Cheaper Macs for increasing the market share?

[sunny5]

Currently, the market share of macOS didnt changed since 2020 which proves that migrating to Apple Silicon didnt really affect the market share. But Apple really need to increase their market share for better software optimization and support for macOS. Even iOS developers dont want to support and optimize their mobile apps on macOS due to the market share of macOS. Not profitable to them.

My suggestion is why not keep using M1 based chips even if Apple makes M2 or M3 based Macs? Just like what they did with HomePod, iPad, and Studio display, they can still use old chips for new Macs to reduce the total price as an entry option. Beside, they should keep using M1 based chips for a while cause they are too good to throw away when M2 based Macs show up. iPhone SE is a great example.

So why not sell cheaper Macs to increase the market share? I think M1 Mac mini, M1 MBA, and M1 iMac would be the best products to start this strategy along with M2 or M3 based Mac. Maybe their hardware subscription might be useful if they are developing the service for Mac too.

Thoughts?

 

[fwmireault]

I definitely see Apple keeping some older hardware with M1 to have an entry product at an affordable price. They are already doing that with the iPhone and Apple Watch, keeping some older models like Apple Watch S3 and iPhone 11 or 12 that can still be bought through the Apple store today.

That said, Apple is a company way more interested in profits and its own brand reputation than in market share. They don't need to sell as much computers as competitors because their margins on Macs are way more than what Lenovo or Dell could make. I think they still want Macs to be considered a luxury product, and thus I don't see them offering 500$ MacBooks even if they could make a profit on that. Macs at this price could ruin the reputation of premium that Apple is aiming for, by putting cheaper components and being too accessible to be considered a luxury brand. So I see older M1 products being kept in the line up to reduce a bit the entry price (maybe by 100$), because Apple don't care about market share, as long as they stay the most profitable tech company in the word.

Also, I don't think the M1 will be that much cheaper to produce than M2, even after 2 years, so they can't reduce drastically the price of the computer if everything but the SoC is the same.

 

[southerndoc]

16% is a decent market share. Apple could lower the premium profit margin of its products, increase its market share, and likely make more money overall by doing so. However, they aren't interested in this.

Also remember that the more common macOS is, the more of a target for malware it becomes.

 

[ArkSingularity]

Apple has kinda always focused more on the high-end market. Steve Jobs was interviewed on this many years back, and was accused of selling expensive, overpriced machines. His answer was basically "Well, we actually try to price them very affordably. We don't want to make expensive machines, we just want to make the best machines. And we won't compromise on that just to try to focus solely on price."

I kind of applaud that in a way. Yes, Apple's machines are more expensive, but the performance per dollar is indisputably superior than the PC market with these new Apple-Silicon Macs. You can't get this kind of performance for $999 in the PC market.

That being said, I'd love to see a MacBook SE. Not sure if that's just wishful thinking (Apple rarely delves into the sub $1000 on the Mac), but I think a lot of people would buy an old-style (2017 era) MacBook Air with an A15 or an M1 in it.

 

[nigelbb]

Apple has kinda always focused more on the high-end market. Steve Jobs was interviewed on this many years back, and was accused of selling expensive, overpriced machines. His answer was basically "Well, we actually try to price them very affordably. We don't want to make expensive machines, we just want to make the best machines. And we won't compromise on that just to try to focus solely on price."

I kind of applaud that in a way. Yes, Apple's machines are more expensive, but the performance per dollar is indisputably superior than the PC market with these new Apple-Silicon Macs. You can't get this kind of performance for $999 in the PC market.

That being said, I'd love to see a MacBook SE. Not sure if that's just wishful thinking (Apple rarely delves into the sub $1000 on the Mac), but I think a lot of people would buy an old-style (2017 era) MacBook Air with an A15 or an M1 in it.

Cheaper MacBooks would just cannibalise the current market. You might get new sales to MacOS virgins but long time Mac users will buy the cheap MacBooks instead of more expensive models.

 

[leman]

Apple’s PC market are premium devices and workstation laptops, and they do exceedingly well in these categories (I wouldn’t be surprised if every second or third laptop sold over $1000 is a Mac). The question is also whether they actually want to increase the market share. I don’t think it’s possible without targeting folks who believe that a PC for over $500 is a waste of money, and there are just too many corners to be cut at that price. Besides, those folks are not necessarily the paying customer Apple wants.

