What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
141 Comments
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23This is talking about US market share only. Apple has 2.2% World Wide market share.
- ddrirc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16I'd consider ANYTHING higher than now to be a good thing.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So by that logic BMW is like the special olympics becuase they have a tiny marketshare compared to GMC & Ford?
- Personatech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"I work around alot of college kids and other pros, and for every 1 Mac there are 5 PCs."
Hmmmmm... That sure looks like 16.7% market share at your school already. What was your point again? - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Marketshare is not as important as "personshare".
Let me explain with an example. Let's say you have ten people, five of which use Macs, and five of which use Windows. Let's say that in a span of 6 years, the PC users replace their PC's three times (due to machine failures, bloated OS upgrades that force you to upgrade your hardware so much you may as well buy new stuff, etc.), and the Mac users replace theirs once. The measured marketshare for the PC will be three times than that of the macs, even though the person share is evenly split.
Apparently, something to this effect (though not as exaggerated as my example) is actually going on. Macs may have a lower market share, but they have a higher person-share. TUAW reported that according to one market study, Macs had 6.6% of the marketshare (http://www.tuaw.com/2005/10/11/apples-marketshare-climbs-to-6-6/ ). Another story posted at slashdot a while ago reported one attempt at measuring the Mac personshare showed that the Windows marketshare was far inflated due to the number of folks buying new replacement PC's at a much higher rate than Mac users, and that the Mac person share may be around 10% or more, if I remember correctly (though the details of which market segment elude me right now).
Remember: Windows Vista will force large numbers of Windows users to buy tons of upgrades for their PCs just to support Vista's basic Mac imitations. If Apple's iPod halo effect is real (and who knows what goodies Apple may put to market before Vista even makes it out of Beta), the price of switching to Mac may be much lower than it is now in the face of the cost of switching to Vista. Either way, the transition to Vista is as significant a move as switching, so there is definitely an opportunity for Apple. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Macs used to appeal only to the tech-phobic, but since MacOS X, Apple has gathered quite a loyal following of geeks, due to the UNIX guts of MacOS X. You'd see just how much tech savvy appeal the Mac has if you went to the Macworld Expo. I went, and I was quite surprised at how many independent software publishers made Mac only software. And in any case, if you want control, Linux gives you more; the real computer tweakers go all the way and tweak the software and OS themselves.
- eleven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Apple's market share can only go up, and it is. All around us, more apple based comments here (like what 99.8% of home page stuff these days) and a few years ago slashdot started to see more a more apple related articles. I now see many more people sporting apple machines in coffee shops. Big businesses still buy more computers, but if we were just counting "consumer" machines I think Apple's current share would look even better.
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Duh, don't you remember the commercial with the tanks? The other countries can't get near the computers without getting blown up!
- legallyillegal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7do your math, young one. 1 mac + 5 PCs = 6. 100/6 = ~16.667
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I just love stories like this. The joy I get out of all the anti-Apple fanboy trolling really makes me laugh.
Just how pathetic are some of you guys that the very idea of Apple doing well so deeply scares the crap out of you? - ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"I work around alot of college kids and other pros, and for every 1 Mac there are 5 PCs."
I guess that would be 20% then wouldn't it? - Motobike_man, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15hmmmm, 9% of all computer users in the US. sounds like a good amount to me.
- revgriddler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's almost as clever as the last guy who said it, a couple pages up.
- Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Stronger is very subjective. The main reason I won't switch from Windows to another OS is the main business programs I use are Windows only and for home use I like to play games, which are primarly Windows based.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Yes, very. Apple is never going to dominate the computer business -- everyone knows that. They can however build a very solid 10-20% marketshare to supplement their insanely profitable iPod/ITMS business.
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed, but have you noticed the PC Game market recently? Most the local "game" stores (EB Games, Gamestop, etc) are now relegating PC Games to one shelf tucked away in the back. When I asked what gives, they were quite honest... "Well, those are the most popular PC games out right now... Sims 2, Civ4, Empire at War..." and they explained how they hardly ever got any PC games sent to them anymore... Even my buddy who preordered D&D to participate in the Beta still has yet to get his copy and the Beta event is nearly (if not already) over... sad state... PC Gamers MADE this industry and are the reason why we saw so much performance increase in GPUs... of course now those GPUs are in nice lil consoles.... sigh... I miss the good ol days
SB - SpazticChips, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10AMD is only like 12% of the overall market, but are 80% of the current market.
- douthat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11compare 9% with the rest of the PC market: (Jan 2005 numbers)
Dell 17.9%
HP 15.8%
IBM 5.9%
Fujitsu/Siemens 4%
Acer 3.6%
Apple 2.0% Worldwide, 3.2% domestically
so moving from around 2.5% to about 9% would be represent substantial growth (360%!) for Apple and would make them the third largest PC manufacturer in the world. - dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+79% is one percent from the ever-so-important 10% where mass acceptance begins and growth accelerates more rapidly...
