[Eug Wanker]

Happy Birthday Mac OS X!

Mac.Ars takes on three years of OS X

It has been a long and winding road for OS X users. After three years, Mac users have a modern, mature, and stable desktop OS. While there have been some hiccups along the way, Apple has generally done a good job rolling out new features in the four major releases. Arguably, their commitment to frequent 10.X.X releases and security updates is even more important, as most bring more functionality and stability to the OS X experience. Having a Unix-based OS has proven to be a benefit to Apple. It has gotten their machines into places they otherwise never would have been used, and has opened up a world of open-source software to Mac users.

[mitchell_pgh]

Consider how far we have come... I really look forward to the next 3 years...

[voodoo]

We are using the last proprietary computer platform on the planet.. Everyone else died at the hands of the Redmond village idiots and their goons.

Atari gone, Commodore gone, Amstrad gone, Acorn gone, Sinclair gone.. the list goes on.

Every milestone seems like a miracle, and yet Apple is *still* here bashing on since 1976! 28 years. That amazes me..

[BrunoBruin]

Ah, how well I remember sitting in my office that Saturday morning waiting for my copy of OS X 10.0 to arrive. I immediately installed it on my work machine: such recklessness! I was AMAZED that I could actually use all my applications in Classic and that all my printers, even a flaky Postscript Epson inkjet, still worked!

I had a dual-450 at the time so it didn't even seem terribly slow to me, although I didn't start using OS X as my everyday OS until Office landed on my desk in October or so. We were using the Groupwise client for e-mail and it did NOT play well in Classic. When Office v.X arrived I switched to Entourage.

Good times.

[Graymalkin]

I was skeptical about OSX when it was released because at the time my only modern Mac was a 333MHz Lombard Powerbook. It was running OS9 with 128MB of RAM and the stock 4.3GB hard drive. The 10.0 release nearly killed it. It wasn't until 10.1 was released in September that OSX was halfway usable and wasn't until 10.2 I found I could use the OS full time on the Powerbook. I decided to pick up a 20GB IBM Travelstar so I could keep OSX and OS9 on the system without sacrificing too many applications. I also left 5GB of space to run Yellow Dog Linux 2.1 for a long time.

What suprised and pleased me the most was the fact subsequent OSX releases got faster on the same hardware instead of slower. Where 10.0 was miserably slow, especially Office v.X that I wasted several hundred dollars on, 10.2 was fast if not somewhat speedy on my Lombard. After the accelerated Rage Pro drivers were released in 10.2.4 the system got even faster. I think it is an impressive feat on Apple's part that despite lots of added functionality in the OS it managed to get faster and more efficient with every new release.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voodoo:
We are using the last proprietary computer platform on the planet...

Except the largest, you mean?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by voodoo:
We are using the last proprietary computer platform on the planet.. Everyone else died at the hands of the Redmond village idiots and their goons.

Atari gone, Commodore gone, Amstrad gone, Acorn gone, Sinclair gone.. the list goes on.

Every milestone seems like a miracle, and yet Apple is *still* here bashing on since 1976! 28 years. That amazes me..

What about Sun and SGI?

They are starting to offer Intel based systems, but I would say they are proprietary Hardware+Software platforms...

Then again, they are on their way out...

[Krusty]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Consider how far we have come... I really look forward to the next 3 years...

Actually, considering how far we've come, I expect the next three years to "level off". I don't know if the feature and especially the speed improvements we've had from 10.0-10.3 can be matched. The better something gets, the harder it is to find areas for improvement/optimization.

That I am able to creak by reasonably well on my G3/450/384mb iMac is a testament to their good work so far.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Except the largest, you mean?

No, I mean what I wrote.

All the platforms I mentioned were proprietary like Apple. There was just one company that made them, that company made both the OS and hardware and that one company made all the marketing decisions for that platform. A contained, proprietary platform. Like every machine I mentioned.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Actually, considering how far we've come, I expect the next three years to "level off". I don't know if the feature and especially the speed improvements we've had from 10.0-10.3 can be matched. The better something gets, the harder it is to find areas for improvement/optimization.

That I am able to creak by reasonably well on my G3/450/384mb iMac is a testament to their good work so far.

Technically speaking, I think we need to realize that OS X may be three years old, but the underpinnings are decades old. "Building on the shoulders of giants" if you ask me.

I'm sure the "eye candy" is going to level off, but I bet Apple keeps up the "WOW" factor... The only way they are going to increase their market share (which doesn't matter to me) is by maintaining their current users while luring over the other 95%...

It's hard to sell computers when the only new things you have to talk about is cool new "Universal Access" features.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
What about Sun and SGI?

They are starting to offer Intel based systems, but I would say they are proprietary Hardware+Software platforms...

Then again, they are on their way out...

Ah good call! Sun still makes SunSpark processors right and they make the Solaris OS.

SGI I don't know much about.. I thought they had gone all Intel. But hey. SGI hasn't got much left I fear.

Then it'll be only Apple and Sun, but Sun aren't making personal computers.. so it is basically only Apple. The server and workstation companies lived because of the niche they were in - protected from the bloody battlefields of personal computers.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Ah good call! Sun still makes SunSpark processors right and they make the Solaris OS.

SGI I don't know much about.. I thought they had gone all Intel. But hey. SGI hasn't got much left I fear.

Then it'll be only Apple and Sun, but Sun aren't making personal computers.. so it is basically only Apple. The server and workstation companies lived because of the niche they were in - protected from the bloody battlefields of personal computers.

So many companies have millions invested in Sun that they aren't going to go anywhere, they will simply continue to shrink until they are all but gone. They have it even worse then Apple as Linux has come and given corporations many "free" options. Sure, Linux isn't Sun with regards the the operating system, but the days of one monster mainframe are all but over.

[::maroma::]

It just brings a huge grin to my face when I think about how successful OS X has been. I remember as 10.0 was nearing completion, all of the nay sayers (usually PC folk) saying it's just another Copland, vaporware, etc. And how OS X would be Apple's last ditch effort until it fades into oblivion. But now look at us. We have the coolest OS on the planet, hardware that's powerful and inspiring, and have nothing but good things to look forward to.

It's a great time to be a Mac user!

[sniffer]

Yep ^^

Part of the best is the growing acceptance in the rest of the industry and among the general IT crowd.

[edit: what's up with all my spelling errors to day..?]

[LaGow]

...Well, there is that Incredibly Shrinking Market Share problem to consider. Didn't Steve want to have 10% by now? OS X might be successful as a Mac OS, but it's hardly big news in the greater IT world.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by LaGow:
...Well, there is that Incredibly Shrinking Market Share problem to consider. Didn't Steve want to have 10% by now? OS X might be successful as a Mac OS, but it's hardly big news in the greater IT world.

Steve said he wanted to double Apple's market share over the next ten years.

[pliny]

Originally posted by LaGow:
. but it's hardly big news in the greater IT world.

What are you talking about?

[LaGow]

Originally posted by dtriska:
Steve said he wanted to double Apple's market share over the next ten years.

From what to what? Right now Apple is at 1.7% worldwide. Even if my 10% figure is wrong, market share figures are indicating the Mac's growing irrelevance. The market is speaking. Love my G5. Love OS X. But the overall market seems to be leaving Apple behind.

[LaGow]

Originally posted by pliny:
What are you talking about?

I'm saying that in spite of the grooviness of the Virginia Tech supercomputer, Apple doesn't seem to be gaining the mindshare in the IT world that will lead CTOs to recommend purchases of Macs. Please, PLEASE, prove me wrong here. Back it up with market share and sales figures. Or a few anecdotal recounts of large-scale corporate Mac purchases. I'll take anything...

[pliny]

Originally posted by LaGow:
I'm saying that in spite of the grooviness of the Virginia Tech supercomputer, Apple doesn't seem to be gaining the mindshare in the IT world that will lead CTOs to recommend purchases of Macs. Please, PLEASE, prove me wrong here. Back it up with market share and sales figures. Or a few anecdotal recounts of large-scale corporate Mac purchases. I'll take anything...

But you haven't provided any information beyond general statements, how can anyone refute something that hasn't been shown?

[LaGow]

I'm responding to this report from Forbes, quoting a Merrill-Lynch report that has Apple dipping down below 2%. This, coupled with continued Mac marginalization, leads me to the conclusion that in spite of our nifty new OS, things aren't really that great and we're pulling the wool over our collective eyes to believe so.

