Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/23/apple-claims-91-of-1000-pc-market-revenue-in-june/)

Betanews reports (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624) (via The Loop (http://www.loopinsight.com/2009/07/23/apple-captures-91-of-market-for-computers-over-1000/)) that according to market research firm NPD, Apple claimed 91% of the revenue market share for computers costing $1,000 or more in June. While NPD's sales numbers are limited to brick-and-mortar retail stores, the data shows a remarkable continuation of a trend (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/19/mac-marketshare-growth-in-high-end-retail-market/) that has been in place for several years now. While Apple's overall unit market share remains below 10%, the combination of Apple's growing market share over the past several years, refusal to compete in the low-end market, and declining Windows PC prices have led to Apple's domination of the "premium" price segment.According to NPD, in June, average selling prices for all PCs sold at US retail was $701, or $690 for desktops and $703 for notebooks. But the ASPs get more interesting when comparing Macs to Windows PCs. For all Windows PCs, ASP was $515 in June. For Macs: $1,400. Desktop Windows PC ASP: $489. Mac desktops: $1,398. Windows notebook ASP was $520, or $569 when removing all those nasty, margin-sucking netbooks. Mac laptops: $1,400.

Mac ASPs have been higher for a long time, because Apple chooses not to compete at lower prices. The real entry price for Apple computers is $999 for the white MacBook and $1,199 for either the low-end iMac or MacBook Pro. By comparison, Windows netbooks sell for as little as $199, unsubsidized, and even some fuller-sized laptops don't cost much more. For example, HP laptops start at $349.99 after rebate.With Apple's outstanding performance in the PC market in which it plays, the question becomes whether it can continue to find ways to expand its market and drive continued growth. Given Apple's reluctance to participate in the low-end market, the key to continued Mac growth appears to be Apple's ability to draw consumers into the higher-end market through the perceived value of its offerings. Recent price cuts across its notebook line are clearly one method Apple has chosen in order to entice would-be customers to consider Macs.Based on data from NPD and other analysts, including Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster, Apple's price cuts at the high end significantly boosted Mac sales, which at US retail were up 16 percent year over year in June. Rather than aim low, Apple chose to make the high lower, in a segment where Macs already commanded overwhelming market share.

Article Link: Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/23/apple-claims-91-of-1000-pc-market-revenue-in-june/)

[iAlexG]

That is a huge share but surely thats because most other laptops are between $500-$1000? Anyway good job apple :apple: !!! And i'm part of that share yay!!!:D

[kaisdaddy]

...the high-end market is not a bad place to be! :)

[talkingfuture]

Thats a heck of a good market share!

[Grimace]

As was said on the recent earnings conference call, "We don't want to make the most computers, we want to make the best computers."

Profitability is key to surviving - not overall numbers. In the end, Apple is a company out to make money...and with the quality products that have shown up in the last many years, I am happy to pay whatever is asked.

[SFStateStudent]

I'm a Mac, and you're NOT even close....:p:p:p

Good job Apple!!!

[NAG]

This must be the effect of the Laptop Hunters ads.

[Chris Rogers]

I feel bad for the other 9%

[mattster16]

This just proves that macs are overpriced garbage!


(at least some people will try to spin this news that way)

[Daremo]

Yeah, but every Apple Laptop but one is $1000+, so is capturing 91% of that share really a surprise? It's basically their entire lineup competing.

[bukweet]

Yeah, great market share.

Now if they'd only bring out a mid-range tower... say for about $1500.

Not everyone needs an all-in-one with a glossy screen.

[masse]

Yeah, but every Apple Laptop but one is $1000+, so is capturing 91% of that share really a surprise? It's basically their entire lineup competing.

no the point is that there are hundreds of notebooks and desktops that sell for $1000+, but macs are destroying pc's in this price range.

[techfreak85]

and this is surprising how?:p

ya most people i know wont buy a computer over 1000, unless its a mac.:cool:

[dernhelm]

Yeah, but every Apple Laptop but one is $1000+, so is capturing 91% of that share really a surprise? It's basically their entire lineup competing.

Huh? I mean there are plenty of >$1000 offerings from Alienware, Toshiba, IBM, Dell, etc. It isn't like they're competing only against themselves.

This IS a pretty big deal - and points back to: people who know what they're getting and care about what they're getting buy a mac. Those that can live with something cheapo because they don't know the difference, or simply don't care about the difference don't buy a mac.

And by the way, that isn't meant to be denigrating at all to those users who don't want to pay the price premium. I don't care a lot about high-end performance in my car, so I own a Saturn and a Chevy. Both of which are cars that get me from A to B reliably. People who know and care about performance are probably buying Porsche, Jaguar, Mazerati, or something else. That's fine, if they point out that their car is better designed and better built than mine, I'll just agree and move on. I haven't been insulted, they simply pointed out a fact, that probably didn't matter to me anyway.

Same with computers - high-end $2000 computers are going to be better than a $350 computer. Maybe in ways that you don't care, but they are better. What's interesting here is that once you decide you want and care about a >$1000 computer you are in a staggering minority if you buy anything other than a mac.

[topgunn]

Huh? I mean there are plenty of >$1000 offerings from Alienware, Toshiba, IBM, Dell, etc. It isn't like they're competing only against themselves.
However, most of the brands you mention are bought online and thus are not included in this report.

[Cynicalone]

If Apple could find a way to compete in the sub $1000 market they could really hammer Microsoft. I just don't think they give a damn about that market.

[shareef777]

This is for brick and mortar stores only. I'd wager that if online sales were included, that the percent would drop significantly. I'd even say it would be less then 50%.

[Eidorian]

Computers over $1,000 are usually Macs. :rolleyes:

Core i7 can be had for less and if you look hard enough with a monitor too.

[NinjaHERO]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apple, keep making those high end machines.

[-hh]

This is for brick and mortar stores only. I'd wager that if online sales were included, that the percent would drop significantly. I'd even say it would be less then 50%.


Agreed, but this still doesn't bode particularly well for BEST BUY or FRY'S, where those MS "Laptop Hunter" ads were filmed...


-hh

[RaZaK]

With the economy in the tank, i'm not surprised this isn't more like 99.999% with only .001% representing professionals who absolutely need powerful Win PC's as well as gamers.

I love Apple, but i don't know how they can hope to continue being successful without addressing the lower end market more. :apple:

[Leafminer]

It would be really nice if they reported what market share sub-$1000 computers have overall to put things in perspective. But perhaps that blows the headline drama? :)

[Rychy]

Wow! 91% is quite impressive.

Thinking about it now... I know one person with a Dell laptop what was probably over a $1000 bucks.

[iOrlando]

oh there are laptops for sale that are under $1,000?

[Shiner]

Funny thing is apple has no need to drop into the lower market whatsoever. They use the same cheap parts as everyone else but slap an apple on it and sell it for $1000. People perceive it as high end equipment and eat it up. I love mac but their new lineup is not worth the cost. For christ's sake people their top of the line video card is a 9600GT!!!

[gnasher729]

This is for brick and mortar stores only. I'd wager that if online sales were included, that the percent would drop significantly. I'd even say it would be less then 50%.

I think that is a case of getting your maths wrong.

Say they counted 1000 computers, and 91% were Macs. That's 910 vs. 90.

You'd need at least 910 PCs to get the Mac share down to 50%. In other words, you are claiming that only 90 out of 910 PCs in the >$1000 segment are sold in brick and mortar stores.

I don't think so.

It would be really nice if they reported what market share sub-$1000 computers have overall to put things in perspective. But perhaps that blows the headline drama? :)

There are numbers out about Apple's total unit share. The point is not so much Apple's enormous market share in the >$1000 market (which they could increase by changing the MacBook from $999 to $1001), but the average selling price. Apple makes 3 times more dollars per unit sold than its competitors. So if you take the market share in dollars instead of units, then Apple is in the top 3.

I love Apple, but i don't know how they can hope to continue being successful without addressing the lower end market more. :apple:

It works now. Apple makes 20 times more per computer than Acer (which is actually about 20 times better than Gateway and eMachines were). Apple defines success by profits, not by units sold.

[Gasu E.]

I love Apple, but i don't know how they can hope to continue being successful without addressing the lower end market more. :apple:

I don't know how Dell or HP can be successful without making any profit on each sale.

The problem for the PC makers is that for the most part they are commodities. What is the difference between a Dell vs. an HP vs. a Lenovo vs. and Acer? Not much. Hence, competition almost purely on price. Hence no profit. Microeconomics 101. The difference between PC vendors is descending to the level of the difference betwen potato vendors.

[HLdan]

That is a huge share but surely thats because most other laptops are between $500-$1000? Anyway good job apple :apple: !!! And i'm part of that share yay!!!:D

True, but your slightly missing the point. It's not about other PC's costing under $1000, it's about people willing to pay more to get better from Apple as the PC world has a lot of undesirables for under $1000.;)

[kas23]

This just proves that macs are overpriced garbage!


(at least some people will try to spin this news that way)

I would definitely not say they are garbage, but how can anyone (besides Apple themselves) think this is a stat to be proud of. All this is saying is that Macs cost too much. This would likely turn the average consumer off.

[DELLsFan]

Joe Wilcox:

"... blah blah blah ... Windows notebook ASP was $520, or $569 when removing all those nasty, margin-sucking netbooks. Mac laptops: $1,400... blah blah blah ..."

What's with the "nasty" comment? Fine, don't compete with the Netbook market, Apple - but how about keeping a short leash on your ignorant fanboys, hmmm? Netbooks are great devices for what they do and were designed to do. Period.

That Apple chooses to retain low market share in exchange for high profit margins is their decision. Whereas other companies with higher market share are doing ok with lower profit margins. I think there can be a corporate balance struck that meets everyone's desire to make money and provide a quality product for consumers.

Unfortunately, most Fanboys don't think. They follow.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by dernhelm
Huh? I mean there are plenty of >$1000 offerings from Alienware, Toshiba, IBM, Dell, etc. It isn't like they're competing only against themselves.

However, most of the brands you mention are bought online and thus are not included in this report.

Oh, so all this is really saying is that most of the computers that Best Buy sells are under $1000, right?

I don't get the spin that this means world domination for high-priced Apples.

And I hope no crazy person says that it means that MS IS DEAD! :D

[i.mac]

Wow! 91% is quite impressive.

Thinking about it now... I know one person with a Dell laptop what was probably over a $1000 bucks.

I know not one... except one colleague and myself (we both are the exception because we have company provided macBook pro's), and this includes hundred of folks at work... Every one has a cheap, slow, low memory $800 *top.

[Eidorian]

I know not one... except one colleague and myself (we both are the exception because we have company provided macBook pro's), and this includes hundred of folks at work... Every one has a cheap, slow, low memory $800 *top.They have an $800, Core 2 Duo, with 4 GB of RAM?

How much notebook do they need?

[ericinboston]

PC machines' average price has been below $1000 for about 10 years now. All of Apples machines (except 1 laptop) are ABOVE $1000. No, I'm not even counting the Mini because it doesn't come with a keyboard and mouse. For people who like PCs, you can get a pretty good one for $650 with a monitor...$800 you can get a fantastic pc....if you need to go over $900, you're probably a diehard gamer or are looking for the bleeding edge CPU/hard drive size/monitor combination. Don't call me a Mac hater, either.

So this news isn't even news...nor a surprise.

In other news, Porsche claims 91% of marketshare of cars priced over $70,000....Rolex claims 91% of marketshare of watches priced over $8,000.

-Eric

[BornAgainMac]

If you are a software developer, do you sell software to people that have money or people that don't have money. I doubt that Mac users are only 10% of the sales for a game or app. I hope developers wake up someday and sell more games that run native for the Mac.

[HLdan]

They have an $800, Core 2 Duo, with 4 GB of RAM?

How much notebook do they need?

Yeah, and every PC notebook for $800 with 4GB ram has a crappy low contrast, washed out screen. At the end of the day I could care less I got a lot of bloated specs for less, I care more about my eyes. I have to look at the screen all day.

[ilovefanboyz]

This is so embarrassing.

You can make ANY statistic in your favor by reducing the parameters. I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

Its like, "Apple managed to sell more computers sold from a white building than any other company!"

GET A GRIP.

[22Hertz]

Many polls are not accurate. Polls can manipulated to favor alternate outcomes.

Don't believe everything you hear/read


Apple, give us a real desktop for < $1500 already :cool:

[22Hertz]

This is so embarrassing.

You can make ANY statistic in your favor by reducing the parameters. I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

Its like, "Apple managed to sell more computers sold from a white building than any other company!"

GET A GRIP.

You beat me to it :D

[Packersfan27]

No surprise, I like PCs, but not many people would choose a PC over a Mac if they had the choice. Even Microsoft agrees that Macs are "cool" :p

And I believe that if internet sales were somehow included this number would be smaller, because I think that most Macs are sold in stole while I think most high-end PCs are bought online (Just what I think). Apple would still probably control more then half the market share though. :D

Good Job non the less.

[Doctor Q]

I think Apple is right where it wants to be. They can continue to make money on the high end as they inch that $1000 threshold down and take a bigger share of just-under-$1000 computers too.

[rdowns]

This is really reaching for an Apple story. Very impressive that they garnered such a high % of B&M sales but let's be real. Most Dell systems are sold online/phone, HP has a sizable direct business, not to mention all the big online retailers like Amazon, BB etc.

I'd also like to know if they included all Apple sales or only those made in B&M locations.

[Winni]

The only relevant figure here is that Apple still owns less than 10% of the overall market share, which simply means that their systems are still niche systems for a minority.

[Evangelion]

Funny thing is apple has no need to drop into the lower market whatsoever. They use the same cheap parts as everyone else but slap an apple on it and sell it for $1000. People perceive it as high end equipment and eat it up. I love mac but their new lineup is not worth the cost. For christ's sake people their top of the line video card is a 9600GT!!!

Are you one of those people who stare at specs to determine the quality and value of a computer? Are you seriously claiming here that Mac pro is just a generic tower-PC that just happens to have an Apple-logo on it? Or that MacBook pro is practically identical to an Acer-laptop that costs 1/3 of MBP? Or that iMac is yet another generic PC with Apple logo on it?

Your comment is dumb as a doorknob.

[Starfall]

You can make ANY statistic in your favor by reducing the parameters. I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

"Computers over $1,000 sold in retail stores" is not exactly an exotic statistic.

[DUSTmurph]

Its like, "Apple managed to sell more computers sold from a white building than any other company!"



Not quite the same thing..... This article shows that apple dominates the high end market. Its not really a pointless statistic.

[Shiner]

Are you one of those people who stare at specs to determine the quality and value of a computer? Are you seriously claiming here that Mac pro is just a generic tower-PC that just happens to have an Apple-logo on it? Or that MacBook pro is practically identical to an Acer-laptop that costs 1/3 of MBP? Or that iMac is yet another generic PC with Apple logo on it?

Your comment is dumb as a doorknob.

The first line of your statement cracks me up. Computer specs are the ONLY way to determine how good the computer is. Only a "dumb as a doorknob" individual would make a statement to the contrary. What are we supposed to judge our electronic equipment on? How good it makes us feel or how amazing the outer shell looks. Oh wait that is what apple does and it works on people like you!!! I am not discussing the macpro-I am working on one right now and it is amazing. There is no other workstation quite like it. Way overpriced, but work bought it for me and I use it and love it.

The laptops and imacs are a different story all together. The shell is gorgeous and the OS is awesome. The parts are laughable and actually I find it amazing that apple can charge so much for what you get. Now I know that they deserve to charge more for the engineering and OS but not that much. They have the largest profit margin of any computer company on the market. That is good for them and bad for you.

Keep drinking the kool-aid buddy.

[notjustjay]

"Computers over $1,000 sold in retail stores" is not exactly an exotic statistic.

But not exactly a great one, either. To me this just says that the rest of the market has dropped the average computer prices to way below $1000, and Apple's the only one left behind.

Quick, let's open a bakery -- we can dominate in the "loaves of bread sold for over $10" category.

[ilovefanboyz]

Not quite the same thing..... This article shows that apple dominates the high end market. Its not really a pointless statistic.


Wow.. you guys!

They dominate high end sales from BUILDINGS... lol, how many people do you know who buy high end PC's from Best Buy?


This statistic is absolute nonsense, have a little think about it.

[NAG]

The only relevant figure here is that Apple still owns less than 10% of the overall market share, which simply means that their systems are still niche systems for a minority.

