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.
Research Firm Claim: OS X Is Actually Decreasing Apple's Market Share
- Thread starter pimentoLoaf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure where Enderle is getting his information. "They didn't do a good enough job of backward compatibility," Enderle told NewsFactor. "Quark never came across for OS X, and they desperately need Quark Latest News about Quark. At the very least, they have to build a better Windows emulator."
Apple hasn't built a Windows emulator and neither has Quark. He also didn't mention or wasn't quoted saying that Quark takes 4 years between releases.
So, really, isn't this just more doom and gloom reporting? We had plenty of this as Apple was dying in 1996, 1997, 1998, etc.
Who cares?
Apple hasn't built a Windows emulator and neither has Quark. He also didn't mention or wasn't quoted saying that Quark takes 4 years between releases.
So, really, isn't this just more doom and gloom reporting? We had plenty of this as Apple was dying in 1996, 1997, 1998, etc.
Who cares?
any article with a title like "Jaguar Opens Strong, But Can It Save Apple?" gets the click right on by from me.
The thing that always bothers me about these analysts is the endless claim that you need the wealth of software available for the PC on the Mac. What programs are they talking about?
Another analyst firm said Apple was increasing market share over the last quarter. Duh.
If this analyst talked to anyone in the graphics industry, he'd know that while Quark is still king, Adobe continues to gain market share because of the way Quark does business.
Quark's tech support is certainly always just 2 minutes away, but this hasn't stopped them from releasing versions with some pretty big bugs in the last few years. Also, it is absolutely true that they take FOREVER to release updates. The first time I ever saw Quark was version 3.1, about 6-7 years ago. As far as I understand, it took about 9 years to go from v3 to v5.
Their licensing is also a pain in the ass.
Adobe doesn't even need to work hard to gain market from Quark. They loose customers all by themselves.
No Quark on the mac is not the problem that it would have been 2 or 3 years ago. InDesign works just peachy on OS X.
If this analyst talked to anyone in the graphics industry, he'd know that while Quark is still king, Adobe continues to gain market share because of the way Quark does business.
Quark's tech support is certainly always just 2 minutes away, but this hasn't stopped them from releasing versions with some pretty big bugs in the last few years. Also, it is absolutely true that they take FOREVER to release updates. The first time I ever saw Quark was version 3.1, about 6-7 years ago. As far as I understand, it took about 9 years to go from v3 to v5.
Their licensing is also a pain in the ass.
Adobe doesn't even need to work hard to gain market from Quark. They loose customers all by themselves.
No Quark on the mac is not the problem that it would have been 2 or 3 years ago. InDesign works just peachy on OS X.
Eat me Quark
Since Quark has come up in this post, I would just like to reiterate my hate of quark. I would also like to add that these analyst have their collective heads up the ass of this writer. Apple needs Quark. Whatever! As ffakr stated, InDesign works peachy on Mac OS X (though there are some issues with it.)
Of Course Apple has lost market share, consumer confidence is down and Apple generally has higher priced products. Not to mention the large number of power users waiting in the wings to see what happens next year with the new PowerMac line. Add it all up, and you get people waiting for new Powermacs, not buying computers in general, or opting to purchase garbage PCs that will run word and IE.
But, why wait till January. Bush is gonna start WWIII by then. Might as well pick up a Dual 867, 1.0 Ghz, or 1.25 Ghz.
Since Quark has come up in this post, I would just like to reiterate my hate of quark. I would also like to add that these analyst have their collective heads up the ass of this writer. Apple needs Quark. Whatever! As ffakr stated, InDesign works peachy on Mac OS X (though there are some issues with it.)
Of Course Apple has lost market share, consumer confidence is down and Apple generally has higher priced products. Not to mention the large number of power users waiting in the wings to see what happens next year with the new PowerMac line. Add it all up, and you get people waiting for new Powermacs, not buying computers in general, or opting to purchase garbage PCs that will run word and IE.
But, why wait till January. Bush is gonna start WWIII by then. Might as well pick up a Dual 867, 1.0 Ghz, or 1.25 Ghz.
Um, what OS was this guy looking at? I have an old iBook playing server at home running 10.1. I haven't logged in at the console in MONTHS. They can be remotely administered same as any Unix machine. Meanwhile, my spanky new XP box is almost as isolated as any previous Windows machine. At the same time, isn't it generally recognized that trying to fit into the plain beige box business world was what almost did kill Apple around ten years ago? Apple's more recent successes have hinged upon appealing to the end user experience, something that business analysts find to be a useless obstacle to cheap corporate IT (as if anybody has yet managed to make IT even remotely cheap).
