How Apple will make HUGE marketshare strides

[czeluff]

As a Windows C++ developer, 45 hours per week, I see the amount of software that gets created for the platform. It's not slowing...

Programming for Windows has taught me that OSX is a better designed system. Working on iPhone apps vs Windows apps has shown me the flaws of the registry, an OS that is tied to unique hardware identifiers, etc.

So i'll throw this out, because I think it's pretty much a known fact: UNIX is better engineered that Windows.

Yet, that fact doesn't seem to be helping Apple's marketshare....a shame.

But look at the iPhone: it has stepped into the market, and taken MASSIVE amounts away from the competition. It was unique, innovative, etc. People just don't SEE that sort of innovation with OSX, because by and large, it does what Windows does: it allows people to surf the internet, upload photos, and listen to music.

So how does Apple gain marketshare, when they're CLEARLY already the lead from an engineering standpoint? I think Apple knows the answer, and I have an idea about it:

Rather than fight for marketshare in the mouse/keyboard-based computer industry, I think Apple is going to focus the VAST majority of their attention on the tablet, and maintain the lead in that market, leaving the mouse/keyboard-based computers in the dust, admitting defeat to Microsoft. Rather than viewing computer marketshare as one category, they'll split it into two VERY distinct markets: the mouse/keyboard one, and touchscreen machines. And who knows, if Apple plays their cards right, they could be the ones with 95% marketshare in 10 years....in the tablet sector.

After all, who cares if you were the world leader in VHS tape production after DVDs came along?

Make sense? Any thoughts?

 

[spinnerlys]

Maybe Apple doesn't care as much about market share as the more geeky/nerdy (fans) like to believe.

For me it really is okay with me, if Apple keeps its current market share, because the bigger it gets, the easier it could fall.

I only use Mac OS X since 2004, but ever since they switched to Intel, I saw a small but tangible decline in quality with Apple products, be it the OS or the hardware it is put upon.
And since the switch to Intel resulted in a steady gain of market share, I think that QC suffered a lot due to this. The best example is the current 27" iMac, which seems to gather a lot of complaints, be it due to real fox ups by Apple or due to the over-sensitivy of many of those new users, switchers (I don't like that word in this regard, even if it describes the process mostly appropriately).


Btw, 5% or 8% market share should not cause anyone to admit defeat in this market, because it's a bloody big market worth billions of those currency paper thingies.

 

[ArrowSmith]

Apple doesn't care about market share, profits are the measuring stick. Besides, monopolies are never a good thing. Even MSFT is finding that out now.

 

[aloofman]

Apple's long-term strategy has always been about making profits and pleasing their own customers. Gaining market share is a bonus. They only ever mention it for marketing purposes. A comparison that's been made before: BMW and Mercedes don't care about becoming GM or Toyota. They just want to make good cars and money.

 

[carlgo]

...And who knows, if Apple plays their cards right, they could be the ones with 95% marketshare in 10 years....in the tablet sector.

After all, who cares if you were the world leader in VHS tape production after DVDs came along?

Make sense? Any thoughts?

Makes good sense. Simply create a new industry and dominate it. VHS>DVD, wagons>cars, there are hundred of examples because every technology gets replaced by another new and better one (well, newer anyway).

 

[*LTD*]

Apple is concerned about unit share, but only in the most profitable segments of the market.

 

[Chwisch87]

how do you see the unix file system has better than the object based NT computing in windows??

 

[spinnerlys]

how do you see the unix file system has better than the object based NT computing in windows??

Can you please rephrase that sentence to one that is coherent and understandable.

There seems to be something missing in it.

 

[maflynn]

I think its humorous that people think they know better then apple to gain marketshare.

I mean apple could probably double their marketshare by slashing the price of their macs and licensing OSX to anyone and everyone under the sun. They won't do that. They've opted for the high end market, knowing that many people will choose to pay more money for a well functioning, highly integrated well designed computer.

I have no idea how apple should increase marketshare, but then I'm no apple exec being paid to come up with such ideas.

 

[Chwisch87]

Can you please rephrase that sentence to one that is coherent and understandable.

There seems to be something missing in it.

Sorry, The question was how do you see the unix based file system as better than the object based computing of the windows NT based computer?

