Not long after the release of Vista, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, claimed that Microsoft sold 20 million licenses of Vista in its first month of availability. If you read Gartner's recently released figures for sales in the PC market in the first quarter you discover that sales for the whole quarter amounted to a little over 62.7 million units—which is more than 20 million per month and amounts to an 8.9% year-on-year growth. It's reasonable to assume that at least some of that 8.9% growth is driven by Vista, consisting of PC buyers who delayed purchase until Vista was launched or who responded to the vast Vista marketing push.
However, when you take a look at the PC figures for the US a completely different picture emerges. In the US, 14,811,000 PCs were shipped, indicating only 2.9% growth in PC sales in the first quarter. In other words the impact on PC sales of Vista appears to have far lower in the US. But actually that 2.9% figure is not what it seems, because 1.15% of that growth is attributable directly to Apple. The sale of Apple Macs grew by 30% in the quarter as they have in quarter after quarter for quite a while now. In other words Vista made no competitive dent whatsoever in the sale of Macs—and that very bad news for Microsoft.
We are witnessing a tipping point in the PC market. Apple now has 5% of the US market, which may seem small, but that 5% punches well above its weight because Apple focuses on the home market—that 5% is more like 15% of the people that actually choose their PCs (in the corporations you get what you are given) and at current rates of growth that 15% will be 30% in the US in about 2 years, unless Apple's momentum slows. Now consider the fact that the US market drives PC buying trends in the rest of the world to some degree and Apple's momentum comes more into focus.
Apple's momentum has not been stopped at all by Vista, and this is ahead of the release of Apple's answer to Vista—the Leopard version of OS X. Let me just speculate a little on that. I think Apple put back the release of Leopard because it concluded that it didn't need to worry about Vista. I don't believe Apple's explanation, that it had to borrow OS X engineers to help with the release of the iPhone—Apple cannot possibly be short of engineers. I think that Steve Jobs took the decision to embed some of the iPhone magic in OS X or add a little magic to both platforms so that, when Leopard is released, it will make Vista look old and tired. Delaying Leopard delays the almost guaranteed $100 million income that Leopard will generate in its first month or two and it will cause some buyers (and I'm one of them) to delay buying a Mac until they can get one that is built for Leopard—which is more $millions of deferred income. Apple is not deferring that income because it is short of engineers.
Reader Comments
We are no longer accepting comments against this item. We suggest contacting the author directly.
Perhaps people are simply biding their time and waiting for the first couple of service packs to be released. Not everyone wants the risks associated with bleeding edge OSes. Most people prefer stability and security. Give it 6 months and write a follow-up.
Vista has been shown over and over again to be little short of a disaster for users. Many Vista users are or have already switched to Mac, I can name a good few. Oh, and a few service packs are not going make Vista a decent product.
Umm, another Mac user - have they been brainwashed? Give me the versatility of a PC and a robust Microsoft OS any day. Vista is good - it just needs a chance to prove itself. I think over the long term the Mac users will come back to Microsoft - its a bit like people switching from BT to a cheaper service only to find that the novelty soon wares off.
You're the one who's brainwashed. Mac users don't deal with the mountains of problems Windows users face every day, yet you stick to your rut.
Your claim that users will switch back is baseless. The most fervent Mac zealots are people who've switched from or were forced to use (usually at work) Windows.
Once the old guard IT management starts retiring, Microsoft will lose it's stranglehold on the enterprise and they'll never recover.
So Trevor, it seems anyone who dislikes M$ is in your words, a Mac User and they can't possibly dislike the great products M$ makes and most are forced to use in the enterprise and Small Business.
You act like the Mac users are biased, but you've got a bigger bias of your own.
"robust Microsoft OS" is an oxymorom. It's amazing how the masses have been trained to accept such mediocrity, and call Mac users brainwashed? It's the other way around folks. They think re-installs, registry tweaking, adware, spyware, viruses, reboots, and hangups are just the way it is, and they accept it like Hindu cows unto the slaughter. I ALMOST have pity.
Mmmm, yes I am a Mac user. One with 15 years of Windows experience as well.
And your experience of Mac is..? The normal answer from those too brainwashed by Microsoft to try anything else is nil of course.
Versatility? In what way? Hardware and Software? The 'there isn't as much software available for Mac as there is for Windows' is no longer true. Macs can run Windows, therefore everything a WinTel box can run plus everything available for OS X.
Versatility in expandability? Which in the top ten Mac myths is this one??? What can you get into a MacPro? 16gigs of Ram, 3Tb of HD space, three extra PCI slots. Yeah Mac's aren't expandable.
I’m a long time Mac user, office and home. I also use Windows XP when necessary and have recently looked carefully at Vista. I have my personal preferences for various reasons, but the fact is, in my judgment both OS’s are excellent, and the question of which to buy is largely a matter of, first, what software do you need to run, and second, personal preferences. Computers are tools that help you work and play, and both OS’s do the job well.
Why would you settle for one over the other when you can have both? The Intel Macs can run native Windows using Boot Camp or near native Windows (and Linux) speeds alongside OSX using Parallels or VMWare. It's a no-brainer this time around.
