Apple has confirmed that it’s taken the number one spot in the western European education market. Apple’s education market share in western Europe is now 15.2 per cent, relegating Dell, with 14.7 per cent, to second place.
Apple has confirmed that it’s taken the number one spot in the western European education market. Apple’s education market share in western Europe is now 15.2 per cent, relegating Dell, with 14.7 per cent, to second place.
I must say that I never expected them to become #1 in the edu market in europe.
This is very surprising news, as pretty much everyone claims that Apple does poorly outside the US. I wonder how many units 15.2% of the education market is.
In my old high school, here in the UK we had just over 300 Computers, of which only about 30 were Apple, used mainly in the Arts departments (Art, Music, etc).
At my university tons of students have ibook/powerbooks. The university it self only has a few macs.
So an Apple majority in European institutions could be because students prefer easy-to-use stylish computers.
Might be?
I think the reason Apple has such a high percentage in schools and universities is the exclusion of OEM PC’s and focusing on brand PC’s. Btw. from what I’ve gathered this is about computer labs etc. not what students own.
Still, this is good news for Apple.
Edited 2006-02-04 16:29
“Still, this is good news for Apple.”
Yes, but is it good news for us?
When the BBC Micro dominated educational computing in the UK, it was good for Acorn, and it may have been good for the BBC, but was it good for the UK, or for the students?
One of the most important guarantees of our freedom in the digital era is the dominance of the computing market by open systems – that is, standard hardware and a variety of OSs and software that will run on it. 15% of education is probably, just about, acceptable. Any more than that, and we will need an ODF regulation to prohibit public institutions buying hardware which is tied to any particular software.
I am not arguing that Apple should adopt a different business model, nor am I saying people should not be able to buy systems made to that model. That’s for the market. Nor am I saying that no pulblic institution should buy any proprietary systems.
I am saying however, that it is not in the public interest for closed systems to command any more market share in public institutions than this.
Just as proprietary formats are not a problem if there are just a few special purpose documents. But when they get to be too large a proportion, ODF needs to be mandated.
What about Windows, you will ask? Yes, that is exactly the problem. It is bad enough that we have a closed OS. At least however it leaves you free as to your hardware, and your hardware can be used for something else if you feel like it, and open source software is available for it in large quantities. Its not good, but its more open than Macintosh.
What’s good for Apple is not necessarily good for us.
What’s good for Apple is not necessarily good for us.
ACK.
But what’s good for Microsoft, Dell etc. is not necessarily good for us, too. So why should we buy into an OS monopoly?
What about Windows, you will ask? [..] It is bad enough that we have a closed OS.
Most parts of OSX are open source. So what about Windows?
At least however it leaves you free [..] your hardware can be used for something else if you feel like it,
And with Mac’s, you can’t? *LOL*
1. You’re freedom is limited by driver support on each side of the “fence”. Since there’s less different hardware configurations on Apple, it might be easier to get a proper driver for Mac hardware..
2. Why can’t you use Mac hardware not for something else? I started using Linux on my Mac in about 1997 (possibly 1998, I don’t remember that well). I installed BeOS on the same hardware, too. Then there’s BSD, etc. etc.
and open source software is available for it in large quantities.
You can compile most open source softare on Macs. Actually, if you look at OSS software not specially written for Windows, you need a good portion of luck and “hacks” like CYGWIN (or comparable solutions) to be able to compile/run them on Windows. E. g. I tried to compile an OSS ARJ tool for Unix in CYGWIN to be able to decompress ARJ archives on Windows without user interactions. It did not compile.
Furthermore, the number of software titles is not related to the quality of the software and the usefulness for a given problem area/task/business.
(Having large numbers of – mostly boring – game titles available for Windows might be a selling point in the home user market but it’s useless in the edu market).
Its not good, but its more open than Macintosh.
You’re measure of “openness” is quit limited by you’re personal choices, it seems ..
It seems pretty simple. Buy a Wintel PC and run Unix or Windows or Linux on it.
Buy a Mactel, and you cannot boot anything but OSX on it. Nor can you boot OSX on anything else.
Obviously, the second is more closed than the first. Whether parts of OSX were originally open is not the issue. Nor is it the issue whether you can compile software for OSX.
The question is not whether Macs are a good or a bad thing. The point is that a world in which OS and hardware are locked, and you cannot choose which OS to run on your hardware, would represent a significant loss of personal freedom. So, it would be wise for us to be alert to any increase in market share for this model in public institutions, and to resist its adoption on any scale greater than the present one. Which seems already great enough.
Let’s repeat. This is not about whether Macs are good or bad. This is about the implications of a particular model of the industry for personal freedom.
It seems pretty simple. Buy a Wintel PC and run Unix or Windows or Linux on it.
Buy a Mactel, and you cannot boot anything but OSX on it. Nor can you boot OSX on anything else.
It’s interesting that you chose to make an example of Mactels. It is only a matter of time until you will be able to boot linux and even Vista on a Mactel. Older Macs can, of course, already run linux, BSD etc. Apple have specifically said that they will not stop people from running Windows on the Mactels.
Sure, you cannot run OS X on anything else than a Mac. But buying a Mac does not mean that you’re locked into OS X. So I would say that you’re locked into Apple hardware if you want OS X, but not the other way round.
So 84.8% uses PC’s with Windows and Apple is #1 ?
So 84.8% uses PC’s with Windows and Apple is #1 ?
Yes, since it’s about manufacturers of compuers and not about operating systems.
They’re talking about computer manufacturers, not operating systems.
So 84.8% uses PC’s with Windows and Apple is #1 ?
Don’t forget we’re talking about education, so Windows doesn’t automatically count for the rest. Most university maths, science and engineering departments that I’ve seen are pretty much Windows-free zones — Linux rules there.
Not too surprising. If there’s one area in the world that has shown a willingness to embrace alternative OSes, it would have to be, well, pretty much anywhere that isn’t North America.
Still, quarterly marketshare numbers mean little. It would be more interesting to see a) existing install bases and b) historical trends for quarterly growth. If the European education market is anything like the North American one, then they like use their computers in some capacity until they fall apart and turn to dust. Schools and universities rarely lease, everything is a capital expenditure, and budgets are always tight. So is this indicative of a trend to gradually migrating away from Wintel as old PC’s expire? Is it indicative of the EU’s general attempts to level Microsoft’s dominance?
Be more interesting to see how aggressive Apple has had to get with their discounting as well. The arguments that frequently come up in this board about the value of bundled software like iLife or Garageband means little in that perspective and I know that in North America, they often used pricing on educational institution RFP’s that Wintel manfuacturers couldn’t touch. Buying a market may be strategic but it’s not necessarily good for profitability.
Still, education has historically been one of Apple’s biggest verticals, predating even the Mac. So maybe there really should be no surprises here.
Buying a market may be strategic but it’s not necessarily good for profitability.
I have to disagree. Buying a market, if its the education market, is often a great strategy. The tools you learn are familiar and dependable as you move transition from school to a career. LexisNexis is a good example of this. The database service was provided free to law schools in the US for students to use. It was when the first of these students began to graduate that subscriptions to LexisNexis began to grow rapidly. The reason: new hires at law firms needed LexisNexis and created pull for it because it was how they knew to do legal research; it was a familiar and dependable service.
>Apple’s education market share in western Europe is now 15.2 per cent, relegating Dell, with 14.7 per cent, to second place.<
From the headline, tt seems likey they are trying to imply that Apple is more standard than msft in European eduation. But, they are only comparing Apple to one particular PC vendor – and there are a lot of PC vendors, but only one Apple vendor.
Bottom line: Apple only has about 15% or the market, the other 85% in winel. How well apple is doing realitive to *one* particular PC vendor is not especially relevant.
I don’t see how its deceptive? I would have thought it would say: “Mac OS X, King Of The Hill in European Education” if we were comparing to MSFT.
Don’t know about everyone else but to me when I read “Apple” I tend to think Hardware opposed to software, as Apple is primarily a hardware company.
Edit: Also, yes there are lots of PC vendors, but not all are Windows vendors… yes 99.9+% are but not all.
Edited 2006-02-04 17:36
In a way. All the Apple fans reading it will remember the comparison with Dell (a feelgood story on a Mac site …), while the rest of us will note that for most countries Apple is still a relatively minor player.
Ummm, Dell is the number 2 vendor now. Apple is number 1. They may not have the majority of the market, but they have more than any other single computer manufacturer. Try practising reading comprehension. This is talking about hardware, not software. You know, Apple’s main business?
If every news site assumed that people would read the headline and not read the article, and adjusted the headline accordingly, the headlines would be longer than the article.
Oh, and the headline never said software.
Good news….Dell is simple Dull,,,I will never buy another!
Most schools I know buy the cheapest computers that get the job done, my university does the same thing (needless to say, that there are no apples in our computer labs). My former school (technical engeneering school) has never ever bought a PC from Dell, HP or any other big vendor / manufactor, most are whiteboxes, assembled by local companies, which usually also have contracts for support/maintainance of the computers.
So, given my former experience, this is not big news, since there is only one manufactor for apple computers (tara : apple) and myriads of (esp.local) vendors for whiteboxes, notwithstanding Dell, HP and Co.
But it somehow makes me think what happended to the “we must teach MS Windows and MS Office to the pupils/students, because they will need this when they apply for a job” argument.
<blockquote>
Apple has confirmed that it’s taken the number one spot in the western European education market.
</blockquote>
Advertising is filled with articles containing weasel words and wiggle room. This kind of “news” is not new for Apple. Some days ago, Jobs spoke in a way that led one to believe the new Intel-based machines are twice as fast as the old ones. When technical experts eventually sought to pinpoint what he meant, Apple came back with wiggle-out words.
All of this is reminiscent of Andrew Fastow, of Enron infamy, who succeeded in getting a dinner reservation to an exclusive restaurant with a months-long waiting list by using then name of Wayne Gretzky. When he showed up, he was confronted with the discrepancy between his looks and those of the Great One, to which he is said to have replied: “No. I said Dwayne Gretzky”. Like so much for Apple’s stats.
All that i can say is that many of many friends buying the I-Mac at students rebate, you get an very speedy and easy to use pc including a monitor and nice software package at relaive low price…
i love the imac that was my first mac and now I”m on my second a Mac Mini.
I will upgrade to the intel based macs soon. I just need Apple Pro App’s and Gimp.
With Adobe slipping on getting Universal Apps out(reminds me of Quark lagging and loosing the MARKET for being so slow). It will give Apple and others more room to show off solutions to the plateform.
Motion 3 could very well be one of those wares that do it.
Those who are dismissing the importance of this to Apple are ignoring an important fact. In many cases, those making the purchasing decisions are not nearly so caring about the intricacies of the tech world.
Seeing Apple as the #1 vendor indicates to them that more education IT directors are staking their livelihoods on Apple than on any other company. It makes them more likely to buy from Apple in the future since they like to deal with winners. Winners stay in business, and companies that stay in business can back up support contracts better than companies that go out of business.
Granted, the difference between Apple and Dell is not that great at this time, but it’s better than having it be the other way around.
“but it’s better than having it be the other way around.”
I do not personally feel its good that any vendor who locks hardware and OS together in a closed system should have more than 5% of any public sector market.
It is better for Windows + various vendors to get a larger market share than for Apple to, for this reason.
As for whether Dell and Apple have the same, different, larger or smaller shares, who cares? The political issue is not about which company sells the hardware. That can turn on a dime, from Dell to HP, Acer, or some other PC vendor. The political issue is about what proportion of the market is taken by closed systems, and I think 5% is about right. That is, Apple is about 10 percentage points higher in Europe than is good for us.
I do not personally feel its good that any vendor who locks hardware and OS together in a closed system should have more than 5% of any public sector market.
Apple does not lock hardware and OS together. They just have another business model (building the whole solution) which is in my eyes better for the customer.
You don’t buy a toaster and the toaster OS from two different vendors, do you?
If you accept that non-geeks want to buy a solutions and not just a piece of ‘tech’, the you accept also that people buy a PC with Windows as “one system” the same way as the buy a Mac with OS X as “one system”. Both are closed in that sense.
I sure don’t see teachers putting another OS on freshly bought system in their spare time just because they can or because it’s “funny”.
But even if they do, there’s nothing holding you back to put another OS on Apple hardware, whether this fit’s in your world view of “openness” or not (BTW: what kind of UNIX can you put on an arbitrary x86 PC – I don’t know any.. please tell us). The current record of the number of different OSs on the same hardware was done on a Mac (see http://www.kernelthread.com/)
It might be important for an open source activist to have an “open” solution (although x86 is closed as any other solution on the market – there are no open standards), but for a school, I would rather prefer that they buy the solution which they need and is best for them.
Furthermore, open standards will only become important if different OSs with equal market shares exist. So you’re beloved x86/Windows monopoly will only promot and prolong the importance of closes Windows file formats (like .doc, .xls, etc.) and the emergence of better solutions (like the INTEL dominance hindered the adoption of 64 bit computing, killed architectures like Alpha, etc.).
“Apple does not lock hardware and OS together. They just have another business model…”
They do. That is just another way of describing it. You cannot run your copy of OSX on any other makers machine, and you cannot run any other OS on your MacIntel. Thats a fact.
Its also a fact that you can get a windows machine from one of a dozen different suppliers, and having got it, you can move your windows installation to another supplier’s machine, and you can also install any one of a dozen flavors of linux/BSD on that machine.
I don’t have a beloved Windows/x86 monopoly, the typical personal innuendo in these matters. I have a mac and a dual boot x86 on my desk, and an AMD64 Linux install.
And I continue to think that a world in which we have independent vendors of hardware, on which we can run multiple OSs as we choose, is a world which is better for us both as users and as citizens, than one in which there are multiple vendors of closed combinations of hardware+OS.
The question the rest of you have to answer is, why an industry structured in the hardware+OS tied way would be better for us.
It wouldn’t be, it would offer less choice, more restrictions and lock-ins, higher prices. Its not that MS is great, it isn’t. But having the hardware open is a lot, a lot better than having the current Apple business model take over. And that is why we need to resist any tendency for it to take over in our public institutions.
Again, it has nothing to do with Apple. Or MS. It has to do with which business model is better for us.