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Technically there's nothing stopping Apple computers from running Windows applications. Apple applications (partially) run on Windows (See iTunes/Quicktime). This is because Apple ported enough of Carbon over to Windows so that these two applications would run.
Truth be told, that same library could be hacked and made so that any (not-so-complex) Carbon application could be ran on Windows, but without access to the source OR access to any API documentation of the Carbon-Windows library, you're *****.
Meanwhile, Apple's rumored "Red Box" software would allow Apple to run Windows applications natively within OS X (yes, NATIVELY, as in "Looks Native"). This only becomes easier once you don't have to re-compile the application for the underlying hardware (aka, Apple's move to Intel).
Not to mention GTK runs natively on Windows and Linux, Qt runs natively on Linux, OS X and Windows, WXWidgets runs natively on a whole host of operating environments, etc., etc., etc. It's not as farfetched as you think. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's a good thing they make products for more than one market...
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The numbers do not show any gain at all. In 2005 207 Million computers were sold. 4.5 Million of those were Macs. That is 2.2%. Current predictions for 2006 show 230 Million computers will be sold. Apple will need to sell 5 Million units to just maintain market share.
Apple will need to sell 20 Million units in 2006 to reach the 9% this story talks about. That will not happen. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Not exactly 91% Remember there's Linux. So MS will only have 90.99999321% if Apple has 9%.
- danr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is one of the main reasons why a couple weeks ago I opted to build a windows PC and get a 20 inch wide screen monitor instead of buying the dual core 20 in. iMac. The iMac would have been more expensive as well, and have a few less features (yet a few more in other areas) but I was willing to compromise with that. But I really don't like the built in monitor for the iMac. That means I can't use the display for other computers, and if the computer dies/becomes outdated, I would have to replace the whole thing. Apple doesn't really have a good compromise, the mac mini isn't upgradeable enough/isn't powerful enough, and the tower is way too expensive in my own opinion, not to mention without an Intel version it wouldn't be the best right now.
- revgriddler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Mac fans buy a new Mac ever time a new one is released. PCs are used for much longer than Macs. So you are wrong."
I like the clearly evidence based reasoning there. In my experience, as a Mac user that knows many other Mac users, particularly of the "professional" sort, the turnover rate for Macs is far lower. Of course, in my opinion, I think that there is a higher percentage of tech-savy Mac users than PC users, as a percentage of population, so they know how to maintain their computers to extend their lives. Like it or not, if you have a 90%+ marketshare, that also generally means you have a much greater share of the unwashed masses, too, and that means a lot more people buying new computers when their hard drives get fragmented. - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12Dude... their market share currently sits somewhere around 4.5%, so 9% is effectively doubling their marketshare. It may not put THAT much of a hurt in Microsoft's revenue, but it would be a HUGE benefit to Apple (they would then become by far the largest hardware manufacturer, as they are already in the top 5 I believe, and at one point they eclipsed Dell).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3" if Apple was to make it easy for Macs to run Windows"
So if Apple starts using Windows for their OS you mean. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, basically, now with the Intel switch, if Apple sold PCs, they would experience a user base surge. Am I reading that right? Hello Vista on Apple boxes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11"Migrating to a stronger OS? Care to back that up? How is it stronger?"
Gee, I don't know. One could take the underlying permission system of unix versus windows, for starters. Imagine that. - frem001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they were updates, not upgrades. Updates on a mac are also free and frequent. Upgrades aren't free for windows or mac, they are more frequent for os x though.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this is awesome, but no, apple will NEVER support windows. anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. (im looking in your direction dvorak)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Wolf's survey showed that if Apple was to make it easy for Macs to run Windows applications the number of students who would buy an Apple computer would double"
...and if my GRANDMOTHER had BALLS, she'd be my GRANDFATHER - SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm Definately One of the ones that would switch if Apples could run Windows apps easily.
I've already got my flyakite installed :) - captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3None of the college students I know use their computers to play games. They're all playing consoles.
- wmansir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering the sample had 25% saying they were likely to buy a Mac anyway, I don't think this can say anything about the overall market place.
- ause, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2there is Darwine on sourceforge
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personshare does impact business, and is being taken into account by business decision makers: personshare impacts how much software is purchased, and all the peripherals and supporting hardware and peripherals more than marketshare does. If I remember correctly, market studies showed that Macusers have a higher software purchase footprint on the market (US) than the marketshare would suggest. It was so much higher than the marketshare would suggest that it either means that Macusers are far more honest and less likely to pirate software, or that the personshare phenomenon is real (likely both). Otherwise, a tiny marketshare would not be able to support a viable market for software written specifically for the platform. Yet at expos such as Macworld, there were many many independent software companies that survive and thrive on writing Mac-only software.
