“If you are desirous of keeping a healthy perspective on the differences between mere objects and personal philosophies the best advice is not to buy a Mac,” Chris Seibold writes for Apple Matters.
“Why not purchase the world’s greatest personal computer? Because once you do you’ll fall in love with the Mac,” Seibold writes. “You’ll wonder why more people aren’t using one, you’ll want to spread the word, you’ll become a zealot. Inevitably, you will remain confused why the Mac isn’t more popular and then you’ll begin coming up with ways to fix the Mac’s low market share blues. Here’s the trouble, the ways to ‘fix’ Apple’s market share problems are all prescriptions for a malady that simply doesn’t exist.”
“The notion that Apple has a market share problem seems obvious, but it isn’t as bad as a quick glance at the numbers indicate. The breakdown between business computer purchases and home computer purchases is roughly a 66 to 33 split. Apple chooses to compete in what roughly amounts to a third of the market. Sure, it has penetration in professional graphics, scientific and the film industry but Apple is, by and large, a consumer computer designer,” Seibold writes. “With that in mind, Apple’s market share looks much, much better. In the arena Apple competes (by default, not by choice) it performs fairly well.”
Much more in the full article here.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
i don’t want everyone to buy a mac
i like the whole cult thing
I think the key is to remain profitabl;e, that’s it. More developers COULD be nice, but more software doesn’t mean better software.
Oh, boy, here we go again with the “what exactly IS market share?” punditry and postulation, not to mention – what does he mean by “market”? questions, etc. While it is a positive story, it’s a bit of a back-handed “attaboy”, and he hedges his bets by not actually naming numbers, which would really open him up to some scrutiny!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“I have my Mac, so what if you don’t?”
I don’t care what you think.
Oh, yeah – R got that part right, too – what’s wrong with hundreds of millions of dollars in profit each quarter? Is it not enough?
Yet another stupid question.
Forget about enterprise marketshare. The IT world is content with Microsoft- job security in fixing a system that can never be fixed. Put’s food on my table, too. Personal computing needs a revival. Microsloth ruined it. Apple needs to take it back. Totally and Completely wipe Windows from the personal market.
No, actually, it is by choice, not by default. Steve has stated emphatically that Apple is a consumer company and he proves it every day through sheer elegance and brilliance in each and every product…..
Pixar rendered “Cars” using all DELL hardware.
If Apple can’t even win a gig with Pixar, they stand little chance in any other environment.
Shiny servers, pfft.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=92075
There are only 2 issues I see with having a lower market share:
1) Developers will flock to the platform that will make them the most money. Right now, it’s Windows. This means that we don’t get some software.
2) Sheep, such as “No Koolaid Here”, will flock to the platform that “everyone else” is on. Therefore, with low market share, you are less likely to get the new user that goes to Wal-Mart to buy a computer.
Apple seems to be doing pretty well. They have not stopped innovating, their stock (until recently) has done very well, they have a good pipeline of products, and their OS is the best there is. I’m not concerned.
Grapes…
I have a thriving small business, in work that I love. It never fails to amaze me how many of my friends, who are stuck in corporate jobs (that deep down they hate), offer me advice to “fix” my business.
Much hot air and keystrokes are similarly expended here on “fixing” Apple. They have only tripled overall sales in the past 5 years, profits are way up, and the future is very bright indeed…so, yep, Apple needs alot of fixing from armchair CEOs.
Apple is just another Sirius, it goes up with hype then comes down slowly and no force can stop it.
I believe Apple deserves the majority of the home market.
You should want Apple to do it’s best. If Steve thinks they’re at their best, I’m good with that and will sell my shares. If there’s no growth left and Apple pays no dividend, my money is better served elsewhere and I need to get out of AAPL.
My opinion is based on the fact that I own a nice chunk of Apple stock that I bought for $10.03 (split adjusted) on October 19 2000 and the fact that the same stock is currently at $60 and has been at $80.
A small 1% increase of their current market share is almost a 33% improvement.
RE:Pixar chooses Dell
Well microsoft rendered xbox 360 demos off Powermac G5. If Microsoft chooses not to even use their own products thats even worse.
Link
“i don’t want everyone to buy a mac
i like the whole cult thing”
That’s what I thought the article was going to say. I find this obsession with the Mac cult to be rather embarrassing. People shouldn’t buy Macs because its cool to be in the select few. They should buy them because they’re <u>better computers</u>. It is as simple as that.
Nice try, “Apple is Lame”. You can’t compare Sirius to Apple. Not even close to the same thing. Then again, I’m assuming that you don’t know much about investing. If you did, you’d know that real investing is not looking at a quick short-term gain or loss, but at the long term.
Find yourself an investment site, enter Apple’s symbole (hint: AAPL). You may have already looked at the recent performance: 1 day; 5 day; 3 month; 6 month. Nice. Now, my uneducated friend, take a look at 1 year; 2 years; 3 years; 5 years, etc. You’ll see a little picture of a hill, that goes up over time. In fact, it’s a really STEEP hill. Not one you’d want to ride your bike up.
AAPL has been going up & down of late. On the long term, however, it will continue to climb. It will also probably split again soon. Since you probably don’t understand that also, I’ll explain why it’s good. A split in and of itself doesn’t change your investment at all. But what it does is signal that things are going well for the company – hence the split. It also gives little guys like yourself that don’t really know anything about investing (obviously) the chance to buy a few shares.
Good luck in your investing. If you are trying to make a quick buck on Sirius or other stocks, I suggest investing. Your way is just gambling.
Pixar chose Dell for “Cars”: Fine but that was just to get lot’s of CPUs to crunch and render, not for a full user interface and elegant experience that most of us want.
So basically they bought cheap systems, based on Intel chips and ran their proprietary “Renderman” app.
Big deal! Your attempt at comparison fails miserably!
MW: “about” It’s about the user experience!
Pixar chose linux server farms to render.
12 servers with 32GB ram in each one, using a paralell NAS solution for storage.
linux = free
they also went with throw away servers (dell) because after the movie was made they wouldnt need the antiquated hardware anymore.
since when does crunching numbers for 3D renders require the most advanced OS on the planet (OSX)?
also ‘apple is lame’ you must have just realized that apple existed within the last couple years; pull your head out of your ass.
When I started dealing with computers and technology (when I was 12 years old, over 20 years ago), researching, looking for the “new” and being on the cutting edge was the way to go. Even today, that’s what I enjoy about technology.
Unfortunately, I found a lot of system administrators who do not share the same passion for trying new things, and they better stay with the confortable establishment, and better not risk the status quo.
So, while growing up, I faced reality: The IT business is like any other business: There are active innovators and lazy bureaucrats.
For the innovators, those with the thirst of the new and better, the Mac (especially since Mac OS X) is a no brainer.
The answer to the “market share” question is simple: How many lazy bureaucrats are there in the SysAdmin business? Get your own conclussions.
Funny story: I was yesterday in a training session at work, and I was the only one showing my presentation in a Mac. When I switched from my PowerPoint to the application I was showing, I used Expose, and the crowd (about 40 people) were like “Ahhh!” and “Oooh!” It was very funny.
now say you are researching cancer, or decoding DNA, or doing somehting for science, or the government; thats when you go xserve. or OSX server.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
Windows is like a flat head screwdriver… sure you could use phillips, better all the way around, but some idiot somewhere is going to insist on using a gd flat head screw in their product. therefore we will always need windows. because idiots wont give it up.
The fact is that when it came time for the company that Steve Jobs OWNS to get the highest performance, most reliable cost effective solution, they chose Dell. (& Linux)
Spin it any way you want, but the reality is what Pixar bought, and it WAS NOT OS X on teh kool shiny Xserves.
Re: Pixar chooses Dell
They just need a cheap, fast computer for their renderfarm. From the behind the scenes clips i’ve seen, I’m quite sure a lot of other work (design, lighting, etc.) is done using Macs AND Windows computers.
I prefer Macs but Windows has it’s place. There are still tons of stuff that runs on Windows and not on Mac: Chinese input is better on Windows. My sister’s found great programs for naturopathic medicine but they all run on Windows…
Jimbo,
I couldn’t have said it any better myself. I’m currently living FAT due to APPL.
The short term drops I view as buying opportunities.
I invest for the long term, but I have had an amazing short term return on APPL. I consider 1 to 3 years short term. Daily, weekly, monthly fluctuations are inevitable in most healthy stocks.
Be patient my friends! I’d much rather be a tortoise than a hare.
^^^^ HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!!!
trolls just dont get it…
q: why didnt they go with xserves?
a: the intel transition hasnt been completed yet.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
as far as i’m concerned if you’re not running Linux, OSX, and Windows you are missing out, they all have advantages and disadvantages, and yes if I had to choose just one its a no brainer to go with OSX, but today any technologically advanced person / business can benifit from using all 3 for different things.
OSX: Everyday use, for 99% of everyhting that needs to be done.
Linux: server software, low price
Windows: Application Selection
Everyone should be tripple booting imho – if for nothing else than to just be familiar with whats out there.
And you cant change the fact that M$ used Powermacs to demo their XBOX360 titles…
First off, MDN is desparately digging for news to post and has to go some guys personal blog. The author has Zero credibility other than he writes a blog to stick ads on it hoping to make some cash off suckers that click on Google junkads.
RE: Apple market share.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Apple has a world market share of 2%. That means for every 100 computers sold 98 are Windows, 2 are Mac.
You can´t sugar coat or twist the facts. Apple market share is worse now as it has ever been….despite everything that Steve has done.
And by legitimizing Windows (Steve made it so Apples can run it) and going Wintel this does not help much…other than stop Apple users from totally defecting to Windows. Best Buy sales guy: “Yeah, Apple finally runs Windows, but why buy and Apple when I can put you in this nice-no brand name Windows computer for less. You want to upgrade your Windows computer in a year or two with a wide choice of internal parts-no problem. Try that with a Mac.”
Non-Apple owners don´t look at as Apple computer as the nirvana that Maczealots look at it and wish Windows owners looked at it.
What can Apple do to change market share? Basically not much. It will take an outside 3rd market force to change things.
My take on Apple market share? Forget about it and just enjoy your own Apple. It won´t be any better or worse based on Apple´s market share.
Lotus, and Lamborgini deliver their cars with a Mac truck… that must mean that they prefer ‘Macs’… get it…. I dont…
Bigger market share?
HECK YES!. There are still too many important apps and web sites that don’t work with the Mac.
I agree with Ming. The Enterprise market is forever gone and I doubt that Apple would ever get in there. Not even running multiple operating systems. Apple could however kick butt in the small biz market.
Funny isnt it, M$ has 98% of the market; and windwos STILL TOTALLY SUCKS AND IS AS INSECURE AS EVAR!
Apple market share is worse now as it has ever been
True, BUTApple is more profitable than it has ever been and selling more computers than it ever has.
Just goes to show that market-share is not all that important in running a profitable company.
I would rather RIP MY EYES OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS WITH A RUSTY SPOON than switch back to Windows as my primary machine.
TT,
MS has 90% of the market selling $199 copies of Windows.
Apple has 2.5% of the market selling $1299 (average price) computers.
They are not the same thing
Aaron;
Yes, but windows fucking sucks.
98% of the universe is an empty, black, vaccuum.
This article is similar to Chris Seibold’s recent articles and they are steaming piles of crap. And I say that not just because I own a bunch of AAPL shares. Apple is and will be at risk until they gain appreciable market share. Steve Jobs is brilliant and is navigating Apple through the shallows out towards the deep blue water. Apple’s survival, in the long run, depends on gaining a fairly high market share. Microsoft’s problems have given Apple a big window of opportunity to make the big move on the market. This is no time to peddle defeatism.
Put the G*d d*mned stake in the heart of the MS vampire while you have the chance. Enough of this craven cowardice before the enemy.
