Cheaper Macs for increasing the market share?

[sunny5]

Lower margins for Apple. There's brand value you haven't considered. By selling cheap stuff, Apple has less ability to command prices at the high end because of the diluted brand.

We know for example, macOS runs on A12Z because that's what the DTK was using. Apple could use A14 for an entry level MacBook.

Brand value? How come iPhone SE with A15 starts at $429 instead of $700, $800, or $1000? How about iPad starting at $329?

You see, that logic already proven wrong.

 

[JPack]

Brand value? How come iPhone SE with A15 starts at $429 instead of $700, $800, or $1000? How about iPad starting at $329?

You see, that logic already proven wrong.

Nobody associates a Home button and thick bezels with an expensive Apple product. It's like a Tesla with a fossil engine. The notch and camera design are part of Apple's brand.

There's no obvious way to sell a MBA with Home button or another way to clearly distinguish it from more expensive Apple products.

Your idea of selling cheap iMac and MacBook would make the leadership team at Apple wince because they spent decades building the Apple brand to where it is.

 

[JouniS]

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.

Apple is an upper midrange brand like BMW and Audi. As a high-end brand like Ferrari, Apple's product range would be limited to the iPhone Pro Max, the MBP with the M1 Max, and the Mac Studio with the M1 Ultra.

 

[sunny5]

Nobody associates a Home button and thick bezels with an expensive Apple product. It's like a Tesla with a fossil engine. The notch and camera design are part of Apple's brand.

There's no obvious way to sell a MBA with Home button or another way to clearly distinguish it from other more expensive Apple products.

Your idea of selling cheap iMac and MacBook would make the leadership at Apple wince because they spent decades building the Apple brand to where it is.

Current M1 Mac mini and MBA are totally fine. There is no such thing about iPhone home button on MBA cause it never exists. They can still use M1 on future Macs as an entry option.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

I think Apple could increase market share substantially by licensing MacOS to a third party manufacturer that would agree to make a base level laptops in volume with a deprecated chipset.

Wouldn't it make more sense to develop a sub-brand (perhaps Beats) for cheaper/gaming computers?

 

[leman]

I think Apple could increase market share substantially by licensing MacOS to a third party manufacturer that would agree to make a base level laptops in volume with a deprecated chipset. It would increase MacOS usage while not competing with Apple on the premium hardware front. A company like Dell would do it in a heartbeat.

That’s a sure recipe to kill the Mac altogether.

 

[JPack]

Current M1 Mac mini and MBA are totally fine. There is no such thing about iPhone home button on MBA cause it never exists. They can still use M1 on future Macs as an entry option.

Unless there's a significant difference in form factor, Apple won't introduce an entry level Mac for reasons I already outlined.

Of course there isn't a Home button on the Mac. Hopefully, you finally understand the analogy.

 

[JPack]

Wouldn't it make more sense to develop a sub-brand (perhaps Beats) for cheaper/gaming computers?

That usually happens when the brand of the parent company is relatively weak, e.g. Dell/Alienware, Toyota/Scion. Apple has been ranked #1 brand in the world by Interbrand for the past decade and nobody sees it as boring.

 

[sunny5]

Unless there's a significant difference in form factor, Apple won't introduce an entry level Mac for reasons I already outlined.

Of course there isn't a Home button on the Mac. Hopefully, you finally understand the analogy.

And that's the problem. Lack of optimization and support are because of low market share. This is also why most major iOS developers dont support and optimize mobile apps on macOS.

 

[Andrea Filippini]

Brand value? How come iPhone SE with A15 starts at $429 instead of $700, $800, or $1000? How about iPad starting at $329?

You see, that logic already proven wrong.

Because the equivalent product on the market costs less than $150.

Apple is an upper midrange brand like BMW and Audi. As a high-end brand like Ferrari, Apple's product range would be limited to the iPhone Pro Max, the MBP with the M1 Max, and the Mac Studio with the M1 Ultra.