This is not flame bait as much as i am trying to pick a guys brain for his opinion of why OS 10 is better than Windows NT?

 

[maflynn]

This is not flame bait as much as i am trying to pick a guys brain for his opinion of why OS 10 is better than Windows NT?

FWIW, OSX does not use any Unix file systems but their own proprietary HFS+ file system.

 

[Gaelic2]

I believe the thread starter has a good idea and states it well. I am not sure that Apple is after more market share at the cost of increased profit share. They are in business to make money and do so extremely well.
They could lead in the "Tablet" field by setting new parameters as they do with iPhone. All in all, we will know in a few weeks, and some will be pleased and some will be disappointed. The word, "Sucks" will be thrown around a lot and the world will turn as usual.

 

[Chwisch87]

FWIW, OSX does not use any Unix file systems but their own proprietary HFS+ file system.

HFS+ ... why is this better than NTFS?

 

[ravenvii]

HFS+ ... why is this better than NTFS?

It's not, frankly. HFS+ has been in need of a upgrade for a decade now.

But at least it works, so it's not a priority.

 

[spinnerlys]

HFS+ ... why is this better than NTFS?

Who says anything about HFS+ being better than NTFS besides you and your friend?

Both have their ups and downs.

For lack of a better response I used Google and Bing to give you this.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hfs+vs+ntfs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.bing.com/search?q=hfs++vs+ntfs&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hfs+&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.bing.com/search?q=hfs+&go=&form=QBRE&filt=all&qs=n&sc=8-3


http://www.bing.com/search?q=ntfs&go=&form=QBRE&filt=all&qs=n&sc=8-4

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=ntfs&aq=0s&oq=ntfd&aqi=g-s4


Make up your own mind.

PS: ZFS would be the better choice of all three.

 

[maflynn]

PS: ZFS would be the better choice of all three.

Agreed but apple put to bed the hope of that

 

[spinnerlys]

Agreed but apple put to bed the hope of that

I know, but they will have learnt something from it and will have a better grasp of a more intelligent file system, so they can implement it in the successor of HFS+, which will be still years away, unless Apple has the resources to work on something big as a file system with more than one team - having different teams look into different file systems.

Who knows. Resolution independence might come earlier than a new file system, but this has been waited for since 10.4 I think.

 

[MTI]

Current, Very Clear Article About Apple's Market Share Versus Profitiability

Despite Apple's solid growth, it was far behind Toshiba, which increased shipments by around 71% to replace Apple in the number-four slot. Nevertheless, Apple's profit per machine was probably much higher.


Do stockholders want their companies to sell lots of low margin computers; or sell fewer units with a larger margin?

 

[maflynn]

I know, but they will have learnt something from it and will have a better grasp of a more intelligent file system, so they can implement it in the successor of HFS+, which will be still years away, unless Apple has the resources to work on something big as a file system with more than one team - having different teams look into different file system.

Throwing bodies at the problem won't help. You cannot have a baby in one month with 9 woman. You need one woman and 9 months.

Modern file systems are incredibly complex and need to be 100% reliable. ZFS is already there, Apple has some serious work ahead of itself if its going to produce a brand new file system from scratch. Just look at how long ext file system to mature for linux. ext4 is the latest incarnation and it took a lot of work and time to get there.

 

[spinnerlys]

Throwing bodies at the problem won't help. You cannot have a baby in one month with 9 woman. You need one woman and 9 months.

Modern file systems are incredibly complex and need to be 100% reliable. ZFS is already there, Apple has some serious work ahead of itself if its going to produce a brand new file system from scratch. Just look at how long ext file system to mature for linux. ext4 is the latest incarnation and it took a lot of work and time to get there.

I know that more bodies will not produce something faster (pyramids excepted), but what if Apple didn't only research ZFS, but other options as well.
I assume that Steve Jobs and many knowledgeable people at Apple know that HFS+ is not meant for infinity and might have realized that with the birth of OS X and researched their options and gone after more than one (ZFS being the one).

It can all be a wet dream though. I don't know much about file systems, but when I read that you can add new HDDs to an already existing pool of HDDs without much meddling, I knew that ZFS had some prospects.

We'll see eventually. Maybe that's what the January 27th event is all about, the new file system instead of that tablet/slate thingy.