6 ms·

This is not necessarily a good thing. Apple has largely $1000+ computers. Them taking 91% (and having single-digit overall market share) means that consumers

by ljlolel 17y ago

This is not necessarily a good thing. Apple has largely $1000+ computers. Them taking 91% (and having single-digit overall market share) means that consumers increasingly prefer small portable cheap low-power computers (netbooks and similar), while the high-end market disappears. As an analogy, it would be like Cray boasting 20 years ago that they owned 90% of the $10,000+ computer market. Apple needs to innovate on the low end, or die. On the other hand, it seems like computing for the masses will converge onto mobile devices, and Apple currently has the strongest offering in that market.

arrrg 17y ago
market revenue =! market share
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  Apple's market cap is around Google's, according to Newsweek. They make a pretty awesome profit on every product they sell.
sahaj 17y ago
is cray still relevant?
- sahaj 17y ago
  i don't understand the downvote. this is a serious question. i have not been around this world long enough to know cray well. it seems to me that the original commenter made a point that cray targeted the high end market and it has not been well for them, and i would like to understand how they are doing today.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    Looking at the Top 500 Supercomputers list, there are Crays in position 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21, 23... http://top500.org/list/2009/06/100 http://top500.org/list/2009/06/100 So, they aren't out of the game. The previous lists are available, if you're interested you could compare Cray's standings with previous years. I don't understand the downvote. this is a serious question. The way you asked it carries an implication that Cray is not still relevant - it has the impact of a statement dismissing Cray rather than a quesiton about Cray.
pchristensen 17y ago
I don't know, this is like saying Mercedes needs to get into the sub-$40K market. Maybe they do, maybe not. I think Mercedes and Apple would rather own the top and have the market rise to them.
- pavlov 17y ago
  Mercedes is quite active at the lowest end of the market: they produce cute microcars under the Smart brand. (I guess Smarts might not be available in the US at all, considering Americans' excess-oriented taste in automobiles.)
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    Fine - Porsche.
    - pavlov 17y ago
      I don't think the "Apple of automobiles" exists, in the sense of there being a premium brand with substantial marketshare that would be operated by an independent company. (Porsche recently became a subsidiary of Volkswagen.) Edit -- on second thought, I guess BMW could be it. They are still independent and don't produce anything cheaper than the Mini.
      - Locke1689 17y ago
        Porsche works fine as long as you consider their very long history before the month or so ago where they got acquired by Volkswagen.
  - russell 17y ago
    It is available in the US, but it is not cheap. IIRC it's in the range of 20K.
  - vaksel 17y ago
    smarts are around, but they are not that popular. I think they've been out for two or even three years here, but I haven't seen one yet
inovica 17y ago
Apple has always had the philosophy of selling at higher prices than others based on the 'quality' of their products - I'm not judging on this, just saying - it also gives them better margins. I remember there was a quote from Steve Jobs saying that they had a market share akin to BMPW (I might have that wrong) and that there was nothing wrong with being the BMW of the computer world.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
the high-end market disappears Or the whole market for things called "computers" is growing, and the high-end market is just growing slower than the rest of it. This doesn't mean that the high-end market is doomed. It might just be growing at a slower rate. You may ask: Why doesn't Apple then try to get into a business that is growing faster? The answer is: Sales growth is not the metric. Any business can boost sales by lowering their profit margin. (Old-school dotcoms used to grow like wildfire by giving the product away below cost and hoping to make it up in volume.) What matters is profit growth.
- adamc 17y ago
  No, my answer would be: they did. iPhones and iPods are definitely markets that are growing faster. Apple did the smart thing and moved into other markets where its design expertise could make a big difference.
rimantas 17y ago
I am not sure that consumers prefer netbooks. I still don't know anyone owning one. I must admin I don't believe in netbooks market—one part will be taken by smartphones, another by proper notebooks. Speaking of which: Apple's computers sales grew only by 4%, but notebook sales grew by 13%. Going into low-end, low-price and nonexistent margins market would be the sure way for Apple to die.
ptomato 17y ago
People have been saying for years that Apple needs to come out with lower end products or they'll die. Their steadily increasing profits (even through the recession) and massive cash reserves say otherwise.
- josefresco 17y ago
  There's a big difference between being successful and being change-the-world successful. I'm sure Apple would love a piece of the latter but given their business model it probably won't happen. I can't imagine Jobs is happy about being just being a billionaire when there are guys like Gates who dwarf his wealth and success (and therefore have the cash to actually saves many more lives and alter world history)
  - jemmons 17y ago
    I'm sorry, it seems one could conclude from your statement that you don't believe Jobs-era Apple (which, after all, has had basically the same business model all these years) hasn't changed the world. It seems to me they've already done that a few times over. The iPod. The iTune Music Store. The iPhone. A world-class music studio for $500. A world-class motion picture studio for $1000. The evolution of the digital hub. The insistence that technology should "just work". I honestly don't know what else you could expect from any other company of any size or business model.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      I think josefresco meant the world outside the computer market. The iPod and iPhone, I agree 100%. Music and movie software...no. As a professional in that sphere I personally feel Apple comes late to those parties after working out or buying what everyone else is wearing. That's not meant as a put-down, I just think you're overlooking how much innovation comes from third parties.
      - jemmons 17y ago
        I've been using Logic since the Atari days, and I certainly don't mean to belittle the contributions of eMagic! I'm less familiar with the linage of Final Cut, but I'm sure whoever developed that before Apple did fantastic work. But, though it's become a cliche in this context, I think what makes these products world-changing is Apple's vision. [EDIT: actually, now that I think about it, it's not their vision. It's their business model (the very thing the OP was deriding). Apple sells hardware and can use software as a loss leader. So it's able to sell Logic and Final Cut for much less than when they were the sole income of their respective companies] After Apple bought Final Cut and Logic, they slashed prices, refined the interfaces to make them much more approachable, and gave users a way to migrate from simple iApps, to Express versions, to the full-blown Studio packages. This ease of use, low cost, and easy migration vision of Apple's all works together to democratize the creation of media. As a platform, it places an emphasis on the creation of media, not merely the consumption of it. That's what I find world-changing about it, and I think its all stuff that's happened post-Apple-buyout. But I'd love to hear more about any similar efforts made before Apple bought these products.
adamc 17y ago
Another alternative is that they live with being the Jaguar of computers and look for growth in other markets.
- josefresco 17y ago
  Oh what a horrible, horrible analogy. I wouldn't wish being the "Jaguar of anything" on my worst enemy.
briancooley 17y ago
Them taking 91% (and having single-digit overall market share) means that consumers increasingly prefer small portable cheap low-power computers Their market share might be single-digit, but hasn't it been growing? Another interpretation might be that consumers are simultaneously migrating towards Apple PC's and laptops as well as purchasing netbooks and similar for added convenience. That's the story in my household.
potatolicious 17y ago
I disagree. Netbooks are a fad that will not last over a few years. For one thing, the margins on netbooks are even slimmer than the cheapo laptops Dell was making before the "netbook revolution", and manufacturers are getting murdered left and right by this. It's the Wal-Mart effect - you flood a market suddenly with cheap, shoddy product and people will jump for it, but it's not sustainable as your vendors and suppliers start dying off. Profit margins are disappearing for the likes of Asus, Dell, and HP, and they're skating on thinner ice than ever before. Would you rather be selling $300 computers at a $5 profit each, or $1200 computers at a $100 profit each? People got on Sony's back early on when they claimed that the introduction of a netbook will do nothing but start a "race to the bottom". They were attacked for being out of touch with reality and trying to peddle overpriced ultra-portable notebooks. But they were right.
newacc 17y ago
i agree with you that "Apple needs to innovate on the low end, or die" because cloud computing and browser OS are going to be a game changer - if every task is done on the net and if the browser is the OS then how would one differentiate a PC from MAC??? all you need is a hardware with a browser OS that is slick and speedy, while all the apps that resides on the net will have same look and feel on all the browsers doesn't matter what hardware you're using!

