With all the hoopla surrounding the company--and you'll hear a lot this week as Apple turns 30--you'd think it pulled off the first manned spaceflight to Neptune or invented long division. Instead, the company's recent accomplishments include making it possible to buy Foghat singles on the Web and selling a leather pouch for music players for $99.
Apple held 2.3 percent of the world's computer market at the end of last year. If you compare that to global population figures, Apple is roughly the Philippines, Ghana and Spain combined.
Apple shipped 4.74 million Macs in calendar year 2005. That's 20 percent lower than the growth in shipments (5.7 million) Dell experienced in the same year. Dell, in other words, grows an Apple and a fifth a year--and investors worry about Dell losing its edge?
CNET News.com editor at large Michael Kanellos offers a contrarian spin on the import of Apple's 30th anniversary during Friday's daily podcast.
Listen now:
More podcasts at http://podcast.news.com/
In relative terms, Apple continues shrinking. Back in 1990, Apple was the largest PC maker in the world, with 10 percent of the market. In the third quarter of 1997, the company had 7 percent. During one of its most rocky periods--when it fired CEO Gil Amelio--market share had only dipped to 2.8 percent. Put another way, the company's PC group is about a third the size it was when CEO Steve Jobs returned.
Apple is growing faster than the PC market overall, but so are Acer, which is larger, and Gateway, which is No. 3 compared to Apple's No. 4 spot in the States.
Size, of course, isn't everything. Unlike some other PC makers, Apple turns a profit and has successfully branched out into other markets with the iPod. The company has a strong influence on PC designs and home technology, according to, among others, Intel Vice President Deborah Conrad.
At scientific conferences, I see a greater percentage of attendees toting Macs than at other events, so clearly the intelligentsia has tuned in. Plus, people love the company and its products. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law rave about their days at Apple, and they got laid off a cumulative total of three times--once by Steve himself.
But the company could accomplish all that and still sell a lot more computers. So why doesn't it?
The reason, I think, comes down to the fact that Apple is a company that's always been more concerned about having good ideas than good friends. In a way, it's a decision many face: Do you want to get by on brilliance or an ability to get along with others?
Ideas are great--civilization couldn't progress without them--but they can be difficult to live with. It's not a coincidence that Voltaire spent a lot of years in exile. The same thing happens in politics: Cerebral candidates often grab an early lead, but the electorate invariably gravitates toward people like Clinton or Reagan, more known for their personal charm.
When you look at the history of Apple, you can't really say it plays well with others. It had a licensing program, but when clones began to cut into its market, it killed the program. Back in the '90s, I interviewed several resellers who were bitter about how Apple had eliminated their authorization to sell Macs into the education market. Many retaliated by de-emphasizing Apple in other accounts. Component makers and retailers still regularly grouse about the company.
Microsoft and Intel don't behave that way. If one of them hears a rumor that a customer may defect, sales execs are practically drop-shipped the next day.
In the consumer world, of course, there's that $300 price delta on the company's computers. According to the Apple view of the world, consumers should pay for advanced technology. If your LCD screen has a viewing angle of 170 degrees and more nits of brightness, you should pay for it. Most other companies take a different tack: This is America. People are cheap. Give them a free printer.
There's also another problem with ideas: No matter how brilliant you are, not all of your ideas will be good. Apple has popped a few doozies in its day. The inventors of lithium ion batteries once gave Apple the opportunity to buy the technology, according to VLSI CEO Dan Hutcheson.
"(Then-CEO John) Sculley's office passed it down to the Chief Technical Officer, who brushed it aside, saying battery technology was not important in electronics. Apple could have owned the portable electronics market," Hutcheson wrote in a recent newsletter.
Apple also passed on America Online to create the now defunct e-World. Newton and Pippin (a fumbled entertainment console for TVs) were ahead of their times--and not very good technologically.
The cube PC, the iBook with a handle, the flower power iMac, the Shuffle cut down in the prime of its life. Not everything that comes out of Cupertino results in a hit.
Then again, the company remains highly entertaining. Who ever debates the cultural impact of Fujitsu-Siemens?
Biography
Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Computer,
Michael Kanellos,
podcast,
PC company,
Apple Macintosh
unmistakable truth to your comments above. Most of the time I
merely laugh at idealistic journalists posting ridiculous and
doctored opinions and statistics, however, when you look from
an unbiased perspective you've just said the undeniable truth.
All I can say is that Apple's computer market share IS on the
increase however it's market INFLUENCE is by far the majority in
the industry and I just wish them the best of luck. I am looking
forward to the rumored iPhone though because I HATE MY
RAZR!!! GRRR!!! To all my fellow Apple fans out there, don't jump
straight on the defensive, say something constructive. Think
different.
I would have given almost anything to have forced Apple to port it's OS to PC clones in the late 80's. They didn't. They still want a premium for hardware that's... not. And, while thier OS is still superior they still refuse to market a version for my machine.... despite the fact that it now takes extra work to keep it from being functional on said hardware. To borrow a phrase from the old testament, it's like a dog returning to it's vomit.
At this point, I use Linux for work and Windows for games. DirectX has a death grip on the PC game market and, unfortunately, I don't see that changing soon.
The day Apple wakes up and offers me a version that will work on my machines, I'll go down and buy the OS. Until then, I'll spend my money elsewhere.
unmistakable truth to your comments above. Most of the time I
merely laugh at idealistic journalists posting ridiculous and
doctored opinions and statistics, however, when you look from
an unbiased perspective you've just said the undeniable truth.
All I can say is that Apple's computer market share IS on the
increase however it's market INFLUENCE is by far the majority in
the industry and I just wish them the best of luck. I am looking
forward to the rumored iPhone though because I HATE MY
RAZR!!! GRRR!!! To all my fellow Apple fans out there, don't jump
straight on the defensive, say something constructive. Think
different.
I would have given almost anything to have forced Apple to port it's OS to PC clones in the late 80's. They didn't. They still want a premium for hardware that's... not. And, while thier OS is still superior they still refuse to market a version for my machine.... despite the fact that it now takes extra work to keep it from being functional on said hardware. To borrow a phrase from the old testament, it's like a dog returning to it's vomit.
At this point, I use Linux for work and Windows for games. DirectX has a death grip on the PC game market and, unfortunately, I don't see that changing soon.
The day Apple wakes up and offers me a version that will work on my machines, I'll go down and buy the OS. Until then, I'll spend my money elsewhere.
there's a question you'd rather not address. Because it terrifies you
and the competition.
did this guy get his numbers from?
along with his "I'm Bill's *****" T-shirt.
Gartner giving Apple 5.8 percent in 2005 and IDC at 2.9 percent.
It's also worth noting that Apple's worldwide market share did
move up slightly last year from 1.9 percent in 2004, according
to Gartner, or 2.0 percent, according to IDC.
That's because Mac sales are exceeding industry growth rates.
Apple shipped 38 percent more Macs in the fiscal year ended
Sept. 24, 2005, than in the prior year, and shipments were up 20
percent in the last three months of 2005
The first number is relatively easy to get while the second is usually an estimate.
did this guy get his numbers from?
along with his "I'm Bill's *****" T-shirt.
The first number is relatively easy to get while the second is usually an estimate.
Gartner giving Apple 5.8 percent in 2005 and IDC at 2.9 percent.
It's also worth noting that Apple's worldwide market share did
move up slightly last year from 1.9 percent in 2004, according
to Gartner, or 2.0 percent, according to IDC.
That's because Mac sales are exceeding industry growth rates.
Apple shipped 38 percent more Macs in the fiscal year ended
Sept. 24, 2005, than in the prior year, and shipments were up 20
percent in the last three months of 2005
a company well in its own (and investors) best interest, and
having millions of happy customers who are willing to pay more
and not settle for cheap.
It is none of your business if Apple's business strategy does not
meet with your approval, though you have a right to write what
you want.
If you are so smart why are you a "drive-by" writer and probably
a shyster lawyer.
In *investors* best interest? Are you drunk?
Microsoft IPOed in 1986, and the stock is worth 343 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 188 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 30%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $3.43 million.
Dell IPOed in 1988, and the stock is now worth 303 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 180 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 33%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $3.03 million.
Apple IPOed in 1984, and event with the recent run-up thanks to the iPod, the stock is worth 21 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 11 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 11%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $0.21 million.
Which companies are *really* looking after their investors?
As for the author of this article, of course it's his business. That's what writers do, they research topics of interest and present their data. Apple's strategy is a topic of interest to lots of people. It's more than fair game.
Even if Apple wasn't a publicly held company, I'd argue against your point. They have an effect on the computer industry at large and we all have a stake in that.
In short, I don't think you could be more wrong.
My 2 cents...
a company well in its own (and investors) best interest, and
having millions of happy customers who are willing to pay more
and not settle for cheap.
