why pc's have more market share?

[chagla]

I have wondered about that for a long time.
Any ideas? WHat do you personally think is the reason?
If you ask me, I'll just two words - modularity and pricing.
also when I say "PC", i don't mean just Windows base, it includes everything else.
Thanks.

oh, move from PPC-> intel was great. after all, keeping up with the latest is vital in tech world. lol.

 

[Shotglass]

I have no idea how it happened. My guess is it has something to do with Microsoft's early dominance in the OS market. But that's just a guess, I can't find a logical explanation if that's what you need.

 

[zap2]

Well, when you should PC, you should mean only Windows based, because any other OS, has less market share then Mac OS X.



It comes down to a number of things, including bad marketing in the 90's by Apple, most mistakes in the 70's with IBM and MS, but most of all the fact that Apple is one hardware maker(and won't let other sell OS X), so to think they could ever have 95%+ of the market today, is madness. It makes more sense to compare Apple to companies like HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway, etc....and Apple's number 3, if I recall correctly.(but its by a large margin)

 

[katejones]

more variety, cheaper

 

[Hawkeye411]

Gaming

 

[gkarris]

more variety, cheaper

Gaming

And just in case no one has mentioned yet:

Gaming

More Variety

Cheaper

 

[mcarnes]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

Quote for Roger Ebert: "But since any reasonable person would choose a Mac over a PC, Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."

 

[nick9191]

Apple dont sell a hundred dollar computer.
Apple was very expensive, then Microsoft brought out Windows 1.0 for $99.
Other companies couldn't put Apples OS on their computers.
Apple's OS's sucked, until OS X which is the best, but by then it was too late.

 

[clevin]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

its not perceived, it IS cheaper, nobody says hardware configurations has to be like Macs.


There is nothing about Hardware quality, same hardwares have about same quality.

Its about choice, with PC, people has choice to buy a cheaper computer with hardware configurations that are good enough for them.

 

[digitalnicotine]

Because more people purchase Windows based machines than others (OSX, etc.). Every other reason varies across the board, so that's the only conclusive (although obvious) answer. I've purchased both MS and Apple systems for years, and favor Apple over MS hands down. But not everyone is even willing to try something "new", and humans are generally resistant to change. The trend is turning steadily, as Mac gains in market share, but I strongly suspect it will still trail far behind MS for several years into the future.

I don't think cost is the key issue, although it is a large factor. Personally, I think the fear of having to learn something new is the biggest factor. My opinion.

 

[CalBoy]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).

 

[clevin]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).

maybe a big blunder for IBM, but a really great thing ever happen for normal users.

 

[Eidorian]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).

IBM-compatible -> Windows-compatible

Those were the days!

 

[CalBoy]

maybe a big blunder for IBM, but a really great thing ever happen for normal users.

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.

Those were the days!

I still remember that classic Wheel of Fortune with Vanna's hair oh so pixelated.

 

[clevin]

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.

may, or may not.

KDE and GNOME are competing, Good or not? IDK

Its less to do with competition, IMHO, more about the structure of computer industry. The whole thing, if, were all in IBM's hand, it would just be another monopoly, maybe even worse.

 

[CalBoy]

Its less to do with competition, IMHO, more about the structure of computer industry. The whole thing, if, were all in IBM's hand, it would just be another monopoly, maybe even worse.

It has a lot to do with competition. Hardware prices continuously came down and quality continuously came up because companies had to compete with each other. IBM would have had a similar setup as Apple does now, and new competitors would have likely written their OSes as that would have been the industry's structure.

The reason Microsoft was able to create such a strong monopoly is because there was no viable competitor in the OS market.

 

[clevin]

It has a lot to do with competition. Hardware prices continuously came down and quality continuously came up because companies had to compete with each other. IBM would have had a similar setup as Apple does now, and new competitors would have likely written their OSes as that would have been the industry's structure.

The reason Microsoft was able to create such a strong monopoly is because there was no viable competitor in the OS market.

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

 

[7on]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

They'd have to make "Apple compatible" software

Honestly, if MS hadn't come about we'd all still be on AppleTalk and extension-less forked files. If MS died today and Apple magically had 95% market share, I would say competition would be better than it would have been (Apple's more prone to open standards today, minus the occasional .pages document).

 

[clevin]

If MS died today and Apple magically had 95% market share, I would say competition would be better than it would have been (Apple's more prone to open standards today, minus the occasional .pages document).

doubt it, first, 95% of hardware producers would just die, competition goes down the tube.

