developers can make money. Beyond that they should, if they are serving their shareholders, be maximizing their profits, both short term and long term. On this later Apple is doing VERY well. With over $11 billion in cash to fund innovation and record profits they look very good. The talking head/analysts are FUDding gloom and doom about the future but they miss the platform strategy that Apple has been putting in place with OS X, ipod and iPhone. Even IF (and I don't think there's a chance in H*ll it will) iPhone flops the technologies inherent in its design open up amazing possibilities for new, easy to use, consumer (not enterprise) products. Today, market share in PCs is about enterprise, this is not Apples overall target. They do just enough to maintain legitimacy.
This report (not the AI article but the source report) is very misleading. It took me some digging to figure out and maybe some of you are having the same confusion I did...
I read articles and listened to part of the Apple earnings report and the Apple guys made a point of saying that Apple's growth was much higher that the rest of the computer industry so lowering prices was not necessary. Which made sense to me. If the Mac market share is increasing, why bother?
Then I read this report and I was baffled. How can Apple have growth rates much higher than the rest of the industry and lose marketshare or drop in sales ranking? Now maybe you guys all understood this, but I didn't.
Apparently the these numbers are a snapshot and not absolute. For example...Apple's sales were up over 30% over the year ago quarter, *but* the sales for this most recent quarter were still not high enough to keep them at fourth on the list *or* keep their marketshare the same. For *this* quarter.
However, with growth rates higher that the PC industry as a whole, Mac marketshare in still increasing. You just can't see it with the numbers for *this* particular period.
Now if we have a financial analyst on the board who needs to correct me. As I said, I was baffled and I'm not totally sure but its my best shot at it.
Come to think of it, my title is not fair. I don't think the report was misleading. I just didn't get it.
It's not that difficult.
While Apple's domestic marketshare has dropped, it's worldwide marketshare has increased.
Apple sold slightly more than half of its computers outside of the US this past quarter.
Total sales are up 30%, but domestic sales are down.
This caused the domestic drop, and the worldwide increase.
I believe it was originally coined by Apple around the time of the Apple ][, but then borrowed by IBM for its DOS machine. Then around the time the Mac came around, Apple decided to differentiate itself from the IBM PC. This is where, I believe, that the PC no longer referred to a Mac. Technically, you are right, a computer that you personally use is a personal computer. But common with phrases, we often go by the accepted definition, not the prescriptivist definition of things.
I guess you can blame Apple for coining it and then shying away from it. A more recent example is Jobs not referring to the iPhone as a PDA, despite the term being coined at Apple by the Scully. There are obviously mant reasons why jobs would not call his iPhone a PDA.
IBM trademarked "PC" to stand for their DOS based machines. But, "pc" still can be used to mean personal computer.
I'd love to see Apple's share of the actual dollar value in the marketplace. I'd be willing to bet, when you compare the average selling price of Apple's computers, versus the average selling price of various Windows vendors, Apple is making more per box and more overall than at least some of their close competitors.
Part of the average selling price being higher is that Apple's cheapest machines are no where near as cheap as the cheapest PC boxes out there. Which isn't to say that Apple isn't being competitive, it's simply that there is a level beyond which Apple will not pare price; they tend to avoid the bargain basement CPUs for instance, and they don't do super cheap cases. That's a brand decision on Apple's part, and I think it's a good one. If Apple made genuinely cheap boxes (as in not just low price, truly cheap feel of construction) it would seriously hurt/dilute their brand and their ability to sell a lot of higher end systems.
The other practices Apple doesn't partake in that would allow them to compete are "rebate bundles" and selling "desktop trial icons." Either of this would subsidize lower prices, and to be fair Apple does occasionally run rebates, but they don't rely on them nearly as heavily as the PC industry and its retail market does. I have little to no respect for advertised "price after rebate" bundles, and I'm glad Apple doesn't use that as a crutch. As far as installing a boatload of 30-90 trial applications and dumping aliases/shortcuts on the desktop, I doubt few people would genuinely say they appreciated a bunch of crap software pre-installed on their new computer.
But these are tactics the PC makers are using to compete on price, and frankly I don't mind if the bottom end of the market is a bit more expensive—cost of ownership aside—if it means we don't have to deal with these used-car sales tactics to keep the prices low. I'd say, for Apple, the ideal for them would probably be to capture the top 10-20% of the market, at which point they would likely be making more on their computers than any of their competitors. Apple is essentially trying to sell value added equipment in a commoditized market; the answer is not to commoditize your product, the answer is to convince more people of the value you are adding. They seem to be doing a good job at that right now; certainly better than the Dells and the HPs of the world.
Of course that also means that 80% of computer users will think Apple owners are snobs or imbeciles or both, but that's their business. (probably less than that actually, as a large portion of PC sales go to businesses)
I'm not sure if some of you guys are understanding the deceptive statement that Apple's marketshare is going up. It did not go up last quarter, it went down. It's like this. Let's say you are a refrigerator salesman and want to sell as many per quarter as possible. Lets say these are your numbers for the four quarter of 2005-2006
2005 Q1 500 Q2 500 Q3 500 Q4 500
2006 Q1 700 Q2 700 Q3 700 Q4 700
Now, how many times did you increase sales? Only ONE time, when your sales went from 500 to 700. But if you deceptively look at it by comparing each quarter in 2006 to the one in 2005, you can then say FOUR times that you did way better than last year.
So, Apple did not really grow Mac sales last quarter or gain marketshare by any normal way of looking at things. They merely MAINTAINED the increase that happened the quarter before, rather than losing it.
So it is disappointing that they didn't grow, but at least the previous gains were not just a one time fluke.
Apple CPU sales always drop during the holidays, as the back to school and education purchases peak in the previous quarter. It's not like people buy computers as holiday gifts.
So given the same seasonal issues, this year not only showed continued strength, but it happened in the face of stagnant industry sales.
Falling down to 5th doesn't mean squat, either. The big elephant, DELL, is downsizing and the others are slightly benefiting -- enough in this case to move Apple down one.
But again, growth is strong enough not to require price cuts in any way. If this continues, it will snowball just a bit. I just hope that Apple is ready to mobilize if they feel it's necessary.
Apple's figures are comparing year on year numbers.
This makes sense because we want to account for seasonality.
Gartner are comparing quarter to quarter results.
This makes sense because we want to see how Apple compares to other companies over time.
So, Apple is doing much better than last year, and other PC companies growth is much slower. It is important to note that this was a one time improvement, several quarters ago. If we exclude that one quarter then Apple's growth isnt better than the market, and is perhaps worse.
What about this: How does seasonality typically affect sales of Macs?
Q1 07 - 1,606,000 ( christmas 2006 )
Q4 06 - 1,610,000 ( previous quarter 2006 )
Hmmm, Apple actually had lower sales for the christmas quarter. Seems odd.
Q1 06 - 1,254,000 ( xmas 2005 )
Q4 05 - 1,236,000 ( previous quarter 2005 )
That looks better, xmas sales were up, but only a little more than 1%, not much.
since 2000 sales are actually pretty flat, with little seasonal difference.
It looks like sales go up in distinct jumps, xmas 2004, mid 2005, and then later part of 2006. In between sales relatively flat.
Because sales arent really skyrocketing, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are specific reasons which kick in for the very good quarters, causing the increase in Mac sales.
Q1 05 - iMac G5 was released in August, $999 iBook was released in October.
Q3 05 - Tiger was released, iMac G5 upgraded.
Q4 06 - Mac Pro released, Get a Mac ads started airing a month before the quarter started
Three things need to change before there is any Mac market share increase:
1- Price. Price. Price. In the Christmas quarter, Apple increased its profit margin on every Mac instead of cutting down its prices like every other computer manufacturer. Why?
2- Introduce new, cheaper office computers with no frills like the remote control. Who needs a remote control in an office?
3- Change the TV ads. While they pamper Steve's ego, they tell us nothing of the fun, yes the fun of using a Mac for doing fantastic things.
