backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by clnee55.. on Jan 10 at 2:05 PM

Apples stands to benefit in the areas of motherboard and processor design.

Apple's switch to Intel will finally give the Cupertino company a comparable processor platform to the big name PC OEMs on both desktop and notebook machines. Apple notebooks have long had the looks to wow consumers, but their performance was really nothing to brag aboout when compared to PC notebooks. Apple could also benefit in other areas of development if the rumors of Intel's decision to design Mac motherboards become reality. The move to Intel is expected to boost Apple's worldwide marketshare from roughly 3% of the computer market to 6% by the end of 2007.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hmm i think its incomplete
By ncage on 1/9/2006 12:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how apple is going to increase their market share with this move. There was nothing wrong with the power processor. I think they are making a mistake by allowing apple OS to only run on specific mac hardare. I can't seem like its that much different before. Apple needs to learn the margins are high on software and low on hardware. I think their marketshare would soar if they would allow the os to run on other hardware. I think this is what contributed to the demise of apple and to the rise of microsoft. In the early years apple clearly had the better OS.




RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By retrospooty on 1/9/2006 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Exactly.

Honestly, if OSX were allowed to be installed on any x86 machine I would love to install it and have a dual XP/OSX machine. I would gladly buy OSX and make Aplle money. Since they won't do that, and I cannot buy it, I will be forced to use the pirated/cracked versions that will be available. LOL Stupid Apple again.


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By Wahsapa on 1/10/2006 1:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
if apple sold os x for generic PCs they would charge $1000+ per copy. i know for a fact you would not pay that when you could pirate it for free anyway which youre already doing. apples not stupid, selling os x86 standalone is.


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By ncage on 1/10/2006 12:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
How do you get that? Yes one of the biggest task would be writing drivers. A lot of that would be taken care of by the hardware manufact. If they wanted their hardware to work for this new os then they would have to write drivers for it. Please don't call something stupid without explaining yourself.


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By Enclydion on 1/9/2006 2:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Apple are going to increase market share, for one reason: dual and triple boot capability. Apple are not stopping people from running Windows (or their favourite *nix) on x86 Macs. What they are doing is adding stuff to their boards and 'locking' OSX so that it only runs on Apple hardware. Sure, there'll be crackers out there bypassing Apple's protections. Not an issue, really. But for the new box buyers, this dual-boot feature is a BIG plus, especially with Windows' bad reputation for security.

(Do remember, though, that the people who read forums such as these are geeks and tech-dweebs, and whilst we run the internet, we're a minority ... 85% of computer users, irrespective of platform, are sheeple who treat their machines like a toaster or a VCR. Apple knows this, which is why they're not at all worried.)

And then there's Microsoft. VirtualPC is being re-jigged to provide some seriously tight integration with the OSX shell. This will mean you can scatter your apps anywhere, open a Win32 icon and you'll see OSX-ified XP-style windows for the app, with the rest of OSX ticking away happily. Dare I say, the new VitualPC will mean that Windows XP will become the new 'Classic' environment for Mac OS X!

There's one thing I can forsee happening: Apple will eventually release a 'teaser' version of Mac OS X that will boot on any generic, sufficiently-powerful Intel or AMD machine, based around the 10.4.5 kernel. This will be sold for next-to-nothing (possibly even free, if CoreOS have their way) and be used to lure disgruntled Windows users into the Apple camp.

Interesting times ahead!


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By ncage on 1/10/2006 12:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think thats a good point on something you could do with an apple pc but i think your point is kind of contradicted. You say that most people treat their pc's as general appliances then you go to say that they will increase market share with dual boot systems. Do you think those people who don't know anything about computers are going to dual/triple boot their systems? Are you going to pay a lot more for your hardware so that you can boot the apple os?


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By plinden on 1/9/2006 3:40:23 PM , Rating: 3
Hmm, I think Apple have probably done the math - say OS X remains at $129. That means they would have to sell between 10 and 20 times more software units than hardware units to get the same income. Even if software does have higher margins, they would need to able to guarantee 25-30% market share to make it worthwhile.

I'm guessing they will do it sometime, but not until they see how market share changes with their current strategy.

If they did allow it to run on any x86 PC, I would put it on my own PCs, especially if the few windows apps I need run seamlessly. But I would still have maybe one Apple-branded computer, for the seamless integration of hardware and software (not to mention such pluses as OpenFirmware and firewire target-disk mode, which are unlikely to be available in cheap motherboards) - I've done my research and I think Apple hardware is worth the 20% extra (no, it's not 2x the price) you typically pay for it over Windows PCs.