And what the hell makes superb hardware and operating system unfit for the non geek user? Too many people here have allowed themselves to be driven into redefining defeat — low market share — as some kind of victory. It is the philosophy of losers. It’s like the boys at the bar sneering about the guy who walked out with the top babe and is getting a hormone fix, while they make pathetic excuses and brag that they get to watch sports on the plasma TV. Get a life!
apple have made a profit ever since steve came back
1997-2006
can you name any pc company that’s done that
AND
been cool at the same time ?
i doubt it
Surely, Microsoft used the G5 to demo xbox games because they both had IBM processers?
ie. nothing to do with OS X or who is better etc.
No, I want Macs to proliferate. There’s probably nine or ten reasons on my list, but I think some of the more important ones to me are:
– Lower per unit prices when demand reaches the magic threshold and stays there.
– The ability to choose my computing platform at work, at school, and at home without having to justify, rectify, and indemnify.
– And abolishing the very very wearisome and absolutely damaging belief that, all “real” business is done on pc’s.
TT:
I would rather RIP MY EYES OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS WITH A RUSTY SPOON than switch back to Windows as my primary machine.
————
LOL. BUT you STILL use Windows…its just not your “primary machine”. LOL.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />
So you can use Windows 49% of the time and Mac 51% of the time and your eyes are safe.
LOL.
Steve Balmer says thank you.
My stance coincides with duper. I am not an elitist, I just know what works
best. I have a lot of passion for Apple’s success, and I DO hope that they
attain a little more market share (not necessarily the whole enchilada).
Higher volume might allow us to pay a little less for the products we like,
and besides, it’s deserved (of course most of us know that).
MW: run
Have a good run Apple!
Apple may have 2% worldwide but Microsoft certainly does not have the other 98%.
Wake up and smell the Pirate BO. A good 15 to 20% of new computers have a pirated OS on them or a free Linux distro that is soon exchanged for a pirated OS. It does not matter that the pirated OS is Windows, it still does not add to Microsoft’s market share if Microsoft’s revenue from all that pirated software is $0.00.
So Windows real market share is around 80%.
Apple needs market share but not all of it. Maybe 25% would be great and no more. Then we turn into Microsoft.
Well…the other day I was looking for some software that would allow me to virtually build my deck, but it was all Windows-only. (there was some crapware that ran on OS 9, but that’s it)
Some great games aren’t on the platform either, but that might change with the Intel transition.
*for those of you who think you are elitist enough to say that games shouldn’t be on the platform because they’re unproductive – save it. Get rid of your TV and never surf the internet for entertainment if that’s your stance*
I don’t think Macs need to have the lion’s share of the market…but wouldn’t 25% be nice? More developers, perhaps lower prices because of economies of scale, and more competition in the software field, thus bringing the best of the best. Granted, some crap software will come out too, but that can’t be prevented either way.
“The answer is simple but not obvious: because Apple demands maximum return for minimal possible effort.”
The author begins with a faulty premise then provides no logical support of his hypothesis with an incoherent argument. Every product Apple has imagined, designed, and marketed is to serve the needs and desires of the consumer, make money for Apple, develop a larger market share to serve more consumers, and make more money for Apple. This seems obvious to me.
It is in the best interest of Apple to use its human, financial, and technological capital carefully, wisely, and judiciously, but this is hardly an example of “minimal possible effort”. In fact, this phrase is patently offensive by suggesting that Apple’s successes did not require much input of cognitive power, perceptive analysis, personal sacrifice, well coordinated collaborative action, and extremely motivated people. I think that “maximum utilization of existing resources” is a more accurate description and honest representation.
Apple’s success is evident in Microsoft’s paltry attempts to imitate OS X. Even with their huge cache of cash and thriving throng of hired hands, Microsoft has gotten minimal return from a maximal influx of misdirected efforts. Vista is decimated and is currently distributed as barely beta software. So, after years of fits, faults, fumbles, futility, and failings Windows still remains the “dominant” OS. How would you explain this particular phenomenon of Microsoft’s market share in terms of sound business practice, Chris?
Kool-aid, anyone?
