# Why



## Akkarin (Mar 9, 2006)

Why when Macs can do everything that windows can do, do they have such a low market share? 

Do you think this will change in the future?

Akkarin


----------



## mindbend (Mar 9, 2006)

I could throw out a very long-winded answer, and there are a lot of reasons, but some primary ones are:

Twenty years ago Apple made a decision (actually, Jean-Louis Gasse) to appease its shareholders and go for "profit margin" over "market share". Big mistake. They made a lot of money and the shareholders were happy, but they were losing ground to the cheaper machines. They never made it up.

The public at large has a proven track record of accepting cheaper alternatives as long as they're "good enough". The VHS/Betamax is the classic example of this.

Had Apple chosen to get Macs in as many hands as possible, almost as loss leaders, it would have been interesting.

For a wonderful, rich history of Apple's early years, directly from the developers who gave us the Mac, visit:

www.folklore.org

Note that it's mostly about how the Mac was developed, not so much about their market share and business model.


----------



## eric2006 (Mar 9, 2006)

In my oppinion..
1. Everyone has windows
2. Windows works
3. Windows is cheap (machine-wise)
4. Lots of free programs for windows (picasa, openoffice..)
5. More software for windows (sure, you can do everything with mac, but there's more ways to do it with windows)
6. EVERYTHING for a large amount of computer consumers is made for windows. Because a lot of people have windows. It's true.

There's more stuff, but it's late..


----------



## fryke (Mar 9, 2006)

Let's go back in time. Apple actually had much more market share initially. When Windows came to version 3 in 1992, it certainly wasn't better than the then current Macintosh OS, then simply called "System". But the PC world had two definite advantages: PCs were cheaper and available from several (many, actually) vendors in various configurations, whereas you could only get so many different Mac models, all from one vendor at higher prices. If Apple had taken the opportunity and licensed the OS to other manufacturers then, history would've looked different.

_Today_, eric's points are the important ones. But it's important to see that if the market would start today instead of 30 years ago, things would probably look different. I guess in such a case, we'd see 80% linux, 19% Mac and maybe 1% freaks who'd pay for an inferior XP-rience, because they like the gummi look.

This thread certainly is more fitting in the opinions forum, so I'm moving it there.


----------



## powermac (Mar 10, 2006)

I believe the future is changing, and Apple is surely on the rise. As mentioned exposure is one way to advertise, something Apple did not have much of in the early years. I remember purchasing (parents) my first Apple's at Montgomery Wards, or Sears. Shortly after the cheap PCs came in, and the Apple display of products got moved to the back, and further back in the store. The nearest Apple retail store for me growing up was in Syracuse. Even at that, the store sold both PC & Macs. The Apple section, had one salesman, and only a small portion of the display floor was provided. 

When major stores like Sears, stop carrying Apple, there was little exposure left. Only repeat customers like myself would purchase a product they could not actually see. 

In my opinion, the Apple stores have given Apple some great exposure. People can actually walk in and play-around with the products. That is important when trying to sell. 

I am not sure how I feel about market-share percentage. Personally, as long as they continue to make quality products, I will continue to purchase. As we have seen lately, Apple's pricing is certainly competitive.

I feel that Apple needs to start targeting the young professional consumer. Many people get the image from Apple of a youth culture icon, and don't take there products seriously. As a professional in the education field, I can share that during meetings, people bring there ThinkPads, or Dells. I sit, at the other end of the table, with my PB flashing its Apple logo on the back of the display. Occasionally, I get a curious colleague looking over my shoulder to see exactly what it is I have. In the end, most don't take it that serious, and consider me the rebel on the team. Just a few years back, Apple was a leader in educational computing. 
The future looks bright for Apple.


----------



## symphonix (Mar 10, 2006)

I think the state of Apple's current market share can be traced to poor decisions and poor marketing in the late eighties and early nineties. When the Mac was introduced in 1984, Apple were a powerful force in the computer industry.

During the "bad years" of 1990-96, Apple's market share was eroded by poor leadership, poor marketing choices, and bland and rather uninspired products. 

They were also seeing heavy competition from Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Dell, Compaq and a thousand tiny computer companies who had worked out that they could sell PC hardware under their own badges with zero product development or testing costs. It was hard for Apple to compete with hundreds of ads in every computer magazine, all pushing no-name PC hardware. These small companies also made sure that these magazines also ran very pro-Windows stories. When your computer magazine has 150 advertisers, one of them is Apple and the other 149 are selling no-name PCs, you're going to want to run plenty of PC and Windows stuff.

I'll be honest, Apple really didn't come back to life until Steve Jobs returned and put a bomb under all of their backsides. With Jobs' charismatic leadership, the migration to an open-source unix based OS, the technology brought over from Next, and a cultural revival on the Apple campus that once again encouraged innovation, Apple were quick to recover. They've doubled their market share from the "bad days" and are one of the only major IT corporations to remain profitable in the wake of the dot-com crash. They've gone from the dull products of the early nineties, which were little more than "lets try and beat the PCs at their own game" to a culture of "Lets innovate, and try things that have never been done before".

I'm a great admirer of the way Apple are doing things now, and I expect that in the next ten years they will double their market share again. That still leaves them short of their glory days of the mid-eighties, but would make them a very big player. Here's hoping.


----------



## Akkarin (Mar 10, 2006)

Thank you for your answers they are helping me to understand the Apple/Mac brand more.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Apr 30, 2006)

I think it is changing too, but it's going to be a long, slow process. Windows users are very stubburn. They're not necessarily anti-mac, just afraid of change and of the unfamiliar. 