You can apply the concept also for Ferrari. You can buy an "entry-level" Ferrari F8 Tributo or a high-end Ferrari Monza SP1. For average people they are both luxury goods, for wealthy people there is instead a significant difference between them.

 

[JouniS]

You can apply the concept also for Ferrari. You can buy an "entry-level" Ferrari F8 Tributo or a high-end Ferrari Monza SP1. For average people they are both luxury goods, for wealthy people there is instead a significant difference between them.

The cheapest entry-level Ferrari is ~10x more expensive than the average new consumer car (in the world, not in wealthy countries). If anything, Apple products are too cheap to qualify even as entry-level products for a high-end brand.

 

[southerndoc]

Healthcare is a known outlier in terms of PC replacement cycles, similar to education, manufacturing, and retail.

That’s because your clients come to you. You purchase very few notebooks as a result (why buy expensive notebooks that can break?). As a result, the computers don’t break and don’t have to be replaced as often. There’s also the big issue of specialized software for healthcare which is expensive and has a long life cycle.

Most industries like finance, IT, and government where staff face a computer monitor for 7 hours a day will replace their computers every 3-5 years.

I wish the hospital replaced employee laptops every 3-5 years. The one I was issued I've been using for 7 years now. It's slow as all get out with the Office updates.

Government doesn't replace laptops every 3-5 years. I'm currently contracted by a county government and have experience with the federal government. My experience has been they replace when things go out. Federal government will order batches, but they order for replacements. Before medical school, I worked for an agency that had a need for up-to-date computers. They were not up-to-date and were quite old.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

I think it absolutely makes sense. With iPhone and iPad Apple does have a lower end device using yesterday's design but a flagship chip. With Apple Silicon this can be done for the Mac as well- after the M2 MBA launches, keep the old chassis around with an M2 or even M1 and sell it as "MacBook" or "MacBook SE" for $749-$799. This would still be above the average laptop selling price in the Us (I think $600) but a lot more affordable. With Intel their was no way to launch a mid-range device without a crap chip, but now they can. Mac market share is still extremely low compared to iPad and iPhone, why shouldn't Apple try to grow their market share to similar levels? This would also help sales of higher end Macs because it would encourage Windows-only software to move over as well. So for example, Apple increased their market share from 8-10% to 15-20%, I think a lot of 3D/CAD/engineering applications would come over. This wouldn't just mean Apple could sell people who use those apps spec'ed out MBPs, but it would also help with Apple's strategic goals with 3D, AR and VR development. We might also see more apps offering iPhone, iPad, and Mac versions in the App Store- serious lock-in not just on the Mac side but on the iPhone side. Not to mention getting more people using Apple services. Most iPhone users don't own a Mac. There's a massive customer base available here.

 

[leman]

By the way, I was very curious about the "computer in the keyboard" concept that was in the rumour mill recently. I think it could be a neat little entry-level machine for many home users.

So for example, Apple increased their market share from 8-10% to 15-20%

Mac market share is around 15-16% according to the graph posted by OP. And it's proportionately higher for many fields, like software development or content creation. CAD, not so much, since its a chicken and egg problem. No matter how much Appel increases their market share, unless there are good CAD tools for the Macs the professionals won't switch over and via versa.

 

[JPack]

I wish the hospital replaced employee laptops every 3-5 years. The one I was issued I've been using for 7 years now. It's slow as all get out with the Office updates.

Government doesn't replace laptops every 3-5 years. I'm currently contracted by a county government and have experience with the federal government. My experience has been they replace when things go out. Federal government will order batches, but they order for replacements. Before medical school, I worked for an agency that had a need for up-to-date computers. They were not up-to-date and were quite old.

Again, I can't speak for outlier situations, but in general 3-5 years is typical for federal government. This is documented on several government agency websites.

CIO: Computer Life Cycle Refresh Program and Computer Exception Information | US Forest Service

www.fs.usda.gov

Data snapshot: The Lifespan of Computers and Other Tech in the Workplace

You know what they say: “Nothing lasts forever.” That’s especially true of technology. And as much as you might have loved that flip phone, 4...

community.spiceworks.com

 

[Xiao_Xi]

Apple increased their market share from 8-10% to 15-20%, I think a lot of 3D/CAD/engineering applications would come over.

