Great news for those who complain that Apple needs to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. Apple is doing something no one else is doing. Increased marketshare and made half a billion in profit.
Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.
Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.
I don't see why people are jumping for joy. Apple don't give 2 shits about you. I like their OS, but I could care less about how much marketshare they have.
I don't see why people are jumping for joy. Apple don't give 2 shits about you. I like their OS, but I could care less about how much marketshare they have.
Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.
Another lame auto analogy?
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.
Quote:
Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
This may or may not be the case. Anecdote is not proof. It's not even admissible as evidence or even a suggestion that it might be true.
Besides, you are confusing installed base with market share. Market share has always been how many units SOLD in a given period. Installed base is how many units IN USE. Installed base isn't something that's nearly as easy to track.
This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...
He's half right. Apple could make a lot of money by licensing to top PC makers as long as they met criteria like EFI. How many of you would buy a non-Apple computer anyway? Not many.
In what shape, form, or factor. Every report that has been released the last few years shows that they have gain a very small amount of marketshare. This is the biggest I've seen. I have yet to see mroe access to any cheaper/better software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
I think that the points made about duration of Macs are a little off the mark.
Quote:
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.
Macs made 8 years ago were not designed with OS X in mind so the benefits of having Apple's integrated hardware are lost to the crushing march of time. Similarly with software changes. But anecdotally, I know of plenty of cases where people have ancient G3s chugging along or even a few Quadras. And they're doing fine. The same is true with all other companies' computers. Plenty have died, but plenty soldier on.
Quote:
As far as Mac's lasting longer or users holding on to them longer I would have hated to by a G5 iMac in Jan seeing in less than a year its third gen already.
This is just stupid. Plain and simple. My parents at their house are using a 2003 Dell. That's so like 12 generations ago. It still works fine for what they need. This obsession that one needs to get the latest iteration is painfully overblown. Yeah, after 2 years, problems start cropping up for gamers, and then 4 years, some other software, and then at 6 years OS requirements get out of hand. But for most people there is not really a problem until at least 4 years. People on this thread are not typical.
Design professionals, gamers, and businesses are a large section of the marketshare, even if they are not the same as owners, because they enter the market more often. And they probably need to get upgrades more often, but not after 6 months. A C2D iMac doing better does not lessen the fact that a Rev. 3 G5 iMac still kills with speed and has the webcam and FrontRow? Sure it's not as good, but is it good enough?
In what shape, form, or factor. Every report that has been released the last few years shows that they have gain a very small amount of marketshare. This is the biggest I've seen. I have yet to see mroe access to any cheaper/better software.
Going from about 3.3% to 6.1% is a large jump, but yes it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the whole computer industry. It's also about 9% less than what the Mac as a platform need to be safe.
Macs are like the AOL of computers, you can't upgrade them even if you have a minor problem you have to send the unit back in for repair. As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.
Hmmm. This spring I installed a new processor, hard drive and optical drive in my old Mac in a couple of weekend hours. This not including new connectivity via expansion cards. I have never found Apple's pro-oriented machines to be particularly closed. Consumer all-in-ones, especially like the CRT iMacs, I admit are another story....
I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.
Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
I'm still running a G3 350mhz as a server with the latest OS on it. How many 8 year old PC's can run Windows XP smoothly? (how many PC's will be able to run Vista... none, without upgrades.)
To use the same car analogy, you get way way more milage out of the Apple then a PC.
So maybe we should ask; Is there a difference between 'market share' and 'user base'?
I would think so, and if Apple's do last twice as long, I think we can safely say that Apple has a %12.2 market share / user base.
Just a thought.
This has nothing to do with longitevity.
It's purely an indication of where sales are now. It indicates trends. Is a company doing better or worse?
It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.
This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...
Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable. All those people who bought Macs without USB 2.0 and then have to chuck the machines less than 2 years later and buy a whole new machine because there's no way to add USB 2.0 to theirs - what's their longevity? A machine whose USB or FireWire ports blow out (I've seen them) with no way to add some more ports to replace them - what's its longevity? I've seen people make really old Macs from before the time when they made them all closed boxes last forever by upgrading the processor, adding new-style ports via PCI, etc.