So yeah, maybe, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. And I don’t think Apples PC market share will go above 20-25%, well, ever.

 

[JPack]

There's a few issues at play:

1) PC replacement cycle - most organizations replace their computers between 3-5 years. Home users take even longer. The full effect of M1 won't be seen until a few more years.

2) Learning curve - it's not about price. Many users simply don't want to learn macOS. Unlike iOS, you can't learn in a few minutes. Many organizations don't mind spending $1,500+ on a ThinkPad because it's what their employees want to use.

3) Performance - at the end of the day, the vast majority of people don't care about the 2X performance of M1. It's neat, but they're simply using computers for media consumption or light productivity. A 7th or 8th Gen Intel processor isn't slow for those tasks.

Even a $500 MacBook won't substantially change macOS market share. Wintel got in the market first and they own it.

 

[senttoschool]

Do you think Apple will make a Macbook SE? And at what price point?

Laying down some facts: Apple makes the iPhone SE ($400), Watch SE ($280), and iPad (SE in spirit for $330) The iPhone 8 launched at $699. The iPhone SE, based on the iPhone 8 but with a faster SoC, is $300 cheaper. Cheapest Macbook Air right now is $1000 Apple once sold an Intel Macbook Air...

forums.macrumors.com

Laying down some facts:

• Apple makes the iPhone SE ($400), Watch SE ($280), and iPad (SE in spirit for $330)
• The iPhone 8 launched at $699. The iPhone SE, based on the iPhone 8 but with a faster SoC, is $300 cheaper.
• Cheapest Macbook Air right now is $1000
• Apple once sold an Intel Macbook Air for $899 standard price
• On Black Friday this year, the M1 Macbook Air went on sale for $899 which suggests Apple's margins are high for Apple Silicon Macs
• Report suggests 5nm Apple Silicon costs less than $100 to make
• Same report suggests cheapest Intel Mac chips cost Apple $200-$300
• Apple wants to become more of a services & subscription company, post "peak iPhone" era
• In order to sell more services and subscriptions, Apple has employed an "SE" strategy to grab market share
• Ming-Chi Kuo predicts an "affordable" Mac in 2022
• The average selling price of laptops online is $730

I've been writing about a $750 Macbook SE since 2020.

 

[senttoschool]

16% is a decent market share. Apple could lower the premium profit margin of its products, increase its market share, and likely make more money overall by doing so. However, they aren't interested in this.

Also remember that the more common macOS is, the more of a target for malware it becomes.

Apple has been interested in market share for a long time. Apple is no longer just a "premium only" company. iPhone SE, iPad 10.2, Watch SE, Homepod Mini all prove this.

Not only do people who buy entry-level Apple products eventually upgrade to the Pro lineup, but they also get hooked into buying Apple subscriptions too which is Apple's primary growth driver nowadays.

Having a more common OS and being targeted more by malware is a good problem to have.

And put it this way, the more common macOS is, the better software support will be for Pro users because developers will actually optimize for Apple Silicon.

Steve Jobs was interviewed on this many years back, and was accused of selling expensive, overpriced machines. His answer was basically "Well, we actually try to price them very affordably. We don't want to make expensive machines, we just want to make the best machines. And we won't compromise on that just to try to focus solely on price."

Steve Jobs said they didn't know how to make a cheap computer that wasn't junk. They do now. It's called Apple Silicon.

Cheaper MacBooks would just cannibalise the current market. You might get new sales to MacOS virgins but long time Mac users will buy the cheap MacBooks instead of more expensive models.

It will cannibalize it by a little, yes. This is unavoidable. But it should be net overall positive. I would never buy a Macbook SE over a 16" Macbook Pro. But I would buy the Macbook SE as a gift to my family members who don't own a Mac yet but already own an iPhone and an iPad.

Even a $500 MacBook won't substantially change macOS market share. Wintel got in the market first and they own it.

Nah. In the US, the iPhone is now 52% of the phone market but Macs are only around 15%. This means far more people have an iPhone + Windows than iPhone + Mac. People want to buy into the Apple ecosystem but Macs have always been too costly at the entry-level price point. Apple has a big opportunity to sell Macs to existing iPhone users with something like a Macbook SE.

The question is also whether they actually want to increase the market share.

