Marketshare doesn't matter. If the market nsize is growing every year, then the marketshare can be decreasing while the company is still growing.
That is the exact situation at the moment, but it's still an exaggeration to say "marketshare doesn't matter". Nobody with a clue believes that.
Jobs didn't debut an online store, then start a retail store chain, then launch an expensive switchers campaign because he had too much time on his hands. Marketshare does matter, and he knows it.
That said, the juveniles who've never taken a business course and keep spouting about MacOS on Intel and wanting Apple's integrated market approach at Dell and Gateway prices should probably rethink their position, if not their platform.
Apple doesn't need to dominate the market, but we do need to get to 10% as soon as possible. It should have been by the middle of the decade, but now that's impossible.
The present course will see Apple hold their ground, but I can't see big gains without Apple getting in people's faces. There's still no Apple catalog placed monthly in USA today, for fear of upsetting the dealer network. The retail expansion is moving too slowly, and is non-existent outside the U.S.
I understand the holdback, since Gateway's foray and subsequent retreat from retail was embarrasing. But I still believe that a bold move toward showcasing Apple products to the mainstream must be made for the good of the platform.
www.apple.com anyone? This Pepsi cross promo may reap huge benefits in terms of that Frank, right?
I'm talking about selling Macs, iPod sales are nice, but more than half go to Windows users, so the Pepsi promo will help pad the bottom line, but not do much to move the marketshare of those using Mac OS X.
The main issue still remains. Apple just need to publicise how much you actually get when buying a Mac. Non-Mac folks just simply do not know. They are ignorant, and mainly because Apple are not making an effort to show them.
Perhaps Apple do deserve to end up with a 0.5% market share after all... (Please, God no). \
I understand it is hard to put a numeric price upon build quality, (iBook Logic Board issues aside), bundled software, (although Jobs did it for the iLife suite at the recent MWSF keynote), etc., but I'm sure they can think of something.
They came up with the iMac for goodness sake.
Just what do we get for our money, Apple? Tell us. I want to read it on bus shelter panes, billboards, cinema ads, (these are much more effective ? trust me), TV, (dare I say it). I want to see Wintel zealots read it, and absorb it, even if it only gets them into an Apple store for a gander...
And I want to see it done globally. Other companies seem to do it no problemo, (M$, Dell, HP, etc.).
"But Australia, for example, is just not a big earner for us", they say. If they think like that then it is no wonder their market share isn't increasing. Arrogant attitudes deserve bad things.
I believe most people call the above situation: A Potential Market?, not the opposite. m.
Apple just needs to design a 360º display. eMac on top, with software, games and accessories below. Apple would sell stores the whole display, including the software - not just the eMac on top. Think The Apple Store-lite.
Or...
Should apple KEEP their current pricing for the eMac, and bundle it with "switcher" applications that PC users need most.
In other words:
Would it be MORE advantageous to Apple's market share if Apple dropped the MSRP of the eMac down to, say, Compaq/HP levels, and let the "switcher" purchase that $300 version of Office, etc.?
Or, would it be MORE advantageous to Apple's market share if the eMac pricing stayed the SAME, and included OEM versions of Office, Photoshop, Quicken, etc. that PC users would (otherwise) need to buy themselves to make the transition to the MacOS?
I'm talking about selling Macs, iPod sales are nice, but more than half go to Windows users, so the Pepsi promo will help pad the bottom line, but not do much to move the marketshare of those using Mac OS X.
Again, these words CANNOT be stressed enough to the executives in Cupertino.
Frank777: They used to send people around. No go. There has to be an Apple employee on staff, full time before Apple gets results from retail - which means that the store has to do enough business to be able to pay for the employee at a bare minimum. The sales staff at those stores simply don't believe that Macs are viable options, and they don't want to know anything about them.
Consumer Macs already come bundled with a whole load of stuff. And while I can sort of understand Office (although not even cheap PCs come with that - I see the dreaded Works a lot), I don't understand Photoshop. Photoshop LE, maybe, but full-blown PS is expensive and daunting to the casual user. iPhoto comes with some common photo-manipulation capabilities.
I think the iPod/iTunes campaign is Apple's best bet. It won't directly sell OS X, but Apple has tried all kinds of things to directly sell Macs and OS X. The platform just carries too much baggage at this point, and Windows is too pervasive. Notwithstanding the benefits, people are afraid they'll have to "learn another system," or that they won't be compatible with their friends, or that they don't know any other Mac users so they won't have anyone to turn to for support, etc. And, of course, the computer-savvy people they do know will make a point of setting them up with a Windows PC 9 times out of 10.
