Why

[Michel PM]

Well it looks as if I am going to have to put everyone who posted here on the path of truth, here!
Last time I looked, businesses don't stay in business because of market share!
They stay in business because they make PROFITS, folks!
Look at computer companies gone like Packard Bell and Compaq.
They had market share up the wazzoo!
They didn't survive because they weren't PROFITABLE, despite all their market share.
Even in Apple's dark days, and still true today, Apple was turning profit (not as much then) with still only a 5-10% market in-road while the major computing companies were/are just scraping by or are/were even flat for the year and, again, they all still have a big market share.
Market share has nothing to do with profit, folks.
Profit is what keeps a company to stay in business.
Without profit, there is no growth or expansion and hence make that company harder and harder to compete with its peers in the same markets.
Plain ans simple.
AND, besides Apple has and still is an underdog, because financial analysts pit the ENTIRE PC computing industry against Apple instead of comparing Apple against individual companies like, say, Dell.
I think Apple has just broke the 15% market share, but...
Apple doesn't have to compete against anyone with regards to market share.
They just need to continue to make profits by offering products that are desirable to its targeted customers.
That's why many financial analysts do not understand how Apple works because they keep "harping" this market share crap!
It's the MONEY made that matters, folks! Not market-share! FOLLOW the MONEY!

[rubaiyat]

"I think Apple has just broke the 15% market share, but..."

What! In your dreams! Apple hasn't had 15% since the mid 80's.

Why did Apple lose out? Simple: sheer hubris. It managed to turn off IT people, its own sales network, it's most dedicated supporters… and while it slowly dug itself into an ever deeper hole, it was always right! I was a VAR in the late 80's and Apple drove me mad, mostly it just drove everyone away. It was like those stupid snooty clubs where people line up to hopefully not be rejected, until everyone realises that the club has nothing going for it not even exclusivity.

This time Apple got smart with the iPod, where it let most everyone play, has stayed on top of its market and while getting good profits, has not been afraid to meet the competition head on when necessary.

[fryke]

Also pay attention of the post dates. This thread's been revived by Michel_PM.

[MrTAToad]

I still believe that Apple should allow other manufacturers to make Mac's again - whilst Apple wouldn't make such a direct profit, it would allow more people to experience a Mac.

The other reason is the inability to upgrade an iMac - that in itself will hod people back - people dont want to spend loads-of-money on things that they can do themselves.

Its amazing how younger people aren't willing to give alternative OS's a try - especially as Mac OS is probably easier to use. My parents got the hang of using it very quickly.

[Lt Major Burns]

i seriuosly don't see why upgradability is such a grievance...

i have a power mac G5, and i've only upgraded as much as i could do on an iMac any way: Ram and hard drive. the video card... works for me. it's two years old and i can play Quake 4 and Call Of Duty 2 on it just fine, with all the details turned on, pretty much. when the porcessors get too slow, it;'s time to get a new computer anyway.

people put far too much importance on upgradablity. only idiots upgrade cars, for example...

[fryke]

Originally Posted by MrTAToad

I still believe that Apple should allow other manufacturers to make Mac's again - whilst Apple wouldn't make such a direct profit, it would allow more people to experience a Mac.

There's two things wrong with that argument. Last things first: Why would 2 or 3 Mac makers allow more people to experience a Mac? If more people want to buy Macs, Apple produces more. More companies making Macs would not really expand that.

More importantly, however, Apple has certainly learned its lessons from licensing the OS to others the last time. The only _successful_ clone maker was PowerComputing. It was so successful that Apple had to kill them (by stopping the licensing agreement) and then buy them (when they were cheap).

It's _quite_ clear that any licensee would try to undercut Apple's prices, were Apple to try a second age of clones. Sure: Consumers would like that. Buy a cheap Mac desktop for 399 or 299. Great. But Apple would suffer.

Apple has to sell a _lot_ of iPods, iPhones etc. before they can give up the Mac hardware business (which it effectively would by licensing the OS out to competitors).

Theoretically, Apple _could_ think about this, though. -> If iPods etc. (i.e. all those products which are _not_ really Macs) become such great money makers that making Macs does not really matter anymore, they could simply start to sell Mac _software_ to PC buyers. But that's been discussed to death. Apple's not there yet - and may never _get_ there as long as Macs are so successful. (Don't underestimate their success.)

[MrTAToad]

Why would 2 or 3 Mac makers allow more people to experience a Mac? If more people want to buy Macs, Apple produces more. More companies making Macs would not really expand that.

Because the overall price would be cheaper, making more choice availiable.

[fryke]

Then Apple could - instead of going through clones - simply lower their prices. Sell us MacPros for 777 USD, Mac minis for 299... Because if _competition_ could drive the prices down, so could Apple. Then they'd sell much more Macs, right? So why doesn't Apple do that... They've answered that question (well, not with _those_ prices, but more generally) in the conference call about the quarterly results a couple of days ago: Because the prices are alright, as a *lot* of people are buying the Macs. Apple is _far_ healthier if they grow steadily and keep prices where they are instead of growing quickly but having to kill margins for it wherever they can.