Can Apple ever increase its market share?

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    That doesn't change anything, because even if the consumer understood that clockspeed isn't everything, Apple is still light years behind,

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't disagree with you, I was referring to the 970 as Apple's "savior" chip.



    Apple will never be able to increase market share with a proprietary system, so once again, I say that it might not be in Apple's best interests to increase market share.
  • Reply 62 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>I don't believe Apple can increase market share until they get a competitive processor, like the IBM 970. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    See my post above, about the burden of consumer education.



    You cannot increase marketshare with a proprietary "system" (or format) in a commodoties market. The commodoty I am talking about is x86. If one cannot understand (as in, not you personally Snoops) the dominance of Intel as a chip manufacturer, Intel's mind share in the consumer market, or how x86 will be the dominant ISA until Linux develops a consumer desktop (or Apple lets go of proprietary systems, which won't happen with Steve at the wheel), then it would be difficult to grasp Apple's current position as an anomaly in this market. Putting another chip in an Apple Computer that consumers are unfamiliar or weary about is not going to increase market share. If anything, Apple will be faced with a cry wolf scenerio, because they've already been down this road before with the G3/G4. No matter how much hype within fanatical circles the 970 can muster, it won't guarantee a "switch", in fact, there may be a negative effect. If anything, it will restore faith in the <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">LAUB</a>, but that's about as far as it will go.



    [ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 63 of 85
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    . . . You cannot increase marketshare with a proprietary "system" (or format) in a commodoties market. The commodoty I am talking about is x86. If one cannot understand (as in, not you personally Snoops) the dominance of Intel as a chip manufacturer, Intel's mind share in the consumer market, or how x86 will be the dominant ISA . . .



    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    I am sure there are those who would never consider anything but an x86 processor, but I don't think it is as big an issue as you believe. What people are more interested in is whether their old software will run on a Mac, and the answer would still be NO even if the Mac switched to x86. It is far more important that Apple build a Mac so good that PC users will want it. I hope Apple does just that. You would see many Intel users jumping ship. Most of the people I know use Windows PCs. What keeps them there? Beside running their existing software, it is usually price and/or performance, not love for the x86.
  • Reply 64 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>





    I am sure there are those who would never consider anything but an x86 processor, but I don't think it is as big an issue as you believe. What people are more interested in is whether their old software will run on a Mac, and the answer would still be NO even if the Mac switched to x86. It is far more important that Apple build a Mac so good that PC users will want it. I hope Apple does just that. You would see many Intel users jumping ship. Most of the people I know use Windows PCs. What keeps them there? Beside running their existing software, it is usually price and/or performance, not love for the x86.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Hi snoops,



    I'm not saying that x86 is the close of a PC sale, I'm just saying that having a "common reference point" is one of the most important parts of marketing in a commodoties market. You see, no matter what Apple makes, as long as it's 100% proprietary, PC users won't switch, because a Mac runs the same software as a Windows box. If Apple built something "completely different" they could remain a proprietary system, and in fact that's how Apple had become a success in the eighties. Of course, Bill Gates, being a software developer, knew that proprietary systems would prohibit Apple's OS from becoming an industry standard. In all fairness to Bill, he did offer Apple the chance to license their OS--he was a big fan. But Apple said no, they were "untouchable", and Jean Louis Gassee sent Microsoft and their "crazy ideas" on their way. Steve Jobs, of course, is a big fan of proprietary systems that don't fly. That's what happened to NeXT.



    I understand your point of view, Snoopy, but I can't share it with you anymore, I'm afraid. Especially with the open source movement really taking off, it's important for Apple to release itself once and for all from proprietary design. Think about this: if Apple did have a 50/50 handshake with Microsoft, production costs for hardware wouldn't be as much, and we could enjoy Apple's flair for design as we always have. But I'm afraid that Steve won't take the steps neccessary to "evolve" into that. All it's going to take is a consumer version of Linux to get the ball rolling and then it's anybody's game. The only question at this point is, who's going to do it first?