It is none of your business if Apple's business strategy does not
meet with your approval, though you have a right to write what
you want.
If you are so smart why are you a "drive-by" writer and probably
a shyster lawyer.
As for the author of this article, of course it's his business. That's what writers do, they research topics of interest and present their data. Apple's strategy is a topic of interest to lots of people. It's more than fair game.
Even if Apple wasn't a publicly held company, I'd argue against your point. They have an effect on the computer industry at large and we all have a stake in that.
In short, I don't think you could be more wrong.
My 2 cents...
In *investors* best interest? Are you drunk?
Microsoft IPOed in 1986, and the stock is worth 343 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 188 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 30%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $3.43 million.
Dell IPOed in 1988, and the stock is now worth 303 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 180 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 33%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $3.03 million.
Apple IPOed in 1984, and event with the recent run-up thanks to the iPod, the stock is worth 21 times the IPO value. Adjusted for inflation, it is worth 11 times the IPO value, an annual constant-dollar return of 11%. If you bought $10,000 of stock at the IPO, it would now be worth $0.21 million.
Which companies are *really* looking after their investors?
Comparing Apple with Dell is too gross. Dell punches out a cheap commodity. Apple crafts little gems. Nobody falls in love with their Dell. People use Apples for years because they love them ... and they function for years.
Nice collection of statistics, too. You put in a lot of time finding comparisons with which to damn Apple. Liars and statisticians can prove anything and you still failed.
One wonders if you were ever fired by Apple?
Thanks for the laugh.
Liars and statiticians may be able to prove anything, but only zealots are blind to the possiblity that they're wrong.
Talking about statisticians, the whole world from economy to weather prediction works around statistics and probability. Do you have any other quantitative way of comparing things.. do share with us
ask? Where did they fail? They are debt free, have deep pockets, a
growing brand name and customer loyalty MS HAS killed to try and
get and still fails to inspire despite having 90% marketshare in OSs.
Too bad you're just another lamer masquerading as a reporter and
flying the often run-up "Mac sucks" salute in the name of a quick
buck and a couple of hits for your story. You should go back to
time-shares and ambulance chasing. At least then you could be
respected for admiting what you are.
Firstly in terms of PC hardware, Apple plays in the premium value space and does not compete soley on costs and tech specs. Many people want easy to use and aesthetically pleasing PCs, similar to their home appliances and furniture. The Ikea of PCs they are not. They are more specialty in this area but they have loyal customers. Think BMW versus Honda- each has their own space.
Secondly, Apple does not really on CPU hardware manufacturing. They are darlings of wall street for DOMINATING the music player and download market where they have over 70% of the US market. That's no small feat.
Thirdly, they are learning to make friends aka intel which they have realized can give them more bang for the buck and free up their resources to innovate- which is what they do best.
Cheers,
-A
Firstly in terms of PC hardware, Apple plays in the premium value space and does not compete soley on costs and tech specs. Many people want easy to use and aesthetically pleasing PCs, similar to their home appliances and furniture. The Ikea of PCs they are not. They are more specialty in this area but they have loyal customers. Think BMW versus Honda- each has their own space.
Secondly, Apple does not really on CPU hardware manufacturing. They are darlings of wall street for DOMINATING the music player and download market where they have over 70% of the US market. That's no small feat.
Thirdly, they are learning to make friends aka intel which they have realized can give them more bang for the buck and free up their resources to innovate- which is what they do best.
Cheers,
-A
Also don't give me these comments on how Macs are Gems and PC's are the Ikea of home computing. Macs have nothing more to offer then a PC in the same range. Which is why most people don't use macs. Why use a convaluted over stated OS when you can have a simple stright forward and modular OS like Windows.
If i wanted something that ran linux as the actuall underlying os. I would run Linux.
The real problem is Mac users think the only thing you can learn about a windows OS is in a Windows For Dummies book, Which they probably own. Windows OS is so multi layered I bet some of your lil mac boy heads would spin off if you tried to learn an inkling of the inner workings of a Windows OS and making adapataions for them.
Also don't give me these comments on how Macs are Gems and PC's are the Ikea of home computing. Macs have nothing more to offer then a PC in the same range. Which is why most people don't use macs. Why use a convaluted over stated OS when you can have a simple stright forward and modular OS like Windows.
If i wanted something that ran linux as the actuall underlying os. I would run Linux.
The real problem is Mac users think the only thing you can learn about a windows OS is in a Windows For Dummies book, Which they probably own. Windows OS is so multi layered I bet some of your lil mac boy heads would spin off if you tried to learn an inkling of the inner workings of a Windows OS and making adapataions for them.
computers than they did the year before! Unfortunately, those
computers are most likely the $299 discount computers that are
not making any more money for the company. Dell stock is
worth less than Apple Computer. Think about that Michael
Kanellos. What has Apple done recently other than make Foghat
available on Itunes and sell a $99 leather ipod case? How about
ship a quality OS upgrade on time? Or possibly as another
example, you could say that they have brilliantly transfered their
software to a completely different hardware architecture.
Microsoft is struggling with 64bit chips, let alone a totally new
architecture. Fire Michael Kanellos!!!
manufacture is Porsche AG. They are very very small in relation
to the stoggy behemoths like GM or FORD.
Being the most popular does not mean you are the best.
The phrase "most POPULAR" not the "best" or "most useful" but
"most popular" stuck in my craw for a few days.
I was disturbed enough to do a little research into some
of the world's most POPULAR (but not necessarily best, or even
3rd or 8th best) things:
* The single that spent the most consecutive weeks (54) on the
US charts is "The Macarena," by Los Del Rio. "The Macarena"
dethroned the previous consecutive chart topper, "Oh, What a
Night" (by The Four Seasons)
* The world's most translated author is everyone's favorite
Soviet, Vladimir Lenin. (3,842 translations). William Shakespeare
is a distant fourth with 1,689 translations.
* The longest running Broadway play of all time is "Cats" *The
U.S. President who was elected with the largest popular majority
was none other than Tricky Dick: Richard M. Nixon won with
47.1 million to McGovern's 29.1 million votes.
* The most watched weekly program in television history is
"Baywatch." Nielsen Media Research puts its weekly viewership in
110 countries at 2.3 billion (That is right, BILLION). At a distant
second is Jim Henson's "The Muppets." With barely 10% of
Baywatch's audience, a mere 235 million people in 106 countries
enjoy Kermit the Frog weekly.
* The best selling novel of all time "at 30 million copies is "Valley
of the Dolls," by Jacqueline Susann.
* The Number 3 Best Selling Music Video of all time is "Step By
Step" by New Kids On The Block. The Number 2 best seller is
"Hangin? Tough" by -- that's right -- New Kids On The Block
again. Incidentally, Hangin? Tough was previously the number 1
best selling music video of all time, until it was displaced by (I
couldn?t even make this stuff up if I tried) "Hangin? Tough Live,"
by New Kids On The Block.
* The world's best selling prepared food is that gustatory treat,
the Big Mac, at over 14 billion served.
* The world's largest daily circulation newspaper is neither the
Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times, but Pravda, at 10
million copies per day.
* Though not a public corporation (with no accompanying public
financial disclosure required), the highest revenue generating
infomercial is believed to be The Psychic Friends? Network
(1-900 Psychic).
* The world's best selling brewery is Anheiser Busch; makers of
many products - most notably its biggest seller: Budweiser Beer.
* Not too long ago, "(Whoomp) There It Is" by Tag Team was the
year's best selling single.
* 1996's best selling non-fiction book was "Make the
Connection" by that literary lion herself, Oprah Winfrey (co-
written by her dean of letters, Bob Greene).
* The best selling film soundtrack of all time is The Bodyguard.
* The fastest selling Debut Album of all time was Hootie and the
Blowfish's "Cracked Rear View," which sold 14 million copies
(Sources: Top Ten of Everything, by Russel Ash (DIK Publishing);
Nielsen Media Research; The Book of Mosts, Aaron Cohl (St.
Martin's Press); Guinness Book of World Records, 1997; Issac
Asimov's Book of Facts.)
But you're correct that being the most popular is certainly not synonomous with being the best.
I still find shuffles in the Apple Store.
Yeah, I know, a quibble. And your general analysis of market share, etc., is spot on. But if Apple were that bad, why would you find it important to write an article debunking it?
I still find shuffles in the Apple Store.
Yeah, I know, a quibble. And your general analysis of market share, etc., is spot on. But if Apple were that bad, why would you find it important to write an article debunking it?
- Shrinking?
-
by crazyarlo
March 31, 2006 7:27 AM PST
- I am not sure that increasing sales, but declining market share
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 286 Comments >>could be defined as "shrinking". Market share is irrelevant, except
if you are a direct PC competitor with Dell. They are NOT
shrinking!!