And who says I want my PC to be centrally managed by a service provider?
Not that I see that happening anytime soon. They've been saying the standalone PC is dead for about as long as they've been saying Apple is dead. We were all supposed to be using a reincarnation of mainframes and dumb terminals by now if you recall, and the IT departments were supposed to be rejoicing over the cheap "network computer" desktops with centralized management. Thing is, people who actually use computers, beyond kiosk and point-of-sale type applications, expect more than a rehashed mainframe experience will deliver.
Mr. Enderle is preaching from very old scripture among IT pundits, and it amazes me that you can still get paid spewing such trite nonsense. The mainframe is NOT making a comeback. He may as well make little black and white films about how easy housework will be for "the little wife" in "the pushbutton age."
Surrrre, the mainframe will rise again any day now. Right about the time we all start wearing silver one-piece jumpsuits to work.
FYI: This is the same site that ran an editorial a few weeks ago on how Apple could and must release an x86 port of OS X or it will be doomed.
OSOpinion has run several very upbeat articles about Apple and Mac OS X, but pretty much anyone is allowed to contribute. I'm not sure how much of an impact Giga has on anyone. This is the 2nd time in a year I've heard of them but like some others, they may take their trends from the web and if a web client (plug-in) isn't available for Macintosh, they just don't get statistics and assume that there's no usage. Otherwise, they would have to do real research.
This article is hogwash
And the commentary below it demonstrates it.
Also read the article here:
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2002/20020829.shtml
Looks like Newsfactor knows not what it is talking about, and is speaking to a PC industry person who has never touched a Mac.
Remember John Dvorak? This is just another case of that.
When people say Apple is in doom and gloom, it always manages to perk up to new heights. Apple always goes against analyst expectations.
And the commentary below it demonstrates it.
Also read the article here:
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2002/20020829.shtml
Looks like Newsfactor knows not what it is talking about, and is speaking to a PC industry person who has never touched a Mac.
Remember John Dvorak? This is just another case of that.
When people say Apple is in doom and gloom, it always manages to perk up to new heights. Apple always goes against analyst expectations.
Microsoft do - that's part of the whole .NET "vision" - you won't buy applications, you'll use them on a rental basis and they'll run on remote application servers.
Except, of course, it hasn't happened and there doesn't seem to be any sign that it's going to happen anytime soon. While Microsoft does tend to get its way rather a lot, every so often it says "it will be thus" and nobody listens to them. .NET is showing signs of being an example of this. It's not a failure by any means (C# is a pretty cool language), it's just turning out differently than they'd planned.
Basically the guy's entire article can be summed up as "Apple isn't doing things exactly the same way as Microsoft, therefore they are doomed."
So how many times now is it exactly that Apple has been doomed?
I just sent this to the corrections area of Newsfactor...
Your article on Mac OS X had some glaring errors that I would like to point out.
Quoted from your article:
"If Apple insists on using its operating systems to sell hardware, Enderle said, it probably would be better off bundling the OS with the hardware."
Every Macintosh sold comes bundled with Mac OS X. And for the last year they have come bundled with both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9. All home-targeted Macs also come bundled with a variety of software ranging from multimedia applications to an office suite.
Quoted from your article:
"They didn't do a good enough job of backward compatibility," Enderle told NewsFactor. "Quark never came across for OS X, and they desperately need Quark Latest News about Quark. At the very least, they have to build a better Windows emulator."
First, Apple has never built a Windows emulator. Could you be thinking of VirtualPC (which Apple does not make)?? If so, I'm not sure how an emulator could get better than being able to run any Windows OS and practically all Windows programs.
Second, backwards compatibility was a very high priority for the release of Mac OS X. Special APIs were created to make it easy for developers to port their applications to OS X and an environment is provided that allows OS 9 based programs to run flawlessly in OS X. And not only do they run flawlessly, but they also run right along side all native OS X programs. This is something few other emulators have ever done. Quark, while it was never ported to run natively on OS X, does run in this "Classic" emulation environment and at a speed hit of less than 10 percent.
Quoted from your article:
"Finally, according to Enderle, Apple has paid too little attention to system administration in the business environment. Management tools are inadequate, and remote administration is impossible. In the future, he said, PCs are likely to be centrally managed by service providers, but Apple has done nothing to prepare its products for such a development."
This is preposterous. Mac OS X is a variety of Unix. Because of this it has the ability to allow remote login via ssh which allows for complete command line control of remote machines, among other things. Apple has also released Apple Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/) which allows for remote graphical control of a Mac.
And these are only the facilities available on the desktop side. On the Mac server side, you have many more options. For example, Mac OS X handles all of its logins and network permissions and preferences through a secure central database called NetInfo. By changing values in this central database, you can control many aspects of a group of networked Macs.
I think errors of this magnitude deserve to be addressed immediately.
Matthew Trumbell
Your article on Mac OS X had some glaring errors that I would like to point out.
Quoted from your article:
"If Apple insists on using its operating systems to sell hardware, Enderle said, it probably would be better off bundling the OS with the hardware."
Every Macintosh sold comes bundled with Mac OS X. And for the last year they have come bundled with both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9. All home-targeted Macs also come bundled with a variety of software ranging from multimedia applications to an office suite.
Quoted from your article:
"They didn't do a good enough job of backward compatibility," Enderle told NewsFactor. "Quark never came across for OS X, and they desperately need Quark Latest News about Quark. At the very least, they have to build a better Windows emulator."
First, Apple has never built a Windows emulator. Could you be thinking of VirtualPC (which Apple does not make)?? If so, I'm not sure how an emulator could get better than being able to run any Windows OS and practically all Windows programs.
Second, backwards compatibility was a very high priority for the release of Mac OS X. Special APIs were created to make it easy for developers to port their applications to OS X and an environment is provided that allows OS 9 based programs to run flawlessly in OS X. And not only do they run flawlessly, but they also run right along side all native OS X programs. This is something few other emulators have ever done. Quark, while it was never ported to run natively on OS X, does run in this "Classic" emulation environment and at a speed hit of less than 10 percent.
Quoted from your article:
"Finally, according to Enderle, Apple has paid too little attention to system administration in the business environment. Management tools are inadequate, and remote administration is impossible. In the future, he said, PCs are likely to be centrally managed by service providers, but Apple has done nothing to prepare its products for such a development."
This is preposterous. Mac OS X is a variety of Unix. Because of this it has the ability to allow remote login via ssh which allows for complete command line control of remote machines, among other things. Apple has also released Apple Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/) which allows for remote graphical control of a Mac.
And these are only the facilities available on the desktop side. On the Mac server side, you have many more options. For example, Mac OS X handles all of its logins and network permissions and preferences through a secure central database called NetInfo. By changing values in this central database, you can control many aspects of a group of networked Macs.
I think errors of this magnitude deserve to be addressed immediately.
Matthew Trumbell
Thank you
Thanks Taft for that well composed letter. If only there were more Mac users like you. Well voiced corrections/concerns that are backed up facts. I have written letters like this before, and I think it does the Macintosh community a great deal of service to correct the myths and misunderstandings swirling around about the Mac. You erased even MY little nibblings of doubt about the things in this article.
Thanks again.
Thanks Taft for that well composed letter. If only there were more Mac users like you. Well voiced corrections/concerns that are backed up facts. I have written letters like this before, and I think it does the Macintosh community a great deal of service to correct the myths and misunderstandings swirling around about the Mac. You erased even MY little nibblings of doubt about the things in this article.
Thanks again.
This article is OLD... I posted it to the forums when it came out and have repeatedly posted to the Yahoo and NewsFactor discussions about the topic.
I don't know why NewsFactor keeps the article on their headlines for talkback... it has more than shown itself to be dead of creditability and the complaints on it are stockpiling
I don't know why NewsFactor keeps the article on their headlines for talkback... it has more than shown itself to be dead of creditability and the complaints on it are stockpiling
It's because
They know provokation will lead to increased Website hits.
Isn't it amazing that such HORRIBLE and misguided information is allowed to sit out in plain view?
Newsfactor is like any New Provider..they have to drive attention to their site and it seems like they are not adverse to promoting FUD to get that attention.
They know provokation will lead to increased Website hits.
Isn't it amazing that such HORRIBLE and misguided information is allowed to sit out in plain view?
Newsfactor is like any New Provider..they have to drive attention to their site and it seems like they are not adverse to promoting FUD to get that attention.