Market Share of Mac & Windows: Why huge difference?

It's all how you look at it. If you exclude computers that cost less than $999, Apple is by far the largest and most popular maker. If you include tablets as "computers," Apple is the number one computer maker:

Apple still world's biggest PC vendor when tablets included | Electronista

The iPhone is the number-one individual brand of smartphone, worldwide. If you look only at "premium" smartphones ($200 or more on contract), again Apple is #1.

Most importantly, when it comes to profits -- Apple is KING with no qualifications necessary, both in desktop/laptop and smartphones (to say nothing of tablets). On smartphones, Apple takes 87.4 percent of all profits. Samsung takes bit of the remainder -- meaning no company is making money making smartphones except Apple and Samsung. Astonishing.

simonvee said:

... This may explain why Apple's market share does not yield a perfect linear correlation with Apple's competitiveness against Windows.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no correlation between Apple - a hardware manufacturer - and Windows - a piece of software.

Furthermore, Apple does not compete directly with Microsoft.

Apple is a hardware manufacturer that also develops software for their own products.
Apple does not develop nor sell software for use on anyone else's hardware.

Microsoft is a software developer and sells that software to anyone and everyone that wants it.

The origin of the market share for MS was in the early '80s when IBM went looking for an OS for their soon-to-be-released IBM PC. They looked at DOS from Microsoft and CP/M from Digital Research. They chose DOS. The credibility of IBM in the business place put a stamp of approval on Microsoft, who then started licensing MS-DOS to other manufacturers (IBM relabeled it PC-DOS). Eventually MS and Apple both took the windows/mouse paradigm from Xerox's PARC researchers and created OS and Windows. Apple was closer to PARC in style and performance, but Windows was acceptable to business users because of that past history with IBM. IBM and MS tried to work together on OS2, but MS sort-of stabbed IBM in the back by abandoning OS2 after lifting some of the technology into Windows 95. So there you are, MS got market share by riding IBM credibility into the business place.

MacInWin said:

The origin of the market share for MS was in the early '80s when IBM went looking for an OS for their soon-to-be-released IBM PC. They looked at DOS from Microsoft and CP/M from Digital Research. They chose DOS. The credibility of IBM in the business place put a stamp of approval on Microsoft, who then started licensing MS-DOS to other manufacturers (IBM relabeled it PC-DOS). Eventually MS and Apple both took the windows/mouse paradigm from Xerox's PARC researchers and created OS and Windows. Apple was closer to PARC in style and performance, but Windows was acceptable to business users because of that past history with IBM. IBM and MS tried to work together on OS2, but MS sort-of stabbed IBM in the back by abandoning OS2 after lifting some of the technology into Windows 95. So there you are, MS got market share by riding IBM credibility into the business place.

Click to expand...

You are correct and I can say that because I was there. IBM came to my high school and sold us 12 IBM-PC's for $3800 each. They had a 8086 processor, 128MB of ram, two single-sided 5-1/4" floppy drives, a black and white monitor plus a copy of DOS 1.0 for each machine. We were thrilled because we were stepping up from Radio Shack TRS-80's with cassette tape recorders for saving data. We were teaching Structured BASIC at the time. Those were the days!

Lisa

lclev said:

They had a 8086 processor, 128MB of ram, two single-sided 5-1/4" floppy drives, a black and white monitor plus a copy of DOS 1.0 for each machine.

Click to expand...

MB? 128KB at that time would have been an enormous amount of RAM ;P

I remember buying two 32MB sticks years later, in '94-95 I think, for more than my MBP cost me in 2010

I can't even remember what I was paying that far back. Although, a few years later - in '03 - the home build I was most proud of over about 15 years - the 2 GB in 512 MB sticks of RAM I put in it cost me more than the price of the current Mac Mini.

Yeah, my first was a TRS-80, Model I, 16k (yes, K) memory. I built an add on that had a floppy drive interface and added a massive 48k of memory to top out at 64k.

