[oVeRmInD911]

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

Isn't reverse-engineering considered terrorism or somesuch nowadays?

If so, then it WOULD hurt... pretty bad.

[oVeRmInD911]

Here's my Mac story:

I've got this movie-maker friend. In the past, he has edited his movies using two VCRs. I told him about digital video, and showed him my iMac with iMovie. He was interested in it, but his dad didn't trust the Mac () so they ended up getting a Sony VAIO (really nice PC IMO) for his digital video needs.

About six months later, he can't figure out how to do the movie making in Windows, so I go over to help him, and wow, talk about a crappy interface. His computer was bundled with this really bad "MovieShaker" or something. Looked like someone was really desperately trying to copy iMovie, and well, they failed pretty miserably. Anyway, he had a movie he needed editing, so he asked if he could use my 3 year old iMac to edit it. A 3 year old 500MHz G3 vs. a 6 month old 2.4GHz Pentium 4!

We did edit the movie on my computer (30GB hard drive, very painful to do DV on it), and he is VERY impressed with how easy it is to use iMovie. He's looking to sell off his VAIO now, and get a Powerbook or maybe a G5.

I don't think he'll miss his constant porn popups either. I wonder if his dad "trusts" that, eh?

[LaGow]

One of the problems we have is that it almost doesn't matter if any of the arguments we're giving are true or not. What matters is perception.

Is lack of market share going to hurt Apple in the long run? Regardless of how one interprets market share data, it will if enough people--the people who make purchasing decisions and software development decisions and OS suport decisions--believe it will. Perception is, once again, reality.

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by Hash:

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.

It is interesting you mention Europe's sales negatively considering last year Apple did extremely well in Europe. They also did quite well in Japan with a growth rate above the general PC market average. Vis a vis, your claims are entirely bogus. I also cannot fathom why you would bring into the debate families making $100 a month. Their primary concern is not likely to be what kind of computer they are going to buy. I would think making $100 a month would cause one to think more about where the next meal was coming from. No PC manufacturer is going to cater to the $100 a month crowd, there is no money to be made in such a market because software and services will never be purchased legitimately. People in such places if they have a PC are going to head down to the local flea market in search of the latest CD-R copy of popular software.

[Hash]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
It is interesting you mention Europe's sales negatively considering last year Apple did extremely well in Europe. They also did quite well in Japan with a growth rate above the general PC market average. Vis a vis, your claims are entirely bogus. I also cannot fathom why you would bring into the debate families making $100 a month. Their primary concern is not likely to be what kind of computer they are going to buy. I would think making $100 a month would cause one to think more about where the next meal was coming from. No PC manufacturer is going to cater to the $100 a month crowd, there is no money to be made in such a market because software and services will never be purchased legitimately. People in such places if they have a PC are going to head down to the local flea market in search of the latest CD-R copy of popular software.

I would like to see some figure documenting that phenomenal growth of Apple presense in Europe and Japan. As far as I know, only iBook G4 800 was constantly a good seller in Japan (a top 5 notebook), but I did not have any figures on European sales, on the contrary, i heard many complaints about Apple Europe.

About manufacturers catering to 100$ a month crowd: check to latest desktops and notebooks from such big name makers as HP, with preinstalled linux OS for Thai market - a decent 500$ notebook. And families with 100$ a month may buy computers, why not.

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by LaGow:

Is lack of market share going to hurt Apple in the long run? Regardless of how one interprets market share data, it will if enough people--the people who make purchasing decisions and software development decisions and OS suport decisions--believe it will. Perception is, once again, reality.

You've entirely lost the argument over market share interpretation and so now you're preaching to the choir about perception. You really need to find another hobby. Many of us do quite a bit to alter people's oft false perceptions about Macs. I've shown quite a few people that I can indeed open Office documents and connect to the internet with my Mac just as they can with their Windows based PC. You unfortunately choose to ignore anecdotal evidense that Macs are making headway in the IT world at large.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
You've entirely lost the argument over market share interpretation and so now you're preaching to the choir about perception. You really need to find another hobby. Many of us do quite a bit to alter people's oft false perceptions about Macs. I've shown quite a few people that I can indeed open Office documents and connect to the internet with my Mac just as they can with their Windows based PC. You unfortunately choose to ignore anecdotal evidense that Macs are making headway in the IT world at large.

