what does it take to push Apple market share to 20%?
Steve talks about doubling Apple's market-share to less than 10%. What would it take to put Apple's marketshare at a whoppping 20%? Is it realisticly possible?
Supppose Apple had CPUs that were 15% faster, their systems cost 10% less and OS X is 100% better than XP - would people start to jump onto the Mac?
Supppose Apple had CPUs that were 15% faster, their systems cost 10% less and OS X is 100% better than XP - would people start to jump onto the Mac?
Comments
<strong>Steve talks about doubling Apple's market-share to less than 10%. What would it take to put Apple's marketshare at a whoppping 20%? Is it realisticly possible?
Supppose Apple had CPUs that were 15% faster, their systems cost 10% less and OS X is 100% better than XP - would people start to jump onto the Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not realistically possible and I also don't think Apple could physically handle that amount of sales. that is a HELL of a lot of mahines that they would have to move to get that much marketshare. Millions of computers a quarter.
Just not possible
More anti-trust rulings against Microsoft, acres of green and unforeseen renderfarms and servervilles, more iMac smashes, faster chips and/or a more innovative approach to speed, digital hubs that make the television an anachronism, and PRAYER.
[quote] Is it realisticly possible? <hr></blockquote>
It's odd, but for being in such a causal business (electronic engineering) Apple has put vision before realism. That has been both the company's weakness and strength, though mostly the latter.
Be careful of what you wish for...
-------------------------------
Still Waiting in Nashvegas
<strong>As long as Apple's entry-level machine costs $1400, they will have a low marketshare. As long as their price/performance ratio sucks, they will have a low market share. Any questions?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/101/wo/J1isH12huzwVKf6J3k2/0.3.0.3.30.25.0.1.3.1.3.1.1.0?99,75"; target="_blank">U Forgot These!</a>
*cough* you're forgetting the CRT iMacs $799
at that time, apple was by far the price/performance leader.
at this stage in the game, 20% is still possible, but you would need something like a $700 LCD iMac to do it. anything over that and it's just not going to happen.
built another 1Gig Duron machine this weekend for $400. that's just too damn cheap to compete against.
-alcimedes
They need:
1. to make the best machines, bar none
2. to get them into businesses
3. to give them very competitive prices (they don't have to be the cheapest)
4. to hope that some PC companies have to falter, and that MS makes some major mistakes.
5. to sprinkle some pixie dust on themselves
<strong>
<a href="http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/101/wo/J1isH12huzwVKf6J3k2/0.3.0.3.30.25.0.1.3.1.3.1.1.0?99,75"; target="_blank">U Forgot These!</a>
*cough* you're forgetting the CRT iMacs $799</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he means something competitive at the price.
IF Apple isn't permitted, you can forget about that 20% marketshare. It doesn't matter their products are cheapest, the manufacturing line that can keep up with demands, has the best performance, the best quality, the best choice of software selection, the best marketing campaign, etc.
If it's not permitted, NO 20% marketshare.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, what Apple still needs to do is to convince people why they are paying more for slower computers. The normal reaction of consumers is to pay less for more.
And if this megahertz myth is true, well then explain it better and more aggressively (I think they haven't because it's only true to a point).
Hmm. Maybe they'll make another iApp - but what will it be? They've exhasuted the Digital Hub idea.
<strong>I think Apple should advetise its iApps more. They are so easy to use, it just compltes the Mac experience. Makes people want to buy macs. Godd idea.
Hmm. Maybe they'll make another iApp - but what will it be? They've exhasuted the Digital Hub idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This might get a few more people to buy Macs, but I doubt it would really increase marketshare.
I think that Apple needs to concentrate on its core markets and make sure that within those areas they have more than 70% before they move on (education, design, perhaps movies, newspapers) to the larger community and forth. To accomplish this, they need price/performance that is consistently better than PCs - this has not really happened for 2 years or so. The cheapest computer, iMac classic, is not the that cheap compared to other cheap PCs, and what is 500 mhz G3??? If the iMac is priced 599 and has a 1 Ghz G4, then we are talking good price/performance in comparison to PCs, but the only ones with 1 Ghz G4s are the PowerMacs (and Xserve). Who believes that 1 Ghz G4 is faster and cheaper than a 2 Ghz P4?
Apple needs considerably faster chips for ALL of their systems, and perhaps a 10% reduction in price on all desktops. Portables are fine in my mind.
1) Apple has to lessen the Ghz/Mhz gap. new computer users don't understand the difference between the pentium 4 and the g4, and how much better mac OS x looks than XP, and how much better it uses system resources. i think if you can get a 1.7 ghz PC from Dell for $799, you should be able to at least get a 1 ghz Mac from Apple for say, $999. Maybe $1199 if you include a flat panel display.
2) Apple needs to put emphasis on the ease of interoperability between Macs and Windows boxes, and in areas where there isn't ease of interoperability between Macs and PCs, Apple needs to do as much as it can to make it that way.
3) Apple needs to go after the high-techie market by emphasizing the Unix core of Mac OS X, and emphasize the customizability of Mac OS X via the command prompt.
4) Apple needs to fix its current supply problems, and not announce computers 3 months before they will ship - they lose a lot of impulse buyers that way.
MS will tick people off with some hair-brained schemes like .NET and OS rentals with yearly licenses and too heavy-handed copy-protection schemes in their media players.
Then Apple will come along and have more reasonable plans, support more open standards, and not get involved in copy-protection nonsense, and customers will see them as the alternative to Big Bro MS.
And BTW, marketshare has nothing at all to do with DDR and FSB and gigahertz and ATA 133.
Look at the past 3 months. nearly ever week or so there has been a major announcement from Apple. They are keeping themselves in the news and releasing new products when they are needed and when it is best for them.
Apple always says they have a strong productline in the pipeline and I believe them. Things are slowly coming together and I think over the next 7 months we are going to see what Jobs and Apple's vision is.