Even thought Apple laptop sales are up that does not mean their % of market share had gotten bigger when compared to the overall market in general. Now before you flame me think about what I'm saying. Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen. It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown. Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.
\tSomeone on this thread basically said PC's are declining and that is far from the truth. PC sales are very strong. PC's are pushing hardware to the edge and pushing tech like SLI, etc... If PC's are declining then why are there so many PC motherboard(Asus, Abit, Gigabyte,....), video card, sound card, chipset makers, etc... companies which are still growing strong?
\tIf Apple wants more market share then they should either have a better selection with a better variety of hardware or release OSX to run on any hardware thus making a lot of money off OSX.
\tThe bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.
\tIf Apple wants to win a PC user over then Apple should rethink it's hardware policies. Right now PC hardware(minus M$...so let's not get into that tired debate) is better than Apple's hardware in that the user has a choice. It's pathetic the new Power Mac only supports a few video cards and no Crossfire or SLI. This must change if Apple wants to grow.
\tBy the way Apple hardware and PC hardware are equal today. The myth that Apple hardware is better is just a myth. Actually PC hardware is more advanced in that PC's are always ahead of Apple because Apple is always dragging their feet.
If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!
Now that I think about it, I think the low numbers can be explained by the global reach of internet sites, because Apple's market share worldwide is about 3%. So that Netsomething chart may actually be pretty close to the installed base.
Apple's notable notebook successes were in the US and might only be static compared to the global market.
Even thought Apple laptop sales are up that does not mean their % of market share had gotten bigger when compared to the overall market in general. Now before you flame me think about what I'm saying. Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen. It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown. Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.
Must be new math. So in order for HP to gain share it must out sell Apple, Dell and Gateway combined? Or perhaps Apple simply needs to grow slightly faster than the PC market...which in the US it apparently did since it increased share from 4.4% to 4.8%. In any case, as long as the user base continues to grow it can stay healthy. The big loser in 2006? Dell. But they'll bounce back...Dell has fixed a lot of the problems it had the last couple years and got their eye back on customer satisfaction.
Quote:
The bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.
Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.
Quote:
If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.
Must be new math. So in order for HP to gain share it must out sell Apple, Dell and Gateway combined? Or perhaps Apple simply needs to grow slightly faster than the PC market...which in the US it apparently did since it increased share from 4.4% to 4.8%. In any case, as long as the user base continues to grow it can stay healthy. The big loser in 2006? Dell. But they'll bounce back...Dell has fixed a lot of the problems it had the last couple years and got their eye back on customer satisfaction.
No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.
Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
Agree.
And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.
Thats because Linux has the some fan boys wanting to keep Linux an elitist hobby instead of working to unify a driver base(rpm vs. tar) etc.... Look at the Linux sound driver issues and you will see what I'm talking about. Linux has grown just take a look at business use and compare it to OSX Server use. Don;t take my word for it read and research for yourself.
So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you? OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.
It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.
I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!
Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
It doesn't matter. Apple makes more money per computer but on fewer computers. Maybe they can drop the price some, but there's never a guarantee that the additional sales will make up for the difference. I think Dell has a little higher profit than Apple, but they also sell 10x as many computers, and they certainly don't have 10x the net profits. Most of the consumer computer industry is on razor thin margins, Dell and Apple are the rare exceptions.
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be?
Apple's market cap is a good 20-25% bigger than Dell's, so they must be doing SOMETHING right.
Also, wtf would be the point of having 6x the market share if you're making 1/6th the cash? You of all people should not be telling anyone to do math. OS X profits = negligible. Hardware profits = sexy.
since Marketshare has nothing at all to do with what people are using, but just what is sold... how does web site traffic hits by certain browsers give you marketshare?
They are trying to show usage, not market share.
anyways, even their data is reported to look bad... they are saying total shaare (Mac OS + Macintel figures) is now 4.33%, when a year ago (Dec) it was 4.35%. They skip every other report between those times when it was up and down, sometimes up much more than .02 and sometimes much further down than .02.... this is competely not new...
