MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Share of Sales or Market Share?

They are not the same!

From http://www.answers.com/market+share&r=67

"market share - n. The proportion of industry sales of a good or service that is controlled by a company."

Yes, they are the same.

The AMA (American Marketing Association) defines market share as:

- 1. (geography definition) A proportion of total sales in a market obtained by a given facility or chain. 2. (strategic marketing definition) The proportion of the total quantity or dollar sales in a market that is held by each of the competitors. The market can be defined as broadly as the industry, or all substitutes, or as narrowly as a specific market segment. The choice of market depends on which level gives the best insight into competitive position.

Please note: "The proportion of the total quantity...in a market that is held by each of the competitors."

The point is: What is the share of Macs in operation? I'm willing to bet that Macs actual share is much larger than Share of Sales.

MDN: Please turn off the ContentLink advertizing. It makes the text much, much harder to read.

All well and good, but just check Macintouch's "Mac Marginalization" page if you need reasons to increase plain market share.

Nautical: click on the small "i" in the content link.Then page down on the resulting page to see the "click here" to turn off the"feature"

The definition of market share depends on the definition of market.

You have a k to 12 education market.

You have a cash register market.

You have a consumer or home market.

You have a scientific market.

You have a creative market.

The list goes on and on.

What is the market? Once you know that then you can set about finding Apple's or Dell's or even Microsoft's share of that market. Apple does dominate some markets.

macaholic: Thank you very, very much!

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. That article made me nauseous. Seriously. What a mess.

There's probably a dozen definitions for "market share" but let's keep it simple. WikiPedia's--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketshare

"Market share, in strategic management and marketing, is the percentage or proportion of the total available market or market segment that is being serviced by a company."

"It can be expressed as a company's sales revenue (from that market) divided by the total sales revenue available in that market. It can also be expressed as a company's unit sales volume (in a market) divided by the total volume of units sold in that market."

So, "market share" can be total sales or total units sold in a given market or segment. That's how business views it.

All the rest of that mixing and matching is just plain silly.

For example, I read an article yesterday that says the iPod's share of the MP3 player market really is about 11-percent, not the 75-percent claimed by Apple and others. Why so low?

Because the writer broadened the "market" to include cell phones which play music (MP3 or whatever). Well, guess what? That's silly. Why? Because the writer failed to include the 500-million PCs that are capable of playing music (they're MP3 players, right?), so the iPod's "market share" in that market is less than 1-percent. See? That's silly.

Worse, what's with all this mixing and matching of markets-- hardware and software. At least compare Apples to apples. Microsoft doesn't sell PC hardware (yet) but still shows up with about 90-percent operating system "market share" in the known PC world. Yes, Apple's Mac OS X is increasing, so is Linux, and there are others. But Microsoft owns that space-- PC operating systems.

In hardware, it's a different story. Apple's "market share" in PC hardware sales dwarfs that of Microsoft. See? Again, it's a silly argument.

Apple's US units sold give it about a 4-percent to 5-percent "market share" when counting boxes. Forget the "shipped vs sold" argument. Boxes don't get sent back to the factory once they're 'shipped.' Apple's "unit" market share on a world wide basis is lower, most estimates have it at less than 3-percent.

The "market share" for sales is probably different than for units sold as Apple's prices on per unit basis are probably higher. So what? So is Apple's gross margins. They're highly profitable as a PC box producer than most others--per unit sold.

The "installed base" market share is merely a different number and a different view. Apple's is probably higher than the sales or unit number because Mac users and schools tend to keep their Macs longer than PC users. See? That's not hard. I've also read that Mac users, on average per machine sold, buy more software than PC users. I do. Most Mac users I know do the same. But PC users buy more anti-virus and anti-spyware software than Mac users.

Keep the premise simple, with well defined terms, and understanding the numbers will be much easier.

Tera Patricks
Tera Talks

Daniel Eran, who wrote this article, is a total idiot. The guy is confused beyond confused at what market share is, what markets are, what sales of MP3 players are - he has written pure garbage.

He´s got a chart showing Microsoft competing with Dell, HP, Apple and others for computer market share.

It is so confused and stupid that it made perfect logic to MDN - they obviously just read the headline of the article.

