I'm not interested in new hardware.
I've come to realize that in the long run Apple's computer hardware offerings don't really have an effect on their marketshare. These are the things that may eventually permanently raise Apple's marketshare:
-- Consumer solutions like iMovie and iPod
-- Finding ways to reach customers like the retail stores
-- New programs that a person would buy a computer just to use like Maya or Final Cut Pro or iDVD.
-- More compatibility such as OS X's Unix compatibility
Apple's marketshare at any time is really based on how well it can match PCs on price and specs. In 1997 before the iMac when Macs were still ridiculously overpriced Apple''s marketshare was 2.7% I think you have a faithful core of users who will always keep it at that level. Apple's best marketshare since 1997 was 4.0 in the Christmas 1999 quarter. The original iBook had just come out and was priced similar to PC notebooks, the iMac's 15 inch screen wasn't outdated, and the MHZ gap had not opened up yet.
Apple's marketshare has varied in the 3.x range mostly. When they come out with new products it goes up, when the products get old but the price stays the same it drops.
So let's say we get faster processors and an LCD iMac. Maybe marketshare will go up to around 4.0 again. But eventually the computers get old and it drops again. That's why I am more interested in hearing about Apple trying to broaden it's appeal through software or peripherals or marketing.
At the next MacWorld I'll really be disappointed if we just get new hardware. I want to hear that there will be 100 more Apple Stores. I hope they lower the iPod to $299 and come out with another must -have peripheral. I want a handheld and OS X on another platform, maybe even x86. I want a to hear plans of how they will enter the business market. I want some kind of deal with Sony or Aol or someone. I want AppleWorks to have feature parity with Office and be free with every Mac.
Steve Jobs said recently "We have just begun to build the marketplace for OS X." I want to see something big at MacWorld
-- Consumer solutions like iMovie and iPod
-- Finding ways to reach customers like the retail stores
-- New programs that a person would buy a computer just to use like Maya or Final Cut Pro or iDVD.
-- More compatibility such as OS X's Unix compatibility
Apple's marketshare at any time is really based on how well it can match PCs on price and specs. In 1997 before the iMac when Macs were still ridiculously overpriced Apple''s marketshare was 2.7% I think you have a faithful core of users who will always keep it at that level. Apple's best marketshare since 1997 was 4.0 in the Christmas 1999 quarter. The original iBook had just come out and was priced similar to PC notebooks, the iMac's 15 inch screen wasn't outdated, and the MHZ gap had not opened up yet.
Apple's marketshare has varied in the 3.x range mostly. When they come out with new products it goes up, when the products get old but the price stays the same it drops.
So let's say we get faster processors and an LCD iMac. Maybe marketshare will go up to around 4.0 again. But eventually the computers get old and it drops again. That's why I am more interested in hearing about Apple trying to broaden it's appeal through software or peripherals or marketing.
At the next MacWorld I'll really be disappointed if we just get new hardware. I want to hear that there will be 100 more Apple Stores. I hope they lower the iPod to $299 and come out with another must -have peripheral. I want a handheld and OS X on another platform, maybe even x86. I want a to hear plans of how they will enter the business market. I want some kind of deal with Sony or Aol or someone. I want AppleWorks to have feature parity with Office and be free with every Mac.
Steve Jobs said recently "We have just begun to build the marketplace for OS X." I want to see something big at MacWorld
Comments
<strong>alright, whatever</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just trying to get your post count up with that highly informative post?
Anyway, I agree that the solution is not really innovative computers, but the stuff outside of the normal computer experience. It doesn't take Apple to come out with a nice all-in-one LCD computer. The advantage that Apple has is their control over the entire set up. Integration between their devices, be it software and the OS or hardware and software, should be flawless. Sometimes, as in the iPod and iTunes, it is. Sometimes, as in Appleworks and OS X it isn't. Apple has to do more ipod-esque stuff and less appleworks-esque stuff if they are going to succeed. Their marketshare comes when people can see these products and their ease in action (case in point: my sister's friend was anti-mac just because and now she loves them because of what it can do with image capture and itools' homepage. It's that easy).
NO ONE except current Mac-users (and only a minority of us) are guessing or even care what might be coming up at this MacWorld.
You gotta get 'em in the fold first (via Mac-only iApps, retail stores, iPods, etc.) and THEN the cool hardware will get them to upgrade to their second Mac sooner than they really want or need to (not that I would know anything about that, myself...)
Why?
When it comes to computers, people seem to be set on the thinking that "Macs suck". Most people have never even USED a Mac, but they hear people say it, so they repeat it.
Would developers flock to the system if it was that fast? Not neccesarily. Would users flock to the system? Not without the apps (read: games).
My younger cousin got a brand new Indigo iMac for Christmas yesterday. I went over and installed 512 MB of RAM for him bringing the total up to 768. The thing was smoking! :eek:
He put Diablo II in, installed it, brought his character over from the PC, and his older brothers who both own HP PCs said to him: "It looks and sounds better on my computer".
At that point, I was installing 512 MB of RAM in one of their PCs. Even though the machine supposedly had a 133 MHz Bus, it was using PC 100 RAM. I pointed out to him that his machine had no 3d accelerator card (built into the motherboard), and no Sound card (built in sound on the motherboard). RAM was being used to create 'virtual' VRAM to power games like Everquest. I put the RAM in the machine, and it didn't even see it. I took the RAM back out, along with his original 128 MB of memory. I then put the RAM in by itself. The machine would not boot. HP claims it was because the memory was PC 133 and not PC 100. I told them that the PC had a 133 MHz Bus as advertised on the sticker on the case. They told me I was 'mistaken' and to buy PC 100 RAM and hung up. So he booted back up with his '127 MB RAM' and started going on to his little brother about how his computer was so much better because it could run "Everquest".
Despite the fact that every game they have happens to be cross platform except Everquest, the idea that they could go out and buy more games than what is on the Mac is what drives their argument that 'Macs suck'.
So without the developers, you won't win over the user base, no matter how much better your machines are.
hmm, actually, now that i think about it, maybe not. i just realized that computers have basically hit the speed limit for what's necessary for 98% of all Office/Business uses. the only ones left who still need more speed are video/graphics types and gamers. what good does it do me to have a 5Ghz machine while i'm opening up e-mail, and web browsing?
the only real driving force in the computer industry (for new hardware at least) is the gaming industry.
guess apple needs to get some games, but i've been saying that for years.
that being said, if apple did have way better hardware, and could court a few game developers to at least releasing cross platform versions of games, i think the mac platform would take off. but games won't go anywhere without hardware advances, and hardware advances have almost no real drive anymore outside of games. (and those graphics folk)
it's hard to argue with the guy who just blew your head off 5 rounds in a row 'cause of his better sound/video card that you have a better machine.
<strong>So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's what Scott H is doing.
I am also very pissed that I can't load Armenian fonts on OSX because there just aren't any. When developers make windows apps and start releasing them alongside with mac, I think we will see increased marketshare.
Why should they?
Apple isn't supporting the original machines that such videoboards often came with.
<strong>
Just trying to get your post count up with that highly informative post?
not for nothing but I find that insulting. Of all people to accuse me of posting quick blurbs of garbage to get my post count up? Perhaps other members here do that but I certainy don't and I'm sorry you don't realize that.
[quote]This is nearly dead-on. Hardware doesn't do JACK to increase market share.<hr></blockquote>
in what world? So if Apple stayed at 867 Mhz you don't think their marketshare would decrease? give me a break. If Apple had some competitive hardware in performance and priced it competitively they WOULD see a marketshare increase. the iBook and Powerbook have increased portable and education marketshare for that sole reason.
[quote]So because ATI refuses to write drivers for Mac OS X on their older cards, you refuse to buy a new Mac? <hr></blockquote>
Apple is repsonible for supporting all integrated chipsets and OEM cards.
[quote]If Apple came out with a 20 GHz computer today, I'm not sure it would swing even 10% of the market to the Mac.
<hr></blockquote>
you're wrong. it would.... if Apple could build enough.
I was just joking. That's what the smilie was for. Sorry if my attempt didn't work. I was just commenting that you didn't have anything else to say and that's unusual for you... Now, if you were EmAn, that would have been a different story.
To this day, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons people don't buy Macs are:
1. "no software" (if refuted, move to?)
2. "too pricey" (if refuted, move to?)
3. "not Windows" (most people being familiar with Windows)
Even if numbers 1 and 2 are overcome, there will always be #3. You can't get past #3 unless you revived the Red Box rumors and effectively killed Mac OS, then Apple would be just another PC maker, and likely die anyway out from disinterest if not for reason #2 again. It's a cycle that can't be broken. The hardware comes into play for #2, to a more limited extent for #1 (CPU chips mainly) and has nothing to do with #3, the last line of defense.
the only way to make people use macs is to make them a cost effective solution for business tasks.
that or make them the best damn gaming platform out there.
most guys i know really into computer gaming spend at least a grand a year or so on hardware, after their machine purchase.
I can't find anything on Apple's website to support this claim.
In fact, <a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/radeon/radeon_mac_edition_drivers.html?cboOS=MAC+OS&cboPr oducts=RADEON+MAC+EDITION&cmdNext=GO%21" target="_blank">th is ATI web page</a> seems to indicate otherwise.
While they do not make the drivers available in anything other than Mac OS X, they have made drivers available for the 'classic' Mac OS.
ATI writes the drivers for their chipsets. If ATI does not make the drivers available to the older cards, why is it Apple's responsibility to make them (even if they can)?
[quote]you're wrong. it would.... if Apple could build enough. <hr></blockquote>
I'd argue this, but your point is a little vague. What good is a 20 GHz computer to people if the apps/games they want to run don't work? They need developer support more than an unbelievably fast machine.
<strong>To this day, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons people don't buy Macs are:
1. "no software" (if refuted, move to?)
2. "too pricey" (if refuted, move to?)
3. "not Windows" (most people being familiar with Windows)</strong><hr></blockquote>
4. "no two button mouse"
I swear, that's the number 1 thing I hear all the time.