“Apple’s recent quarterly earnings report blew past all expectations. More importantly, dramatic unit sales growth shows the company is executing a working strategy for building the Mac platform. That raises the obvious question: why has Apple’s market share historically been so low, and why did Apple fail to make any progress in the 1990’s? Here’s a look at why Apple’s platform fell into crisis, and why the solutions prescribed by analysts didn’t work.”
While it’s nice to see an article hosted on a site that’s not chock-full of ads, the article merely rehashes the countless other stories on the same topic, many of which OSNews has already linked to.
This one is well written though, which is unusual.
eMagius: the article merely rehashes …
Yep, the article does rehash the same BMW is apple crap. OSNews posted it cause its been posted on Slashdot and Digg.
The PC succeeded because a heck of a lot of people (consumers, software vendors and hardware) could do with it what they wanted – the PC market grew around Apple.
Anyway the better analogy is AOL (Apple) vs Internet (PC). A closed system vs an open one.
OSNews posted it cause its been posted on Slashdot and Digg.
We posted it because it is not a bad article. I don’t even read Slashdot and Digg.com.
“The PC succeeded because a heck of a lot of people (consumers, software vendors and hardware) could do with it what they wanted – the PC market grew around Apple.”
The PC succeeded because they were able to make them cheaply enough that they became just another household appliance, proving once again that cheap technology will trump superior technology just about every time. (And I am not referring to Mac vs PC here, although a case could be made for that).
As for the article, I enjoyed it. It was well written, informative, and unbiased in its point of view. I would like to see more written like this.
protagonist: The PC succeeded because they were able to make them cheaply enough that they became just another household appliance
PCs were wildly successful way before they became cheap (especially for homeusers). The biggest advantage the PC had over closed-system vendors (the Amigas, Apples, Atari’s et al) is that it was not subject to the failure of one vendor.
The original price for an IBM PC XT – Model 5160 was $8000 (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=286)
The PC architecture has also enjoyed the benefit of having multiple potential sourced for innovation — early PC vendors like Compaq and Dell added features to their systems that other PC makers had to eventually match to stay competitive.
(Fixed a typo)
Edited 2006-10-23 15:04
The PC succeeded because a heck of a lot of people (consumers, software vendors and hardware) could do with it what they wanted – the PC market grew around Apple.
The success of the PC – the x86 PC for precision – is to led back to the fact thatt (a) it had a serial port RS-232 and (b) it was cheap. This made it interesing for the industry. Consumers were initially not the target group. Apple could (or wanted) not offer this. Quality had precedence over cheapness.
Just compare it to mobile telephones: The initial target group were managers etc. who had to be reachable out of their offices. Now, children and teenagers are the target group – those who “carry the business”.
You can even assume this in Apple vs. PC.
The PC succeeded because a heck of a lot of people (consumers, software vendors and hardware) could do with it what they wanted – the PC market grew around Apple.
PCs succeeded because IBM was in a vastly superior position to sell to businesses. The popularity of their mainframe systems gave them a much larger customer base to sell PCs to than Apple, Atari, or Amiga. Once people had PCs at work, the natural tendency was to have a compatible system at home.
“Anyway the better analogy is AOL (Apple) vs Internet (PC). A closed system vs an open one.”
I find your metaphor offensive. AOL is annoyance-ware, always getting in the way. When I am using my Mac, it does EXACTLY WHAT I WANT– no more, no less. When I use PC’s at work, the OS is always “in my face”.
During the development of Mac OS X, Apple’s fortunes rested largely upon Microsoft’s Office suit of business applications, print production and graphic design software from Adobe and Quark, and Macromedia’s suite of web design tools.
These four companies forced Apple to delay its migration to NeXT in order to support the classic Mac OS. Without the assurance that Apple would even survive the decade, they did not want to invest in an entirely new Mac platform.
Apple’s existing Mac platform was almost entirely dependent upon these four developers; without them, Apple’s Mac would turn into another Amiga or Be: interesting, oddball hardware which lacked much serious software.
Apple was forced to dump its initial plans to quickly migrate Mac users to NeXTSTEP under the code name Rhapsody, and instead undertook an extensive engineering effort to completely reengineer a new hybrid operating system and development environment.
During the development of Mac OS X, Apple polished the existing classic Mac OS, and salvaged what it could of Copland developments. Apple modernized its existing Mac APIs into Carbon, which would run software in Mac OS 9, and later allow it to run natively in Mac OS X.
These facts are what delayed OS X considerably and only in Leopard will you start seeing the course OS X was planned to move with the obvious advances in computing today, mixed with new markets [iPod, etc].
The Big 4 held Apple by the balls until about 18 months ago.
Yeah, poor Apple. They release a new OS and for some reasons those stupid companies didn’t chomp at the bit to spend time and money re-writing their applications for a platform with less than 5% marketshare. Go figure.