The authors total creditials:
"I write about technology, Apple, motorcycles and the place I call home: San Francisco."
The only place he has been published is on his own blog.

Thank you, Tera, for writing a rebuttal I didn't want to. The author's assertions are so full of crap as to be detected with a failing nose from across the continent.

Including Microsoft in any hardware marketshare arguments borders, no IS, ludricous.

MICROSOFT DOESN'T MANUFACTURE COMPUTERS.

wow... the most disorganized article I've read in years.

Tera,

Hope you're feeling better.

Giving Microsoft 90% OS market share is still ludicrous. Yes, Linux, OS 2, Be OS, UNIX and others combined may have 10%. However, even Microsoft says that 15% to 20% of Windows users are using pirated copies of Windows.

Can this 15% to 20% of Windows users really be counted as Microsoft 'market' share when there was no sale of that software or those licenses by Microsoft?

I would put Microsoft's true OS 'market' share at around 80%.

And if it weren't for the "Osborne Effect", Apple would have done even better last quarter!



Just thought I would throw that one out since all the shit heads that were promoting that stupid idea aren't mentioning it anymore. Crow eating time you lapdogs.

Big Al: "I would put Microsoft's true OS 'market' share at around 80%."

But they are still using Microsoft, not something else.
If you delete the piraters from the total equation (not counted or included anywhere), Microsoft still has over 90%.

Should anything older than OSX be counted as an Apple user?
Should Windows 95 people be counted?

These market share numbers are about total legit computers bought and OS sold extra.

Gregg Thurman - You predicted Apple at $81 a share by July 21.

MacMania good call. yeah all the supposed experts are too busy eating crow with both hands to type a retracttion article.

And FWIW PC processor upgrade cards count as a full computer in market share numbers.

I think the real question here is what is quarterly market share vs installed base. I'm quite confident that installed base is much higher than 5%.

macromancer: "I think the real question here is what is quarterly market share vs installed base. I'm quite confident that installed base is much higher than 5%."

I´ve got 6 macs: 5 in the closet one I use. So I would be 6 users right....

Just stick with the standards set up by the industry and quit trying to fudge the numbers to make yourself feel better.

I am guessing most of the recent sales of Macbooks has come from a long pent up demand by Mac owners moving up to something new. That will only last so long. Apple has to move lots more computers to make any progress.
And is the recent leap in Apple market share just because there were fewer PCs sold last quarter or whenever they count? There are lots of PC owners waiting until Vista comes out before they buy their next Windows computer.

Nobody,

Computers are sold all over the world but mostly in Asia, Africa and South America with a pirated copy of Windows loaded prior to sale. That computer cannot be added to Microsoft's market share if Microsoft did not profit from it's sale.

Use common sense.

Neat & Tidy said: "I am guessing most of the recent sales of Macbooks has come from a long pent up demand by Mac owners moving up to something new.

Maybe change your name to "I should pay attention".

AAPL CFO said on the call 50% of Macintosh buyers were "new to Mac". That kinda makes your statement shit, doesn't it?

Do you "feel better now"?

Big Al, should Linux count "market share" if nobody pays for the Linux version being used? Paid for or not, "market share" is still market share, though it could be segmented even further; 'Paid vs. Non-Paid.'

So your suffering from market share envy eh? Well everyone knows that virtually no one on the face of the earth uses Macintosh computers for anything. Everything useful and popular are always done on Windows because of the superior development tools and install base. No software developer in their right mind would ever start out working on a product for the Macintosh because they would go out of business. With only a tiny fraction of users running this bloated, slow and overpriced computer system. Since only the rich can afford these computers no real applications are ever written for it.

Eventually Apple will go out of business as MP3 players are developed. Then we can all sit back and run the only real operating system for home and business - Microsoft Windows.

macaholic, Nautical: That only works once per day.

We MacHeads are part of a small—but growing—and HIGHLY profitable market share. Many computer companies would give their firstborn to be in this position. That said, Apple's position would be so much better and safer if they could reach double digit market share in month to month sales.
Right now Apple still can't afford many major mistakes whereas Microsoft could stumble along for years and still be a viable company because they have so much cash and so many cash cows. Apple has to pick its fights very wisely, whereas MS can pick any fight it wants—for now.

Market share translates into dollars and developers and more people would take the Mac seriously for personal use and business. With, say 12% market share, Macs would make some serious inroads into business.

If Apple had that kind of market share they could also be even more creative and adventurous in their products.

John Doe,

Market share implies a buyer and a seller of the good in question.

Besides most Linux variants have some sort of value added tax, especially if they are pre-installed. There is always some cost added to the price of the computer in question, even if it is only the cost of installation.

That brings us back to the fact that if Microsoft did not sell the copy of Windows that is on a new computer, it cannot count as part of Microsoft's market share. Just ask any Microsoft shareholder.

Daniel’s post is a rambling conglomeration incomprehensible goofiness and word salad propaganda. If Daniel wants to “write for people who read” the least he can do is post something that is comprehensive and objective.

To rid MDN of annoying text ads

sudo pico /etc/hosts

don't remove anything you see

arrow down to the bottom and add

0.0.0.0 macdailynews.us.intellitxt.com

control x, y, then return to save

reload the page.

You just assigned a ip address of 0.0.0.0 to that website instead of fetching the correct ip number from a DNS server. 0.0.0.0 is "nothing". 127.0.0.1 is "your machine". Works the same either way. "#" means to "ignore this line."

You can apply this technique to have your machine refuse to contact most any website you please. Do backup the file and clone your boot drive just in case of a error.

Visit http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ for a current list of sites that monitor your surfing habits. Just paste in the long list, makes web pages load extremely fast too.

"Just stick with the standards set up by the industry and quit trying to fudge the numbers to make yourself feel better.
"

I use a Mac. I feel just fine.

sorry macseep-age. but I have it working day after day on my Mac and my XP shite-box at work!!

it's 'you're' , macrealist , as in you're a moron

It's also "installed" base not "install".

Apple's portable market share doubled from 6% to 12% in the US last quarter. That's encouraging, since laptops are accounting for a bigger and bigger proportion of overall sales. And while overall market share is still below 5% in the US (and below 3% worldwide), it's increasing, which is also encouraging. I'd be happy with a global share between 5% and 10%, which would be more than viable to sustain ongoing software development.

But as Dell has shown lately, market share doesn't count for much if you can't make money. Apple has been right to maintain its margins at the expense of market share. Then, as the other name-brand PC makers drop off, it can pick up some of their business.

I disagree with most of what went before.

Sure ... the article was overly broad and lacked some of the organization it might have had. Sure ... it fell short in some aspects.
It also highlighted a number of things most analysts have been ignoring.
Macs
=> Mac sales are primarily in the consumer and educational markets
=> Mac sales are in the Over $500 half of the market
=> every Mac sale is also an OS X sale
iPods
=> much of the FUD aimed at the iPod is based on questionable statistics

Numbers are raw data. Numbers can be shaped to provide either information or misinformation.

Big Al: "That computer cannot be added to Microsoft's market share if Microsoft did not profit from it's sale."

Who says it is??? What proof do you have of it? What company is selling computers in Africa with unlicensed OS and where does it appear on anyones list?

I know that 90% of all computers in China have unlicensed software...but are you sure those are counted? If they were then Apple´s share of the market would be a fraction of what is reported.

DLMEyer - yah, and why don´t we just define personal computers as one ONLY having the brand name "Apple" on it and then Apple can claim a 100% market share.....

You guys try any way you can to try to change reality towards Apple´s favor....

[Why don´t we just define personal computers as one ONLY having the brand name "Apple" on it and then Apple can claim a 100% market share...]

Well, Apple does have a 100% market share. They are the only company that sells Macs.

And by 'personal' are we including computers that are: nothing more than dumb terminals; kiosks; POS cash registers; 'Office' machines ; bank machines; Auto-mechanic database terminals; Dental office client terminals; etc., etc..

Windows guys try any way they can to change reality towards MS's favor.... like the whole 90% marketshare in 'personal' computers delusion.

I like my mAC better when i think we have 100% market share.

Apple has 100% of the OSX market
and
MS has 100% of the Windows PC market.
Happy?

-------------
But then Apple runs Windows....so Windows is gaining a share of the Mac users time???? Apples people no longer running 100% OSX but no X percent is using Windows????

AT what point will Apple users stop fretting over the Mac market share? What is the magic percentage number?

Why don´t I ever hear about other product or product lines where the users are so terribly concerned about market share like Mac users?
Only Mac users stay awake at night worrying that their market share might be faltering...or maybe its growing...or stagnant...oooh cold sweat breaks out....eyes nervously swish back and forth....

The Boss,
For years, the media has insisted on rather pointedly NOT included Macs among the numbers of "PCs", "Personal Computers". There were "PCs", and then there were "Macs".

Today things have changed - significantly. Not only are Macs included with other PCs in a single "market", a market still owned by the WIntel platform, but Apple owns a place on the Top Five. Without any jiggering, only Dell, HP and Gateway sell more systems than Apple does. MS sells the most copies of its operating systems, and Linux - through a variety of vendors - "sells" the second largest number of copies of its OS. Making Apple a solid third - all right, a niche player. Apple also sells several millions more copies of its operating systems than all the other PC vendors combined. Y'see, they don't actually have any OSs to sell.

I know of no way to "change reality". Oh I can influence it - a bit - but that's nothing special. You can, too. What we are trying to do, is interpret reality ... to understand reality. It can be hard when many of those hired to interpret reality for us suffer under various preconceived notions and ignorance - their interpretations preclude the possibility that either Apple or its products could possibly do well in whatever markets they enter. Strange ... Apple's profits are quite impressive compared to Dell's, HP's and - especially - Gateway's. I wonder how that could be?

DLMeyer: "For years, the media has insisted on rather pointedly NOT included Macs among the numbers of "PCs", "Personal Computers". There were "PCs", and then there were "Macs". "

B.S. Prove it. The figures put on market share are not put out by the "press", but rather by market survey organizations whose job is to track sales for industries.
Go ahead and live in your little world of Apple does not have 2-4% market share; for you it has 100% of the consumer, personal computer Apple branded computational devices.
Spin it however you want so that it fits your reality.
What does it matter if YOU think Apple is number 1 or number 10? Believe what you want your reality to be.
----------

DLMeyer: "Strange ... Apple's profits are quite impressive compared to Dell's, HP's and - especially - Gateway's. I wonder how that could be?"

Simple - Apple gets suckers like you (and me) to over pay for their computers (and its iPods that make all the profit for Apple, not computers).
Next you will be telling us that the iPod has 110% of the MP3 player market....

The whiny European said..."B.S. Prove it. The figures put on market share are not put out by the "press", but rather by market survey organizations whose job is to track sales for industries."

And, as the article showed, the Gartner group, among others counts HP/Compaq as receiving income from both Windows and the box that they manufacture, which is not true. With this in mind, you expect me to believe that these groups have magically got it right up until this point? That expression of faith in a demonstrably faulty group of folks I find quite amusing.

One of the rules for getting accurate long-term numbers is to compare the two populations across time. Jumping horses in mid-stream makes the data from that year to prior years incomparable. That is the why suddenly counting phones as Mp3 players and then saying, "Wow, look at how the iPod market share has fallen" is simply BS.

Le Europeon challenged me with The figures put on market share are not put out by the "press", but rather by market survey organizations whose job is to track sales for industries.
The groups that put out sales numbers are the ones who define "The Market". They get to decide if they include only those computers sold over-the-counter - making Dell a non-participant - or only desktop units - taking servers out of the equation - or only units sold to businesses, and maybe schools. Their schemes have varied considerably over the years, as have their methods of gathering numbers. They will, typically, report their methods - to those who buy their reports. News organizations are under no compulsion to tell the whole story, or the details that define the story.
Did you happen to note that two organizations recently reported on the Mac sales share? One saying 4.6% and the other 4.8%? That's a difference of a quarter of a million systems!

peon went on to say Apple gets suckers like you (and me) to over pay for their computers (and its iPods that make all the profit for Apple, not computers).
Next you will be telling us that the iPod has 110% of the MP3 player market....

Apple's systems are competitive within their price ranges. Many would rather pay less for their basic box and build it up with 3rd-party parts ... Apple isn't in that market. If you believe you paid too much:
a) get over it
b) sell it
c) buy something you think is a better value.
And Good Riddance to you and your contribution to Apple's profits and Market Share!
As for which products provide the bulk of the profit, it would take a lot of $200 iPod sales to match the profit of a single $1,000 MacBook sale, much less a single $2,000 Mac tower sale. And the numbers just are not there.
As for the market share exceeding 100% ... I'm not a football coach and I know better than to ask more than 100% of anything. But, since you just might BE a coach (or might be, when you grow up), I'll toss you a bone ... "iPod sales for the past quarter exceeded 110% of the market for portable MP3 players of the year-ago quarter."

