So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.
EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)
Far as I know the commodity PC boxes don't have EFI, right?
EFI is actually a much more sophisticated BIOS replacement. Not sure whether it can phone home to Apple.
OS X connects to Apple servers for a variety of things. Is the next step to assume it's also for verification whether the OS/hardware is legitimate? Possibly.
It's not really a privacy issue, if that's a concern. There are clear regulations regarding how Apple can/cannot proceed in these areas. They've got my credit card number. They know my address. That's normal.
It's no worry for legitimate users. I think the real problem comes if and when you'll require Windows-style activation keys and calling some call centre in order to activate OS X. I doubt that'll happen, though.
If Apple decides to disable hackintosh OS X installs via a kind of "check-in" verification, so be it.
Just how powerful and expandable do you want this "small, powerful, headless mid-sized Mac" to be in relation to the Mac Pro?
The closer you get to the Mac Pro with this machine in terms of performance and expandability, the more you'll threaten Mac Pro sales. Unless of course, you don't think the Mac Pro should exist, or you think it should exist in a far more powerful form to more clearly differentiate it from the machine you want, price-wise (thus driving the Mac Pro's price even higher. Ouch!)
In fact, a small-form, reasonably powerful headless Mac . . . is a Macbook Pro, 15-inch or 17-inch. You can attach it to a nice, large display. Not sure about a second display, though. Plus you've got the advantage of portability. It can function either as a desktop or as a notebook. And it certainly isn't as expensive as a Mac Pro.
Apparently, hardly anyone is buying desktops anymore. Across the entire industry, notebook sales are far outpacing desktop sales. Why should Apple introduce another desktop into this market, and to address only a minority of this market to boot? They'll end up losing money on it.
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino
ugh... here we go again: apple is dooooomed!
....
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
...
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
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.
Besides Apple's share of PCs in the US over $1000 they also take 1/3 of EVERY dollar spent of ALL PCs sold in the US. They also make a direct profit on their sales instead of having to bundle crapware to eak out a small profit. I like that OS X comes with absolutely no trialware.
But all that is inconsequential to the original point. Apple's marketshare could be much higher but they have a different business model than MS. Why do you feel tht they should immiyate it when Apple is selling more Macs than ever and making more money than ever with thier Macs? Selling 2 OEM copies if OS X will lessen Apple's profit from one Mac sale despite increasing their marketshare. Marketshare is only meaningful measure within the same business model.
Ask yourself: If Apple didn't license their OS to other PC vendors when they had a quarter of their current marketshare and were fumbling as a company, why would they do it now when they are thriving in their Mac line and in their OS X deployments?
In the US, HP has about a 25% marketshare and Dell has about 20%, yet Apple with their measly 10% takes 33% of all sales from all vendors and has a market cap that exceeds both of them combined. You can disagree with their limited, boutique shop-like selection in relation to your specific needs, but you can't disagree with their business model as it is clearly working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Apple must make me happy, right this minute, or they're making a big mistake.
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers
Despite the shrinking number of desktops being sold Apple commands an even larger financial gain from their desktop line than their notebook line in comparison to other vendors. The AIO desktop has been a very successful for Apple for decades.
Quote:
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
I tried to google it but I don?t have time to look this stuff up again. AI has done plenty of articles on it with links to their sources so they can be found through this site. The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
Quote:
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
That is unfortunate they can?t tell the difference between Apple obviously caring about marketshare within their business model and Apple only caring about marketshare within caring about profits or strategy. These people shouldn?t run businesses.
Quote:
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
BruceP?s reply was to someone who made their own OSx86 Mac. There are only two methods they could have used to build it. They could have used the complex Boot-132 which requires a non-hacked copy of OS X, which can be bought or DLed illegally or they simply torrented the pre-hacked version of OS X with would explain why 10.5.7 FUBARed their system since they probably didn?t wait for the hacked version of the point update before installing. The latter option is a copyright violated (hacked) and stolen (illegally downloaded) copy of OS X which are both illegal actions.