You say you can upgrade the hard drive easily to your Mac... what Mac do you have? Good luck upgrading the hard drive on a recent iMac or MacBook Pro. And on the Mac mini, you're not even supposed to open the case.
This is coming from a guy who's been a Mac user for almost 20 years, and who is not a gamer.
Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.
Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.
Still not a sub-$1000 computer.
Quote:
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine.
I have a friend with an 8 year old Dell that's still going. But its stuck at Windows '98. He would have to update components to install XP.
My oldest Mac is a 7 year old blue iMac that runs Tiger just fine.
Quote:
Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable. All those people who bought Macs without USB 2.0 and then have to chuck the machines less than 2 years later and buy a whole new machine because there's no way to add USB 2.0 to theirs - what's their longevity?
I never heard of anyone buying a new Mac simply to get USB 2.0.
My oldest iMac has USB 1 and its not incompatible with anything. It just cannot send files as quickly.
Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable.
Actually, that rather adds weight to the point that most users *DON'T* upgrade anything on their machines. Computers have matured into a commodity for most consumers - you buy them as an entirely new unit, and replace that entire unit when you want to change it. Upgrading components is becoming more and more a niche/hobbyist requirement. And yes, I include hard-core gamers in that niche category. Compared to the sheer masses of consumer and enterprise boxes out there, the high-end gaming rigs are a drop in the bucket. Even more-so, hardly anybody buys a *low-end* gaming rig and tricks it out - if you're going to go for power, you go for power. And 'hardly anybody' is a pretty good definition of a niche. Sure, a BTO where you can customize every nook and cranny is great if you're a HW geek - but we're becoming an ever smaller percentage of the market.
ie, the 'low-end tower' market is going to die out, IMO. The only reason people buy them is because they're what's offered, not because they need the expansion. I expect we'll see more move towards form factors like the Mac mini, leaving the expansion chassis boxes for the high end units.
It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.
I thought that web use by platform could be tracked. Indirect I know, but another data point. Also I can count the number of MacBooks in college libraries and coffee shops and it is not indirect, just a limited sample.
Comments
Great news for those who complain that Apple needs to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. Apple is doing something no one else is doing. Increased marketshare and made half a billion in profit.
Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.
Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.
.
I don't see why people are jumping for joy. Apple don't give 2 shits about you. I like their OS, but I could care less about how much marketshare they have.
Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
Next question.
I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.
Another lame auto analogy?
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.
Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
This may or may not be the case. Anecdote is not proof. It's not even admissible as evidence or even a suggestion that it might be true.
Besides, you are confusing installed base with market share. Market share has always been how many units SOLD in a given period. Installed base is how many units IN USE. Installed base isn't something that's nearly as easy to track.
This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html
Got to love analysts.
He's half right. Apple could make a lot of money by licensing to top PC makers as long as they met criteria like EFI. How many of you would buy a non-Apple computer anyway? Not many.
Do keep up.
Apple's hardware sales would also be history. Guess where they make most of their profits.
Says who. Apple has a very strong niche. Mac OS X is an operating system, the Mac is a total concept.
Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
Next question.
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.
Macs made 8 years ago were not designed with OS X in mind so the benefits of having Apple's integrated hardware are lost to the crushing march of time. Similarly with software changes. But anecdotally, I know of plenty of cases where people have ancient G3s chugging along or even a few Quadras. And they're doing fine. The same is true with all other companies' computers. Plenty have died, but plenty soldier on.
As far as Mac's lasting longer or users holding on to them longer I would have hated to by a G5 iMac in Jan seeing in less than a year its third gen already.
This is just stupid. Plain and simple. My parents at their house are using a 2003 Dell. That's so like 12 generations ago. It still works fine for what they need. This obsession that one needs to get the latest iteration is painfully overblown. Yeah, after 2 years, problems start cropping up for gamers, and then 4 years, some other software, and then at 6 years OS requirements get out of hand. But for most people there is not really a problem until at least 4 years. People on this thread are not typical.