You can even think of that figure in another way. For instance, the iPhone does not have 10% of the cell phone marketshare. (Anyone got a figure for smart-phone marketshare?) Yet, the iPhone is considered a smash success that pretty much dominates the smart-phone market. We have people complaining that the iTunes-iPhone thing is a monopoly since they locked out the Pre.

So we have a dominant phone without the 90% marketshare that Windows enjoys on desktops. In my opinion, the 10% and 90% numbers are more indicative of the health of the computer ecosystem overall, not of Apple's health. What other market ecosystem demands a 90% or even a 50% marketshare to be labeled successful? Diamonds? I don't know. It just seems pretty ridiculous to bemoan the ~10% marketshare figure.

[manu chao]

In other news, Porsche claims 91% of marketshare of cars priced over $70,000
Which is not really the case, I would guess that Porsche's market it share is at most 20% in the +$70,000 market. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus are the volume producers in the high-end market (plus there is Jaguar, and all the other smaller producers like Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, RR).

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

However, most of the brands you mention are bought online and thus are not included in this report.
Walk into Best Buy. Alienware (now a part of Dell) is perhaps the only brand you won't see there. IBM (Lenovo), Dell, and especially Toshiba are sold frequently in physical stores. And lets not forget the other king of $1,000 computers, Sony (who actually makes a decent product), which is sold heavily in stores. While on the other hand, Apple also has very strong online sales.

91% really is impressive. I never want to see Apple slashing the quality of their products in an effort to complete with these terrible low-price computers. I can't even imagine the field-day the media would have with the 'Apple' word if their products were released with as many problems as most of these other brands (though admittedly not as common in the $1000+ computers). HP tossed out a delightful surprise nearly every two months (such as a computer released with faulty video drivers, or another computer with a button that broke for many within weeks). Unsurprisingly this was a little while after they announced to their shareholders that they'd be cutting money spent on quality/premium parts, and focusing on aesthetics and marketing (at lower price points). It was a 'success'.

[blybug]

This is so embarrassing.

You can make ANY statistic in your favor by reducing the parameters. I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

Its like, "Apple managed to sell more computers sold from a white building than any other company!"

GET A GRIP.

In other news:

"Apple Claims 100% of Mac Computer Market"



Although the implication that the high end buyer is far more likely to buy a Mac is somewhat interesting. But this stat alone does not prove that implication.

[BRLawyer]

Thats a heck of a good market share!

It's not only good, it's the HIGHEST market share in the history of personal computers for that segment. Apple is, as usual, firing on ALL cylinders and teaching money-bleeding companies such as MS and Dell how to manage a global IT corporation. Why buy a stupid PC when you can have the BEST computer out there? There is ABSOLUTELY no appeal or justification to buy Windows today.

The naive ones that don't believe me when I say MS is DEAD will eat some high-grade crow sooner than later...MS is a train wreck while Apple leads the pack in ALL areas where it conducts its business.

Dell, it's time to close up shop and give the little money you have left back to shareholders...or perhaps to MS, so that it can survive a little bit longer.

MS IS DEAD.

[*LTD*]

The average user gets their comp from stores, Best Buy being one of the major ones.

Those Laptop Hunter abortions are in what setting? Stores. Large outlets. Apple is beating the competition on their own turf. What does it say when you can't unload your best, top-end $1000+ notebooks? Bargain bin! Where consumers go because they MUST, not because they WANT to.

If Apple is ruling this store setting in the Premium end ($1000+) that is very impressive, and comes as no surprise, as Apple has had a lock on the Premium end of the market for quite a while now.

And really, THIS is how you measure "market share." It isn't one big market. There are segments to it. There are different levels to it. It's a pyramid. Does not bode well for the competition when Apple rules the Premium end. Apple is getting the creme-de-la-creme of consumers. This type of consumer propels your product into the high-desirability sphere - where consumers aspire to be.

Makes MS look like they're operating out of the bargain bin. And they are.

People will pay for a better computing experience, for something that costs more initially but gets them greater satisfaction in the future.

[BRLawyer]

Computer specs are the ONLY way to determine how good the computer is.

That's probably one of the DUMBEST statements I've read in a long time here...you absolutely ignore why Apple computers are bought in droves nowadays, something that has little to no connection with the fact that a MOBO is made by Asus or whatever XPYRB company you prefer.

In a nutshell, enjoy your inferior PC, Sir.

[ilovefanboyz]

It's not only good, it's the HIGHEST market share in the history of personal computers for that segment. Apple is, as usual, firing on ALL cylinders and teaching money-bleeding companies such as MS and Dell how to manage a global IT corporation. Why buy a stupid PC when you can have the BEST computer out there? There is ABSOLUTELY no appeal or justification to buy Windows today.

The naive ones that don't believe me when I say MS is DEAD will eat some high-grade crow sooner than later...MS is a train wreck while Apple leads the pack in ALL areas where it conducts its business.

Dell, it's time to close up shop and give the little money you have left back to shareholders...or perhaps to MS, so that it can survive a little bit longer.

MS IS DEAD.



You do realise that at best its around 20 PC's sold for every 1 Mac? In fact its probably closer to 30. (Assuming a 3-5% world market share)

So Apple are dominating? Your post is cute though...

[killerrobot]

Not quite the same thing..... This article shows that apple dominates the high end market. Its not really a pointless statistic.

Not only was this statistic limited to physical store sales, but it was also limited to the month of JUNE.

It did rise 3% from MAY (according to NPD's last report made that was just as limiting), and perhaps the price cuts that started June 9th helped with that extra 3%. Or maybe it rose because more people starting buying cheaper computers during the recession?

All in all, putting strict limits on statistical boundaries until you get a crazy high number, skews the truth, and draws attention away from the full picture and ultimately means nothing.

[archurban]

competition? well, it is only in US. it;s working well. but when you compare with overall market share in the world, Apple is still tiny. for most people in the world, over $1000 is still expensive. closed 10% market in US is only good for americans. for world, it's like less than 4-5%. so it's not competition. there are plenty of PC laptop is, which has better spec than mac, sold less than even $800. mac is still overprice. as a matter of fact, when Apple suddenly hit the market like this situation? since ipod? probably. you never know what will be happening. at least Apple has been lucky for recent 7-8 years. I know that mac os x and design of product is better than PC (actually, I have used mac for 12 years, and own couple of macs, PC both now). it is ease to use, very intutitive UI, attractive. but Apple will be still occupied in tiny market whatsoever if they don't cut more price like PC. for the record, I love Sony Vaio. it's good looking PC, well design, doesn't broke. I am not sure whether you know or not. Sony Vaio is one of the most reliable PC in the market. that's why repair rate is very minimal. actually, their's price is flexible not like mac. anyway, it's good to see Apple market share is growing.

[miiles]

It's nice to see Apple doing well.

[BRLawyer]

You do realise that at best its around 20 PC's sold for every 1 Mac? In fact its probably closer to 30. (Assuming a 3-5% world market share)

So Apple are dominating? Your post is cute though...

You should work on your economics skills then...I wouldn't be happy if I sold 20 PCs for 1 dollar each, while Apple sells 1 Mac for 100. These inferior companies are not exactly happy for selling those crappy bottom-of-the-barrel netbooks almost at cost-based levels...and this is exactly why Apple won't enter that stillborn market.

[Badandy]

so it's not competition. there are plenty of PC laptop is, which has better spec than mac, sold less than even $800. mac is still overprice.

I disagree. I find them entirely worth the extra money.

[SBlue1]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apple, keep making those high end machines.

My macbook isn't a high end machine. So, yeah Apple, keep ripping me off.... :(

Funny how everybody who was crying for cheaper macbooks and voted negative when they were released with the unchanged high price now vote positive when all these news are saying is that Apple is an expensive company. Heck, the whole portable lineup is $1000+!

Who else is buying "highend" laptops, besides Mac-Users? Just professionals, and they don't have a choice if they need the Mac Os. I guess the other few percent Non-Macs are game-nerds. :)

[BongoBanger]

So what this is saying is that in the US retail market that Macs make up the bulk of purchases in excess of $1,000?

And this is news?

Sorry, but since most people don't spend $1,000 on a laptop, there are hardly any Macs under $1,000 and as on-line sales - which account for the vast majority of high end gaming laptops - and corporate purchases aren't counted this ain't rocket science.

I would be interested to see what the $700 - $1,000 tranche looks like as I'd wager the vast amount of non-netbook sales fall in there.

[reallynotnick]

The problem is most people who buy computers over $1k are techies and they rarely shop in stores. They either buy online or build one themselves, neither of those are included in the 9%.

Still impressive numbers.

[Droid13]

That could account for an increase in sales as people were buying the fresh model or perhaps getting the older one at a lower price from resellers (though this doesn't happen all that often). One month, especially that month, is not a good indicator of very much.

Not to mention that a lot of machines, cheap and expensive, are bought online.

The statistic offers no explanation as to why, in June, 91% of all personal computers costing over $1000 and sold in brick-and-mortar stores in a defined area were made by Apple. It just says that they were.

[HyperZboy]

Check Made out to Apple, Inc. still uncashed...

While I agree this is good news for Apple's profit margins, it's bad for some people wanting to buy a Mac, especially in a bad economy and especially for some potential PC switchers.

I'm still waiting for that somewhere around $1500 range mythical mid-range Mac tower.
A check is written and waiting to be cashed, only the product does not exist!

I know most people are switching to laptops, but more and more people also have multiple computers. I still want a decently powered mid-range desktop in addition to my laptop. I want something that has some expandability and can drive my HDTV with video or I can add a Blu-Ray drive to and has somewhat close to Mac Pro power, but slightly smaller than my G5. And I'm stubborn, I'm never going to buy into the iMac All-In-One Disposable computer model nor have I ever. At least with a desktop, if my LCD goes down, I can replace it, plus I can more easily run 2-3 displays or buy a bigger display at some point in the future or upgrade video or memory. Apple is seriously missing out on this market and lots of these people represent potential PC switchers too. I just don't get it.
Why not?

I'm shocked Microsoft hasn't done a commercial where they lambast Apple by searching for a desktop computer and find that Apple has NONE in a certain price range which strangely, would be easy for Apple to produce.

Are you listening Microsoft?

(Disclaimer: The iMac is NOT a desktop, it's an ALL-IN-ONE, there IS a distinction.)

[Shiner]

That's probably one of the DUMBEST statements I've read in a long time here...you absolutely ignore why Apple computers are bought in droves nowadays, something that has little to no connection with the fact that a MOBO is made by Asus or whatever XPYRB company you prefer.

In a nutshell, enjoy your inferior PC, Sir.

Every time you post you show your ignorance. Your blind faith to a computer company is amazing and is one of the reasons why apple can charge a high price for inferior equipment. If you read my post you would see that I use macs everyday and they are great. What I am arguing is that the computer itself is overpriced and the parts used are on par or below average with everything out there. You would not know this because surfing the internet and checking email is all you do all day on your macbook. It can handle these activities quite well.

[Teh Don Ditty]

This is really reaching for an Apple story. Very impressive that they garnered such a high % of B&M sales but let's be real. Most Dell systems are sold online/phone, HP has a sizable direct business, not to mention all the big online retailers like Amazon, BB etc.

I'd also like to know if they included all Apple sales or only those made in B&M locations.

Good luck trying to get somebody to actually talk to you about these points, sir.

Oh wait, I will :D

I agree with that first paragraph, completely.

It's interesting because B&M for Apple is their own stores and of course a sizeable chunk of Best Buys. So what is their criteria that constitutes a B&M store.

Apple does have a decent lineup. They aren't perfect, but they are perfect at what they do... and that's what matters to them and of course their investors.

[winterspan]

This sounds great (and it is to an extent), but exclusively obtaining data from brick-and-mortar big box and retail stores is fatally flawed for premium level computer sales. I'm sure Apple still has an enormous market share, but it won't be anywhere near that big. The reason being that most $1000+ PCs fall into three categories that will NOT be picked up in their data:

1) Gaming PCs - Most high-end gaming desktops/laptops are purchased built-to-order online from the likes of Dell, HP, Alienware, Falcon northwest, and other many other smaller boutique vendors. You will NOT find these at a BestBuy©.

2) Ultraportable laptops - These would be laptops from Sony (TT, Z, etc) Panasonic (W5, T5, etc), Toshiba (various models), IBM (X300, X200, etc), Dell (adamo), etc. You would be hard pressed to find many at retail stores besides a few of the Sonys. Many are available online-only, and a lot of them are purchased grey-market from Asia.

3) Workstation and Workstation laptops - high-end workstation PCs from the likes of Dell (Precision), HP, Lenovo, and others are definitely not found in retail stores. They may also not be included anyways as they are seen as "business" computers, although many consumers buy them because of their quality/durability/performance.

Lastly, even regular, mainstream consumer desktops and laptops found in most retail stores and big box stores are of the budget and average variety as that is the clientele they are servicing. Rarely do you ever see $1500-$2500 PCs at a Best Buy, Frys, or Walmart.

[Cassie]

You should work on your economics skills then...I wouldn't be happy if I sold 20 PCs for 1 dollar each, while Apple sells 1 Mac for 100. These inferior companies are not exactly happy for selling those crappy bottom-of-the-barrel netbooks almost at cost-based levels...and this is exactly why Apple won't enter that stillborn market.

You seem to be missing the fact that we are talking about marketshare, not profit. apple may make more then a lot of the major PC manufacturers, but their marketshare is still in the low end.

[Shiner]

You seem to be missing the fact that we are talking about marketshare, not profit. apple may make more then a lot of the major PC manufacturers, but their marketshare is still in the low end.

That's not all he seems to be missing:D

[AidenShaw]

money-bleeding companies such as MS...

Microsoft's earnings announcement is after close of markets today.

We'll see if their "bleeding" matches the $4.4 billion in income on $13.6 billion in revenue last quarter.


MS IS DEAD.

I think that around 95% of computer buyers disagree with you.

[BRLawyer]

Every time you post you show your ignorance. Your blind faith to a computer company is amazing and is one of the reasons why apple can charge a high price for inferior equipment. If you read my post you would see that I use macs everyday and they are great. What I am arguing is that the computer itself is overpriced and the parts used are on par or below average with everything out there. You would not know this because surfing the internet and checking email is all you do all day on your macbook. It can handle these activities quite well.

I maintain my statement, as you continue to ignore completely why Macs offer by far the best computing experience, with the best build quality, lowest return rates and most efficient customer service as confirmed by a billion reports out there.

Besides, if you really think that "parts" are what matter to define "best", you should go back to school and study a little more about economics and market behavior.

And no, I don't have a MB.

You seem to be missing the fact that we are talking about marketshare, not profit. apple may make more then a lot of the major PC manufacturers, but their marketshare is still in the low end.

Not in the segment that indeed brings earnings to a company, as the article shows.

[Peace]

Agreed, but this still doesn't bode particularly well for BEST BUY or FRY'S, where those MS "Laptop Hunter" ads were filmed...


-hh

Why not ? Most of the computers sold at Best Buy and Fry's cost under $1000. These "statistics" are for $1000 and up selling point. Go into any Best Buy or Fry's and there won't be very many $1000 + computers on display.

I agree. These stats are very skewed toward Apple,Inc.

[ericinboston]

Which is not really the case, I would guess that Porsche's market it share is at most 20% in the +$70,000 market. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus are the volume producers in the high-end market (plus there is Jaguar, and all the other smaller producers like Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, RR).

I was just making a point...my figures may have been off but I don't have hours to sit here and research. I do have to work, ya know. I'll up the pricetag to $100,000 if that makes you happy.

-Eric

[iDrinkKoolAid]

I for one, don't agree with Apple's price cuts, especially if this will be an ongoing trend. They could have kept even higher margins by keeping their previous price points but improving quality and features. This is how it was generally done in the past. But then I guess the low-priced razor-thin-margin PC market applied pressure to force Apple to also lower prices.

[Shiner]

I maintain my statement, as you continue to ignore completely why Macs offer by far the best computing experience, with the best build quality, lowest return rates and most efficient customer service as confirmed by a billion reports out there.

Besides, if you really think that "parts" are what matter to define "best", you should go back to school and study a little more about economics and market behavior.

And no, I don't have a MB.