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By ncage on 1/10/2006 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Look at microsoft. How much hardware do they sell? A fey keyboards/mice/xbox & stuff like that but where do their majority of funds come from? Can you think of any company that has more available cash than microsoft? I think a lot of people feel the apple os is superior because its based on the freebsd kernal if i remember correctly. No $129 is not much but after the code an os (pay for developer time) the money they are making on each copy is $129 - Cost of burning the cd and packaging which is huge. Think about it this way they have to pay developer time no matter how popular their os but if they can sell a lot of copies they are making like 95% profit off their sale. Apple's biggest mistake is trying to make money off of hardware which currently today has low margens.


RE: hmm i think its incomplete
By mircea on 1/9/2006 6:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
The most that Apple will get right now out of the Intel Mac is the battery life it needed in notebooks. The performance might not be as visible to user as it will be the extra hour/s.


Am I being harsh?
By mindless1 on 1/9/2006 6:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
I call this nonsense. If anyone is oblivious to the design decisions inside a system (rather than the casing or OS), it's someone buying an Apple. The typical apple buyer will have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER whether it makes the tiniest different that Intel designed any of it, particularly the motherboard.

Therefore, the conclusion about marketshare is crazy as well, if anything a climb from 3% to 7% would be fueled by a vague increase in public exposure to the Apple name from the iPods, which of course is also crazy, to buy a PC based on an MP3 player, but that's really how some Apple buyers think. Not that they're all blithering idiots or anything, but some certainly buy into a marketing concept, not the product itself.




By clnee55 on 1/9/2006 8:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
It is not the typical Apple buyers that will increase the market share. It is the Windows users now will buy iMac because the machine now can serve both worlds.


By retrospooty on 1/9/2006 9:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
More like its the windows users that will download cracked version of OSX to install on thier x86 machines.

Windows users wont switch (not in large #'s anyhow) to buyin gApple PC's, they are WAY overpriced. THAT is why they switched away in the first place. Remember, Apple used to dominate this industry.

There is a simple rule to proprietary systems. If you are propritary you must be significantly better, or cheaper than all the competition. Apple was niether, thus thier majority marketshere slipped to less than 3%.

Just ask Sony how their Betamax did vs VHS. Same thing happened to the MAC platform.


By clnee55 on 1/10/2006 2:05:36 PM , Rating: 2

Quote:
"More like its the windows users that will download cracked version of OSX to install on thier x86 machines. "

Please do not assume that all windows users are thieves. You might be proud of it, but I am not.

QUote:
"Windows users wont switch (not in large #'s anyhow) to buyin gApple PC's, they are WAY overpriced. "

They are not overpriced if they can be two machines in one price.

Quote:
" There is a simple rule to proprietary systems. If you are propritary you must be significantly better, or cheaper than all the competition. Apple was niether, thus thier majority marketshere slipped to less than 3%."

If iMAC can dualboot WINXP, it is no longer a proprietary system"

Quote:
"Just ask Sony how their Betamax did vs VHS. Same thing happened to the MAC platform. "

Sony machine can never play VHS tape, that's why they have trouble. We talk about the new iMac not the old iMac.


RE: Am I being harsh?
By Clauzii on 1/9/2006 9:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
And if the customers needs are fulfilled by that very same concept, Apple achieved their goal...;)


By 2007?
By mlittl3 on 1/9/2006 10:58:40 AM , Rating: 3
I think they will reach 6% market share way before then. Don't they stand at about 5% for US and about 2.5% worldwide? Wait, 6% worldwide or US by 2007? Now I can't remember what the article said.




RE: By 2007?
By clnee55 on 1/9/2006 6:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
If they allow or not try to stop people to dual boot the iMAC to XP, they will get 10% easily this year.


a
By hans007 on 1/9/2006 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
software has much much higher margins than hardware.

they could probably sell 2 copies of OS X at $140 or so, and make as much as selling an entire $1000 mac computer.


i think they will increase market share, but i dont thikn 6% is going to happen. their computerse are still way too expensive and doubling their market share is not going to happen just because of intel cpus.

its not like os x tiger was god awful slow. the cpu is just going to give them a better cpu, they still wont have software support, or a low price.




RE: a
By BenSkywalker on 1/9/2006 6:42:10 PM , Rating: 1
Odds are they make roughly the same if not more on a single copy of OSX then they do on a $1000 machine. How much does it cost them to produce and distribute the OSX CDs/packaging after it is written? $5, maybe $10 at the high end? MS was the darling of Wall Street for so many years because of their obscene margins in comparison to comanies like IBM, Compaq, HP and any of the old industry stocks. Their biggest threat in moving over to a software provider is lost total revenue, I don't see it as being a threat to their margins.


o well
By DigitalDivine on 1/10/2006 2:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
I see apple increasing their marketshare just because people can load their windows on it. so i believe their marketshare will increase at least on the hardware side. software on the other hand would be a bit tied as it is not compatible with all x86 machines unless otherwise cracked, etc.

*they could always leak copies to increase their marketshare.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki