If apple products are so great, why do they only hold about 10% of the market?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
If apple products are so great, why do they only hold about 10% of the market?
AtariBoy 
Because at the key point in the massive influx of computers into the marketplace, Apple was in the middle of MASSIVE internal turmoil that caused them to lose a SIGNIFICANT percentage of marketshare that lasted for many years.
The problem with your statement is that each segment of Apple’s product line holds a vastly different share in the market.
iPod – ~87%
iTunes Music Store – ~85%
Another problem with your assumption about marketshare is that computer marketshare encompasses areas where Apple either doesn’t compete or will NOT compete in so gaining an ACCURATE look at total marketshare is pretty hard to do.
Dood my pleasue as always.
A percentage of how many people do something, buy something or think something doesnt make it the right choice does it?
Religion
Whos right? whos wrong?
I think all religons are just operating systems for the human race – Invented by people to control the population – some work, some dont everyone argues over who is right and thats where most wars come from / are justified
Recycling
The human race produces so much rubbish everyday that the earth is just filling up with crap.
The sensible thing would be not to do this but the majority just cant be bothered to think about it.
Pollution
People pollute the air because there is too much money in petrol driven cars to find another way.
They are cheaper and easier to get hold of that a type of transport that doesnt mess up the world.
My point here is – keep the people confused / scared and they will believe anything and buy anything and of course then you have to keep that level of confusion up just in case someone sees sense and decides its all bullshit.
Doing something just cos everyone else does it or because its more popular doesnt make it right or sensible.
Im not saying that everyone should have a Mac and not a PC but the argument of percentages is not maybe the best.
Mac “think different” slogan is the point here I reckon.
In the Apple 1984 ad they pointed that out.
Check out the film “Pirates of Silicon Valley” if you havent already sometime its pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Pirates+of+Silicon+Valley+&search_type=search_videos&search=Search
Good gassing
Macboy Jack
Let me just comfirm that i’m not trying to start any arguements or fan any flames, just stating a point to spark some discussion.
Dooder
Thought I should mention I like the new layout its cleaner and grovvier..not sure how the grass fits in but..I`m cool with it.
Away for a few weeks sorry not be able to go on about Apple stuff for a while with you…
So some nice bits for now..
http://www.sleeplessknights.com/ibrator/sayhello.html
http://www.davidmccandless.com/funny/applestore.htm
http://www.casinopants.com/switch2.html
Could cause quite an argument asking that question lol.
Basically from what i understand it Microsot were much better at business than Apple were and made some very very important business deals back in the past when computers were just getting started.
Apple made a better OS, Microsoft made a their own version, and cloned it onto any IBM compatible machine for much less money. Once IBM compatible machines were firmly established, and people were beginning to buy computers for their homes, they were buying the same clones as they had at work, for compatibility…
One key thing people say when slating OS X and Apple is that products aren’t as widely available. This is true, but not because of poor quality on Apple’s part, but because of this initial growth of computers resulting in one main dominant OS. If the opposite had happened back then, and Apple has become the dominant one, it would be Apple who most companies would be writing for, and they would have the compatibility advantage.
Its like the whole argument over VHS and Betamax… One was the better standard, one was better marketed and cheaper, and therefore became the dominant one.
This isn’t just a ‘fan-boy’ statement either, I have used both systems, Windows since version 3.1 with DOS, so I know what I’m talking about. I also worked as a Systems Admin/Support Engineer for my placement which lasted 14 months, so have dealt with Windows in an business context, so my problems with Windows stem from vast personal experience.
Well that should just about do it… should be plenty there to start a little ‘debate’, though I would like to request that participants leave their weapons outside… :P
It seems to be a general opinion that Microsoft got a better break early on and Apple missed out.
Ford were the first ever mass producers of cars, there was a time when 99% of all cars in america were made my Ford, but better cars and companies have come along.
Apples iPod and iTunes have their market all to itself, they have a great product and a gr8 service, windows media player was there before but apple trashed it, why cant it do the same for an OS?
Because it’s too great for people to stand !
The reason Apple holds only 10% share of the market is because their products tend to be more expensive and the hardware has been typically proprietary. If a person could buy the OS without having to buy a new computer, I think we would see more users. I, for one, would like to at least tinker around with it, but until I can install it as an additional OS on my current system, it will have to wait. Until then, Linux and Windows is good enough.
Actually regarding Apple having a great product with the iPod, its an interesting case. It really is one of the worst mp3 players on the market, as their service record demonstrates. However an excellent marketing strategy and a sleek design has made it the top selling mp3 player…and that goes hand in hand with iTunes being the #1 online music download source.
So if apple can use their marketing so well on the ipod, why not the OS?
Not to be rude or something, but I would believe that you are one who should quite well know a decent answer to that little question.
It not actually that hard you see:
It is difficult to make people switch from something they are accustomed too.
So the problem with marketing an OS alternative to Windows is that it’s undoubtly a very hard job to do. Especially when the OS requires the customer to buy dedicated hardware for it.
Maybe the last argument is a bit questionable, because for Windows you also need a certain type of hardware. You can’t run Windows on a Mac, BeBox, UltraSparc or RaqXT for instance, but I do believe that the availability of “Windows PC” parts or pre-installed pc’s is the greatest, it’s the easiest OS to get hardware for.
Oh no, I’m saying it the wrong way, it’s the easiest *commercial* OS to get hardware for. Systems like Linux, BSD, Unix and Minix run on virtually anything that’s called a computer :P
“So if apple can use their marketing so well on the ipod, why not the OS?”
They don’t tend to market the OS that well either, when was the last time you saw an advert for it, even the last advert they did about the Intel chips said nothing about the OS.
Plus, as people have pointed out, the OS only works on Macs. Windows works on any bog standard IBM compatible box. Plus Macs are more expensive. All these are factors against the wide spread use of it, but nothing against the quality of the products themselves.
Apple was very cutthroat back in the day. They made some stingy decisions in the beginning that came back to bite them. They refused to license anything out–hardware or software. Any company that wanted to could sign up to build PC hardware.
Consumers and businesses speak with their wallets. So over time, the cream rises to the top. More private individuals and corporations prefer Windows OS.
Yeah that is true as well, the OS requires Apple hardware, and they weren’t prepared to license to their parties, unlike Microsoft. As I say, Microsoft made much better businesses choices.
Because quality and quantity are (most generally) proportionally inverse…