backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by honestIT.. on Sep 18 at 3:49 PM

Snow Leopard sold nearly twice as many copies as Tiger and Leopard in first few weeks

Apple is selling its latest Mac OS Snow Leopard at a very brisk pace according to reports from research firm NPD. NPD reports that the sales of Snow Leopard have far exceeded the sales of the previous operating systems Leopard and Tiger.

According to numbers gathered by NPD, Apple has sold nearly twice as many copies of Snow Leopard as it did Leopard and almost four times as many copies compared to Tiger. Another important metric for Apple is the fact that while sales of Snow Leopard have decreased since the first week the OS was offered, the decrease hadn't been nearly as significant as the past two OS updates over the same period.

NPD reports that Snow Leopard has seen sales decrease about 25% after its first week of release. Leopard and Tiger sales decreased by about 60% after the first week of availability in comparison. Stephen Baker from NPD said, "Even though some considered Snow Leopard to be less feature-focused than the releases of Leopard or Tiger, the ease of upgrading to Snow Leopard and the affordable pricing made it a win-win for Apple computer owners — thus helping to push sales to record numbers."


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Expected
By Targon on 9/17/2009 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 0
When you buy an overpriced Apple computer, a large part of the cost of the OS is in that price. The fact that Apple locks their OS to ONLY Apple computers is BECAUSE they couldn't be profitable if they didn't use the profits on the computer sales to offset support costs for the OS.

Now, I challenge Apple(as if they would do it) to open the OS up to non-Apple computers for the same price they charge for Apple computer owners and still support it as long as the hardware is in the "supported" category. Even with a requirement that only certain video cards, motherboard chipsets, and other things would be supported, Apple just couldn't pull a profit due to the support costs.


RE: Expected
By ersts on 9/17/2009 3:34:54 PM , Rating: 5
You don't have to challenge Apple; they already tried it and it failed. All the OEMS selling Macs ended up undercutting Apple in the 90s and nearly sent Apple to the grave.

Apple doesn't make any sort of profit from the iTunes store either; all it does is promote hardware sales.

Everyone keeps telling Apple: You need to open OSX! You are stupid for opening retail stores! The iphone will fail!

And every time Apple proves them wrong, miserably. They just don't understand: Apple isn't Microsoft.


RE: Expected
By inighthawki on 9/17/2009 4:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
They could cut down on some of those losses by not licesning it to business, ie for system builder/consumer only. That of course doesnt stop anyone from buying a pc and loading on snow leopard for a still cheaper price than Apple direct.


RE: Expected
By omnicronx on 9/17/2009 11:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
First off, itunes makes money, to the tune of an estimated 500 million a year, so I don't know what you are talking about here.

Second, Apple's business model was totally different in the mid 90's. Apple made money selling hardware, whereas MS made money selling software. The Apple OEM's of the 90's directly undercut Apple sales because they made little money selling the OS. Today is not the same situation, they could for all intents license their OS and make money just like MS, they would just have to sell a lot more volume to make the same amount of money. Its not a bad idea really from a business perspective, but they probably will never match MS in OS profits if they continue to do so. The thing is, I think Apple is perfectly content right where they are.. a nice pricey niche market.


RE: Expected
By sprockkets on 9/18/2009 4:02:13 AM , Rating: 1
1. During meetings with shareholders/investors they warned that itunes would lower their profit margins due to it selling high volume but very low margin music sales.

Think about it: They give itunes away. Most only buy 25 songs for their player.

2. The only PCs that are made today that are experiencing any sort of growth is the $300 netbook; it's clearly like you said something Apple doesn't want. Neither do I; I won't make a junky computer, and I refuse to sell a computer to a person who doesn't appreciate a good product. Likewise, those same cheap people would never spend money on a real person to help them out, and since I cannot charge ahead of time a reasonable cost to cover future warranty repairs without making my PC cost $200 more than what is at the store, nobody wants my computer.

I avoid those people at all costs.

Once OSX is available for cheap hardware, what will keep Apple alive? How much should support cost if the software is only $99? Would you pay $200 for it when your hardware only costs $300?

It is one thing to sell an OS; its a totally different ballgame when you have to sustain your business.

Software sells hardware! People will buy Macs because of Final Cut, or OSX or because how well the hardware integrates.

3. The only reason why that model you suggested works for Microsoft is because they are a monopoly. They've done all they've can to stifle competition. Microsoft still has its stupid OEMs say "We recommend the lastest version of windows." Why? That's all they sell!

Think about it: Who buys a retail copy of Windows? Who pays for any distro of Linux? Who ever upgraded Vista Basic to Premium? For that matter, who buys upgrades for Windows? Most people just buy a new PC since it requires new hardware anyhow to run it right, especially Vista.

Aside from their mice and keyboards, what hardware venture has Microsoft done well? The xbox? Zune? Orgami? Gizmodo? Playsforsure?

Consider also this: Most people in 2007 had me downgrade the computer to XP. I've done work on business pcs with Vista Business stickers on them but have XP installed on them because they can't use Vista. Netbooks have XP on them due to their weaker hardware.

XP doesn't want to die. I wonder if Win7 will change that...


RE: Expected
By dark matter on 9/18/2009 5:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
There are so many "most people" comments in your post. I allow people to use it once, twice at a push, but come on dude show some empirical evidence for your claims or be explicit that this is only your opinion and not the hard facts you present it as.


RE: Expected
By ersts on 9/18/2009 2:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think was he is trying to say is, it is easy to sell hardware because it is tangible and can't be user duplicated. Software is something that people can easily duplicate and thus has little perceived value.


RE: Expected
By sebmel on 9/18/2009 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
"they [Apple] could for all intents license their OS and make money just like MS

I don't agree. You can already pirate Mac OS X and put it on a home made PC... just choose the right components... hackintosh advice is on the net.

Yet Apple has no problem with large scale copying, while Microsoft estimate 50% of copies functioning worldwide are pirated. Apple is so confident it doesn't have a problem that the client OS has no serial number, no LAN checks, no anti-copying DRM and no authentication.

Who's going to pay for an unprotected product they couldn't be bothered to steal?

Apple know that their current market is principally well engineered sealed boxes that 'just work'. In fact, the only product they make that doesn't fit that description is the small volume Mac Pro tower.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













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