Design professionals, gamers, and businesses are a large section of the marketshare, even if they are not the same as owners, because they enter the market more often. And they probably need to get upgrades more often, but not after 6 months. A C2D iMac doing better does not lessen the fact that a Rev. 3 G5 iMac still kills with speed and has the webcam and FrontRow? Sure it's not as good, but is it good enough?
In what shape, form, or factor. Every report that has been released the last few years shows that they have gain a very small amount of marketshare. This is the biggest I've seen. I have yet to see mroe access to any cheaper/better software.
Going from about 3.3% to 6.1% is a large jump, but yes it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the whole computer industry. It's also about 9% less than what the Mac as a platform need to be safe.
Macs are like the AOL of computers, you can't upgrade them even if you have a minor problem you have to send the unit back in for repair. As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.
Hmmm. This spring I installed a new processor, hard drive and optical drive in my old Mac in a couple of weekend hours. This not including new connectivity via expansion cards. I have never found Apple's pro-oriented machines to be particularly closed. Consumer all-in-ones, especially like the CRT iMacs, I admit are another story....
I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.
Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
I'm still running a G3 350mhz as a server with the latest OS on it. How many 8 year old PC's can run Windows XP smoothly? (how many PC's will be able to run Vista... none, without upgrades.)
To use the same car analogy, you get way way more milage out of the Apple then a PC.
So maybe we should ask; Is there a difference between 'market share' and 'user base'?
I would think so, and if Apple's do last twice as long, I think we can safely say that Apple has a %12.2 market share / user base.
Just a thought.
This has nothing to do with longitevity.
It's purely an indication of where sales are now. It indicates trends. Is a company doing better or worse?
It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.
This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html
Got to love analysts.
But don't forget that they were predicting that Apple could quickly hit 20% marketshare if they did that.
You say you can upgrade the hard drive easily to your Mac... what Mac do you have? Good luck upgrading the hard drive on a recent iMac or MacBook Pro. And on the Mac mini, you're not even supposed to open the case.
This is coming from a guy who's been a Mac user for almost 20 years, and who is not a gamer.
Whether Apple's Steve Jobs would sanction any of the suggestions made by Gartner is hard to gauge.
Are they nuts?
Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.
Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.
Still not a sub-$1000 computer.
I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine.
I have a friend with an 8 year old Dell that's still going. But its stuck at Windows '98. He would have to update components to install XP.
My oldest Mac is a 7 year old blue iMac that runs Tiger just fine.
Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable. All those people who bought Macs without USB 2.0 and then have to chuck the machines less than 2 years later and buy a whole new machine because there's no way to add USB 2.0 to theirs - what's their longevity?
I never heard of anyone buying a new Mac simply to get USB 2.0.
My oldest iMac has USB 1 and its not incompatible with anything. It just cannot send files as quickly.
Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable.
Actually, that rather adds weight to the point that most users *DON'T* upgrade anything on their machines. Computers have matured into a commodity for most consumers - you buy them as an entirely new unit, and replace that entire unit when you want to change it. Upgrading components is becoming more and more a niche/hobbyist requirement. And yes, I include hard-core gamers in that niche category. Compared to the sheer masses of consumer and enterprise boxes out there, the high-end gaming rigs are a drop in the bucket. Even more-so, hardly anybody buys a *low-end* gaming rig and tricks it out - if you're going to go for power, you go for power. And 'hardly anybody' is a pretty good definition of a niche. Sure, a BTO where you can customize every nook and cranny is great if you're a HW geek - but we're becoming an ever smaller percentage of the market.
ie, the 'low-end tower' market is going to die out, IMO. The only reason people buy them is because they're what's offered, not because they need the expansion. I expect we'll see more move towards form factors like the Mac mini, leaving the expansion chassis boxes for the high end units.
Still not a sub-$1000 computer.
$999 < $1000, so yes, actually it is.
One can say, "What about sales tax?", but some states don't have it, and Amazon doesn't charge it. That's where I got my iBook.
In any case, its kind of a dishonest end run. When people talk about price points, they usually mean sans tax.
.
It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.
I thought that web use by platform could be tracked. Indirect I know, but another data point. Also I can count the number of MacBooks in college libraries and coffee shops and it is not indirect, just a limited sample.