Apple Records Nearly Half of U.S. PC Desktop Retail Industry Revenue

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/25/apple-records-nearly-half-of-u-s-pc-desktop-retail-industry-revenue/)

Betanews reports (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Nearly-half-the-money-spent-at-US-retail-on-desktop-PCs-goes-to-Apple/1259171586) (via The Loop (http://www.loopinsight.com/2009/11/25/apple-grabs-almost-half-of-retail-money-spent-on-desktops/)) on data from market research firm NPD showing that Apple garnered 48% of the U.S. PC industry's retail revenue last month.In October, Mac US retail desktop computer revenue share was 47.71, percent up from 33.44 percent a year earlier, according to NPD. It's a stunning number, given just how many Windows PC companies combined command so much more market share, while competing for the same revenue share.While NPD's Stephen Baker points to a confluence of events, including Apple's refresh of its iMac line during the month and a decline of PC sales ahead of the launch of Windows 7, as being responsible for Apple's performance during the month, he also notes that the trend is not likely to continue. Data from previous months, however, shows that Apple had been performing quite well even back in April of this year, when it captured 45% of the desktop retail revenue.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/11/25/171149-us_retail_revenue.png

NPD notes that Apple's strong revenue performance is a direct result of its average selling prices, which are nearly three times that of Windows PCs. That difference has enabled Apple to claim high revenues despite significantly lower unit market share than top Windows-based PC vendors.One factor helping Apple is average selling price. The Mac maker has largely chosen not to compete with Windows PC manufacturers below $1,000. While price wars continue at the low end among Windows PC manufacturers, Apple's entry-level iMac starts at $1,199. True, Apple offers the Mac mini for $599 or $799, but the ASP is considerably higher than comparably priced Windows PCs. Low-cost Windows PCs typically come with monitor, keyboard and mouse, which are all extra-cost items for Mac mini unless the buyer uses existing gear.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/11/25/171150-us_asps.png

Apple's performance isn't as strong in the notebook segment, where it commands only a 34% share of the industry revenue, although that number still ranks Apple as a major player in the notebook field.

Article Link: Apple Records Nearly Half of U.S. PC Desktop Retail Industry Revenue (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/25/apple-records-nearly-half-of-u-s-pc-desktop-retail-industry-revenue/)

[*LTD*]

In a recession, no less.

[iSee]

Wow. I mean wow. This is amazing. Is there some catch to these numbers?

I understand that this is revenue not units, but I'd guess this is the more important number.

I thought Apple was weakest in desktops... [Edit: oops, removed dumb question]

edit 2:

Hm...

Now that I'm thinking about this more, it is retail sales -- online sales not included. So this makes more sense to me.
I'm not sure this is a very good way to measure computer sales. Obviously, a lot of sales are going over the internet. E.g., does Dell have any retail sales?

[840quadra]

This is interesting, and good news! But what I find curious, despite this news, I also just read that Windows 7 Install base has exceeded the current OS X install base too (http://gizmodo.com/5412987/windows-7-passes-mac-os-x-install-base)! Curious to see how the end game plays out while 2009 winds down.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165207334&type=profile™

[Mattie Num Nums]

Probably due to the extremely high margins.

[Bonte]

Wow. I mean wow. This is amazing. Is there some catch to these numbers?

These are only retail numbers so system builders are not included, nevertheless very impressive. :apple:

[*LTD*]

This is interesting, and good news! But what I find curious, despite this news, I also just read that Windows 7 Install base has exceeded the current OS X install base too (http://gizmodo.com/5412987/windows-7-passes-mac-os-x-install-base)! Curious to see how the end game plays out while 2009 winds down.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165207334&type=profile™

Well, just like every Windows OS before it.

Off-topic: have you got a Quadra? How do you like it? I never went beyond the PowerPC 6100/60. I used that for eight years!

[flooce]

yay, apple is making money on overpriced product (hence the big revenue), but oh well... I love their system OS X, and their new unibody products seem really good and reliable, so its worth it.

[Doctor Q]

More proof that you can make a lot of money without selling commodity units.

And that impressing people with your sales figures depends on which numbers you show them.

[colocolo]

Would be interesting to see the Laptop market divided between regular laptops and netbooks. The average retail selling price is way too low for Windows.

[cmaier]

I like how Wilcox is so reluctant to admit that this is sustainable. He's so predictable.

[lamadude]

More than anything else, this article demonstrates how the price of PC desktops and laptops has gone down dramatically over the last few years. To the point where new laptops are almost becoming impulse buys.

[*LTD*]

I like how Wilcox is so reluctant to admit that this is sustainable. He's so predictable.

So sustainable in fact, that it's happening in a recession. Now imagine the level at which this would happen in an improved economy. Mind-blowing.

[Nermal]

This is interesting, and good news! But what I find curious, despite this news, I also just read that Windows 7 Install base has exceeded the current OS X install base too (http://gizmodo.com/5412987/windows-7-passes-mac-os-x-install-base)! Curious to see how the end game plays out while 2009 winds down.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165207334&type=profile™

Of course, just like any stats, it depends who you ask. Local news site NBR just released these stats for its website visitors:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/files/nielsenoslist.jpg

[archurban]

Wow. I mean wow. This is amazing. Is there some catch to these numbers?

I understand that this is revenue not units, but I'd guess this is the more important number.

I thought Apple was weakest in desktops... [Edit: oops, removed dumb question]

edit 2:

Hm...

Now that I'm thinking about this more, it is retail sales -- online sales not included. So this makes more sense to me.
I'm not sure this is a very good way to measure computer sales. Obviously, a lot of sales are going over the internet. E.g., does Dell have any retail sales?

look. mac will never ever catch windows market. just take a look at price point. nobody wants to buy freaking expensive for everyday use. so will you call me loser because I couldn't afford it? how do you know? I have three macs. don't get me wrong. for some reasons, Apple can't drop the price significant like PC. if they do, they can't make revenue at all. they just take way less than 7-8% world wide. I know Apple has high quality, mac os x is easy to use. but they will never take off for huge. yeah, it's good to see how they have been grown such a competitive market. I am impressed by the way.

[MorphingDragon]

look. mac will never ever catch windows market. just take a look at price point. nobody wants to buy freaking expensive for everyday use. so will you call me loser because I couldn't afford it? how do you know? I have three macs. don't get me wrong. for some reasons, Apple can't drop the price significant like PC. if they do, they can't make revenue at all. they just take way less than 7-8% world wide. I know Apple has high quality, mac os x is easy to use. but they will never take off for huge. yeah, it's good to see how they have been grown such a competitive market. I am impressed by the way.

Its a shame because somebody needs to light a fire under Microsoft. 7 was better but they could've done better than a KDE 4.3 clone. Which is Ironic because KDE started out as an Imitator for Win95.

Oh yes I did.

[ShiftyPig]

I'm feeling the need to call shenanigans here....

On those figures, Apple has 25% of the desktop market based on units sold. Legit?

[Rot'nApple]

look. mac will never ever catch windows market. just take a look at price point. nobody wants to buy freaking expensive for everyday use. so will you call me loser because I couldn't afford it? how do you know? I have three macs. don't get me wrong. for some reasons, Apple can't drop the price significant like PC. if they do, they can't make revenue at all. they just take way less than 7-8% world wide. I know Apple has high quality, mac os x is easy to use. but they will never take off for huge. yeah, it's good to see how they have been grown such a competitive market. I am impressed by the way.

I'm not gonna call you a loser. If you're satisfied with MS OS and HP or Dell hardware than more power to you. :eek:

I like MacOS and their hardware, most of the time. :cool:

To say "nobody wants to buy freaking expensive for everyday use" is like saying nobody wants to buy a Corvette to drive up to the market or a Lexus or a piece of property in Mailbu, because one is just a car and the other is just a house on the beach! :rolleyes:

It just depends on where you are coming from, I guess...

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

Apple is the most profitable company that is going out of business.

[*LTD*]

Apple is the most profitable company that is going out of business.

They're dooooomed. LOL

By the way, Beaker is awesome. :)

[dronus]

They would have an extra few grand if they would ship me my imac which has been on order for about month now... Not Yet Shipped...

[*LTD*]

Apple is concerned with unit share, but only in the most profitable segments of the market.

[RazHyena]

That's impressive. Desktops, PC or Mac, are here to stay.

What's strange is Apple's performance in the laptop segment. I honestly thought mac was king there. Even considering how PC retailers sell laptops at razor thin margins. :confused:

[*LTD*]

That's impressive. Desktops, PC or Mac, are here to stay.

What's strange is Apple's performance in the laptop segment. I honestly thought mac was king there. Even considering how PC retailers sell laptops at razor thin margins. :confused:

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624

Still not bad. I guess that's desktops + notebooks. For some reason I always thought it was just notebooks.

[Eidorian]

It's also retail. You're going to need brick and mortar for that.

[shabbasuraj]

Dear Apple.. PLEASE update your Mac Pros at least 1 a year. LOL...

[MorphingDragon]

Dear Apple.. PLEASE update your Mac Pros at least 1 a year. LOL...

How hard is it for a team of 25 to make an EFI Firmware for a card when 1 person can make one within weeks? (Netkas)

[eastercat]

does Dell have any retail sales?
I remember seeing Dell kiosks around the holidays four or so years ago. However, I try to avoid that barren wasteland; so, I can't tell you if it's still continuing.

Seeing this report seems to reinforce Apple's decision to not go into the cheap netbook market. If they ever decide to venture into this territory, I'd be highly surprised. Too bad they disabled the netbook hackintosh. :(

[NathanCH]

$491 PC? No wonder people are having so much troubles. Jeez

[Eidorian]

How hard is it for a team of 25 to make an EFI Firmware for a card when 1 person can make one within weeks? (Netkas)Thus another reason why netkas is so awesome.

[RazHyena]

I remember seeing Dell kiosks around the holidays four or so years ago. However, I try to avoid that barren wasteland; so, I can't tell you if it's still continuing.

Seeing this report seems to reinforce Apple's decision to not go into the cheap netbook market. If they ever decide to venture into this territory, I'd be highly surprised. Too bad they disabled the netbook hackintosh. :(

It's a bummer. An Apple netbook would come in so handy right about now for me.

I'll definitely be buying the HP netbook for myself before xmas this year. I really want the white one with the designs on it. :p

[Richard1028]

And that impressing people with your sales figures depends on which numbers you show them.Yep... it's all "smoke and mirrors" to me.

[pesawyer]

Pretty good Apple, just think this is comparing ONE manufacturer to dozens. Break it down to show the market share of HP, IBM, Asus, Toshiba, Sony etc. and I think you would see a major difference in the Apple hardware share.

Comparing Mac OS X to Microsoft Windows in this scenario by utilizing hardware figures is misleading. How many PC's are sold with Windows on them to get reloaded with Linux or made into a Hackintosh? How many pre-Mac OS X systems are still out there running?

Don't you know that 64.971 percent of all statistics are made up?

Pete

[TennisandMusic]

NPD only tracks retail sales, this is nowhere even CLOSE to total sales. Good "revenue" numbers for Apple, but considering who has a well known dedicated store (Apple) and who doesn't (everyone else for the most part), not really surprising. Their market share is still quite low.

[LagunaSol]

Probably due to the extremely high margins.

Yes, because Apple chooses to run itself like a business and not a charity by not participating in the $400 POS PC market.

Evil bastards. :rolleyes:

[TennisandMusic]

Yes, because Apple chooses to run itself like a business and not a charity by not participating in the $400 POS PC market.

Evil bastards. :rolleyes:

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins. This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.

The reason PC's are so cheap is because of competition. PC prices are the REAL value of the hardware you are buying, yet these companies are still making profits. Apple makes an obscene profit on the same (or worse) hardware that PC makers use.

Apple is able to make such absurd profit levels because it's basically it's own monopoly. Great business, but hardly benefits users. In fact it's pretty detrimental to them. If Apple was making such good stuff, why is it like 2 days wait just to get an appointment to get your broken gear looked at?

[pk22901]

Knowing Mac Revenue Share: Interesting

Knowing Mac PROFIT Share: Priceless!

Can anyone calculate Profit Share?

[MorphingDragon]

Thus another reason why netkas is so awesome.

Agreed, can't wait until he hacks a 5870 so I can install one in my sisters MAcPro.

[puckhead193]

this scares as me as apple is making more Macs, i hope the quality control doesn't go down....

[*LTD*]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins. This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.

Satisfaction is pretty steady year to year.

[Eidorian]

Satisfaction is pretty steady year to year.I'm sure that's directly proportional to the hardware. :p

Next up, what is good for Apple's profit margin is good for me too. Somehow innovation comes from that. Kudos to Apple but not enough to entice me to buy something from them beyond my $29 coaster right now.

[Marx55]

The day the Mac reaches 25% market share worldwide, Windows will be history in three years. Only inertia and ignorance maintain the horrible Windows experience!

[techfreak85]

this scares as me as apple is making more Macs, i hope the quality control doesn't go down....
That's what I thought too. Sounds like they have cut costs a lot...I hope that doesn't translate into lower quality stuff.:eek:

[Wampahoofus]

Its great to see in comparison to HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, and all those other PC manufacturers that Apple is holding strong despite way higher prices.

I think if Apple just randomly dropped prices $50-100 they would make up for the loss in price in number of units sold.

[elppa]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins. This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.
So why do people keep buying them? The fact is if Apple's computers were terrible and terribly expensive then no one would buy them.

The reason PC's are so cheap is because of competition.
Competition to sell the cheapest box, because they all run Windows? There's competition all right, but not a real lot of differentiation. Apple can differentiate and hence charge more. They do still charge prices the market can bare (even in a recession) because they wouldn't be growing otherwise.

PC prices are the REAL value of the hardware you are buying, yet these companies are still making profits.
That's quite impossible. There has to be some markup, otherwise no profits would be made. And those PC companies who are making profits often have other parts of their business which are helping (servers, printers etc.). The idea that the PC industry is hugely profitable (or in some cases profitable at all) is a bit of a lie.

Apple makes an obscene profit on the same (or worse) hardware that PC makers use.
Why don't the PC makers use Apple's formula? Find and way to differentiate themselves (so they stand out) etc.

Also with laptops, those with the same specs AND build as Macs (high end VAIOs, HP Envy, Thinkpads) often cost more or the same.

Many PC makers started the decade in a far better position than Apple. So how is this Apple's fault? It's not a scam or a trick. Apple is not trying to crowd out choice, because they leave plenty of other options open. You can buy A PC which is cheaper and has better hardware (according to you).

I really don't understand what you're getting at?

If you want a Mac, get one. If you think they're not worth the money then pick a superior option. If you want to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Mac Software and Hardware then I think that is interesting and valuable.

But I'm full on fed up bored of these “Apple is successful and because they don't conform to what the rest of the PC industry is doing it's really unfair and because they make big profits it is even more unfair” posts.

Which is basically what you've said, paraphrased.

I think if Apple just randomly dropped prices $50-100 they would make up for the loss in price in number of units sold.
Fire off an email immediately!
tim.cook@apple.com

[wackymacky]

Of course, just like any stats, it depends who you ask. Local news site NBR just released these stats for its website visitors:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/files/nielsenoslist.jpg

Yes, but this is a separate issue, all this states is the prevalence of various operating systems in the wild, rather than up-take of Apple OS.

[dashcs]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins.

They don't want people using their products?
Retail Apple OS disc don't require a serial number to install.
Currently version of iLife/iWork don't require serial numbers to install.
Think about that for a bit.


This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.


U have no data backing up that statement.You just sound bitter.

[TennisandMusic]

The day the Mac reaches 25% market share worldwide, Windows will be history in three years. Only inertia and ignorance maintain the horrible Windows experience!

Only ignorance keeps the idea that Windows is horrible alive.

[TennisandMusic]

snip

Errr...you have me all wrong, and much of what you stated is wrong too.

I just have a problem with people absolutely worshipping Apple when it's clear they are far from benevolent (I am typing this on my macbook pro after all).

Who said what they did isn't fair? Stop being so paranoid. They are very smart business people, and they can get a small amount of suckers to buy their overpriced goods, which is why they make obscene profits on very small volume. Of course, I am also one of those "suckers" because I have some of their stuff. But I wouldn't go the full nine yards and buy a mac pro. That crosses the rip off line, and I don't see how Apple can sell those in any sort of decent conscience.

I guess I just get baffled when stories of Apple's ridiculous profit margins come out and people here go "Yeah, go Apple!" Huh? They are doing that at OUR expense...it makes no sense at all unless you're a complete stool pigeon, which is way too common around here for some reason. Why is it that you can't criticize Apple's many glaring faults without being labeled as some sort of "hater?" I have Apple stuff which is WHY I ask them to be much better than they are. They fall short in many many areas.

[nagromme]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins.
...

Apple's mid-range and high-end products don't cost much more (and sometimes less) than name-brand PCs.

Price out a Dell with the SAME specs as a MacBook, for instance, and the Dell currently costs a lot more (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=808198) than the MacBook. (Some people like to single out ONE spec, like screen size, and say that makes two machines "the same." Hmmm... they wouldn't do that when comparing a Dell and an HP :) They'd compare ALL the specs fairly. So be fair with Apple too.)

Dell, HP, Apple... all of them have high margins on higher-end machines than on the cheaply-made bottom-end machines. Apple simply doesn't HAVE any bottom-end machines to throw off their average. (And why should they? They are hurting PC makers, not helping them.)

Thus, Apple's average margin is higher, yet their prices for machines they DO make are about the same as Dell and HP prices.

As for quality... I recently recommended a bottom-end Dell to someone. Suffice it to say I won't make that mistake again. It had two serious failures. Months later and it still doesn't work--yes, it has a warranty, but customer service is awful.

(If you say Macs are overpriced, then you must also say that mid-to-high-end Dells, HPs and Sonys are overpriced. All you're really saying then is that people should always buy bottom-end machines, or build their own. Neither of which is really an ideal solution.)

[Westside guy]

Man, even when I've purchased a PC I've avoided the lowest-end products like the plague. It seems like those customers are just asking for trouble...

[Eidorian]

Apple best products are the 13" Macbook and Macbook Pro. Refurbished is your best bet there over paying retail and education unless it's summer.

Otherwise it's diminishing returns per dollar for the consumer if you go up or down.

[elppa]

I guess I just get baffled when stories of Apple's ridiculous profit margins come out and people here go "Yeah, go Apple!" Huh?

A weak Apple means the platform is weak.

A strong Apple means a strong platform. That's more money to invest in OS X as a platform, more money to invest in R and D for future products, more money to help third party developers and build better tools. More money to invest in future platforms like the web and HTML 5.

If you're going to tell me I'm wrong and much of what I've stated is wrong then at least have the decency to tell me which parts?

Saying things like “Apple's all about the money” is 10x more wrong than anything I have said. Any company is “about the money”. It has some baring on quality control and pursuit of market share, but is by no means the full picture. You try and link the two together like a magic formula.

You said it “wasn't fair” when you championed the PC companies who provide all this great value and better hardware and still make profit.

Your criticism of Apple's “glaring faults” seemed to be:
[1] Apple charges too much (subjective). The 27" iMac is cheaper than some monitors of equivalent quality and resolution.
[2] Apple makes too much money.
[3] You couldn't get an appointment for 2x days (valid)

II have Apple stuff which is WHY I ask them to be much better than they are
Great, something we agree on. Apple can improve, but they won't improve by chasing market share and reducing profit and cash.

[*LTD*]

Only ignorance keeps the idea that Windows is horrible alive.

Microsoft does that job just fine.

[Eidorian]

[1] Apple charges too much (subjective). The 27" iMac is cheaper than some monitors of equivalent quality and resolution.I keep hearing this without proof. The display fawning is getting tiresome.

I'll admit though that Apple did mention the margins are going to be a little lower on these iMacs.

[nick9191]

This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.
How far are you going back to exactly?

Because all I've seen since the Unibody is that quality control has skyrocketed.

[elppa]

I keep hearing this without proof.

Resolutions are close, not exact.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2371731/posts
http://blog.expandrive.com/2009/10/20/apples-releases-new-27-led-cinema-display-comes-with-a-free-mac/

[MWPULSE]

Apple is the most profitable company that is going out of business.

hmmm dont really wanna point this out, but have you heard recently about apple, making money off every quarter for the last year or so.. in a recession, and are still going upwards, and have ~$34 in the bank.. doesnt sound like they're going outta business to me..

On other news this is quite impressive.. couple this, with the marginal market increase in the U.K earlier on a couple of weeks ago and this could be seen as quite impressive :-)

PTP

[MWPULSE]

Don't you know that 64.971 percent of all statistics are made up?

Pete

Is that one?? :p sorry i had to do it!! :D

PTP

[topmounter]

hmmm dont really wanna point this out, but have you heard recently about apple, making money off every quarter for the last year or so.. in a recession, and are still going upwards, and have ~$34 in the bank.. doesnt sound like they're going outta business to me..

On other news this is quite impressive.. couple this, with the marginal market increase in the U.K earlier on a couple of weeks ago and this could be seen as quite impressive :-)

PTP

You may want to replace the batteries in your sarcasm detector.

[Eidorian]

Resolutions are close, not exact.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2371731/posts
http://blog.expandrive.com/2009/10/20/apples-releases-new-27-led-cinema-display-comes-with-a-free-mac/And the credibility and analysis goes about as far as what I can say.

With the desktop processors we're using now the iMac's hardware is peanuts. The display is now several times more than the computer hardware behind the panel. I'm not denying that fact. There's also the Dell U2711 in the cards as well.

The real money maker was the 3.06 GHz Early 2009 iMac compared to the E7600 at base today. The overnight price drop there was nothing short of comedy. The margins are lower this time around but it's not the value people are falling over to prop up right now.

[igazza]

just wait for the 27 inch quads to go standard and get Blue-ray, HDMI, and SSD :D

[Vulpinemac]

Hm...
Now that I'm thinking about this more, it is retail sales -- online sales not included. So this makes more sense to me.
I'm not sure this is a very good way to measure computer sales. Obviously, a lot of sales are going over the internet. E.g., does Dell have any retail sales?

As a matter of fact, yes they do. Just as HP sells a fair portion of their hardware through retail outlets in Staples, Best Buy, even Walmart* and other outlets, Dell is there, too. At least where I live, they are.

But the most interesting thing is, despite the much lower prices of the other PC brands, only Apple seems to be making any kind of real profit. Why? Oh, I know, they have 'oh so much markup,' but if that were really so true, why are people paying it? Have they decided that Apple really is the better choice? These numbers mean that Apple is now selling 25% of all desktop computers in the US. Are people finally tired of the poor quality of the cheaper PCs?

Only time will tell.

[*LTD*]

As a matter of fact, yes they do. Just as HP sells a fair portion of their hardware through retail outlets in Staples, Best Buy, even Walmart* and other outlets, Dell is there, too. At least where I live, they are.

But the most interesting thing is, despite the much lower prices of the other PC brands, only Apple seems to be making any kind of real profit. Why? Oh, I know, they have 'oh so much markup,' but if that were really so true, why are people paying it? Have they decided that Apple really is the better choice?

Apple's doing *something* right. Whatever it is, people keep coming back for more. And in a recession.

Customer satisfaction ratings are through the roof, each year now for several years running. People want Macs and other Apple products. Badly.

[Vulpinemac]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins. This shows in the actual quality of their products, which is dropping quite a bit in recent years, while the price skyrockets.
Maybe you need to do a little research, since Apple's prices are lower than they were 5 years ago, not higher. They're just not as low as the PC prices.

The reason PC's are so cheap is because of competition. PC prices are the REAL value of the hardware you are buying, yet these companies are still making profits. Apple makes an obscene profit on the same (or worse) hardware that PC makers use.
Competition--and yet, Apple is competing with every one of them by offering not only better hardware, but a better OS as well. If your statements were true, would Apple even be close to the sales they're making? After all, Apple still holds an 80% Customer Satisfaction rating, despite the much higher price you say they're bilking from their customers.

Apple is able to make such absurd profit levels because it's basically it's own monopoly. Great business, but hardly benefits users. In fact it's pretty detrimental to them. If Apple was making such good stuff, why is it like 2 days wait just to get an appointment to get your broken gear looked at?
Ah yes, I knew that one was going to come up. Please explain to me exactly what 'monopoly' Apple is supposed to be holding? With only about 10% of the desktop computer market (supposedly) they certainly don't hold any monopoly over the desktop computers. The users are very satisfied with their hardware in general, and Macs have been proven to even run Windows better than any 'equivalent' PC. So being a monopoly is a patent impossibility at the moment. As for your "... like 2 days wait just to get an appointment ...," obviously, you simply don't know how to use the Genius Bar--assuming you've even tried.

[Eidorian]

Maybe you need to do a little research, since Apple's prices are lower than they were 5 years ago, not higher. They're just not as low as the PC prices.Overall hardware prices have dropped as well. The single socket Mac Pro stands out badly this time around like the Power Mac G5 1.8 GHz did. It took long enough to get a $999 base notebook again.

Apple has been well known to nickel and dime around on everything but the processor for their notebooks.

[inlovewithi]

This is great news for Apple, but not so for the consumer. It reminded me how for years I wanted a Mac Mini, hoping that it will god won in price some how, but now nettops are looking much more appealing. I'm sure some here would be willing to pay even 5 times as much for a Mac, if it means more stories like these.

[LagunaSol]

Well I think it's clear that Apple is pretty much all about the money. They don't want more people using their products, they just want to make higher margins.

What's the margin on a $320 Window 7 Ultimate disc-in-a-box? Hmm, you would think that with 90% market share their products would be more...reasonably priced?

Where's your outrage?

Only ignorance keeps the idea that Windows is horrible alive.

Windows user since 1992 here. Windows is horrible.

The only thing ignorance is keeping alive is Windows' 90% market share.

[inlovewithi]

Competition--and yet, Apple is competing with every one of them by offering not only better hardware, but a better OS as well. If your statements were true, would Apple even be close to the sales they're making? After all, Apple still holds an 80% Customer Satisfaction rating, despite the much higher price you say they're bilking from their customers.


I hear that and I think ********, because judging by many of the comments that I hear from Mac users ever since I got my Macbook, their Macs can come filled with dog **** and they will still give Apple a high rating simply because it's Apple. Whenever I hear that, I always think that. My MacBook that I treat like gold is of such crap build quality.

[Eidorian]

What's the margin on a $320 Window 7 Ultimate disc-in-a-box? Hmm, you would think that with 90% market share their products would be more...reasonably priced?

Where's your outrage?How many retail Windows units does Microsoft sell? :rolleyes:

It gets old seeing $29 Snow Leopard get faced off against $320 Windows 7 Ultimate retail without any consideration beyond that.

[Vulpinemac]

Only ignorance keeps the idea that Windows is horrible alive.

Ignorance? Or experience? While W7 is better than Vista, is it really that much better than XP? At least OS X improves with each new version... Windows seems be be running as hard as it can just to stay in one place. Run with the White Queen sometime; maybe you'll understand.

[lilo777]

I am surprised so many people are talking about profit margins. Did you read the article? It’s about revenue not profits (i.e. the total price of units sold). For Apple’s revenue share to be that high is rather unusual (profit is another story). So, it’s probably just a fluke. Besides, obviously these stats reflect the difference in sales/marketing. Unlike MAC users, PC buyers are accustomed for customization. You do not get it from the retail store (or from Apple in general to this matter ). That is why a lot of PC buyers use Internet. Also, they usually do not buy Apple/whatever care and thus do not feel a need to discuss related issues in person. The stats obviously do not reflect enterprise sales, Dell sales, significant share of HP sales etc. Without additional information these stats do not really tell us that much. The only piece of useful info here, as I understand, is that Apple’s share grew but as the article explained Apple releasing new products (which happens every day in PC world) and PC buyers waiting for Windows 7 explains this fact.

[LagunaSol]

How many retail Windows units does Microsoft sell? :rolleyes:

I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell me?

And I assume the profit margin on the $50 OEM copies they ship with almost every single new PC on the planet is razor thin? :rolleyes:

Again, where is the outrage?

The only reason Microsoft's profits aren't even more obscene than they already are is because of their cash-burning adventures with Xbox, Zune, Bing, etc.

It gets old seeing $29 Snow Leopard get faced off against $320 Windows 7 Ultimate retail without any consideration beyond that.

Who said anything about Snow Leopard? People here are griping about Apple's profit margins on Macs - maybe they should look at Microsoft's profit margins on those 10 cent CDs they ship?

Hating on Apple is a one-way street.

[LagunaSol]

I hear that and I think ********, because judging by many of the comments that I hear from Mac users ever since I got my Macbook, their Macs can come filled with dog **** and they will still give Apple a high rating simply because it's Apple.

Brilliant theory. :rolleyes:

My MacBook that I treat like gold is of such crap build quality.

Your current model MacBook or one from a few years ago?

I just got a brand new HP laptop at work today. And not one of the cheapo $500 models either. It's not even close to a MacBook in build quality.

[JGowan]

More than anything else, this article demonstrates how the price of PC desktops and laptops has gone down dramatically over the last few years. To the point where new laptops are almost becoming impulse buys.My sister got an Acer -- cute little thing that... that I found almost impossible to navigate with the "trackpad" and click button. Terribly frustrating.

I'll gladly spend more to get something that works and isn't frustrating.

[Eidorian]

I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell me?Sadly I can't. Can you? I don't think I've ever seen anyone buy a retail disc of Windows.

And I assume the profit margin on the $50 OEM copies they ship with almost every single new PC on the planet is razor thin? :rolleyes:

Again, where is the outrage?A pretty good price for the software that runs all your other software on any i386 or x64 computer it's tied to. That's besides the point though.

Who said anything about Snow Leopard? People here are griping about Apple's profit margins on Macs - maybe they should look at Microsoft's profit margins on those 10 cent CDs they ship?

Hating on Apple is a one-way street.I don't expect you to live on MacRumors but the ever so wonderful comparison has been made in several threads and there's an image macro of it too.

Those 10 cent DVDs do have their expenses for Microsoft in the long term as well beyond the initial cost.

[Bafflefish]

And the credibility and analysis goes about as far as what I can say.

With the desktop processors we're using now the iMac's hardware is peanuts. The display is now several times more than the computer hardware behind the panel. I'm not denying that fact. There's also the Dell U2711 in the cards as well.

The real money maker was the 3.06 GHz Early 2009 iMac compared to the E7600 at base today. The overnight price drop there was nothing short of comedy. The margins are lower this time around but it's not the value people are falling over to prop up right now.
While I do think the 27" iMac is a good product, it's amusing to see just how much people fawn over it, especially given what's driving the display at that resolution (the mobile Radeon 4850).

There's also the fact that a lot of people prefer 16:10 for monitors, and don't really care much for 16:9.

I am excited to see what the Dell U2711 ends up being priced at though.

[Bafflefish]

My sister got an Acer -- cute little thing that... that I found almost impossible to navigate with the "trackpad" and click button. Terribly frustrating.

I'll gladly spend more to get something that works and isn't frustrating.
Was it an Acer netbook? If so, I hate the trackbad/button arrangement they use.

[Eidorian]

I am excited to see what the Dell U2711 ends up being priced at though.I'm not fond of 16:9 either. I'm holding out for at least a 1920 x 1200 display right now. Though my main goal is to get a monitor that is at least 1200 pixels tall and the 16:9 27" monster does accomplish that.

The U2711 is rumored around US$1,000 when all is said and done. I'm sure everyone here is going to hop on that. :rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

I hear that and I think ********, because judging by many of the comments that I hear from Mac users ever since I got my Macbook, their Macs can come filled with dog **** and they will still give Apple a high rating simply because it's Apple. Whenever I hear that, I always think that. My MacBook that I treat like gold is of such crap build quality.

"by many of the comments that I hear from Mac users ever since I got my Macbook"

vs.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10019711-37.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/08/apples-customer-satisfaction-up-despite-struggling-industry.ars

http://digg.com/apple/Apple_leads_2009_customer_satisfaction_survey

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/16/apple.no..1.on.csi/

http://theappleblog.com/2009/05/06/apple-customer-satisfaction-its-the-experience/

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/behind-scenes-why-apples-customerbase

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2008/08/mac_customer_sa.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-posts-highest-score-ever-on-customer-satisfaction-index/2553

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

http://bindapple.com/apple-satisfaction-2009-report/

http://www.macnn.com/news/25971

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-trumps-palm-pre-in-satisfaction-survey/

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/iPhone_Satisfaction_Off_The_Charts/

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-99-pure-satisfaction/

http://www.mactivist.com/2009/06/iphone-macs-ipod-sweep-2008-customer-satisfaction-rankings-in-japan

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-satisfation-rate-high

http://www.jdpower.com/Business/ratings/smartphone-ratings

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2248040/apple-keeps-top-billing

http://www.eweek.com/prestitial.php?type=rest&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eweek.com%2Fc%2Fa%2FMobile-and-Wireless%2FApple-Beats-HP-and-Dell-In-Customer-Satisfaction-Study-Finds-453807%2F&ref=

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352796,00.asp

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/08/5002.ars

http://www.osnews.com/story/15553

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689554/posts

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-224872.html


They're the same year after year, for quite a few years now.

[inlovewithi]

Brilliant theory. :rolleyes:



Your current model MacBook or one from a few years ago?

I just got a brand new HP laptop at work today. And not one of the cheapo $500 models either. It's not even close to a MacBook in build quality.

It's a Macbook from June 2007. I used to come to this site, read about how superior the Apple products were, so I felt fine pay so much extra for a Mac. When I finally got it the 1st thing I noticed was how cheap the screen was compared to my Dell Inspiron 8200 that I got in 2003. I figured it was 2007, by 2003 Dell's screen was beautiful I assumed technology would have improved to the point that all screens were at least equal quality. Since I hated the screen so much, the Macbook was played 99% of the time connected to my monitor, with the lid open. I only touch it to turn it on, yet at the point were the lid and the computer meets, it developed a crack. I soon find that it's an eventual problem with all white macbooks. Then battery, it started buldging and doesn't fit properly. Not only is it sticking out, but it presses against the trackpad which makes any touch on the palm rest register as a mouse click, makes it impossible to type unless I take off the battery or use a usb keyboard. I can't even put my computer into sleep mode because of that, I assume it's because of that, because any little vibration turns it back on. (And no it's not the remote sensor). There's also a crack at the bottom and to the back. I'm no slob and I paid a lot of money for it, so I always treat it like gold. Lots of other miscellaneous problems.

[inlovewithi]

"by many of the comments that I hear from Mac users ever since I got my Macbook"

vs.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10019711-37.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/08/apples-customer-satisfaction-up-despite-struggling-industry.ars

http://digg.com/apple/Apple_leads_2009_customer_satisfaction_survey

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/16/apple.no..1.on.csi/

http://theappleblog.com/2009/05/06/apple-customer-satisfaction-its-the-experience/

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/behind-scenes-why-apples-customerbase

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2008/08/mac_customer_sa.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-posts-highest-score-ever-on-customer-satisfaction-index/2553

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

http://bindapple.com/apple-satisfaction-2009-report/

http://www.macnn.com/news/25971

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-trumps-palm-pre-in-satisfaction-survey/

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/iPhone_Satisfaction_Off_The_Charts/

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-99-pure-satisfaction/

http://www.mactivist.com/2009/06/iphone-macs-ipod-sweep-2008-customer-satisfaction-rankings-in-japan

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-satisfation-rate-high

http://www.jdpower.com/Business/ratings/smartphone-ratings

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2248040/apple-keeps-top-billing

http://www.eweek.com/prestitial.php?type=rest&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eweek.com%2Fc%2Fa%2FMobile-and-Wireless%2FApple-Beats-HP-and-Dell-In-Customer-Satisfaction-Study-Finds-453807%2F&ref=

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352796,00.asp

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/08/5002.ars

http://www.osnews.com/story/15553

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689554/posts

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-224872.html


They're the same year after year, for quite a few years now.

The point is that a large percentage of Apple users will praise it no matter what.

[MattBaker]

Now that I'm thinking about this more, it is retail sales -- online sales not included. So this makes more sense to me.
I'm not sure this is a very good way to measure computer sales. Obviously, a lot of sales are going over the internet. E.g., does Dell have any retail sales?

These figures include online sales. Says so pretty clearly in the article.

[cumanzor]

Yes, because Apple chooses to run itself like a business and not a charity by not participating in the $400 POS PC market.

Evil bastards. :rolleyes:

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Thanks man, you've opened my eyes.

Haha, the ammount of arrogant assumptions that can be taken from such a comment are hillarious.


All $400 computers are ****
People who buy $400 are in need of charity
Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful.


:rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Thanks man, you've opened my eyes.

Mostly. The first problem is they don't run OS X.

[Vulpinemac]

I'm not fond of 16:9 either. I'm holding out for at least a 1920 x 1200 display right now. Though my main goal is to get a monitor that is at least 1200 pixels tall and the 16:9 27" monster does accomplish that.

The U2711 is rumored around US$1,000 when all is said and done. I'm sure everyone here is going to hop on that. :rolleyes:

You're a little behind the times, there. I'm already 1920 x 1200, and I'm on a 2-year-old 24" iMac. I'll grant I paid a little more than $1000, but I got a full computer in that display unit.

[lilo777]

Mostly. The first problem is they don't run OS X.

Most people do not like OS X.

[AidenShaw]

Mostly. The first problem is they don't run OS X.

For many of us (like about 95% of the market), Apple OSX is part of the problem - not the solution.

It's great that Apple OSX solves your problems, I'm happy for you.

However, many of us have applications or needs or simple preferences for the way Windows works. For us, the "it doesn't run Apple OSX" complaint isn't an issue - it's actually an advantage.


You're a little behind the times, there. I'm already 1920 x 1200, and I'm on a 2-year-old 24" iMac. I'll grant I paid a little more than $1000, but I got a full computer in that display unit.

Apple's gone backwards since your system - the 21.5" Imac has cut off the bottom of the screen, and only has 1080 vertical pixels.

Most "16x9" displays cut off vertical pixels, rather than adding horizontal pixels.

[Eidorian]

You're a little behind the times, there. I'm already 1920 x 1200, and I'm on a 2-year-old 24" iMac. I'll grant I paid a little more than $1000, but I got a full computer in that display unit.If Apple's mainstream desktop was more than $400-500 Core 2 on the back of a monitor I'd consider it. Target Display Mode isn't much of a solution. I don't need another desktop either. Right now I don't even consider Core 2. It's either Athlon II or you just go straight to the Core i5 750. It's a waste of money otherwise.

I'm fine with my Late 2007 Macbook since Apple does compete well in the 13.3" notebook arena. I don't see a need to replace it either since there haven't been any significant improvements for me. A Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, and a 320 GB hard drive from 2007 are still overkill for what meager work I do on my Macbook.

For many of us (like about 95% of the market), Apple OSX is part of the problem - not the solution.

It's great that Apple OSX solves your problems, I'm happy for you.

However, many of us have applications or needs or simple preferences for the way Windows works. For us, the "it doesn't run Apple OSX" complaint isn't an issue - it's actually an advantage.I like OS X. I don't like Apple as much.

[gunraidan]

Wouldn't Apple be at a disadvantage counting retail sales too?

I mean the only major retail chains that sell Macs are Apple Stores and Best Buy.

[Vulpinemac]

The point is that a large percentage of Apple users will praise it no matter what.

Obviously, you didn't read a single one of those articles. Every one of them said that the reason Apple users are so enthusiastic about their machines is that Apple truly satisfies their customers.

Oh, I'll grant that there will be some lemons; every brand will have some. Apple tends to have fewer by proportion. The interesting thing is, the one anecdotal example right here could easily have been avoided by simple, ordinary care. Laptops are noted for getting hot. The battery problem mentioned was felt by every single laptop maker at the time; he could have simply taken it back for warranty replacement--he chose not to do so. Simply by using a laptop stand that lifted the unit off the desktop would have prevented a lot of that heat buildup which permitted the battery to swell.
In other words, for supposedly treating his macbook (ibook) like gold, he treated it like a slab of toast. It's not like laptop stands are expensive, after all.

Here's the thing: for all that I've used both PCs and Macs over the years, I have had the best reliability out of my Macs every time. Even building my own PCs didn't give me a machine that lasted longer than the Mac sitting next to it, and I spent almost as much money on the parts to build them.

[-hh]

Errr...you have me all wrong, and much of what you stated is wrong too...
{{maybe, maybe not}}
...I guess I just get baffled when stories of Apple's ridiculous profit margins come out and people here go "Yeah, go Apple!" Huh? ...

A weak Apple means the platform is weak.

A strong Apple means a strong platform. That's more money to invest in OS X as a platform, more money to invest in R and D for future products, more money to help third party developers and build better tools. More money to invest in future platforms like the web and HTML 5.

If you're going to tell me I'm wrong and much of what I've stated is wrong then at least have the decency to tell me which parts?

Similarly, what the real complaint here is one of perception: Microsoft makes margins as fat as (fatter?) than Apple's, but because Apple appears to be hardware-only company, the temptation is to compare them to the PC vendors ... who are commodities because they all sell Windows OS ... and not to Microsoft.


Maybe you need to do a little research, since Apple's prices are lower than they were 5 years ago, not higher. They're just not as low as the PC prices.

One can go back a lot further than that: today is also cheaper than 10 years ago, 15 years ago and 20 & 25 years ago ... and that's all before we take present value (inflation) into account.

The assumption here is essentially that just because the Windows PC became a commodity, that Apple is somehow obligated to follow.


Most people do not like OS X.

Golly - how can they actively dislike something that they're ignorant of?
Or is this merely a "Fear of the Unknown" paradigm statement?


-hh

[LagunaSol]

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Odd, since when are "all sub $1000 computers" equal to $400 computers (which is what I said)? You ≠ good at math.

Haha, the ammount of arrogant assumptions that can be taken from such a comment are hillarious.

There you go again - something you disagree with must be "arrogant." Perhaps you've heard the saying about assuming?

Let's take a look at your assumptions:

All $400 computers are ****

I've yet to see a $400 computer that isn't crap. I would be happy to examine one if you can point one out (if it's not a laptop, make sure you include the display, keyboard, and a free printer - because that's what the PC makers are advertising these days for $400 bills - and those are exactly the PCs I'm referring to).

People who buy $400 are in need of charity

I never said that. Again, you have to make up crap just because you have nothing intelligent to say?

Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful.

More crap made up by you. Again, nothing intelligent to say.

:rolleyes:

Indeed.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for some samples of my "hypocritical comments" per your bogus accusations. Apparently you can't back up what you say?

:rolleyes:

[Vulpinemac]

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Thanks man, you've opened my eyes.

Haha, the ammount of arrogant assumptions that can be taken from such a comment are hillarious.


All $400 computers are ****
People who buy $400 are in need of charity
Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful.


:rolleyes:


"All $400 computers are ****" Even Apple doesn't build a $400 computer, and when you consider the average reliablity of those $400 pieces of ****, I'm really amazed anyone buys junk like that. The problem is, some people really can't afford better than that. Which leads to...
"People who buy $400 are in need of charity." On average, I would say you're exactly right. Especially in today's consumer market. You can't tell me that everyone who buys a Walmart* special can afford better.
"Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful." Well now, think about it. When you take everything into consideration, Apple currently has the highest Stock Market value of any computer maker with the highest Market Cap as well. They've got to be doing something right, right?


Now. You tell me. Who's the successful one, here?

[lilo777]

Here's the thing: for all that I've used both PCs and Macs over the years, I have had the best reliability out of my Macs every time. Even building my own PCs didn't give me a machine that lasted longer than the Mac sitting next to it, and I spent almost as much money on the parts to build them.

Here is the another thing - all of the components (except for the case) in Macs are the same as in PCs. Can you tell what exactly broke in the PCs that you assembled? It is my observation that nowadays PCs (including Macs) age faster than they break. It is true that Mac users stick with their machines longer than their PC couunterparts but this is simply because Macs cost more, so people have to save longer to buy a replacement :-) PC users on the other hand can afford to replace computers faster.

[Eidorian]

I'll have to get back on the longevity of $287 of computer.

[Vulpinemac]

Apple's gone backwards since your system - the 21.5" Imac has cut off the bottom of the screen, and only has 1080 vertical pixels.

Most "16x9" displays cut off vertical pixels, rather than adding horizontal pixels.

So you're telling me that the Apple 20" iMac had 1900 x 1200? Sorry, you make a very poor comparison. They didn't cut off the bottom of the 24" to make the 21.5", they stretched the 20" instead. Meanwhile, they stretched the 24" to make the 27". I think that's kinda neat.

Apple didn't go backwards, they moved forward--again.

[LagunaSol]

For many of us (like about 95% of the market), Apple OSX is part of the problem - not the solution.

Wow - sheer brilliance. *feverish applause*

What problem, exactly is OS X a part of? Please, enlighten me? Aside from the problem that it doesn't conform with your need for conformity? (And the need to foist your need for conformity on the rest of us?)

How about this analogy parallel to your nonsensical argument: if you have hemorrhoids (Windows) but you don't use Preparation H (OS X), then Preparation H is part of the problem - not the solution.

Einsteinian logic there.

It's not hard to see why Windows has 95% of the market. :rolleyes:

[inlovewithi]

Obviously, you didn't read a single one of those articles. Every one of them said that the reason Apple users are so enthusiastic about their machines is that Apple truly satisfies their customers.

Oh, I'll grant that there will be some lemons; every brand will have some. Apple tends to have fewer by proportion. The interesting thing is, the one anecdotal example right here could easily have been avoided by simple, ordinary care. Laptops are noted for getting hot. The battery problem mentioned was felt by every single laptop maker at the time; he could have simply taken it back for warranty replacement--he chose not to do so. Simply by using a laptop stand that lifted the unit off the desktop would have prevented a lot of that heat buildup which permitted the battery to swell.
In other words, for supposedly treating his macbook (ibook) like gold, he treated it like a slab of toast. It's not like laptop stands are expensive, after all.

Here's the thing: for all that I've used both PCs and Macs over the years, I have had the best reliability out of my Macs every time. Even building my own PCs didn't give me a machine that lasted longer than the Mac sitting next to it, and I spent almost as much money on the parts to build them.

I noticed this the other day when I was reading the thread the other day about the 27" imac shipping cracked, or not working, that some of the Apple obsessed guys blame everybody but apple. After reading one of the guys saying that it was the fault of the Chinese I quickly had to get away from the thread it was so obnoxious. And now it's my fault that my battery went crap because for some reason I was supposed to to intuitively know that rather than placing my macbook down on my desk of this cold house I was supposed to buy a special stand for it. The problem had nothing to do with over heating, but something that was holding the white cover got lose. Other than that, battery works fine. Plus my macbook never over heats, because I'm obsessive about it staying cool, even putting it on sleep mode when the fans start going, and even not watching videos on youtube, but actually downloading it. Which reminds me of another problem that the macbook had the 1st six months that I had it that many other people had and that the audio would skip when it got hot, which made me more obsessive about always keeping it running cool.

[Vulpinemac]

If Apple's mainstream desktop was more than $400-500 Core 2 on the back of a monitor I'd consider it. Target Display Mode isn't much of a solution. I don't need another desktop either. Right now I don't even consider Core 2. It's either Athlon II or you just go straight to the Core i5 750. It's a waste of money otherwise.
Have you even been paying attention to what Apple is doing? You can get an i5 or i7 in an iMac now. They're ahead of you again.

I'm fine with my Late 2007 Macbook since Apple does compete well in the 13.3" notebook arena. I don't see a need to replace it either since there haven't been any significant improvements for me. A Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, and a 320 GB hard drive from 2007 are still overkill for what meager work I do on my Macbook.

I like OS X. I don't like Apple as much.

Interesting you should say that, since you seem quite happy with your 2 year old MacBook. After all, Apple's hardware was made to last longer than a mere 2 years. Give it 3 more years, and I think you'll be quite happy with what Apple has available then.

[Eidorian]

Have you even been paying attention to what Apple is doing? You can get an i5 or i7 in an iMac now.The platform cost to go from Core 2 to Lynnfield isn't what Apple purports it to be.

They're ahead of you again.I don't understand what you mean. You mention "behind the times" in your other post as well.

Interesting you should say that, since you seem quite happy with your 2 year old MacBook. After all, Apple's hardware was made to last longer than a mere 2 years. Give it 3 more years, and I think you'll be quite happy with what Apple has available then.Other hardware doesn't last longer than two years? I'm happy with my MacBook. I've also been happy with every computer that I have owned and yes the non-Apple computers lasted more than 2 years as well.

I can however say that my least happiest time was the 15 months of PowerPC only.

[Vulpinemac]

Here is the another thing - all of the components (except for the case) in Macs are the same as in PCs. Can you tell what exactly broke in the PCs that you assembled? It is my observation that nowadays PCs (including Macs) age faster than they break. It is true that Mac users stick with their machines longer than their PC couunterparts but this is simply because Macs cost more, so people have to save longer to buy a replacement :-) PC users on the other hand can afford to replace computers faster.

As a matter of fact, I can. Even though I spent extra for good power supplies, the power supplies were always the first. The hard drives almost never failed, and I was readily able to upgrade video cards. But not all that many motherboards can handle two or three power supply failures. When I had to replace PSUs an average of once a year, even taking into account that I bought PSUs recommended by some of the best PC magazines on the market, I had to assume something was causing them to fail. Meanwhile, I got over 5 years on a second-generation iMac; I still have my second-generation Mac Mini (used as a DVR now); working my third year on an aluminum iMac Extreme; 900 Mhz G3 iBook running Tiger; 1st Gen Intel MacBook... Well, my point is that of all my Macs, only one ever died with a power suppy failure and none of the others ever died... they got donated to charity or given as an educational gift to someone who couldn't afford a computer for her child.

Oh, the reason those power supplies failed? My oil furnace in the apartment I lived in was running too rich, sending oily soot throughout the apartment. A total of 4 PCs died during that time, a minimum of 7 power supplies. Only the one iMac lost its power supply, after 5 years in that environment. Now--which one was truly better?

[fernandovalente]

Unfortunately, Macs are expensive. They could be easily in more than 80% of the houses in the US if they were not more expensive than PCs.

[Vulpinemac]

I noticed this the other day when I was reading the thread the other day about the 27" imac shipping cracked, or not working, that some of the Apple obsessed guys blame everybody but apple. After reading one of the guys saying that it was the fault of the Chinese I quickly had to get away from the thread it was so obnoxious. And now it's my fault that my battery went crap because for some reason I was supposed to to intuitively know that rather than placing my macbook down on my desk of this cold house I was supposed to buy a special stand for it. The problem had nothing to do with over heating, but something that was holding the white cover got lose. Other than that, battery works fine. Plus my macbook never over heats, because I'm obsessive about it staying cool, even putting it on sleep mode when the fans start going, and even not watching videos on youtube, but actually downloading it. Which reminds me of another problem that the macbook had the 1st six months that I had it that many other people had and that the audio would skip when it got hot, which made me more obsessive about always keeping it running cool.

And with all of this rant, you don't once mention doing any kind of troubleshooting to discover the cause of the problem, you merely hide the symptoms by reducing your use. Come on now! Do you really think I'm that stupid? Rather than trying to determine the cause and perhaps taking it back to Apple for warranty repair, you choose to hide the fact that maybe, just maybe, something might be wrong with it? Who really is the smart one here?

[inlovewithi]

And with all of this rant, you don't once mention doing any kind of troubleshooting to discover the cause of the problem, you merely hide the symptoms by reducing your use. Come on now! Do you really think I'm that stupid? Rather than trying to determine the cause and perhaps taking it back to Apple for warranty repair, you choose to hide the fact that maybe, just maybe, something might be wrong with it? Who really is the smart one here?

Well, people who assume things are the ones who come of looking really dumb. I clearly said that what ever holds the white piece of the battery the cover, got lose and the outer white part of the battery sticks out. It's definitely hard to explain in words, but there's nothing to trouble shoot. It's hard to explain, but I'm going to try and explain it better. The battery has a spring that helps the battery snap into the macbook. That spring pushes against the outer part of the battery, and the outer part of the battery can't handle the pressure obviously, so it sticks out. So the battery now, being in that condition doesn't fit properly and presses hard against the computer, to the point where if you touch the hand rest, it registers as a mouse click, making it impossible to type, and really annoying to do anything mouse related, since it's always clicking. Listen carefully since I don't think you comprehended it earlier, but I'm out of warranty. I never had the need for extended warranty ever since I never had any major computer problems. Yesterday I took off the battery for good since the pressure from the battery might be causing other internal problems, particular with the gpu. I know in your eyes Apple is perfect and all hardware problems are always the users fault, so I don't know what else I can tell you.

[fifthworld]

In a recession, no less.

Actually I'm starting to think that Apple goes particularly well because of the recession, non in spite of it.

[tatonka]

Now this is one stupid survey. I hate when they compare Apples to whole fruitbaskets.
There is no such thing as A Windows PC. There are thousands and they come from very different vendors, all with different strategies. Some go for the cheap-netbook market some only for the high margin $1000+ market. They are all lumped into one number .. great survey.

The second thing I am really puzzled about is how many fanboy are happy that those margins are so high for Apple products and that Apple is sitting on such a pile of money? I mean honestly, besides you being able to show the world that you can afford it .. what is in there for you? It is not like Apple is going around and investing that money back .. they are mostly sitting on it?

T.

[Henriok]

Wasn't there any Linux desktops or laptops sold at all in retail? Really? None?

[skinnylegs]

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Thanks man, you've opened my eyes.

Haha, the ammount of arrogant assumptions that can be taken from such a comment are hillarious.


All $400 computers are ****
People who buy $400 are in need of charity
Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful.


:rolleyes:I don't think people who buy $400 computers are in need of charity. I do, however, think they are in need of therapy.

While we are rounding up assumptions, let us not forget that Linux is free only if your time is worth nothing. :-)

[MorphingDragon]

Wasn't there any Linux desktops or laptops sold at all in retail? Really? None?

Because no major OEM supports or advertises linux to consumers. Dell's half assed Ubuntu computers don't count.

[skinnylegs]

I mean honestly, besides you being able to show the world that you can afford it .. what is in there for you? Dividends.

[vvebsta]

i wonder if netbooks are grouped into this... cause then its technically not fair if they are included

[skinnylegs]

Wasn't there any Linux desktops or laptops sold at all in retail? Really? None?Well, would you pay for a computer with Linux on it? LOL

[marcosscriven]

Firstly : I love Apple hardware (and software for that matter). I'm glad to hear Apple are reaping the rewards.

But : I've had literally two MBP batteries 'bulge' now to the point of nearly exploding (I'm not kidding), another that had the Nvidia overheat issue, three broken iPhone 3Gs (plural of 3G is conflated somewhat with the 3Gs model) with problems such as Wifi completely breaking etc, and two magsafe power supply sockets that came apart at the magsafe end.

On the plus side, taking these back to the Apple store in Regent street has always yield excellent customer service, with free replacements, even outside warranty.

Maybe I'm unlucky, but I do hope those margins are not being increased too much by scrimping on the quality control. Certainly I've not been alone in these particular issues, so I don't think it's me not looking after my kit. Trouble is, it's dfficult to get actual percentages of failures/problems.

Anyway, looking forward to the new lineup of MBPs early '10. Thinking I'm going to go back to 15" from my early '07 17". I suppose it just goes to show just how good they are that many people still trust in Apple, despite such issues.

M

[jayenh]

The day the Mac reaches 25% market share worldwide, Windows will be history in three years. Only inertia and ignorance maintain the horrible Windows experience!

not a chance. PC's are always going to dominate the business market because, well, businesses are a business like apple. they want to make a profit. they're not going to spend that money on macs that are aimed at the higher end of the price scale. they're going to continue buying £350 PC's every 3 years because it still works out better than buying a mac, especially if all the user needs is Office. and this is exactly why mac's struggle at home. users use PC's at work, so they get PC's to use at home. it's what they are used to. don't get me wrong, there are people who will still buy and use a mac at home, obviously, the sales show it, but there is no way the above statement is true. Apple will have to completely change their sales approach to make windows "history". and even then, windows server will still survive.

[marcosscriven]

Apple will have to completely change their sales approach to make windows "history".

Agree - kudos to Apple really for gaining such a huge share of the revenue with relatively small marketshare. But Window will dominate for some time. This isn't entirely a bad thing - competition is good.

and even then, windows server will still survive.

Disagree - Windows server is on its way out. It only survives in huge corporations, where Microsoft execs wine and dine the CIOs. But even here, shareholders are getting savy, and questioning why x million is being spent unnecessarily on server licences.

[ccuk]

not a chance. PC's are always going to dominate the business market because, well, businesses are a business like apple. they want to make a profit. they're not going to spend that money on macs that are aimed at the higher end of the price scale. they're going to continue buying £350 PC's every 3 years because it still works out better than buying a mac, especially if all the user needs is Office. and this is exactly why mac's struggle at home. users use PC's at work, so they get PC's to use at home. it's what they are used to. don't get me wrong, there are people who will still buy and use a mac at home, obviously, the sales show it, but there is no way the above statement is true. Apple will have to completely change their sales approach to make windows "history". and even then, windows server will still survive.

This is true... A lot of businesses are locked into the Windows platform for a variety of reasons, not just cost, but factors such as bespoke software critical for day to day running that will only run on Windows based systems (Without a very costly rewrite).


Part of me is happy that Apple are doing well, but it is marred by the blatant evidence that shows how massive their markup is on each unit they sell. I would rather the Macintosh ecosystem was made slightly cheaper so more people can enjoy the benefits.

[MorphingDragon]

Disagree - Windows server is on its way out. It only survives in huge corporations, where Microsoft execs wine and dine the CIOs. But even here, shareholders are getting savy, and questioning why x million is being spent unnecessarily on server licences.

Unless its Ubuntu, thats a step back in any direction. :(

[fifthworld]

This is true... A lot of businesses are locked into the Windows platform for a variety of reasons, not just cost, but factors such as bespoke software critical for day to day running that will only run on Windows based systems (Without a very costly rewrite).

The opposite is also true. In the art department where I used to work till last year, the value of software was so much greater than the value of the hardware that switching to a Windows based system was unthinkable. However, the Macs where keep in service for about 5 years, buying a couple of the latest Macs about every 18 months for the senior designers, moving their previous Macs down to the designers, and designer's previous Macs to the graphic artists, serving 12 people in total. During the 7 years I worked there not a single Mac hardware failure occurred.

[jayenh]

Disagree - Windows server is on its way out. It only survives in huge corporations, where Microsoft execs wine and dine the CIOs. But even here, shareholders are getting savy, and questioning why x million is being spent unnecessarily on server licences.

i just don't see who is going to step up and take over from windows server. it is considered the standard. companies use it because of this "standard" tag that it has. if nothing else it makes replacing your it support guys easier and cheaper if you don't need to get someone in to understand your bespoke setup. got active directory and an exchange server? then you'll never be short of someone to support it and you're in control of your IT staff and their demands rather than the other way round.

plus with solutions like vmware the costs aren't so bad. i'm surprised this option hasn't taken off faster than it already has, to be honest, as 1 license for windows server 200X can be installed on up to 4 VM's rather than just 1 physical machine. the savings are pretty huge in the long run and the more machines you want to run the cheaper it works out. not just in energy and licensing, but in the hardware.

[jayenh]

The opposite is also true. In the art department where I used to work till last year, the value of software was so much greater than the value of the hardware that switching to a Windows based system was unthinkable. However, the Macs where keep in service for about 5 years, buying a couple of the latest Macs about every 18 months for the senior designers, moving their previous Macs down to the designers, and designer's previous Macs to the graphic artists, serving 12 people in total. During the 7 years I worked there not a single Mac hardware failure occurred.

this is true for design/print/video/music, but the percentage of businesses in these segments is small. those 4 together are probably smaller than banks and their call centres.

[marcosscriven]

got active directory and an exchange server? then you'll never be short of someone to support it and you're in control of your IT staff and their demands rather than the other way round.

Exchange server, yes, definitely. It is without doubt the standard. But Windows Server as an OS for deployment, I'm really surprised you don't see Linux as a real threat to it.

I suppose it would be nice to see some numbers really.

Having said that, as a small business myself, I signed up for bizspark, so get all the MS software for free for three years. Even then, I still use Linux on the server side.

[Nuvi]

Since I'm end user and not investor I find these figures alarming. From consumer stadpoint, Apple with agressive growth of market share policy would be much better then the current low market share high revenue one. With its insanely high revenue / low market share its no wonder Mac's are not regarded as viable sollution for vast majority of eterprise computing needs.

[tatonka]

Dividends? Child please!
As far as I can see there has been no dividends in the past couple of years, yet Apple is sitting on Billions in Cash.

Besides .. I doubt that most folks here have enough stocks to gain more on dividends then they could save on a single Notebook purchases margin.

On the topic of MacOS taking over Windows.
Thats is not gonna happen ever, not before Apple entirely changes the way they handle their system at least.
The biggest advantage of Windows to most companies (besides the huge point of software availability) is the maintenance of the system. Having a unified domain login across the whole network, easy access control, controlled update roll-out management .. that is what makes Win environments valuable to companies. I know you could do most of those things one way or the other on a Mac OS/ Unix System as well, but the knowledge required is much higher, hence much more expensive.
For a small/medium company it is much cheaper and easier to use a Windows system.
And I honestly believe that Apple has absolutely no wish to enter that market. They are happy in there ivory towers on their piles of money .. and have every right to be. It is just Apple fans who have these dreams of taking over the world.

T.

[Nuvi]

Dividends? Child please!
As far as I can see there has been no dividends in the past couple of years, yet Apple is sitting on Billions in Cash.

Besides .. I doubt that most folks here have enough stocks to gain more on dividends then they could save on a single Notebook purchases margin.


Dividends, LOL... Oh my god kiddo... I believe no one expects to gain on AAPL dividends. However, for day traiders and short term investors having AAPL in the portfolio is viable option.

Regarding Mac market share I believe only most naive fan boys dream of dominance over Windows. However, even small gains in over all market share could potentially benefit any end user by lowering unit princing, opening up the market for wider spectrum of developpers etc.

[jayenh]

On the topic of MacOS taking over Windows.
Thats is not gonna happen ever, not before Apple entirely changes the way they handle their system at least.
The biggest advantage of Windows to most companies (besides the huge point of software availability) is the maintenance of the system. Having a unified domain login across the whole network, easy access control, controlled update roll-out management .. that is what makes Win environments valuable to companies. I know you could do most of those things one way or the other on a Mac OS/ Unix System as well, but the knowledge required is much higher, hence much more expensive.
For a small/medium company it is much cheaper and easier to use a Windows system.
And I honestly believe that Apple has absolutely no wish to enter that market. They are happy in there ivory towers on their piles of money .. and have every right to be. It is just Apple fans who have these dreams of taking over the world.

T.

exactly. could not agree more.

OSX server is ok for little workgroups and i think this fits in with the Apple way of thinking.... 5 or 6 guys/gals sat in a little design studio with their macs and xserve + raid. i think apple are content with this idea as there is still money to be made from little companies like this.

[Digitalclips]

More than anything else, this article demonstrates how the price of PC desktops and laptops has gone down dramatically over the last few years. To the point where new laptops are almost becoming impulse buys.

Not just impulse it's often necessity. Many low end users buy another one as soon as Windoze craps out as it cheaper than paying a geek to fix it. If only those PCs were bio degradable too! Good news is quite a few are saying 'Enough!' and switching to their first Mac. I know a few friends like this and I am sure we all do.

[mdriftmeyer]

That's what I thought too. Sounds like they have cut costs a lot...I hope that doesn't translate into lower quality stuff.:eek:

Apple's margins are consistent. The drop in prices reflect more in the materials costs drop to Apple.

[mdriftmeyer]

So, all sub $1000 computers (that is, all computers that aren't from Apple) are a POS??

Thanks man, you've opened my eyes.

Haha, the ammount of arrogant assumptions that can be taken from such a comment are hillarious.


All $400 computers are ****
People who buy $400 are in need of charity
Only companies that sell stuff at premium prices are successful.


:rolleyes:

It means that the publicly traded stocks that sell on such low margins are castrating their own long term sustainability.

[mrochester]

Mostly. The first problem is they don't run OS X.

And who is it that's stopping you from doing that?! Apple are equally the problem as they are the solution.

[cmaier]

Most people do not like OS X.

Wrong. Most people haven't tried it and have no opinion.

[tatonka]

Dividends, LOL... Oh my god kiddo... I believe no one expects to gain on AAPL dividends. However, for day traiders and short term investors having AAPL in the portfolio is viable option.


Apparently people do click (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8876028&postcount=111).

The initial question was why people are happy about the high margins, since it would be something they have to pay, without gaining anything. Still think it is stupid how fanboys are happy about paying more ..

T.

[deus_ex_machina]

Of course, just like any stats, it depends who you ask. Local news site NBR just released these stats for its website visitors:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/files/nielsenoslist.jpg

Windows Server 2K3?!?!

Who's browsing the internet with their SERVERS!?!??!

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Not just impulse it's often necessity. Many low end users buy another one as soon as Windoze craps out as it cheaper than paying a geek to fix it. If only those PCs were bio degradable too! Good news is quite a few are saying 'Enough!' and switching to their first Mac. I know a few friends like this and I am sure we all do.

Funny, that's what I said about my Macs. Enough of being gouged by Apple. Built a system that could blow away most any Mac for $1K with a 24" 1080p monitor.

Windows 7 is more stable than my iMac was and thus far my computer has yet to fry like my last iMac did (that Apple didn't want to even bother trying to do anything about).

Last I checked Win7 had less problems than Snow Leopard on release and PCs weren't shipping incapable of booting or with cracked screens like the i7 iMac.

I'll be most interested to see the numbers for the current quarter with Win7 released.

And I think MS would be smart to find Apple customers who have been victims of Apple's bad quality of late and have decided to go to Windows because it actually "just works". No blue screens since I switched unlike the kernel panics I would get on the Mac.

[tabasco70]

I'm not sure this is a very good way to measure computer sales. Obviously, a lot of sales are going over the internet. E.g., does Dell have any retail sales?

Do places like Best Buy count? They sell Dell and a bunch of other brands.

And... for the average price of the PC desktop, is that only the computer price (tower) or are peripherals included? (monitor, keyboard, mouse)
because although the iMac is 3 times as expensive (on the table at least) it is usable straight out of the box.

[oxfan]

Windows Server 2K3?!?!

Who's browsing the internet with their SERVERS!?!??!

People on Citrix or Terminal Servers maybe?

[*LTD*]

Funny, that's what I said about my Macs. Enough of being gouged by Apple. Built a system that could blow away most any Mac for $1K with a 24" 1080p monitor.

Windows 7 is more stable than my iMac was and thus far my computer has yet to fry like my last iMac did (that Apple didn't want to even bother trying to do anything about).

Last I checked Win7 had less problems than Snow Leopard on release and PCs weren't shipping incapable of booting or with cracked screens like the i7 iMac.

I'll be most interested to see the numbers for the current quarter with Win7 released.

And I think MS would be smart to find Apple customers who have been victims of Apple's bad quality of late and have decided to go to Windows because it actually "just works". No blue screens since I switched unlike the kernel panics I would get on the Mac.

Why would anyone here be interested in a Windows 7 rig that someone threw together? Why are you here?

[Bubba Satori]

Very impressive. Well done, Apple. :apple:

Could you please throw us a bone now and sell an affordable i5 & i7 towers. The new Apple Performa and Quadra. :D starting at $800 & $1,000.

Thank you.

[gnasher729]

this is true for design/print/video/music, but the percentage of businesses in these segments is small. those 4 together are probably smaller than banks and their call centres.

When you think about it, I don't have any doubt that Apple could easily build a cheap computer running Windows, and sell them at zero profit to these banks and call centres and double their unit market share without any gain in profitability. Apple just doesn't have any reason to do this.

Three years ago or so Gateway had about the same unit sales as Apple (I think they are part of Acer now), and the market caps of the company was $700 million. So buy spending say a billion dollar, Apple could have doubled its unit market share overnight. But what difference would that have made? None.

[Bubba Satori]

Why would anyone here be interested in a Windows 7 rig that someone threw together?

Uh, great value and performance. An infinitely bigger selection of hardware and software. An operating system that doesn't have nearly as many problems and bugs as Leopard Vista has had. :D

Why are you here?

To ruffle fanbois feathers with blasphemous ideas and information. :cool:

[VoR]

So buy spending say a billion dollar, Apple could have doubled its unit market share overnight. But what difference would that have made? None.

???....

I can see a fair few benefits for customers if the platform had twice the market share

[*LTD*]

Uh, great value and performance. An infinitely bigger selection of hardware and software.

We didn't buy it the first time with the Laptop Losers campaign. I doubt we'll buy it this time.

[Bubba Satori]

When you think about it, I don't have any doubt that Apple could easily build a cheap computer running Windows, and sell them at zero profit to these banks and call centres and double their unit market share without any gain in profitability. Apple just doesn't have any reason to do this.

Three years ago or so Gateway had about the same unit sales as Apple (I think they are part of Acer now), and the market caps of the company was $700 million. So buy spending say a billion dollar, Apple could have doubled its unit market share overnight. But what difference would that have made? None.

People who aren't rich and smug could have bought Apple computers.
Why do you hate the less well off? ;)

PC companies make profits. Silliest urban myth ever that they don't.
Quit defending high margins and obscene plutocratic profits. :D
$35 billion in the bank.

No, they could sell the exact same machines as the pc makers but in a pretty, silver case, put an Apple sticker on it and charge an extra $100 for the Apple sticker and they would sell like hotcakes. Fanbois love paying more for their special things. It makes them special people. Hip and cool for a few hundred bucks. :cool:

[Bubba Satori]

We didn't buy it the first time with the Laptop Losers campaign. I doubt we'll buy it this time.


Oh dear, the country club smirk rears it's snarky attitude. Oh snap. :D

[VoR]

We didn't buy it the first time with the Laptop Losers campaign. I doubt we'll buy it this time.

"Yeah, goooo we!!! We're the best!"

95% of the world still buys other brands of computers, and 99% of all computer purchases are by the technologically inept. No exaggeration...

[Arcadie]

In my honest opinion, I really hope apple gets around 20% market share in the US but never more than 25%.

The reason for this is because with 20-25% market share, They will have tons of capitol to put into R&D and creating new and more advanced products and software. However, With only 20-25% share, The virus scumbags still wont find targeting OS X worth their time. I think this market range will keep all of us Apple fanboys happy for years.

[jayenh]

When you think about it, I don't have any doubt that Apple could easily build a cheap computer running Windows, and sell them at zero profit to these banks and call centres and double their unit market share without any gain in profitability. Apple just doesn't have any reason to do this.

but that would be hardware.... i think you missed my point in a previous post about software market share. that windows will never be made "history" by OSX because XX% of businesses (i'm not going to give a number, i don't know what it is and if i pluck one, even a realistic one, someone will jump on me about it) want to buy machines cheap as possible. and that means dell/hp/whoever windows PC's and it will always be this way unless apple makes a decided effort to enter the business class (read that as "basic") computer market. even then the take up would be slow for reasons already given (software compatibility etc). i was not implying that apple need or want to sell cheap machines, merely that windows is not going anywhere as suggested... hence the comment you quoted... there ARE companies that want and need macs to operate, such as the print industry etc, but there are more companies that need basic machines at a low cost. cheap machines with windows installed will always be the desired choice for these companies and so windows will never die.

[LagunaSol]

PC companies make profits. Silliest urban myth ever that they don't.

Go take a look at the 5 year stock graph for Dell. Is that the business you'd want to be in?

Quit defending high margins and obscene plutocratic profits. :D
$35 billion in the bank.

How much cash does Microsoft have in the bank? How much more would they have if they weren't paying people to buy Xboxes and use Bing?

Where's the outrage?

Oh dear, the country club smirk rears it's snarky attitude. Oh snap. :D

I love how a dig from an Apple user is "smug," "snarky," or "country club smirk" whereas a dig from a Windows user is simply grumbling from the common man.

Stereotype Different.

[*LTD*]

In related news . . .

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/failure_to_launch_would_be_mac_cloner_psystar_sold_just_768_pcs_with_apples/

ROFL.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Probably due to the extremely high margins.

Word.
Still, some people believe that Macs are actually that much different than PC hardware. If Macs were built o much better Apple wouldnt be able to have such high margins. It probably costs them the same amount to manufacture a MBP as it does to manufacture a pc of the same specs. Apple tax strikes again.

[BRLawyer]

These are only retail numbers so system builders are not included, nevertheless very impressive. :apple:

Once more Apple shows the way, instead of following stupid advice from pundits to sell barebones and low-cost crap as other inferior PC makers do. Now repeat after me:

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD.

Congratulations, Apple!

[LagunaSol]

In related news . . .

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/failure_to_launch_would_be_mac_cloner_psystar_sold_just_768_pcs_with_apples/

ROFL.

I still want to know who was funding these tools.

[mrochester]

Once more Apple shows the way, instead of following stupid advice from pundits to sell barebones and low-cost crap as other inferior PC makers do. Now repeat after me:

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD.

Congratulations, Apple!

Apple would have to cater to ALL markets before either of those 2 end up 'dead'. As Apple caters to only a tiny share of the market with their product lineup, there is little to nil chance of that ever happening. And as Apple's product range grows to cater to all those different markets, they become exactly like Dell and Microsoft, so you don't win either way.

[BRLawyer]

Apple would have to cater to ALL markets before either of those 2 end up 'dead'. As Apple caters to only a tiny share of the market with their product lineup, there is little to nil chance of that ever happening. And as Apple's product range grows to cater to all those different markets, they become exactly like Dell and Microsoft, so you don't win either way.

"Catering to markets" doesn't mean having the highest market share at low margins...Dell is in extremely bad shape compared to Apple's and could be bought up just with SJ's spare change in his pocket.

[gnasher729]

I still want to know who was funding these tools.

Apple wants to know even more than we do. :rolleyes:
They would like to send a bill for damages to someone with money.

[mrochester]

"Catering to markets" doesn't mean having the highest market share at low margins...Dell is in extremely bad shape compared to Apple's and could be bought up just with SJ's spare change in his pocket.

If MS and Dell are 'dead' it means EVERY Windows computer in the world would need to be replaced with an Apple computer. Do you really think Apple caters to every single user out there? I would be interested to see what you think are suitable Apple products to replace all of those Windows PCs.

[BRLawyer]

If MS and Dell are 'dead' it means EVERY Windows computer in the world would need to be replaced with an Apple computer. Do you really think Apple caters to every single user out there? I would be interested to see what you think are suitable Apple products to replace all of those Windows PCs.

Dell is close to dead and I won't elaborate on that again...many other PC makers can replace it.

As for suitable Apple products to replace Windows crap, there is only one answer: Mac.

[mrochester]

Dell is close to dead and I won't elaborate on that again...many other PC makers can replace it.

As for suitable Apple products to replace Windows crap, there is only one answer: Mac.

Which Mac? How much more do they cost? Are they even suitable for the job at hand? I really don't think you've thought this through terribly well...

[NoSmokingBandit]

Ignore BRLawyer, he is a blind fanboy, its useless arguing with him.

[lilo777]

As for suitable Apple products to replace Windows crap, there is only one answer: Mac.

Mac is exactly the same "crap" as PC (using your terminology) only more expensive. Not everyone in this World is willing to pay more for the same stuff only because Steve told them so. The hypes come and go and it is inevitable that once the Steve hype is gone (long live Steve though) Apple will once again fall into oblivion ... or not but they will become your regular tech company trying to deliver cheaper efficient solutions.

[LagunaSol]

Most people do not like OS X.

Hey look everyone, a new MacRumors troll. Welcome!

Most people have never tried OS X and have no opinion of OS X.

[czachorski]

NPD only tracks retail sales, this is nowhere even CLOSE to total sales. Good "revenue" numbers for Apple, but considering who has a well known dedicated store (Apple) and who doesn't (everyone else for the most part), not really surprising. Their market share is still quite low.

As a matter of fact, yes they do. Just as HP sells a fair portion of their hardware through retail outlets in Staples, Best Buy, even Walmart* and other outlets, Dell is there, too. At least where I live, they are.

But the most interesting thing is, despite the much lower prices of the other PC brands, only Apple seems to be making any kind of real profit. Why? Oh, I know, they have 'oh so much markup,' but if that were really so true, why are people paying it? Have they decided that Apple really is the better choice? These numbers mean that Apple is now selling 25% of all desktop computers in the US. Are people finally tired of the poor quality of the cheaper PCs?

Only time will tell.

Wouldn't Apple be at a disadvantage counting retail sales too?

I mean the only major retail chains that sell Macs are Apple Stores and Best Buy.

Seems like a lot of people did not read much of the article. First sentence of 2nd paragraph: "NPD measures in-store and online sales to compile the numbers."

[lilo777]

Most people have never tried OS X and have no opinion of OS X.

It seems like most Apple fans think in sync :cool: Why would that be? A few posts back cmaier said:


Wrong. Most people haven't tried it and have no opinion.


Is it scary or what ;)

[RazHyena]

Very impressive. Well done, Apple. :apple:

Could you please throw us a bone now and sell an affordable i5 & i7 towers. The new Apple Performa and Quadra. :D starting at $800 & $1,000.

Thank you.

YES PLEASE. :) I'll take an affordable i7 apple tower.

[bobr1952]

I'm sure there are many others who feel as I do--I just took a chance when I needed a new computer and decided to try an unknown quantity at the time--a Mac. I'm very happy with the hardware and software so for me, the switch was a great idea--and I'm sure those numbers reflect a lot of other happy new Mac users.

[czachorski]

I'm sure there are many others who feel as I do--I just took a chance when I needed a new computer and decided to try an unknown quantity at the time--a Mac. I'm very happy with the hardware and software so for me, the switch was a great idea--and I'm sure those numbers reflect a lot of other happy new Mac users.

Me to - 7 years ago and never looked back.

Macs provide the utility I need for a price that I believe is reflected in the value I receive. Beyond that, their revenue, profit margin or cash in the bank is irrelevant to me. Except for one little thing: it makes me more comfortable buying more knowing they are doing well to keep the platform sustainable.

[ShiftyPig]

Did anyone ever confirm that Mac does indeed own 25% desktop market share, because that statistic is crucial to this report.

Profit margins ftw, but the math here doesn't pan out.

[AidenShaw]

YES PLEASE. :) I'll take an affordable i7 apple tower.

I wonder what a mini-tower offering would do to these numbers. There are at least three possibilities...

Apple's revenue would be much higher, because many more Apples would be sold
No change - a few more Apples with somewhat fewer of the higher priced Imac line
Lower, because Apple no longer sells a monitor with the majority of its desktops.

On the third point, I wonder if when other companies sold a desktop plus a monitor, if the monitor price was included in the total...

[cmaier]

It seems like most Apple fans think in sync :cool: Why would that be? A few posts back cmaier said:



Is it scary or what ;)

Because it's true. Vast majority of peow have never used a mac. Even fewer have used a modern mac.

Further, most people reserve an opinion until they've actually tried something.

[czachorski]

On the third point, I wonder if when other companies sold a desktop plus a monitor, if the monitor price was included in the total...

Almost certainly not. This would slightly skew the numbers against makers who don't sell many monitors.

On your overall point, it seems the market would be poised for someone to make an OS that runs on generic hardware, but provides the fabled user experience of OS X. Maybe chrome someday?

[nagromme]

Mac is exactly the same "crap" as PC (using your terminology) only more expensive. Not everyone in this World is willing to pay more for the same stuff only because Steve told them so.
...

Your trolling script seems to be based on Apple from the late 1900s--check Windows Update for a new version :p (If it doesn't crash and fry your brand-new Dell's OS, as my friend just experienced--and she can't even back up her week's worth of stuff because the optical drive died after a few days :o )

* Currently, the initial purchase price of many Macs is much less than a PC (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=808198) with the "same stuff." (Actually, certain current Macs cost the same as a Dell that has almost nothing! A well-loaded 27" iMac costs the same as a Dell display alone. The Dell display does have 160 additional pixels though :p )

* And on top of Apple's already-competitive pricing, you can find great deals (such as Amazon, educational discounts, and like-new refurbs which have full warranties) to pay even less.

* After that initial purchase, your support, troubleshooting and anti-virus costs (in both money AND time) are lower year after year.

* And Macs have a longer usable life, so you don't have to buy as many computers over time.

* And then when you do want a new computer, the Mac holds its resale value far better than a PC, helping to fund your next Mac.

In the end, being a Mac user tends to cost a whole LOT less. And you still get the benefits of Mac OS X! Plus it runs your old Windows stuff too if you wish. It's win-win.

When the time comes to buy a new PC, why spend hundreds MORE to get a Dell? Just get the MacBook :)

P.S. Windows is not dead. Look how long Amiga OS clung to life... it's still not quite dead! And Amiga had nothing like the intertia of Microsoft's former dominance. Windows is here to stay. Its future is very dim, but very long.

[LagunaSol]

It seems like most Apple fans think in sync

I think it's called common sense. What's odd is that someone actually has to point it out for you.

[czachorski]

Your trolling script seems to be based on Apple from the late 1900s--check Windows Update for a new version :p (If it doesn't crash and fry your brand-new Dell's OS, as my friend just experienced--and she can't even back up her week's worth of stuff because the optical drive died after a few days :o )

* Currently, the initial purchase price of many Macs is much less than a PC (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=808198) with the "same stuff." (Actually, certain current Macs cost the same as a Dell that has almost nothing! A well-loaded 27" iMac costs the same as a Dell display alone. The Dell display does have 160 additional pixels though :p )

* And on top of Apple's already-competitive pricing, you can find great deals (such as Amazon, educational discounts, and like-new refurbs which have full warranties) to pay even less.

* After that initial purchase, your support, troubleshooting and anti-virus costs (in both money AND time) are lower year after year.

* And Macs have a longer usable life, so you don't have to buy as many computers over time.

* And then when you do want a new computer, the Mac holds its resale value far better than a PC, helping to fund your next Mac.

In the end, being a Mac user tends to cost a whole LOT less. And you still get the benefits of Mac OS X! Plus it runs your old Windows stuff too if you wish. It's win-win.

When the time comes to buy a new PC, why spend hundreds MORE to get a Dell? Just get the MacBook :)

P.S. Windows is not dead. Look how long Amiga OS clung to life... it's still not quite dead! And Amiga had nothing like the intertia of Microsoft's former dominance. Windows is here to stay. Its future is very dim, but very long.

These are part of the secondary reasons why I feel I receive a value from Macs worth the price I pay. The primary reason for me is my user experience.

[seashellz]

as we read this mornings SEATTLE TIMES that MS is laying off more-this is welcome news-as MS is betting the farm on some mythical W7 "upgrade cycle
in the sky" over the next year that will pull them out of the mud
Most people realize they are just fine with XP and VISTA-and are not going to be fooled so easily again
But with the economy bad and -wake up-getting worse-people and businesses
will NOT want to fork out for -well, essentially Windows XP v.3


There WILL BE NO W7 upgrade cycle of any note-except for the few rabid-gotta have the latest types-Windows as an OS has be come antiquated and irellevant

They are counting thier chickens before they hatch
APPLE seems to have a sea anchor and is doing ok

[Eidorian]

* Currently, the initial purchase price of many Macs is much less than a PC (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=808198) with the "same stuff." (Actually, certain current Macs cost the same as a Dell that has almost nothing! A well-loaded 27" iMac costs the same as a Dell display alone. The Dell display does have 160 additional pixels though :p )Apple's most competitive products are the 13" notebooks. Going up or down is a loss in what you get.


* And on top of Apple's already-competitive pricing, you can find great deals (such as Amazon, educational discounts, and like-new refurbs which have full warranties) to pay even less.You have to hunt or wait for these deals to compete with other manufacturers unless a 13" notebook is what you want.


* After that initial purchase, your support, troubleshooting and anti-virus costs (in both money AND time) are lower year after year.It's debatable given the solutions available and the user's knowledge.


* And Macs have a longer usable life, so you don't have to buy as many computers over time.I've bought the equivalent to two PCs since I've owned my MacBook. Not that there was anything wrong with my Windows software or hardware but I did want something faster. My old Athlon XP system is still puttering around after 5 years and I've had to recycle 5 working Pentium 4 Northwood towers. Besides a heavy coat of dust inside these 6 year old towers and one older Willamette machine they all worked just fine. I even salvaged a few PCI FireWire 400 cards and a Sound Blaster PCI with 5.25" front panel.


* And then when you do want a new computer, the Mac holds its resale value far better than a PC, helping to fund your next Mac.Sadly based on the perceived value and entirely up to Apple's whim not market prices for said hardware.

[LagunaSol]

Sadly based on the perceived value and entirely up to Apple's whim not market prices for said hardware.

Um yeah, market value for anything is based on perceived value. Basic economics.

[Nuvi]

Dell is close to dead and I won't elaborate on that again...many other PC makers can replace it.

As for suitable Apple products to replace Windows crap, there is only one answer: Mac.

Time for a reality check???? and to prove your worthiness to all mighty Steve you need to do some serious upgrading...

[Eidorian]

Um yeah, market value for anything is based on perceived value. Basic economics.I'm sure we're all going to NewEgg to put together our Macs then.

The vernacular is usually called the Apple Tax. That's another can of worms. Though I don't feel the need to call out "in before" this trainwreck starts.

[MorphingDragon]

I wonder what a mini-tower offering would do to these numbers. There are at least three possibilities...

Apple's revenue would be much higher, because many more Apples would be sold
No change - a few more Apples with somewhat fewer of the higher priced Imac line
Lower, because Apple no longer sells a monitor with the majority of its desktops.

On the third point, I wonder if when other companies sold a desktop plus a monitor, if the monitor price was included in the total...

A lot of them aren't actually, if you ask for without the monitor it'll usually be separate.

I'm sure we're all going to NewEgg to put together our Macs then.

The vernacular is usually called the Apple Tax. That's another can of worms. Though I don't feel the need to call out "in before" this trainwreck starts.

It really depends where you live, computers of similar spec in NZ can rack near identical prices.

[Eidorian]

It really depends where you live, computers of similar spec in NZ can rack near identical prices.I'm not surprised given your location. I've heard some horror stories and jealousy from my friends in Europe as well.

[MorphingDragon]

I'm not surprised given your location. I've heard some horror stories and jealousy from my friends in Europe as well.

It was $2k for a 8800Ultra!

[czachorski]

I'm sure we're all going to NewEgg to put together our Macs then.

The vernacular is usually called the Apple Tax. That's another can of worms. Though I don't feel the need to call out "in before" this trainwreck starts.

Maybe I'm not following you, but the "Apple tax" seems completely irrelevant to a the re-sale value amongst third parties. Apple has already collected their "tax". Once the transaction is between third parties, Apple obviously has no interest in the transaction and cannot collect their "tax".

(I think "tax" needs to be in quotes because I think you really mean profit. Tax implies taking something through governmental force without earning it. As long as people voluntary conduct transactions with Apple, they have earned it as profit, not a tax. Calling Apple's profits a "tax" has always seemed odd and an indication of jealously of profits to me. But I suppose we are just into semantics now.)

[mrochester]

Maybe I'm not following you, but the "Apple tax" seems completely irrelevant to a the re-sale value amongst third parties. Apple has already collected their "tax". Once the transaction is between third parties, Apple obviously has no interest in the transaction and cannot collect their "tax".

(I think "tax" needs to be in quotes because I think you really mean profit. Tax implies taking something through governmental force without earning it. As long as people voluntary conduct transactions with Apple, they have earned it as profit, not a tax. Calling Apple's profits a "tax" has always seemed odd and an indication of jealously of profits to me. But I suppose we are just into semantics now.)

It's 'profit' to Apple (the people selling the product) and an extra 'tax' or 'fee' for those buying it.

[lilo777]

I think it's called common sense. What's odd is that someone actually has to point it out for you.


Yeah, but when the words get identical, it's called "talking points"

[inlovewithi]

Maybe I'm not following you, but the "Apple tax" seems completely irrelevant to a the re-sale value amongst third parties. Apple has already collected their "tax". Once the transaction is between third parties, Apple obviously has no interest in the transaction and cannot collect their "tax".

(I think "tax" needs to be in quotes because I think you really mean profit. Tax implies taking something through governmental force without earning it. As long as people voluntary conduct transactions with Apple, they have earned it as profit, not a tax. Calling Apple's profits a "tax" has always seemed odd and an indication of jealously of profits to me. But I suppose we are just into semantics now.)

Apple tax is just a term, not a literal tax. Similar to the Sony tax. It just means that Apple charges more for for equal product. For example I wanted to see how much a laptop of similar specs of a macbook would cost, so I went to dell.com and customized one of their laptop picking more or less the same specs as the macbook. The Dell was something like $300+ cheaper, so the term Apple tax refers to that price difference for similar specs, not an actual tax. Then if I wanted to add let say extra ram, I'm not sure if it was 2gb or 1gb, but for the Dell it would have cost me $50, but for the macbook $100. That $50 is what people would call the Apple tax.

[czachorski]

It's 'profit' to Apple (the people selling the product) and an extra 'tax' or 'fee' for those buying it.

I understand the fee or profit language. Fees and profits are earned and paid for voluntary in a free market. A tax is not, and therefore is an inappropriate term for it. All semantics, but something that bugs me nonetheless.

Apple tax is just a term, not a literal tax. Similar to the Sony tax. It just means that Apple charges more for for equal product. For example I wanted to see how much a laptop of similar specs of a macbook would cost, so I went to dell.com and customized one of their laptop picking more or less the same specs as the macbook. The Dell was something like $300+ cheaper, so the term Apple tax refers to that price difference for similar specs, not an actual tax. Then if I wanted to add let say extra ram, I'm not sure if it was 2gb or 1gb, but for the Dell it would have cost me $50, but for the macbook $100. That $50 is what people would call the Apple tax.

I understand the slang use of the word tax in this situation. I could even see its applicability if the products in question were indeed "equal", and Apple was just milking more. The products are not equal. The features of one are perceived to be more valuable, and therefore voluntarily paid for at the higher price without coercion or trickery. If there were coercion or trickery involved, then fine, call it a tax.

[mrochester]

I understand the fee or profit language. Fees and profits are earned and paid for voluntary in a free market. A tax is not, and therefore is an inappropriate term for it. All semantics, but something that bugs me nonetheless.



I understand the slang use of the word tax in this situation. I could even see its applicability if the products in question were indeed "equal", and Apple was just milking more. The products are not equal. The features of one are perceived to be more valuable, and therefore voluntarily paid for at the higher price without coercion or trickery. If there were coercion or trickery involved, then fine, call it a tax.

The people who don't see any value in what Apple offers for that extra money will consider it a tax as all you're doing is paying more for the same thing. There is a small minority who think there is extra value, and this is slowly growing, but the vast vast majority of people find no extra value.

[czachorski]

The people who don't see any value in what Apple offers for that extra money will consider it a tax as all you're doing is paying more for the same thing. There is a small minority who think there is extra value, and this is slowly growing, but the vast vast majority of people find no extra value.

A small minority think there is extra value, or a small minority thinks the extra value is worth the extra asking price? Big difference.

Tax implies coercion without added value. The lack of coercion and presence of a vast market willing to voluntarily pay the extra asking price is all the evidence needed to refute this as a tax.

[mrochester]

A small minority think there is extra value, or a small minority thinks the extra value is worth the extra asking price? Big difference.

Tax implies coercion without added value. The lack of coercion and presence of a vast market willing to voluntarily pay the extra asking price is all the evidence needed to refute this as a tax.

A small minority thinks there is extra value, and are willing to pay the higher price. The rest don't see any extra value, and aren't willing to pay the higher price, so the higher price is a 'tax' or 'fee' to gain an Apple logo on your computer, nothing more, nothing less.

[MorphingDragon]

A small minority thinks there is extra value, and are willing to pay the higher price. The rest don't see any extra value, and aren't willing to pay the higher price, so the higher price is a 'tax' or 'fee' to gain an Apple logo on your computer, nothing more, nothing less.

You're assuming that the consumer is informed. Apple usually just means iPod/iPhone to most people.

[cmaier]

Yeah, but when the words get identical, it's called "talking points"

Your statement was so blatantly wrong and so obvious to rebut, that 999 out of a 1000 monkeys would use the same words.

[czachorski]

A small minority thinks there is extra value, and are willing to pay the higher price. The rest don't see any extra value, and aren't willing to pay the higher price, so the higher price is a 'tax' or 'fee' to gain an Apple logo on your computer, nothing more, nothing less.

Your dichotomy ignores a third group that exists: those who believe there is a higher value, but not commensurate with the higher asking price. You can not state as fact that your second group is the majority.

What defines value?

I believe that my Honda motorcycle provides all the same value to me as a much more expensive Harley, but I am not so naive as to proclaim that the people who buy Harley's are paying a tax for that Harley logo. I understand that they value something different than I do. Different values do not imply a lack of value.

[MorphingDragon]

Your dichotomy ignores a third group that exists: those who believe there is a higher value, but not commensurate with the higher asking price. You can not state as fact that your second group is the majority.

What defines value?

I believe that my Honda motorcycle provides all the same value to me as a much more expensive Harley, but I am not so naive as to proclaim that the people who buy Harley's are paying a tax for that Harley logo. I understand that they value something different than I do. Different values do not imply a lack of value.

Except harleys have a habit of eating petrol and dying.

[czachorski]

Except harleys have a habit of eating petrol and dying.

:D

Which is part of why I value my Honda. I guess I could pretend to be dumbfounded that people still pay more for Harley's despite that negative and the higher price tag, call them zealots, and say they are paying a Harley "tax". But I can't do that, because I have an understanding that other people have different opinions than I do and value different things.

[MorphingDragon]

:D

Which is part of why I value my Honda. I guess I could pretend to be dumbfounded that people still pay more for Harley's despite that negative and the higher price tag, call them zealots, and say they are paying a Harley "tax". But I can't do that, because I have an understanding that other people have different opinions than I do and value different things.

I've got a Yamaha Scorpio here. I got it for $2k second hand and all it needed was a brake replacing and Fluid servicing.

[Jayomat]

the discussion above goes nowhere.. you go in circles... it's all about "preferences"...

both parties argue with experience and/or prefererences, rather than with facts (which is totally OK as long as you grant the same rights to the opposition)... millions of users will tell you they are completely satisfied the way Windows(XP,VIsta,7) (and the hardware) works for them... There are also 'millions' of users who will tell you the same about OSX (and the hardware)... both don't care for what the other has to say.. why should they care unless they are 'interested" in hardware, software in general or software development... they live in perfect harmony ;)

and then there is a third group of people, bashing each other because they don't want to understand the "preferences" (often called reasons.. if someone actually doesn't know OSX or linux exists, guess what... he doesn't even need to know!) which determine which OS you use - why person X prefers OS X over OS Windows and vice versa...

Do "PCs" have defects? Sure. Do "MACs" have defects. Of course. If you're are not satistied with the product you have, go ahead and let it be repaired. Sell it. HATE THE MANUFACTURER if that helps you. But please, please don't assume that everyone shares you're opinion, EVEN if you can proof that you had such problems. And you know why? They didn't experienced them or they don't care.. everyone lives in his own world, a perfect example ;)

WHY someone buys a product over another is just 50% (if not less) based on rational thoughts.. apple does brilliant marketing and corporate identity design...(hint)

stop the ongoing discussion of mac vs. rest-of-the-pc-world (i know you won't) and enjoy what you got..







... go on ... :rolleyes: ;)

ok, this was a round-house-kick-in-the-daily-macrumors-discussions-face :cool:

[MorphingDragon]

the discussion above goes nowhere.. you go in circles... it's all about "preferences"...

both parties argue with experience and/or prefererences, rather than with facts (which is totally OK as long as you grant the same rights to the opposition)... millions of users will tell you they are completely satisfied the way Windows(XP,VIsta,7) (and the hardware) works for them... There are also 'millions' of users who will tell you the same about OSX (and the hardware)... both don't care for what the other has to say.. why should they care unless they are 'interested" in hardware, software in general or software development... they live in perfect harmony ;)

and then there is a third group of people, bashing each other because they don't want to understand the "preferences" (often called reasons.. if someone actually doesn't know OSX or linux exists, guess what... he doesn't even need to know!) which determine which OS you use - why person X prefers OS X over OS Windows and vice versa...

Do "PCs" have defects? Sure. Do "MACs" have defects. Of course. If you're are not satistied with the product you have, go ahead and let it be repaired. Sell it. HATE THE MANUFACTURER if that helps you. But please, please don't assume that everyone shares you're opinion, EVEN you you can proof that you had such problems. And you know why? They didn't experienced them or they don't care..

WHY someone's buys a product over another is just 50% (if not less) based on rational thoughts.. apple does brilliant marketing and corporate identity design...(hint)

stop the ongoing discussion of mac vs. rest-of-the-pc-world (i know you won't) and enjoy what you got..







... go on ... :rolleyes: ;)

ok, this was round-house-kick in the daily-macrumors-discussions-face :cool:

I'm sorry, but MacRumours IS Chuck Norris.

[czachorski]

I've got a Yamaha Scorpio here. I got it for $2k second hand and all it needed was a brake replacing and Fluid servicing.

Nice. Mine is a Honda Valkyrie.


(click to enlarge)
http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/bike2.jpg

[MorphingDragon]

Nice. Mine is a Honda Valkyrie.


(click to enlarge)
http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/bike2.jpg

Tourers always look like they need to lose weight.

[KnightWRX]

I believe that my Honda motorcycle provides all the same value to me as a much more expensive Harley, but I am not so naive as to proclaim that the people who buy Harley's are paying a tax for that Harley logo. I understand that they value something different than I do. Different values do not imply a lack of value.

Protip : Harleys have chromed metal parts for every accent on the bike, not chrome-painted plastic.

There's your higher value (not to mention resale value is higher on the harley, so in the end, you don't lose any money when you resell the bike after a few years).

[MorphingDragon]

Protip : Harleys have chromed metal parts for every accent on the bike, not chrome-painted plastic.

There's your higher value (not to mention resale value is higher on the harley, so in the end, you don't lose any money when you resell the bike after a few years).

You might want to re-write that. The last part doesn't make sense.

[czachorski]

Protip : Harleys have chromed metal parts for every accent on the bike, not chrome-painted plastic.

There's your higher value (not to mention resale value is higher on the harley, so in the end, you don't lose any money when you resell the bike after a few years).

Right. A very good point. I understand that those things add value to Harley's and some people are willing to pay for them. I don't value those things as much, and I am not willing to pay for them. I acknowledge that the value of the Harley may be higher, but I don't value it as much as the price tag. It's an exact analogy as the Macs.

There is also a reason that Harley's are less valuable for me. My preference is for bikes that are not as loud and more smooth. A noisy v-twin has never appealed to me, and in fact, detracts from the value of the bike for me. Much like how OS X will detract from the value of a Mac for those who don't like OS X. Another exact analogy.

But you will never see me get on a high-horse and start calling Harley owners religious zealots who pay the Harley tax for the right of their logo on their bike. I understand that there are all these other people out there besides me that like different things than I do. I very much agree with the poster on the previous page of this thread to stated that it is all about perceptions and preferences. Value is subjective, and proclaiming that there is an absolute value to things based on your own subjective opinion is laughable.

[KnightWRX]

There is also a reason that Harley's are less valuable for me. My preference is for bikes that are not as loud and more smooth. A noisy v-twin has never appealed to me, and in fact, detracts from the value of the bike for me. Much like how OS X will detract from the value of a Mac for those who don't like OS X. Another exact analogy.

Noisy ? Stock Harleys hardly make a peep. The thing is no one keeps the stock pipes on there long enough for anyone else to notice this (we have 2 stock Harleys in our riding group, can hardly hear if the things are started with no other bikes running around them). And Softails have the 96B motor which is balanced and has absolutely no vibration even though it's solid mounted to the frame.

You need to learn a thing or two about Harleys, just like people need to learn a thing or two about Macs before calling them overpriced or even expensive.

There is no tax. Harley gives you value for your dollar (high quality paint, metal parts all around) and Apple gives you value for your dollar (every machine has bluetooth, 802.11n, Gigabit Ethernet). The thing is, Harley doesn't sell you something like the Rebel 250, made out of plastic at the low-end for barely 5K$ new, same as Apple doesn't sell you a 400$ desktop tower computer. In fact, Harley and Apple are pretty similar in the kind of market they target and both are wildly successful (Harley's market share is going up year after year).

[czachorski]

Noisy ? Stock Harleys hardly make a peep. The thing is no one keeps the stock pipes on there long enough for anyone else to notice this (we have 2 stock Harleys in our riding group, can hardly hear if the things are started with no other bikes running around them). And Softails have the 96B motor which is balanced and has absolutely no vibration even though it's solid mounted to the frame.

You need to learn a thing or two about Harleys, just like people need to learn a thing or two about Macs before calling them overpriced or even expensive.

There is no tax. Harley gives you value for your dollar (high quality paint, metal parts all around) and Apple gives you value for your dollar (every machine has bluetooth, 802.11n, Gigabit Ethernet). The thing is, Harley doesn't sell you something like the Rebel 250, made out of plastic at the low-end for barely 5K$ new, same as Apple doesn't sell you a 400$ desktop tower computer. In fact, Harley and Apple are pretty similar in the kind of market they target and both are wildly successful (Harley's market share is going up year after year).

I'll put my stock Honda next to a stock Harley any day to see which is quieter and smoother. :D

PS - you are making my same point exactly. :)

[MorphingDragon]

You need to learn a thing or two about Harleys, just like people need to learn a thing or two about Macs before calling them overpriced or even expensive.


I wonder if my Uncle's repair shop is full of harleys because they break a lot or is it just a lot of people have harleys.

BTW, Honda, Yamaha etc make expensive all metal bikes too. They just cater a lot to the 250-600cc commuter market.

[NoSmokingBandit]

There is no tax. Harley gives you value for your dollar (high quality paint, metal parts all around) and Apple gives you value for your dollar (every machine has bluetooth, 802.11n, Gigabit Ethernet). The thing is, Harley doesn't sell you something like the Rebel 250, made out of plastic at the low-end for barely 5K$ new, same as Apple doesn't sell you a 400$ desktop tower computer. In fact, Harley and Apple are pretty similar in the kind of market they target and both are wildly successful (Harley's market share is going up year after year).

Lets look at that statement for a second. Apple has less than 10% of the market share, yet almost 50% of the total market revenue. If every extra dollar you spend on a mac instead of a pc actually went into adding extra features and parts wouldnt apple have closer to 10% of the revenue to match the market share? The extra money you spend on a mac doesnt go to the parts and feature set, it goes into apple's heaping piles of cash. A mac can easily sell for much less and apple would still be making a higher % of the revenue than their market share would imply. I fell like i worded that oddly.

[czachorski]

Lets look at that statement for a second. Apple has less than 10% of the market share, yet almost 50% of the total market revenue. If every extra dollar you spend on a mac instead of a pc actually went into adding extra features and parts wouldnt apple have closer to 10% of the revenue to match the market share?

No. If they took 100% of their profit margin and put it into the machines as extra features, they would have an even higher percent of the revenue market than 50%, as more people would see their machines as providing value than before, and more would likely buy. Your statement was so obviously flawed that I can't help but wonder if I am not seeing Poe's law at work.

[harlinator]

Strange how since they are "so much" people are still buying them he he...
Just PROVES that people have realized you get what you pay for in this world... well, 48% of them anyway.

[thebeans]

Most people do not like OS X.

do not even know what OS x is.

SELECT * FROM users WHERE Clue > 0. 0 rows returned.

[MorphingDragon]

Dp

[MorphingDragon]

do not even know what OS x is.

SELECT * FROM users WHERE Clue > 0. 0 rows returned.


Knowledge *Customer;
[Customer new];
[Customer knowledgeCheck]:

----

Terminal Display:

"What u on about fool!?"

[harlinator]

For many of us (like about 95% of the market), Apple OSX is part of the problem - not the solution.

It's great that Apple OSX solves your problems, I'm happy for you.

However, many of us have applications or needs or simple preferences for the way Windows works. For us, the "it doesn't run Apple OSX" complaint isn't an issue - it's actually an advantage.




Apple's gone backwards since your system - the 21.5" Imac has cut off the bottom of the screen, and only has 1080 vertical pixels.

Most "16x9" displays cut off vertical pixels, rather than adding horizontal pixels.
Can you please explain in detail the problems you are having with a true drag and drop environment like OS X please? Then I will list the problems with using windows compared to OS X's way of dealing with that same problem. Please explain for us.

[cliveren13]

if u read the article it said not likely to continue apple took advantage of the slow sales of pc,s due to the launch of windows 7 now that windows 7 has launched what npd failed to tell u is that pc sales are through the roof especially netbooks widows 7 has outdone itself in a less time period than what vista did in a year but since alot of u only get ur news from this site u dont know any better read around people some of u arent even mac fans just wanna bees most of u dont even know when the first mac came out or have ever seen bill gates and steve jobs havin lunch or collaberatin together.

[MacKiddyWiddy]

Well done apple!http://macblog.***********/imgs/signature_SmileyFace.jpg

[AidenShaw]

Can you please explain in detail the problems you are having with a true drag and drop environment like OS X please? Then I will list the problems with using windows compared to OS X's way of dealing with that same problem. Please explain for us.

I didn't say anything about drag and drop, was this question directed at me?

[ctakim]

The extremes of the postings here are quite amusing. On the one hand you have the folks who decry Apple's computers as mediocre and overpriced and the only reason they are flying off the shelves is that the computer buying public is too ignorant to know better. Implicit is the suggestion that the poster is way smarter than the typical consumer and much smarter than all of the Apple fanboys.

The other extreme are those that are convinced that Dell and Microsoft are going out of business in 3 years. For them the reality distortion field has become the status quo. Implicit in these posts is the sense of religious righteousness and the certainty of a rigidly held dogma that tolerates no dissenting viewpoint.

And then there are the rest of us, I guess, who use a PC at work and a Mac at home and are reasonably satisfied with both. :)

[Ammo]

Lets look at that statement for a second. Apple has less than 10% of the market share, yet almost 50% of the total market revenue. If every extra dollar you spend on a mac instead of a pc actually went into adding extra features and parts wouldnt apple have closer to 10% of the revenue to match the market share? The extra money you spend on a mac doesnt go to the parts and feature set, it goes into apple's heaping piles of cash. A mac can easily sell for much less and apple would still be making a higher % of the revenue than their market share would imply. I fell like i worded that oddly.

I don't believe that.

Apple's value added comes with the pre-loaded software. iLife and the fact that you don't need to purchase anti-Virus software (I know you can download free anti-viruses like Avira but the average consumer is conned into buying a 3 year Norton subscription) more than pays for the so-called "Apple Tax."

Take this from a recent PC to Mac convert. I love this machine so far.

[czachorski]

if u read the article it said not likely to continue apple took advantage of the slow sales of pc,s due to the launch of windows 7 now that windows 7 has launched what npd failed to tell u is that pc sales are through the roof especially netbooks widows 7 has outdone itself in a less time period than what vista did in a year but since alot of u only get ur news from this site u dont know any better read around people some of u arent even mac fans just wanna bees most of u dont even know when the first mac came out or have ever seen bill gates and steve jobs havin lunch or collaberatin together.

If you read the article, you would see that the year ago value was 33%, that it was 44% in April 09, and that the post Windows 7 launch values are likely to stabilize in the 40% range. All amazing revenue-share performance numbers for a company with such a small unit-market share.

[twoodcc]

wow. now those numbers are very impressive. way to go apple! now put in an i9 processor in the next mac pro in January 2010 and we'll be good

[MagnusVonMagnum]

They have nearly half the industry sales due to not having to compete directly with anyone for hardware sales (since if you want OSX, you cannot put it on anyone's hardware but Apple's), but they are not a "major" player so there is not anti-trust violation according to the Apple supporters on this issue.... What a crock of bologna! :mad:

If Dell could pre-install OSX on any of its computers to sell, do you seriously think for even one second that Apple would be getting nearly half of ALL PC revenue??? There is no freaking way on Earth. PERIOD. They get away with this because they leverage their operating system against the hardware sales instead of against Windows sales (i.e. leveraging one market to force sales in another market, namely software to leverage hardware sales). This leaves Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. out in the cold for hardware competition because they cannot compete with what they are not allowed to sell (i.e. if you cannot install OSX on their hardware, you cannot consider their hardware to buy if you want OSX) due to tying license agreements Apple has in their OSX license. This "tying" of two different markets to shore up sales in one by leveraging the other is clearly illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act for any market of any financial significance, but apparently certain people think 50% of ALL PC revenue isn't "significant" enough. Having $24+ BILLION in petty cash isn't significant either. That's why they're not guilty of anti-trust violations. They aren't "significant". I wish my income wasn't "significant" in the ways theirs isn't! :p

[KnightWRX]

Lets look at that statement for a second. Apple has less than 10% of the market share, yet almost 50% of the total market revenue. If every extra dollar you spend on a mac instead of a pc actually went into adding extra features and parts wouldnt apple have closer to 10% of the revenue to match the market share? The extra money you spend on a mac doesnt go to the parts and feature set, it goes into apple's heaping piles of cash. A mac can easily sell for much less and apple would still be making a higher % of the revenue than their market share would imply. I fell like i worded that oddly.

Revenue != profits.

Selling 4 500$ PCs gives you 2000$ revenue, no matter how much they cost you to make. Selling 1 2000$ Mac gives you 2000$ revenue, no matter how much they cost you to make, but you now have 50% revenue share, and 20% market share.

Get it now ? Apple sells higher-end system. They make a lot of revenue off little sales, hence the revenue share vs market share.

It has nothing to do with value or perceived value. However, Apple does give you that value. If you don't want all the extra bells and whistle, Apple doesn't catter to you though, so you think it's overpriced. A Dell configured to be just like an Apple computer is sometimes cheaper, sometimes more expensive, but it's most always comparable.

[MorphingDragon]

They have nearly half the industry sales due to not having to compete directly with anyone for hardware sales (since if you want OSX, you cannot put it on anyone's hardware but Apple's), but they are not a "major" player so there is not anti-trust violation according to the Apple supporters on this issue.... What a crock of bologna! :mad:

If Dell could pre-install OSX on any of its computers to sell, do you seriously think for even one second that Apple would be getting nearly half of ALL PC revenue??? There is no freaking way on Earth. PERIOD. They get away with this because they leverage their operating system against the hardware sales instead of against Windows sales (i.e. leveraging one market to force sales in another market, namely software to leverage hardware sales). This leaves Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. out in the cold for hardware competition because they cannot compete with what they are not allowed to sell (i.e. if you cannot install OSX on their hardware, you cannot consider their hardware to buy if you want OSX) due to tying license agreements Apple has in their OSX license. This "tying" of two different markets to shore up sales in one by leveraging the other is clearly illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act for any market of any financial significance, but apparently certain people think 50% of ALL PC revenue isn't "significant" enough. Having $24+ BILLION in petty cash isn't significant either. That's why they're not guilty of anti-trust violations. They aren't "significant". I wish my income wasn't "significant" in the ways theirs isn't! :p

Theres a flaw in your argument. I'm sure Microsoft would "enforce" the OEM license and stop those computers from seeing the light of day.

[KnightWRX]

They have nearly half the industry sales due to not having to compete directly with anyone for hardware sales (since if you want OSX, you cannot put it on anyone's hardware but Apple's), but they are not a "major" player so there is not anti-trust violation according to the Apple supporters on this issue.... What a crock of bologna! :mad:

You're wrong of course. Apple very much competes against Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony in the computer hardware market. Who they don't compete against is Microsoft.

People who buy a computer don't buy "OS X". They buy a computer to run software. Apple is actually at a disadvantage here because Mac software is not as ubiquitous and prevalent as Windows software and sometimes, it means that there's a transition period for the buyers that are not all too computer savvy.

[phaedarus]

Good on Apple.

Now about how taking some of the revenue and reinvesting it into designing decent Mac Pros with more frequent updates and at a better price point rather than splurging an entire R&D budget into consumer electronics?

I realize the realm of graphic design is a niche market but we (along with the educational market) formed Apple's customer base that kept it afloat for over twenty years. How about catering to us sometime in during the new millennium?

[czachorski]

They have nearly half the industry sales due to not having to compete directly with anyone for hardware sales (since if you want OSX, you cannot put it on anyone's hardware but Apple's), but they are not a "major" player so there is not anti-trust violation according to the Apple supporters on this issue.... What a crock of bologna! :mad:

If Dell could pre-install OSX on any of its computers to sell, do you seriously think for even one second that Apple would be getting nearly half of ALL PC revenue??? There is no freaking way on Earth. PERIOD. They get away with this because they leverage their operating system against the hardware sales instead of against Windows sales (i.e. leveraging one market to force sales in another market, namely software to leverage hardware sales). This leaves Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. out in the cold for hardware competition because they cannot compete with what they are not allowed to sell (i.e. if you cannot install OSX on their hardware, you cannot consider their hardware to buy if you want OSX) due to tying license agreements Apple has in their OSX license. This "tying" of two different markets to shore up sales in one by leveraging the other is clearly illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act for any market of any financial significance, but apparently certain people think 50% of ALL PC revenue isn't "significant" enough. Having $24+ BILLION in petty cash isn't significant either. That's why they're not guilty of anti-trust violations. They aren't "significant". I wish my income wasn't "significant" in the ways theirs isn't! :p

Rather than complaining that Apple has violated anti-trust laws, I would just once like to see a call to the other major players in the industry to create their own hardware/software combination like Apple has and offer some real competition. Is the rest of the industry that pathetic that they can not take the "sell the whole widget" business model and compete with Apple at all? Really? If this is true, then, yes, take Apple down on anti-competitive practices - the rest of the industry is too pathetic, untalented and incompetent to even try, so we better tear down the ones that have figured it out and made it successful.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You're wrong of course. Apple very much competes against Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony in the computer hardware market. Who they don't compete against is Microsoft.

People who buy a computer don't buy "OS X". They buy a computer to run software. Apple is actually at a disadvantage here because Mac software is not as ubiquitous and prevalent as Windows software and sometimes, it means that there's a transition period for the buyers that are not all too computer savvy.


Sorry, but you have that 100% BACKWARDS. When is the last time you saw an Apple ad on TV that suggested you buy a Mac over a Dell or HP??? NEVER EVER. They don't have to target them because they DO NOT COMPETE WITH THEM. Apple's ads target Microsoft EVERY TIME. They call it "PC" but they mean Windows because Windows is all they talk about in those commercials. You do NOT buy a Mac because Apple's laptops are "great hardware" because they are not. Lately, they've been terrible, removing firewire ports, matte screen options, removable batteries, etc. and having defects like yellow screen issues, bad video card chipsets, keys not typing on the first press, etc. over the past couple of years. Certain people may like their computer inside a monitor cover, but it means laptop parts (until the most recent top line model) and no expansion inside the thing which defeats the point of having compact in the first place. I don't like their hardware. I like OSX. People like OSX. They call it a "Mac" but it's OSX in a pretty case with generic hardware. People buy a Mac for the OS, not for the case. Those that do buy it for the case are not computer literate.

Apple makes the insane amounts of profits they do precisely because some people ARE sick to death of viruses, malware, etc. (that at least need to be constantly screened and updated) that comes with owning a Windows machine. I know it's a major reason I got a Mac, so I'd have a reasonably safe platform to shop/bank/etc. from. But it's OSX that achieves that, not sticking some hardware in the back of a monitor. OSX makes a Mac a Mac, not the hardware. A Mac Mini and Mac Pro look nothing alike, but they're the same thing, a Mac and it's because of OSX, not the hardware. My PPC Mac has different hardware, but it's still a Mac because it's running OSX.

Really, I don't get why supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp the idea that Apple is making gangbusters money soley on the fact that they don't have to compete directly for hardware sales. You don't buy a Mac instead of a Dell because the Mac hardware is better or cheaper (it's NOT). You buy the Mac instead of the Dell because you're sick of Windows problems and BS. If Dell could sell the machine with OSX, I *GUARANTEE* that unless Apple lowered their prices, Apple would lose over half their sales almost overnight because the prices they are charging are RIDICULOUS compared to the other hardware manufacturers selling the SAME BASIC HARDWARE. The ONLY reason Apple CAN charge so much more is because of OSX and because no one else on Earth is allowed to sell their machine with OSX. It is OSX that is the reason you don't buy the Dell. If anything some people buy the Dell *anyway* because the darn Macs cost so darn much, not because they wouldn't prefer to get rid of virus problems, etc. So if there's any competition it's DESPITE the advantages of cornering a market segment (i.e. even if you really need a bulldozer instead of a shovel to do a job; if you cannot afford the bulldozer, you're stuck with the shovel regardless). You don't call that a monopoly. You don't call it tying. You don't call it anything because you LIKE that situation not because it's not true. The sad thing is you cannot even see or acknowledge it. You probably really do people buy Macs for the hardware, not because of OSX, which is patently ABSURD. And that makes you a FANBOY not a logical human being and thus not worth conversing with. End of story.

Rather than complaining that Apple has violated anti-trust laws, I would just once like to see a call to the other major players in the industry to create their own hardware/software combination like Apple has and offer some real competition. Is the rest of the industry that pathetic that they can not take the "sell the whole widget" business model and compete with Apple at all? Really? If this is true, then, yes, take Apple down on anti-competitive practices - the rest of the industry is too pathetic, untalented and incompetent to even try, so we better tear down the ones that have figured it out and made it successful.

So Macs are widgets now? There are competing products to the iPhone. I'm not talking about the iPhone (although the virtual monopoly on stores for apps for the iPhone is another matter). What you're suggesting is a company build a computer and operating system combination to compete with the Mac. The thing is we DID have more computer operating systems out there at one time (Atari, Amiga, even the C64 and Texas Instruments if you want to keep going back). But getting market share enough for an operating system to make a profit and more importantly to keep market developers working for your system bottomed out in the 1990s. The Mac almost bottomed out with it. It wasn't the hardware. It's market share and developers. Linux would have died long ago if it weren't a hobbyist created operating system, for example. It has very little commercial software, especially for the home environment. But unlike Apple, I can buy any hardware I want and install it on it. I can do the same with Windows. I cannot do the same with OSX. That's the difference. All three use the same hardware. But only Apple says I cannot install their OS on the hardware of my choosing. I must buy THEIR hardware at their inflated prices and if I don't like it, I must use another operating system. Well, that sucks because they do not offer certain model computers (home towers, these new sub-notebooks, tablets, etc.) So if you want OSX and you want a sub-notebook, what can you do? You have to hack it or just do without. Where the competition there? Where's the consumer choice? Where's Capitalism at?

I should not be forced to buy HP paper just because I buy an HP printer. In fact, if HP tried to force you to buy ONLY THEIR PAPER, they would be in violation of the "tying" provision of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act because making printers and making paper for printers are two different markets. So why is it that if I buy OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer? It's the SAME THING. Hardware and Software are TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS. And the people here saying it is not are the people that don't have a clue about the law. Tying two products together artificially (and it IS artificial as it's the license that ties them, not any hardware requirement) serves only one purpose and that is to actively try to PREVENT COMPETITION and that is illegal. And yes I'm complaining that the U.S. government isn't doing something about it when they should be. I could see them overlooking Apple when they were a minor player on the verge of bankruptcy, but they are now responsible for almost 50% of the revenue of PCs being sold, control majorities in both the digital music player markets and new smart phone sales and so they can no longer be "ignored" as a minor computer maker. If you're going to play with the big boys, you need to compete with the big boys. It's not fair to either the consumer or HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. that Apple can corner 100% of the market segment for hardware by those looking to run the OSX operating system just because Apple happens to own OSX. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer and Windows both, but that doesn't mean they can actively try and prevent other browsers from being able to use the same OS functions as Internet Explorer and hopes those other browsers will just go away. It's an unfair advantage in one market due to another market by artificial restraints on competition. And this article here proves just how profitable that is. If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

[cmaier]

Impressive rant, but remember tying, in and of itself, is not a Clayton violation.

There must be market power, which Apple doesn't have. Hp, in you example, may or may not.

Sorry, but you have that 100% BACKWARDS. When is the last time you saw an Apple ad on TV that suggested you buy a Mac over a Dell or HP??? NEVER EVER. They don't have to target them because they DO NOT COMPETE WITH THEM. Apple's ads target Microsoft EVERY TIME. They call it "PC" but they mean Windows because Windows is all they talk about in those commercials. You do NOT buy a Mac because Apple's laptops are "great hardware" because they are not. Lately, they've been terrible, removing firewire ports, matte screen options, removable batteries, etc. and having defects like yellow screen issues, bad video card chipsets, keys not typing on the first press, etc. over the past couple of years. Certain people may like their computer inside a monitor cover, but it means laptop parts (until the most recent top line model) and no expansion inside the thing which defeats the point of having compact in the first place. I don't like their hardware. I like OSX. People like OSX. They call it a "Mac" but it's OSX in a pretty case with generic hardware. People buy a Mac for the OS, not for the case. Those that do buy it for the case are not computer literate.

Apple makes the insane amounts of profits they do precisely because some people ARE sick to death of viruses, malware, etc. (that at least need to be constantly screened and updated) that comes with owning a Windows machine. I know it's a major reason I got a Mac, so I'd have a reasonably safe platform to shop/bank/etc. from. But it's OSX that achieves that, not sticking some hardware in the back of a monitor. OSX makes a Mac a Mac, not the hardware. A Mac Mini and Mac Pro look nothing alike, but they're the same thing, a Mac and it's because of OSX, not the hardware. My PPC Mac has different hardware, but it's still a Mac because it's running OSX.

Really, I don't get why supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp the idea that Apple is making gangbusters money soley on the fact that they don't have to compete directly for hardware sales. You don't buy a Mac instead of a Dell because the Mac hardware is better or cheaper (it's NOT). You buy the Mac instead of the Dell because you're sick of Windows problems and BS. If Dell could sell the machine with OSX, I *GUARANTEE* that unless Apple lowered their prices, Apple would lose over half their sales almost overnight because the prices they are charging are RIDICULOUS compared to the other hardware manufacturers selling the SAME BASIC HARDWARE. The ONLY reason Apple CAN charge so much more is because of OSX and because no one else on Earth is allowed to sell their machine with OSX. It is OSX that is the reason you don't buy the Dell. If anything some people buy the Dell *anyway* because the darn Macs cost so darn much, not because they wouldn't prefer to get rid of virus problems, etc. So if there's any competition it's DESPITE the advantages of cornering a market segment (i.e. even if you really need a bulldozer instead of a shovel to do a job; if you cannot afford the bulldozer, you're stuck with the shovel regardless). You don't call that a monopoly. You don't call it tying. You don't call it anything because you LIKE that situation not because it's not true. The sad thing is you cannot even see or acknowledge it. You probably really do people buy Macs for the hardware, not because of OSX, which is patently ABSURD. And that makes you a FANBOY not a logical human being and thus not worth conversing with. End of story.



So Macs are widgets now? There are competing products to the iPhone. I'm not talking about the iPhone (although the virtual monopoly on stores for apps for the iPhone is another matter). What you're suggesting is a company build a computer and operating system combination to compete with the Mac. The thing is we DID have more computer operating systems out there at one time (Atari, Amiga, even the C64 and Texas Instruments if you want to keep going back). But getting market share enough for an operating system to make a profit and more importantly to keep market developers working for your system bottomed out in the 1990s. The Mac almost bottomed out with it. It wasn't the hardware. It's market share and developers. Linux would have died long ago if it weren't a hobbyist created operating system, for example. It has very little commercial software, especially for the home environment. But unlike Apple, I can buy any hardware I want and install it on it. I can do the same with Windows. I cannot do the same with OSX. That's the difference. All three use the same hardware. But only Apple says I cannot install their OS on the hardware of my choosing. I must buy THEIR hardware at their inflated prices and if I don't like it, I must use another operating system. Well, that sucks because they do not offer certain model computers (home towers, these new sub-notebooks, tablets, etc.) So if you want OSX and you want a sub-notebook, what can you do? You have to hack it or just do without. Where the competition there? Where's the consumer choice? Where's Capitalism at?

I should not be forced to buy HP paper just because I buy an HP printer. In fact, if HP tried to force you to buy ONLY THEIR PAPER, they would be in violation of the "tying" provision of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act because making printers and making paper for printers are two different markets. So why is it that if I buy OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer? It's the SAME THING. Hardware and Software are TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS. And the people here saying it is not are the people that don't have a clue about the law. Tying two products together artificially (and it IS artificial as it's the license that ties them, not any hardware requirement) serves only one purpose and that is to actively try to PREVENT COMPETITION and that is illegal. And yes I'm complaining that the U.S. government isn't doing something about it when they should be. I could see them overlooking Apple when they were a minor player on the verge of bankruptcy, but they are now responsible for almost 50% of the revenue of PCs being sold, control majorities in both the digital music player markets and new smart phone sales and so they can no longer be "ignored" as a minor computer maker. If you're going to play with the big boys, you need to compete with the big boys. It's not fair to either the consumer or HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. that Apple can corner 100% of the market segment for hardware by those looking to run the OSX operating system just because Apple happens to own OSX. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer and Windows both, but that doesn't mean they can actively try and prevent other browsers from being able to use the same OS functions as Internet Explorer and hopes those other browsers will just go away. It's an unfair advantage in one market due to another market by artificial restraints on competition. And this article here proves just how profitable that is. If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Impressive rant, but remember tying, in and of itself, is not a Clayton violation.

There must be market power, which Apple doesn't have. Hp, in you example, may or may not.

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

[KnightWRX]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

Revenue means nothing. It only means you sell more expensive stuff, not that you have any kind of control over the direction of the market. 50% Revenu share means you sell 1 Mac Pro at 2500$ vs Dell selling 5 500% boxes. Who has more control over the market in that scenario ? Market share, prevalence, ubiquity are measures of control, revenue share only means you don't sell low-end stuff.

And Apple may advertise against Microsoft, but they compete against HP, Dell, Toshiba, Sony for market share. They sell hardware. It just so happens their main differentiating point is the software that runs on top of it.

And stop the wall of textes. Ranting is not a sign of intelligence or coherent thought. Quite the contrary.