Right now, these TV ads just show us Steve Jobs' contempt for Windows. Who cares about Steve's feelings? Grow up or resign.
The Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
1. I have compared apple's price for every single machine against everything offered by Dell, HP, and Gateway. I have found Apple's machines to be either the exact same price, higher by maybe 10 or 15 bucks, or significantly lower. They are pricing there machines right in line with other machines with exact same specs. The experience from Apple's machines, I have found, are often much better than that of the other competitors, who, when you need to phone for support, have so called "tech support" in some remote town in India, and often times these people have no stinkin clue about anything except maybe how to wipe their A@!#@!.
2. You can call Apple arrogant for the following, but I appreciate their candid opinion on this. They do not want to create a piece of $200 crap just to satisfy those who have no business of owning a computer in the first place. These bargain basement machines are part of the reason many companies have had to outsource most of their phone support. They break down so often there are hundreds if not thousands of people who keep calling in for the most basic things. I get the feeling Apple would rather make a quality machine, not cut corners, and make a pleasant computer experience with minimal headaches, charge a bit more for this, and cut down the amount of tech support calls in the process. This does several things. It allows Apple to keep tech support here in this country (the USA) by saving them tons of money in the long run, and create many many return customers because of which. This bundled together makes for a much better user experience.
3. The commercials, I think, are funny. They are also very true in many cases.
I spent many many years screwing around with Windows from 3.0 to XP. I bought my first mac computer just about 8 months ago just for an experiment with Mac OS X Tiger. Since then I have completely migrated almost seamlessly to Mac OS X. I almost never use Windows anymore. Not because I made a conscious effort to do so, but because I just naturally gravitated towards a machine that allowed me to do my work without the constant annoying data loss, or crashes. I love the interface, the simply logical way things work on a mac vs the weird roundabout way that Windows works. I have since had my best friend and my Mother go out and buy a Macintosh because, while using mine, they found out how much of a pleasure and how easy it is to settle down and just do things.
If all this means that I am forced to buy a little more expensive machine at times, then I will be more than happy to plunk down the cash to buy a better machine!
Three things need to change before there is any Mac market share increase:
1- Price. Price. Price. In the Christmas quarter, Apple increased its profit margin on every Mac instead of cutting down its prices like every other computer manufacturer. Why?
2- Introduce new, cheaper office computers with no frills like the remote control. Who needs a remote control in an office?
3- Change the TV ads. While they pamper Steve's ego, they tell us nothing of the fun, yes the fun of using a Mac for doing fantastic things.
Right now, these TV ads just show us Steve Jobs' contempt for Windows. Who cares about Steve's feelings? Grow up or resign.
The Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
Do you really honestly think that Mom and Dad, even the Kids, go to Dell, Gateway, or HP and ask for a computer and say to the sales clerk that they want to make sure that their machine is preloaded with Windows??? 95% (as you put it) of people use Windows because it came preloaded. Most people dont give a rats $$%$@%! what their computer is running as long as it fills their need. Seriously, when is the last time you saw heavy advertisement for Windows??? Microsoft almost never has to advertise their OS to the end user because most end users wouldn't know the difference anyway. Microsoft advertises themselves to the computer and OEM manufacturers who will be the ones to pre-load their machines that these consumers will buy. Although there has been some advertisements from Microsoft, they almost never air. Through questionable licensing practices, Microsoft (at one time anyway) forced these companies to stick with Windows exclusively or not to preload Windows at all. Microsoft has even sued manufacturers who tried to sell a naked PC (one without an OS) because Microsoft was afraid that the average end user would not actually go out and buy Windows!
Apple, on the other hand, does not have this privilege. Apple actually DOES have to advertise to the general computer buying public. Apple actually HAS to make as superior a product as they can muster (and they have done a fine job) and then prove to people why it is such.
The problem for Microsoft is that they profit greatly from users purchasing upgrades, not through box makers.
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
The problem for Microsoft is that they profit greatly from users purchasing upgrades, not through box makers.
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
Upgrades that take several years to even debut on the market? Somehow I doubt that very seriously. Although many buy the upgrades many more get the upgraded OS next time they buy a newer computer.
Apple made a billion of pure profit last quarter... considering the number of iPods they're selling, and how BIG the hype on the street about the iPhone is, I'd say they can safely cut their computer prices by 10-15% on every one of them and still make quite a profit.
Apple kinda looks like Nintendo in this aspects, you'd almost think they don't care about market share, as long as they make big profits...
Imagine the iPod remains the market leader it is, and the iPhone getting a 3-4% market share... what are the odds Apple would stop making computers all together?
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
MS will surely make money from Windows being running via BootCamp and Parallels. However, this additional revenue is highly tenuous as MS knows that people eventually stop using Windows all together in favour of OS X.
It's my opinion that the reason will (unsuccessfully) cripple the basic versions of Vista from running virtually on Macs is simply to increase sales of the overpriced version of Vista while at the same time, giving the Mac user a more equal comparison between OS X and Vista, even though, right now, many of Vista's features won't work with the limited GPU and RAM offered with a typical Parallels setup.
Comments
TThe Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
Now that is a brilliant question, sir. (I can predict some of the snotty answers that will follow).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
TThe Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
Now that is a brilliant question, sir. (I can predict some of the snotty answers that will follow).Now that is a brilliant question, sir. (I can predict some of the snotty answers that will follow).
Actually, its not a brilliant question as it assumes that market share, by itself, is a business goal. 100% market share and losing money make for a very poor business. Apple needs enough market numbers (not market share) to make sure developers can make money. Beyond that they should, if they are serving their shareholders, be maximizing their profits, both short term and long term. On this later Apple is doing VERY well. With over $11 billion in cash to fund innovation and record profits they look very good. The talking head/analysts are FUDding gloom and doom about the future but they miss the platform strategy that Apple has been putting in place with OS X, ipod and iPhone. Even IF (and I don't think there's a chance in H*ll it will) iPhone flops the technologies inherent in its design open up amazing possibilities for new, easy to use, consumer (not enterprise) products. Today, market share in PCs is about enterprise, this is not Apples overall target. They do just enough to maintain legitimacy.
(Sorry but no snot here)
This report (not the AI article but the source report) is very misleading. It took me some digging to figure out and maybe some of you are having the same confusion I did...
I read articles and listened to part of the Apple earnings report and the Apple guys made a point of saying that Apple's growth was much higher that the rest of the computer industry so lowering prices was not necessary. Which made sense to me. If the Mac market share is increasing, why bother?
Then I read this report and I was baffled. How can Apple have growth rates much higher than the rest of the industry and lose marketshare or drop in sales ranking? Now maybe you guys all understood this, but I didn't.
Apparently the these numbers are a snapshot and not absolute. For example...Apple's sales were up over 30% over the year ago quarter, *but* the sales for this most recent quarter were still not high enough to keep them at fourth on the list *or* keep their marketshare the same. For *this* quarter.
However, with growth rates higher that the PC industry as a whole, Mac marketshare in still increasing. You just can't see it with the numbers for *this* particular period.
Now if we have a financial analyst on the board who needs to correct me. As I said, I was baffled and I'm not totally sure but its my best shot at it.
Come to think of it, my title is not fair. I don't think the report was misleading. I just didn't get it.
It's not that difficult.
While Apple's domestic marketshare has dropped, it's worldwide marketshare has increased.
Apple sold slightly more than half of its computers outside of the US this past quarter.
Total sales are up 30%, but domestic sales are down.
This caused the domestic drop, and the worldwide increase.
Not that tough.
I believe it was originally coined by Apple around the time of the Apple ][, but then borrowed by IBM for its DOS machine. Then around the time the Mac came around, Apple decided to differentiate itself from the IBM PC. This is where, I believe, that the PC no longer referred to a Mac. Technically, you are right, a computer that you personally use is a personal computer. But common with phrases, we often go by the accepted definition, not the prescriptivist definition of things.
I guess you can blame Apple for coining it and then shying away from it. A more recent example is Jobs not referring to the iPhone as a PDA, despite the term being coined at Apple by the Scully. There are obviously mant reasons why jobs would not call his iPhone a PDA.
IBM trademarked "PC" to stand for their DOS based machines. But, "pc" still can be used to mean personal computer.
Part of the average selling price being higher is that Apple's cheapest machines are no where near as cheap as the cheapest PC boxes out there. Which isn't to say that Apple isn't being competitive, it's simply that there is a level beyond which Apple will not pare price; they tend to avoid the bargain basement CPUs for instance, and they don't do super cheap cases. That's a brand decision on Apple's part, and I think it's a good one. If Apple made genuinely cheap boxes (as in not just low price, truly cheap feel of construction) it would seriously hurt/dilute their brand and their ability to sell a lot of higher end systems.
The other practices Apple doesn't partake in that would allow them to compete are "rebate bundles" and selling "desktop trial icons." Either of this would subsidize lower prices, and to be fair Apple does occasionally run rebates, but they don't rely on them nearly as heavily as the PC industry and its retail market does. I have little to no respect for advertised "price after rebate" bundles, and I'm glad Apple doesn't use that as a crutch. As far as installing a boatload of 30-90 trial applications and dumping aliases/shortcuts on the desktop, I doubt few people would genuinely say they appreciated a bunch of crap software pre-installed on their new computer.
But these are tactics the PC makers are using to compete on price, and frankly I don't mind if the bottom end of the market is a bit more expensive—cost of ownership aside—if it means we don't have to deal with these used-car sales tactics to keep the prices low. I'd say, for Apple, the ideal for them would probably be to capture the top 10-20% of the market, at which point they would likely be making more on their computers than any of their competitors. Apple is essentially trying to sell value added equipment in a commoditized market; the answer is not to commoditize your product, the answer is to convince more people of the value you are adding. They seem to be doing a good job at that right now; certainly better than the Dells and the HPs of the world.
Of course that also means that 80% of computer users will think Apple owners are snobs or imbeciles or both, but that's their business. (probably less than that actually, as a large portion of PC sales go to businesses)
Meanwhile, IDC released a report today saying mac sales were up 30%, but market share increased a point from 3.6 to 4.7% of market share.
Go figure.
Jim
PC = Personal Computer not windows.
Apple Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook, iMac and MacMini = PC (Personal Computers)
I will never understand why people refer to computers with Windows installed as PC's.
Because PC's are PC's and Macs are Macs
2005 Q1 500 Q2 500 Q3 500 Q4 500
2006 Q1 700 Q2 700 Q3 700 Q4 700
Now, how many times did you increase sales? Only ONE time, when your sales went from 500 to 700. But if you deceptively look at it by comparing each quarter in 2006 to the one in 2005, you can then say FOUR times that you did way better than last year.
So, Apple did not really grow Mac sales last quarter or gain marketshare by any normal way of looking at things. They merely MAINTAINED the increase that happened the quarter before, rather than losing it.
So it is disappointing that they didn't grow, but at least the previous gains were not just a one time fluke.
Apple CPU sales always drop during the holidays, as the back to school and education purchases peak in the previous quarter. It's not like people buy computers as holiday gifts.
So given the same seasonal issues, this year not only showed continued strength, but it happened in the face of stagnant industry sales.
Falling down to 5th doesn't mean squat, either. The big elephant, DELL, is downsizing and the others are slightly benefiting -- enough in this case to move Apple down one.
But again, growth is strong enough not to require price cuts in any way. If this continues, it will snowball just a bit. I just hope that Apple is ready to mobilize if they feel it's necessary.
This makes sense because we want to account for seasonality.
Gartner are comparing quarter to quarter results.
This makes sense because we want to see how Apple compares to other companies over time.
So, Apple is doing much better than last year, and other PC companies growth is much slower. It is important to note that this was a one time improvement, several quarters ago. If we exclude that one quarter then Apple's growth isnt better than the market, and is perhaps worse.
What about this: How does seasonality typically affect sales of Macs?
Q1 07 - 1,606,000 ( christmas 2006 )
Q4 06 - 1,610,000 ( previous quarter 2006 )
Hmmm, Apple actually had lower sales for the christmas quarter. Seems odd.
Q1 06 - 1,254,000 ( xmas 2005 )
Q4 05 - 1,236,000 ( previous quarter 2005 )
That looks better, xmas sales were up, but only a little more than 1%, not much.
Q1 05 - 1,046,000 ( xmas quarter 2004 )
Q4 04 - 836,000 ( previous quarter 2004 )
Huge improvement for the christmas quarter.
Looking at Apple's sales history http://www.retrosight.com/mediacente..._Mac_Sales.png
since 2000 sales are actually pretty flat, with little seasonal difference.
It looks like sales go up in distinct jumps, xmas 2004, mid 2005, and then later part of 2006. In between sales relatively flat.
Because sales arent really skyrocketing, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are specific reasons which kick in for the very good quarters, causing the increase in Mac sales.
Q1 05 - iMac G5 was released in August, $999 iBook was released in October.
Q3 05 - Tiger was released, iMac G5 upgraded.
Q4 06 - Mac Pro released, Get a Mac ads started airing a month before the quarter started
Three things need to change before there is any Mac market share increase:
1- Price. Price. Price. In the Christmas quarter, Apple increased its profit margin on every Mac instead of cutting down its prices like every other computer manufacturer. Why?
2- Introduce new, cheaper office computers with no frills like the remote control. Who needs a remote control in an office?
3- Change the TV ads. While they pamper Steve's ego, they tell us nothing of the fun, yes the fun of using a Mac for doing fantastic things.
Right now, these TV ads just show us Steve Jobs' contempt for Windows. Who cares about Steve's feelings? Grow up or resign.
The Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
1. I have compared apple's price for every single machine against everything offered by Dell, HP, and Gateway. I have found Apple's machines to be either the exact same price, higher by maybe 10 or 15 bucks, or significantly lower. They are pricing there machines right in line with other machines with exact same specs. The experience from Apple's machines, I have found, are often much better than that of the other competitors, who, when you need to phone for support, have so called "tech support" in some remote town in India, and often times these people have no stinkin clue about anything except maybe how to wipe their A@!#@!.
2. You can call Apple arrogant for the following, but I appreciate their candid opinion on this. They do not want to create a piece of $200 crap just to satisfy those who have no business of owning a computer in the first place. These bargain basement machines are part of the reason many companies have had to outsource most of their phone support. They break down so often there are hundreds if not thousands of people who keep calling in for the most basic things. I get the feeling Apple would rather make a quality machine, not cut corners, and make a pleasant computer experience with minimal headaches, charge a bit more for this, and cut down the amount of tech support calls in the process. This does several things. It allows Apple to keep tech support here in this country (the USA) by saving them tons of money in the long run, and create many many return customers because of which. This bundled together makes for a much better user experience.
3. The commercials, I think, are funny. They are also very true in many cases.
I spent many many years screwing around with Windows from 3.0 to XP. I bought my first mac computer just about 8 months ago just for an experiment with Mac OS X Tiger. Since then I have completely migrated almost seamlessly to Mac OS X. I almost never use Windows anymore. Not because I made a conscious effort to do so, but because I just naturally gravitated towards a machine that allowed me to do my work without the constant annoying data loss, or crashes. I love the interface, the simply logical way things work on a mac vs the weird roundabout way that Windows works. I have since had my best friend and my Mother go out and buy a Macintosh because, while using mine, they found out how much of a pleasure and how easy it is to settle down and just do things.
If all this means that I am forced to buy a little more expensive machine at times, then I will be more than happy to plunk down the cash to buy a better machine!
Three things need to change before there is any Mac market share increase:
1- Price. Price. Price. In the Christmas quarter, Apple increased its profit margin on every Mac instead of cutting down its prices like every other computer manufacturer. Why?
2- Introduce new, cheaper office computers with no frills like the remote control. Who needs a remote control in an office?
3- Change the TV ads. While they pamper Steve's ego, they tell us nothing of the fun, yes the fun of using a Mac for doing fantastic things.
Right now, these TV ads just show us Steve Jobs' contempt for Windows. Who cares about Steve's feelings? Grow up or resign.
The Mac market share will start growing the day Apple answers a simple question: Why do 95% of people choose a Windows computer?
Do you really honestly think that Mom and Dad, even the Kids, go to Dell, Gateway, or HP and ask for a computer and say to the sales clerk that they want to make sure that their machine is preloaded with Windows??? 95% (as you put it) of people use Windows because it came preloaded. Most people dont give a rats $$%$@%! what their computer is running as long as it fills their need. Seriously, when is the last time you saw heavy advertisement for Windows??? Microsoft almost never has to advertise their OS to the end user because most end users wouldn't know the difference anyway. Microsoft advertises themselves to the computer and OEM manufacturers who will be the ones to pre-load their machines that these consumers will buy. Although there has been some advertisements from Microsoft, they almost never air. Through questionable licensing practices, Microsoft (at one time anyway) forced these companies to stick with Windows exclusively or not to preload Windows at all. Microsoft has even sued manufacturers who tried to sell a naked PC (one without an OS) because Microsoft was afraid that the average end user would not actually go out and buy Windows!
Apple, on the other hand, does not have this privilege. Apple actually DOES have to advertise to the general computer buying public. Apple actually HAS to make as superior a product as they can muster (and they have done a fine job) and then prove to people why it is such.
Your argument is a weak one at best.
The problem for Microsoft is that they profit greatly from users purchasing upgrades, not through box makers.
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
Huh? The advertising for XP topped $1 billion.
The problem for Microsoft is that they profit greatly from users purchasing upgrades, not through box makers.
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
Upgrades that take several years to even debut on the market? Somehow I doubt that very seriously. Although many buy the upgrades many more get the upgraded OS next time they buy a newer computer.
Apple kinda looks like Nintendo in this aspects, you'd almost think they don't care about market share, as long as they make big profits...
Imagine the iPod remains the market leader it is, and the iPhone getting a 3-4% market share... what are the odds Apple would stop making computers all together?
Because PC's are PC's and Macs are Macs
Dude your an idiot.
Cars are car's and Ford's are Ford's.
Dude your an idiot.
Cars are car's and Ford's are Ford's.
No, I think it is you who is the idiot:
"Your" is a possessive pronoun and does not make sense in this context. I imagine you meant to use "you're", which is a contraction of you are.
The plural of car is cars. Car's is the possessive form of "car".
Likewise, the plural of Ford is Fords.
Next time you want to call someone an idiot, make sure you're not being one yourself.
In fact, MS may at some point reap more OS revenue from mac owners than from Dell. Their financials should reflect this profit upturn, even if they wont bring attention to it.
MS will surely make money from Windows being running via BootCamp and Parallels. However, this additional revenue is highly tenuous as MS knows that people eventually stop using Windows all together in favour of OS X.
It's my opinion that the reason will (unsuccessfully) cripple the basic versions of Vista from running virtually on Macs is simply to increase sales of the overpriced version of Vista while at the same time, giving the Mac user a more equal comparison between OS X and Vista, even though, right now, many of Vista's features won't work with the limited GPU and RAM offered with a typical Parallels setup.
Here's a simple way for Mac to increase its share: Lower its price.
PC prices are dropping so dramatically that substitution to a Mac makes no economic sense for many PC users.
On the other hand, if Apple does not want to lower prices, it should consider creating iLife for Vista/XP, and charge them $199 a pop.
The MacBook should go down to $999.
The Mac mini also needs to go back to being $499.
The other thing Apple needs to do is put it in a bigger tower case.
Even if it is 90% empty space.
This will result in record sales!
It is all about perception.
Do that and I wouldn't hold out on getting one of the laptops.
Also, make a dock for the laptops. Silly to have to unplug a bunch of cables. I just have to press one button with my dell and its dock.