I agree with you graymalkin.

The line of reasoning has totally degenerated to (1) you may say this or that about the market numbers, but that doesn't matter, because what matters is not the numbers or the examples provided, but the perception, a word which is then italicized or bolded as if to make it more useful, and which then allows for any statement whatsoever about any topic on earth; and (2) families who make $100 per month want to buy computers too so Apple should lower their prices to sell to them.

My perception is that despite whatever the poster is really trying to say, what is in fact being posted is rather silly.

[xe0]

Hash, LaGow.. life is too precious to be as pessimistic as you two are being.
Please stop looking down the tack and speculating negative situations. Its really bad for your character.

back to the subject matter-

imo- I see OSX and Linux rising to the dominant platform. Linux being free will probably take over windows as far as the corporate scene is concerned, due mainly to price but also security and its powerful heritage. Linux isn't poised to do this anytime soon, but at its current pace of refinement its only a matter of time. The recent moves by Sun, IBM and now HP signal this trend. Not only that, but internationally- nations like china are pushing Linux very hard.
This will really be of major benefit to OSX as they are both are Unix variants, and therefore share a level of compatibility.

Being predominantly a hardware manufacturer, Apple has played its cards very intelligently with OSX - and is set to benefit massively from the impending boom of Linux.

Just think about it

[Hash]

What you fail to see is that computers and software are increasingly viewed as commodities, where the difference between platforms and GUI is increasingly becoming meaningless, and where the usual business decisions based on price are more and more influential. Desktop prices are falling to incredibly low price range, beginning from 299$ and OS and related software is increasingly becoming cheap, witness free linux OS or other GNU products. Windows market is now cracked by the price invasion and my point is that the time will come when the price pressure from Windows platform will be complemented by price pressure from open source. 100$ a month families are reality in developing world, and if you do not know about that, you may consider that 4/5 of Earth population are living in that world, but it is also a computer market - not for high end, but still - and in the 4/5 of the world the decision to buy a computer is made PURELY based on cost consideration. The growth of PC sales increasingly comes from the developing world and that where macs fare worst. So given that mac sales in US and the rest of developing world are stable and the market share is stable, growth of PC sales in emerging markets will reduce global Mac share. I think that the point is made clear and the question is not whether 100$ a month families should buy or not PC - thats their decision - but that cost now matters much more for sales than before. And I repeat that even in US if powermacs sales growth rates lagged behind the growth rates of PC sales in general, there is something wrong - not with the market, but with the product, which is lagging. Given that in terms of OS and GUI macs are prettier, the only remaining possible factor is cost.

For Graymalkin - I have yet to see any figures from you documenting the phenomenal growth of Apple in Europe and Japan, let me remind you.

And the small market share is very bad for any platform or networked product market. Look how bad Xbox trails Playstation in spite of being technically superior, cheaper and so on - but the inertia of Playstation market share is continuing, it carries on in terms of better games and so on, despite any MS efforts which is actually LOSING money on the xBox hardware.

Macs will be overtaken by linux - for sure- and when linux will sport same lickable GUI as OS X AND same ease of use - can you tell the difference? And if you cannot, then purely cost factor will matter. And you cannot compete with free OS, running on cheapest hardware with the one of most expensive consumer computers with OS, which annual upgrades alone require 129$.

It takes a little effort to see things beyond your nose and the Cinema Display. We are talking about few years perspective. We already established that market share matters and Apple market share is not increasing, to say at least, and with emergence of, well, emerging markets where costs play decisive role, global market share of Apple will inevitably fall.

There are a few possible decisions: one is to concentrate on US market share and to try to increase US market share - which is a good thing and which WILL CHANGE perceptions - and perceptions of the platform are important. Apple is already doing that, opening a lot of Apple Stores in US, leaving for a time being rest of the world - or concentrating sales of hot products to US market, like miniPods. US market matter a lot, so it is understandable. European and Japanese markets are not completely forgotten, with AppleStore opening in Japan, with plans for London, Canada and perhaps Paris. If US market share increases, you dont have to worry about the rest of the world, cause the perception of falling market share (which is true for global market) will be dominated by perception of rising market share (although for US only). Still a good thing.