Next month is could be up .05.. then the next month down .02 and theyll skip a month and report... Another .02 down!!! this is the end!!
since Marketshare has nothing at all to do with what people are using, but just what is sold... how does web site traffic hits by certain browsers give you marketshare?
Somewhat true, and this is the case for all questions of userbase. Period.
Statistics can be useful for guessing close though and I can't concieve of any valid methodologies that would yeild anything like the numbers reported by these bozos.
The main problem with counting Linux, rather than sold systems, is that there is no way to gauge whether someone is actually using it or not. With Windows or X, there are sales numbers which should be pretty close to the user base at the time.
Hey everyone! Of course Apple's market share is in decline.
While more and more upper-middleclass people from Europe and North America might be using Macintosh, the numbers of new users in those regions/demographics are not that significant, when you compare it to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of potential new computer owners in exploding markets such as India, China and South America. Apple has almost 0 penetration in those markets. If you want to order an Apple product in India, it must be ordered/shipped from Indonesia or Australia! Apple don't ship from INDIA!
The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $750 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.
So, even if 1 000 000 people in Europe and USA were to switch to Mac, there are probably 10 000 000 people in developing countries buying their first ever computer with Windows on it. (the pie chart probably didn't even show pirated Windows, which is also very popular in China!). That means Apple's market share goes down. If the study was monitoring Chinese and Indian websites (which it probably wasn't, because they probably can't read Cantonese, Hindi or Tamil...), i'm sure Apple's share would have been even lower.
Additionally, Linux has a very minimal market share! It is mainly used by "PowerUser" types that have a problem with Microsoft and are willing to go to the trouble of downloading, and updating, and using a totally new system. Those people in the tiny tiny tiny minority.
Finally - Microsoft is the king of Networks - most large companies use PCs for networking, because it gives much more cost flexibility to use a SuperServer + cheap, weak slave PCs, (which fits pretty much everyone's needs, except design professionals fine), and is way cheaper than giving a bunch of secretaries or telemarketers their own iMacs. Even the lowest powered, cheapest Mac has way more power than the average office worker needs for daily tasks.
Apple has a great market share - among upper/middle-class, predominantly white, western individuals..
The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $1000 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.
Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.
Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.
I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.
And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?
Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.?
I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.
And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?
The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.
I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.
I am a shareholder, and I'm closely watching the company. From what I can see, they've been doing a great job in the recent years.
Quote:
The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.
Obviously, but that's more of a political problem than anything else.
No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.
Mkay...this is what you wrote:
Quote:
Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen.
Well lets see...that's incorrect. First, while they make the bulk of PC sales they don't represent the entire market. They only compose 57.1% of the market (2Q06 - Gartner). That means that there is a third of the market for Apple to gain from. Second, Dell's growth (6.3%) has been slower than HP (15.2%), Gateway (16.3) and Apple (15.4%) from 2Q2005-2Q2006 and trailed average growth (6.4%). HP, Gateway and Apple all gained share, Dell didn't.
Quote:
It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown.
Gartner disagrees.
Quote:
Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.
Again, false statement. Apple needs to grow faster than the industry in order to gain share...not out sell all PC's. For the period we're looking at it did: 15.4% vs 6.4%.
Quote:
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
They make commercials to sell computers...which leads to profits. Quite healthy ones in comparison to Dell, HP and Gateway. If Apple could keep its margins AND capture 32% market share of both hardware and software, yes it would make a boatload more money.
Your strategy of selling OSX for all PCs essentially eliminates the hardware sales revenues. You know...the really profitable part. lets take Q3 2005 as an example. This was OSX best launch and highest sales (Tiger launch): $345M out of $3.2B total revenue of which 1.5B was mac sales.
Someone did the math for 2002...in order for Apple to stay the same size they would have to sell 10X the number of copies of OSX that they do today if the per unit margin was $50 per copy of OSX.
These share gains are required just to stay at current levels...not actually perform better as a business.
Quote:
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.
A 3x+ share increase simply to stay even. Against Microsoft and Linux. You lose control of the hardware platform and you can't even assume simple things. Like a iSight on each Mac. Yes, I think Apple revenue would tank if they released OSX into the wild to run on any intel platform leading to less R&D money and ability to manuver into new markets or create the software required to maintain the platform.