- jmholloway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I personally like seeing the underdog rise up and beat the tough guy. I hope apple does it, kind of like firefox is doing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Until Apple makes a computer that will work as well as Windows does in a corporate networked environment, they will NEVER capture a decent marketshare. It's great as a home toy, but stinks to high hell when it comes to a corporate network.
- SBelyea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I a little intrigued by this survey they conducted. I wish they would provide more information about how the survey was conducted, what methods were used, and the spread of the survey. While the sample size seems small, I think it's stastically allowable (too lazy to grab my stats book), but they don't really provide much information beyond "conducted a survey". Statistics lie 95% of the time, and the other 5% of the time they aren't telling the truth.
- PostedOval, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would switch tomorrow if they would sell their OS X in a box, just like Windows. That's what Microsoft should really be afraid of.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, what a massive and completely exhaustive list of applications you've got there...
You should say that's ALL that's cross platform compatible if you want to be less intellectually dishonest.
Nothing that these people make is a good start: autodesk.com - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2When or If Apple breaks 10% will be a good day for all... MS shouldn't be worried about Apple though, they have a bigger evil in Google.
- moth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mid April, that's when I'm gonna send mine in with the same problem.
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Is tthis annual sales, because it doesnt sound like installled user base...
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4As to the price raise of $100, didn't Apple add $100 worth of upgrades to the Mini? IIRC, the Bluetooth/WiFi module most users would add anyways was a $100 upgrade, meaning that for the same exact price as the previous one (with the Wifi module), the new Mini has a bigger faster HD, faster graphics (flamers step back, we've already proven this one), a faster CPU, an extra RAM slot, two extra USB2 ports, Gigabit ethernet, FrontRow and the Apple remote.
Sure, the price raise does suck (especially for the people who are just barely scraping together to get a $300 Dell), but the incentive added more than justifies the cost, in my opinion. Apple's simply regearing the Mini based on market acceptance of it. The Market is asking for a more versitile, media center-like computer (since that's how people were configuring it the most), so Apple gave the market what it wanted.
Look, as much as you'd love to think Apple computers are seriously overpriced, they're not as overpriced as you'd think. Once you start crunching the numbers, you realize the Mini is still Apple's lowest returns computer, even lower than the previous Mini (thanks to the added hardware costs of the Core processors; one core costs almost 3 times as much as one G4), but yes, those returns are typically a bit higher than Dell or HP or Gateway gets from their machines in this category.
You've gotta make money to make products like the Mini. Serious money. Enough to justify the design costs of the small enclosures, the heat engineer you're paying to insure the machine runs cool enough, all of the different companies you have to contact to build cases in this configuration, etc. etc. Apple's matra has always been Quality over Quantity, and that's what Apple is.
If you don't like it, buy a Dell. It doesn't hurt Apple one bit, and you're happier with it. Meanwhile, I'll stick with innovation. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, the thing is, there's this rumor about a technology called "Red Box" from Apple (actually it's originally from NeXT which Apple acquired and adapted OS X from) that would allow Windows applications to run (and look) native on OS X.
This would mean Apple computers could run Cocoa applications, Carbon Applications, Java SWING applications, or Microsoft's CAPI/MFC applications, and all of them would look native. (think what Wine does for Linux, but instead of having their own widget-drawing implementation, it just uses Quartz). Which would mean Microsoft's applications would become a subset of applications that would run on OS X. The same could be done for Carbon on Windows, but Microsoft would shoot itself in the face before it ever considered API compatibility with any API but their own (look at C#; instead of writing their own Java SWING front end, they decided they'd invent a language and a virtual machine that did pretty much the exact same thing but used Windows native widgets).
Arguably, this is what's wrong with Linux; instead of having one central Widget engine that makes all applications look alike no matter what API was used to program it, each API has its own Widget engine, which means Qt apps and GTK apps just won't ever look alike. - frem001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't really want apple to dominate the computer market, but to be taken seriously by other software companies as a source of revenue, if apple was a monopoly there might be a chance that they could become lazy in terms of the quality of their products (like microsoft). those companies being: Autodesk, Bentley Systems inc, McNeel/Rhino 3D. Hasn't Apples market share risen to 6.6% I read that 2 or 3 days ago. I''d like to see them reach 20%-30%.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Just like the iPod is cheaper than all the other HDD based players because apple have a huge majority in the HDD portable media player market.
Sorry, but it just hasn't happened, even with 87% of the market belonging to them the iPods are still way overpriced compared to products by other companies which are in several cases better products.
Apple won't lower their prices, you can count on it. Just liik at the $100 price rise for the new mac mini. -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is