This is equal to leaving developing markets to linux, where linux will beat crap out of windows - witness linux in Eastern Asia, where China, Japan and Korea are cooperating on building specific Asian linux version. Once it will be completed, you can forget about Windows presence there. I would say, perhaps a wise decision. Apple cannot compete by cost, for example in China, where now most of computer parts manufacturing is moving and you assemble any PC for incredibly low prices.

But it still have to increase its market share in Europe and US. This is very difficult with the present Apple prices. And it will become more and more difficult if the current market will fall further. So i am hoping for a radical new approach to hardware concepts and forgetting that crap about BMW - you WILL forget about BMW if the Hyundai will look and behave exactly like BMW but cost 1/10 of it.

[hudson1]

At the severe risk of prolonging this thread, I have to jump in to say that everyone should stop shooting LaGow and Hash for what they're saying. They are both Mac users, Mac advocates, and speaking their mind. Why should they be attacked for that?

I've been using Macs for about 16 years myself. I'm forced to use a Win 2K machine at work and I think it's awful by comparison. However, I can hardly think of anyone that I know who has dumped their PC for a Mac. I know of several people who had dumped a Mac for a new PC. So, unfortunately, that's my anecdotal evidence.

Technological superiority is not the ultimate driver, apparently. If it was, Mozilla and Firefox would dominate the PC browser market. Inertia is the real driver. IT departments, particularly in large corporations, have built massive systems and even custom internal applications all around Windows. There's no evidence that they're about to dismantle that several year effort to take advantage of what's now viewed as a niche platform. Heck, most of these corporation IT folks don't know a thing about Linux nor do they care that they don't. OpenOffice? "We're keeping an eye on it but it doesn't seem to do everything the way we need it to." Whatever that means.

The market share issue is a real concern and I don't think it should be carelessly dismissed. Some have brought up that Apple is no smaller than many PC makers. True, but the smallest possible market share belongs to the guy who builds his own custom box. His market size is "one" but that doesn't prevent him from using a modern version of FrameMaker which you and I can't use on our Macs. And if Gateway were to go out of business tomorrow would that really matter to anyone who already owns a Gateway machine? I suspect it would matter very little beyond warrantee issues. The PC makers are really nothing more than just component assemblers. What makes the whole dang thing work is the ugly, insecure, sometimes unintelligible, and always non-intuitive OS that also happens to have 90+% share of the desktop/laptop OS market. That's all that matters to most people.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by Hash:
What you fail to see is that computers and software are increasingly viewed as commodities...

Sorry, but this line of argument is just silly.

Apple doesn't compete in the ultralow cost category, where the margins are razor-thin and very few companies make any money. Nor can it... without completely sacrificing its reputation for design and quality.

Now of course Apple needs to get their consumer desktops lower-priced... the iMac, with its relatively expensive components, currently being the most egregiously overpriced example. But thinking that Apple has to somehow attempt to compete against $299 white-box manufacturers (in developing countries, no less) in order to "drive up market share" makes zero sense. It won't happen. They can't do it.

The spread of a non-MS OS around the world a good thing. Let Linux bloom, and the message will slowly begin to sink in that Windows is not the only option. (And GNOME and KDE are still not close to OS X, which moves ahead at a sprint of its own.) When people have a little disposable income to yearn for something a little better, the Mac will be there as an viable alternative.

[Hash]

Originally posted by lookmark:
Sorry, but this line of argument is just silly.

Apple doesn't compete in the ultralow cost category, where the margins are razor-thin and very few companies make any money. Nor can it... without completely sacrificing its reputation for design and quality.

Now of course Apple needs to get their consumer desktops lower-priced... the iMac, with its relatively expensive components, currently being the most egregiously overpriced example. But thinking that Apple has to somehow attempt to compete against $299 white-box manufacturers (in developing countries, no less) in order to "drive up market share" makes zero sense. It won't happen. They can't do it.