Quote:
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
Agree.
Mmm...that's sarcasm. Sun's gain in share has very little to do with Solaris X86 and a lot more to do with their hardware.
Quote:
So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you?
Nope. OSX certainly is better than Windows and Linux but the advantages aren't as great as they were a decade ago...when Apple commanded double diget share and lost it to Microsoft.
Quote:
OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.
Because it makes for poor business strategy? What compelling reason should one move from XP to OSX for $130? Even if you got a few bucks back from not installing XP Home its still more expensive.
Or do you believe that Apple can compete with Microsoft on OEM pricing?
Quote:
It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.
Research...done it. Face it, the OS wars were lost long ago. A paradigm shift is required to change the ratios and that's not going to be simply releasing OSX to run on any intel box. If it happens it will likely because of the set top convergence. Apple has a large war chest and is very profitable. It can explore new markets almost as well as Microsoft as its more skillful at it with Jobs at the helm.
Massive share growth for Apple will occur when we move from PCs to the next thing. PC market share in the future will be as meaningful as mainframe market share is today. A nice profitable market but not the major growth market.
Quote:
I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!
Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....
There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.
So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.
depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....
There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.
So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.
Yeah, my point was in reference to my earlier post, basically, it's not that hard to believe that Apple's market share is decreasing when the global computer markets fastest and largest growth sector is currently in developing economies like India, China, etc. There were lots of people in this thread getting worked up over the news that the market share was going down and calling it bullshit because every one on campus and at the local Starbucks, and at the fitness centre etc. has a mac, but not thinking about the millions of new users in places where the extra cost of a mac makes it not so viable an option...
Yeah, my point was in reference to my earlier post, basically, it's not that hard to believe that Apple's market share is decreasing when the global computer markets fastest and largest growth sector is currently in developing economies like India, China, etc. There were lots of people in this thread getting worked up over the news that the market share was going down and calling it bullshit because every one on campus and at the local Starbucks, and at the fitness centre etc. has a mac, but not thinking about the millions of new users in places where the extra cost of a mac makes it not so viable an option...
One would have to supply stats for such assertions. Right now there are about 200 million computers sold worldwide. It would have to be shown that those numbers are incorrect, and that sales in such third world countries are much larger than being reported.
If that can't be shown, then statements you make are empty.
Comments
\tSomeone on this thread basically said PC's are declining and that is far from the truth. PC sales are very strong. PC's are pushing hardware to the edge and pushing tech like SLI, etc... If PC's are declining then why are there so many PC motherboard(Asus, Abit, Gigabyte,....), video card, sound card, chipset makers, etc... companies which are still growing strong?
\tIf Apple wants more market share then they should either have a better selection with a better variety of hardware or release OSX to run on any hardware thus making a lot of money off OSX.
\tThe bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.
\tIf Apple wants to win a PC user over then Apple should rethink it's hardware policies. Right now PC hardware(minus M$...so let's not get into that tired debate) is better than Apple's hardware in that the user has a choice. It's pathetic the new Power Mac only supports a few video cards and no Crossfire or SLI. This must change if Apple wants to grow.
\tBy the way Apple hardware and PC hardware are equal today. The myth that Apple hardware is better is just a myth. Actually PC hardware is more advanced in that PC's are always ahead of Apple because Apple is always dragging their feet.
If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!
Apple's notable notebook successes were in the US and might only be static compared to the global market.
Even thought Apple laptop sales are up that does not mean their % of market share had gotten bigger when compared to the overall market in general. Now before you flame me think about what I'm saying. Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen. It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown. Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.
Must be new math. So in order for HP to gain share it must out sell Apple, Dell and Gateway combined? Or perhaps Apple simply needs to grow slightly faster than the PC market...which in the US it apparently did since it increased share from 4.4% to 4.8%. In any case, as long as the user base continues to grow it can stay healthy. The big loser in 2006? Dell. But they'll bounce back...Dell has fixed a lot of the problems it had the last couple years and got their eye back on customer satisfaction.
The bottom line is Apple will not topple the PC market with it's current business practice. Flame me if you want but my words are true. Less than 5% of the market share is very poor.
Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.
If Apple wanted a huge boost in the market share then release OSX. I could see Apple growing to 35% of the total market within a few years. With M$ aping of Vista now is the time for Apple to release this software. Think about it!
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.
Vinea
No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.
Apple's goal isn't to topple the PC market. Apple's goal is to be profitable...and Apple is very profitable. Less than 5% of the market share and yet greater market cap then Dell and better earnings per share.
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
Agree.
And just dream on about 35% market share. Linux doesn't have 35% desktop share yet.
Thats because Linux has the some fan boys wanting to keep Linux an elitist hobby instead of working to unify a driver base(rpm vs. tar) etc.... Look at the Linux sound driver issues and you will see what I'm talking about. Linux has grown just take a look at business use and compare it to OSX Server use. Don;t take my word for it read and research for yourself.
So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you? OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.
It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.
I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!
Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
It doesn't matter. Apple makes more money per computer but on fewer computers. Maybe they can drop the price some, but there's never a guarantee that the additional sales will make up for the difference. I think Dell has a little higher profit than Apple, but they also sell 10x as many computers, and they certainly don't have 10x the net profits. Most of the consumer computer industry is on razor thin margins, Dell and Apple are the rare exceptions.
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be?
Apple's market cap is a good 20-25% bigger than Dell's, so they must be doing SOMETHING right.
Also, wtf would be the point of having 6x the market share if you're making 1/6th the cash? You of all people should not be telling anyone to do math. OS X profits = negligible. Hardware profits = sexy.
They are trying to show usage, not market share.
anyways, even their data is reported to look bad... they are saying total shaare (Mac OS + Macintel figures) is now 4.33%, when a year ago (Dec) it was 4.35%. They skip every other report between those times when it was up and down, sometimes up much more than .02 and sometimes much further down than .02.... this is competely not new...
Next month is could be up .05.. then the next month down .02 and theyll skip a month and report... Another .02 down!!! this is the end!!
since Marketshare has nothing at all to do with what people are using, but just what is sold... how does web site traffic hits by certain browsers give you marketshare?
They are trying to show usage, not market share.
Correct. Their numbers are not market share ones.
Somewhat true, and this is the case for all questions of userbase. Period.
Statistics can be useful for guessing close though and I can't concieve of any valid methodologies that would yeild anything like the numbers reported by these bozos.
The main problem with counting Linux, rather than sold systems, is that there is no way to gauge whether someone is actually using it or not. With Windows or X, there are sales numbers which should be pretty close to the user base at the time.
While more and more upper-middleclass people from Europe and North America might be using Macintosh, the numbers of new users in those regions/demographics are not that significant, when you compare it to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of potential new computer owners in exploding markets such as India, China and South America. Apple has almost 0 penetration in those markets. If you want to order an Apple product in India, it must be ordered/shipped from Indonesia or Australia! Apple don't ship from INDIA!
The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $750 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.
So, even if 1 000 000 people in Europe and USA were to switch to Mac, there are probably 10 000 000 people in developing countries buying their first ever computer with Windows on it. (the pie chart probably didn't even show pirated Windows, which is also very popular in China!). That means Apple's market share goes down. If the study was monitoring Chinese and Indian websites (which it probably wasn't, because they probably can't read Cantonese, Hindi or Tamil...), i'm sure Apple's share would have been even lower.
Additionally, Linux has a very minimal market share! It is mainly used by "PowerUser" types that have a problem with Microsoft and are willing to go to the trouble of downloading, and updating, and using a totally new system. Those people in the tiny tiny tiny minority.
Finally - Microsoft is the king of Networks - most large companies use PCs for networking, because it gives much more cost flexibility to use a SuperServer + cheap, weak slave PCs, (which fits pretty much everyone's needs, except design professionals fine), and is way cheaper than giving a bunch of secretaries or telemarketers their own iMacs. Even the lowest powered, cheapest Mac has way more power than the average office worker needs for daily tasks.
Apple has a great market share - among upper/middle-class, predominantly white, western individuals..