Ask someone who teaches Business or one of the Sciences to explain it to you.

DLMeyer - LOL - time to get out the aluminum foil hat and the giant conspiracy theory- whoot!
Fruit loops!
0.2% difference -oh my -"That's a difference of a quarter of a million systems!"
LOL LOL LOL.
Prove that these organizations purposely discredit Apple sales. Prove it. And don´t go quoting some alien signal you received off your aluminum foil hat.
And that you actually sit and concern yourself with things like this!?! Whew.

GET A LIFE! Why market share is of interest to you I have no idea. You can´t do anything about it in any way.

Nobody, in between personal attacks, challenged me to Prove that these organizations purposely discredit Apple sales.

Why me? I offered a discrepancy between two reported numbers as proof that methods of getting to those numbers, and what those numbers mean, differ. Now this nobody is saying I claimed these organizations purposely discredit Apple sales. Where did I say that? Suggest that? IMPLY that?
I said: (edited, see original above) Their schemes have varied considerably over the years, as have their methods of gathering numbers. They will, typically, report their methods - to those who buy their reports.
Did you happen to note that two organizations recently reported on the Mac sales share? One saying 4.6% and the other 4.8%? That's a difference of a quarter of a million systems! Nothing said that there was malfeasance involved in devising their counting schemes, that the numbers - as defined by their own operating parameters - were intended to misrepresent the metrics. Not that this wasn't at least somewhat true a decade ago. That was then, this is now.

@DLMeyer - one thing you are forgetting and it is a big thing.
- total sales of Macs are known. No matter what the % of market share is reported is does not change the number of Macs sold. Apple reports them; everyone knows.

- The difference between the 4.6 and 4.8% is easily justified. One research group may count ONLY the numbers officially reported by the big computer makers while the other may include a category for "all others". There are still a very large number of Windows computers made and sold each day that are not made by Dell, Sony or Acer or other big name and that is the local computer store owner that makes and sells his own windows PCs and the do-it-yourselfers that make there own Windows computers.
Go into Fryes or other computer parts stores and see the hundreds of people making their own Windows PCs.
My son has made 3 in the last three years.
In Europe, you can go into grocery stores and find no-name brand Windows computers that sell by the thousands.
Imagine all the hundreds of thousands of Windows computers made by local "Bob´s Computer Shop" and the do it yourselfers all around the world each month. How are those being counted in market share statistics?

You cannot do that with an Apple computer. One cannot make their own Apple or buy a non-Apple brand computer.

The bottom line is Apple sales are known and I am suspecting Windows sales are much larger than reported.

Thank you, Common sense, for supporting my assertion. Although it reads like you are attempting to refute it.

I was saying that different organizations count things, and report them, in different ways. Your comments support that statement.

Macintosh sales figures are known. As are the sales figures of most of the other major players. Some of these numbers are sometimes fudged - remaindered systems reported as "sold", for example - but mostly the difference is the small things, the no-names. Your son's three systems would not usually be counted, though, even as "other" - they were not sold as systems. Unless he bought a basic system then re-built it.

Often, "servers" - which may only be high-end desktops - are not included with other PCs. That alone could account for a quarter million systems in a quarter. Often the Mom+Pops are not counted - that could also account for a quarter million systems in a quarter. What about "tablets"? Are they PCs? There are many decisions that go into "what gets counted/reported", and these change over time.

Bottom line is, DLMeyer, we know exactly how many computers Apple sold and so does everyone else. Market share is a changing percentage based on the total number of computers sold.
Window PC sales may be slacking off now waiting for Vista and Apple sales remain strong - result, Apple market share zooms up; but not total sales.
When Window PC sales start their new surge when Vista comes out and Apple sales remain the same, Apple market share will drop again.
Again I repeat: Apple sales are known and I am suspecting Windows sales are much larger than reported (which makes Apple market share even smaller than they report it).