If Apple can't tackle that obstacle head-on - and they haven't failed for lack of trying - they'll have to route around it. iPod's desirability and ubiquity, and the fact that it works with Windows PCs, makes the Apple brand not only desirable (which it's always been, to some degree) and high-quality, but safe and successful and compatible and common. The more these traits are associated with Apple, the less of a risk a jump to an Apple PC seems to be, and the more likely it is that people will seriously consider Macs.
That's the hope, anyway. But Apple tried releasing a gorgeous OS that got all kinds of coverage, and no-one came. They've released one gorgeous computer after another, they all got massive press coverage, and no-one came. People just don't think Macs are for them, that the ads are addressed to them, that the features are meant for them, that there's safety in the choice. That's the main obstacle Apple has to overcome.
Just to point out what was said in the elarier post about patches for XP. 10.3 is nearing its 3 service pack in like 4 months? XP has had 1, and 2 will be out in 6 months. Compared to the amount of services packs on OSX and the amount of Patches on XP they are about the same... However XP has been out longer then 10.3 which isn't very good in that sense. The difference is OSX seems to have a yearly update cycle, Windows is every 3 or 4 years... With that in mind Windows is cheaper in the long run.
On another note, I really don't see why apple can't drop its prices down to the level of Gateway or Dell. Make a cheap tower and sell it with a crappy CRT that's rebranded, and you'll get some sales. The Price/Preformance ratio is awful on Mac's Hardware, compared to a x86 hardware.
I don't really see why apple can't cut costs. With exception of the processor and motherboard, all the other are standard pieces. Except the superdrive, which in my view sucks compared to a LiteOn or Plextor.
Apple's proprietary hardware kills them. ADC, no one uses it, use VGA or DVI be compatible with something for once. Superdrive... buy LiteOn OEM's. They are the best in the business and most Windows Powerusers Swear by them. On the Windows side Hardware beats Apple's ass. If apple would get with the picture we wouldn't have this problem.
No ones forcing you to make 10.x upgrades.
At least the updates are worth it, unlike Windows...
What it comes down to is price/performance. Without that ratio, they won't sell many machines and marketshare will continue to stay stagnant. I think I read somewhere that half of all PCs are being sold at less that $600 in the USA. Apple is incapable and unwilling to compete in that market.
People, and even Apple, claim that Apple will just create more and more innovative products to attract switchers and increase their marketshare. While I really think Apple makes the most innovative products in the industry, their innovation always comes at a high cost for consumers. Innovation keeps current Mac-faithful rebuying Macs, but I don't think innovation is attracting more people to the platform.
For once, I'd like to just see Apple throw innovation out the window and just make something practical. Who care's if it's just like everyone else? Just let the primary goal of something be low price/high performance, and not so much innovation. And I don't even think Apple should have to do this.
I think Apple should work closely with IBM and HP to make a low cost, high-performance, low-end, HP-branded PC that runs Mac OS. How great would it be to have a small Tower with expandability, for a really low price that runs Panther? Perhaps IBM and Apple could develop some low cost motherboard for the G5 to be put in an HP-styled case. The idea would be to bring the Mac OS to the masses with HP's brand recognition and marketing, Apple's highly-rated OS, and a price that competes directly at those $800 or less Dells and Gateways you see everywhere (with bundled screens of course).
Yeah it'd be ugly. It would probably be some clunky, plastic, dark-colored box, but frankly, I don't care. I know I'd want one. Because looks on a computer mean nothing to me. I just want something to run Mac OS, and it doesn't necessarily have to be made by Apple. With an HP brand, it also wouldn't tarnish Apple's reputation of amazing industrial design for making a less-than-spectacular, not-so-innovative CPU.
Until something like this, I really don't see Apple gaining much, if any, marketshare.
I'm not sure if we'd ever see a form of cloning return to the Mac market.
At least Steve did the iPod deal right, with Apple firmly in charge of motherboard design and the OS. That would be a pre-requisite of any foray into cloning again.
I think Apple can pursue an 'innovation' strategy in the computer market and survive. The innovations would have to be visible to the average person though, not just 'under the hood'.
For example, reading text on a screen is hard on the eyes, since it flickers and it's only 72 dpi (most books are 600-1200 dpi.)
If Apple could create a new type of monitor that eases or eliminates eyestrain, this would be a simple enough advantage when side by side with a PC in a CompUSA showroom. I think an innovation like that would justify the Apple premium.
However, to the casual observer, the Mac's core strengths seem too much like window dressing when shopping for a PC.
I guess what I'm saying is that Apple needs one big killer feature to see any uptick in MacOS marketshare. Revolution, not evolution - which the PC market can't catch up to in six months.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Marketshare doesn't matter. If the market nsize is growing every year, then the marketshare can be decreasing while the company is still growing.