The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
A point that deserves to be emphasized. Apple competes against Microsoft, but they can't be expected to compete against every Windows PC vendor, from big ones like HP, down to the street-corner screwdriver shop. Anybody who thinks they can or should try to compete against the entire range of PC vendors is being unrealistic. Apple has chosen where they want to be in the computer market, and they've been very successful in this market of late. Apple may not make products that suit everyone's tastes, priorities or budget -- but then, neither does every Windows PC vendor. If Apple doesn't make the perfect product for you, then that's just tough. Don't buy a Mac. Just don't expect them to change their entire business model to suit you. It isn't going to happen anyway.
I disagree. I believe it is possible for MacOS X to reach 15% market share running on only Apple hardware. I don't think it is possible for them to exceed 20% without clones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddoguk
Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
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.
You're right. You're right,... you aren't a lawyer (obviously.)
A company is considered to have a monopoly when it has control over a market (product or service) due to its dominance (market share) or position (power to restrict access.) A monopoly in itself has nothing to do with unfair or predatory practices.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly. People come up with unique "goods and services" all the time which give them monopolies in a "new" market which they've often created. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. It is how they deal with new competition (selling at a lose, for example) and customer access to their product (artificially restricting access to artificially inflate the price) that can be illegal. Having a monopoly is not illegal. However, once it is determined you do have a monopoly on a "good or service", then additional restrictions are set in place in order to protect the customer/market.
I am not a lawyer either... So, I'm talking out of my arse.... which is easily confused with being a lawyer.
The greater the need/demand of the product or service the greater the need to insure that access to the goods or service aren't restricted or constrained due to a monopoly.
If you come up with a unique method of removing corn nuggets from your feces, and your secret method gives you a monopoly on the market... you won't find yourself with any legal worries, UNLESS you use your dominant market share to prevent others from coming up with alternative methods.
Having a monopoly is not illegal. However, once it is determined you do have a monopoly on a good or service, then additional restrictions are set in place in order to protect the customer/market.
It's misleading (at best) to suggest that a dominant company by virtue of market share is automatically declared a monopoly. This is far from the truth. First, the important term of art is market power. A company has to be found to possess market power, not a monopoly. Second, the company has to be found to be abusing their market power to restrain trade. As we saw in the Microsoft antitrust case, it requires years of litigation to establish these facts. Then and only then can restrictions be put into place to curb the abuses. Finally, antitrust laws (in the US at least) aren't designed to protect consumers, they are designed to protect competition.
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
Exactly! You say 37%. OK let's work with that.
What percentage of those desktops are going to business and the enterprise.? Windows IT guys who don't want the Mac OS sullying their networks. 40%... 50% ? Let's call it 40.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
You say that AIOs are a tiny fraction of the market. Maybe but all the major PC vendors sell them and Dell now has a two lines of AIO. Dell also sells a model that directly competes with a Mac Mini and lots of PC guys sell hi-end towers and gaming rigs that spar with the Mac Pro.
So let's strike out a further .... say 15%.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
That 22% comprises of low to midrange upgradeable tower desktops sold to ... consumers.
And what are these consumers buying? Well I don't know for sure but Dell's desktop page might give as a clue. Dell has SEVEN desktop tower models that start at less than $400.00. Even the most ardent xMac fan will understand that Apple is never going to compete with that end of the market. I am going to assume that those type of systems account for approx another 60% (of the remainder). If you disagree with any of my figures ... well insert your own!
Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs. !!
Regardless of Apple’s unit sales, NPD has previously reported that Apple gets 70% of retail sales from all US desktop PC sold in the US*. Since the lower you go in price the lower the profit per sale will be, even if the margin is the same as the higher priced models, which we know doesn’t usually happen due to the budget machine’s razor thin model.
BTW, "Apple sold a total of 818,000 desktops during the quarter, generating $1.05 billion in revenue.” in Q2-2009 as reported on 22-APR-2009.†
Regardless of Apple?s unit sales, NPD has previously reported that Apple gets 70% of retail sales from all US desktop PC sold in the US*.
