PJ: iPod not Apple's only growth avenue
updated 10:10 am EST, Wed March 16, 2005
PJ on iPod \"halo effect\"
Research firm Piper Jaffray today said it believes Apple will gain share in the personal computer market over the next 2-3 years. Senior analyst Gene Munster attributes this potential to the iPod 'halo effect,' "continuous innovation leading to highly functional products at realistic price points," and security/performance issues for Windows-based PCs.
iPod is not "the only potential growth avenue"
Recent focus has been on quarterly iPod unit numbers and "Apple's domination in digital music is
a critical piece to the story." However, Munster says "we do not believe that iPod is the only potential
growth avenue for the company." Indirectly, the firm expects the iPod to be a foundation for growth in other parts of Apple's business. By the end of calendar 2005, "more than 30 million iPods will have shipped, providing Apple with a greater scope of awareness for various products." Put simply, the firm expects "the massive number of iPods that will populate the market over the next four to eight quarters will trigger interest in other non-iPod Apple products, most notably Mac notebooks and laptops."
2.3 to 3.5 percent market share in 2006
Current numbers assume an immaterial market share gain over the next eight quarters. The firm's current Mac unit estimates assume market share of 2.0% in 2004, moving up 0.3 percentage points to 2.3% in 2006 (based on overall PC unit shipment estimates from IDC). "We believe these estimates for Apple (Mac) share in the personal computer market will prove to be conservative." Although "it is difficult to anticipate the pace at which Apple can gain share in the personal computer market," the firm says "we have formulated a sensitivity analysis that looks at the impact to Apple's numbers based on various levels of PC market share." The firm concludes that a market share of 3.5% in 2006 is possible and "the incremental add to our existing EPS estimate would be $0.30, or 25%."
I guess it's huge ...
03/16, 10:52am reply
... but when you try to get a company like ours to test for Safari when developing web pages, they say ... it's less than 5%, not worth the effort.
What a difference 6% would make. Dare to dream ... dare to dream.
trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 2000
What a crock
03/16, 10:54am reply
I give Apple another two years...
:)
macimmortal
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
web share rises faster
03/16, 10:58am reply
web share rises faster than marketshare...total market includes machines not connected to the web.
everything something on the factory floor, to back end file servers to stores, to the office typewriter...
no, 3.5% marketshare will equate to well over 5% of web surfers...apple tends to sell to the consumer space and even in the professional space to web connected machines...oh I guess the Virginia tech supercomputer probably doesn't surf the web all day...but for the most part I think they are more skewed to internet connected machines than the overall pc market.
Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 2004
Not likely...
03/16, 11:05am reply
Unless Apple gets its act together on the computer hardware end, any gains they see from this so-called 'halo' will probably fade.
They are falling woefully behind in the laptop arena - in both features and real innovation (hard drive shock absorbers and poorly functioning track pads don't count) - AND speed. Yeah, we don't need to hear excuses about technological challenges in getting the G5 in laptops.
Without some hardware progress, the Mac platform is going to look pretty weak to what's out there in the windows world. Tiger or no Tiger.
umijin
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004
testing for safari
03/16, 11:16am reply
if you're company refuses to test for safari i would be concerned about their long term viability. not because apple is going to have some massive shift in market share, but because any company willing to refuse service to 5% of customers is one not run by particularly business savvy people. i'm not talking about you develop a C# app and would have to spend a significant amount of time getting a similar app running on OS X.
if they're not concerned about 5% of mac users what about the 5% of firefox users?
dashiel
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2001
Go market share!
03/16, 11:43am reply
What kind of a name is Piper Jafray?
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Joined: Oct 2001
Re: not likely
03/16, 12:05pm reply
They are falling woefully behind in the laptop arena - in both features and real innovation (hard drive shock absorbers and poorly functioning track pads don't count) - AND speed. Yeah, we don't need to hear excuses about technological challenges in getting the G5 in laptops.
Actually, you're not talking 'speed' but 'perception of speed', as in "These laptops have G4s in them, what a crock!" However, if you look at the sites that compared the Mac Mini with the imac G5, you'd notice they actually performed close to the same in most tasks, and certainly not kick-a** quicker, or even close to it.
testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
Re: not likely
03/16, 12:06pm reply
Oh, but your point on not getting their act together on computers is right-on. Didn't want you to think I was happy with the G5s not being updated for 9 months, and it certainly looks like they won't be for another 3.
testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
Re: testing for Safari
03/16, 12:10pm reply
I agree completely. It's a stupid company that evaluates support based on marketshare.
Imagine going to a hospital with a broken arm and being told to get lost because only 2% of hospital patients come in with broken arms.
A smart company would say "hey, if we tested for standards compatibility, we could support almost every user, with only an insignificant amount of tweaks to work around browser bugs". If you write to the standards instead of IE, then the extra customers come almost free.
hayesk
Professional Poster
Joined: Sep 1999
Laptops lag iMacs...
03/16, 12:48pm reply
>Actually, you're not talking 'speed' but 'perception of speed', as in >"These laptops have G4s in them, what a crock!" However, if you look >at the sites that compared the Mac Mini with the imac G5, you'd >notice they actually performed close to the same in most tasks, and >certainly not kick-a** quicker, or even close to it.
I don't agree for processor intensive activities. Sure, you can probably find many tasks that run at similar speeds on both chips. But if I'm gonna spend moolah on a new Mac laptop, I want a machine that isn't using two year old processor technology.
It's inexcusable that the econo iMac (desktop) line uses a G5, but the premier laptop line sits in G4 land. It tells me that Apple is going nowhere fast - and doesn't inspire confidence in a purchase of a new PowerBook.
umijin
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004