A cheaper MBA may increase macOS market share, but it will convince developers to port Windows-only professional software. For that, you need a cheaper MBP.

Cheap Android phones don't bring high quality apps to Android, they only inflate Android's market share.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It'd be nice to see Apple TV's get some built in Apps/support to turn it into a "Chromebook desktop" type of device.

Be great for many older people. I have several in my life who are 100% cloud based and would love it.

 

[sunny5]

By the way, I was very curious about the "computer in the keyboard" concept that was in the rumour mill recently. I think it could be a neat little entry-level machine for many home users.



Mac market share is around 15-16% according to the graph posted by OP. And it's proportionately higher for many fields, like software development or content creation. CAD, not so much, since its a chicken and egg problem. No matter how much Appel increases their market share, unless there are good CAD tools for the Macs the professionals won't switch over and via versa.

Apple Imagines Mac-Inside-a-Keyboard Device Evocative of 80s Home Computers

Apple is exploring the possibility of integrating a fully functioning Mac within a keyboard, reminiscent of home computers of the 80s, such as the...

www.macrumors.com

Yup, such a nice concept.

 

[sunny5]

A cheaper MBA may increase macOS market share, but it will convince developers to port Windows-only professional software. For that, you need a cheaper MBP.

Cheap Android phones don't bring high quality apps to Android, they only inflate Android's market share.

Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch

You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice

techcrunch.com

Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives

daringfireball.net

• Apple’s research shows that 15 percent of all Mac users use at least one “pro” app frequently. These are apps for things like music creation, video editing, graphic design, and software development. Basically, apps that are performance intensive. An additional 15 percent of Mac users use pro apps less frequently but at least a few times per month. That 30 percent of the overall Mac user base is what Apple considers the “pro” market.
• Overall, the split between notebooks and desktops in Mac sales is roughly 80/20. (Personally, I’m a little surprised desktops account for even 20 percent of sales. I would have guessed 85/15, and wouldn’t have been surprised to hear 90/10.)
• Even among pro users, notebooks are by far the most popular Macs. In second place are iMacs. The Mac Pro is third. Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”, but my gut feeling is that the single digit is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 9.

Most Mac users aren't using pro apps. Apple's research proved that in 2017 and it wouldn't be that different in 2022. This is why selling cheap Macs would be more beneficial for Apple.

 

[southerndoc]

Again, I can't speak for outlier situations, but in general 3-5 years is typical for federal government. This is documented on several government agency websites.

CIO: Computer Life Cycle Refresh Program and Computer Exception Information | US Forest Service

www.fs.usda.gov

Data snapshot: The Lifespan of Computers and Other Tech in the Workplace

You know what they say: “Nothing lasts forever.” That’s especially true of technology. And as much as you might have loved that flip phone, 4...

community.spiceworks.com

"In fact, 70 percent of companies use desktops for 5 or more years before decommissioning or replacing them, with 24 percent of organizations using them for 7 or more years ... pushing the use of these devices in many organizations far past warranty expiration dates."

"By comparison, 48 percent of organizations use laptops for 5 or more years, but only 8 percent use them for 7 or more years. This difference in the lifespan of desktops vs. laptops helps explain why desktops are still the primary computing device used in the workplace, despite being outsold by laptops for years."

"According to our data, 84 percent of IT decision makers report hardware failure drives them to replace company-owned devices, making it the number one reason for device replacement."

"It’s interesting that only 29 percent of companies typically switch out equipment because of replacement policies, and only 26 percent do so because of warranty expiration. This indicates that many organizations are holding on to devices until they die or become unstable, which helps us understand why so many organizations use older hardware."

"This trend of replacing devices as they fail instead of on a regular schedule might also suggest that organizations are repairing or upgrading hardware when possible instead of replacing it outright."

"Increasingly, organizations are replacing machines primarily when they fail, instead of upgrading on a set schedule. Today, our data shows it’s common for organizations to use hardware, such as desktops, servers, and printers, for longer than five years and in many instances stretching the use of hardware past 7 years."

Regarding your other URL you cite, that's applicable to the USDA and US Forest Service. That doesn't apply to all agencies. It seems like replacing on a set 3-5 year schedule is the outlier and not the standard.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

Apple could start lowering prices in Europe. The market share of macOS in the US is almost 30%, while in Europe, it is around 15%.

Desktop Operating System Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of desktop operating systems in United States Of America based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

Desktop Operating System Market Share Europe | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of desktop operating systems in Europe based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

 

[Madhatter32]

Wouldn't it make more sense to develop a sub-brand (perhaps Beats) for cheaper/gaming computers?

A sub-brand is an excellent idea too but I do not think it moves the ball forward in terms of development buy-in in the same way a licensing deal might.

 

[JPack]

"In fact, 70 percent of companies use desktops for 5 or more years before decommissioning or replacing them, with 24 percent of organizations using them for 7 or more years ... pushing the use of these devices in many organizations far past warranty expiration dates."

"By comparison, 48 percent of organizations use laptops for 5 or more years, but only 8 percent use them for 7 or more years. This difference in the lifespan of desktops vs. laptops helps explain why desktops are still the primary computing device used in the workplace, despite being outsold by laptops for years."

"According to our data, 84 percent of IT decision makers report hardware failure drives them to replace company-owned devices, making it the number one reason for device replacement."

"It’s interesting that only 29 percent of companies typically switch out equipment because of replacement policies, and only 26 percent do so because of warranty expiration. This indicates that many organizations are holding on to devices until they die or become unstable, which helps us understand why so many organizations use older hardware."

"This trend of replacing devices as they fail instead of on a regular schedule might also suggest that organizations are repairing or upgrading hardware when possible instead of replacing it outright."

"Increasingly, organizations are replacing machines primarily when they fail, instead of upgrading on a set schedule. Today, our data shows it’s common for organizations to use hardware, such as desktops, servers, and printers, for longer than five years and in many instances stretching the use of hardware past 7 years."

Regarding your other URL you cite, that's applicable to the USDA and US Forest Service. That doesn't apply to all agencies. It seems like replacing on a set 3-5 year schedule is the outlier and not the standard.

Again, desktops like the ones used in healthcare will have a much longer replacement cycle. They don't break and just sit there.

In a post-COVID world, many more organizations have switched out to notebooks which will push that 48% / 5 year replacement number much lower.

If the USDA and Forest Service are replacing every 5 years, don't you think it's more likely than not agencies with heavier office presence will have a similar if not shorter cycle?

 

[ahurst]

I think Apple could increase market share substantially by licensing MacOS to a third party manufacturer that would agree to make a base level laptops in volume with a deprecated chipset. It would increase MacOS usage while not competing with Apple on the premium hardware front. A company like Dell would do it in a heartbeat.

Apple tried that once in the 90's, it... didn't go very well. One of the first thing Jobs did when he came back as CEO was kill off the clone program, since the clones were mostly siphoning away hardware sales from Apple instead of bringing new users to the platform.

Regardless, I don't think there's a pressing need for Apple to expand its market share: 15% is way bigger than it used to be, and in the Web App era there's increasing less correlation between market share and software availability. Apart from AAA games, the main areas macOS suffers from lack of native software support are specialized industry applications and drivers (e.g. Solidworks in engineering), where people are ususally buying higher-end hardware anyway.

Also, one of the huge things Apple achieved with the M1 is incredible vertical integration: instead of having to support all the quirks of dozens of different 3rd-party CPUs and GPUs, they now get to control and design almost all of the hardware to work as nicely as possible with macOS. Opening up macOS to third party manufacturers would mean adding a ton more complication to their software testing and support.

 

[Abazigal]

Market share is useless if it doesn’t mean more revenue for Apple.