Yes, they do. Apple wants market share now. They clearly show this with affordable iPhones, iPads, Watches, Homepod Mini. Apple's strategy has changed from capturing only the premium market to now capturing the low-mid-end all the way to the highest end.

Produce excellent value products using Apple Silicon, manufacturing scale, and older designs. Capture market share. Get people to subscribe to services. Upsell the low-end customers when they increase their income.

And remember, an iPhone + Mac customer is a far stronger ecosystem hook than just a standalone iPhone customer. Every additional Apple device a customer owns will entrench them into the ecosystem that much more.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

I don't have data to back it up, but I think many people use laptops instead of desktops because laptops need less space than desktops, and they need to move them around from time to time.

An aggressively priced MBA-MBP hybrid laptop (bulkier, with slightly more performance and larger screen size than the MBA) could increase macOS market share.

 

[senttoschool]

An aggressively priced MBA-MBP hybrid laptop (bulkier, with slightly more performance and larger screen size than the MBA) could increase macOS market share.

You're referring to a 15" Macbook Air, which I wholly support. I believe it will sell well and plug the giant hole between the $1,000 Macbook Air and the $2,000 Macbook Pro 14".

However, I believe the most important Macbook would be a $750 Macbook SE using the current 13" MBA design.

 

[senttoschool]

PS. I believe most posters here will suggest Apple won't/shouldn't release an affordable Macbook. The reason is that most people here, including myself, are firmly in the "premium" category which means we aren't the target audience for it. And a lot of people here like to be in the "special minority" by owning a Mac instead of a PC. It's like being hipster.

But from a business standpoint, an affordable MacBook makes far too much sense for Apple now that Apple Silicon is here.

A cheap Macbook using a low-end Intel Celeron would be laughably bad. But an M2? Now that's killer.

 

[JPack]

Nah. In the US, the iPhone is now 52% of the phone market but Macs are only around 15%. This means far more people have an iPhone + Windows than iPhone + Mac. People want to buy into the Apple ecosystem but Macs have always been too costly at the entry-level price point. Apple has a big opportunity to sell Macs to existing iPhone users with something like a Macbook SE.

That's a big assumption. As I mentioned, there is a big learning curve from Windows. The reality is, Windows is compatible with nearly 100% of the software out there. Mac isn't. Besides, the Mac mini is $699 and it hasn't drawn in a lot of new users.

 

[senttoschool]

That's a big assumption. As I mentioned, there is a big learning curve from Windows. The reality is, Windows is compatible with nearly 100% of the software out there. Mac isn't. Besides, the Mac mini is $699 and it hasn't drawn in a lot of new users.

Anyone buying an affordable Mac should not need to run specialized software. Electron Apps have made cross-platform development cheap and easy for Macs and Windows. Most common work software are now in the browser. Microsoft Office is on the Mac as native apps and on the browser.

As a software engineer, I can't remember the last time I needed a piece of software that was only on Windows.

As for the learning curve, it should be helped by the fact that most people in the US already use one or more Apple products.

PS. Having Apple Silicon is pretty awesome. I can use an iPad app like Lose it on my Mac, which does not exist on Windows.

 

[senttoschool]

Besides, the Mac mini is $699 and it hasn't drawn in a lot of new users.

A desktop is different from a Macbook. I don't know anyone who has purchased a desktop in the last 10 years.

Even as a gamer, my last desktop computer was a custom DIY built desktop in 2011.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

You're referring to a 15" Macbook Air, which I wholly support. I believe it will sell well and plug the giant hole between the $1,000 Macbook Air and the $2,000 Macbook Pro 14".

Yes, that's the sweet spot. An aggressively priced 15" MacBook Air M2 ($1,500, 16 GB RAM/512 GB SSD and fans) will bring more meaningful macOS software than a cheap 13" MacBook Air M1 ($800, 8 GB RAM/256 GB SSD).

A cheaper laptop that most people will use for web browsing might help increase market share, but it won't bring Windows-only software. Android is the proof. Cheap Android phones increase market share but don't help bring significant applications.

 

[senttoschool]

Yes, that's the sweet spot. An aggressively priced 15" MacBook Air M2 ($1,500, 16 GB RAM/512 GB SSD and fans) will bring more meaningful macOS software than a cheap 13" MacBook Air M1 ($800, 8 GB RAM/256 GB SSD).

This, I very much disagree with.

I don't think the Mac's marketshare problem is because they're lacking an affordable 15" Macbook. I think it's the high entry price point. Thus, I think a $750 Macbook SE is by far, the most important Mac Apple can make right now.

This is the lineup I would release if I ran the Mac business:

I would like to see Apple take 50% of the entire U.S. computer market. I think they can do it with this lineup:

$750 - Macbook SE (using current 13" MBA chassis & screen)
$1100 - 14" Macbook Air
$1600 - 16" Macbook Air
$2000 - 14" Macbook Pro
$2500 - 16" Macbook Pro

I bought Apple stocks so I can use gains to buy an M1 laptop

I had the impression TA worked but am clueless why some stocks went through their 1 y support. The MACD I'm struggling with too. I get your viewpoint on apple being a diversified company. Amazon is interesting too. With the options some are like a no go zone. Boston beer for example lol.

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Bug-Creator]

Also, I don't think the M1 will be that much cheaper to produce than M2, even after 2 years,

Depends on wether M2 is based on a different process node. If it is the same as M1 there is no point in keeping anything M1 around once a M2 replacement is available.

If it is a new process that will most likely be limited in volume (and also be used for the iPhones) which could mean Apple getting a discount when ordering "old" tech.

Not enough to really make a difference so a real cheap Mac would either need to cut corners elsewhere or Apple would have to accept lower margins.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

M1 will be around for a long time, if only because of economies of scale.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Not the solution you speak of but Apple refurbished is a great avenue to grab a Mac at a more acceptable price. The fact that the inventory changes so quickly is likely at least some evidence of its popularity. Of course, the fluctuating availability does make it difficult to utilize on-demand.

On a entertaining approach, here are the pleasures ? of budget(-ish) off-the-shelf PCs:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsuVSmND84QuM2HKzG7ipbIbE_R5EnCLM

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

 

[Coochie Boogs]

Do you think by attempting to reach the floor you cheapen your product? Apple does very well as is, and there is a premium price for entry in most cases. I know they like to consider themselves a luxury brand for most of the products.

 

[PandaPunch]

That's a big assumption. As I mentioned, there is a big learning curve from Windows. The reality is, Windows is compatible with nearly 100% of the software out there. Mac isn't. Besides, the Mac mini is $699 and it hasn't drawn in a lot of new users.

I don't agree with the learning curve argument. Sure, not everything transfers from Windows, there's a few quirks (like closing a program vs quitting) but macOS and Windows 10/11 have a ton in common. I just can't see a long time Windows user struggling with macOS like they might with say, a Linux distro.

 

[Bodhitree]

It’s true that there are possibilities to look at expanding the Mac market share by providing better value in tying it to the iPhone. That is mostly a software problem.

I think Apple have a strategy that works, in providing key software with the Mac for free (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Xcode) which means Mac users are not so dependent on MS Office, and providing pro software for cheap (Logic, Final Cut). The total cost of ownership becomes a lot more attractive if you take those into account. Its a strategy they could expand on, by buying say Maxon or even Adobe.

But there are limits to what you can do to gain Mac market share, against the entrenched Windows ecosystem.

 

[Andrea Filippini]

View attachment 1980837
Currently, the market share of macOS didnt changed since 2020 which proves that migrating to Apple Silicon didnt really affect the market share. But Apple really need to increase their market share for better software optimization and support for macOS. Even iOS developers dont want to support and optimize their mobile apps on macOS due to the market share of macOS. Not profitable to them.

My suggestion is why not keep using M1 based chips even if Apple makes M2 or M3 based Macs? Just like what they did with HomePod, iPad, and Studio display, they can still use old chips for new Macs to reduce the total price as an entry option. Beside, they should keep using M1 based chips for a while cause they are too good to throw away when M2 based Macs show up. iPhone SE is a great example.

So why not sell cheaper Macs to increase the market share? I think M1 Mac mini, M1 MBA, and M1 iMac would be the best products to start this strategy along with M2 or M3 based Mac. Maybe their hardware subscription might be useful if they are developing the service for Mac too.

Thoughts?

Apple is not interested in market share. They sell high-end or premium products (like Ferrari), so for their nature they are not accessible to everyone. Integrity of the brand is the only concern.
In my personal opinion Apple in the last years has reached even too much market share (a decade ago it had maybe 6%).

 

[Ethosik]

Ill just post that Steve Jobs question and answer segment.