Robust? Are you daft?
Lets look at my store. We have 4 identical new Windows XPPro SP2 machines. Over the past 11 months all of them have had to been worked on by IT for various errors, forgotten drivers and bizarre registry blowups. They are well protected and are not at the mercy of trojans and viri. No, these are Windows foibles (termed as 'versatility' it seems) through and through. Strangely these problems don't WARE (wear? your spelling?) off or go away. Two machines have 4 errors on boot-up, one machine has two errors on shutdown that you have to babysit through. They all do peculiar things day to day, missing cursors, the popular blue screen, runaway hard-drives, etc. IT may fix 'em but it won't last, something new will mess up. Exactly why is this considered OK??? Why should I even think that Vista is going to be better??? If my car ran this way I'd send it packing.
- I get the impression that Robin is not a Mac enthusiast... as he's waiting to buy one and has been waiting for Leopard first..
I think there are a lot of people like him. In fact i know all of my close friends who have deferred buying a new laptop and have been waiting to get a new MacBook + OS X Leopard combo. I can count at least 4 such people.
Second point, most of college kids, tech geeks, valley-startup are starting to use Macs.... Its the first sign of a change.
Third point, and this is my opinion, most of the best shareware, consumer applications are developed on the Mac first. I think there is a huge ecosystem of Mac developers building stuff out for Macs and a lot of this software is just not making it to Windows.
Fourth point, once you get a Mac you don't go back.
It's just a fad. Like Linux. It'll pass. It always does. Yes I can see the Apple attraction but it's more from novelty / gadget impulse and not business persective. I will stick to Microsoft. They are not #1 for nothing.
So you wouldn't object to having those words made into a giant poster, having me turn up in two years time, tap you on the shoulder, point and say "You said that, yes you did, really you did... you don't remember do you?"
M$ are No. 1 because they bully or buy-out competitors. Not any more, people are beginning to see that it is perfectly OK to use computers without touching Micro$oft.
Vista is a bloated copy of OS X, their security features are as useful as a paper fire door and the whole thing looks like a Fisher Price toy.
OS X is UNIX underneath. Open Terminal and you have the most powerful OS in the world. Oh yeh, you can run Windows as well if you have to, but why bother?
OS X is the future. It is not gimicky. If that's what you think, you obviously haven't spent any real time using OS X.
Well there you have it folks, Entourage isn't as fast as Outlook so productivity drains are aplently!
P.S. Microsoft make both products you mention. Now, why would they deliberately make the Mac software (Entourage) slower? To keep their stranglehold on the OS market.
My advice Hannah, ditch Outlook and go open source - you can't lose.
Are there any Entourage alternatives that connect reliably to an MS Exchange server using RPC over HTTPS? I work for a company that dictates the use of Exchange. To work for that company I too must use Exchange.
Hi Hannah,
Apple Mail (included in OS X) works perfectly with an Exchange server, I'm using it right now to send an email on my Mac.
Not so sure about calendars, but iCal and Google Calendars work for me.
Hannah, give this company's stuff a look-see: http://www.snerdware.com/
They can do iCal/Exchange server -- but I've not used it myself so cannot attest to its affectiveness.
Some have to stick with Windows, for a variety of reasons. Some choose to. You may be one of those. But for the majority of users Macs and OSX are just plain easier to use and a more satisfying experience. As previous commenters have said, the most fervent Mac "zealots" are the recent windows converts. Why IS that? The standard question is "why didn't I switch before?!?" They are amazed that the "it just works" slogan is in fact reality (in most cases, for most people bla bla bla ... of course there are exceptions). But, as I said earlier, since people are different, some will choose to stay with Windows. But I'll bet that the majority who actually make their own choice (and are allowed to!) will choose differently.
I switched last July, and will never go back, our family now has 3 macbooks and I have an iMac 20". I used Parallels with XP, but now I don't even run windows, but I am unhappy with Entourage. What OSx software could I use instead?? I also feel people are silly for waiting for 10.5, any Mac being sold now , will be able to run 10.5 with no problems
So the Mac platform is just a fad, eh? No bad then, for a 'fad' which has lasted for over 20 years!
You're correct, Microsoft is No 1 in terms of software licences sold.
Did you know that the newspaper in Britain which sells the greatest number of copies is the 'Sun'.
They're both not No 1 for nothing!
I wonder how many of those here who criticise the Mac have ever used the platform for a while.
Oh, anything one can do on a Windows computer can be done also on a Mac.
Dear Gary (Hodges) You ask a very intelligent question. The problem as I see it for Microsoft is that they are now face to face with Apple on an almost level playing field. Many of the factors that guaranteed Microsoft dominance over the years have simply melted away. Microsoft is going to have to produce products that are better than Apple's and with Vista it clearly didn't do that. The market has cast its vote.
And by the way, when I consider the words "level playing field" I may be wrong. Apple now has advantages over Microsoft, not least of which is that it controls both the hardware and the OS. Microsoft cannot put a full product together. It has to depend on partners. It still has some tactical advantages. The Apple stores are only in the US and a few places in Europe and they are definitely a factor in the general move to the Mac. The ad campaign that Apple runs is only in the US and the UK.
Apple only needs to keep on keeping on for it to cause Microsoft pain.
I can't imagine not buying my next laptop from Apple when I will be able to run both operating systems on the same computer at incredible speeds. Please everyone, if you want advice on a computer to purchase, don't ask someone that has not even used an OSX Mac. I use a PC at work and an Apple at home perfectly synced to my Outlook at work. Who would not want to kiss mos, if not att adware, spyware, viruses goodbye.
I buy all the Dells for our company and people always come to me to get them a system for home. I ask them what they want to do with it, tell them to visit an apple store, and last if you want a Dell, I will buy you a Dell. The last 7 of 10 have purchased their first Mac.
I don't believe the author is much of a Mac user at current. He wrote: "...it will cause some buyers (and I'm one of them) to delay buying a Mac until they can get one that is built for Leopard." That's a very Windows thing to say. At my school, we run the current Mac OS X Tiger on 8-year old Mac G3s just fine. I expect Leopard will run on even the oldest G4s. Apple doesn't design computers "for the OS," they build them for people, and perhaps that's the biggest difference in the user experience. Any Mac sold in the past 2-3 years will run Leopard fast and efficiently.
P.S. We also have 200 PCs at my school, so I know what I am talking about.
Mac or Windows fan, your conjecture that Apple put off Leopard because Vista was off to a slow start is most likely on the money. It's my conjecture that Microsoft was waiting on Apple to release Leopard to provide yet another update this calendar with at least some of those very features just before the Holiday season. And now, with Leopard being delayed, it would be too late for MS to start their copiers and finish on time. Causing yet another release during the ho drum days of February 2008!
Why should Microsoft care if it didn't make a dent or not? Windows and Mac-OSX are different desktops for different machines.
It is not Microsoft's place to dictate who uses which architecture - it is about freedom of choice.
Macs are good for certain jobs, PCs are good for others.
Many of these comments read like playground chats! Grow up everyone and stop bickering!!
Good job Robin.
I think we can safely assume that the average mentality of your readership is quite low. What was a good article has been turned into a bragging competition about Apple Vs Microsoft!
... I doubt Microsoft are that worried about Apple yet. Too many people still see Macs as a closed option, preferring the abundance of variety on offer for PCs.
Now if Apple could release Mac-OSX for a generic PC architecture ....
At the end of the day, Vista is just the OS. As is Mac-OS. It's the applications that count. This is what will keep Microsoft at the fore. At least for the foreseeable future.
There is some feedback here which questions my reluctance to buy a new iMac (I already own one by the way, but that will go to my wife) until leopard is released. The reason is simply that it is possible that the Leopard generation of Macs may have touchscreen or high definition Lcd screens. I'm interested in being sure that I have the best possible screen as I happen to do a fair amount of graphical work on the Mac and I want to have the best possible display. I'm reasonably convinced that if Leopard has touch screen of higher def capabilities (both of which are possible) then Apple will introduce new hardware to exploit such capabilities.
The thing I find interesting about the Windows -vs- Mac debate is this: Microsoft and Windows clearly dominates the market, and certainly this is true in the business world. As a result most all of us have probably clocked thousands of hours using Windows. This means, therefore, that most Mac enthusiasts have extensive knowledge and experience with Windows.
I don't think the reverse is true. I seriously doubt that most Microsoft Windows enthusiasts can claim having clocked thousands of hours using a Mac. I'm sure many have had some experience using Macintosh, and a few may have extensive experience -- but have they sat in front of a Mac 40 hours a week for months or years? And those who have used Mac, how many have experienced OS X versus the earlier systems?
I also wonder how many people there are whose primarly experience has been five or ten years on a Mac -- only to experience Windows and exclaim, "My God! This is great!! If I'd realized this, I would have dumped my Mac ages ago!"
So, to call Mac enthusiasts "brainwashed" or naive is nonsense. In their majority, I think Mac enthusiasts know the score very well, they know the strengths and weaknesses of both systems, and they prefer Macintosh because by most measures it's the better OS.
Windows prevails today, in my opinion, because of severe corporate blunders by Apple in its early years and Microsoft's almost-imperialist conduct. It's dominance is not proof of any technical superiority.
Sometimes, I wish the hubbub about Mac v. Windows would die down. I switched from Windows to Mac as my principal system about 12 months ago (after about 18 years of Wintel) for all the reasons many people have quoted. I also bought Apple shares and don't plan to sell them soon. However, I'm concerned that if Macs grow as much as the Mac addicts would want, we'll start to attract the hackers and then have to buy virus blockers and suchlike. That's one reason (but only one) why I left Windows.
So, please, all you Mac obsessives, stop thumping your chests about your superiority. Let's remain a minority and enjoy ourselves quietly. I'll happily forgo some of my future share profits, or let them be driven by iPhone and iPod sales etc.
Delicious
Digg
reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon