How can Apple monetize more macOS market share without iOS-like software control?
Will Apple change its product lineup if forced to open iOS?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cheaper Macs for increasing the market share?
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Will Apple change its product lineup if forced to open iOS?
Simply Mac is discounting the Studio Max by $200 and the Studio Ultra by $400. It seems that there are rotating discounts on M1 Macs already - you may just have to wait a bit for the model that you want.
It's also getting easier and easier to run macOS on KVM/QEMU if you want to run macOS on non-Apple hardware. I imagine that the Hackintohs route continues to get easier as well given what I've seen of the Opencore project.
Used Apple hardware gets cheaper with time as newer models come out. So there is acquisition via that route as well. Marketshare is great but it's pretty clear that Apple is focusing on profits and they are doing a fantastic job on that front.
It's also getting easier and easier to run macOS on KVM/QEMU if you want to run macOS on non-Apple hardware. I imagine that the Hackintohs route continues to get easier as well given what I've seen of the Opencore project.
Used Apple hardware gets cheaper with time as newer models come out. So there is acquisition via that route as well. Marketshare is great but it's pretty clear that Apple is focusing on profits and they are doing a fantastic job on that front.
but that was Steve's Apple. I miss it so much! yes, I know some ehm, religious people will tell something stupid about this but they are wrong. tim's Apple is, though financially successful exactly the thing that the 1984 ad was all about. Steve would cry to see what Apple has become. they keep / hire the average only to be pc and fire those like Scott Forstall was. political propaganda and bean counting over everything else! what a shame! we've only got the mediocre AW from today's Apple and the (mostly) terrible TV shows. they don't deserve bigger market share. they should go back to develop the best product at the best price for the average - power - pro users. and especially the best software. nearly "bug-free". stable as concrete. I have to vomit.
If Apple ever does make a MacBook SE, it’s very doubtful that they would put an M2 into the current chasis of the MacBook Air. That would basically just be reducing the price of the Air to $750, and I don’t see Apple ever doing that. Not even on Apple silicon. And honestly, I don’t think the Air is overpriced for what you get. (The PC market can’t offer anything close to it at $999. Apple could have easily gotten away with raising the price, and they didn’t. It’s great news for all of us of course.)
If Apple ever explores this, they’re going to almost certainly use an old chipset (or possibly even something akin to the A15). And I doubt they would put it in the current MBA chassis, that would cannibalize the living daylights out the existing Air. The MacBook SE wouldn’t be the power of the current Air for a discount, it’d be something different to get folks who typically buy midrange PCs (as in, $700 laptops) into the Mac ecosystem.
If Apple ever explores this, they’re going to almost certainly use an old chipset (or possibly even something akin to the A15). And I doubt they would put it in the current MBA chassis, that would cannibalize the living daylights out the existing Air. The MacBook SE wouldn’t be the power of the current Air for a discount, it’d be something different to get folks who typically buy midrange PCs (as in, $700 laptops) into the Mac ecosystem.
Last edited:
128GB M1 MacBook Air available to $799, but education only - 9to5Mac
Apple has quietly included a 128GB M1 MacBook Air in the Apple Store for Education, priced at $799. This is $100 cheaper than the education deal on ...
9to5mac.com
But that education model is not available openly for regular consumers.Apple already sold $800 M1 MBA with 128gb of storage for education version when M1 MBA released in Nov, 2020. Since it's almost 2 years old, it can be much cheaper when M2 shows up.128GB M1 MacBook Air available to $799, but education only - 9to5Mac
Apple has quietly included a 128GB M1 MacBook Air in the Apple Store for Education, priced at $799. This is $100 cheaper than the education deal on ...
Yes, Apple can do it if they wanted to, but the current Apple doesn't seem to be interested.
Heck, I wouldn't even need the M1. An A12Z Macbook is probably good enough for most people as Apple's own DTK uses the A12Z.
The current Apple thinks that if you want a cheaper computer, you buy the iPad.
I think your examples of "Old Apple" line up much closer with "current Apple" than you'd think. Specifically, when adjusted for inflation, the base Mac mini is about the same low price point it always was during the Jobs era, except the current base Mini has the CPU/GPU equivalent of the top-tier Mac minis of the past:
The one exception is the base model 2014 Mac mini which sold for $499, but also came with a very weak 1.4 GHz CPU.
Likewise, looking at the same chart for iMac models, you can see that for less than used to get the base-model 21.5" 4K iMac (or a little more than the 1080p 21.5" iMacs making up that lowest row of green), you now get an iMac with a retina 24" display and a CPU that handily outclasses that base model's i3 (and even its top-range i7). Adjusted for inflation, the 24" iMac of today sits a little under the price point of the mid-range 17" iMac from 2006:
Same deal for Apple laptops, which have become increasingly budget-friendly over the past two decades:
To be fair, Old Apple (under Jobs) only sold one iPhone at one price point (apart from storage options). Apple still sells the 12 and 12 Mini at reduced cost like it used to, it just doesn't do the same for the Pro models (which is unfortunate but understandable, given how messy it'd make their already-bloated iPhone line for consumers).
Also, comparing the current SE to the old practice of just selling 2-year-old flagships, I think it's less about highlighting class distinctions between customers and more about finding a way to offer modern hardware at a low price point. Back before the SE, you'd be buying a 2-year-old device that would start to suffer with iOS updates sooner and only have 3-4 years of software updates left in it (e.g. my partner, who got a 5S from her carrier in 2016). With the SE, you're getting a flagship chip with a good 6-7 years of life in it for the same price, with the cost savings coming in the form of an older form factor. For people who don't update their phones that often (like me), that's a big benefit.
This graph shows the market share of macOS over the last few years.
Market share rose in September/October 2019 very quickly. Is there any trend between prices and market share?
gs.statcounter.com
Market share rose in September/October 2019 very quickly. Is there any trend between prices and market share?
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
That's true, but Apple has kinda been marketing the iPad as a low-cost Mac replacement for certain segments of the market for a while. And you're right, iPadOS isn't even remotely a MacOS replacement. They both serve their intended markets well, but they are both fundamentally different platforms for different purposes. iPadOS is too locked down to serve as a true MacOS replacement.
There has been some fear for a while that MacOS would become more locked down like iOS (e.g. allowing only apps from the App store, disabling installations from other sources, etc), but I don't think that this will ever happen. The entire software development community would revolt and initiate a mass exodus away from the entire Apple ecosystem if it did. ?
I’d probably just add that the iPad’s goal here is more to compete for the segment of the market that used cheap netbooks and laptops as ways to browse the web, access social media, and get into streaming content. Something the iPad does well.
I always love it when randoms on a forum pretend like they know how to run Apple better than the people who've built it into a $3T company....
Profits (and profit share) >> Market share
Profits (and profit share) >> Market share
I would not use this data to measure Mac market share.This graph shows the market share of macOS over the last few years.
View attachment 1982455
Market share rose in September/October 2019 very quickly. Is there any trend between prices and market share?
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.
I think of market share as something like quarterly or yearly sales vs overall computer sales. That gives you a better indicator of how well Macs are doing as a business.
Measuring OS usage through a browser like what StatCounter is doing is fine if all you’re trying to figure out is how often people use Macs to browse websites.
The Air is getting a brand new design and maybe even a spec bump soon.
I can see Apple moving the Air to 16GB/256GB on a brand new design and a $1,100 price.
Then release an SE with the same M2 SoC on the current Air chassis with 8GB/256GB for $750.
They put a god damn M1 in a $599 iPad Air. Will you people stop thinking that Apple would put an A series chip into a Mac??
I've always said, actions speak louder than words, especially for a $3T company.
If a $750 MacBook SE was the savior to market share, Apple would have done it a long time ago. They don't need someone proposing this on a forum. If MacBook Air 15-inch was some low-hanging fruit, Apple would have grabbed it a decade ago.
M1 allows Apple to eat the profits previously gobbled up by Intel. In all likelihood, Apple today is even less likely to come out with a cheaper Mac. Unlike PC assemblers that buy from Intel, Apple can now trade low sales volumes for high margins. Acer doesn't have that luxury, so they go high volume, low margin. Apple doesn't have to fight in the trenches.
It makes even less sense now.
Every PC manufacturer wants to go low volume, high margin. But hardly anyone can do that. Do you think Acer would prefer to sell millions of PCs with low margin? Or be in Apple's position to command high margin?
Tell me you don't know how to run a business without telling me....
Cheaper products make less money per sale even if they have the same margin %. Using example numbers...
A $600 Mac with a 20% margin will bring in a gross margin of $120.
A $1000 Mac with that same 20% margin brings in... $200. You'd need to sell 2x or more the numbers at $600 and you would need to not take any of those sales from the $1000 product.
Last edited:
Android has by far the largest global market share at over 70%. Guess who has the bigger profits?
Apple Silicon is far cheaper to produce than buying Intel chips. This allows Apple to offer mass market prices without fighting in the trenches. Apple would still have ample profits for every MacBook SE they sell.
You need to think of revenue and profits as “LTV” which stands for life time value. What’s important is the life time value of the customer. Getting someone hooked onto a Mac means they will upgrade in the future, buy Apple services, buy other Apple devices, and be less likely to switch to Android. Acer has none of these benefits.
And in the US, Apple has 52% of the market. Guess who makes an even higher share of profits in the US?
Profits and market share measure different things. Usually, market share is a proxy to profits, not always, but almost always.
Low-margin is fighting in the trenches.
In the past, Apple had to consider market share because Mac was relatively low margin. Intel ate all the hardware profits. Today, Apple doesn't need to worry about margin and volume. They can maintain sales price and have higher margin.
There is no "LTV" for a cheap MacBook. Do you think the customers in India buying a $750 MacBook will spend a lot on services? Heck, no.
Do you think iPhone SE customers are going all-in on Apple TV+, iCloud+, AppleCare+? Of course not.
This reminds me of the people who thought it would be a good idea for iPhone SE to have MagSafe. Those SE customers aren't buying a $40 puck for a $400 iPhone.
The U.S. doesn't even represent the largest smartphone market. When was the time Apple launched hardware just for the U.S.?
Apple is known to target margin. You guys are basically trying to copy and paste a page from the Android playbook and asking, "this should fit well with Apple, right?"