    &lt;-- happy new year



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 65 of 85
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    . . . no matter what Apple makes, as long as it's 100% proprietary, PC users won't switch . . .



    . . . Of course, Bill Gates, being a software developer, knew that proprietary systems would prohibit Apple's OS from becoming an industry standard. . .



    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Well, we have different opinions about the computer market. I appreciate you taking time to share yours in more detail. I'd like to suggest something, since you are very focused on Apple having a proprietary system. I'd like to suggest that Microsoft has a proprietary system too, and it is even more proprietary than Apple's Macintosh. Many people who have a vested interest in selling Windows systems talk about an open system. In reality, the only thing open about it is the hardware. When you stick a Windows OS on it, it becomes one of the most proprietary systems of all, and it is getting worse with each release of a new version of Windows.



    When you run a proprietary Windows system, the more or less standard hardware does not make it any less of a proprietary system. The only thing that hardware standard does is help keep the cost of hardware down somewhat. So the x86 standard argument boils down to cost of hardware, not much more. Do people buy proprietary systems? I say almost everybody does. Only those who run Linux on x86 can claim to follow some sort of standard. Even so, Linux on PPC may end up being even more successful if IBM has their way.
  • Reply 66 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>lots of stuff you wrote</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I hardly ever visit these forums anymore (once every few months), so I haven't seen your posts prior to this thread. In any case, I hope the people here appreciate the econ explanations. So many things can be explained with the right framework (such as elasticities as you mentioned and the geffen-good effect that is likely witnessed in the walmart pc's and emachines).



    neye
  • Reply 67 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by greg123:

    <strong>

    with a 1.8 970 trumping a 2.8 P4...





    I think Apple can be very darn competivite...



    ....

    [ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: greg123 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So you're comparing a vapor chip that will *hopefully* be released within a year, and will *probably* be used by apple, with a 4 month old chip (8/26/02) from Intel.



    If a new-generation chip "trumps" a year old chip from another vendor, I'm not particularly in awe of it.



    am I missing something?



    neye
  • Reply 68 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>You see, no matter what Apple makes, as long as it's 100% proprietary, PC users won't switch, because a Mac runs the same software as a Windows box.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But wait...Apple is NOT selling a system that is 100% proprietary. In fact, with Mac OS X they are LESS proprietary than they have ever been. The Apple I see today is MUCH more willing to embrace open standards.



    Finally, on this point of "proprietary", knowledge of history is useful here. Truth be told...many of the things that Apple did and were (later) accused of being "proprietary" they did because there was nothing else at the time. They invented it.
  • Reply 69 of 85
    If *I* were a PC salesman and wanted to steer a customer away from a mac...



    Here's how I'd do it (apple makes it easy). Ok, the mac that families, or pretty much anyone shopping at compUSA et al, would be looking at, would be the flat panel iMac, right? The bread and butter mac.



    I'd say -



    "Here is the standard mac - It's not priced completely out of your range like the towers, and it has some umph to it. Realize one thing though. Do you see those LCD screens over there? Do you see how much a good 17" LCD costs? about $500.



    "When you get this mac, you'll be getting a good screen like that one. However, in a couple years (remember, I'm a salesman in this scenario - I want them to have it in their mind that they should buy often), when you want to upgrade or replace your computer, you'll have problems. First, upgrading your cpu will be impossible.



    "So, you'll need a new system. Now, before you buy this machine, realize that you won't be able to keep that monitor. If you bought some other machine, that's another $500 that you'll have to spend in order to get another monitor just as good. If instead of getting the iMac, you got one of these hpq/gtw/sony machines, you can buy the monitor now, and still be able to use it on your next machine.



    "In fact, you can upgrade these. Our helpful service center will be happy to upgrade your motherboard, cpu, and memory in a couple years, and you'll still preserve most of your computer investment, and all of your monitor investment."