MacInWin said:

Yeah, my first was a TRS-80, Model I, 16k (yes, K) memory. I built an add on that had a floppy drive interface and added a massive 48k of memory to top out at 64k.

Click to expand...

I went the Commodore route at first with Vic-20 and Commodore 64. A few months later got in to the Atari 8-Bits and modded a 130XE from 128 Megs RAM to 512 Megs. It would hold many Apps and games in Ram at the same time! Good old days!

I could not afford a Mac back then so went with first the ATari ST which was very Mac like in it's interface then an Amiga 500. The Amiga to me was way ahead of it's time in Multitasking performance.

MBP17•David;1582768 said:

MB? 128KB at that time would have been an enormous amount of RAM ;P

Click to expand...

You are correct it is 128KB and yes, it was a lot. We thought we were in tall cotton given what we had before were TRS-80's and I don't remember what they had but 48KB sounds right.

Lisa

lclev said:

You are correct it is 128KB and yes, it was a lot. We thought we were in tall cotton given what we had before were TRS-80's and I don't remember what they had but 48KB sounds right.

Lisa

Click to expand...

What model was your TRS-80? Model One took 16k but*Model Three 48kb RAM.

lclev said:

You are correct it is 128KB and yes, it was a lot.

Click to expand...

Remarkable, is it not, how things are changing ... few years from now we'll be wondering how anyone could've possible get by with less that a 32TB of RAM

Looking at the original post from a logistics standpoint.

Apple is one company making computers.
The world is filled with others making PCs that range from decent machines to tinkertoy junk. But LOTS of them.

Now, assume that suddenly, all the world sees the truth that all of us know, that the OSX/Mac combo is superior in all ways and the integration is as smooth as cream. Now, everybody who would have bought a PC now intends to change to Mac.

The wait time at the stores and online would suddenly be extended to years - literally. Apple has only a small fraction of the manufacturing capacity that would be required to replace the PC. Even if they started spending their multi-billions on expansion today, it would take years and years before delivery times fell to less than many many months.

Good or bad, there are a LOT of PC users out there. Besides, ten or so percent of several hundred million machines is not a number that can be called a niche.

I started using computers intensely in 1969, 9 years before desktop computers really hit the open market and 15 years before the PC came out. So I lived through this whole process and taught Computer Science.

The first PC was initially an 'exclusive' IBM product and ran Windows which I personally believe Bill Gates actually stole from Apple who had bought the patents from Xerox. The courts didn't agree but that doesn't mean they were right. There was a good movie about this.

Because big businesses were used to buying Big Blue IBM mainframes they did not consider getting into the desktop "toy" computer market until IBM hastily threw together a machine and marketed it, almost as an after-thought. Admittedly it was a 16 bit processor rather than 8 bit like the Apple 2. But Apple Macs were 32 bit. Suddenly IBM PCs were all through business even though they were inferior machines with inferior operating systems.

Then the clones came out. IBM had made their hardware design open source because in the mainframe computer world the profit was in the software. So the clones came out. They did not run Windows very well at first but they ironed out the problems and these IBM clones like Dell and Gateway, eventually squeezed IBM out of the PC market. This ultimately lead to at least 90% domination of the business market by PC "clones" running Windows. Mass production kept prices down while Apple concentration on a single hardware platform for their Mac OS had a superior product but could not compete on price. Businesses have put a lot of money into developing software systems for Windows based machines. All this has created enormous momentum for the PC/Windows Juggernaught and it will take time to turn around.

It was the relatively recent decision by Steve jobs to switch to Intel processors that made it possible to run Windows in native machine code on Apple computers that has finally almost leveled the playing field. It means that buyers CAN run Windows and their favorite software on Apple computers. This has put a dent in the momentum because people feel much more comfortable making the switch. Once they switch they often find they never have to use the Windows option.