The reason for all of this is very simple - people in developing countries won't pay an extra $1000 to have their Intel computer wrapped in nice white plastic that makes them feel nice with all of it's white plastic goodness! They'll be looking for the $400-600 models that are widely available all over the place, or the small-shop hand-manufactured frankenPCs which are also super cheap, and in almost all cases run a Windows product.
Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.
Apple has no interest in customers that don't value quality, so this is not much of a concern. And your "extra $1000" is nothing but bullshit. Macs aren't overpriced.
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.
I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.
And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?
Like I said in the very piece you quoted, the low-end market is of little interest to Apple. It has always been this way. The only reason Dell can afford to offer such low-end, low-margin models is that they make the vast majority of their profits with something completely different anyway: enterprise/server products, which are very high-margin. Apple, instead, focuses on consumers almost entirely, and therefore does not have such a means of balancing.?
I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.
I'm sure that $600 model is very uninspiring. it probably runs on, say, a Celeron M, which doesn't even have SpeedStep, so you're wasting an awful lot of energy and heat even while the CPU is doing almost nothing at all.
And I have no idea at all where you're going with how much rent is in Chennai. What bearing does that have on anything? So living costs in India are different than in the US? Who would have thought?
The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.
I agree, but that philosophy won't help market share. But i'm not a shareholder, so that doesn't bother me. I don't have any problems with Mac experience.
I am a shareholder, and I'm closely watching the company. From what I can see, they've been doing a great job in the recent years.
The point is that an extra $300 is a lot more prohibitive in India than in the West.
Obviously, but that's more of a political problem than anything else.
No it's not new math. What I wrote is correct. No need to spin this fact. Read my post again pls. You did not understand my points.
Mkay...this is what you wrote:
Let's take the following PC makers sales into account namely HP, Dell, and Gateway. When you add those three PC companies sales together then one could easily say that as a whole Apple's market share has fallen.
Well lets see...that's incorrect. First, while they make the bulk of PC sales they don't represent the entire market. They only compose 57.1% of the market (2Q06 - Gartner). That means that there is a third of the market for Apple to gain from. Second, Dell's growth (6.3%) has been slower than HP (15.2%), Gateway (16.3) and Apple (15.4%) from 2Q2005-2Q2006 and trailed average growth (6.4%). HP, Gateway and Apple all gained share, Dell didn't.
It's all about the math people. If Apple sales x units and PC companies sell x units more then Apple's total share has not grown.
Gartner disagrees.
Basically Mac would need to out sale all PC's and that is not happening or going to happen because of Apple's business practices.
Again, false statement. Apple needs to grow faster than the industry in order to gain share...not out sell all PC's. For the period we're looking at it did: 15.4% vs 6.4%.
Then why are they making commercials? If they want "profit" as you say then 5% of a market is not a goal to keep. Sorry but that will not fly here. If Apple had Dell's market share then what would their profit be? Do the math.
They make commercials to sell computers...which leads to profits. Quite healthy ones in comparison to Dell, HP and Gateway. If Apple could keep its margins AND capture 32% market share of both hardware and software, yes it would make a boatload more money.
Your strategy of selling OSX for all PCs essentially eliminates the hardware sales revenues. You know...the really profitable part. lets take Q3 2005 as an example. This was OSX best launch and highest sales (Tiger launch): $345M out of $3.2B total revenue of which 1.5B was mac sales.
Someone did the math for 2002...in order for Apple to stay the same size they would have to sell 10X the number of copies of OSX that they do today if the per unit margin was $50 per copy of OSX.
http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/04/08.1.shtml
These share gains are required just to stay at current levels...not actually perform better as a business.
No thanks. I like OSX. Without the hardware margins and control over the platform OSX would be a slower FreeBSD with a slightly nicer UI. Not the nicely integrated platform where I can pretty much assume anyone with a intel mac as a certain base level of capability. Without those hardware margins there wouldn't be as much investment in the OS, iLife, the pro apps or any of this things that Apple has been able to do with that revenue stream.
BS. Sorry but that is pure BS.
A 3x+ share increase simply to stay even. Against Microsoft and Linux. You lose control of the hardware platform and you can't even assume simple things. Like a iSight on each Mac. Yes, I think Apple revenue would tank if they released OSX into the wild to run on any intel platform leading to less R&D money and ability to manuver into new markets or create the software required to maintain the platform.