“Kool-aid, anyone?”
As long as it is fresh squeezed.
Big Al: “Wake up and smell the Pirate BO. A good 15 to 20% of new computers have a pirated OS on them or a free Linux distro that is soon exchanged for a pirated OS. It does not matter that the pirated OS is Windows, it still does not add to Microsoft’s market share if Microsoft’s revenue from all that pirated software is $0.00.
So Windows real market share is around 80%.“
—>NOT – Analysts don’t take this into account when calulating market share. Why? Simple – pirated figures are impossible to calculate. If anything your “pirate theory” would give MS MORE market share if they added that in.
“A good 15 to 20% of new computers have a pirated OS on them…”
—> Got some hard data to back that up? Didn’t think so, because you can’t find the data/numbers on pirated copies! They are pirated and therefore don’t officially exist.
Apple’s WW market share is 2.1%. Yes, I want it to be higher, but if Apple’s shipments do not out-pace the rest of the industry, it will stay stagnant at best and at worse decline. 2.1% – that’s the hard data. Consumer market, Corporate Market, blah, blah, bah market. World Wide market share? – 2.1%. The numbers don’t change. If Apple suddenly gained 50% of the consumer market, but did not out-pace the rest of the industry in total percentage of shipments? Still 2.1%. The math doesn’t change.
someone told me the other day that microsoft owns apple because microsoft just buys out any competitors, i told him it was B.S. but this lingering doubt remained in my mind.
can someone confirm is it true that apple is owned by microsoft, and can they prove it?
Zalmy – Apple and Microsoft are two separate companies. Microsoft does not own Apple.
Apple’s right where it’s supposed to be – at the front of the ‘Bell Curve’
This is a graph of below, average, and superior ratings. As usual, Windows users are the average, and make up the bulk of the numbers. But guess what, Apple users are at the front of the curve, way less users, but smarter and wealthier than the norm, and using a superior OS. That’s the way life is – you can be sub-par, average, elite, or simply on a slope up or down. Apple will never be a popular computer for the masses, just like Ferraris will never be popular cars for the masses. Like I used to say when I sold computers – Apples are like Benzs, PCs are like Fords, which car do you think sells the most and the average person has ? And right then, the customers thought about what kind of person they were, and either bought a Mac, or moped over to the PC section.
Apple has 100% of the Mac OS X computer market. That’s all that matters to me…
Re: Pixar chooses Dell
three word explanation: conflict of interest
>My opinion is based on the fact that I own a nice chunk of Apple stock that I bought for $10.03 (split adjusted) on October 19 2000 and the fact that the same stock is currently at $60 and has been at $80.
fortunately then you’re going to have a long way to go before you loose anything but a paper gain as the stock falls.
Speking of Pixar – the reviews of the new “Cars” movie are not very positive.
maclover says: “Apple’s right where it’s supposed to be – at the front of the ‘Bell Curve’ … As usual, Windows users are the average, and make up the bulk of the numbers… Apple users are at the front of the curve, … smarter and wealthier than the norm, and using a superior OS. That’s the way life is – you can be sub-par, average, [or] elite… Apple will never be a popular computer for the masses, just like Ferraris will never be popular cars for the masses. Like I used to say when I sold computers – Apples are like Benzs, PCs are like Fords, which … sells the most…? And right then, the customers thought about what kind of person they were, and either bought a Mac, or moped over to the PC section.”
Spoken like a true salesman. Great story, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple staying ‘small-time’ is a good or bad thing. And it is bad, across the board.
First, the whole Chevy vs Ferrari example is a poor one, if oft repeated. Even with a certain degree of mark-up due to reputation, Ferrari’s are more expensive/better cars than Chevy’s b/c the latter use less expensive/lower performing parts. The fact that they’re more affordable is how Chevys become the car of the masses. It’s not that Ferrari’s aren’t “popular” (are you kidding??); most people just can’t afford one! And Ferrari can maintain themselves as a profitable, small market company, due to the fact that those expensive parts actually yield a faster/better handling car which – b/c it indeed IS ahead of the curve – they are justified in charging more for.