I am not sure, but perhaps you missed my point.... which was "Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs!"
Which is my response to all the geeks (and their mates) that are convinced that the market for an xMac is massive and Apple is making a mistake by not building and selling one.
I believe that this market is:
1. Small
2. Getting smaller
3. Apple are making their decision based on much better data then anybody posting here.
I am not sure, but perhaps you missed my point.... which was "Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs!"
Which is my response to all the geeks (and their mates) that are convinced that the market for an xMac is massive and Apple is making a mistake by not building and selling one.
I believe that this market is:
1. Small
2. Getting smaller
3. Apple are making their decision based on much better data then anybody posting here.
Yes, I absolutely did missed your point. I must have entered into a Teckstudian vortex for a moment there. hehe
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
Well it looks like he's a pirate . Like the people who steal music or movies. If some one gives a friend 10 songs its ok . But a 2000. dollar machine is something else altogether.
Maybe i am wrong .i still feel he's a thief . And any one else who does this .apple may let it slide but its still wrong . don't beliveve me ask apple your self .
I just know that so many people make a living working for apple and all the suppliers who supply apple etc etc
A hacker is stealing from them . mac osx goes with the mac hardware .
Besides Apple's share of PCs in the US over $1000 they also take 1/3 of EVERY dollar spent of ALL PCs sold in the US. They also make a direct profit on their sales instead of having to bundle crap-ware to eek out a small profit. I like that OS X comes with absolutely no trial-ware.
But all that is inconsequential to the original point. Apple's market-share could be much higher but they have a different business model than MS. Why do you feel that they should immiyate it when Apple is selling more Macs than ever and making more money than ever with their Macs? Selling 2 OEM copies if OS X will lessen Apple's profit from one Mac sale despite increasing their market share. Market-share is only meaningful measure within the same business model.
Ask yourself: If Apple didn't license their OS to other PC vendors when they had a quarter of their current market-share and were fumbling as a company, why would they do it now when they are thriving in their Mac line and in their OS X deployments?
In the US, HP has about a 25% marketshare and Dell has about 20%, yet Apple with their measly 10% takes 33% of all sales from all vendors and has a market cap that exceeds both of them combined. You can disagree with their limited, boutique shop-like selection in relation to your specific needs, but you can't disagree with their business model as it is clearly working.
I make spelling and other grammatical errors all the time. Especially when using my iPhone to reply, like I am now. The point that was made, by myself and others, is not that your grammar should be perfect, but that you ought not to write in a way that looks like an abstract poem by Denis Leary, requiring NSA cryptographers to decyhper.
I make spelling and other grammatical errors all the time. Especially when using my iPhone to reply, like I am now. The point that was made, by myself and others, is not that your grammar should be perfect, but that you ought not to write in a way that looks like an abstract poem by Denis Leary, requiring NSA cryptographers to decyhper.
just joking dude .. So anyway has my over all writing skills, improved enough for me to be understood?
Comments
A great answer - make your mum proud?
I am a Mac user but I have long fallen out of love with Apple.
So will you be switching back to Windows/PC?
Why use something you don't enjoy?
So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.
EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)
Far as I know the commodity PC boxes don't have EFI, right?
EFI is actually a much more sophisticated BIOS replacement. Not sure whether it can phone home to Apple.
Did you mean something along these lines:
http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/153/...hones-home-too
OS X connects to Apple servers for a variety of things. Is the next step to assume it's also for verification whether the OS/hardware is legitimate? Possibly.
It's not really a privacy issue, if that's a concern. There are clear regulations regarding how Apple can/cannot proceed in these areas. They've got my credit card number. They know my address. That's normal.
It's no worry for legitimate users. I think the real problem comes if and when you'll require Windows-style activation keys and calling some call centre in order to activate OS X. I doubt that'll happen, though.
If Apple decides to disable hackintosh OS X installs via a kind of "check-in" verification, so be it.
