[olePigeon]

Apple was recently listed as the number 5 PC vendor with "only" 3.2% of the marketshare. Yet they beat Sony, Gateway, Acer, Toshiba, and many others.

Puts a better perspective on where Apple stands.

[stefls]

But then, Apple showed no growth (0,2% schrink to be exact) last year whilst total pc sales went up 10,8%...

http://www.macnn.com/news/22955

Not so good.

[Twilly Spree]

They must grow with the market or else we might be looking at the Dark Ages of the Macintosh again (the early 90s)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
They must grow with the market or else we might be looking at the Dark Ages of the Macintosh again (the early 90s)

This is what people don't seem to understand. Marketshare isn't a good indication of how Apple is doing, but it is a good indication of where Apple is going. If they can't grow with the market, then sooner or later they are going to cease to be profitable again, and I doubt even Jobs will be able to save them if they fall into that kind of a slump again.

But we'll stay like this, as long as Apple's business model continues to depend on high margins (Apple's margins have always been the highest in the industry, by a factor most would consider ridiculous) rather than high volume.

Don't forget; there was a point not so long ago where with only slightly higher marketshare than this, Apple was the #1 computer vendor. At #5, we are slipping, and badly.

[mitchell_pgh]

Apple hardware is still too expensive to get in to the hands of many buyers. I've been in a situation where my family where they want computers, but even the low end eMac is too much computer for them and the expense is too high (They would be fine with a slightly slower G4, but I'm not going to buy used). The least expensive mac is currently the eMac with a price of $799 (USD). Apple needs to break in to the $599 computer business with a headless eMac. The trick is, they need to bring people over to the Mac with this system and >>NOT<< downgrade people that were going to buy an iMac and eMac.

It's a very fine line when dealing with very inexpensive computers. You are talking about razor thin margins.

That being said, we are dealing with the following type of configurations from Dell:

Dimension 2400
Pentium� 4 Processor at 2.40GHz with 533MHz front side bus
17 in (16.0 in v.i.s., .27dp)E773c Monitor
$499 - (After $100 Mail-In Rebate)

I'm not saying the quality or styling of Dell is anywhere near that of Apple or that the two configurations (a low end Dell vs. a eMac even compare) but if I only have $500 to spend on a computer, a Mac isn't even an option unless I buy used.

CASE AND POINT
My girlfriend is in Grad School. She needed a computer to write papers, surf the web and send email. We had three options. (remember, I'm a mac addict)

1) Buy a new Windows based computer
2) Buy a new Mac
3) Buy a used Mac

I wasn't about to put money in to the pockets of Bill Gates and Co. so option 1 was out. I wasn't about to buy her a $800 - $1000 computer for writing papers, surfing the web and emailing, so I picked up a used Mac.

IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OPTION TO PICK UP A HEADLESS $600 eMac, I would have done so. I would have purchased it and then used a nice 20" CRT that I have lying around.

It's frustrating when suggesting a mac to people with little or no money!

[osiris]

mitchell_pgh's example is classic.

More marketshare could be obtained if the darn things were cheaper. The headless Mac idea would generate a huge conversion of PC users.

Then we get more marketshare, more programs and games, and Apple makes more money!

[Eug Wanker]

eMachines beat Apple for market share in the last quarter (US).