I actually took the time to read your signature. I am sorry that I questioned your computer knowledge. Anyone that spent as much money on a non-portable laptop (iMac) needs to justify their purchase as much as possible. How about you read up on computer and computer parts a little a come back when you know more. The iMac is the epitome of an uninformed consumer.

[mrtune]

I for one, don't agree with Apple's price cuts, especially if this will be an ongoing trend. They could have kept even higher margins by keeping their previous price points but improving quality and features. This is how it was generally done in the past. But then I guess the low-priced razor-thin-margin PC market applied pressure to force Apple to also lower prices.

What price cuts? Last I checked, you still can't buy an Apple laptop with a dedicated graphics card for less than $2000. 2 refreshes ago, prices went up a bit and people went crazy here. Now it seems that they just went back to the old pricing scheme.

Sure they lowered the price on the base 15" macbook pro, but they also stripped out the dedicated graphics card at the same time. That's not price cut to me, that's feature reduction.

[LOLaMac]

This just in......Bugatti has claimed 100% of the market in the category "cars costing over 1,000,000$ dollars." Wow, way to go Bugatti! Bugatti - absolutely destroying all the other car companies and driving them out of business with their phenomenal market share.


Oh, and inb4 "that's right, Macs are the Bugatti of the computer industry." No, they are not.

[Evangelion]

The first line of your statement cracks me up. Computer specs are the ONLY way to determine how good the computer is.

Uh huh? The software does not matter? The design does not matter? The quality of the construction and the materials do not matter? Do you also determine the positive qualities of a car by staring at it's specs?

Only a "dumb as a doorknob" individual would make a statement to the contrary. What are we supposed to judge our electronic equipment on? How good it makes us feel or how amazing the outer shell looks.

How about "how much enjoyment using the computer gives you"? Do you REALLY think that ONLY thing that matters in computers is the amount of Mhz and GB you get? There's more to computers than mere specs. A lot more.

I am not discussing the macpro-I am working on one right now and it is amazing.

But it's just yet another generic tower-PC with an Apple-logo, right? How can such a generic machine be "amazing"?

There is no other workstation quite like it.

So why are you then making retarded claims that Macs are nothing but PC with Apple-logo on them?

Way overpriced

Did it ever occur to you that it might cost a bit extra to make a workstation that is "amazing" and "unlike every other workstation"? If it cost the same as some other workstation does, they would have to sacrifice some of those things that make it "amazing".

The laptops and imacs are a different story all together. The shell is gorgeous and the OS is awesome.

But I thought that Macs are just generic PC's with Apple-logos... You keep on "laughing" at my comments, yet you keep on telling how awesome Macs are. So which is it: Awesome machines or generic PC's with Apple-logo?

The parts are laughable and actually I find it amazing that apple can charge so much for what you get.

What you get is a laptop that is smaller and lighter than competing laptops, that have superior battery-life, superior OS, superior build-quality and top-notch components. Sure, some competing laptops might have faster CPU or faster GPU, but those machines would be designed like crap, have crappy battery-life and/or weight so much that they wouldn't really be portable anymore.

They have the largest profit margin of any computer company on the market. That is good for them and bad for you.

I have no problems paying for quality-hardware that gives me joy to use. I might save a bit money by getting a PC instead, but I wouldn't get enjoyment from the machine.

Keep drinking the kool-aid buddy.

IF you want to refute my claims, you might use other adjectives than "awesome" and "unique" when describing the crappiness of Macs....

[BaldiMac]

I actually took the time to read your signature. I am sorry that I questioned your computer knowledge. Anyone that spent as much money on a non-portable laptop (iMac) needs to justify their purchase as much as possible. How about you read up on computer and computer parts a little a come back when you know more. The iMac is the epitome of an uninformed consumer.

Or maybe people who buy an iMac have different needs than you. Can you tell me what an iMac can't do that I need it to?

[NAG]

Logical fallacy.

Just because you don't like the price of a certain model does not mean Apple did not cut the prices of certain computers.

[notjustjay]

I actually took the time to read your signature. I am sorry that I questioned your computer knowledge. Anyone that spent as much money on a non-portable laptop (iMac) needs to justify their purchase as much as possible. How about you read up on computer and computer parts a little a come back when you know more. The iMac is the epitome of an uninformed consumer.

Eh?

I don't agree with all of BRLawyer's posts, but this is just silly. I had an iMac for a while, but ultimately decided I'd prefer a laptop and upgraded to the MacBook Pro. The iMac served me well when I had it and currently serves its new owners well. Apart from the usual arguments about all-in-ones (not easy to upgrade, blah blah), what's not to like?

[e12a]

I look at it this way,

in a hypothetical situation, you could either get a $1k+ Sony Vaio of some sort, that generally is underpowered for the price you pay, and runs only Windows or a Linux variant. It just looks fancy.

OR

I could pay around the same price say 1.2-1.4k and get a macbook pro, which looks just as good if not better, and is made of aluminum, can run OSX, Linux, and Windows, has local tech support via apple store or reseller...not to mention has a decent spec list with discrete graphics.

There is no reason to get a boutique Windows based laptop over an Apple.

(Super gaming laptops not withstanding)

[Peace]

Logical fallacy.

Just because you don't like the price of a certain model does not mean Apple did not cut the prices of certain computers.

I have to agree with Shiner. If a computer company decreases the price of a particular computer and at the same time takes away an important part like dedicated graphics that isn't really a price cut. It's a feature cut with a corresponding price cut. Now had Apple kept the dedicated graphics in the 15" model and lowered the price I'd say that was a price cut.

[uberamd]

Some of the comments here make me laugh. I will ignore the fact that I have seen quite a few friends switch to Mac over the last few months, and that my job entails fixing computers, 100% of which are PC's because the Mac's we have in house never break. Build quality? If you compare the build quality of an aluminum Mac (even back to the pre unibody Macbook Pro's) to that of a plastic, clunky PC you will see the quality difference. Mac's have that professional look AND feel to them, and are powerful enough for plenty of people to get their tasks done.

Yeah, you can stroll into Best Buy and buy a sub $1,000 laptop, but its going to be a thick, clunky, ugly system. Thats the way the ball bounces, and if that satisfies your needs then so be it. I could put my Macbook Pro next to any PC, and challenge anyone WITHOUT BIAS to tell me which looks more professional, and higher quality. 9 out of 10 people will say the Mac, maybe even all 10.

If I call Dell for support, I speak to someone in India that I cannot even understand. If I call Microsoft for support, I also get someone in India that I cannot understand. If I need Apple support, I get a US based person. Thats a world of difference to me. The quality of the Apple brand is reflected in the design and detail of their products and the quality of their support.

Finally, if Windows PC's are so wonderful, why did MPC/Gateway (the Gateway business division that my University owned so many laptops and desktops from) go out of business while Apple keeps posting amazing profits?

[Shiner]

Logical fallacy.

Just because you don't like the price of a certain model does not mean Apple did not cut the prices of certain computers.

Your statement is amazing. They did not cut the price on the MBP!! They took out the graphics card and thus cut cost. They did cut the cost of the macbook air and that is it.

[22Hertz]

It's not only good, it's the HIGHEST market share in the history of personal computers for that segment. Apple is, as usual, firing on ALL cylinders and teaching money-bleeding companies such as MS and Dell how to manage a global IT corporation. Why buy a stupid PC when you can have the BEST computer out there? There is ABSOLUTELY no appeal or justification to buy Windows today.

The naive ones that don't believe me when I say MS is DEAD will eat some high-grade crow sooner than later...MS is a train wreck while Apple leads the pack in ALL areas where it conducts its business.

Dell, it's time to close up shop and give the little money you have left back to shareholders...or perhaps to MS, so that it can survive a little bit longer.

MS IS DEAD.

Many professionals would disagree with your statement of Windows being dead.

Until software of all types is written and supported for X-amount of years for OS X the compelling reason to buy Windows is to be able to perform a certain task from your computer that doesn't exist for the Mac and get support for it.

Couple that with MILLIONS of people who dont know any better, MILLIONS of business owners who will not take the chance on switching to be left with inadequate support from software vendors or the chance of their business being down, or people with investment in Microsoft OS software....and more


Point is Windows is not dead by a long shot.
I do feel Windows has lost touch with its users however.
IMO the GUI is messy and unintuitive after XP, although I admit beautiful in 7's case.

I like OS X and wish I could get engineering and some other specialty software for it:(

[Shiner]

I look at it this way,

in a hypothetical situation, you could either get a $1k+ Sony Vaio of some sort, that generally is underpowered for the price you pay, and runs only Windows or a Linux variant. It just looks fancy.

OR

I could pay around the same price say 1.2-1.4k and get a macbook pro, which looks just as good if not better, and is made of aluminum, can run OSX, Linux, and Windows, has local tech support via apple store or reseller...not to mention has a decent spec list with discrete graphics.

There is no reason to get a boutique Windows based laptop over an Apple.

(Super gaming laptops not withstanding)

Hold on a second!! Link me the MBP for 1.2-1.4K with dedicated graphics. I have my credit card ready to go. Oh wait you are making up numbers. Got it.

[e12a]

Hold on a second!! Link me the MBP for 1.2-1.4K with dedicated graphics. I have my credit card ready to go. Oh wait you are making up numbers. Got it.

could always go for refurb or last gen? got my last last gen 2.4 MBP new for 1.5k (over a year ago). Parents bought the Penryn MBP 2.5 for slightly more at 1.6k new. gotta love college prices.

:p fine, i was off by a few hundred.

[manu chao]

I was just making a point...my figures may have been off but I don't have hours to sit here and research. I do have to work, ya know. I'll up the pricetag to $100,000 if that makes you happy.

-Eric
Which keeps my argument intact. Any company that owns a segment is in pretty good position, naturally if that segment is very small, it is not as impressive. But the segment Apple is in, the +$1000 computer is a multi-billion dollar business.
If any single car company owned the +$100,000 segment, they would be very well off. RR, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Aston Martin together probably own the +$200,000 car business (there are others like Maybach, pretty small, Bugatti, pretty small, and maybe a dozen other really small ones). The point being that you have to set the bar pretty high to get down to a few companies and even then none of has an overwhelming market share. Maybe if you set the bar at +$350 000, RR becomes dominant.

[Shiner]

Eh?

I don't agree with all of BRLawyer's posts, but this is just silly. I had an iMac for a while, but ultimately decided I'd prefer a laptop and upgraded to the MacBook Pro. The iMac served me well when I had it and currently serves its new owners well. Apart from the usual arguments about all-in-ones (not easy to upgrade, blah blah), what's not to like?

I am glad it served you well. Like I stated the average consumer has no problem with inferior parts in a fancy enclosure. I just hate when uninformed people come in and say apple sells high-end computers. They don't!! They sell one high end computer, the macpro, the rest are cheap computers sold at a high price.

[LagunaSol]

(Disclaimer: The iMac is NOT a desktop, it's an ALL-IN-ONE, there IS a distinction.)

Odd, my iMac sits on top of my desk, is not portable, is not pocketable, and will not sit (comfortably) on my lap.

Hence the iMac is a desktop.

And if you want to throw out the "expandability" chestnut, please give me your approximation of the percentage of "desktop" computer users who actually crack the cases on their machines and "expand" anything during the lifetime of that computer.

(My guess: 5%?)

Hmm, I guess those are just "ALL-IN-ONES WITH DETACHED MONITORS" then.

[manu chao]

This just in......Bugatti has claimed 100% of the market in the category "cars costing over 1,000,000$ dollars." Wow, way to go Bugatti! Bugatti - absolutely destroying all the other car companies and driving them out of business with their phenomenal market share.


Oh, and inb4 "that's right, Macs are the Bugatti of the computer industry." No, they are not.
Since about 0.001% of the population can afford a Bugatti, whereas maybe 5% can afford a Mac (global population, very rough estimate).

[ilovefanboyz]

Some of the comments here make me laugh. I will ignore the fact that I have seen quite a few friends switch to Mac over the last few months, and that my job entails fixing computers, 100% of which are PC's because the Mac's we have in house never break. Build quality? If you compare the build quality of an aluminum Mac (even back to the pre unibody Macbook Pro's) to that of a plastic, clunky PC you will see the quality difference. Mac's have that professional look AND feel to them, and are powerful enough for plenty of people to get their tasks done.

Yeah, you can stroll into Best Buy and buy a sub $1,000 laptop, but its going to be a thick, clunky, ugly system. Thats the way the ball bounces, and if that satisfies your needs then so be it. I could put my Macbook Pro next to any PC, and challenge anyone WITHOUT BIAS to tell me which looks more professional, and higher quality. 9 out of 10 people will say the Mac, maybe even all 10.

If I call Dell for support, I speak to someone in India that I cannot even understand. If I call Microsoft for support, I also get someone in India that I cannot understand. If I need Apple support, I get a US based person. Thats a world of difference to me. The quality of the Apple brand is reflected in the design and detail of their products and the quality of their support.

Finally, if Windows PC's are so wonderful, why did MPC/Gateway (the Gateway business division that my University owned so many laptops and desktops from) go out of business while Apple keeps posting amazing profits?


How is this related to the article in question?

[Shiner]

could always go for refurb or last gen? got my last last gen 2.4 MBP new for 1.5k (over a year ago). Parents bought the Penryn MBP 2.5 for slightly more at 1.6k new. gotta love college prices.

:p fine, i was off by a few hundred.

Yeah but your post passes on incorrect information. Especially in this topic when we are discussing brick and mortar stores. Who cares if your brothers sisters chicken can find a refurbished slightly dented MBP for $500. If you walk into a store and are joe average you will have to spend $1,999 to get a MBP with dedicated graphics (and only 9600GT at that). That is outrageous.

Maybe my math is off but $1,999 is more than 1,200 or 1,400 right?

[Evangelion]

What price cuts?

Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that Apple did not reduce it's prices during the latest round of refreshed? To make it simple for you:

MacBook air saw price-reduction of $300 (entry-level model) and $700 (hi-end model)

17" MBP was reduced from $2799 to $2499

13" MBP (compared to 13" Al-MacBook): $100 at the low-end. I'm not sure if price-reduction took place at the hi-end.

And the 15"... Hi-end model was reduced by $200, midrange stayed put and they added a new low-end model.

Sure they lowered the price on the base 15" macbook pro, but they also stripped out the dedicated graphics card at the same time. That's not price cut to me, that's feature reduction.

They didn't reduce features, since the low-end model is an addition to the lineup, as opposed to replacement to some existing model. You can still get a model with dedicated GPU, so how exactly did they reduce features as far as you are concerned? Offering a new product that did not exist before is not the same thing as "reducing features".

The low-end 15" MBP is for people who want a big screen but don't need a dedicated GPU. Those who need the GPU can still buy one.

[LagunaSol]

The iMac is the epitome of an uninformed consumer.

As a happy iMac owner (on my second now) who has built his own PCs in the past (and won't go back), I beg to differ.

You want uninformed consumers? Try Windows.

[Shiner]

Odd, my iMac sits on top of my desk, is not portable, is not pocketable, and will not sit (comfortably) on my lap.

Hence the iMac is a desktop.

And if you want to throw out the "expandability" chestnut, please give me your approximation of the percentage of "desktop" computer users who actually crack the cases on their machines and "expand" anything during the lifetime of that computer.

(My guess: 5%?)

Hmm, I guess those are just "ALL-IN-ONES WITH DETACHED MONITORS" then.

Classic!! It is a desktop when it uses desktop components!!!! I bet you didn't even realize everything in your imac, except the hard drive, is a laptop part.

[Evangelion]

Your statement is amazing. They did not cut the price on the MBP!! They took out the graphics card and thus cut cost. They did cut the cost of the macbook air and that is it.

You are wrong. Only MBP that kept it's price was $1999 15" MBP. Hi-end model was reduced in price by $200, 17" MBP was reduced by $300. How exactly can you claim that MBP saw no price-reductions, when in fact they did? Every single model was reduced in price, apart from ONE model!

ALso, the 13" saw reduction, if we compare it to it's immediate successor, the 13" Unibody-MacBook.

Sheesh....

[Shiner]

As a happy iMac owner (on my second now) who has built his own PCs in the past (and won't go back), I beg to differ.

You want uninformed consumers? Try Windows.

I am pretty sure you are just saying you built PCs:D If you did build PCs they must have been pretty slow.

[Evangelion]

Classic!! It is a desktop when it uses desktop components!!!!

The use-scenario of the device decides whether it's a desktop or a laptop, not the components it uses. iMac might use laptop-parts (apart from the HD), but that does NOT change the fact that it's a desktop! You use the computer on your desk, it's not a portable computer, therefore it's a desktop.

iMac is a desktop, period.

[Shiner]

The use-scenario of the device decides whether it's a desktop or a laptop, not the components it uses. iMac might use laptop-parts (apart from the HD), but that does NOT change the fact that it's a desktop! You use the computer on your desk, it's not a portable computer, therefore it's a desktop.

iMac is a desktop, period.

Keep telling yourself that. Also click your heels together when you say it and maybe someday your laptop will become a desktop!!:eek:

[LagunaSol]

Classic!! It is a desktop when it uses desktop components!!!! I bet you didn't even realize everything in your imac, except the hard drive, is a laptop part.

Sorry, your accusations of ignorance do not apply here.

WTF does it matter if the mobo on my computer fits the form factor of a laptop instead of a desktop machine? I know it probably drives you to a rage to know that you can't OC an iMac and stuff a bunch of extra cooling fans (and LED lights) in there. Sadly (for you), the iMac is a perfect machine for many of us. Fast, whisper quiet, runs all OSes with ease, takes up very little space on the desktop, and looks great doing so.

Funny how agitated some people get when they realize their needs aren't necessarily the needs of everyone else.

Me, I'll be helping a neighbor set up his new iMac this week after a virus wrecked his Windows desktop machine and the repair shop compounded matters by torching his hard drive.

I'm sure he cares that his new computer sports a laptop-style mobo. :rolleyes:

I'm still not sure why all the anti-Apple griefers like to congregate in MacRumors these days...do I smell the pungent aroma of astroturf? Or is hanging out in Windows forums to discuss Steve Ballmer's favorite antiperspirant or the latest/greatest malware scanner just not exciting enough for you?

[Shiner]

You are wrong. Only MBP that kept it's price was $1999 15" MBP. Hi-end model was reduced in price by $200, 17" MBP was reduced by $300. How exactly can you claim that MBP saw no price-reductions, when in fact they did? Every single model was reduced in price, apart from ONE model!

ALso, the 13" saw reduction, if we compare it to it's immediate successor, the 13" Unibody-MacBook.

Sheesh....

You are right on the 17" model but my anger with the price cuts was the blatant lie told at the conference and by people on this forum. The 15" did not receive a price cut at all. They made a big deal of saying look we cut the 15" price to $1699. They didn't.

[rwilliams]

This is for brick and mortar stores only. I'd wager that if online sales were included, that the percent would drop significantly. I'd even say it would be less then 50%.

I would have to agree with this. You're not going to walk into any old store and find the shelves full of Lenovo and Alienware machines. I'm not sure if it would drop below 50%, but it likely wouldn't be close to 91% either.

[Evangelion]

Keep telling yourself that. Also click your heels together when you say it and maybe someday your laptop will become a desktop!!:eek:

Are you REALLY going to claim that iMac is a laptop just because it uses some laptop-parts? Do you even know what a "laptop" is? Do I need to show you a picture of a laptop?

Of all the stupidity I have seen, this takes the cake....

[Shiner]

Sorry, your accusations of ignorance do not apply here.

WTF does it matter if the mobo on my computer fits the form factor of a laptop instead of a desktop machine? I know it probably drives you to a rage to know that you can't OC an iMac and stuff a bunch of extra cooling fans (and LED lights) in there. Sadly (for you), the iMac is a perfect machine for many of us. Fast, whisper quiet, runs all OSes with ease, takes up very little space on the desktop, and looks great doing so.

Funny how agitated some people get when they realize their needs aren't necessarily the needs of everyone else.

Me, I'll be helping a neighbor set up his new iMac this week after a virus wrecked his Windows desktop machine and the repair shop compounded matters by torching his hard drive.

I'm sure he cares that his new computer sports a laptop-style mobo. :rolleyes:

I'm still not sure why all the anti-Apple griefers like to congregate in MacRumors these days...do I smell the pungent aroma of astroturf? Or is hanging out in Windows forums to discuss Steve Ballmer's favorite antiperspirant or the latest/greatest malware scanner just not exciting enough for you?

Funny how I have owned and currently own more computers, macs as well, then you have ever owned. I just prefer to think for myself and not follow the coolest trend. Enjoy your iMac it is very pretty and well a great consumer product. I do require more from my computers then hello kitty and email. I have never understood how so many people on this forum have a friend who blew up their hard drive. I guess what you are saying is Apple makes computers for people who have no idea how to manage a computer. I agree.

[Shiner]

Funny thing is I use macs and PCs and love them both. But I have a good education.

[Shiner]

Are you REALLY going to claim that iMac is a laptop just because it uses some laptop-parts? Do you even know what a "laptop" is? Do I need to show you a picture of a laptop?

Of all the stupidity I have seen, this takes the cake....

Then you should try reading your posts more often. They are riddled with stupidity.

[manu chao]

You are right on the 17" model but my anger with the price cuts was the blatant lie told at the conference and by people on this forum. The 15" did not receive a price cut at all. They made a big deal of saying look we cut the 15" price to $1699. They didn't.
Now you seem to be telling a lie. If they did cut the price of the top 15" model, how can you say 'the 15" did not receive a price cut at all'?

[EarthDawn]

As was said on the recent earnings conference call, "We don't want to make the most computers, we want to make the best computers."

Profitability is key to surviving - not overall numbers. In the end, Apple is a company out to make money...and with the quality products that have shown up in the last many years, I am happy to pay whatever is asked.

Pretty much exactly how I feel !

Congrats APPLE !!!

[Evangelion]

You are right on the 17" model but my anger with the price cuts was the blatant lie told at the conference and by people on this forum. The 15" did not receive a price cut at all. They made a big deal of saying look we cut the 15" price to $1699. They didn't.

They said that the 15" MBPs start at $1699, which is $300 less than before. And that claim is 100% true. The midrange-15" saw n o price-reduction, while the hi-end model was reduced in price. So how exactly can you claim that they did not reduce prices, when in fact they did? Only MBP-model that was NOT reduced in price was the midrange 15"! Yet here you are, claiming that they did not reduce prices.

To use simpler words: Before WWDC, there were two 15" MBPs. In WWDC, they bumped the specs of the low-end 15" and kept it's price intact. They also bumped the specs of the hi-end 15" and LOWERED it's price. They also added a new low-end model that was $300 cheaper than the previous low-end model.

While you are arguing that "Apple did not lower prices" and "iMac is a laptop!", why not argue that "sky is green!" as well? It would be just about as intelligent and pointless as your current arguments....

[leekohler]

Yeah, great market share.

Now if they'd only bring out a mid-range tower... say for about $1500.



Yeah, like they used to. We can always hope.

[LagunaSol]

Funny how I have owned and currently own more computers, macs as well, then you have ever owned.

I seriously doubt this. We're all terribly impressed by your braggadocio though.

I do require more from my computers then hello kitty and email.

LIKE CRYSIS!!! LAN party this weekend homies! Most LED lighting wins a prize!

I guess what you are saying is Apple makes computers for people who have no idea how to manage a computer. I agree.

Since the now-dead, virus infested computer that is being replaced was a Windows box, apparently Microsoft (and their hardware-making collaborators) makes computers for idiots too. Computers that, sadly, just don't work right...

[Evangelion]

Then you should try reading your posts more often. They are riddled with stupidity.

Such as? I can easily point to your stupidity: "iMac is a laptop because it uses laptop parts!". Bwahahahahaha!

[LagunaSol]

But I have a good education.

We're all awestruck by your intellect.

[revbarabbas]

They have an $800, Core 2 Duo, with 4 GB of RAM?

How much notebook do they need?

Except that your processor probably has a slow clock speed and your ram isn't DDR3...you see when you get a mac you get it for the high end components...it's like getting a audio cable with gold plugs instead of copper to make an analogy. Now an $800 laptop from Dell or another company is gonna be made out of plastic instead of machined aluminum...the display isn't going to be covered by glossy glass and the soundcard is going to be weak...all mac laptops come standard with optical output on their sound cards. Plus to keep the costs down the majority of PC laptops are built with the cheapest components not the best. THATS the difference.

[Shiner]

They said that the 15" MBPs start at $1699, which is $300 less than before. And that claim is 100% true. The midrange-15" saw n o price-reduction, while the hi-end model was reduced in price. So how exactly can you claim that they did not reduce prices, when in fact they did? Only MBP-model that was NOT reduced in price was the midrange 15"! Yet here you are, claiming that they did not reduce prices.

To use simpler words: Before WWDC, there were two 15" MBPs. In WWDC, they bumped the specs of the low-end 15" and kept it's price intact. They also bumped the specs of the hi-end 15" and LOWERED it's price. They also added a new low-end model that was $300 cheaper than the previous low-end model.

While you are arguing that "Apple did not lower prices" and "iMac is a laptop!", why not argue that "sky is green!" as well? It would be just about as intelligent and pointless as your current arguments....

You are right I apologize. They lowered the price of the 15" MBP. Most consumers, like you, have no idea what a dedicated graphics card is. Why would they need it? Most consumers have no idea what that little M after their graphic card means. Most consumers have no idea they are getting 2 year old mobile processors in their "desktop". Just like you they will only watch a movie or surf the internet on their computer. They will come to the forum and say how great their experience is and how amazing the OS is. I was arguing for the educated consumer. Unfortunately there are very few left.

[larrybeo]

I believe these figures proves the Microsoft Laptop hunter ads correct and not misleading. In the commercial, one goes on a hunt for a sub $1,000 laptop, and exclaims, "there is not Mac for this price". Yeah - way to go Apple. How is this news? I wonder who they are going toss out a 12 story window next? *That* won't even be news, either.

[Shiner]

Except that your processor probably has a slow clock speed and your ram isn't DDR3...you see when you get a mac you get it for the high end components...it's like getting a audio cable with gold plugs instead of copper to make an analogy. Now an $800 laptop from Dell or another company is gonna be made out of plastic instead of machined aluminum...the display isn't going to be covered by glossy glass and the soundcard is going to be weak...all mac laptops come standard with optical output on their sound cards. Plus to keep the costs down the majority of PC laptops are built with the cheapest components not the best. THATS the difference.

See this post is the only reason that I have even tried to stir up a fight. Fine hate me for what I say but please think of the children!! This kid thinks apple uses some fancy magic computer parts in their systems that are better than all other computers. Other than the case THEY ARE THE SAME PARTS!!! Most of the time they are inferior to the $800 computer.

[Evangelion]

I guess what you are saying is Apple makes computers for people who have no idea how to manage a computer. I agree.

I started using computers when I was about 6 years old, back in 1983. I started with C64, moved to C128, Amiga 500, various PC's (mostly self-built in later stages), until I bought a Mac in 2005. I have used Linux since 1999, and at one point I built my OS practically from scratch (although Gentoo Linux took SOME of the hardcore-macho out of it). My work is all about managing computers, servers and software they run. And I use a Mac, which I use for various tasks, including gaming and digital photography.

But hey, I guess I know nothing about computers...

[BaldiMac]

Keep telling yourself that. Also click your heels together when you say it and maybe someday your laptop will become a desktop!!:eek:

You must be able to win every argument you get in if you can change the meaning of words at your whim! :rolleyes:

You are right on the 17" model but my anger with the price cuts was the blatant lie told at the conference and by people on this forum. The 15" did not receive a price cut at all.

The high end 15" did receive a price cut.

They made a big deal of saying look we cut the 15" price to $1699. They didn't.

The lowest priced 15" MBP is $1699.

[larrybeo]

Except that your processor probably has a slow clock speed and your ram isn't DDR3...you see when you get a mac you get it for the high end components...it's like getting a audio cable with gold plugs instead of copper to make an analogy. Now an $800 laptop from Dell or another company is gonna be made out of plastic instead of machined aluminum...the display isn't going to be covered by glossy glass and the soundcard is going to be weak...all mac laptops come standard with optical output on their sound cards. Plus to keep the costs down the majority of PC laptops are built with the cheapest components not the best. THATS the difference.

The difference is that PC users can pick and chose what parts go into a computer. I for one build my own. When is the last time you built a Mac? Can you chose what brand of power supply, cooling fans, processor, what brand of graphics card manufacturer, etc. Goes into a Mac? There is a whole aisle of sound card vendors at Microcenter that one can purchase and pop into a PC - along with a million other upgrades. THAT is the difference.

[mags631]

I love Apple, but i don't know how they can hope to continue being successful without addressing the lower end market more. :apple:

Higher price point = higher margins. Margin (profit) is what allows a company to stay in business. Most (all?) OEMs would gladly trade places with Apple's hardware business right now.

[Evangelion]

You are right I apologize.

How can a person of your high intellect be wrong about something as simple as this?

Most consumers, like you, have no idea what a dedicated graphics card is.

I know what a dedicated GPU is.

Most consumers have no idea they are getting 2 year old mobile processors in their "desktop".

Consumers don't care how many MHz their CPU has, what they care is that "can I use this computer to do the things I want to do with it?". And THAT'S what's important!

Just like you they will only watch a movie or surf the internet on their computer.

As opposed to users like you, who use their computers to write moronic drivel on web-forums?

I was arguing for the educated consumer. Unfortunately there are very few left.

So which is a sign of an "educated consumer":

a) A consumer that buys a computer that they find enjoyable to use and which does what they want to do with it

b) A consumer who most MHz and GB as possible, while paying no attention to how usable and functional the computer actually is.

[Vulpinemac]

I am pretty sure you are just saying you built PCs:D If you did build PCs they must have been pretty slow.

I'm going to argue this one because I used to build my own PCs as well, and they were good upper-middle-class machines running upper-middle processors and video cards as well as the best RAM for the money, not the most expensive, but just below the price break-point. I usually spend about $1000 to build the machines and then bought a new video card about every nine months to keep it as current as I could without getting ridiculous.

Problem was, even on decent hardware, the machines needed weekly scans and daily updates to avoid malware and more than once I would need to replace a power supply as well, despite going as high as a 450W power supply on a 1.7Mhz processor machine that should have been fine at 250W. It's not like I overclocked or anything.

I've now been using a 2.8Ghz iMac for a hair shy of 2 years. I've not needed to upgrade the video card or replace the power supply. I've not needed to do weekly security scans and my AV (yes, I use one just in case) updates fingerprints once a week, if that often. In other words, I haven't had to spend another penny on my iMac since I bought it. This, to me, demonstrates a far higher ROI than even a scratch-built PC costing $1000.

Apple has earned my business by always providing me with a reliable piece of hardware and an easy-to-use operating system that allows me to run my business and my leisure on one machine.

[Shiner]

You must be able to win every argument you get in if you can't change the meaning of words at your whim! :rolleyes:



The high end 15" did receive a price cut.



The lowest priced 15" MBP is $1699.

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

[Shiner]

I'm going to argue this one because I used to build my own PCs as well, and they were good upper-middle-class machines running upper-middle processors and video cards as well as the best RAM for the money, not the most expensive, but just below the price break-point. I usually spend about $1000 to build the machines and then bought a new video card about every nine months to keep it as current as I could without getting ridiculous.

Problem was, even on decent hardware, the machines needed weekly scans and daily updates to avoid malware and more than once I would need to replace a power supply as well, despite going as high as a 450W power supply on a 1.7Mhz processor machine that should have been fine at 250W. It's not like I overclocked or anything.

I've now been using a 2.8Ghz iMac for a hair shy of 2 years. I've not needed to upgrade the video card or replace the power supply. I've not needed to do weekly security scans and my AV (yes, I use one just in case) updates fingerprints once a week, if that often. In other words, I haven't had to spend another penny on my iMac since I bought it. This, to me, demonstrates a far higher ROI than even a scratch-built PC costing $1000.

Apple has earned my business by always providing me with a reliable piece of hardware and an easy-to-use operating system that allows me to run my business and my leisure on one machine.

I like this story. You picked a computer that meets your needs. I am not against that at all. I was simply saying people on this forum talk like macs are high-end (the whole point of the story). They are not. The people that buy them do not know what high end is. That is my point.

[-hh]

The only relevant figure here is that Apple still owns less than 10% of the overall market share, which simply means that their systems are still niche systems for a minority.

That's not really the only figure of interest...by taking the top end of the market, Apple has also taken the most profitable market segment.

