Posted on 07/19/2005 10:51:08 AM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
SAN FRANCISCO - Apple Computer moved up a notch to become the No.4 seller of personal computers in the United States in the second quarter as Macintosh sales soared by one-third, according to two reports. Lenovo, the Chinese company that owns the IBM personal computer brand, lost share.Apple won 4.5 percent of the market to trail Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Gateway, the market research company IDC said Monday in a report. IDC's rival Gartner put Apple's share at 4.3 percent.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
"Competitive" in this case is dominance by one technology over the other by a landslide in sales results. Period. When Apple starts equalizing market share with the PC, we'll take you more seriously.
"Competitive" in this case is dominance by one technology over the other by a landslide in sales results."
LOL. One "technology?" It's all boiling down to who has the superior OS, now isn't it? Time will tell.
Yep, so far after 25 years, Apple has yet to make a mere scratch in the overall sales percentages. How long do you want to give them to reach 50% of the marketplace? Another 50 years?
And yet, they're still around and profitable, despite repeated predictions of their imminent demise, which is substantially better than many PC vendors.
How long do you want to give them to reach 50% of the marketplace? Another 50 years?
I don't know, how long before BMW has a 50% market share?
Yeah, existing software built for PowerPC Macs will run on OS X Intel using emulation. Early reports are that compatibility is excellent, although of course there's a performance hit. Most OS X software can be recompiled for Intel with little or no changes; it's not anywhere near as big a switch as going from OS 9 to OS X.
In a word, "no". The average computer buyer doesn't know Intel from Shmintel. And there'll be no "compatibility". They'll still be closed architecture Apples. Now if Steve Jobs were to change his operating system EULA so it doesn't prohibit installing it on ANY non-Apple hardware, you might see sales take a jump, but that ain't gonna happen - he'd never get away with charging those hardware prices in a truly open market.
Apple could be made of solid platinum and a few diehards will continue to buy them for esoteric reasons, but the mass market still wants the cheaper PC, replacing it every few years and continually upgrading between purchases with new gadgets that are much more affordable than those high Apple prices.
>>Apples rarely break<<
You obviously haven't been reading Apple's support forums.
>>A Mac remains very useable for up to a decade or more after installation in my own experience.<<
This is utterly absurd. My wife bought a performa 6116 in 1995 that was obsolete before it hit her desk. No ability to upgrade it, and we gave it away in or around 1998.
What case? Popularity=quality? A dozen counterexamples come to mind. Are you this contemptuous of every company that doesn't have a majority of the market?
I expect that HP computers will soon go the way of all PCs, to the grinding machine where they will become road fill, a suitable end to worm-ridden, virus-infected, trouble-laden PCs.
No, I am contemptuous of all the Apple fanatics who think the product is perfect, and far superior to the competition. If it was truly as good as they claim, it would be commanding 90% of the market. It isn't, and it doesn't.
"How long do you want to give them to reach 50% of the marketplace?"
Other than Apple (and very early on), no other personal computer manufacturer has EVER had 50% of the market. What is your point, here? Dell, with the largest percentage of sales, doesn't even have 25% of the market. Apple Macintosh is now #4. Want to dismiss everyone below fourth, because they're clearly irrelevant, and will never have 50% of the market?
Oops, sorry. That reply was intended for TommyDale.
I'm not an Apple
fan, but I think you're missing
what the Intel switch
lets Apple put out:
A dual OS APPLE box.
Computer users
will have the option
of buying an Apple that
runs Windows native.
Apple will win BIG.
And when they release the thing,
I might just buy it!
"lets Apple put out:
A dual OS APPLE box."
I guess we will see WHEN hackers find a way to run the Intel OS ? on any regular Intel PC. If a groundswell starts for official licensed versions of the new Mac OS, Apple will dump being a box manufacturer so fast it will make your head spin.
Apple did manufacture some lousy computers in the early-to-mid 1990s, especially when Michael Spindler was running the company. I'm glad I never owned a Performa.
The quality is Macs is better today, but they have some problems with components like electrolytic capacitors - which are plaguing most other manufacturers too. It should be noted that the cheapest Macs do have a one-year warranty, and the cheapest Dell computers have a 90-day warranty.
I have a 27-year old Apple computer that still works, and I've purchased dozens of Macs for home and business use. In my experience, Macs have better quality and a longer useful life than PCs from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. The PowerMac G5s I'm using remind me of the IBM mainframes I used to use - they're highly reliable and durable.
You, like other appleheads, are making the idiotic comparison of Macs to Dells, and they aren't comparable. Apple uses better hardware, and they are more comperable to a custom built PC like the ones I've been putting together for a few years. I have a 1.7P4 built in 2002 that will last 10 years as is. Its now being used as a secretary's machine in my office. My 2.4P4 is 3 years old and on my desktop where it could easily stay for 5+ years total (a record by a long shot). The only reason I would replace it is to go to a 64 bit machine. Computer speeds aren't escalating at the rate they were, so even if I use that machine for advanced graphics work (and I do: photo editing and video work), it can be useful every bit as long as a comparable Mac. Even longer, since I can stick FreeBSD on there and make a server out of it, replacing one part or another -- say a CPU fan, if necessary, much easier than on a Mac.
All this for at least 20% and as much as 50% less than what a comparable Mac would cost. Apple could go a LONG way toward improving their market share if they would cut their prices by 25%. Instead they try and market emotion -- just like liberals, ironically -- and aren't going to win people like me on that. I buy a computer like I buy a tool.
You, like other appleheads, are making the idiotic comparison of Macs to Dells, and they aren't comparable. Apple uses better hardware, and they are more comperable to a custom built PC like the ones I've been putting together for a few years. I have a 1.7P4 built in 2002 that will last 10 years as is. Its now being used as a secretary's machine in my office. My 2.4P4 is 3 years old and on my desktop where it could easily stay for 5+ years total (a record by a long shot). The only reason I would replace it is to go to a 64 bit machine. Computer speeds aren't escalating at the rate they were, so even if I use that machine for advanced graphics work (and I do: photo editing and video work), it can be useful every bit as long as a comparable Mac. Even longer, since I can stick FreeBSD on there and make a server out of it, replacing one part or another -- say a CPU fan, if necessary, much easier than on a Mac.
All this for at least 20% and as much as 50% less than what a comparable Mac would cost. Apple could go a LONG way toward improving their market share if they would cut their prices by 25%. Instead they try and market emotion -- just like liberals, ironically -- and aren't going to win people like me on that. I buy a computer like I buy a tool.
BFD
Mac OS X is based on BSD Unix. I use the Unix services all them time.
replacing one part or another -- say a CPU fan, if necessary, much easier than on a Mac.
I've never had to replace any type of fan on a Mac. I hope Apple can maintain their higher standards of quality when the switch to Intel processors, because I don't want to spend time replacing fans.
Apple could go a LONG way toward improving their market share if they would cut their prices by 25%.
Apple has already cut their prices substantially - the Mac Mini costs $499 and includes a much better operating system and bundle of software than comparably priced Wintel systems. I expect they'll continue to cut their hardware prices as long as they can continue to make a profit on the sale.
Dell grew their marketshare by selling a lot of cheap low-quality hardware at cost (i.e. no profit). Apple is not interested in getting into that type of commodity business at the present time. Instead, Apple is focused on providing the best value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.