Too bad they did spend that time and money. Unless you’re being sarcastic, you’re blatantly wrong.
I’m curious: did you miss the words “chomping at the bit” in my post, not understand what they mean, or did you simply forget how long it took for a OS X-native version of Photoshop to be released?
Apple’s marketshare (it’s not exactly “marketshare” btw) is much more than 5 % in printing/publishing, graphic arts, web design. One may ask why Microsoft would want to go on developping for the Mac (and one knows why, in fact), but Adobe, Quark and Macromedia make tons and tons of cash with that platform.
Comparing Apple’s worldwide market share to HP or Dell fails to consider that Apple sells a different product mix to a very different segment of the market.
It is reasonable to compare market share, since Apple initially aimed to compete in the PC market (before PC exclusively meant IBM compatible). They once had a comparable market share, but they lost ground. They exist in a different market segment because that’s all they were able to hold on to.
Apple sells premium computers with a unique operating system. This leaves it with no direct equivalent in the market.
This wasn’t the case initially. They competed with Atari, Amiga, IBM, and others. Apple is only unique because it didn’t go under.
In fact, Microsoft has recently abandoned new efforts in software licensing to begin copying Apple’s model with the Macintosh: both the Xbox and the Zune involve integrated hardware and software sold directly by Microsoft; there are no licensees.
Obviously, the Windows method wouldn’t work with an integrated system such as the XBox, which is also a much different business model than a Macintosh, especially now. Microsoft charges fees for third parties to develop hardware or software for the XBox. The XBox also has much tighter component integration than any Apple system ever has.
Also, last I looked, Windows Mobile is outselling Palm/Linux solutions by a rather large margin.
I’ve always wondered why Mac clones was thought to be a good idea. The clone market certainly didn’t help IBM.
Also, last I looked, Windows Mobile is outselling Palm/Linux solutions by a rather large margin.
I think this is in the (shrinking) PDA market. In the (growing) smartphone market we get…
Symbian 75%; Linux 14%; Microsoft 5%; Palm 5%
..at least, we do according to roughlydrafted.com
Remember, even Amiga and Atari fans will admit that Amigas and Ataris were “low-cost Mac” type machines.
I’ve always wondered why Mac clones was thought to be a good idea. The clone market certainly didn’t help IBM.
Oh but it did. IBM gained a smaller share of the market than it would have if it had kept the platform closed, but the market itself is/was much bigger than it would otherwise have been.
“I’ve always wondered why Mac clones was thought to be a good idea.”
The PC industry seem to be a healthy , profiting one …
“The clone market certainly didn’t help IBM.”
Really ? They made money on every single parts inside the clones , due to patent and being the only one able to process certain device and software …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible
IBM derived a considerable income stream from licence fees — companies who cloned the PC paid for licences to use IBM patents that were in the PC design, to the extent that IBM’s focus changed from discouraging PC clones to maximising its revenue from licence sales.
Most modern x86 server-class machines are essentially more robust versions of the modern desktop IBM PC compatible.
“IBM gained a smaller share of the market than it would have if it had kept the platform closed,”
Until Dell came along in the 1990 , IBM had 65%+ of the global market … As I explained , they also profited on every single clone made , from one way or another , Device , license , service , software.
Its somewhat amusing to read your comments , why ? Because if you load up the latest Apple offering they are all basically IBM clones … with Mac OS X on top.
History repeat itself for those who dont learn it or from it , last I looked Apple is diversifying at the expanse of its core computing market ( Music , TV ), again , as I recall they where first in a lot of computing achievement , but there own hubris did them in then , they had the good fortune and inteligence of makinmg iTune for windows this time around , but passing on selling older version of Mac OS X to Dell is probably costing them billions.
25$ – 30$ per Dell machine.
“Oh but it did. IBM gained a smaller share of the market than it would have if it had kept the platform closed,”
Oh, really? can you prove that?
IBM clearly was unhappy when Compaq riped-off the BIOS; they went to court over it.
“Oh but it did. IBM gained a smaller share of the market than it would have if it had kept the platform closed,”
Oh, really? can you prove that?
Yes. Competition forced prices down, allowing lower- and lower-income consumers to buy them. One source = no competition. Basic capitalist economics.
IBM clearly was unhappy when Compaq riped-off the BIOS; they went to court over it.
What does that have to do with anything? Companies often favour being in complete control of a market, even if that’s not the best course of action for anyone concerned.
“Yes. Competition forced prices down, allowing lower- and lower-income consumers to buy them. One source = no competition. Basic capitalist economics. ”
I’d say technological change brought prices down. Moreover, at that time, you’d have had few lower-income people owning computers. They were ALL pretty pricey.
I’d say technological change brought prices down. Moreover, at that time, you’d have had few lower-income people owning computers. They were ALL pretty pricey.
Well as to the first point that’s true. It’s partly down to economies of scale, however. And of course it doesn’t mean that if you have competition you will automatically and immediately bring prices down – but it WILL happen in ways in which there just is no incentive to happen in a unique product.
In relation to article’s WinCE didn’t duplicate same success as Desktop Window platform point… It seems http://www.roughlydrafted.com didn’t factor in Linux’s commodity characteristics vs MS WinCE in the embedded market.
>The PC succeeded because they were able to make them
>cheaply enough that they became just another household
>appliance, proving once again that cheap technology
>will trump superior technology just about every time.
The problem with PCs is precisely that they are NOT appliances; built from the least expensive components that are frequently managed by uncertified drivers; adding up over time to an experience that is decidedly ‘Ford Model T’ rather than ‘Toyota Land Cruiser’.
Of course you can have Windows systems where all devices have fully certifified drivers; probably costs a similar amount to an Apple. And when you have problems the hardware people and Microsoft will still point the finger at each other.
Of course Apples are not made out of better components; (increasingly there are only a few chip makers in each sector) but they are well designed and made. However (IMHO) the appliance proposition of the Apple machines is different to that of PCs; and Apple do take responsibility for most problems in driver space as well as hardware production.
As for cheap technology trumping superior technology; sadly you are right but in this case it is at a price of people tearing their hair out instead of getting on with being productive.
Some times I read comments on Osnews and it seems that there are people who genuinely believe that a total operating system monoculture will offer economies of scale and quality to everyone.
Edited 2006-10-23 08:50
The problem with PCs is precisely that they are NOT appliances; built from the least expensive components that are frequently managed by uncertified drivers; adding up over time to an experience that is decidedly ‘Ford Model T’ rather than ‘Toyota Land Cruiser’.
Um, that’s too much of a generalization. You can certainly buy a PC with cheap components, but it does not follow that all PCs use cheap components. There are plenty of PCs available which use components which are equal to or better than those found in Macs.
Software piracy.
You could get any Software for the (DOS) PC on the black market in 1990. You just had to ask some friends. And everybody knew at least ONE guy who had pirated software (it still is like that in China, India, …). But you knew NOBODY who had pirated software for the Mac you could have copied from, too less people had Macs. So the Mac was by far worse than the PC for private use.
Besides, in school we learned PC, not Mac, because Mac was too expensive in those times for a school.
“But you knew NOBODY who had pirated software for the Mac”
you are TOTALLY, TOTALLY, TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! priated software for the mac THRIVED in the 90s….. trust me on this one! EVERY mac user i knew… and that was ALOT…. copied mac apps back an forth! the design of Mac OS and apps that ran on MacOS made is SO easy to pirate software! in MANY MANY MANY cases… once an app (like Photoshop) was installed… copying the app folder from one HD to another…. was all you had to do to get the app on some one elses mac!!!!!! on DOS/windows… that was RARLY possible!
i have allways felt, it was the simplicity of Pirating Mac apps… that helped the mac to survive durring the bad years! but that is just me….
I like the article, but I don’t agree with the premise that the Mac market and the PC market are two different things. There’s too much overlap in functionality for the two markets to be considered separately, unless you’re focusing on a very narrow specialty. Ask yourself: How many of you buy both a Macintosh AND another PC brand for general use?
The Mac gravitated to DTP and audiovisual specialties not by design, but by happenstance. That’s not a separate market, it’s a small share of the larger market that Apple managed to succeed in. The Mac’s growing irrelevance in the rest of the market was not seen as a happy niche, but as a failure to be corrected. Finally, they are making progress in that direction — and “market share” is still a legitimate goal.
The world would be a much more pleasant, efficient place if everyone had the opportunity to use a Mac.
To be sure, something better could– and probably WILL– show up someday. But it hasn’t happened yet, and it is not on the horizon, as near as I can tell.
Edited 2006-10-23 16:38
The world would be a very similar place.
But regardless, it will not happen, because Apple cannot fill the demand for PCs with Macs it can make, and it will not let anyone else fill it!
This is quite fundamental. There is no point at all in saying how much better the world would be if we all used Macs. It is not possible.
Apple is the main obstacle to it. Its intrinsic to the business model that it will drive people to other solutions – Windows or Linux or whatever.
Its part of the history. Yes there were terrible products in the mid and late nineties. But share peaked at around 12% in the early nineties. The reason it fell to under 2% at one point is just that people wanted computers, and Apple being unable and unwilling to supply them, rather than go without, they bought what was available.
What mainly happened was not Apple losing. What mainly happened was the market rising and Apple failing to keep up.
If this were pens, TomB7 would be telling us how much better handwriting would be if we all used Mont Blancs. And failing to answer the question: ok, if there are not enough Mont Blancs for us all, what the hell are we supposed to use? Scratch with sticks in the sand? Or use the pens we can buy in every market?