When it comes to computer brand names people have foresail loyalty for their preferred brand. It is like a religious belief and it is very difficult to get people to change religions.

ToffeeApple, as a teacher, I'm sure you won't mind if I correct your post a bit!

The IBM PC was first sold in 1981, ran PC-DOS, not Windows. PC-DOS was a custom version of MS-DOS, which was a customized version of 86-DOS, which was developed by Seattle Computing. When IBM visited MicroSoft Bill Gates wanted to sell his MS-Basic interpreter, but IBM was more interested in the OS that they were running. After IBM left, Gates bought the OS from Seattle Computing for $50K, rebranded it and sold it to IBM. IBM actually wanted CP/M from Digital Research, but Gary Kildall's wife was a lawyer for the company and held the IBM reps up while she negotiated the non-disclosure agreement IBM wanted them to sign. They never got to agreement so IBM gave up and left to go back to Seattle. The rest is history!

Basically, MicroSoft reacted to the Lisa, which was the first PC to come with a fully graphical interface. Lisa didn't succeed for many reasons, but it put in place the idea of a GUI as the default that Apple put on the Macintosh in 1984 and has stuck with ever since. Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 as a GUI interface, not an operating system. It ran on MS-DOS. Windows 2.0 came out December 1987, and included Excel and Word for Windows, a port of Word that was first built for Apple and the Macintosh that came out in 1984.

You are correct that the PC took off because of the reputation of IBM. I was in a data center when all this took place and the shift from mainframe to personal computing was done with breath-taking speed. The biggest loss in moving to the PC was the integrity and accuracy of the data. When the data was in the MF, we knew we could trust it to be as accurate and consistent as we could make it. When it was kept in the PC we couldn't guarantee that any report based on it was accurate or consistent. But because of the freedom that the PC gave to the user, it was impossible to put that genie back in the bottle. I spent lots of time in front of my bosses answering the question, "How come the report from the data center says X when Bill and his PC say Y?" In those days CFOs and CEOs didn't understand the difference between the rigorous data integrity actions we took in the center and the way the "Bills" of the world mixed data with no attention to integrity and consistency. To them, a computer report was a computer report.

And you are right, in the beginning the choice of Windows/IBM and Apple was religious in nature. But Apple attracted the creative artists with significantly better graphic capabilities and software, while IBM and the clones focused on business applications like word processors, spreadsheets and presentation software, so the "religious" nature was not so prevalent in business uses because the decision was more rational. In the personal user, however, the choice was more emotionally based. Apple always cost more, and as the clone wars heated up, the PC cost dropped dramatically, allowing the PC to become ubiquitous.

So, there you go, a few tweaks to your post!

Thanks Jake! That was a walk down memory lane. I was a young vocational teacher with a computer science/data processing teacher in a small rural high school. IBM came in an sold us a whole lab of "personal computers" running MS-DOS 1.0. We taught BASIC programming and word processing using WordStar (can't remember the version but I remember 5.0 - split screens and two documents!)

I also remember attending a computer show where a very snobby Apple rep told me I could not afford to buy a "Lisa" costing $10,000!!! He was right - too rich for my blood! I just wanted to see a computer that had my name!

When I look back over the speed of the changes in technology - wow! I remember looking at a TI-99 my kids brought home and I discovered it ran a form of BASIC. I remember thinking I should be able to make it to retirement without having to touch one of those computer things!

Fast forward 5 years and I find myself defending my thesis project. It dealt in part with tracking student data using a database I had designed, and defending the practicality of computer database usage in tracking earnings, skills level, etc .

As far as Apple vs. PC market share, I don't see that changing. PC manufacturers are very good at creating new "shiny" that attracts the ignorant masses. They can make the consumer feel they are getting "more" by adding a touch screen or the ability to make it a tablet or some other bell and whistle.

They distract the consumer from the operating system that attracts malware like honey on an ant colony or the plastic casing or the thin bendable screen - or just the overall poor build quality of the consumer computer.

