MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple Online Store

5 Day Most Commented

Opinion Archive

Current Headlines

Latest Joy of Tech

  • Latest Joy of Tech!

MacNN

AppleInsider

Macworld UK

TUAW

MacRumors

Yahoo! Finance AAPL

iTunes Top 10 Albums

Mac OS X Downloads

Thu, Aug 21, 2008 - 10:46 PM EDT  —  AAPL: 174.29 (-1.55, -0.88%)  |  NASDAQ: 2380.38 (-8.70, -0.36%)

10 percent of computer users use a Mac; 3 percent is Mac’s approximate quarterly market share
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 09:00 AM EDT

"It broke Mike's Viglione's heart to see that old Macintosh abandoned on the street like that. Who would do such a thing, he wondered? He grabbed the computer and took it home. He dusted it off and gave it new life. The Apple joined a happy little computer family made up of three Mac Classics, four Powermacs, a dual G4 Desktop, a G4 Powerbook and a charming little iPod. Viglione doesn't use them all. He just likes having them around. He says he doesn't 'have the heart to throw away the classics.' Hey, it's a Mac thing - PC folk just wouldn't understand," Christopher Hutsul reports for The Toronto Star.

Hutsul reports, "Because the Macintosh, which celebrated it 20th anniversary in January, has endeared itself to a community of computers users in an almost spiritual way. Two decades after Steve Jobs unveiled the first Mac, people like Viglione - and me - get downright emotional about our Macs. Ever heard of new Mac smell?"

"'For the people who are dedicated enthusiasts, I think they see their computers almost as pets,' says Viglione, who sells Apple products by day at a computer store. 'As a Mac user, your computer takes on a personality. You treat it with a human-like quality.' You don't often hear people talking about their consumer electronics this passionately. But Macintosh has been able to separate itself from the herd since the beginning," Hutsul reports.

"Now this isn't about whether Mac is the better computer. Depending on how you slice it, Macintosh has been both the best and the worst of the computer market. Even with the recent successes of the iPod and the coveted Titanium Powerbook series, some estimate that only 3 per cent of the market does its computing on Apple machines," Hutsul reports.

[MacDailyNews Note: 3% is the current quarterly market share, not the installed base. Hutsul should have reported "only 10 percent of the market does its computing on Apple machines." It's knowledge that can be gathered, but for some reason most in the media never seem to be able to do their research. Here's an exception: "Naysayers have been calling for Apple's demise for years. But Apple not only has survived but thrived, it seems, at least partially by the sheer force of Jobs' will and his ability to maintain the ferocious loyalty of Apple's users, who still account for 10% of the world's computer users, while its sales usually account for about 3% to 5% of the world global PC market," Arik Hesseldahl, Forbes.com, June 2, 2003. (source)/a>

"Dissidents would argue that in terms of pricing, the high-end Macs cost up to 50 per cent more than a similarly equipped PC (though I'd counter that by suggesting the price gap is erased by the fact Mac users seem to hold on to their computers for about twice as long as PC users, thereby spending the same amount)," Hutsul reports.

Full article
here.

MacDailyNews Take: A good article that repeats the same mistake many reporters make. Macs last longer than Windows PCs. If Mac users replace their Mac every 4 years and PC users replace their every 1.5 years, what does that do to quarterly market share numbers? Not to mention, what does that do to landfills? The important number to analysts, marketeers, software developers, and others should be how many people out of 100 use a Mac? The answer is closer to 10 people out of 100 or 10 percent. Not 3 percent. We get tired of having to point this put, but we'll never stop doing so until the "3 percent myth" is destroyed.

Obviously, Apple needs to address the current market share numbers or their percentage of all computer users who use a Mac will erode over time.

  • Social Web
  • E-mail






Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Reader Feedback: ( = registered)

Feb 10, 04 - 10:42 am Comment from: Tek

Should we, or Apple, really care about market share? So long as Apple remain a profitable company then we all win (providing that they don't hike up their profit margin on sales in order to generate said profit!).

People have different tastes and, more importantly to some, different budgets. That is why we consumers have choices from which pen we write with to which car we drive. Yes, if Apple kit cost the same as regular PC kit then there'd be lot more of their kit flying off the shelves. But that isn't the Apple way any more than it is, say, Mercedes. Personally I bought the following last year from Apple: iPod 30GB, PowerBook 12", AirPort Extreme Card and Apple Bluetooth Mouse. I could've saved money, and in some cases gotten more features, but I *wanted* these things rather than the other products in the market place. However, the last year was the most (by far) I've spent on Apple kit in many years.