The spread of a non-MS OS around the world a good thing. Let Linux bloom, and the message will slowly begin to sink in that Windows is not the only option. (And GNOME and KDE are still not close to OS X, which moves ahead at a sprint of its own.) When people have a little disposable income to yearn for something a little better, the Mac will be there as an viable alternative.

would you read my post carefully before "replying" to it. I am not talking about competition in developing market. And, yes, 299$ white boxes are commodities, not holy grails.

[lookmark]

Ah, I read your post more carefully. My apologies. A little dark, perhaps, but everything you said makes sense to me; I agree.

What kind of "radical new approach" to hardware can Apple introduce, though...?

[JLL]

Originally posted by hudson1:
His market size is "one" but that doesn't prevent him from using a modern version of FrameMaker which you and I can't use on our Macs.

FrameMaker 7 runs just fine on a Mac.

[Hash]

Originally posted by lookmark:
Ah, I read your post more carefully. My apologies. A little dark, perhaps, but everything you said makes sense to me; I agree.

What kind of "radical new approach" to hardware can Apple introduce, though...?

I am thinking about how it would be if Apple introduced some kind of corporate line in addition to its Pro and consumer lines
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=206477

[hudson1]

Originally posted by JLL:
FrameMaker 7 runs just fine on a Mac.

By modern I meant OS X native which I think is a pretty fair definition. Regardless, the point was to show that "market share" for individual PC makers is inconsequential considering that you can build your own PC box and still run most applications.

[LaGow]

Originally posted by hudson1:
At the severe risk of prolonging this thread, I have to jump in to say that everyone should stop shooting LaGow and Hash for what they're saying. They are both Mac users, Mac advocates, and speaking their mind. Why should they be attacked for that?

People attack what threatens them. We all have these investments, both monetarily and, to a degree (because this is Apple we're talking about) emotionally, in our hardware. It's very hard to accept the idea that Apple may be, very, very slowly, losing the battle in a very competitive market. I'm not sure I'm even ready to accept that! And the future is hard to predict.

But from my point of view most of the so-called arguments explaining away Apple's market share problem are rationalizations. Even Apple admits it's a potential problem going forward in their Annual Report (page 47). Both Apple's market share erosion and the perception of it are interconnected. No "argument" has been "lost."

Now if people really wanted to attack my position, I think its weak point is, "So whattta you gonna do about it?"

That's where I totally fall down. I have no idea. Obviously, having personally bought six or seven Macs over the years, converting an entire publishing company from a proprietary typesetting system to the Mac early in my career and switching an ad agency from PC to Mac when I was named art director a few years back, not to mention spending additional tens of thousands of dollars both personally and in various job capacities over the years in software and peripherals hasn't been enough.

Maybe, as some here suggest, there's nothing to worry about. That strikes me as denial. But I'm damned if I know what to do, although the idea above about introducing a whole corporate Mac line sounds as good as any, for all I know.

[dfiler]

Noticeably absent from this discussion is the notion of software marketshare. Marketshare and installed base have the greatest influence on the likelyhood of software being ported to a particular platform. They also affect the likelyhood of drivers (when neccessary) being written for a particular platform.

As long as the CPU manufacturer of a platform (apple) is profitable, they will continue to produce and sell computers. CPU installed base or marketshare is relatively meaningless to third party software and hardware providers. What really matters is the platform's share of the software and peripherals markets.

Even if we could get accurate CPU marketshare and installed base numbers... they are a red herring.

[dru]

Originally posted by LaGow:
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.

You go on to say it's not doing that. That is totally false. The Copland disaster cost massive good will with developers. Thankfully, Mac OS X has stablized development issues with Carbon, Cocoa and so forth. If Apple had no been able to put forth a 'buzzword-compliant' OS, no one would look at them: not users, not developers because the market began to value OS stability. Apple had to meet that market demand and they finally did. Honestly, they're better off with Mac OS X than had they shipped Copland since IT folks and geeks can respect the UNIX underpinings and, honestly, NeXT's object tech had respect besides. The Copland strategy was severe lock-in to non-standard techs. With the boom of Linux, at least a portion of that can be leveraged by the Mac market whereas it *never* could've happened with Copland (or BeOS, regardless of its partial POSIX compliance).

Mac OS X has clearly stopped the bleeding and gotten the buzz back on the Apple tech and with the G5, there's not the hit on the machines being well behind. All of these are foundations for a good future.

Marketshare, as has been pointed out to death, is not the end-all. Apple is not and has never been a volume but a margins company. They see themselves as elite in a cookie-cutter market. They're profitable and have virtually stayed so despite the massive tech downturn which has put Gateway (wish similar PC-based marketshare) on the ropes (closing all retail stores, 2500 jobs cut, moving its HQ). Apple's expanding their retail space although I hear rumors they might close a store or two.

Apple's fear comes in needing to continue to keep consumers interested in their Mac platform. iPod, iApps and at times industrial design have done that. There other fear is keeping ISV's happy. Microsoft is playing games (IE, lame Carbon ports), Adobe is making noise and axing poor apps while blaming Apple competition. Keep in mind it was these companies who demanded Apple even create Carbon to begin with--nevermind Adobe refusing to license Display Postscript forcing Apple to develop Quartz, all thus helping delay Mac OS X. It's a difficult case to walk the political line between making sure the Mac platform is attractive (iApps, Final Cut Pro) and offending your largest and most important ISVs. Sadly, Apple can't woo competitors since these guys have all but locked up the market on Windows as well--Corel barely stays afloat, Lotus--outside Notes & Domino--is meaningless.

Adobe probably should've been prohibited from aquiring Aldus and Frame much like Microsoft was prevented from aquiring Quicken. The market as a whole isn't healthy and you can't innovate based on marketshare, you need *profit* to pay for R&D.

Apple's in a good position but they can't rest.

[dfiler]

Excellent post dru.

I had not thought of the future of Carbon being tied to MS, Adobe, (and quark). Carbon certainly isn't going away anytime soon but I'm still curious how the loss of one or two of these major developers would play out.

You're spot on with your analysis of the OS X transition. It has turned out way better than I how I envisioned copland's introduction. It truly is the holy grail, what OS vendors were trying to pull off for decades. An OS with stable and mature underpinnings yet with a top of the line GUI. Add to this the fact that we bennefit from the open source movement and have arguably one of the most sophisticated dev environments.

OS X has really raised the bar for what people expect from an operating system. It ensures that our favorite underdog (apple) will be competative for years to come.

<-- rose colored glasses?

[drjoe]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
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.

But what absolutly floors me is my home file/print/web server. It is an 8500 updated with a 450 MHz G3 and carrying 528 MB of ram. It runs, thanks to XPostFacto, OSX 10.2.8 and has never given me a burp or a hiccough. At perfectly acceptable speeds for what it is called on to do.. I bought it in 1985. I can think f no better advertisement for the benefits of 'proprietary' platforms.

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by dfiler:

OS X has really raised the bar for what people expect from an operating system.

Excellent point. Since Jaguar's introduction I think OSX has really become the contender to beat with regards to user experience. Windows XP despite the hype turned out to be a Windows 2000 with a more GUI default and more hand-holding *cough* task-based interface. Longhorn is shaping up to be more of the same, instead of making the system easier to use and maintain Microsoft has decided to guide people through convoluted processes.

Many Linux developers are looking to OSX as something to emulate. Apple did with OSX what numerous Linux developers and distributors have been trying to do for years, bring Unix to the non-technical desktop. Copying the Windows' look and feel might make nacent users feel a little more comfortable but it isn't quite the most useful a GUI can be. While the strong underpinnings already exist in Linux there is still quite a bit to be hashed out with regards to user interface. The look of a system is only part of the equation, it also needs to be consistant and predictable.

[dru]

Originally posted by LaGow:
Even Apple admits it's a potential problem going forward in their Annual Report (page 47). Both Apple's market share erosion and the perception of it are interconnected. No "argument" has been "lost."

They have to disclose that. Doesn't make it serious in the big picture but they're required by law to make such statements. It means virtually nothing in terms of this discussion.

It's clear that there are mitigating factors like profitability, R&D investment, brand equity and so forth which outweigh their raw marketshare numbers.

Marketshare matters but it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by 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.

adding to that, more PCs are being sold becuase they break and become obsolete more quickly than Macs. POS PC for 2 years or a Mac for 4? That's the choice a consumer has to make.