by ljlolel 17y ago

arrrg 17y ago

market revenue =! market share

zimbabwe 17y ago
Apple's market cap is around Google's, according to Newsweek. They make a pretty awesome profit on every product they sell.

sahaj 17y ago

is cray still relevant?

sahaj 17y ago
i don't understand the downvote. this is a serious question. i have not been around this world long enough to know cray well. it seems to me that the original commenter made a point that cray targeted the high end market and it has not been well for them, and i would like to understand how they are doing today.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Looking at the Top 500 Supercomputers list, there are Crays in position 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21, 23... http://top500.org/list/2009/06/100 http://top500.org/list/2009/06/100 So, they aren't out of the game. The previous lists are available, if you're interested you could compare Cray's standings with previous years. I don't understand the downvote. this is a serious question. The way you asked it carries an implication that Cray is not still relevant - it has the impact of a statement dismissing Cray rather than a quesiton about Cray.

pchristensen 17y ago

I don't know, this is like saying Mercedes needs to get into the sub-$40K market. Maybe they do, maybe not. I think Mercedes and Apple would rather own the top and have the market rise to them.

pavlov 17y ago
Mercedes is quite active at the lowest end of the market: they produce cute microcars under the Smart brand. (I guess Smarts might not be available in the US at all, considering Americans' excess-oriented taste in automobiles.)
- Locke1689 17y ago
  Fine - Porsche.
  - pavlov 17y ago
    I don't think the "Apple of automobiles" exists, in the sense of there being a premium brand with substantial marketshare that would be operated by an independent company. (Porsche recently became a subsidiary of Volkswagen.) Edit -- on second thought, I guess BMW could be it. They are still independent and don't produce anything cheaper than the Mini.
    - Locke1689 17y ago
      Porsche works fine as long as you consider their very long history before the month or so ago where they got acquired by Volkswagen.
- russell 17y ago
  It is available in the US, but it is not cheap. IIRC it's in the range of 20K.
- vaksel 17y ago
  smarts are around, but they are not that popular. I think they've been out for two or even three years here, but I haven't seen one yet

inovica 17y ago

Apple has always had the philosophy of selling at higher prices than others based on the 'quality' of their products - I'm not judging on this, just saying - it also gives them better margins. I remember there was a quote from Steve Jobs saying that they had a market share akin to BMPW (I might have that wrong) and that there was nothing wrong with being the BMW of the computer world.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

the high-end market disappears Or the whole market for things called "computers" is growing, and the high-end market is just growing slower than the rest of it. This doesn't mean that the high-end market is doomed. It might just be growing at a slower rate. You may ask: Why doesn't Apple then try to get into a business that is growing faster? The answer is: Sales growth is not the metric. Any business can boost sales by lowering their profit margin. (Old-school dotcoms used to grow like wildfire by giving the product away below cost and hoping to make it up in volume.) What matters is profit growth.

adamc 17y ago
No, my answer would be: they did. iPhones and iPods are definitely markets that are growing faster. Apple did the smart thing and moved into other markets where its design expertise could make a big difference.

rimantas 17y ago

I am not sure that consumers prefer netbooks. I still don't know anyone owning one. I must admin I don't believe in netbooks market—one part will be taken by smartphones, another by proper notebooks. Speaking of which: Apple's computers sales grew only by 4%, but notebook sales grew by 13%. Going into low-end, low-price and nonexistent margins market would be the sure way for Apple to die.

ptomato 17y ago

People have been saying for years that Apple needs to come out with lower end products or they'll die. Their steadily increasing profits (even through the recession) and massive cash reserves say otherwise.

josefresco 17y ago
There's a big difference between being successful and being change-the-world successful. I'm sure Apple would love a piece of the latter but given their business model it probably won't happen. I can't imagine Jobs is happy about being just being a billionaire when there are guys like Gates who dwarf his wealth and success (and therefore have the cash to actually saves many more lives and alter world history)
- jemmons 17y ago
  I'm sorry, it seems one could conclude from your statement that you don't believe Jobs-era Apple (which, after all, has had basically the same business model all these years) hasn't changed the world. It seems to me they've already done that a few times over. The iPod. The iTune Music Store. The iPhone. A world-class music studio for $500. A world-class motion picture studio for $1000. The evolution of the digital hub. The insistence that technology should "just work". I honestly don't know what else you could expect from any other company of any size or business model.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I think josefresco meant the world outside the computer market. The iPod and iPhone, I agree 100%. Music and movie software...no. As a professional in that sphere I personally feel Apple comes late to those parties after working out or buying what everyone else is wearing. That's not meant as a put-down, I just think you're overlooking how much innovation comes from third parties.
    - jemmons 17y ago
      I've been using Logic since the Atari days, and I certainly don't mean to belittle the contributions of eMagic! I'm less familiar with the linage of Final Cut, but I'm sure whoever developed that before Apple did fantastic work. But, though it's become a cliche in this context, I think what makes these products world-changing is Apple's vision. [EDIT: actually, now that I think about it, it's not their vision. It's their business model (the very thing the OP was deriding). Apple sells hardware and can use software as a loss leader. So it's able to sell Logic and Final Cut for much less than when they were the sole income of their respective companies] After Apple bought Final Cut and Logic, they slashed prices, refined the interfaces to make them much more approachable, and gave users a way to migrate from simple iApps, to Express versions, to the full-blown Studio packages. This ease of use, low cost, and easy migration vision of Apple's all works together to democratize the creation of media. As a platform, it places an emphasis on the creation of media, not merely the consumption of it. That's what I find world-changing about it, and I think its all stuff that's happened post-Apple-buyout. But I'd love to hear more about any similar efforts made before Apple bought these products.

adamc 17y ago

Another alternative is that they live with being the Jaguar of computers and look for growth in other markets.

josefresco 17y ago
Oh what a horrible, horrible analogy. I wouldn't wish being the "Jaguar of anything" on my worst enemy.

briancooley 17y ago

Them taking 91% (and having single-digit overall market share) means that consumers increasingly prefer small portable cheap low-power computers Their market share might be single-digit, but hasn't it been growing? Another interpretation might be that consumers are simultaneously migrating towards Apple PC's and laptops as well as purchasing netbooks and similar for added convenience. That's the story in my household.

potatolicious 17y ago

I disagree. Netbooks are a fad that will not last over a few years. For one thing, the margins on netbooks are even slimmer than the cheapo laptops Dell was making before the "netbook revolution", and manufacturers are getting murdered left and right by this. It's the Wal-Mart effect - you flood a market suddenly with cheap, shoddy product and people will jump for it, but it's not sustainable as your vendors and suppliers start dying off. Profit margins are disappearing for the likes of Asus, Dell, and HP, and they're skating on thinner ice than ever before. Would you rather be selling $300 computers at a $5 profit each, or $1200 computers at a $100 profit each? People got on Sony's back early on when they claimed that the introduction of a netbook will do nothing but start a "race to the bottom". They were attacked for being out of touch with reality and trying to peddle overpriced ultra-portable notebooks. But they were right.

newacc 17y ago

i agree with you that "Apple needs to innovate on the low end, or die" because cloud computing and browser OS are going to be a game changer - if every task is done on the net and if the browser is the OS then how would one differentiate a PC from MAC??? all you need is a hardware with a browser OS that is slick and speedy, while all the apps that resides on the net will have same look and feel on all the browsers doesn't matter what hardware you're using!