Feb 10, 04 - 10:42 am Comment from: Anonymous

I tend not to believe this 10% installed base. If you look at google zeitgeist you'll see that only 3% of the hits come from Macs. While this isn't very scientific it challenges the 10% estimate.

Feb 10, 04 - 10:46 am Comment from: David

The 3% number is valid for the analysts and wall street guys. They are concerned about how much money Apple is making, which is tied to how many computers they sell this month. 10% is probably a more important number for developers who are concerned with how many copies of their titles will be sold.

Of course, neither number indicates that Apple is going out of buisiness any time soon.

Feb 10, 04 - 10:49 am Comment from: Fred Mertz

Google Zeitgeist would be inaccurate, Anonymous. Not all browsers and OS's can be indentified correctly by Google. If you add the 4% they claim as "other" to Mac (much of the unidentified 4% most likely is Mac), you'd get 7% - which is at least closer to the true 10% than 3%.

Feb 10, 04 - 10:51 am Comment from: ForkBall

"...only 3 per cent of the market does its computing on Apple machines," Hutsul reported.

Patently wrong. It is important that this myth is refuted routinely. Thanks, MDN!

Feb 10, 04 - 11:24 am Comment from: Joe McConnel

If you want to bust a myth try finding some facts. The Forbes article MDN uses as a "source" states the 10% figure without attribution. Is it hard to reference the "study" that came up with this number?

Same with the "If Mac users replace their Mac every 4 years and PC users replace their every 1.5 years" idea. Yeah IF.

In my small world of a few hundred computers I know of, corporate, business, and private, I think 3% would seem high. Of course others will have other personal views, and I bet in some settings mac laptops are quite popular, since they compete on price like no other part of Apple's line.

It's almost depressing that this group jumps on such flimsy reporting and gives it creedence. If you want to feel good about yourself, go give a homeless guy a burger.

Feb 10, 04 - 11:25 am Comment from: giofoto was 'MJG'

As Steve Jobs has said.....market share is NOT important. Making profit is. And that is their main focus right now. As he has said before...he is grateful for the 25 million customers that Apple has had because they are the best 25 million customers.

Feb 10, 04 - 11:45 am Comment from: CitizenX

"at least partially by the sheer force of Jobs' will and his ability to maintain the ferocious loyalty of Apple's users"

I've never bought a Mac because of Jobs "sheer force of will". I buy the best computer.

Feb 10, 04 - 11:50 am Comment from: KennyLucius

I've always been skeptical about the 10% number. It's like the "megahertz myth": it has theoretical merit, but seems insignificant in the real world. Macs were way slower than PCs, so Mac pundits touted the "megahertz myth". Now Apples biggest problem has been solved with the G5, so MDN is pushing the "3 percent myth". I'm skeptical.

I wouldn't be surpised if the installed base is higher than 3%, but where does "10%" come from. Was there a study? A survey? A calculation that can be explained to a layman like me?

Feb 10, 04 - 11:53 am Comment from: Fred Mertz

250 million PCs in world (most of dumb terminals stripped out of this figure, but not all, becuase they don't really count in this equation) that people actually are using. 25 million Macs in use. 250/25=10.

Feb 10, 04 - 11:53 am Comment from: rageous

Listen, we know that the 3% number is not correct as far as total number of people using macs goes. But we have to recognize there is no real way to find out what the real installed base is, so the only numbers we can go on are sales. And the Macs gets a small slice of the sales pie. The Mac community is beginning to look silly when it constantly says "no it isn't" every time a sales % is quoted. It comes across as sophomoric.

I mean, I still have a PC sitting behind me that I never use. So technically I'm also part of the Windows installed user base. Which means the numbers are going to overlap. So they're kind of pointless.

What should be touted much more prevalently is the life expectancy of Macs vs. PCs. This number would be quite bit easier to nail down and would be great PR for Apple. My father continues to be amazed that my 2 years old TiBook is still working as good as it is. Hell, it's even faster now than when I got it, thanks to Panther. This is something Windows users in general have a lot of trouble comprehending.

Feb 10, 04 - 12:00 pm Comment from: Jeff S.

"'Dissidents would argue that in terms of pricing, the high-end Macs cost up to 50 per cent more than a similarly equipped PC (though I'd counter that by suggesting the price gap is erased by the fact Mac users seem to hold on to their computers for about twice as long as PC users, thereby spending the same amount),' Hutsel reports."

I'd argue that high-end Macs cost about the same as similarly equipped PC's. Its the low-end Macs that cost twice as much.

Feb 10, 04 - 12:10 pm Comment from: Georgie Porgie

Thers is no such thing as a "similarly equipped PC" compared to a high-end Mac. PCs do not have the world-beater G5 CPU. In fact, there are no "similarly equipped PCs" to any Macs since no PC can run the world's most advanced operating system. PCs are stuck with Windows or not-yet-ready-for-primetime Linux or some other wannabe Mac. When you get right down to it all other OS and PC makers are trying to give users the Mac experience at a cut-rate price. So far they've failed miserably.

Feb 10, 04 - 12:31 pm Comment from: Jeff S.

Take a deep breath Georgie. By similarly equipped, I'm referring to dual Xeon processors running 3.0ghz. Similar in performance. And dual Opterons actually perform much better than either the Xeon or G5. Hopefully, the new G5's will catch up to the performance of the Opterons.

And XP isn't THAT bad. Its a far cry from the 95/98 days. I still prefer my Macs though. And OS X is still better.

And if Apple could give the Mac experience at a cut rate price, most of these PC companies would be out of business.

Feb 10, 04 - 01:31 pm Comment from: Jayplus

I tend to think that the 3% number is true. I mean, out of a college classroom of about 40 students, I was the only one who used a Mac. So, that equates to 2.5 per 100 students.

And I think that market share IS important. Computer sales for Apple have been flat for the last couple of years, most of their growth has been in software (IE iLife, OS X, Keynote, etc...) and in peripherals such as the wonderful iPod.

Feb 10, 04 - 01:33 pm Comment from: Matthew

Jeff S. "And if Apple could give the Mac experience at a cut rate price, most of these PC companies would be out of business."

I don't think that is so true. eMacs cost $800 brand new and they are well equipped. It is a matter of so much more than price NOW. At one time that is what it was about. But now it is perception, integration, knowledge, fear, ect, ect. If Apple gave eMacs away businesses would not take them. Some would, but large Fortune 500 companies would not. It is a shame to say that, but Apple has a huge (if not impossible) battle for corporate America. And that is even if they feel like going after it.

Feb 10, 04 - 03:05 pm Comment from: Ampar

Jayplus said, "I tend to think that the 3% number is true. I mean, out of a college classroom of about 40 students. . ."

Is that a statistics class you are taking? An anecdotal sampling of one out of 40 is incredibly meaningless. When you've passed logic and statistics come back and share. I appreciate your enthusiasm but I'm really tired of generalizations and anecdotal evidence. I just read an anti-Mac diatribe that PROVED that Macs are dead because this guy's three friends work on 3D animations on a PC. Strong logic, right?

Feb 10, 04 - 03:22 pm Comment from: Happy

Well, i'm a fervently happy Mac user. I don't give a crap about Apple's market share. Who cares if the rest of the world doesn't get it? Why is everyone always in such a huff? Screw 'em all to the wall and keep on truckin'.

Feb 10, 04 - 03:24 pm Comment from: And an aside...

as long as Apple is profitable and putting out such excellent quality products, why waste air arguing over the ridiculous numbers? That's such a ridiculous waste of time. Let's enjoy our Macs and, if people switch, hey, that's GREAT - Welcome aboard! If not, so what? They're just losing out on the most seamless and efficient platform out there. Their loss.

Feb 10, 04 - 03:28 pm Comment from: Jeff

Remember. Even if Apple's market share is only 3% (a misleading figure for a number of reasons), it is the top 3%.

Feb 10, 04 - 03:30 pm Comment from: Stevek

Do we know if the 3% sales numbers are for all markets, including enterprise? If so, then of course Macs will show low numbers. But if we're talking about the computer people use when they have a choice, we'd have to eliminate the corporate sales, since the vast majority of users don't have any input on which computer sits on their desk.

And with regard to the Google numbers, a lot of that is at-work surfing, where the Mac-user may be forced into using a Wintel box.

Lastly, the PC cost figures (Mac 50% more) usually don't pan out when you compare like quality (tier 1 vendor) and like components. I just did this yesterday to see if the Macs we were buying were more expensive than comparable Dell's. The Dell's were slightly more expensive (~$50).