Just how powerful and expandable do you want this "small, powerful, headless mid-sized Mac" to be in relation to the Mac Pro?
The closer you get to the Mac Pro with this machine in terms of performance and expandability, the more you'll threaten Mac Pro sales. Unless of course, you don't think the Mac Pro should exist, or you think it should exist in a far more powerful form to more clearly differentiate it from the machine you want, price-wise (thus driving the Mac Pro's price even higher. Ouch!)
In fact, a small-form, reasonably powerful headless Mac . . . is a Macbook Pro, 15-inch or 17-inch. You can attach it to a nice, large display. Not sure about a second display, though. Plus you've got the advantage of portability. It can function either as a desktop or as a notebook. And it certainly isn't as expensive as a Mac Pro.
Apparently, hardly anyone is buying desktops anymore. Across the entire industry, notebook sales are far outpacing desktop sales. Why should Apple introduce another desktop into this market, and to address only a minority of this market to boot? They'll end up losing money on it.
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
ugh... here we go again: apple is dooooomed!
....
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
...
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
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.
Besides Apple's share of PCs in the US over $1000 they also take 1/3 of EVERY dollar spent of ALL PCs sold in the US. They also make a direct profit on their sales instead of having to bundle crapware to eak out a small profit. I like that OS X comes with absolutely no trialware.
But all that is inconsequential to the original point. Apple's marketshare could be much higher but they have a different business model than MS. Why do you feel tht they should immiyate it when Apple is selling more Macs than ever and making more money than ever with thier Macs? Selling 2 OEM copies if OS X will lessen Apple's profit from one Mac sale despite increasing their marketshare. Marketshare is only meaningful measure within the same business model.
Ask yourself: If Apple didn't license their OS to other PC vendors when they had a quarter of their current marketshare and were fumbling as a company, why would they do it now when they are thriving in their Mac line and in their OS X deployments?
In the US, HP has about a 25% marketshare and Dell has about 20%, yet Apple with their measly 10% takes 33% of all sales from all vendors and has a market cap that exceeds both of them combined. You can disagree with their limited, boutique shop-like selection in relation to your specific needs, but you can't disagree with their business model as it is clearly working.
Apple must make me happy, right this minute, or they're making a big mistake.
How's that for market research?
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers
Despite the shrinking number of desktops being sold Apple commands an even larger financial gain from their desktop line than their notebook line in comparison to other vendors. The AIO desktop has been a very successful for Apple for decades.
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
I tried to google it but I don?t have time to look this stuff up again. AI has done plenty of articles on it with links to their sources so they can be found through this site. The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
That is unfortunate they can?t tell the difference between Apple obviously caring about marketshare within their business model and Apple only caring about marketshare within caring about profits or strategy. These people shouldn?t run businesses.
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
BruceP?s reply was to someone who made their own OSx86 Mac. There are only two methods they could have used to build it. They could have used the complex Boot-132 which requires a non-hacked copy of OS X, which can be bought or DLed illegally or they simply torrented the pre-hacked version of OS X with would explain why 10.5.7 FUBARed their system since they probably didn?t wait for the hacked version of the point update before installing. The latter option is a copyright violated (hacked) and stolen (illegally downloaded) copy of OS X which are both illegal actions.
The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
A point that deserves to be emphasized. Apple competes against Microsoft, but they can't be expected to compete against every Windows PC vendor, from big ones like HP, down to the street-corner screwdriver shop. Anybody who thinks they can or should try to compete against the entire range of PC vendors is being unrealistic. Apple has chosen where they want to be in the computer market, and they've been very successful in this market of late. Apple may not make products that suit everyone's tastes, priorities or budget -- but then, neither does every Windows PC vendor. If Apple doesn't make the perfect product for you, then that's just tough. Don't buy a Mac. Just don't expect them to change their entire business model to suit you. It isn't going to happen anyway.
Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.
Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
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.
You're right. You're right,... you aren't a lawyer (obviously.)
A company is considered to have a monopoly when it has control over a market (product or service) due to its dominance (market share) or position (power to restrict access.) A monopoly in itself has nothing to do with unfair or predatory practices.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly. People come up with unique "goods and services" all the time which give them monopolies in a "new" market which they've often created. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. It is how they deal with new competition (selling at a lose, for example) and customer access to their product (artificially restricting access to artificially inflate the price) that can be illegal. Having a monopoly is not illegal. However, once it is determined you do have a monopoly on a "good or service", then additional restrictions are set in place in order to protect the customer/market.
I am not a lawyer either... So, I'm talking out of my arse.... which is easily confused with being a lawyer.
The greater the need/demand of the product or service the greater the need to insure that access to the goods or service aren't restricted or constrained due to a monopoly.
If you come up with a unique method of removing corn nuggets from your feces, and your secret method gives you a monopoly on the market... you won't find yourself with any legal worries, UNLESS you use your dominant market share to prevent others from coming up with alternative methods.
Having a monopoly is not illegal. However, once it is determined you do have a monopoly on a good or service, then additional restrictions are set in place in order to protect the customer/market.
It's misleading (at best) to suggest that a dominant company by virtue of market share is automatically declared a monopoly. This is far from the truth. First, the important term of art is market power. A company has to be found to possess market power, not a monopoly. Second, the company has to be found to be abusing their market power to restrain trade. As we saw in the Microsoft antitrust case, it requires years of litigation to establish these facts. Then and only then can restrictions be put into place to curb the abuses. Finally, antitrust laws (in the US at least) aren't designed to protect consumers, they are designed to protect competition.
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
Exactly! You say 37%. OK let's work with that.
What percentage of those desktops are going to business and the enterprise.? Windows IT guys who don't want the Mac OS sullying their networks. 40%... 50% ? Let's call it 40.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
You say that AIOs are a tiny fraction of the market. Maybe but all the major PC vendors sell them and Dell now has a two lines of AIO. Dell also sells a model that directly competes with a Mac Mini and lots of PC guys sell hi-end towers and gaming rigs that spar with the Mac Pro.
So let's strike out a further .... say 15%.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
That 22% comprises of low to midrange upgradeable tower desktops sold to ... consumers.
And what are these consumers buying? Well I don't know for sure but Dell's desktop page might give as a clue. Dell has SEVEN desktop tower models that start at less than $400.00. Even the most ardent xMac fan will understand that Apple is never going to compete with that end of the market. I am going to assume that those type of systems account for approx another 60% (of the remainder). If you disagree with any of my figures ... well insert your own!
Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs. !!
60 million PCs sold in the US in 2008 (Gartner)
9% =5.4 million
Possible Apple share? Say 9% of 9% ? = 480,000
Not such a huge market now.
How is the OS FOR Pear working out for you ?
I don't have one, I was just giving an example.
The only reason I mentioned the monitor I bought was because it's cheap and bigger than the iMac's 24 incher.
I use it with my MacBook Pro.
60 million PCs sold in the US in 2008 (Gartner)
9% =5.4 million
Possible Apple share? Say 9% of 9% ? = 480,000
Not such a huge market now.
Regardless of Apple’s unit sales, NPD has previously reported that Apple gets 70% of retail sales from all US desktop PC sold in the US*. Since the lower you go in price the lower the profit per sale will be, even if the margin is the same as the higher priced models, which we know doesn’t usually happen due to the budget machine’s razor thin model.
BTW, "Apple sold a total of 818,000 desktops during the quarter, generating $1.05 billion in revenue.” in Q2-2009 as reported on 22-APR-2009.†
* (source)
† (source)
Regardless of Apple?s unit sales, NPD has previously reported that Apple gets 70% of retail sales from all US desktop PC sold in the US*.
I am not sure, but perhaps you missed my point.... which was "Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs!"
Which is my response to all the geeks (and their mates) that are convinced that the market for an xMac is massive and Apple is making a mistake by not building and selling one.
I believe that this market is:
1. Small
2. Getting smaller
3. Apple are making their decision based on much better data then anybody posting here.
I am not sure, but perhaps you missed my point.... which was "Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs!"
Which is my response to all the geeks (and their mates) that are convinced that the market for an xMac is massive and Apple is making a mistake by not building and selling one.
I believe that this market is:
1. Small
2. Getting smaller
3. Apple are making their decision based on much better data then anybody posting here.
Yes, I absolutely did missed your point. I must have entered into a Teckstudian vortex for a moment there. hehe
funny how it neatly ties in with a recent competitors 'value' ad-campaign...
Forecasts I've seen indicate that Laptop sales in 2009 will account for ~ 63%, that leaves 37% of sales of a huge market still in desktops.
In a shrinking market a la desktops, as it stands now(it may change), which design would you market? The tiny fraction of the market that is AIO? Or the much larger market of desktop towers?
I notice you haven't provided any market research either.
Unfortunately, some people do extrapolate Apple's apparent lack of interest in market share with eventual doom.
Exactly what law do you refer to? As far as I can tell, anyone breaking the EULA hasn't broken a law. Breaking an EULA and any liability would be decided in a court of law. Bad move on Apple's part if they start suing end users.
Well it looks like he's a pirate . Like the people who steal music or movies. If some one gives a friend 10 songs its ok . But a 2000. dollar machine is something else altogether.
Maybe i am wrong .i still feel he's a thief . And any one else who does this .apple may let it slide but its still wrong . don't beliveve me ask apple your self .
I just know that so many people make a living working for apple and all the suppliers who supply apple etc etc
A hacker is stealing from them . mac osx goes with the mac hardware .
no ifs ands or buts .
peace
9
Besides Apple's share of PCs in the US over $1000 they also take 1/3 of EVERY dollar spent of ALL PCs sold in the US. They also make a direct profit on their sales instead of having to bundle crap-ware to eek out a small profit. I like that OS X comes with absolutely no trial-ware.
But all that is inconsequential to the original point. Apple's market-share could be much higher but they have a different business model than MS. Why do you feel that they should immiyate it when Apple is selling more Macs than ever and making more money than ever with their Macs? Selling 2 OEM copies if OS X will lessen Apple's profit from one Mac sale despite increasing their market share. Market-share is only meaningful measure within the same business model.
Ask yourself: If Apple didn't license their OS to other PC vendors when they had a quarter of their current market-share and were fumbling as a company, why would they do it now when they are thriving in their Mac line and in their OS X deployments?
In the US, HP has about a 25% marketshare and Dell has about 20%, yet Apple with their measly 10% takes 33% of all sales from all vendors and has a market cap that exceeds both of them combined. You can disagree with their limited, boutique shop-like selection in relation to your specific needs, but you can't disagree with their business model as it is clearly working.
AAHHH-HAAAA
I FOUND 5 SPELLING MISTAKES
i fixed them al but one .
i feel human right now
peace my friend
9
I don't have one, I was just giving an example.
The only reason I mentioned the monitor I bought was because it's cheap and bigger than the iMac's 24 incher.
I use it with my MacBook Pro.
MBP rocks
dude
AAHHH-HAAAA
I FOUND 5 SPELLING MISTAKES
i fixed them al but one .
i feel human right now
peace my friend
9
I make spelling and other grammatical errors all the time. Especially when using my iPhone to reply, like I am now. The point that was made, by myself and others, is not that your grammar should be perfect, but that you ought not to write in a way that looks like an abstract poem by Denis Leary, requiring NSA cryptographers to decyhper.
I make spelling and other grammatical errors all the time. Especially when using my iPhone to reply, like I am now. The point that was made, by myself and others, is not that your grammar should be perfect, but that you ought not to write in a way that looks like an abstract poem by Denis Leary, requiring NSA cryptographers to decyhper.
just joking dude .. So anyway has my over all writing skills, improved enough for me to be understood?