Apple today is more prone to open standard? IDK, some examples?

 

[chagla]

except for the elites and the affluents, the average Joe is indeed concerned about what his money will get him. he will want the maximum out of his money. aesthetics is nice and cute but the performance and specs are important. in that respect, hardware and price comparison, apple is beaten easily. (the recent mac pro vs dell precision comparison had some major flaws, it cleverly omitted some important facts about dell precision)

if you mention the "experience", well, it is what it is...experience. this is not a physial thing. so i kinda find it absurd to include "experience" on a debate. just present hard, cold facts.

anyways, if apple was in control with their pricing scheme, having a computer or laptop would be luxury for most people on earth. not to mention their overly proprietary controlling method...-> this is the sole reason i never thought of giving mac os a try until recently. i inherited two mac systems.

 

[MisterMe]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

...

You need to study your personal computer history. IBM introduced the IBM PC in 1981. Its primary OS was PC-DOS from Microsoft, which was based on Q-DOS, a CP/M rip-off that Microsoft bought from Seattle Microsystems. By retaining rights to sell its own version of MS-DOS, Microsoft was able to leverage its IBM connection into the monopoly that it enjoys today.

IBM introduced OS/2 in 1987, some six years after it introduced its PC. OS/2 was a joint effort of IBM and Microsoft. IBM sold retail versions as IBM-OS/2. Microsoft sold MS-OS/2. Both competed against MS-DOS, MS-Windows, and PC-DOS. For various reasons, OS/2 was a market failure. Microsoft dropped development of OS/2 and took its version, replaced the Presentation Manager GUI with the Windows 3.x GUI, and sold it as Windows NT. Windows NT maintained compatibility with OS/2 commandline applications.

I assume that you are thinking about OS/2 Warp, the Windows 3.1-compatible version of OS/2 that IBM introduced in 1994, some seven years after OS/2 first came to market. By then, OS/2 was in no danger of becoming a monopoly.

 

[zap2]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

Apple's and MS's core products are different, Apple is both, hardware and software, MS is software.....it makes as much sense to think that Apple can have 95% of the current market, as it does that Dell can have 95% percent of the market, its just not do able, when you're a hardware company(which bundle with great software)

(When Apple allowed the clones, that was a different plan then the current one, so I'm not talking about that with my above post)

 

[GSMiller]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

Quote for Roger Ebert: "But since any reasonable person would choose a Mac over a PC, Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."

Awesome quote.

 

[CalBoy]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start

Had IBM taken that route, then other computer competitors would have entered with their own hardware+software combinations, rather than just relying on the software to come from one source (Microsoft).

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

IBM would have never been able to become that large in the personal computer market as competitors would have entered as soon as they gained in popularity.

It only becomes a monopolistic problem if one or two companies are the sole suppliers in the industry. Had the market evolved to be IBM, Apple, HP, Sony, etc, then there would have been sufficient competition to spur innovation and give consumers more options.

Where it would have been a problem is in standards and formats. However, as with other industries, common commands and procedures would have been established (just like how there are dozens of car manufacturers, but all cars have a fairly basic method of control like a steering wheel, brake, accelerator, etc).

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

Microsoft forces the hardware makers to be the sole sources of innovation. Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to improve their OS if they have a functioning monopoly, which certainly isn't good for progress.

If the world was full of companies following Apple's model, there would be competition along both the hardware and software fronts.

 

[Aea]

I think it's all a matter of momentum, and although there is no single reason, this is what I think is the major cause. In the "golden years" of the 90's Microsoft simply had the better product. I unfortunately had to use the "olden" Apple machines, and compared to the windows machines of the time they were slow, ugly, expensive, and really suboptimal in the grand scheme of things. Everything pre-OSX was the very bastion of mediocrity, so the obvious industry reaction was the focus around windows. The most stubborn of these was gaming, it simply worked better on windows, and unfortunately that's where all the framework focus (DX) went into. These frameworks/APIs were so extensive and since DX was made by Microsoft, the gaming industry stubbornly stuck to windows. There are other factors too, for one OSX is locked to Apple Hardware, OSX has some bad implementation for traditional windows roles (mainly gaming). Also, consumer Apple machines are undeniably expensive, the "professional" machines are comparatively cheap, but the consumer machines have some nice markup.