That is the exact situation at the moment, but it's still an exaggeration to say "marketshare doesn't matter". Nobody with a clue believes that.
Jobs didn't debut an online store, then start a retail store chain, then launch an expensive switchers campaign because he had too much time on his hands. Marketshare does matter, and he knows it.
That said, the juveniles who've never taken a business course and keep spouting about MacOS on Intel and wanting Apple's integrated market approach at Dell and Gateway prices should probably rethink their position, if not their platform.
Apple doesn't need to dominate the market, but we do need to get to 10% as soon as possible. It should have been by the middle of the decade, but now that's impossible.
The present course will see Apple hold their ground, but I can't see big gains without Apple getting in people's faces. There's still no Apple catalog placed monthly in USA today, for fear of upsetting the dealer network. The retail expansion is moving too slowly, and is non-existent outside the U.S.
I understand the holdback, since Gateway's foray and subsequent retreat from retail was embarrasing. But I still believe that a bold move toward showcasing Apple products to the mainstream must be made for the good of the platform.
Originally posted by Frank777
But I still believe that a bold move toward showcasing Apple products to the mainstream must be made for the good of the platform.
www.apple.com anyone? This Pepsi cross promo may reap huge benefits in terms of that Frank, right?
Originally posted by ipodandimac
garageband itself has over $40,000 worth of amps and effects (the amps and pedals would cost over 40K)
Two completly different statements. And the first one is false, even if Jobs said it.
A picture of hawaii is not the same as a holiday there.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
www.apple.com anyone? This Pepsi cross promo may reap huge benefits in terms of that Frank, right?
I'm talking about selling Macs, iPod sales are nice, but more than half go to Windows users, so the Pepsi promo will help pad the bottom line, but not do much to move the marketshare of those using Mac OS X.
Perhaps Apple do deserve to end up with a 0.5% market share after all... (Please, God no).
I understand it is hard to put a numeric price upon build quality, (iBook Logic Board issues aside), bundled software, (although Jobs did it for the iLife suite at the recent MWSF keynote), etc., but I'm sure they can think of something.
They came up with the iMac for goodness sake.
Just what do we get for our money, Apple? Tell us. I want to read it on bus shelter panes, billboards, cinema ads, (these are much more effective ? trust me), TV, (dare I say it). I want to see Wintel zealots read it, and absorb it, even if it only gets them into an Apple store for a gander...
And I want to see it done globally. Other companies seem to do it no problemo, (M$, Dell, HP, etc.).
"But Australia, for example, is just not a big earner for us", they say. If they think like that then it is no wonder their market share isn't increasing. Arrogant attitudes deserve bad things.
I believe most people call the above situation: A Potential Market?, not the opposite. m.
Originally posted by Frank777
Apple just needs to design a 360º display. eMac on top, with software, games and accessories below. Apple would sell stores the whole display, including the software - not just the eMac on top. Think The Apple Store-lite.
Or...
Should apple KEEP their current pricing for the eMac, and bundle it with "switcher" applications that PC users need most.
In other words:
- Would it be MORE advantageous to Apple's market share if Apple dropped the MSRP of the eMac down to, say, Compaq/HP levels, and let the "switcher" purchase that $300 version of Office, etc.?
- Or, would it be MORE advantageous to Apple's market share if the eMac pricing stayed the SAME, and included OEM versions of Office, Photoshop, Quicken, etc. that PC users would (otherwise) need to buy themselves to make the transition to the MacOS?
Just curious,-Antithesis
Originally posted by Frank777
I'm talking about selling Macs, iPod sales are nice, but more than half go to Windows users, so the Pepsi promo will help pad the bottom line, but not do much to move the marketshare of those using Mac OS X.
Again, these words CANNOT be stressed enough to the executives in Cupertino.
-Antithesis
Consumer Macs already come bundled with a whole load of stuff. And while I can sort of understand Office (although not even cheap PCs come with that - I see the dreaded Works a lot), I don't understand Photoshop. Photoshop LE, maybe, but full-blown PS is expensive and daunting to the casual user. iPhoto comes with some common photo-manipulation capabilities.
I think the iPod/iTunes campaign is Apple's best bet. It won't directly sell OS X, but Apple has tried all kinds of things to directly sell Macs and OS X. The platform just carries too much baggage at this point, and Windows is too pervasive. Notwithstanding the benefits, people are afraid they'll have to "learn another system," or that they won't be compatible with their friends, or that they don't know any other Mac users so they won't have anyone to turn to for support, etc. And, of course, the computer-savvy people they do know will make a point of setting them up with a Windows PC 9 times out of 10.
