[Ti] Market Share: 2.3% -- That's NOT good press, coupled with the loss

[Simon Chapman]

At 4:06 pm -0800 16/1/03, Steve Wozniak wrote:
>I guess we have been able to get users to switch to OS X from MacOS, even
>if not from Windows. Being so different a platform, I worry if that means
>that MacOS and OS X users are each part of even a smaller market share
>when taken individually.
>
>I feel that Apple is on the right (great) track (leading edge features and
>apps and style and ease and etc.) but I have trouble accepting that market
>share moves the other way.
>
>I'm surrounded by Macintosh users but I notice that I'm often in places
>where almost nobody has one. I stay happy about this by way of a lot of
>rationalization, and not wanting to be a part of what everyone else is.
>That 'specialness' is worth paying a little extra, to me.

I think the worsening economy, worldwide, is the main problem. Apple's
computers have always been more expensive than their Wintel counterparts.
We, the faithful, pay the premium; but the vast majority of computer buyers
do not have an emotional attachment to Apple nor do they care much for
aesthetics. The vast majority start with a price - their budget for
hardware and software - and work it out from there. They find that they can
get more apparent bang for their buck by not buying Apple, so that's the
way they go. Most of them will never find out how much better made Apple's
hardware is, how much better designed it is, how much more reliable it is,
how superior Apple's support and warranty is... Money is tight and that
means Apple doesn't get a look in... except where they have a product or
technology that no-one else is offering. It's safe to say that for a
(short) time, every 17in notebook purchased will be made by Apple but even
that advantage will not last for long. Apple needs some more patents to
prevent others from ripping off its so-called bleeding edge technologies,
otherwise all of its R & D gives no more than temporary benefits to the
company.

But the real issue is price and in a harsh economic climate Apple seems to
be trying to woo new customers with features and high end machines instead
of dumbing down enough to be able to compete on price. This applies right
across the range but especially in the consumer entry-level zone where vast
numbers of machines are bought at prices below Apple's cheapest desktop.
Add to this the consumer's perception of processor speed and Apple's
struggle to break through the 1GHz barrier and I find it not at all
surprising that they are losing market share at the moment.

Worse, some of Apple's die-hard customers are being alienated. Some of us
will not switch to a new beta Os. Some won't buy a new Apple computer if it
forces us to abandon the Os that our business is working well on. In
addition, many of Apple's core customers need QuarkXpress and Apple's
belief, or bluff, that it could leave Os9 and Quark behind is misguided.
You can't expect customers to be prepared to shell out thousands more bucks
on new software (and peripherals) just for the privilege of buying Apple's
latest and greatest hardware. When price matters, this can double the cost
of upgrading to the latest Apple computer.

In short, Apple is doing the right things at the wrong time. Hopefully it
will survive long enough to reap the rewards in times a-plenty, if they
ever return. Meanwhile, their strategy for the present economic climate
should have been about entry-level machines, price-matching at all price
points - and finding a chip manufacturer who can give them figures which
look good superficially against Intel and Athlon.

My TiBook will probably run Os 9.2.2 for another five years, if it lasts
that long. And if it doesn't, Apple will force me to buy a replacement on
eBay. Meanwhile, my desktop machine is a 7500 G4 running Os 9.1. As Steve
Jobs began beating the drum about the demise of Os 9, I went straight to
eBay and bought three more 7500s (at under $100 each). And I'm not even
strapped for cash: I just don't want Os X. Not yet, anyway.

Simon