Look, I don't mean to derail the thread. Ars didn't talk about market share and all that stuff. The Mac OS is, I think, finally a great piece of work and really shines on my G5. But ultimately the reason Apple bought NeXt and OS X was developed in the first place was because having a modern, buzzword-compliant OS was going to "save" Apple.

Well, it's not doing that. Turns out the iPod is. The Mac's long decline, which began after 1995--its peak, when Apple had over 10% of the worldwide market share and was the number one computer maker on planet Earth--continues.

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by LaGow:
From what to what? Right now Apple is at 1.7% worldwide. Even if my 10% figure is wrong, market share figures are indicating the Mac's growing irrelevance. The market is speaking. Love my G5. Love OS X. But the overall market seems to be leaving Apple behind.

The "overall market" is vastly corporate purchases and hardware refreshes in such corporations. Apple is *never* going to get most of these places. In the *rest* of the market (home, education, government, small business) I expect Apple is doing just fine.

[pliny]

Originally posted by LaGow:

The Mac's long decline, which began after 1995--its peak, when Apple had over 10% of the worldwide market share and was the number one computer maker on planet Earth--continues. [/B]

Why do you bother to visit and post at a Mac only site then?

We long ago decided here that marketshare is not the only or even most useful determinant for which computer system to use.

Do you have any other points?

[OptimusG4]

Originally posted by LaGow:
I'm responding to this report from Forbes, quoting a Merrill-Lynch report that has Apple dipping down below 2%. This, coupled with continued Mac marginalization, leads me to the conclusion that in spite of our nifty new OS, things aren't really that great and we're pulling the wool over our collective eyes to believe so.

Look, I don't mean to derail the thread. Ars didn't talk about market share and all that stuff. The Mac OS is, I think, finally a great piece of work and really shines on my G5. But ultimately the reason Apple bought NeXt and OS X was developed in the first place was because having a modern, buzzword-compliant OS was going to "save" Apple.

Well, it's not doing that. Turns out the iPod is. The Mac's long decline, which began after 1995--its peak, when Apple had over 10% of the worldwide market share and was the number one computer maker on planet Earth--continues.

You do realize marketshare is as reliable as macosrumors.com right? Apple is the ONLY computer manufactor that makes and sells the computer and the OS. There are what, 20 different computer makers that use windows?

[Graymalkin]

I don't think most of the people using market share as a metric of Apple's health really understand market share. If you compare Apple's market share to that of their competitors 3% is actually really good. Dell an HP have obscene portions of the US market share with 28% and 19% respectively. That is about half of the US market just in those two companies. IBM trails at a distant third with 5% followed by Gateway with 3.5% and Apple with 3%. The PC industry's growth rate is around 15% while Apple's rate is about 12%. They're growing but overall losing market share. Does that marginalize Apple? No.

Large market share is not the only way for a company to be successful. It also doesn't seem as if Apple is losing market share from attrition to the platform, only from a lower growth rate than the industry mean. Ergo, Apple's business is booming but not as much as some other companies.

[LaGow]

Do you think Wall Street would agree? Is Apple's business booming because of the iPod or sales of PowerMacs?

Am I wrong to think that potential ISVs (and some of those existing) look at market share and refuse to develop for the platform based on that data?

[LaGow]

Why do you bother to visit and post at a Mac only site then?

I've been on the platform since I bought my IIcx in 1989, I've been a stock holder for years and I'm dismayed to watch Apple's personal computer market position dwindle to a fraction of what it was nine years ago. I'm very, very interested in how Apple does and I was looking for perspectives from people willing to actually think about some larger issues that may impact us all down the road. I'm more than willing to be persuaded. How much more valid a reason do I need to be here?

[pliny]

Originally posted by LaGow:
Do you think Wall Street would agree? Is Apple's business booming because of the iPod or sales of PowerMacs?

Am I wrong to think that potential ISVs (and some of those existing) look at market share and refuse to develop for the platform based on that data?

Really, are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

This issue of "OMG Apple's marketshare" has been beaten to death. Perhaps you should focus on the technology as a more useful gauge for comparison, particularly in this forum, which focuses on OS X technology and usage.

Do you have any points to discuss about Mac OS X technology vis a vis Windows or Linux or Solaris technology or implementations?

If you like Macs, use them. Whee. If you don't, don't use them. Whee. If you like the stock, buy it. Whee. If you don't, don't. Whee.

[LaGow]

Originally posted by pliny:
Really, are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

This issue of "OMG Apple's marketshare" has been beaten to death. Perhaps you should focus on the technology as a more useful gauge for comparison, particularly in this forum, which focuses on OS X technology and usage.

Do you have any points to discuss about Mac OS X technology vis a vis Windows or Linux or Solaris technology or implementations?

If you like Macs, use them. Whee. If you don't, don't use them. Whee. If you like the stock, buy it. Whee. If you don't, don't. Whee.

And if you don't like where the discussion is headed, ignore it. Whee.

[mrmister]

LaGow, people are simply tired of having this discussion. You're just late to the forum--a quick search with decent keywords over the last year should net you plenty of threads with people positing all major positions.

It is an important discussion--that's why people get fatigued from it.

[ervier]

I think marketshare is important, but a growing user base and a solid financial base is far more important. Aside from Apple, HP is doing interesting things, moving a little away from Microsoft. They are now going to sell Linux pc's worldwide. And the more unix-based computers are sold, the better it is for OSX. Although they won't sell big numbers, it is a sign of the times. Just like HP is going to sell the iPod. Although MS isn't sellign MP3-players yet, that too was a big move away from them in my eyes. And it was a good move!

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by LaGow:
...I'm dismayed to watch Apple's personal computer market position dwindle to a fraction of what it was nine years ago.

First, Apple's market share was higher in 1995 simply due to the fact a smaller percentage of people owned PCs. It wasn't until the PC buying boom of 1999/2000 that Apple's market share began to significantly decline. They weren't necessarily selling fewer computers but their competitors were selling quite a bit more. HP and Compaq had extremely strong sales through their retail contracts with Wal*Mart and Radio Shack respectively. Dell also made a huge push in the education sector which netted them scores of school district contracts, districts that previously had no desire to spend money on PCs.

The Apple of 1995 was also in horrible shape. They were selling computers hand over fist but didn't have the parts to actually build them. In June of '95 they had over $1 billion in back orders. In the winder of '95 they screwed the pooch by pushing their low-end Performas over the mid-range PowerMacs and failed to make a profit and actually posted a $68 million loss.

[LaGow]

If you look at my first post, I made a somewhat off-hand comment about market share and the Mac's perceived relevance in the greater IT world. I had no intention of hijacking this thread and turning it into a market share discussion. I didn't realize people were so sensitive about it and I regret getting carried away by the "moment." Plus, I didn't appreciate pliny's childish facetiousness when I was really being quite earnest and polite, I thought.

On the other hand, I think that even if unit sales are steady from 1995 (which I don't think they are, irrespective of Apple's lousy business model at the time), the fact that total PC ownership is growing while the Mac user base remains relatively stagnant is still explanation enough as to why OS X doesn't have the kind of mindshare among corporate IT needed to spur large-scale adoption of OS X. It's a killer that we're sitting so pretty with such a great OS that relatively few people really give a damn about. Perhaps that will work to our advantage: in time (he said, wishfully), the lemmings just may all jump over the cliff.

The problem with this whole branch of discussion is that whether we're bored of it or not, share of market is so bloody important and so very hard not to talk about in a general discussion of our favorite OS because it drives so very much. This subject seems like it's going to pop up like a bad penny every now in then because it's flat impossible to avoid. My opinion. I'll do that search now...

[pliny]

Originally posted by LaGow:
If you look at my first post, I made a somewhat off-hand comment about market share and the Mac's perceived relevance in the greater IT world. I had no intention of hijacking this thread and turning it into a market share discussion. I didn't realize people were so sensitive about it and I regret getting carried away by the "moment." Plus, I didn't appreciate pliny's childish facetiousness when I was really being quite earnest and polite, I thought.

Really, do you think any one buys this? You didn't try to make a point, which, by the way, has been made many times, in the appropriate forums, where the issue has been marketshare. You posted in a quite trollish way, which you continue to do.

As for people being sensitive about it, the issue is how might your emphasis on general marketshare statements illustrate or otherwise implicate specific technologies or implementations, particularly as they relate to OS X, a more fruitful and possibly informative discussion. Which by the way is the subject of the forum and thread.

The problem with this whole branch of discussion is that whether we're bored of it or not, share of market is so bloody important and so very hard not to talk about in a general discussion of our favorite OS because it drives so very much.

Again, there are other ways to compare OS's than marketshare, which, again, does not speak to direct points about implementations or technologies. Do you have any points to raise about competing technologies or about the history of OS X technologies and how they've changed/progressed?

This subject seems like it's going to pop up like a bad penny every now in then because it's flat impossible to avoid.

Really?

I'll do that search now...

Good idea, you will find several excellent specific discussions about it. Excluding many in this thread of course.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by LaGow:
And if you don't like where the discussion is headed, ignore it. Whee.

I think the point is that you're heading the discussion in a direction that's been done to death and set aside as irrelevant to anyone but stock holders, who suffer at the ignorant boneheadedness of Wall Street (according to which Apple died AT LEAST ten times since 1995 - which should tell you all you need to know about their reliability). Its pointless continuation drove many of us away from MacFixit years ago.

Might I suggest this refugium:
http://thalo.net/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=624...amp;f=88460365

Enjoy.

-s*

[off/lang]

Originally posted by LaGow:
On the other hand, I think that even if unit sales are steady from 1995 (which I don't think they are, irrespective of Apple's lousy business model at the time), the fact that total PC ownership is growing while the Mac user base remains relatively stagnant is still explanation enough as to why OS X doesn't have the kind of mindshare among corporate IT needed to spur large-scale adoption of OS X. It's a killer that we're sitting so pretty with such a great OS that relatively few people really give a damn about. Perhaps that will work to our advantage: in time (he said, wishfully), the lemmings just may all jump over the cliff.

From my experience, the people who have been switching to apple in the past three years, have done so because of OSX. Let's think of who these people are. I for one am a computer science major. I switched from Windows because I loved the perfect marriage between the command line and the GUI. When I started college (I'm a junior now), there were two CS majors in a class of 100 that I knew had a mac. Now, I look around and there are about eight of us (and the class size has dropped to 50). So of computer science majors at my school, I would say Apple has about a 16% market share. When you think of the people who have left the major included, Apple has at least an 8% market share (it may be higher--I haven't really kept in touch with many of the kids who left the major).

I, personally, have been such a loud cheerleader for apple since I switched, that many of my classmates who were in the "macintrash windows rulz" camp have became almost apologetic to me for not owning a Mac after time and time again it was easier for me to get my work done.

Now, since moving to OSX I have known a few users switch away from Apple as well. For the most part these were kids who grew up with Apple computers running OS7-9 and now that they're at college with there first generation iBooks they see their friends running KaZaa, etc and they talk their parents in to getting them a Dell. Is it a shame that they are leaving the platform? Maybe. Have I experienced more of them than people moving to the platform? No.

And the types of people moving to OSX are the computer leaders of their groups. They are the people who are trusted by others to make smart computer decisions.

I am saddened that Apples marketshare hasn't been growing at a significant rate. But I think the people who are switching are important people to have--they are the people who truly use their computers to get work done.

(Yes, this is all anecdotal, but this has been my personal experience.)

[Spheric Harlot]

More small anecdotal:

At least 7 PC-->Mac switchers in my circle of friends/acquaintances within the past two years (two within the last week). Four musicians, two journalists, and a university student.

None in the opposite direction.

-s*

[ervier]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
More small anecdotal:

At least 7 PC-->Mac switchers in my circle of friends/acquaintances within the past two years (two within the last week). Four musicians, two journalists, and a university student.

None in the opposite direction.

-s*

I switched in 2000 because of OSX. I was tired of Windows 98's instability, and this looked like the right mix of GUI and stability. Back in '97 when I bought a PC, a friend bought a Performa. I didn't really understand the system back then, thought it took too much control out of my hands. Strangely, when I switched, she switched to Windows , although I believe she now wants a Mac again.

[Macpilot]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
More small anecdotal:

At least 7 PC-->Mac switchers in my circle of friends/acquaintances within the past two years (two within the last week). Four musicians, two journalists, and a university student.

None in the opposite direction.

-s*

My circle too. 4 PC to Mac switchers, not including my family members. One of them, a G5 owner, recently told me the G5 was the BEST product he has ever purchased, not just computer-related. The others also rave about their new Macs & iPods. I would say OS X was the major reason.

[Hash]

Statistical data maybe wrong of course, since the anecdotal evidence is not backed up by real data..and something must be wrong. There are few valid points however:
1. Perhaps it is wrong to say that macs ever had significant share (eg 1995) - just the number of computers themselves was so small those days
2. Apple sales are rising but sales of rivals or PCs in general are rising faster

What if the trend will not be reversed? In few years...

If this trend will continue, Apple share will surely dip below 1% in few years maybe even next year (witness the trend - 5% three years ago, 3.5% last year and what, 1.7% now??)

It will remain profitable of course, after all, Apple has one of highest margins in computer industry. In few years its share then will fall to 0.5%, then to 0.3%, and so on. It still will sell more computers, but the rest of industry will outsell it.

If the trend is not reversed, the day will come when Macs become museum rarities, mostly unheard of and unseen.

Of course, Apple will be known as the leading producer of iPods, music and digital video software and the internet music sales giant (or monopoly). Final Cut Pro, iLife and Logic and so on will all be available for Windows. Computer hardware will become a side business for Apple and may be discontinued if sales of software and peripherals will bring in more money.. after all, Apple cares only about margins, doesnt it..

[nsxpower]

Hash,

Your picture of Apple's future is very grim. I certainly hope that it carries on and serves me for a long time. Statistics actually show that all PC manufacturers' sales have been decreased significantly in the last couple of years; general economic depression and Joe Sixpack does not need the latest and greatest Dell to do the same things his current Dell can do just fine.

Personally, I can see Apple's market share rising to about 10%. That is a reasonable number that can be achieved within two years with proper marketing provided Apple continues to produce great hardware / software. Also OS X has to remain free of Windows' featurettes like spyware, horrible UI descisions and viruses. Macs are free of all the rubbish that for some reason sticks itself in your toolbar and refuses to go away until you hunt down it registry entry and kill it. Another obstacle for Apple is OS 9 legacy. People still remember OS 9 as the face of a Macitosh and most don't like it. I often have a hard time convincing people that Macs are something entirely different now and are nothing like OS 9 ... better.

I use a Dell P4 2.4ghz running Win2K at work and dislike it with passion. The Dell runs for weeks (my last reboot was 28 days ago) so it is not a Windows stability issue. I absolutely hate Windows and how it handles even the simplest tasks. On the other hand, my PowerBook with OS X actually runs faster and it is a delight to use.
All my friends who have Dells have a lot of problems with them, its no longe funny to listen to their frustrations ... I am tired of telling people that I don't use Windows and can't help them with their problems.

I got two people to switch and they are absolutely delighted to have done so. Another friend of mine will switch with his next computer purchase, he is riding out his Compaq laptop and his next purchase will be a PowerBook. Another friend, after using my PowerBook and watching OS X do its magic (Import some photos from his camera (What drivers?) into iPhoto, export to album (BetterHTML Export), burn to CD and voila!) is now regretting buying a VIAO laptop, although a very nice one. Macs definatelly have an edge over Windows and Linux in terms of UI, ease of use, maintenance and lack of frustration. The problem is that people are not exposed to Macs in their workplace and everyday life, if they were they would see the light a lot sooner.

iPod is doing a great job of promoting "the Mac way of doing things" and it is working at a slowish pace in the US and Japan. In Europe Apple is not very well positioned and represented. No Apple stores, prices are superfluous compared to the US, very few stores carry Macs and Apple does not support European users very well (Sherlock, iTMS etc. are useless in Europe).

I need to go to bed, so let me finish this off. In terms of software OS X is the best desktop OS on the planet right now, but Windows has a stronghold on the desktop market and Linux is beginning to take off, especially with more technically adept people. Hardwarewise, Apple makes excellent machines that do a very good job ... but its expensive and has a lowish price to performance ratio when it comes to certain applications. Sony's VIAO line of laptops and desktops comes close to Apple's complete integration of hardware solutions, but it uses Windows and you have to be using everything Sony for it to work smoothly ... with Apple you can mix and match (peripherals, cameras, printers etc.).

My 2 euro cents worth.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by LaGow:
...Well, there is that Incredibly Shrinking Market Share problem to consider. Didn't Steve want to have 10% by now? OS X might be successful as a Mac OS, but it's hardly big news in the greater IT world.

Acceptance doesn't necisary say anything about markedshare. But regarding your argument OS X has only recently filled the frontpages in the corporate world and that's mainly because of the recently Panther, G5 and xserver G5. Among the general it-crowd I've seen some acceptance from a technical perspective from an early stage. People know for instance that OS X is a *nix platform, and connects that with standards, stability and security. I don't fully follow you on how you connect markeds share and acceptance at this stage. Parhaps you can elaborate?

[JLL]

Originally posted by Hash:
2. Apple sales are rising but sales of rivals or PCs in general are rising faster

What if the trend will not be reversed? In few years...

If this trend will continue, Apple share will surely dip below 1% in few years maybe even next year (witness the trend - 5% three years ago, 3.5% last year and what, 1.7% now??)

It will remain profitable of course, after all, Apple has one of highest margins in computer industry. In few years its share then will fall to 0.5%, then to 0.3%, and so on. It still will sell more computers, but the rest of industry will outsell it.

If the trend is not reversed, the day will come when Macs become museum rarities, mostly unheard of and unseen.

Why? If Apple continues to sell more and more Macs and if .3% of the market means 100 million Mac users, wouldn't it still be profitable for soft- and hardware makers to have Mac compatible products?

The problem these last couple of years are that people seem to focus on the current share of newly sold computers instead of focusing on the total amount of Macs out there.

[Hash]

To increase the current Mac market share up to 10%, sales of macs must increase 2-4 times. I will be glad if they do, but doing so will require significant changes in Apple hardware line, as we all know, that powermacs are not selling at that increased rate, yet sales of imacs falling and so on.

There is nothing wrong to be focused on sales of new computers rather than the installed line. The installed base market share is a good indicator of total market share, yet the current share shows the ratio of current sales and so both are inherently linked. Fall in current market share will lead to fall in installed market share, and opposite. While macs have larger installed market share than current market share, falling current market share will decrease its total market share. Do not fool yourself.

Is the .3% marketshare is OK? On the one hand, if you are willing to pay low market share premium, you will be satisfied and Apple will have profits. There will be such premium, because of economies of scale low market share always means higher production costs, both for peripherals, software and hardware. So, if you continue to pay high costs, everyone will be satisfied, inclduing Apple. But for how long this will continue?

Do not forget that Macs are under double pressure - high market share of Windows and related lower costs of PCs, and FREE prices of linux software and its low prices (because it uses PC components). As you can see, the pressure is mainly on price - linux is free, PC are cheap, but Mac OS X still have an advantage of easy usage and nice GUI.

Now imagine that Linux will eventually progress and have better GUI. The combination of cheap hardware and free software is unstoppable from a market point of view. I doubt that even MS can hold on. What will happen to Macs, which have higher hardware and software prices, when differences in GUI will become negligible? Collapse of Mac platform because it was proprietary, costly and pricey, though it had best OS and nice GUI.

Increasing market share is the only way to go in the battle. Doing so will lower hardware and peripherals costs, and with many iApps free, Macs still will retain some competititve edge. But not doing so will spell end to the platform.

BTW 0.3% equal to 100 million users implies that 1% is 330 million and total Earth population is 33 billion people. 

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Hash:
There is nothing wrong to be focused on sales of new computers rather than the installed line. The installed base market share is a good indicator of total market share, yet the current share shows the ratio of current sales and so both are inherently linked. Fall in current market share will lead to fall in installed market share, and opposite. While macs have larger installed market share than current market share, falling current market share will decrease its total market share. Do not fool yourself.

OTOH, a Mac's useful lifetime is typically two to three times that of a PC. If you figure that in, the installed market share becomes FAR more important in relation to current sales market share. Nobody is fooling themselves.

You're not fooling us, either.

-s*

[LaGow]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Acceptance doesn't necisary say anything about markedshare. But regarding your argument OS X has only recently filled the frontpages in the corporate world and that's mainly because of the recently Panther, G5 and xserver G5. Among the general it-crowd I've seen some acceptance from a technical perspective from an early stage. People know for instance that OS X is a *nix platform, and connects that with standards, stability and security. I don't fully follow you on how you connect markeds share and acceptance at this stage. Parhaps you can elaborate?

Argument based on the idea that mindshare=sales. While IT pros may be peripherally aware of the Mac, they need to love it, squeeze it and take it home (as they do their precious PCs) to actually start recommending large-scale purchases.

I'm encouraged by the switching anectdotes, but it's a trickle when the avalanche is still going the other way. My entire school district dumped Macs over the last two years because they couldn't find any cheap labor (i.e.kids) to service the Macs and they took a little poll around the office and found that everybody had PCs at home. They about laughed me out of a PTA meeting when I started talking about the Mac's ROI and total cost of ownership, software availability, yadda, yadda.

[Hash]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
OTOH, a Mac's useful lifetime is typically two to three times that of a PC. If you figure that in, the installed market share becomes FAR more important in relation to current sales market share. Nobody is fooling themselves.

You're not fooling us, either.

-s*

OK, this will increase the estimate to 8-12% maximum *as was already mentioned today in press, though I find those estimations to be approximate at best. It is much better than 1.7% of newly sold machines, but still situation will inevitably worsen if the newly sold machines' share will continue to slide and, yes, the installed market share of 8% WILL fall to 1.7% if the current sales share will stay same at 1.7% or lower. It is just matter of time.

Now, I dont think that Apple can afford to stay with 0.3% happy even the absolute number of users will increase, say to 30 million or whatever. The reason is that RD costs are rising as well and thats why the current absolute number of users is becoming too thin to support the platform growth (R and D is essential for platform growth). Adobe is pulling out exactly of that reason, you can find that in todays news: the small market doesnot support development of new products (though Adobe is to blame too for that, but still you get the picture).

From business point of view, market share or number of products sold is essential. If sales growth of a product is lower than sales of the industry as a whole, something wrong with the product. Period.


If you look at markets, Apple is doing very bad internationally, especially in developing markets. And it goes without saying, that in developing countries price matters most. People who live on 100$ per month cannot afford 1600$ to have fun with Mac edition of UT2004. But if they have to have a computer, they can save for 300$ PC, with or without OS. Apple also doing bad in developed countries, Europe and Japan, and the reason again is exorbitant prices, strange exchange rate coefficients, always overpricing their products and so on.

[LaGow]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
OTOH, a Mac's useful lifetime is typically two to three times that of a PC. If you figure that in, the installed market share becomes FAR more important in relation to current sales market share. Nobody is fooling themselves.

You're not fooling us, either.

-s*

Nobody cares.

Really. I've yet to hear, in all my years in my industry, anyone make that argument successfully, as correct as it may be.

I've since come to the conclusion that IT purchases are not made with any kind of real business/financial logic in mind. They're made because a) people look at short-term capital budgets and don't think beyond the next quarter; b) IT pros want to keep their jobs (easier systems=less maintenance=fewer IT jobs); and c) it's what they have at home.

I think the useful lifetime argument makes more sense for a home user which unfortunately, as has been borne out over the last several years, is not the market that will help Apple grow their personal computer market share over the long term. Does anyone know of any data that indicates how many original iMac owners stayed on the platform? Might be enlightening if Apple or Dataquest or whoever tracked it.

[lookmark]

I don't buy the argument that IT people are prejudiced against Macs because they're just sooooo easy to use it'll be them out of jobs. There's *plenty* of maintenance and administrating to do with a network of Macs. Sure, it's probably less work than Windows, but it's not like you put together a network of hundreds of Macs and then all of IT gets fired.

Ignorance (willful or not) about Macs is however a huge problem. I've observed an astonishing amount of ignorance about Macs -- and even OS X -- among supposedly technical people. This is beginning to change as OS X matures and Linux is becoming an increasingly adequate desktop platform, but it's still got a long way to go.

Hopefully OS X (and its increasing popularity, even love, in geeky circles) will begin to make a difference in this area.

Exchange support reverse-engineered into Mail in 10.4 wouldn't hurt either.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by lookmark:
I don't buy the argument that IT people are prejudiced against Macs because they're just sooooo easy to use it'll be them out of jobs.

Well, easy isn't quite it. Less problematic! That's where it lies. I don't think it is the main factor but certainly contributing. Another important factor is education, or rather the lack of it. MS engineers know only MS and are quite fine with that. Why bother to learn a bunch of platforms. Just a nuisance. The last factor is MS bribes, offering IT chiefs and key personnel to nice conventions, dinners, offer free software with windows, offer free servers with MS server solutions or just muscle their way in (buying out competition or just BUYING the competition!)