🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7/17/2010 5:34 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 16/07/10 11:47 PM, John Slade wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I would have trouble incuding the iPad since it runs on iPhone OS. If
>> you include the iPad you would have to include all smarphones. In one of
>> the charts I posted they do include iPhone numbers and it comes to less
>> than 1%.
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
>>
>> John
>
> It's really only an issue to those that are upset about OS-X's market
> share, and interestingly enough, Apple isn't one of those upset. They
> have margins on their hardware that Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc can only
> dream of because Apple can charge premium prices for hardware while the
> Windows systems vendors are in a race to the bottom on prices. Apple
> also never felt the need to compete at the low end where the margins
> really suck. The iPad was a brilliant move, selling for much more than a
> netbook with a bill of materials that's far lower. Those that complain
> that it's "not a real computer" do not understand what drives the
> consumer electronics business.

     The iPad, iPhone, iPod and iPod touch are brilliant moves 
by Apple. They make great devices despite this problem with the 
iPhone 4. As for their low end offerings, it's the Mini and 
iMac. They both have low-end performance but Apple can sell them 
at mid-range to high-end prices because they make them cute and 
small. Most people want practical and cheap over cute and small.

>
> Apple's opportunity for large market share gains with OS-X on computers
> is over because of Windows 7. There's just no big incentive for Windows
> users to switch anymore especially corporate, commercial, and
> educational users who need to run applications that are not available on
> OS-X, and would have to do dual booting or run Parallels to use Mac
> hardware. Those same users that use Windows at work are unlikely to want
> to have a different OS at home unless they are shown some significant
> advantages, especially given the higher hardware cost of the Apple
> products.

        I agree, Windows 7 is the best move from Microsoft since 
they went from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 or from 98, NT and 
2000 to XP. It's way more stable.

        As for the hardware costs of Apple. I don't see where 
the extra cost is since they have proprietary parts like HP and 
Dell have/had. They get them made by the same people at the same 
quality. IMO Apple's extra costs come mainly from the way their 
machines look and OS X. OS X is like by a niche and they will 
pay a premium for it.

>
> The transition from "Apple Computer" to just "Apple" shows that the
> company understands that their future success is in achieving commanding
> market positions in high margin consumer products like the iPod, iPad
> and iPhone, as well as selling content.

     Last time I checked their iPhone and other small devices 
made up about 40% of Apples revenue intake. But the content in 
the future will be the big moneymaker IMO. I see XBox Live 
making money and online games making money. I see music and 
video sales moving in the right direction.

John