But you don’t need Chevy vs Ferrari to see this; Chevy (Malibu) vs Chevy (Corvette) demonstrates exactly the same thing. Even within brands, a better performing product equates to an ability to charge higher prices that will be paid by a knowledgable/willing customer. End of economics lesson.
Now here’s Apple, these days using exactly the same parts as all of their competitors, hence getting largely the same performance in hardware terms. Yet they are charging MORE than said competitors. Even worse is that they don’t have much choice but to do this, because their market share is so small that they can’t command the preferential pricing arrangements, that say a DELL or HP can, from their very limited number of suppliers (one). This in turn puts Apple at an enduring structural disadvantage vis a vis pricing.
Yes, the superior useability of OSX, and cool case design, levels the playing field somewhat. But not enough. When someone used to dealing with Windows sees a much cheaper – though indentically spec’d – option, they stay with Windows. It’s what they know, plus they save a buttload of money. In other words, in the case of x86 computers, there’s often no obvious tangible difference between buying the Corvette vs the Malibu. While we Apostles, spreading the Good Word, can sometimes get people to make the OSX leap anyway, a far more efficient method of getting more people to buy more Apple computers is for Apple Computer to be more price competitive.
And make no mistake, as I said, it IS important for Apple to gain share. If they don’t, they are stuck paying more for exactly the same x86 hardware as everyone else. If they have to consistently charge more than their competitors for said hardware, then their already small marketshare WILL shrink further. At some critical threshhold, that shrinkage will actually begin to hurt the company’s financial position, which will then make it harder for Apple to remain as an independent company (cheap or underperforming stock usually equals ‘takeover’). Now that they are in x86-world, with all the unforgiving economic realities that make it up, the truth is Apple’s in greater danger of not being able to maintain its ‘small-share self’, as it once could with ease when it used cheaper PPC-based hardware. DELL recently gobbling up boutique manufacturer Alienware is, I think, instructive.
It should also be obvious that Apple would be hard pressed to maintain it’s brand caché – one of it’s main sources of strength – as a wholly owned subsidiary of HP, DELL, or Lenovo. Not to mention the hit that would come to it’s nimbleness and creativity, operating under an additonal layer of corporate beaurocracy.
Besides, beyond all of the above, there is no good reason for an Apple fan NOT to want Apple to get bigger & stronger. How is the MacOS becoming a much bigger rival to the Windows juggernaught a bad thing in ANY universe? The world would be much better off all the way around! As for all this talk about us being at the ‘head of the Bell Curve’ – that’s a bunch of elitist pablum. In addition to actually masking the reality of Apple’s vulnerable position in the x86 world, it also does not serve the ‘greater good’.
The world should be run by Macs, not Windows.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />
“Apple users are at the front of the curve, way less users, but smarter and wealthier than the norm“
—> I tire of self congratulatory statements like this. Cut the elitism!
“As for all this talk about us being at the ‘head of the Bell Curve’ – that’s a bunch of elitist pablum”
—> Again, agreed.
“Apple market share is worse now as it has ever been….despite everything that Steve has done.”
Actually Apple’s global share bottomed out at 1.8% and is now on the way back up. Apple’s share in pretty much every market is on the way up too (last year Mac sales grew at three times the industry average).
I wish these PC users would stop with the Mac / Windows market share thing. Apple are a hardware manufacturer and make the whole thing. MS make operating systems (pretty lame ones at that).
Compare Apple’s market shate to PC manufacturers who make high quality(sold for high profit margins) PC’s (like IBM or HP or Sony or Toshiba). That’s the market sector Apple competes in. The day Apple make OS X for beige boxes is the day you can compare Apple’s market share to Micro$oft’s.
And Chris is right. We can argue market share as much as we want but the shareholders are more concerned with increase in share price and if Apple decided to do a Dell and virtually give boxes away their market share would rise rapidly but their profit would fall slowly along with their share value.
Basically. Apple are carefully moving into new markets slowly and gaining profit quickly because of their cautiousness.