If you're one of the lucky ones, enjoy your Mac.

Steve.
Drinking upstream from the herd since 1990.

Feb 10, 04 - 03:48 pm Comment from: MacDuff

Well said, Matthew! Apple's pricing is not so bad at all. That whole argument is -- generally -- an outdated one. Go to Dell and package up their cheapest unit and see how much it costs to walk out the door with a functional system. I just did, and here's the results. The main thing was to open Word and Excel on both systems -- and I didn't even bother to equal the Dell's specs up to the eMac like XP Pro and a Firewire port (but I did opt up to a keyboard with volume controls and an optical mouse):

Dimension 2400 Celeron.
Intel® Celeron® Processor at 2.4GHz with 400MHz front side bus
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition, 128MB Shared DDR SDRAM, Dell™ Enhanced Multimedia Keyboard, Dell™ Optical USB Mouse, Microsoft® Office Basic Edition 2003, Norton Antivirus® 2003 12-month subscription upgrade (sorry, but proper AV is required on a Windows PC), 40GB Ultra ATA/100, Combo Drive, 17" .27dp monitor, Integrated Intel® 3D Extreme Graphics (analog VGA, shared main memory), Stereo Speakers, 10/100 Ethernet, basic warranty, no media app upgrades.

Total cost: $797.00

The base eMac, with a digital 17" .255 dot pitch CRT connection, running on a 4X AGP with 32Mb dedicated memory (versus Intel's shared and integrated memory), plus the Firewire port, Appleworks (R/W Word & Excel for Mac and Windows), same drive, RAM and optical, all ready to go...

for $799.00.

Gosh, I guess Macs ARE more expensive than PCs...

Feb 10, 04 - 04:59 pm Comment from: Mac Man

I wish I could find the article posted about two months ago. The article stated that Macintosh laptops account for about 16% of all laptops stolen.

Feb 10, 04 - 05:33 pm Comment from: david vesey

The 3% versus 10% battle of facts should continue, but another important fact is that more HUMAN BEINGS ie. consumers use these Macs.

Maybe 50% of PC's are sitting in government offices, businesses, schools, etc.

They are not being used to buy mp3's, organize photos, nor are they loaded up with extra software and hardware. Like most consumer PC's.

So using raw numbers to extrapolate sales of, say, mp3's from Napster will inevitably be off. There isn't a music buying person owning that PC. It's sitting in a bank somewhere. But the majority of those Mac owners are often creatives and/or people who actively buy music, use iPhoto, and are consumers of iPods, software, hardware, etc.

I'm astonished how this obvious fact is so overlooked by the 'experts' or representatives of large corporations... "Well... PC's have 95% of the market and Macs only have 3%"

In my opinion, the Mac probably has 20% - 30% of the actual music buying potential of computer owners. Meanwhile, the remainder of the PC owners are still downloading illegal mp3's.

So the people at Napster scratch their heads and wonder why their numbers aren't better. And it's really not that complicated.

david vesey

Feb 10, 04 - 05:46 pm Comment from: C-weed

As the old saying goes "figures don't lie, but liars figure". The whole market share numbers game means very little, except maybe to some analyst or marketing rep. The decline from 5% to 3% is deceptive in that, at the time Apple held a 5% market share there were fewer total PC's in the market. Today at 3%, I'll bet there are more Macs owned by users than their were five to ten years ago. Think about it, how many more of your friends and family own a computer today as opposed to, say, five years ago. Remember, marketshare equals the total number of personal computers sold, divided by the total number of computers your company sells. Apple could be selling record numbers of Macs and still be losing marketshare. Got to go with Steve Jobs on this one, look at the company financials.

Feb 10, 04 - 05:48 pm Comment from: MacDuff

You got it, C-Weed smile

How many macs are "out there" today, versus 1989?

Feb 10, 04 - 07:00 pm Comment from: treadlightly

David Vesey, I totally agree. I had given a cd-r to someone for Christmas with music from iTMS. Today the person told me that I must have pitated it!! I was dumbfounded! I also forwarded my receipt to them and told them to start enjoying the music with a clear conscience. I've posted it elsewhere, but I'll do it again. As a former teacher, most of the pc's sitting in classrooms remain mostly unused. In order to use them effectively, they have to have so much software installed, and school districts won't do that often enough. My old classroom had Apple II's that got more use than the windoze machines with high speed internet. Why? the old Apple's had the software I needed, the pc's only had Office, and what 10-11 year old wants to sit in front of that? I would love to be back in the classroom with iLife, but I'd probably get torched by the IT dept.