I teach a class of first-year students at a local uni - most of them are just out of high school and have never used a mac before. I can tell you that 1 session with the Macs and they are ready to throw them through the wall. They hate them. I don't mean dislike, I mean they H*A*T*E THEM. If you could only see the way they carry on about the Macs. It's like trying to get a 10-year-old to do algebra, you have to drag them kicking and screaming through every control-click.

And it's frustrating for me, because I know that if they knew how to use Macs as much as they knew how to use Windows, they would love them, but if it doesn't do the same thing XP does and in the same way, they give up and don't want to know about it. 

So my point is, that if the tables do turn, it's going to be very very slow. Most people are not going to buy a mac until they are already familiar with it. Once I started working and had my own money to spend, I started buying Macs again (my family was all PC through the 90s). So because I carried my iBook everywhere, whenever my sister or mum wanetd t use the internet, I'd give them my iBook and they would slowly learn the basics over the course of a couple of years. 5 years later and most of my family have switched to Macs, but only after they were no longer unfamiliar and scary.


----------



## Michel PM (Jan 24, 2007)

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 (Jan 24, 2007)

"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&#8230; 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 (Jan 24, 2007)

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


----------



## MrTAToad (Jan 24, 2007)

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 (Jan 24, 2007)

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 (Jan 24, 2007)

MrTAToad said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2007)

> 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 (Jan 25, 2007)

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.


----------



## Natobasso (Jan 25, 2007)

mindbend said:


> Had Apple chosen to get Macs in as many hands as possible, almost as loss leaders, it would have been interesting.
> 
> Note that it's mostly about how the Mac was developed, not so much about their market share and business model.



And Apple failed to license its computers to other manufacturers and retreated with its tail between its legs. This was a drastic departure from their business model and no one was buying.


----------



## rubaiyat (Jan 26, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> 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...



There's something to that, I have generally not upgraded most of my Macs but mostly because it was impossible, difficult or too expensive. 

When the Mac didn't have a CD burner or a DVD drive or dual monitor support or needed USB 2 or more Firewire ports, it was a real pisser. Even replacing the dead battery on my son's iMac DV 400 was a nightmare and took hours of research and benchtime because of the battery's inaccessibility. We gave up on removing the last 3-4 layers of casing and I juggled the battery roughly into place while my son, with his smaller hand, pushed it gingerly into place. Even then we dropped it into the case several times before we finally succeeded. The current intel iMacs are inaccessible except for RAM.

Mac users are not conscious of how many PC users actually progressively rebuild and replace bits of their computer during its working life. Upgrade kits take the PC case and replace the motherboard whilst retaining the drives etc. This keeps even an older PC well within usability for most of its  life. The parts are bought for a pittance and aren't subject to the weird and undocumented incompatibilities that Mac graphics cards, for example, seem to have.

The expensive iMac mini's "marvelous ability" to combine with a PC user's monitor just got strange looks from PC users who for a pittance take a lot more than that from one model to another.

Apple has at most times made it impossible to install their particular OS onto anything but a small range of models. The rest would be incompatible, either too old, or too new, or too slow. 

Compare the options for installing current versions of iTunes and Quicktime on anything from Windows 2000 to the latest WXP, with the extremely narrow range versions for each iteration of Mac OSX, or OS 9. It's a protracted google search each time to discover what goes with what.

Apple is not user friendly. Just look at how many expensive upgrades of hardware/software Mac users have been forced into over the last 5-6 years due to Apple's changes in OS, hardware and peripherals. In every case Apple users had to put up with major expense, retraining, incompatibilities, slow downs and screw ups brought on by Apple's changes in direction.

The latest Macs show alternate improvements in compatability and upgradability then take another huge lurch back. All the time dancing all over the place with model names, numbers and identification. The uncertainty of what does or doesn't work is what leaves most users reluctant to even try to upgrade even if it is possible.


----------



## MrTAToad (Jan 26, 2007)

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


The problem is that with iMacs, if a hard drive goes, you've got to get Apple to fix it, and then you'll get charged a bit (unless its under warrenty).  In any case, it would be liable to take a fair few days.

Whereas, with PC's you would take out the offending drive, put a new one in and re-install the operating system.  Its quick and cheap...



> Because the prices are alright, as a *lot* of people are buying the Macs


And a lot _more_ people are buying PC's


----------



## Natobasso (Jan 26, 2007)

I'll take a little update confusion over viruses any day of the week. 

I for one am VERY conscious of upgrades on pcs. Apple has made strides to increase their computer's ease of upgrade, but since their market right now is the camera/audio enthusiast, it seems to have taken a backseat to 'out of the box' functionality.


----------



## fryke (Jan 26, 2007)

MrTAToad said:


> And a lot _more_ people are buying PC's


As long as Apple's _winning_ market share, that's simply not true, not in the sense that it matters to Apple in any way. I'm pretty sure that by _giving away_ Mac minis, i.e. selling them for 0.00 USD, they could gather a lot of market share. But it wouldn't do them much good. To interpolate what you're saying.


----------



## MrTAToad (Jan 26, 2007)

Whilst you cant give stuff away - you can make this as attractive as possible by finding a price that low enough that people would be willing to pay, and also make a profit.


----------



## fryke (Jan 26, 2007)

My point exactly.


----------