Why not ? Most of the computers sold at Best Buy and Fry's cost under $1000. These "statistics" are for $1000 and up selling point. Go into any Best Buy or Fry's and there won't be very many $1000 + computers on display.

No contest, but my point with the "Laptop Hunter" ads is that 83% (5 out of 6) of the time, Microsoft's hypothetical consumer ended up over in the $1000+ section. As such, the Hunter ads were clearly trying to target the segment where Apple is reportedly dominating.


-hh

[Evangelion]

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

They talked about 15" MBP, and the model without dedicated GPU is a 15" MBP. They didn't talk about "MBP with dedicated GPU", they talked about 15" MBP. And they didn't try to hide the fact that it only has 9400M.

Fact is that starting-price for 15" MBP went down $300. Yes, the cheaper model is missing some features. So what. Low-end models usually have worse specs than higher-end models do.

[Shiner]

I really don't want to make so many enemies. My point I am arguing because of the story.

1)Apple sells high end computers---I say NO apple sells good looking computers with average to low-end parts.

That is all I am saying. The average consumer will think if the spent greater than $1,000 they are getting high-end parts. I am simply stating a fact that they are not.

[Evangelion]

I was simply saying people on this forum talk like macs are high-end (the whole point of the story). They are not. The people that buy them do not know what high end is. That is my point.

How do you define "hi-end"? By staring at those all-important MHz and GB's? You are simple-minded when you think that only raw specs (like MHz) determine the price and quality of the computer.

[LagunaSol]

b) A consumer who most MHz and GB as possible, while paying no attention to how usable and functional the computer actually is.

Actually, processor and drive speed are critical specs on a Windows machine even for Joe Consumer - because they determine how fast he can get his virus scan done and get back to Facebook/solitaire. ;)

[Evangelion]

1)Apple sells high end computers---I say NO apple sells good looking computers with average to low-end parts.

And you are wrong

That is all I am saying.

Besides claiming that iMac is a laptop, that is?

The average consumer will think if the spent greater than $1,000 they are getting high-end parts. I am simply stating a fact that they are not.

I would say that Macs are better than the sum of their parts. I have used laptops that have better "specs" (RAM, HD, MHz etc.) than my MBP has. And those computer look, feel and act like crap. Just about all of them feel cheap and flimsy, and they are big and heavy, making them crappy portables. they lack the niceties of my MBP (like backlit keyboard) and they are simply not enjoyable to use.

But according to your logic, those machines MUST be better than my MBP is, since they have "better parts".

[BaldiMac]

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

I didn't miss anything. If you read your post that I quoted, you were wrong. I corrected you.

How much was the least expensive 15" MacBook Pro? $1999
How much is the least expensive 15" MacBook Pro? $1699

That is a price cut.

There was also a feature reduction with respect to the graphics card. There was also a feature upgrade with respect to the processor, RAM, and battery.

[-hh]

I was simply saying people on this forum talk like macs are high-end (the whole point of the story). They are not.

Based upon ... what metric?

The marketplace reality is that the average price of a Mac is roughly twice that of the average PC...roughly $1350 vs $700.

Classically, "high end" products cost more. Macs cost more.
Mayhaps connect ye thee dots?


The people that buy them do not know what high end is. That is my point.

Based upon ... what?

If you're not using cost as a differentation metric, then what/how are you choosing to define what the term "high end" means?

Afterall, we can see that using simple raw CPU power is out, because laptop CPUs are as a class substantially less powerful than desktop CPUs and roughly half of the US consumer market is choosing to buy the latop form factor despite this loss of CPU power...its a performance trade-off of portability "performance" versus processing power.

So please 'educate' us by telling us all how you're choosing to define "high end". If its not price and not CPU power, then what is it, pray tell?


-hh

[Shiner]

How do you define "hi-end"? By staring at those all-important MHz and GB's? You are simple-minded when you think that only raw specs (like MHz) determine the price and quality of the computer.

Not at all dude. Calm down. Think of it this way. Take the same parts and place them into two laptops one looks good like the mac and the other looks like a sony. How much are you willing to pay for the OS and the look of your computer? If you are willing to pay $400-500 more than you are good to go.

[LagunaSol]

I really don't want to make so many enemies.

Maybe going on a Mac forum and ranting that Macs are overpriced junk for idiots isn't the best approach?

[BaldiMac]

I really don't want to make so many enemies. My point I am arguing because of the story.

1)Apple sells high end computers---I say NO apple sells good looking computers with average to low-end parts.

That is all I am saying. The average consumer will think if the spent greater than $1,000 they are getting high-end parts. I am simply stating a fact that they are not.

To say Apple sells high end computers is not the same as saying Apple uses high end parts. A whole is not simply the sum of its parts. How the parts are put together can also matter. And not just for looks.

[iBug2]

Funny thing is apple has no need to drop into the lower market whatsoever. They use the same cheap parts as everyone else but slap an apple on it and sell it for $1000. People perceive it as high end equipment and eat it up. I love mac but their new lineup is not worth the cost. For christ's sake people their top of the line video card is a 9600GT!!!

Really? I happened to saw an Alienware 17" laptop with 9600gt, 2.93 GHz core2duo, 4 GB ram and 500 GB HD for 2500$ where Apple was selling theirs for 2700$ with 3.06 Ghz CPU.

And their laptop doesn't run OS X, it looked like crap compared to a MBP and its battery doesn't go for 8 hours.

Now go and do your math again. Apple adds some profit margin, but not too much.

[uberamd]

Not at all dude. Calm down. Think of it this way. Take the same parts and place them into two laptops one looks good like the mac and the other looks like a sony. How much are you willing to pay for the OS and the look of your computer? If you are willing to pay $400-500 more than you are good to go.

I am willing to pay a lot for OS X and an aluminum based, thin, sturdy computer with US based tech support and local repair centers.

[Shiner]

Based upon ... what metric?

The marketplace reality is that the average price of a Mac is roughly twice that of the average PC...roughly $1350 vs $700.

Classically, "high end" products cost more. Macs cost more.
Mayhaps connect ye thee dots?




Based upon ... what?

If you're not using cost as a differentation metric, then what/how are you choosing to define what the term "high end" means?

Afterall, we can see that using simple raw CPU power is out, because laptop CPUs are as a class substantially less powerful than desktop CPUs and roughly half of the US consumer market is choosing to buy the latop form factor despite this loss of CPU power...its a performance trade-off of portability "performance" versus processing power.

So please 'educate' us by telling us all how you're choosing to define "high end". If its not price and not CPU power, then what is it, pray tell?


-hh

Your statements prove my point. You think if you spend more than you get more right?

[Evangelion]

Not at all dude. Calm down. Think of it this way. Take the same parts and place them into two laptops one looks good like the mac and the other looks like a sony. How much are you willing to pay for the OS and the look of your computer? If you are willing to pay $400-500 more than you are good to go.

But the comparison is not that simple. Macs is a coherent whole, with an OS and hardware that work together. They use superior materials (aluminium as opposed to plastic) and have niceties that are lacking in competing laptops (like backlit-keyboard). They are usually smaller, thinner and lighter than PC-laptops are and now they have kick-ass battery-life as well.

You make it sound like the choice is basically between two identical computers, one of which has an Apple-logo on it. Anyone who has actually done hands-on comparison between a Mac and a PC will immediately notice the differences between the two. And those difference go deeper than what logo happens to adorn the computer.

[BaldiMac]

Not at all dude. Calm down. Think of it this way. Take the same parts and place them into two laptops one looks good like the mac and the other looks like a sony. How much are you willing to pay for the OS and the look of your computer? If you are willing to pay $400-500 more than you are good to go.

Take the same parts and throw them into a bucket. How much would you be willing to pay for that? The quality of the assembly matters.

[Shiner]

Really? I happened to saw an Alienware 17" laptop with 9600gt, 2.93 GHz core2duo, 4 GB ram and 500 GB HD for 2500$ where Apple was selling theirs for 2700$ with 3.06 Ghz CPU.

And their laptop doesn't run OS X and it looked like crap compared to a MBP.

Now go and do your math again. Apple adds some profit margin, but not too much.

First off here we go again with I saw something 2 years ago that proves my point. Lets keep this discussion reasonable. Apple has a huge profit margin on every computer they make. This is a fact. It is smart business by apple they are a great company. In fact they have the largest profit margin per computer in the computer industry. They are a company that knows how to make money. How do they make that huge profit margin?

[Shiner]

But the comparison is not that simple. Macs is a coherent whole, with an OS and hardware that work together. They use superior materials (aluminium as opposed to plastic) and have niceties that are lacking in competing laptops (like backlit-keyboard). They are usually smaller, thinner and lighter than PC-laptops are and now they have kick-ass battery-life as well.

You make it sound like the choice is basically between two identical computers, one of which has an Apple-logo on it. Anyone who has actually done hands-on comparison between a Mac and a PC will immediately notice the differences between the two. And those difference go deeper than what logo happens to adorn the computer.

I didn't say this at all???? I said place the parts in a apple laptop (by the way the case is the only part that apple uses superior material on) and a sony laptop.

[BaldiMac]

Your statements prove my point. You think if you spend more than you get more right?

No, he's asking you what your definition of high end is.

[deconstruct60]

no the point is that there are hundreds of notebooks and desktops that sell for $1000+, but macs are destroying pc's in this price range.

No, that is not what this says.

The summary is that Apple has a larger and larger share of a continuously shrinking pie ( > $1,000 storefront retail sales). Their competitors are selling in markets that are different in price and/or delivery methods.

First have to recognize that this is just retail sales. Even Apple doesn't sell most of its computers at retail storefronts.

Go back to the conference call story a couple of days ago.
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/21/apple-reports-1-23-billion-profit-for-q3-2009-best-non-holiday-quarter-ever/

namely a quote from the conference call:

- Retail Stores: 492,000 Macs sold this quarter.


Apple sold 2.6 Million Macs in the quarter. So that is only 19% of macs sold in their retail stores. Significant but hardly dominate. Let's be very generous and give that a 2.5x factor that for all retail storefront sales (apple, best buy , etc. ) and you have 45%. So most Mac are being sold on the web/wholesale/VAR, not at retail stores. [ That's generous too because that means there are more storefront sales of Apple stuff at non Apple stores. Wouldn't be surprising if Apple sold more than others in many locations. However, in foreign markets where fewer Apple stores probably more true. ]


That trend of over $1,000 not sold storefront is just even larger in the Windows PC world. Any top Fortune 1000 firm isn't buying machines at Best Buy , Frys, etc. At most places it is an internal website were folks order computers directly from Dell/HP whoever their corporate buying vendors are. All of those sales are going to be unaccounted for in the survey that NPD did. Likewise any internal employee discount machine ordering .... again through a website. A higher adoption rate of what is already present in the consumer market too. (ordering more direct.)

Similarly some hardcore gamer looking for the latest, super tricked out gaming box .... going to Fry's or Best Buy or going to Newegg or some ultimate gamer site? [ maybe possibly going down to the local custom build shop which is also probably off NPD's radar scope too. ]




I'd estimate that Dell, HP, etc. sell less that 2% of their over $2,500 machines at retail storefront locations even though they sell 100,000s of those. Who goes to Best Buy to buy a $3,000 server box???? That is increasing the same number of people who go there to buy a $100,000 server box.

The study is useful in helping make a case that Apple's storefront retail policy is still has a sound foundation; for now. Doesn't really answer the case that Apple can permanently resist the downward price pressure. In fact they aren't ( recent move in portables down .... comely puzzled what that is spun as a "successful part" of this over $1,000 pricing strategy. Each move down creates a larger logjam at the $1,000 "barrier". ).

The Win/PC vendors have left the > $1,000 space for consumer boxes. Just like they left the > $2,000 average personal computer space over a decade ago.

[uberamd]

I didn't say this at all???? I said place the parts in a apple laptop (by the way the case is the only part that apple uses superior material on) and a sony laptop.

And what do you get? A plastic system with worse battery life, non US based tech support, inconvenient repair procedures, and Windows. You are on a Mac forum, people aren't going to let up on you...

[DELLsFan]

If you're not using cost as a differentation metric, then what/how are you choosing to define what the term "high end" means?

Cost is a differentiation metric - apparently for all the tech guru reporters, bloggers, and yes - Apple itself. Is anyone denying the internals of an iMac and laptops are about the same? They pretty much are.

It's the OS (primarily), packaging, premium pricing, and marketing spin that has awarded Apple its place in the high-end market, NOT the components under the hood of its products.

[AidenShaw]

Classically, "high end" products cost more. Macs cost more.
Mayhaps connect ye thee dots?

Since Windows 7 upgrade is priced higher than OSX 10.6, then clearly Windows 7 is the better OS.

;)

[Shiner]

I am willing to pay a lot for OS X and an aluminum based, thin, sturdy computer with US based tech support and local repair centers.

This is a honest response that makes sense.

[Shiner]

Cost is a differentiation metric - apparently for all the tech guru reporters, bloggers, and yes - Apple itself. Is anyone denying the internals of an iMac and laptops are about the same? They pretty much are.

It's the OS (primarily), packaging, premium pricing, and marketing spin that has awarded Apple its place in the high-end market, NOT the components under the hood of its products.

+1

I wasted all of my posts and time and you come in a make the point I have failed to make. Thank you.

[xIGmanIx]

It's not only good, it's the HIGHEST market share in the history of personal computers for that segment. Apple is, as usual, firing on ALL cylinders and teaching money-bleeding companies such as MS and Dell how to manage a global IT corporation. Why buy a stupid PC when you can have the BEST computer out there? There is ABSOLUTELY no appeal or justification to buy Windows today.

The naive ones that don't believe me when I say MS is DEAD will eat some high-grade crow sooner than later...MS is a train wreck while Apple leads the pack in ALL areas where it conducts its business.

Dell, it's time to close up shop and give the little money you have left back to shareholders...or perhaps to MS, so that it can survive a little bit longer.

MS IS DEAD.

I was hoping to read such a post :eek:, at the end of the day they are still less than 10% market share. To put that into perspective, even though BD isn't wildly adopted in all machines, i would say the total PC users with BD is greater than all Apple hardware. As other folks have said, this just speaks to the fact that apple refuses to cater to the market place. Of course their margins are high, they are overpriced.

[AidenShaw]

It's the OS, packaging, premium pricing, and marketing spin that has awarded Apple its place in the high-end market...

I think you have the order reversed - it's marketing spin, premium pricing, packaging, and the OS.

(Or maybe there's some website that I don't know about where people post their "unboxing videos" for their Inspirons, VAIOs and Pres.)


...[Apple] are still less than 10% market share. To put that into perspective, even though BR isn't wildly adopted in all machines, i would say the total PC users with BR is greater than all Apple hardware. As other folks have said, this just speaks to the fact that apple refuses to cater to the market place. Of course their margins are high, they are overpriced.

I thought that you were talking about BRLawyer, then realized that you mean BD (Blu-ray Disc).

Blu-ray Disc (also known as Blu-ray or BD) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/14/Blu-ray_Disc.svg/201px-Blu-ray_Disc.svg.png

[xIGmanIx]

I'm going to argue this one because I used to build my own PCs as well, and they were good upper-middle-class machines running upper-middle processors and video cards as well as the best RAM for the money, not the most expensive, but just below the price break-point. I usually spend about $1000 to build the machines and then bought a new video card about every nine months to keep it as current as I could without getting ridiculous.

Problem was, even on decent hardware, the machines needed weekly scans and daily updates to avoid malware and more than once I would need to replace a power supply as well, despite going as high as a 450W power supply on a 1.7Mhz processor machine that should have been fine at 250W. It's not like I overclocked or anything.

I've now been using a 2.8Ghz iMac for a hair shy of 2 years. I've not needed to upgrade the video card or replace the power supply. I've not needed to do weekly security scans and my AV (yes, I use one just in case) updates fingerprints once a week, if that often. In other words, I haven't had to spend another penny on my iMac since I bought it. This, to me, demonstrates a far higher ROI than even a scratch-built PC costing $1000.

Apple has earned my business by always providing me with a reliable piece of hardware and an easy-to-use operating system that allows me to run my business and my leisure on one machine.

what you mentioned was software related base on your usage - Malware and AV? What are you doing that puts you at that much risk? and power supply? How is that Microsoft's fault? Last time i checked, they are a software company and don't make power supply's. Its not like Apple has an exclusive power supply company that only they can use.

[DELLsFan]

I think you have the order reversed - it's marketing spin, premium pricing, packaging, and the OS.

(Or maybe there's some website that I don't know about where people post their "unboxing videos" for their Inspirons, VAIOs and Pres.)

Well ... actually ... there IS (http://www.mydellmini.com/forum/mac-os-x/9162-all-black-little-mac-vostro-has-arrived-pictures.html)! :D

EDIT: Ok, Ok... not a video ... but still geeky, nonetheless. :)

[BaldiMac]

Cost is a differentiation metric - apparently for all the tech guru reporters, bloggers, and yes - Apple itself. Is anyone denying the internals of an iMac and laptops are about the same? They pretty much are.

It's the OS (primarily), packaging, premium pricing, and marketing spin that has awarded Apple its place in the high-end market, NOT the components under the hood of its products.

I would add in quality control, industrial design, customer support, and integration across product.

[BongoBanger]

You make it sound like the choice is basically between two identical computers, one of which has an Apple-logo on it. Anyone who has actually done hands-on comparison between a Mac and a PC will immediately notice the differences between the two. And those difference go deeper than what logo happens to adorn the computer.

You do realise that 'a PC' is actually a representation of a massive range of machines with near infinite customisation and that for the same reasons you say we can't compare Macs to PCs we can't consider PCs as a homogeneous product either?

Now if we're talking specifics then, yes, we can. Generally though? Nope.

[BaldiMac]

I was hoping to read such a post :eek:, at the end of the day they are still less than 10% market share. To put that into perspective, even though BR isn't wildly adopted in all machines, i would say the total PC users with BR is greater than all Apple hardware.

You'd be wrong. There are only about 11 million blu-ray players in the US. More than half are PS3s.

http://gizmodo.com/5317003/blu+ray-sales-up-91-awesome-percent

[Vulpinemac]

Funny how I have owned and currently own more computers, macs as well, then you have ever owned.

And just how many of what do you and have you owned? And when? Personally, that is.


I just prefer to think for myself and not follow the coolest trend.

Interesting that you should say that, since you seem to be following the "I'm a PC" trend.


Enjoy your iMac it is very pretty and well a great consumer product. I do require more from my computers then hello kitty and email.

You mean things like Photography? Writing? Blogging? Newsletters? WORK? My iMac does all of that, and hasn't given me a moment's trouble.


I have never understood how so many people on this forum have a friend who blew up their hard drive. I guess what you are saying is Apple makes computers for people who have no idea how to manage a computer. I agree.

You purposely misread that one, since he said that the technician blew up the hard drive. The iMac with OS X is one of the most robust desktops out there for reliability. And it even runs Windows better than an 'equivalent' PC--as has been reported by many different reviewers, including, of all publications, Popular Mechanics.

[MorphingDragon]

Walk into Best Buy. Alienware (now a part of Dell) is perhaps the only brand you won't see there. IBM (Lenovo), Dell, and especially Toshiba are sold frequently in physical stores. And lets not forget the other king of $1,000 computers, Sony (who actually makes a decent product), which is sold heavily in stores. While on the other hand, Apple also has very strong online sales.

91% really is impressive. I never want to see Apple slashing the quality of their products in an effort to complete with these terrible low-price computers. I can't even imagine the field-day the media would have with the 'Apple' word if their products were released with as many problems as most of these other brands (though admittedly not as common in the $1000+ computers). HP tossed out a delightful surprise nearly every two months (such as a computer released with faulty video drivers, or another computer with a button that broke for many within weeks). Unsurprisingly this was a little while after they announced to their shareholders that they'd be cutting money spent on quality/premium parts, and focusing on aesthetics and marketing (at lower price points). It was a 'success'.

Where have you been, Apple have slashed the quality ever since the Intel switch!!!

[uberamd]

Where have you been, Apple have slashed the quality ever since the Intel switch!!!

My Macbook, and Macbook Pro disagree with you.

[xIGmanIx]

You'd be wrong. There are only about 11 million blu-ray players in the US. More than half are PS3s.

http://gizmodo.com/5317003/blu+ray-sales-up-91-awesome-percent

ahhh....Gizmodo, there is scientific data. My point being all this posturing about how Apple is far superior and they are still around the 10% market share and i would be interested to see the metrics of PC's w/BD vs total Mac sales. My gut says that it would an eye opener for most

[xIGmanIx]

I thought that you were talking about BRLawyer, then realized that you mean BD (Blu-ray Disc).

Blu-ray Disc (also known as Blu-ray or BD) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/14/Blu-ray_Disc.svg/201px-Blu-ray_Disc.svg.png

I stand corrected

[uberamd]

ahhh....Gizmodo, there is scientific data. My point being all this posturing about how Apple is far superior and they are still around the 10% market share and i would be interested to see the metrics of PC's w/BR vs total Mac sales. My gut says that it would an eye opener for most

I think BMW's are superior but not everyone can afford one.

[iBug2]

First off here we go again with I saw something 2 years ago that proves my point. Lets keep this discussion reasonable. Apple has a huge profit margin on every computer they make. This is a fact. It is smart business by apple they are a great company. In fact they have the largest profit margin per computer in the computer industry. They are a company that knows how to make money. How do they make that huge profit margin?

2 years ago? It was 3 months ago. If Apple has a huge profit margin on every product they make (which they do), they are not alone in that. Like I said, Alienware may have even bigger profit margin since they don't spend as much money on industrial design as Apple does, yet they sell the same product for approximately the same price.

[BRLawyer]

I am glad it served you well. Like I stated the average consumer has no problem with inferior parts in a fancy enclosure. I just hate when uninformed people come in and say apple sells high-end computers. They don't!! They sell one high end computer, the macpro, the rest are cheap computers sold at a high price.

If that's your opinion about the iMac, then I must emphasize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the Apple computing experience and reliability, a platform that I've used since 1989.

Even if you wanted so hard you would not be able to show a single personal computer brand that is better than Apple in terms of design, ease of use, reliability, thinness (for those who need it), build quality, integration between hardware and software, customer service and overall return rates. Simple, because there is NONE.

Alone, I have helped at least 5 work colleagues switch to Macs after their HORRID experiences with the platform you seem to admire so benightedly; and ALL of them tell me: why didn't I switch earlier?

So again, go drink your decaf with Mr. Gates and enjoy the Windows experience...this is a Mac enthusiasts' site after all.

[DELLsFan]

I would add in quality control, industrial design, customer support, and integration across product.

Of those three, I value the customer support the most. Though I must say it is quite an experience trying to schedule any One-to-One time on MY schedule. The Apple retail store I go to only schedules like a week or less out ... How can I possibly plan to use the service I've paid for with this small window?

I give kudos to the engineers and propeller heads on the innovative designs of Apple's products (Unibody Aluminum ranking at my personal favorite design), but come on now ... Apple neither invented nor personifies the embodiment of quality control or industrial design, did/do they?

I also give honorable mention to Apple's integration across product category. Clearly, I have the Mac Mini to thank for my wonderful little Netbook running OSX. :p

[MorphingDragon]

Funny how I have owned and currently own more computers, macs as well, then you have ever owned. I just prefer to think for myself and not follow the coolest trend. Enjoy your iMac it is very pretty and well a great consumer product. I do require more from my computers then hello kitty and email. I have never understood how so many people on this forum have a friend who blew up their hard drive. I guess what you are saying is Apple makes computers for people who have no idea how to manage a computer. I agree.

:rolleyes:

I run my business from my mac. My sister earns thousands from her mac. What do you do... play games?

[xIGmanIx]

I think BMW's are superior but not everyone can afford one.

again, market share has nothing to do with what you feel is superior, it strictly that, market share. What you,i, or anyone else "feels" is irrelevant. Facts are that PC's dominate Mac's 9:1 give or take.

[Vulpinemac]

See this post is the only reason that I have even tried to stir up a fight. Fine hate me for what I say but please think of the children!! This kid thinks apple uses some fancy magic computer parts in their systems that are better than all other computers. Other than the case THEY ARE THE SAME PARTS!!! Most of the time they are inferior to the $800 computer.

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ* Wrong answer!

Apple does something the other brands don't do, except for the high-end builders like Alienware; they actually specify the parameters of the parts they order and if those parts don't meet the specification, the entire shipment is returned to the supplier. How do I know? I used to work for one of those suppliers and I've seen a shipment returned because a random sampling of components fell outside of Apple's specification; forcing a 100% QA retesting before Apple would accept another shipment.

Maybe you should check out iSuppli. Their teardowns of computer products have reported more than once that "...with Apple you get more bang for your buck."

[BaldiMac]

ahhh....Gizmodo, there is scientific data. My point being all this posturing about how Apple is far superior and they are still around the 10% market share and i would be interested to see the metrics of PC's w/BR vs total Mac sales. My gut says that it would an eye opener for most

Your gut is less scientific than Gizmodo. I was just trying to find a ballpark number. There are less than 6 million BD player outside of PS3 in the US. Split between standalone players and PC drives. There are over 30 million Mac users.

You said "the total PC users with BR is greater than all Apple hardware." You were wrong.

[OllyW]

again, market share has nothing to do with what you feel is superior, it strictly that, market share. What you,i, or anyone else "feels" is irrelevant. Facts are that PC's dominate Mac's 9:1 give or take.

More like 19:1

Just remember America isn't the world!

[xIGmanIx]

If that's your opinion about the iMac, then I must emphasize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the Apple computing experience and reliability, a platform that I've used since 1989.

Even if you wanted so hard you would not be able to show a single personal computer brand that is better than Apple in terms of design, ease of use, reliability, thinness (for those who need it), build quality, integration between hardware and software, customer service and overall return rates. Simple, because there is NONE.

Alone, I have helped at least 5 work colleagues switch to Macs after their HORRID experiences with the platform you seem to admire so benightedly; and ALL of them tell me: why didn't I switch earlier?

So again, go drink your decaf with Mr. Gates and enjoy the Windows experience...this is a Mac enthusiasts' site after all.

and after all those folks switching, Microsoft still is dominating market share at around 90%. Go Microsoft APPLE IS DEAD :p

More like 19:1

Just remember America isn't the world!

even worse

[tempusfugit]

Yeah, great market share.

Now if they'd only bring out a mid-range tower... say for about $1500.

Not everyone needs an all-in-one with a glossy screen.


I tend to disagree. I think its pure genius the way they have desktops set up. everyone needs a monitor anyway, and personally I think the imacs are a great deal in terms of mid range. The mini's are pretty sweet little machines, and the pros are just.... well they're the mac pros. enough said.

[xIGmanIx]

Your gut is less scientific than Gizmodo. I was just trying to find a ballpark number. There are less than 6 million BD player outside of PS3 in the US. Split between standalone players and PC drives. There are over 30 million Mac users.

You said "the total PC users with BR is greater than all Apple hardware." You were wrong.

got it, instead of looking at the entire post, you decided to prove one statement to discount the entire spirit of the post.

[LagunaSol]

Facts are that PC's dominate Mac's 9:1 give or take.

And I appreciate the Windows masses for absorbing all the Internet malware for me.

[Bartman01]

This report is meaningless except for Apple PR. Apple has a unique sales channel, and most non-Apple consumers that buy from brick and mortar are buying SUB $1000 machines.

The bulk of >$1000 non-mac purchases are either done by power users or businesses and they are buying online or through business sales channels.

[uberamd]

And I appreciate the Windows masses for absorbing all the Internet malware for me.

And I hate the Windows masses because my day at work consists of removing all that crap. I guess I am glad Windows exists because it gave me a job: removing all the viruses, malware, and fixing all the random problems Windows has.

[LOLaMac]

Take the same parts and throw them into a bucket. How much would you be willing to pay for that? The quality of the assembly matters.

Well I wouldn't pay anything for it because it's just a bunch of parts in a bucket, not much good for anything. But by the same token, take the same parts and throw them into a bucket made of aluminum. How much would you be willing to pay for that?

[BaldiMac]

I give kudos to the engineers and propeller heads on the innovative designs of Apple's products (Unibody Aluminum ranking at my personal favorite design), but come on now ... Apple neither invented nor personifies the embodiment of quality control or industrial design, did/do they?

Apple's quality control routinely leads the industry. Customer satisfaction, quality ratings such as Consumer Reports, and repair rates are regularly cited as best in the industry.

They annually win awards for industrial design which also reflects on the quality of their products. Industrial design isn't simply about how something looks, but also how it is put together and how you interact with it.

[iBug2]

Apple's quality control routinely leads the industry. Customer satisfaction, quality ratings such as Consumer Reports, and repair rates are regularly cited as best in the industry.

They annually win awards for industrial design which also reflects on the quality of their products. Industrial design isn't simply about how something looks, but also how it is put together and how you interact with it.

This. And to add to that, Dell's customer support is almost nonexistant, many resellers I know don't sell Dell just for that reason. Once it's broken, no way to get it fixed.

[Eidorian]

If that's your opinion about the iMac, then I must emphasize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the Apple computing experience and reliability, a platform that I've used since 1989.

Even if you wanted so hard you would not be able to show a single personal computer brand that is better than Apple in terms of design, ease of use, reliability, thinness (for those who need it), build quality, integration between hardware and software, customer service and overall return rates. Simple, because there is NONE.

Alone, I have helped at least 5 work colleagues switch to Macs after their HORRID experiences with the platform you seem to admire so benightedly; and ALL of them tell me: why didn't I switch earlier?

So again, go drink your decaf with Mr. Gates and enjoy the Windows experience...this is a Mac enthusiasts' site after all.Can I count myself as an OEM? :D

[xIGmanIx]

And I hate the Windows masses because my day at work consists of removing all that crap. I guess I am glad Windows exists because it gave me a job: removing all the viruses, malware, and fixing all the random problems Windows has.

again, its the users that usually inflict the most damage. this isn't about the security of the OS's which has already been proven, its apple rolling out a statistic that proves there aren't in touch with the current climate and spending habits in the personal computer space.

[DELLsFan]

I tend to disagree. I think its pure genius the way they have desktops set up. everyone needs a monitor anyway, and personally I think the imacs are a great deal in terms of mid range. The mini's are pretty sweet little machines, and the pros are just.... well they're the mac pros. enough said.

Nah ... you can get quite a bit of bang for 1500 bucks in the PC market. However, the iMac is only a great deal because of sleek integration and overall ease in using one (ie. the Apple experience). Add in support and unless you really are an expert, you've generally got a bargain on the whole.

It makes my teeth ache though - building a top-of-the-line 24" iMac at the Apple website though. $2500 (includes Apple Care) seems like such a lot in today's economy for sure. Then again, who am I to point fingers? I am quite the nerd - having forked over almost $4k for that uber Intel 80486 Gateway 2000 PC tower back in the 90s! :eek:

[iBug2]

This report is meaningless except for Apple PR. Apple has a unique sales channel, and most non-Apple consumers that buy from brick and mortar are buying SUB $1000 machines.

The bulk of >$1000 non-mac purchases are either done by power users or businesses and they are buying online or through business sales channels.

Yeah but most Apple users buy their macs online as well, because of configurations which you can't find in retail stores.

[deconstruct60]

I think you have the order reversed - it's marketing spin, premium pricing, packaging, and the OS.


With Vista's high profile problems, OS and marketing spin have been muddled somewhat. Apple has been using Window's problems to leverage a larger share for the last couple of years. If Microsoft gets their stuff together with Windows 7 they may be able to detangle those two a bit more.

It is possible to set up Vista SP2 / Windows 7 so that avoid lots of problems common to legacy Windows. However, some of it is not having things come out of the box configured that way.

Yeah, there are some fanatics who unbox Apple stuff and just stare at it. The vast majority of Apple ads aren't primarily appeals to those folks.

The bigger spin factor is these skewed stats. We are big and successful so buy from us, because nobody every got fired for buying from big and successful. For example billions and billions of downloads... when that is also upgrades, free "throw away" apps, etc.

However, should discount the anti-consumer effect that tying has. If users were actually provided with choice (could take Mac OS where they wanted) some of this "valued added pricing" would evaporate.

The lack of hardware choices also squeezing folks into buying machines would rather not but but have limited choices.

[xIGmanIx]

Apple's quality control routinely leads the industry. Customer satisfaction, quality ratings such as Consumer Reports, and repair rates are regularly cited as best in the industry.

They annually win awards for industrial design which also reflects on the quality of their products. Industrial design isn't simply about how something looks, but also how it is put together and how you interact with it.

other than mass recalls to their power supplies for their iPhone and IPT spontaneously catching on fire.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/22/apple-legal-reportedly-hinders-reporters-investigation-of-ipods-catching-fire/

[uberamd]

Yeah but most Apple users buy their macs online as well, because of configurations which you can't find in retail stores.

Thank you. Some posters are acting like you can ONLY buy Mac's in stores.

[LagunaSol]

You make it sound like the choice is basically between two identical computers, one of which has an Apple-logo on it.

This is a classic chestnut from the anti-Apple horde. "You're paying $500 for a logo!!!"

Ignorance at its finest.

Not surprisingly, I see this exact argument (raise the $500 part though) in other product forums, say, Chevy fans raging about BMWs (or even Hondas).

[DELLsFan]

This. And to add to that, Dell's customer support is almost nonexistant, many resellers I know don't sell Dell just for that reason. Once it's broken, no way to get it fixed.

HUMBUG! This depends on your warranty, of course. M1710 XPS laptop from friend needed a new mobo and keyboard recently and the experience was very pleasant overall.

The outsourcing of support has hurt DELL's reputation, yes - but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet, ok? :D

[manu chao]

This report is meaningless except for Apple PR. Apple has a unique sales channel, and most non-Apple consumers that buy from brick and mortar are buying SUB $1000 machines.

If you bring bulk purchases (corporate, institutional) into the picture certainly (and maybe even without them).
But for those persons willing to spend more than $1000 on a computer and wanting to have a nice shopping experience (in a nice store, with competent sales personal etc.), Apple offers their stores whereas other manufacturers cannot offer it. I can buy my clothes in 'cheap' store or in a upmarket designer boutique. They might in some respect offer similar products but the shopping experience in the designer boutique is nicer. Apple is capturing that market better.

[deconstruct60]

Yeah but most Apple users buy their macs online as well, because of configurations which you can't find in retail stores.

So in rephrased, this study fails to count neither the Macs nor PCs units sold in the over $1,000 price range.

Your point only adds the what that previous poster is pointing out how this study does not map to making grand statements about the broader personal computer marketplace.

[LagunaSol]

I think you have the order reversed - it's marketing spin, premium pricing, packaging, and the OS.

Yeah, and Microsoft got where it is strictly by the quality of its product. :rolleyes:

(Or maybe there's some website that I don't know about where people post their "unboxing videos" for their Inspirons, VAIOs and Pres.)

I've seen plenty of unboxing videos for non-Apple products. Perhaps you need to get away from MacRumors sometimes? ;)

That said, no one is going to do an unboxing video for a $600 HP laptop. Because, well, it's an HP laptop and no one cares.

[BaldiMac]

got it, instead of looking at the entire post, you decided to prove one statement to discount the entire spirit of the post.

What was the spirit of the post? Sorry, I was looking at the words of the post.

It seemed to be that you were saying that Macs are likely less successful than blu-ray players even though blu-ray players are looked at as being unsuccessful.

What part of what you said in spirit is correct?

[uberamd]

HUMBUG! This depends on your warranty, of course. M1710 XPS laptop from friend needed a new mobo and keyboard recently and the experience was very pleasant overall.

The outsourcing of support has hurt DELL's reputation, yes - but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet, ok? :D

I called Dell support to return a product recently, and they tried to make a deal with me over the phone to keep it! I felt like I was shopping in Mexico again. They offered to credit me back some money if I didn't return the item. What kind of customer service is that? Are they that desperate?

Now I know how to get a free discount from Dell if I ever buy from them again. Call, say I don't want it, and boom: they send me some money back to get me to keep the item. Sweet.

[BaldiMac]

other than mass recalls to their power supplies for their iPhone and IPT spontaneously catching on fire.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/22/apple-legal-reportedly-hinders-reporters-investigation-of-ipods-catching-fire/

Reports seem to suggest that they are the best of the major computer manufacturers. Not that they are perfect.

[dontmatter]

Wow, that's something. I wonder where apple's growth potential is? People expect the kind of growth out of it that it has been getting, but where?

Right, there was the ipod explosion, but then that market got saturated, and apple had the market share, so profits, but no growth. That market threatened to be undermined by phones, so the iphone - growth explosion. But like with computers, apple is only competing in the high end - the smart phones - a segment that is growing, for sure, but we can see where that will end (and we don't know that apple can dominate as well as it did the MP3 business - the pre, android, Crackberry, are all real competition).

Anyway, the talk has been how apple has grown its PC market share and how much of that is left out there, but now it looks like the niche apple wants to be in is actually almost all apple anyway, and shrinking as computers get cheaper. Can apple make cheaper computers without sacrificing the high end? Can it do them well? Can it find another miracle product that allows it to dominate a segment? I just don't see tablet/netbook working out as well for apple as ipod/iphone/high end PCs

[manu chao]

Most consumers, like you, have no idea what a dedicated graphics card is.
Interestingly, the current integrated graphic card in the 13 and 15" MBPs is more powerful than the graphic card that is in my late 2006 MBP 15 2.33 GHz (which was the top-end 15" MBP back then).

[DELLsFan]

I called Dell support to return a product recently, and they tried to make a deal with me over the phone to keep it! I felt like I was shopping in Mexico again. They offered to credit me back some money if I didn't return the item. What kind of customer service is that? Are they that desperate?

Now I know how to get a free discount from Dell if I ever buy from them again. Call, say I don't want it, and boom: they send me some money back to get me to keep the item. Sweet.

LOL! Sad days! I knew it was starting to get shaky with them the moment I noticed the return policies had changed. Once upon a time you could return the computer no questions asked within 30 days. You can still do this ... but they've added a scaleable re-stock pricing fee. :o

[alent1234]

Interestingly, the current integrated graphic card in the 13 and 15" MBPs is more powerful than the graphic card that is in my late 2006 MBP 15 2.33 GHz (which was the top-end 15" MBP back then).

that's completely normal

graphics cards double in performance every year or two

[alent1234]

LOL! Sad days! I knew it was starting to get shaky with them the moment I noticed the return policies had changed. Once upon a time you could return the computer no questions asked within 30 days. You can still do this ... but they've added a scaleable re-stock pricing fee. :o

restocking has been around for a while. college students used to "buy" computers for term papers and some other work and then return them

[uberamd]

LOL! Sad days! I knew it was starting to get shaky with them the moment I noticed the return policies had changed. Once upon a time you could return the computer no questions asked within 30 days. You can still do this ... but they've added a scaleable re-stock pricing fee. :o

Yeah, their business support is shaky also. At work we are ordering 4 5U servers with 32GB RAM, etc. Very beefed up servers. Instead of paying Dell $400 for a 1TB HD, we figure we will just order the server with 1 stock 160GB HD, and order our own drives from a 3rd party for 75% less $. We get the server, and realize it only has 1 drive caddy, the rest are filler plates. Crap. We call Dell asking to order a drive caddy. We had to argue for 45 minutes to get 1 of them for $50. They said they cannot sell them to us because you can only buy them with a new server. Well we DID get a new server, but adding empty drive caddies wasn't an option! Come on Dell.

And look at the size of the Dell outlet, its packed full of returns and what not.

[Carniphage]

There are three companies that have a larger market share (by unit) in the US.

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

If we guess that about half of Apple's profitability comes from computers.
That still makes Apple more profitable than Acer.
More profitable than Dell
and certainly more profitable than HP's consumer division.

I think if we add the profits of all three together. Apple is more profitable than all of them combined.

Does anyone really think that Apple could make more money if it went downmarket?

C.

[alent1234]

Wow, that's something. I wonder where apple's growth potential is? People expect the kind of growth out of it that it has been getting, but where?

Right, there was the ipod explosion, but then that market got saturated, and apple had the market share, so profits, but no growth. That market threatened to be undermined by phones, so the iphone - growth explosion. But like with computers, apple is only competing in the high end - the smart phones - a segment that is growing, for sure, but we can see where that will end (and we don't know that apple can dominate as well as it did the MP3 business - the pre, android, Crackberry, are all real competition).

Anyway, the talk has been how apple has grown its PC market share and how much of that is left out there, but now it looks like the niche apple wants to be in is actually almost all apple anyway, and shrinking as computers get cheaper. Can apple make cheaper computers without sacrificing the high end? Can it do them well? Can it find another miracle product that allows it to dominate a segment? I just don't see tablet/netbook working out as well for apple as ipod/iphone/high end PCs

technically the mini is apple's answer to compete on the low end but everything from the mini to the 24" imac uses essentially the same parts.

[DELLsFan]

restocking has been around for a while. college students used to "buy" computers for term papers and some other work and then return them

Greeeaaaat! This plus all that Wiki-pedia suckling gives me a warm fuzzy about the youth entering the real world. :(

[Shiner]

Interestingly, the current integrated graphic card in the 13 and 15" MBPs is more powerful than the graphic card that is in my late 2006 MBP 15 2.33 GHz (which was the top-end 15" MBP back then).

This post made me laugh. Thank you. Good work showing my point of the average apple consumer. :D

[Vulpinemac]

I like this story. You picked a computer that meets your needs. I am not against that at all. I was simply saying people on this forum talk like macs are high-end (the whole point of the story). They are not. The people that buy them do not know what high end is. That is my point.

Is it? I retired those PCs two years ago, when I could have as easily (and much more cheaply) upgraded their internals again. I built them back in '01 when a 1.7Ghz processor was pretty much the latest thing. Macs ARE high-end, compared to the average PC.

You still don't see that many 3.0Ghz or faster processors today; builders are using multi-core technologies to get higher 'equivalent' speeds. Core2Duo, and now tri-core, quad-core and even 8-core and 16-core machines. They still all run at or below 3.0Ghz and bus speed has become the limiter. I'll admit I'm using DDR2 at 667Mhz, but the newest Mac Mini, for instance, uses DDR3 at 1066Mhz. As a result, even the new Mini almost outclasses what I'm using right now. So I'd say Macs are high-end equipment by comparison to the sub-$1000 PCs.

[deconstruct60]

..., Apple offers their stores whereas other manufacturers cannot offer it. I can buy my clothes in 'cheap' store or in a upmarket designer boutique. They might in some respect offer similar products but the shopping experience in the designer boutique is nicer. Apple is capturing that market better.

It isn't that other manufacturer cannot. They choose not to because there are more cost effective ways for them to sales at the established alternatives.

Additionally, Apple does use inexpensive (or relatively inexpensive ) items in their stores to draw customers in. Go to an Apple store and see if there are just as many (if not more ) folks playing with iPods as there are playing with > $1,000 equipment. Remove those inexpensive , volume items from those stores and how successful would they be?


People throw out "cheap" when it is really inexpensive to drive some artificial quality barriers. Sure there is some bad quality stuff out there under $1,000 , but not all of it. There isn't something "magical" that happens to quality just because the price is over $1,000.

Sure there going to be some folks who will buy a computer primarily because the store looks nice. Those are relatively small in number though.

[alent1234]

There are three companies that have a larger market share (by unit) in the US.

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

If we guess that about half of Apple's profitability comes from computers.
That still makes Apple more profitable than Acer.
More profitable than Dell
and certainly more profitable than HP's consumer division.

I think if we add the profits of all three together. Apple is more profitable than all of them combined.

Does anyone really think that Apple could make more money if it went downmarket?

C.

not a question of making more money, but protecting the low end from competion. MS is not the only example where you start on the low end and work your way up to high end computing.

Except for Mac Pro's all of Apple's computers are essentially the same laptop with the only difference being the screen, graphics and CPU. right now laptop parts command a higher price which is why Apple computers cost more. in time the prices will fall and others will start making competing products that are a lot cheaper. For now the closest competitor is one Dell model that costs about the same.

to protect the low end Apple will probably have to sell cheaper computers. Especially with Larabee on the way from Intel. Supposedly the new instructions will let you run GPU quality graphics from the CPU

[DELLsFan]

Yeah, their business support is shaky also. At work we are ordering 4 5U servers with 32GB RAM, etc. Very beefed up servers. Instead of paying Dell $400 for a 1TB HD, we figure we will just order the server with 1 stock 160GB HD, and order our own drives from a 3rd party for 75% less $. We get the server, and realize it only has 1 drive caddy, the rest are filler plates. Crap. We call Dell asking to order a drive caddy. We had to argue for 45 minutes to get 1 of them for $50. They said they cannot sell them to us because you can only buy them with a new server. Well we DID get a new server, but adding empty drive caddies wasn't an option! Come on Dell.

And look at the size of the Dell outlet, its packed full of returns and what not.

Yeah, I've noticed. :(

I've been pretty lucky on the business side with them. I've found if I call and place an order with a salesman and balk at the price he quotes, I can usually talk him down a few hundred (or more). Sometimes I've thought I've known what I wanted and the call saved me hundreds because I could do what I wanted with another model. So ... <<shrug>>

Once I socially engineered a schmagoolie to sell me what I wanted at my (lower) price by feigning outrage and was called the next day with the deal I wanted. :D There are ways to make the system work - at least on the business side. Candor with the salesman usually gets results, IMO.

[Shiner]

Is it? I retired those PCs two years ago, when I could have as easily (and much more cheaply) upgraded their internals again. I built them back in '01 when a 1.7Ghz processor was pretty much the latest thing. Macs ARE high-end, compared to the average PC.

You still don't see that many 3.0Ghz or faster processors today; builders are using multi-core technologies to get higher 'equivalent' speeds. Core2Duo, and now tri-core, quad-core and even 8-core and 16-core machines. They still all run at or below 3.0Ghz and bus speed has become the limiter. I'll admit I'm using DDR2 at 667Mhz, but the newest Mac Mini, for instance, uses DDR3 at 1066Mhz. As a result, even the new Mini almost outclasses what I'm using right now. So I'd say Macs are high-end equipment by comparison to the sub-$1000 PCs.

I have no answer for this post. Almost the entire thing is wrong.

[Vulpinemac]

I am simply stating a fact that they are not.

No, you are merely stating an opinion that they are not.

[LagunaSol]

I have no answer for this post. Almost the entire thing is wrong.

@ Vulpinemac: Shiner knows all when it comes to PC components and slapping them together.

He's educated too. Beware...

[BaldiMac]

I have no answer for this post. Almost the entire thing is wrong.

What are you talking about? What is incorrect in his post?

[Vulpinemac]

what you mentioned was software related base on your usage - Malware and AV? What are you doing that puts you at that much risk? and power supply? How is that Microsoft's fault? Last time i checked, they are a software company and don't make power supply's. Its not like Apple has an exclusive power supply company that only they can use.

I did not blame Microsoft, here; I blamed the build quality of the generic hardware, even when I tried to purchase 'better than average' hardware. I blamed MS for an OS that is inconvenient and labor-intensive for almost every purpose, though I accept that Vista and 7 are vast improvements over previous versions (but XP was still more stable until V-SP2.)

When you have a machine that's online effectively 100% of the time, you're 'at risk' 100% of the time. The only time I didn't have to worry about malware was when I disabled the modem and used the machine strictly as a stand-alone machine. You really can't do that today.

[Shiner]

What are you talking about? What is incorrect in his post?

Well:

1)Macs are high end compared to the average PC. This is not true. Apple fans think this is true but they are wrong.
2)The 3.0Ghz barrier. Is not true. For mac it might be.
3)Mac uses better parts than PCs less than $1,000.

[coleridge78]

You are right I apologize. They lowered the price of the 15" MBP. Most consumers, like you, have no idea what a dedicated graphics card is. Why would they need it? Most consumers have no idea what that little M after their graphic card means. Most consumers have no idea they are getting 2 year old mobile processors in their "desktop". Just like you they will only watch a movie or surf the internet on their computer. They will come to the forum and say how great their experience is and how amazing the OS is. I was arguing for the educated consumer. Unfortunately there are very few left.

Yeah, there are very few left. And we're too busy reading books and pursuing productive endeavors to care about whether our GPU can run some game at 200fps instead of 100.

Of course, some of those productive endeavors involve things like movie rendering, in which case we'll buy a Mac Pro which can cost more than $1000 less than any similarly-configured Windows machine.

[Shiner]

@ Vulpinemac: Shiner knows all when it comes to PC components and slapping them together.

He's educated too. Beware...

You have shown in many of your posts that simply must attack me because you lack any ability to defend your position.

Beware....He is dumb

[Vyriss]

There are three companies that have a larger market share (by unit) in the US.

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

If we guess that about half of Apple's profitability comes from computers.
That still makes Apple more profitable than Acer.
More profitable than Dell
and certainly more profitable than HP's consumer division.

I think if we add the profits of all three together. Apple is more profitable than all of them combined.

Does anyone really think that Apple could make more money if it went downmarket?

C.
No, not really. If we take your guess that 1/2 of Apple's profitability comes from Macs, that leaves us with ~$2.4 billion in net income. Dell's net income is $2.947 billion. Acer's net income is [a quite pitiful] ~$350 million. HP doesn't differentiate between "Consumer" and "Enterprise", but it's total net income is ~$10.473 billion. If we assume that HP makes only 1/5 of its income from its Consumer division, that leaves it around ~$2 billion.

Essentially, Dell, HP, and Apple's profitability selling computers are rather equivalent. However, the growth potential of Apple's line (already capturing 91% of its intended market) is vastly lower than Dell and HP.

[MacFly123]

Can all the PC marketshare spouting morons just shut every hole in their heads now!!! :p

Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people. :rolleyes:

[Shiner]

Yeah, there are very few left. And we're too busy reading books and pursuing productive endeavors to care about whether our GPU can run some game at 200fps instead of 100.

Of course, some of those productive endeavors involve things like movie rendering, in which case we'll buy a Mac Pro which can cost more than $1000 less than any similarly-configured Windows machine.

Funny how I use a MacPro and somehow find a way to understand the hardware that I use for my endeavors. Get over yourself.

[Shiner]

Can all the PC marketshare spouting morons just shut every hole in their heads now!!! :p

Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people. :rolleyes:

Will do!! Thanks for your intelligent response!!

[Vulpinemac]

More like 19:1

More like 8:1, but who's counting? Windows - 84+%; OS X - 12+%; Others - 3+%. I'm talking Installed base, not sales. Even sales put Apple over the 12% mark last quarter when you exclude the sub-notebooks that are effectively useless for anything beyond web browsing and basic word processing.

[BaldiMac]

Well:

1)Macs are high end compared to the average PC. This is not true. Apple fans think this is true but they are wrong.

Prove it. Start with your definition of "high end."

2)The 3.0Ghz barrier. Is not true. For mac it might be.

Prove it. He claims that you don't see many PCs over 3 Ghz. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

3)Mac uses better parts than PCs less than $1,000.

He never said that.

[mlmathews]

I wonder what percentage of the $1000+ laptop w/ non-removable battery market Apple has ?

[BaldiMac]

More like 8:1, but who's counting? Windows - 84+%; OS X - 12+%; Others - 3+%. I'm talking Installed base, not sales. Even sales put Apple over the 12% mark last quarter when you exclude the sub-notebooks that are effectively useless for anything beyond web browsing and basic word processing.

I think your numbers may be US only.

[Vyriss]

Can all the PC marketshare spouting morons just shut every hole in their heads now!!! :p

Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people. :rolleyes:

Considering the vast majority of Mac internals are used in their PC counterparts, I would consider your "garbage scraps" remark quite stupid.

[deconstruct60]

Wow, that's something. I wonder where apple's growth potential is? People expect the kind of growth out of it that it has been getting, but where?


Apple can get growth buy consuming a larger share of the PC market.
The top 8 players in the PC market take market share away from the folks in the non-top 8 tier. Even if the PC market is flat in growth can still take share.

One factor for Apple doing that is to:
i. get into the top 8 .
ii. dispel the "Apple is going to die" , "Apple is doomed" , etc.
mantra that hung around the company for a long time.
iii. execute getting product to market well.
iv. maintaining a good delivery channel.

The other growth comes from entering new markets. Two ways to do that.

i. becomes more affordable in new regions.
ii. manage to lower the price to enter new market segments in established regions.

So yeah in some part you are right. If Apple refuses to do ii. and finishes expanding into all the available regions in i. they will be stuck with this strategy.

Growth can come from i. in an expanding world economy. Wages rise in some countries where few could afford a their products before. Worldwide recession means little help from that front for a while. (minus some short term exchange rate gains with the dollar tanking faster than a few other currencies. )









But like with computers, apple is only competing in the high end - the smart phones - a segment that is growing, for sure, but we can see where that will end (and we don't know that apple can dominate as well as it did the MP3 business - the pre, android, Crackberry, are all real competition).


Are smart phones the "high end" or "low end"?
As a phone it is high. As a computer it is low.

The MP3 business they held a monopolistic high percentage in part because of tying. DRM made the music iPod only. Now that music is increasingly not DRM bound, means a slide for the iPod. It isn't going to tank overnight, but as folks get smarter about getting music in/out to 3rd devices it they will only improve share if offer compelling value. Before with the music trapped there is little compelling value to offer if can't play the music.

I think Apple is betting the standalone MP3 category disappears faster than someone else can come in and take away share from them.


Can apple make cheaper computers without sacrificing the high end? Can it do them well?


Of course they can. In part, Apple is just dragging its feet. In part, they just cripple the lower end ones in some way. And ironically Microsoft has handed them a quasi-monopolistic position of handing them the buzz of an easily better experience.





Can it find another miracle product that allows it to dominate a segment? I just don't see tablet/netbook working out as well for apple as ipod/iphone/high end PCs

Eventually they will have to come down into the sub $1,000 range. They can only swim upstream from Moore's Law, Store doubling even 18 months too, component costs for a "good enough" computer continuously dropping over time. Once a 8-16 core device is down around $600 what is apple going to do? What app are average people going to have that requires something twice as costly as that?

Apple can eeek out some more money by delaying for perhaps 18-24 months following the industry down. But down it will go eventually.... or their share will start to shrink. GM went from practical monopoly down to bankrupt because they failed to deliver overall real , not the perception of , customer value.

[Shiner]

Prove it. Start with your definition of "high end."




Top of the class computer parts. Apple uses two year old parts. Even if you argue this the parts, other than the case, are the same exact parts.




Prove it. He claims that you don't see many PCs over 3 Ghz. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

He talks of 3.0Ghz as a bus speed limiter. There is no limit yet. Every PC I build is over 3.0Ghz. In fact 3.0Ghz is slow on PC desktops.





He never said that.

I did quote him wrong he said
"Macs are high-end equipment by comparison to the sub-$1000 PCs".

This is not true. He just has no idea what the sub-$1000 PC market looks like. He is too drunk drinking apple kool-aid.

[iBug2]

The only problem with MBP's I can think of right now is the GPU, but 9600gt is fairly decent for the majority of the games out there if you /bootcamp. You will never get the best of the best GPU in any MBP at any time because Apple cares about thickness a lot. Any laptop featuring those state of the art mobile GPU's will have to be a lot more thicker. Apple can however upgrade their 9600gt to something along the lines of 3850m, but that doesn't increase performance by a lot either.

Not to mention people who buy macbooks don't buy them to play games, and a 3D GPU isn't required for anything else. 3D apps require much much stronger GPU's to become truly hardware accelerated, stuff which you cannot possibly put in a laptop.

Apple will only care about GPU upgrades more than they do now if people really demand to play lots of cutting edge games with their MBP's and iMacs.

Other than GPU's Apple uses the highest end parts in all their lineups.

[Shiner]

The only problem with MBP's I can think of right now is the GPU, but 9600gt is fairly decent for the majority of the games out there if you /bootcamp. You will never get the best of the best GPU in any MBP at any time because Apple cares about thickness a lot. Any laptop featuring those state of the art mobile GPU's will have to be a lot more thicker. Apple can however upgrade their 9600gt to something along the lines of 3850m, but that doesn't increase performance by a lot either.

Not to mention people who buy macbooks don't buy them to play games, and a 3D GPU isn't required for anything else. 3D apps require much much stronger GPU's to become truly hardware accelerated, stuff which you cannot possibly put in a laptop.

Apple will only care about GPU upgrades more than they do now if people really demand to play lots of cutting edge games with their MBP's and iMacs.

Other than GPU's Apple uses the highest end parts in all their lineups.

I differ with your beliefs but could you point me to the link that shows apple's special high end parts.

[arogge]

But, you need to look at the total market share of the people who use Microsoft PCs, purchased over the past 10 years! Apple is still a very small part of the PC market share. :rolleyes:

This "market share" stupidity was the argument that was used against the Apple supporters several years ago, and now that the market share is expanding, the critics will probably try to claim that it doesn't count.

[gilkisson]

Well:

1)Macs are high end compared to the average PC. This is not true. Apple fans think this is true but they are wrong.


I think I must take exception to this point above all others. Are you saying, part for part, Macs are basically equivalent to *any* PC?

These PCs you hold as => Macs: Do you have examples of them, or are they only those you build?

[MacFly123]

Considering the vast majority of Mac internals are used in their PC counterparts, I would consider your "garbage scraps" remark quite stupid.

Who said I was referring to hardware? I was referring to fighting and competing in the low end of the market with cutthroat tactics of trying to gain slim margins. I would MUCH rather be in the high end where Apple is!

[coleridge78]

Funny how I use a MacPro and somehow find a way to understand the hardware that I use for my endeavors. Get over yourself.

Who are you talking to? I don't have anything to get over. I'm merely pointing out the fact that, out here in the real world, many of us who understand computers intimately (like, say, someone who has been a professional developer for a long time, and is writing software at a top supercomputing center, and wrote assembler for the 80-column graphics card on the ][e ) know exactly what parts are in that iMac or whatever other machine. The fact that they are also commonly used in laptops has precisely zero bearing on anything, because they get the job done without being as large and noisy as an equivalent Windows tower using "desktop" parts.

You're the one with something to get over--your unwillingness to consider that different people have different needs. That people can perfectly well understand something, but come to a different conclusion than you as to value.

[deconstruct60]

There are three companies that have a larger market share (by unit) in the US.

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

If we guess that about half of Apple's profitability comes from computers.
That still makes Apple more profitable than Acer.
More profitable than Dell
and certainly more profitable than HP's consumer division.

I think if we add the profits of all three together. Apple is more profitable than all of them combined.

Does anyone really think that Apple could make more money if it went downmarket?

C.

A couple of factors you are blowing off.

i. None of those others are software vendors. The margins on OS software are substantially higher than hardware if you have any traction that is reasonable.

ii. One of the highest priced components of a lowest cost personal computers is the OS/software. Microsoft takes a much larger percentage of the pie from a $499 PC than it does from a $1,000 PC. [ For example a large price barrier for Netbooks is to get a "below average" priced version of Windows to install. Similarly on the One Laptop Per Child, OLTPC, machine windows would have been the most expensive component. That's why they dumped it for a chopped down version of Linux. ]

Notice how when go down scale that Apple takes both halves software margin and hardware margin whereas the others take only the hardware margin. Therefore, that in part explains the differences in profits.
Has diddly squat to do with hardware costs or quality.

So half of the profits is off. It is some subset of half of the profits.


The primarily reason why Apple would might make less money is because the lower price hardware was actually a better match to their customer needs. In that case the customers would move the less expensive computers that fit their needs at the market price point. That will eventually happen whether Apple participates or not. Over time folks will drift away once they realize that they aren't actually getting added value.

The other folks will be around longer because they are matching the overall market forces ( as oppose to using artificial segmentation to raise prices.)

The other major profit center you are off on is that Dell and HP make money on services. They sell the machines and then sells services to help administer the machines. Those put together will also bring the profits more into balanced. Apple "sells" integration on the inside of the machine and those two are selling integration into organizations processes that use the machines. Microsoft is sitting down below so they go for the more holistic systems integration value add.

Apple is executing a bit better than HP and Dell. That is in part because they are fewer designs they are focused on. Therefore they have the time to be obsessive compulsive with aspects associated with their delivery. It is also slighltly easier problem to solve (higher prices also means you can be more sloppy and still get a profitable pay off. )

So Apple, at least narrowly focused on the Mac segment, has to balance driving for a niche market. But not going tooooo niche so that they get too small to be a player to get better component pricing/access.

[thor79]

1. I'm sure most high-end PC's are custom (I have 3 here myself)...not bought, or they are bought cheap (ie under $1000) and later upgraded. Can't say the same for Macs (for the most part).
2. I'm sure most Laptops sold are less than $1000.

The numbers look better than they actually are.

edit: and no I didn't read the rest of this thread...just commenting on the numbers.

[BaldiMac]

I did quote him wrong he said
"Macs are high-end equipment by comparison to the sub-$1000 PCs".

This is not true. He just has no idea what the sub-$1000 PC market looks like. He is too drunk drinking apple kool-aid.

Why is it not true? Can you defend your opinion? Why do you refuse to define what you think high end is? Do you think insulting people is the only way to defend your opinion?

[Vyriss]

Who said I was referring to hardware? I was referring to fighting and competing in the low end of the market with cutthroat tactics of trying to gain slim margins. I would MUCH rather be in the high end where Apple is!
"Garbage" would imply that the low-end section is somehow less profitable [ or less desirable] than the high-end. It may be on an individual sale basis, but considering the tremendous exponential growth of sales in the low-end market [compared to the high-end], I'm not so sure what your getting at. Apple has already "cornered" the high-end market, as evident in the heading. Where exactly do you expect future the growth to come from? Those "Garbage Scraps", as you call them, are proving to be the better future investment. Dell makes $2.914 billion in net income with a measly 14% market share in the "garbage scraps" market. Apple's Mac business makes around the same amount with 91% market share. So, YOU may prefer to live in the "high end", but any intelligent person SHOULD be able to discern the better market here [from a business perspective, that is].

Competition is simply part of the game, it shouldn't drive any competent company away from potential profits.

[Shiner]

Why is it not true? Can you defend your opinion? Why do you refuse to define what you think high end is? Do you think insulting people is the only way to defend your opinion?

What is your definition of high end?

I am only defending myself from the apple cult.

[BaldiMac]

What is your definition of high end?

I am only defending myself from the apple cult.

I haven't used the term at all. You keep saying various posters are wrong about Apple being high end compared to sub-$1000 PCs. If you tell someone they are wrong, you should be prepared to defend your statement.

[Vyriss]

I haven't used the term at all. You keep saying various posters are wrong about Apple being high end compared to sub-$1000 PCs. If you tell someone they are wrong, you should be prepared to defend your statement.

I'll answer this. "High-End", or "up-market" is simply a term describing products developed and marketed at high-income consumers. By this definition, Macs are high-end, considering it's average selling price is more than double that of Windows-based PCs. This term, however, speaks nothing of value and and ability over "Low-End" products. Such products in the High-End could be described as either overpriced or superiorly engineered. Products in the Low-end could be considered bargains, or... trash. Surely each moniker could be applied to many products in both market.

Conclusion: The only thing that dictates "High-End" is a price-tag.

[nick9191]

A couple of factors you are blowing off.

i. None of those others are software vendors. The margins on OS software are substantially higher than hardware if you have any traction that is reasonable.
That would be true if Apple was a software company like Microsoft. Apple is a hardware company that makes nearly all it's money from hardware. OS X, iLife, Final Cut etc. is there as an incentive to buy Apple hardware, hence why Apple software is so ridiculously cheap, since it is subsidised by the hardware.

[Borg9]

I'd just like to say that I helped contribute to the June numbers by buying two new Mac Pros for my art department. You're welcome Steve.

[Consultant]

The pc loving ceo here at my company just got a $1700 pc laptop with 13" screen.

The PC is very poorly made compared to a 13" Mac.


The pc:
- Comes with a video "vista made easy". The video is over 4 hours long.
- The pre-installed spam filter puts the seller's email as junk mail. Smart.
- Power button is on the outside. He can't figure out where it is for 3 minutes and I told him.
- Battery is poorly designed. Need special angle and both hands to put it in.
- Battery life is just over 2 hours, when it's way more on the Mac
- Only has 9300m, when Macs come with 9400m
- Plastic body, with extremely tiny port for exhaust

What a joke. Most people smart enough to do some research know that a Mac is an excellent deal for that price segment.

Oh and he can't install his home printer driver on that thing.

[BaldiMac]

That would be true if Apple was a software company like Microsoft. Apple is a hardware company that makes nearly all it's money from hardware. OS X, iLife, Final Cut etc. is there as an incentive to buy Apple hardware, hence why Apple software is so ridiculously cheap, since it is subsidised by the hardware.

I think that was his point. When people look at PC margins they include the cost of a Windows license. When people look at Mac margins, they do not account for OS X.