Feb 10, 04 - 07:01 pm Comment from: treadlightly

sorry, "pirated", not "pitated"

Feb 10, 04 - 08:13 pm Comment from: Jimbo von Winskinheimer

To those of you following the Google zeitgeist numbers, let me know if you find out for sure whether the ol' zeitgeist is counting all of the web hits from the virus infected PCs. Hmm, my PC just hit Microsoft 100,000 times in the last hour. Does that count as 100,000 hits from PC users?????

Joe Mc, your 100 PCs that you talk about are a small fraction of the population. They are statistically insignificant. I could say the same thing - I have 3 computers on my desk: 2 Macs and a Dell. Therefore, 66.6% of the installed base must be Macs!!!

Feb 10, 04 - 08:42 pm Comment from: Joe McConnel

Jimbo, I agree that anecdotal evidence does not count. Even the fact that 10 years ago a much larger number of the computers I know about were Macs does not count.

Feb 10, 04 - 10:16 pm Comment from: david vesey

I came up with a good analogy for the marketshare v.s. actual 'consumer marketshare' situation.

"Counting all the Windows PC's sold as consumer marketshare, is like including the cemetaries in the total population".

I think it's apt.

And for the people who sniff at this numbers game, and say it doesn't matter, well, I think that there are software and hardware developers out there who would get off the fence and develop for Mac if the numbers reflected Apples true stremgth.

david vesey

Feb 10, 04 - 10:57 pm Comment from: Nobody

"Hmm, my PC just hit Microsoft 100,000 times in the last hour. Does that count as 100,000 hits from PC users?????"

[sarcasm] But virus effects are exagerrated. Your PC can't hit Microsoft 100,000 times. It simply can't. My PC has no virus; therefore, no virus exists. [/sarcasm]

Feb 10, 04 - 11:18 pm Comment from: MacDuff

Nobody said:

[sarcasm] But virus effects are exagerrated. Your PC can't hit Microsoft 100,000 times. It simply can't. My PC has no virus; therefore, no virus exists. [/sarcasm]


LMFAO! :D

Feb 11, 04 - 04:22 am Comment from: no minded

Just to be stupid about all this, how many functioning computers are there in use today on this earth? How many computers shipped are DOA? How many fail within a year? How many older versions of software, OS included, are still being used? How much has been retired, recycled, thrown into the garbage heap without any documentation? How many computer users use multiple OS's, that is how many people use several different OS's and how does this affect market share versus installed base? Should corporate sales be separated from consumer and small business computer purchases? One should really ask how important short term thinking (ie market share) is relative to the long term lives (experiences) that most people seem to live these days?
Off Topic, but strangely related:
Wall Street is a big, cruel game, for the wealthy, wall street buys stocks and bonds, not personal computers, people buy personal computers.
Why should anyone care about wall street when considering their next computing experience? So many questions and not enough time, not enough time left to config Linux and reconfig Linux, not enough time to troubleshoot windows for days... there is enough time to live and experience the better things in life. rant...rant...rant!

Feb 11, 04 - 09:57 am Comment from: Joe McConnel

Macduff, that is a great price comparison, and illustrates why Apple can't sell these things. The buying public has become number happy and most think that these things are significant:

eMac processor speed: 1.0 ghz
emac fsb: 133 mhz

dell processor speed: 2.53 ghz (not 2.4)
dell fsb: 533 mhz (not 400)
(also dell is upgrading to 256mb ram free)

The emac is a great little computer (though I hate the integrated monitor idea, that can only cost money in the long run) and was obsolete, as far as the numbers game goes, the instant it hit the shelves. Don't blame me, tell Steve.

Feb 11, 04 - 03:21 pm Comment from: treadlightly

Joe, you're obviously correct, after all, we all know that 70,000 is bigger than 0, and since big numbers count, that must be one of the most important (can you say MyDoom?).

Reader feedback page 1 of 1 pages:

Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Add Your Feedback:

Register or Login

Name:

Email: (optional)

Emoticons | Allowed HTML Tags

Remember my personal information   Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the "MDN Magic Word" you see in the image below: