26 Jan 2004 | mikes said...

the mac was ill timed and ill marketed. windows won on a technicality... we would all be using macs if things had gone slightly different back in the day.

26 Jan 2004 | 8500 said...

Is there even a difference between Macs and PCs anymore? I use both daily and I have just as many problems with each of them. OS fanatics are blind.

26 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I think Apple's share of the PC market is actually quite a bit less than 5 percent now; I read somewhere today that it's more like 2.5 or 3 percent, but can't find the reference now.

I can understand why so many people (especially investors) focus on Apple's market share, but it's not all that relevant. Apple's pretty healthy, and I bet you could easily find other successful companies that command only a 1 or 2 percent share of their market. Even if Apple's share of the market continues to decline, it's not going to jeopardize the company's future. Apple would probably still be healthy if it had 0.5 percent of the market, because the market for personal computers and the other things that Apple makes is so big.

26 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Ah, I found the reference:

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2004/tc20040126_9608_tc055.htm

Preliminary estimate of Apple's market share in the last quarter of 2003 is 1.8 percent.

26 Jan 2004 | JF said...

Wasn't a 1% marketshare considered HUGE in the dot-com boom days? I can't tell you how many people I heard say... "If we could just capture 1% of this multi-billion dollar market..."

26 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Regarding Apple's financial health, they're going to be completely debt-free in the second quarter and they'll still have at least $4.5 billion in cash reserves. How many businesses can say that?

26 Jan 2004 | pb said...

Those market-share numbers are kind of dumb. A huge number of PCs are nearly irrelevant considering that they just sit on corporate desk-tops mimicking typewriters. I think if you try to get to a marketshare number that compares similar customer groups, the Mac fares much better.

Also, the BMW comparison is warranted. BMW and its customers happy enough at that share of market.

Also, the small share becomes an advantage in many circumstances. It's easier to roll out a new microprocessor, operating system, music platform, etc. Having a closed system helps even more.

The market share question is so non-interesting, it's amazing it still has any resonance at all.

26 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

PB: It has resonance for the same reason that the megahertz myth persists—it takes some mental effort to distinguish the nuance.

27 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

At the critical juncture in the late 80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre.

Highly ironic to hear Steve Jobs make that sort of comment. He was the architect of Apple's committment to making both the OS and the hardware and maintaining strict control over both. Apple was offered many opportunities to license the Mac OS, long before Windows 3.1, and had they done so the market share numbers would probably be pretty much opposite of what they are today.

Steve Jobs can try to rewrite history, but he's as responsible as anyone for Mac's low market share.

27 Jan 2004 | peanut gallery said...

Regarding Apple's financial health, they're going to be completely debt-free in the second quarter and they'll still have at least $4.5 billion in cash reserves.

just wondering how much of this financial health is directly related to the funds microsoft invested into them...

on another note, the best doesn't always win. apple definately has a better product. but how many people in this country shop at saks and how many at walmart? hmmm.

27 Jan 2004 | rabbit said...

Long time lurker here...

IMHO, Apple has relegated themselves to a niche market. Niche markets aren't all bad - but unless they change how they do things, they'll always be a niche market.

re: apple is the better product.

That's debatable. Highly debatable. This is especially true when you bring price into the equation. On a price->performance basis, PCs STOMP Macs. If I have $500 and I need a computer, I can buy a brand new Dell w/monitor that will do *everything* I *need*. Or I can *not* buy a Mac, simply because you can't buy a new Mac for $500.

It may be arguable that the Mac is the technically superior product from a pure engineering standpoint, but that does not make it a *better* or the best product. There's no arguing that OSX isn't nifty. It is. It's slick piece of work, and a good direction, IMHO, for Apple to go. That doesn't mean that I, personally, will ever spend the money required to use it.

27 Jan 2004 | warner brothers said...

A huge number of PCs are nearly irrelevant considering that they just sit on corporate desk-tops mimicking typewriters.

dell's investors wouldn't think they are irrelevant! silly rabbit. sales are for kids.

27 Jan 2004 | jeremias said...

just wondering how much of this financial health is directly related to the funds microsoft invested into them...

Well, the investment was only 150 million dollars and it was seven years ago. No doubt it came at a really crucial time but lets not overstate it.

But really this whole issue gets so tedious after a while, I've worked with Macs since the 128k in 1984 and I used to "defend" Macs throughout the years. But once I started working with PC's as well I really stopped caring. I hope that Apple stays around because they actually manage to make boxes of silicon and plastic interesting, but thats about the degree of my emotional attachement.

27 Jan 2004 | pb said...

just wondering how much of this financial health is directly related to the funds microsoft invested into them...

$500m 5 years ago so not much of a factor.

This is especially true when you bring price into the equation.

But you don't bring price into it when talking about "best". Best *value*, perhaps.

dell's investors wouldn't think they are irrelevant!

But that's not the point. The sahre argument is always brought up in the context of Apple going away or there not being enough software. In fact Apple is thriving and some of the best software is on the MAc, some of the most exciting things are being produced on Macs and in fact the web was invented on MacOS (well, NeXT). The vast majority of people are not Dell investors so that's not important.

28 Jan 2004 | warner brothers said...

The vast majority of people are not Dell investors so that's not important.

er, are you sniffing glue? dell investors don't matter? sales don't matter? profits don't matter? consumer acceptance doesn't matter? i give up! repeat after me:

mac is best. mac sells more. mac is accepted by consumers more. windows suck. hehe. lolfr.

29 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Hooboy...this topic always fills up with a lot of FUD.

I have to agree with all of the marketshare naysayers...really, who cares? Besides, you can't compare ANY company to Microsoft. Microsoft is an anomoly. Don't they have something like 40 BILLION in cash laying around? How can ANYONE compete with that?

What frustrates me the most is the state of tech reporting. One of apple's bigger marketing problems is ignorant tech reporters. Granted, most industries have problems with ignorant reporters.

02 Feb 2004 | warner brothers said...

fud? seems to me apple and microsoft both had their start at ground zero. kind of unfair to claim they didn't have a chance to compete. they lost.

02 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

fud? seems to me apple and microsoft both had their start at ground zero. kind of unfair to claim they didn't have a chance to compete. they lost.

They're not competing directly with each other. It's like saying Prada lost to JCPenneys. Actually, that's not even correct, as at least Prada and

No one lost. Apple doesn't have the major desktop OS marketshare. No company does other than MS. That doesn't mean all the other computer manufacturers 'lost'.

02 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

Oops. Ignore second sentence, second paragraph. ;o)