And we are such a disposable society, we expect a computer that dies in 3 years or less is the norm. I know technology changes fast and so does the PC manufacturer, so they market on that concept, "You will need a new computer every three years...no...every two...no wait, every year!"

I have been amazed in my short time owning Apple computers just how long they last. Not just the physical machine but they are able to upgrade with age too. I have a 2008 Macbook running Yosemite well. There are all kinds of posts on the forum of people with older Apple computers that have been running 10 years or more. Most PC's - especially laptops, do not have that kind of longevity unless they are a business quality machine - and those will cost as much as an Apple computer with the same specs!

But until people perceptions change the market will remain the same. There are lots of PC makers with a huge marketing budget. Apple is one company so their best bet is to create an "elite" feel to their products which they have done well with over the years.

Lisa

Here's the thing about "why does Mac only have XX percent marketshare" (with XX being whatever the actual percentage is, it's much lower than Windows though not as low as it once was).

If you only every listen to Top 40 Radio, you would be of the impression that most of it was good, some of it was bad.

If someone then came along and played you some (for example) jazz, you -- having only ever listed to Top 40 -- would likely think it's awful.

Later -- when you've explored outside your little box a bit, and when your priorities for only listening to one kind of music finally breaks -- you discover, generally on your own, that there are all kinds of music, and most of them are mostly wonderful. And you'll wonder why you only ever listened to Top 40.

THAT is when people discover the Mac. When they realize that "good enough" and "that's the way we've always done it" just isn't enough.

there is one significant factor left out by many people who try to analyze the market share difference between MS Windows OS, and the Mac OS. That factor is that Apple and Microsoft are two completely different markets. Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is a software company. Comparing the two is going to result in all kinds of false assumptions due to the fact that they are, essentially, in different markets, even though both have to do with personal computing.

Yes, Apple has the Mac OS, and Microsoft has their Windows OS. But Apple does not sell the Mac OS as an independent product. And, though there are probably thousands of Hackintosh computers out there, Apple's approach to their OS is to write the EULA to make it a copyright infringement to put their OS on anything other than an Apple branded computer. For Apple the PURPOSE of the Mac OS is to offer a feature that only Apple computers can offer. The Mac OS is not a product, but rather a selling point for Macintosh computers.

Conversely, MS Office IS the product. Microsoft does not sell computers. They sell the Windows OS to other companies who do sell computers. And there are a whole lot of different companies who sell computers.

So, if one were to compare Apple's market share in an oranges-to-oranges (to avoid unintentional punning) manner, one would need to list all the various computer manufacturers, or at least the top 5-10 players in the computer hardware market, and compare their sales to Apple's sales. And even then one would need to expect some skewing in favor of Windows, since Apple has pretty avoided getting trapped in the demands of business market, preferring to concentrate on the consumer market, with an additional finger in the education market.

Microsoft is not entirely a software company; at one time that was true, but no longer. They're into many things including tablets (Surface Pro, etc), Gaming platforms (X-Box), mice, keyboards, and even smart phones. They're still a force to be reckoned with even though Apple has exceeded them in sales and worth.

It is interesting when you think about how two men starting out at about the same time took different approaches in developing their marketing strategies. And to keep it simple, I am referring to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. One developed coding for an OS - Gates, the other took established coding (Unix) and created a GUI over it - Jobs. One sold their code to allow PC makers to develop hardware for it (Gates), the other kept the code proprietary and built the hardware to run it (Jobs). I realize there was much more involved and definitely other people too, but in my short synopsis, all I am pointing out is how two different approaches made for such different results.

While there may be more PC's on the market, for the most part, Microsoft depends on software sales for profits. Apple, on the other hand, does not depend on software for profits which is why they can charge less or nothing, but can create exceptional hardware - which is harder to pirate - and be called innovators while hauling in exceptional profits.

Lisa