    Or something like that. Notice that you don't have to address the speed issue or windows v. macOS issue at all - just show them how much of a fool they could be by buying a machine which forces the loss of the monitor value right up front, and possibly more if they wanted to upgrade. They never have to actually upgrade or buy a new machine, but the customer *doesn't know* if they would want to or not. classic FUD, but I'd guess that it would work.



    Then again, I'm not a salesman, so I have no idea.



    as a side note, my grandma had been using a Graphite iMac DV SE / 400 for a couple years now, and I got a surprise call that she just bought a Toshiba laptop (2.4 Ghz, 40GB HD, 256 MB DDR 266 Ram, 15" screen). Don't really know what that implies, but it seemed relevant...



    neye
  • Reply 70 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>



    But wait...Apple is NOT selling a system that is 100% proprietary. In fact, with Mac OS X they are LESS proprietary than they have ever been. The Apple I see today is MUCH more willing to embrace open standards.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple is 100% proprietary. Apple controls the hardware and the software. A much different scenerio than Microsoft Windows.



    Regarding Apple's Open Source initiatives, consider this post from <a href="http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=237019"; target="_blank">www.SourceForge.net</a>



    "First, Apple continues the wall-of-silence with respect to their repugnant DMCA-based legal action, and there is no reason whatsoever for us to think that they will not undertake similar action in the future. It is regrettable that the DMCA was Apple-sponsored legislation, and it is now time for them to disavow it and promise never to employ it.



    Second, APSL is languishing, and it is unacceptable to the free software community. It is now time for an APSL revision, which brings the license in line with the free software definition in accordance with the expectations of GNU Project.



    In response to the inaction on these crucial items, we are taking two actions.



    First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries, and that includes Cocoa, Carbon, CoreAudio, etc. There will be no native package manager from GNU-Darwin (pkg_add suffices).



    Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.




    As always, please feel free to contact me about these issues as well as any other concern.



    Regards,

    proclus

    <a href="http://www.gnu-darwin.org/"; target="_blank">http://www.gnu-darwin.org/</a>; "



    [quote]<strong>

    Finally, on this point of "proprietary", knowledge of history is useful here. Truth be told...many of the things that Apple did and were (later) accused of being "proprietary" they did because there was nothing else at the time. They invented it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not sure what bit of history you're talking about. When you say "they invented it", are you talking about proprietary systems? They've been around forever. If you mean by "they invented it" the personal computer, then they "refined and packaged it for mass consumption" would probably better explain Apple's hand in the PC evolution. And let's not forget how important Microsoft was to Apple during the early years--Apple didn't have any software worth running on the Macintosh until Microsoft came along. Don't give into the hyperbole. They really didn't "invent" anything.



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 71 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong> I'd like to suggest something, since you are very focused on Apple having a proprietary system. I'd like to suggest that Microsoft has a proprietary system too, and it is even more proprietary than Apple's Macintosh. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, it's a nice suggestion, but it doesn't change the facts that Mac is a proprietary system, Windows is not.



    Can you walk into a store and buy Mac OS X off the shelf to install it on a piece of hardware of your own configuration? No. You can buy OS X to upgrade your Mac. That's proprietary.



    Can you configure your own hardware with a Mac? Can I pull out the graphics card on my eMac and replace it with one of my choice? No. That's propreitary.



    Can I choose which motherboard to use in my Macintosh hardware configuration? Do I have this flexibility with Macintosh? No. That's proprietary.



    Here's a good one: Can I burn a DVD using an external DVD burner on a Macintosh computer? Nope. That's definitely proprietary.



    The whole point of Apple is proprietary systems. They choose for you. What Steve Jobs fails to realize on a constant basis is that Next Generation Users can customize a PC, on average, by the age of ten. I have to admit that in today's society, having everything done for you is very appealing, in fact, we're conditioned to have everything done for us. That is the root of Apple's dogma--your "one stop shop" for PC needs.



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 72 of 85
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Apple uses proprietary hardware, with proprietary software that utilizes open and standard file formats, protocols and tools.



    Microsoft does not make hardware (save XBox, not topical), makes proprietary software that utilized proprietary file formats, protocols and tools.



    Don't ever confuse popular or ubiquitous as meaning "standard" or "open." Is this really about who is more proprietary anyway? They're both businesses with property to protect.



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 73 of 85
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    Well, it's a nice suggestion, but it doesn't change the facts that Mac is a proprietary system, Windows is not. . .



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hi MacLuv, and Happy New Year to you also.



    I see that you are confusing proprietary system with what I would call a limited selection of hardware. You sure do hit the nail on the head regarding a shortcoming of Apple, on the hardware side. I wish I did have a bigger selection of hardware, and I am sure Apple is losing Mac users today over this very thing. So the more standard hardware available running the x86 does have an advantage. Good points. I don't disagree at all.



    However, the fact remains that once you have the hardware, you still do not have a 'system' until you add the operating system. Read BuonRotto's post carefully, and you will see that the final system you run is more proprietary with Windows in control, than with OS X. The true system is the OS, and the hardware just allows it to do its thing. In the future, most seem to think that Windows will become more proprietary and restrictive, but I really don't have insight into that.



    I'll give you this. You did point out a shortcoming of my post. I said, "The only thing that hardware standard does is help keep the cost of hardware down somewhat. So the x86 standard argument boils down to cost of hardware, not much more." I repent of my oversight. You make an excellent case for the much better selection of hardware you also get.
  • Reply 74 of 85
    zmenchzmench Posts: 126member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>Everybody is right, in a way. Everybody is looking at the same thing from a different angle, and each side of the issue looks different. Rather than propose yet another way to increase market share, here are a few thoughts about Apple, and Dell.



    1. Where would Apple be today if they had not developed OS X based on open source Unix, but took another approach? I happen to believe OS X is a big achievement, helping Apple gain wide acceptance.



    2. Apple cannot sacrifice profitability to gain market share yet. Apple is too vulnerable now, so for a while they must be satisfied with less growth.



    3. Apple needs another achievement, which I believe is coming. Apple needs competitive performance, and with the IBM 970 they will be able to get there.



    4. Apple may be planning for lower cost Macs later, possibly when it will make the biggest impact. Right now, Apple may not be financially ready, looking at projected profitability and cash flow. We simply don't have the kind of data needed for such decisions, so we cannot make them for Apple.



    Dell did not get where they are today quickly. They had a strategy, and it took many years to get to their present market position. During that time, not every year showed stellar growth, but they kept refining and working their strategy. Today, most other Windows PC manufactures are going broke competing with Dell directly. Apple is in no position to do so. Sometimes the best strategy is to simply let the big guy take some territory that is too costly to defend. The fact that Apple market share went up just slightly, in the face of big losses in education, says they are making gains somewhere. I like to think that Apple does have a long term strategy that they are working. Apple cannot let Dell and others in on the strategy, so we sit in the dark too. It does get frustrating at times.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Snoopy, are you a betting man? ?Cause if you are, I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end.



    Also expect your other criticisms to be addressed: Like an affordable consumer tower. Like many have said, It?s a question of timing, but I believe that come Sep/Oct 2003 the timing will be right, as well as the price.. $699 USD. Also, another name many have forgotten to mention when speaking of Apple?s fortunes. A visionary man just much as Steve Jobs is. And he hates Micro$oft just as much as Steve Jobs does. Can any of you guess? We'll be frag'n our way out of this one..
  • Reply 75 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by zMench:

    <strong>

    Snoopy, are you a betting man? ?Cause if you are, I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    man, I wish that:



    a) betting were legal

    b) we knew enough about each other to feel comfortable betting

    c) I had a farm to wager, cause I tell you, I'd bet the farm against you on this pair of predictions!



    neye
  • Reply 76 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>Can you walk into a store and buy Mac OS X off the shelf to install it on a piece of hardware of your own configuration? No. You can buy OS X to upgrade your Mac. That's proprietary.</strong><hr></blockquote>This is not entirely correct. That's like saying that if you install Windows on a PC that you bought that you're just upgrading it too. It is entirely possible to build your own Mac, but very few people bother trying. There was a guy on Tech TV not too long ago that showed off his home-built Mac. He bought Mac OS X off the shelf (as you said) and installed it on his system. Does that mean he still has a proprietary system? He could have just as well installed a copy of linux if he wanted.

    [quote]<strong>Can you configure your own hardware with a Mac? Can I pull out the graphics card on my eMac and replace it with one of my choice? No. That's propreitary.</strong><hr></blockquote>Again, a loaded statement. Wouldn't you say the same about all those PC boxes that ship with "on board graphics" that can't be upgraded? Gateway's "iMac-killer" Profile 4 is one of many machine like this that immediately come to mind. On my G4 tower I could customize a lot of things. I can use my choice of graphics card, sound card, SCSI card, hard drives, RAM, CD and DVD burners, etc.

    [quote]<strong>Here's a good one: Can I burn a DVD using an external DVD burner on a Macintosh computer? Nope. That's definitely proprietary.</strong><hr></blockquote>FUD. I don't know where you got this one. You CAN burn DVDs on an external drive with a Mac just fine. Perhaps you are confused about the iDVD app being limited to internal drives.



    I will agree that Apple is proprietary in many ways, but when you buy a system it is not entirely immutable.
  • Reply 77 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>Don't ever confuse popular or ubiquitous as meaning "standard" or "open."

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, don't worry, I don't.
  • Reply 78 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>

    I see that you are confusing proprietary system with what I would call a limited selection of hardware. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No Snoops, I'm not confusing anything. Tomorrow morning I could get up and start a box manufacturing company, and I've got only a few choices of operating systems to sell, and only one if I'm going to sell desktop systems. That's Windows.



    Apple is a proprietary system. I don't understand why everyone is trying to split hairs on this one. Apple controls the whole thing--hardware and software. It's all under the control of Apple--nobody has access to it at all. That's a proprietary system. I'm not going to sit here and argue the semantics or BS that I can build my own Mac--because I can't (okay I can, but why would I want to? See next post.) I also can't start up a PC company that sells Mac OS. That's a fact. And that's all that really matters in business. Who has access to what.



    Forgive the jive of this post, it's a bit late, but hopefully you get my point.



    Regards



    [ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 79 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Brad:

    <strong>FUD. I don't know where you got this one. You CAN burn DVDs on an external drive with a Mac just fine. Perhaps you are confused about the iDVD app being limited to internal drives.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And how is this not proprietary? :confused:



    I'm sorry if I left out the iDVD part, but I'm not confused about anything--except for how one is supposed to burn DVDs with iDVD on an external drive.



  • Reply 80 of 85
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Brad:

    <strong>This is not entirely correct. That's like saying that if you install Windows on a PC that you bought that you're just upgrading it too. It is entirely possible to build your own Mac, but very few people bother trying. There was a guy on Tech TV not too long ago that showed off his home-built Mac. He bought Mac OS X off the shelf (as you said) and installed it on his system. Does that mean he still has a proprietary system? He could have just as well installed a copy of linux if he wanted.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Building a Mac machine and building a PC machine are two different things. The only reason one would have to build their own Mac would be out of sheer boredom. The parts are difficult to obtain, and basically all one would be doing is building a Mac just like Apple does, with all of the same parts.



    The whole point of building your own PC is that you get to choose which parts you want, to best suit your needs. Once you choose a processor, you've got a number of motherboards you can choose from, with different features. You can also install a graphics card of your choice, having a much greater range available then you would if you build your own Mac. And you'll have no trouble finding parts to build your PC, as well as competitive prices. You can even overclock your machine if you want. (Yes, I know you can overclock your Mac, but it never works right, and PC board manufacturers actually make boards specifically for overclocking.)



    I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but this does not change the fact that I cannot replace any components in my eMac, nor can anyone who buys an AIO from Apple.



    [ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.