If Apple can't tackle that obstacle head-on - and they haven't failed for lack of trying - they'll have to route around it. iPod's desirability and ubiquity, and the fact that it works with Windows PCs, makes the Apple brand not only desirable (which it's always been, to some degree) and high-quality, but safe and successful and compatible and common. The more these traits are associated with Apple, the less of a risk a jump to an Apple PC seems to be, and the more likely it is that people will seriously consider Macs.
That's the hope, anyway. But Apple tried releasing a gorgeous OS that got all kinds of coverage, and no-one came. They've released one gorgeous computer after another, they all got massive press coverage, and no-one came. People just don't think Macs are for them, that the ads are addressed to them, that the features are meant for them, that there's safety in the choice. That's the main obstacle Apple has to overcome.
Not that I'd mind a more sane iMac...
Originally posted by scavanger
Just to point out what was said in the elarier post about patches for XP. 10.3 is nearing its 3 service pack in like 4 months? XP has had 1, and 2 will be out in 6 months. Compared to the amount of services packs on OSX and the amount of Patches on XP they are about the same... However XP has been out longer then 10.3 which isn't very good in that sense. The difference is OSX seems to have a yearly update cycle, Windows is every 3 or 4 years... With that in mind Windows is cheaper in the long run.
On another note, I really don't see why apple can't drop its prices down to the level of Gateway or Dell. Make a cheap tower and sell it with a crappy CRT that's rebranded, and you'll get some sales. The Price/Preformance ratio is awful on Mac's Hardware, compared to a x86 hardware.
I don't really see why apple can't cut costs. With exception of the processor and motherboard, all the other are standard pieces. Except the superdrive, which in my view sucks compared to a LiteOn or Plextor.
Apple's proprietary hardware kills them. ADC, no one uses it, use VGA or DVI be compatible with something for once. Superdrive... buy LiteOn OEM's. They are the best in the business and most Windows Powerusers Swear by them. On the Windows side Hardware beats Apple's ass. If apple would get with the picture we wouldn't have this problem.
No ones forcing you to make 10.x upgrades.
At least the updates are worth it, unlike Windows...
Originally posted by Anders
Two completly different statements. And the first one is false, even if Jobs said it.
A picture of hawaii is not the same as a holiday there.
actually steve didnt say that. serious musicians that i know that have demoed garageband in front of my very eyes have told me that.
People, and even Apple, claim that Apple will just create more and more innovative products to attract switchers and increase their marketshare. While I really think Apple makes the most innovative products in the industry, their innovation always comes at a high cost for consumers. Innovation keeps current Mac-faithful rebuying Macs, but I don't think innovation is attracting more people to the platform.
For once, I'd like to just see Apple throw innovation out the window and just make something practical. Who care's if it's just like everyone else? Just let the primary goal of something be low price/high performance, and not so much innovation. And I don't even think Apple should have to do this.
I think Apple should work closely with IBM and HP to make a low cost, high-performance, low-end, HP-branded PC that runs Mac OS. How great would it be to have a small Tower with expandability, for a really low price that runs Panther? Perhaps IBM and Apple could develop some low cost motherboard for the G5 to be put in an HP-styled case. The idea would be to bring the Mac OS to the masses with HP's brand recognition and marketing, Apple's highly-rated OS, and a price that competes directly at those $800 or less Dells and Gateways you see everywhere (with bundled screens of course).
Yeah it'd be ugly. It would probably be some clunky, plastic, dark-colored box, but frankly, I don't care. I know I'd want one. Because looks on a computer mean nothing to me. I just want something to run Mac OS, and it doesn't necessarily have to be made by Apple. With an HP brand, it also wouldn't tarnish Apple's reputation of amazing industrial design for making a less-than-spectacular, not-so-innovative CPU.
Until something like this, I really don't see Apple gaining much, if any, marketshare.
At least Steve did the iPod deal right, with Apple firmly in charge of motherboard design and the OS. That would be a pre-requisite of any foray into cloning again.
I think Apple can pursue an 'innovation' strategy in the computer market and survive. The innovations would have to be visible to the average person though, not just 'under the hood'.
For example, reading text on a screen is hard on the eyes, since it flickers and it's only 72 dpi (most books are 600-1200 dpi.)
If Apple could create a new type of monitor that eases or eliminates eyestrain, this would be a simple enough advantage when side by side with a PC in a CompUSA showroom. I think an innovation like that would justify the Apple premium.
However, to the casual observer, the Mac's core strengths seem too much like window dressing when shopping for a PC.
I guess what I'm saying is that Apple needs one big killer feature to see any uptick in MacOS marketshare. Revolution, not evolution - which the PC market can't catch up to in six months.