Because pushing Solaris out into the open has sure helped Sun. And it really did wonders for NextSTEP too.
Agree.
Mmm...that's sarcasm. Sun's gain in share has very little to do with Solaris X86 and a lot more to do with their hardware.
So in other words you don't OSX is as good as Apple claims then do you?
Nope. OSX certainly is better than Windows and Linux but the advantages aren't as great as they were a decade ago...when Apple commanded double diget share and lost it to Microsoft.
OSX could easily gain market share over Windows. The problem is Apple and Apple does not want to expand into the market for some odd reason.
Because it makes for poor business strategy? What compelling reason should one move from XP to OSX for $130? Even if you got a few bucks back from not installing XP Home its still more expensive.
Or do you believe that Apple can compete with Microsoft on OEM pricing?
It's a shame so many Apple uses like less than 5% of the market while uplifting it as a good thing because Apple makes a profit. Lest we forget the Ipod in this "profit" figures because the Ipod had made Apple tons of cash. OSX could do the same BUT too many Apple users are too stubborn to research this and ponder it.
Research...done it. Face it, the OS wars were lost long ago. A paradigm shift is required to change the ratios and that's not going to be simply releasing OSX to run on any intel box. If it happens it will likely because of the set top convergence. Apple has a large war chest and is very profitable. It can explore new markets almost as well as Microsoft as its more skillful at it with Jobs at the helm.
Massive share growth for Apple will occur when we move from PCs to the next thing. PC market share in the future will be as meaningful as mainframe market share is today. A nice profitable market but not the major growth market.
I really get tired of reading excuses for Apple and people wanting to keep a small market share. Gesh Apple hardware are not that superior anyway. The money to be made with the PC(yes PC) market; since Apple is using a PC processor now(Intel), is software sales. PC hardware is better than what Apple approves and Apple will always be fighting an up hill battle with Miscrosoft since Apple is a "cough" "cough" now a "cough" dreaded PC!
Anyway sorry if thats hard but thats just the way I feel. I like OSX and I like the Imac but my PC I build is more powerful and better flexible than my Imac. Facts are facts....
Its not hard, just misinformed.
Vinea
Try ordering a MacBook from India vs. a dell. The lowend Dell is about $600 bucks, free shipping. The Macbook is about $1200 bucks, and the shipping is not free to India, because it's international from a choice between Australia, Indonesia or South Africa, which is about $150. Sorry for rounding $750 up to $1000, I'll change it in the post, although even if the margin was only $500, that's about 2-3 months rent in Chennai...
depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....
There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.
So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.
depends on your needs.... you just want an ultra cheap laptop and dont care that the Macbook is much much better than the Dell your comparing it to... then Macs arent for you. Buy the peice of junk $600 Dell....
There much more to how a computer works than what it cost to get it.
So if the only thing your pointing out is that Macs arent for people who only care about price and nothing else.... then yeah thats pretty obvious.
Yeah, my point was in reference to my earlier post, basically, it's not that hard to believe that Apple's market share is decreasing when the global computer markets fastest and largest growth sector is currently in developing economies like India, China, etc. There were lots of people in this thread getting worked up over the news that the market share was going down and calling it bullshit because every one on campus and at the local Starbucks, and at the fitness centre etc. has a mac, but not thinking about the millions of new users in places where the extra cost of a mac makes it not so viable an option...
Yeah, my point was in reference to my earlier post, basically, it's not that hard to believe that Apple's market share is decreasing when the global computer markets fastest and largest growth sector is currently in developing economies like India, China, etc. There were lots of people in this thread getting worked up over the news that the market share was going down and calling it bullshit because every one on campus and at the local Starbucks, and at the fitness centre etc. has a mac, but not thinking about the millions of new users in places where the extra cost of a mac makes it not so viable an option...
One would have to supply stats for such assertions. Right now there are about 200 million computers sold worldwide. It would have to be shown that those numbers are incorrect, and that sales in such third world countries are much larger than being reported.
If that can't be shown, then statements you make are empty.