[LagunaSol]

If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

Sigh. Are people seriously still arguing that Apple software being exclusive to Apple hardware is some kind of abusive, illegal arrangement??? :rolleyes:

[cmaier]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

The world I live in is the world of law. And that's not how you define market power. market power implies an amount of control over consumer prices. And they clearly don't have that. They set their prices high, and hundreds of competitors set their price low and the competitors get 90% of the sales, exactly like a non-monopolistic market is supposed to operate.

Rather than pointing to irrelevant statistics, how about picking up a law textbook?

[LagunaSol]

how about picking up a law textbook?

*shudder* ;)

[mrochester]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

As expressed by other people, having a tonne of revenue means jack squat as far as market power is concerned - it just means you're rich. Apple could have a £trillion in revenue, but with only 5% or less world market share, they would still have relatively little market power. Apple need to garner far more than 5% market share before they have any significant market power.

[strike1555]

Once more Apple shows the way, instead of following stupid advice from pundits to sell barebones and low-cost crap as other inferior PC makers do. Now repeat after me:

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD.

Congratulations, Apple!

Microsoft and Dell are dead? Honestly, there's being a fanboy and there's just plain being pathetic.


Are you as embarrassed to be a human as I am that you are?

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Revenue means nothing.

Yeah sure it doesn't. Obviously, the government agrees with you. Just look at their deficit.


And stop the wall of textes. Ranting is not a sign of intelligence or coherent thought. Quite the contrary.

When someone has to FLAME (which is against the rules here genius), they've LOST the argument. But based on your posts, that was obvious anyway.

This idea that Apple "competes" with Dell, HP, etc. is LUDICROUS. The reason they can charge such high prices with huge profit margins is precisely because they do *NOT* compete with them. If you want OSX, you *MUST* buy HARDWARE from Apple. How is Dell "competing" against Apple if a Dell cannot serve the same needs as a Mac??? I'll give you an example since you obviously have no idea what this is about. Say if I need the movie Terminator 2 (because that's what my kid asked for Christmas), buying the movie Fargo will not help my situation, despite the fact the same DVD player can player either one. But Apple says I can ONLY play Terminator 2 on THEIR DVD player, despite the fact T2 is sold at Best Buy on its own. So if I want to play T2, I HAVE to buy an Apple DVD player. Substitute the movies for operating systems and the DVD player for computers and you have Apple's OSX license in a nutshell. Apple and Dell WOULD be competing *IF* they were allowed to run the same software (i.e. you could pick your own operating system for their hardware). That would put them on the same playing field as you would be comparing hardware to hardware, not being forced to buy hardware based on your need to run software that is artificially tied to one brand only.


Apple could have a £trillion in revenue, but with only 5% or less world market share, they would still have relatively little market power. Apple need to garner far more than 5% market share before they have any significant market power.

Read the law. Nowhere does it say "market power". You guys just make crap up and then try to defend it. It's unreal. Here's the actual quote from the law:

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.


Do you see the word *OR* in the last sentence there? The words "substantially lessen competition *OR* tend to create a monopoly." That is KEY to the violation. I don't have to prove Apple has "significant market power" or anything of the sort. All I have to prove is that Apple's anti-competition license substantially "lessens" competition. Now garnering almost 50% of all PC revenue due to being able to charge huge profit margins due to the tying of OSX to hardware that has no direct competition (i.e. HP, Dell, etc. cannot compete for you sale if you want OSX) is the REASON they control so much of said revenue is MORE than "significant" in the sense they COULD NOT make that money IF they were competing directly with HP, Dell, etc. (i.e .no tie to OSX).

I'm sorry, but you armchair lawyers don't even READ the law you're arguing about and then you insult those that HAVE read it. UNBELIEVABLE.

I know some of you guys love Apple like it was your kid, but come on. If their actual hardware is great as you wish it was, they can make those sales without restricting other hardware makers from running OSX on their own hardware. That is what Capitalism is supposed to be about...competition not trying to AVOID competition. Why it takes a miracle to get some of you to comprehend that is utterly beyond me.

[cmaier]

Read the law. Nowhere does it say "market power". You guys just make crap up and then try to defend it. It's unreal. Here's the actual quote from the law:





You are wrong. For example, see http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/222144.htm ("The question should be well settled because antitrust law now requires proof of actual or likely market power or monopoly power to establish most types of antitrust violations. ")

When lawyers refer to "the law" they refer to two sources of law - first, statutory law. Second is "common law," which refers to the aggregated decisions of various courts in interpreting the statutory law.

You can't just cherry pick some language from a statute and claim that market power is not required. Here is some more proof that economic market power (the ability to control prices) is required:

544 F.3d 1323

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm::

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

Let me know if you want more sources - there are dozens of legal cases which list market power as a requirement.

You're the one making up the law.

[cumanzor]

do not even know what OS x is.

SELECT * FROM users WHERE Clue > 0. 0 rows returned.

You don't like the things I like? Wow you are clueless..... :rolleyes:

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You are wrong.

That's what you say, but everything and I mean *EVERYTHING* you said in your post agrees with what I said. I mean how ridiculous is that?


You can't just cherry pick some language from a statute and claim that market power is not required. Here is some more proof that economic market power (the ability to control prices) is required:


Ok, let's use what you quoted. Its' the SAME THING.


544 F.3d 1323

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm::

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.



The two products are OSX and Mac hardware. Condition Met.


2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).


This condition is met by the OSX license agreement. You MUST install it ONLY on Apple hardware.


3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.


I'll note that you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. money), not marketing or monopoly power. And if you think that controlling over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market based on overpriced hardware without competition doesn't constitute "appreciably (i.e. somewhat noticeable) you're just flat out LYING. The mere fact that Apple will sue anyone trying to sell hardware with their OS installed constitutes restrained competition. The fact Apple could not make those profit levels if they had ACTUAL competition proves just how restrained it is.


4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.


Again, 24+ Billion in petty cash and almost 50% of all PC revenue constitutes a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in ANYONE's book, even Ronald Reagan's. To even hint otherwise tells me you are lying or full of it because it's blatant.


Let me know if you want more sources - there are dozens of legal cases which list market power as a requirement.


Now you say MARKET power (i.e. controlling share), but above you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. substantial share of revenue). The LAW literally says the latter which makes me 100% correct and you stating market power makes you 100% WRONG. Let me know if you want me to put your stupid argument down again because you're clearly CLUELESS. Frankly, I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious to people that aren't listening. Frankly, as a consumer, you should WANT Apple to compete as you would benefit from it or is it because you're a stock holder and you think that might affect your bottom line? Really, when someone spouts out total BS again and again, I have to question their motivations for trying to deceive people.


You're the one making up the law.

Not only is that 100% WRONG, but you made my case for me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Get a freaking clue already. The law is what the law is and it's in black and white, clearly as crystal. Psystar's antitrust based lawsuit is STILL pending in Florida right now. This whole matter is far from over.

[BaldiMac]

I'll note that you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. money), not marketing or monopoly power. And if you think that controlling over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market based on overpriced hardware without competition doesn't constitute "appreciably (i.e. somewhat noticeable) you're just flat out LYING.

Economic power is the same as market power. Monopoly power is a specific type of market power. Apple does not control over 50% of the revenue for the global PC market. It's under 10%.

The mere fact that Apple will sue anyone trying to sell hardware with their OS installed constitutes restrained competition. The fact Apple could not make those profit levels if they had ACTUAL competition proves just how restrained it is.

Suing to protect your rights is not restraint of competition. Apple does have actual competition that is doing quite well and makes more money than Apple in the PC market.

Again, 24+ Billion in petty cash and almost 50% of all PC revenue constitutes a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in ANYONE's book, even Ronald Reagan's. To even hint otherwise tells me you are lying or full of it because it's blatant.

Again, Apple does not have 50% of all PC revenue. The amount of cash that they have is irrelevant to an antitrust case.

Now you say MARKET power (i.e. controlling share), but above you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. substantial share of revenue). The LAW literally says the latter which makes me 100% correct and you stating market power makes you 100% WRONG.

You are making up definitions that do not apply in the context of antitrust law. And, again, Apple has less than 10% share of revenue in the global PC market.

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

You also seem to be having trouble with this item. In this scenario, Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market. You haven't even tried to argue that Apple has economic power or market power or monopoly power in the OS market.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Economic power is the same as market power.

Look up the word "economic" and you see that one of the definitions is: "concerned with worldly necessities of life (especially money)". In other words, economic impact or economic power implies relationship to MONETARY means. Now look up "market" and you'll see they are NOT the same thing at ALL. A market is part of an economy. An economy is not part of a market. Thus, your idea that the Clayton Act requires a monopoly or something close to it is just plain in error as it uses the word "economic" not "market" in regards the first possible condition (before the OR). It would not say "OR" in regards to a situation leading to a monopoly if it were the SAME THING no matter how much you would prefer to believe that.


Monopoly power is a specific type of market power. Apple does not control over 50% of the revenue for the global PC market. It's under 10%.


You bring up "monopoly" where NO ONE said it applied. WTF did I ever say Apple was a monopoly???? Where does the LAW say it HAS to be one???? You keep making assertions without ANY basis in reality. The last time I checked, that was called trolling.


Suing to protect your rights is not restraint of competition.

Again, you twist reality in BS World. What rights? Apple has NO RIGHT to limit one market product to another market product artificially by means of contract. In other words, because tying is illegal under the Clayton Act (as quoted above), their license on that part is null and void (illegal). Therefore, they have no right to sue on that basis. In Psystar's case, there was a copyright violation involved (i.e. Psystar modified OSX to install it early on which is a separate violation and a separate issue). That has nothing to do with the anti-trust part of Psystar's lawsuit which is scheduled to be tried in Florida. They are two separate issues and a judge granted that lawsuit to continue. In other words, it was not dismissed because there is probable merit for a case.



And, again, Apple has less than 10% share of revenue in the global PC market.


It's irrelevant. The Clayton Act is not a world law. It's a U.S. law guy. Significant economic impact doesn't require world impact or "evenly spread" impact. It only requires substantial damage to be done to competition. If you read the Clayton Law segment I quoted earlier in the thread, you will clearly see that is EXACTLY what it says. Now if you think that losing out almost half the PC revenue solely due to that tying arrangement hasn't "substantially" hurt the competition, you must be living on Mars or something. That's almost half the money going to Apple solely because of their software license, not because they make superior hardware to compete with Dell and Lenovo, etc. And superior hardware is how Apple SHOULD be competing, not forbidding their OS to be installed on any hardware but their own. That would be the same as HP insisting you buy their paper or ink to use in their printers and no one Else's. It's tying and it's illegal. Capitalism means you COMPETE for both sales, not force one sale on the basis of another sale.


You also seem to be having trouble with this item. In this scenario, Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market. You


Where did you get this absurd idea from??? Oh, that's right. You just made it up! Where in ANY anti-trust legislation does it point to one specific market being the qualification of another market? Hewlett Packard does not have to control the world paper market to in order to create license agreement or other stipulation that might imply you MUST use their paper with their printers and no one Else's paper. If they did that, they would be in violation of the same tying agreement in the Clayton Act!!! You CANNOT use ONE PRODUCT to force a sale of ANOTHER PRODUCT, especially one in a different market. Printers and paper are two different markets even if they're related in some fashion. Hardware and Software are two different markets entirely. Microsoft got into trouble for tying a browser to their operating system (on the other side of the "OR" involving monopoly) and those two things are a LOT closer in terms of a similar product than code versus machine.


haven't even tried to argue that Apple has economic power or market power or monopoly power in the OS market.

Why would I? It's 100% irrelevant. Apple has a market for OSX. There are people that WANT OSX. No one says you cannot choose something else other than OSX. But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine? It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it? The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product. If you buy OSX (and they DO sell it by itself before you even go down that road), they have no right to tell you that you cannot put it on a Dell computer. It is that simple. Their contract is NULL AND VOID by the tying provision of the Clayton Act. That Act only requires proof of a reasonable amount of market impact. The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

[LagunaSol]

But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine? It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it? The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product.

:rolleyes:

The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

The HPs and Dells of the world are losing out on half the market revenue because they have chosen to ruin their own brands in a mad rush for the bottom - selling crap $400 computer systems to people gullible enough to buy them, hoping to compensate for razor thin profit margins via sheer volume.

The HPs and Dells of the world have also severed their own feet by tying their products inextricably to Microsoft Windows, where Microsoft probably makes more money on most Dell systems sold than Dell does.

Seems to me perhaps the HPs and Dells of the world should solve their own problems by creating their own OSes?

[cmaier]

Oh, stop. You are completely misinterpreting the law. And "market power" is an economic term that refers to the ability to set prices despite the supply-demand curve so as to earn a long-term economic profit. And none of those words I just used mean what you think they do - they are all terms of art used by economists and lawyers that mean different things than they do in the ordinary vernacular.

Apple has something like 10% of the market and its computers cost, on average, more than its competitors. Supply-demand implies that if your machine costs more and does the same thing, it should have a small market share. That's exactly what is happening. The market thus works, and there is no monopoly.

And, as I pointed out earlier by providing case law and treatise citations, and you ignored, market power is required in order for tying to be a violation of Clayton.

Psystar argued antitrust and got nowhere, because legally there's no argument.

[LagunaSol]

Psystar argued antitrust and got nowhere, because legally there's no argument.

And weren't similar arguments made against printer companies by companies who made cheap knock-off ink cartridges? Yeah, the impostors lost that battle in court.

Ditto Palm's ridiculous attempt to exploit iTunes for the Pre rather than create their own media software.

Seems to me it's entirely fair (and legal) to assume that if you make and sell the razor, you can make and sell the blades. And you have every right to protect that right (and deny competitors the same). Let them make their own dang razors and blades.

And let Dell make their own OS.

[cmaier]

And weren't similar arguments made against printer companies by companies who made cheap knock-off ink cartridges? Yeah, the impostors lost that battle in court.

Ditto Palm's ridiculous attempt to exploit iTunes for the Pre rather than create their own media software.

Seems to me it's entirely fair (and legal) to assume that if you make and sell the razor, you can make and sell the blades. And you have every right to protect that right (and deny competitors the same). Let them make their own dang razors and blades.

And let Dell make their own OS.

The toner guys frequently argue "patent misuse," "Walker process" and similar claims. In some situations these are valid claims. There is a similar doctrine - copyright misuse - that I believe Psystar has now asserted. Makes more sense than antitrust, but it can't win either.

[BaldiMac]

Look up the word "economic" and you see that one of the definitions is: "concerned with worldly necessities of life (especially money)". In other words, economic impact or economic power implies relationship to MONETARY means. Now look up "market" and you'll see they are NOT the same thing at ALL. A market is part of an economy. An economy is not part of a market. Thus, your idea that the Clayton Act requires a monopoly or something close to it is just plain in error as it uses the word "economic" not "market" in regards the first possible condition (before the OR). It would not say "OR" in regards to a situation leading to a monopoly if it were the SAME THING no matter how much you would prefer to believe that.

The terms have a specific legal and economic meanings. It's not just whatever definition you pick from a lay dictionary.

You bring up "monopoly" where NO ONE said it applied. WTF did I ever say Apple was a monopoly???? Where does the LAW say it HAS to be one???? You keep making assertions without ANY basis in reality. The last time I checked, that was called trolling.

Actually, most people except you say it applies. As I said, economic power, market power, and monopoly power are all synonyms in respect to antitrust regulations.

Again, you twist reality in BS World. What rights? Apple has NO RIGHT to limit one market product to another market product artificially by means of contract. In other words, because tying is illegal under the Clayton Act (as quoted above), their license on that part is null and void (illegal). Therefore, they have no right to sue on that basis. In Psystar's case, there was a copyright violation involved (i.e. Psystar modified OSX to install it early on which is a separate violation and a separate issue). That has nothing to do with the anti-trust part of Psystar's lawsuit which is scheduled to be tried in Florida. They are two separate issues and a judge granted that lawsuit to continue. In other words, it was not dismissed because there is probable merit for a case.

Did you attempt to read and understand the Psystar summary judgment? Apple sued to protect their copyright on OS X. The antitrust counterclaim made by Psystar was thrown out in California. They are making similar claims in Florida. A judge has not ruled on the validity of any claims in Florida.

It's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant that you made up statistics to back up your point? And when you are shown to be wrong by a huge margin it is suddenly irrelevant. You made the claim that Apple controls "over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market" several times in your previous rant.

The Clayton Act is not a world law. It's a U.S. law guy. Significant economic impact doesn't require world impact or "evenly spread" impact. It only requires substantial damage to be done to competition. If you read the Clayton Law segment I quoted earlier in the thread, you will clearly see that is EXACTLY what it says. Now if you think that losing out almost half the PC revenue solely due to that tying arrangement hasn't "substantially" hurt the competition, you must be living on Mars or something. That's almost half the money going to Apple solely because of their software license, not because they make superior hardware to compete with Dell and Lenovo, etc.

And again you make the same incorrect claim! Apple does not control 50% of the revenue in the world market or the US market or any other significant PC market. In the world, it is under 10%. In the US, it is under 20%.

And superior hardware is how Apple SHOULD be competing, not forbidding their OS to be installed on any hardware but their own. That would be the same as HP insisting you buy their paper or ink to use in their printers and no one Else's. It's tying and it's illegal. Capitalism means you COMPETE for both sales, not force one sale on the basis of another sale.

Apple does compete. It has competition (Dell, HP, Microsoft) that makes more money than they do in the PC and software markets respectively.

Where did you get this absurd idea from??? Oh, that's right. You just made it up!

From the basic requirement for a tying claim that you have quoted before and accepted from cmaier in this thread.

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

Requirement 3 would require that Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market.

Where in ANY anti-trust legislation does it point to one specific market being the qualification of another market? Hewlett Packard does not have to control the world paper market to in order to create license agreement or other stipulation that might imply you MUST use their paper with their printers and no one Else's paper. If they did that, they would be in violation of the same tying agreement in the Clayton Act!!! You CANNOT use ONE PRODUCT to force a sale of ANOTHER PRODUCT, especially one in a different market. Printers and paper are two different markets even if they're related in some fashion. Hardware and Software are two different markets entirely. Microsoft got into trouble for tying a browser to their operating system (on the other side of the "OR" involving monopoly) and those two things are a LOT closer in terms of a similar product than code versus machine.

Your printer and paper analogy is not on point.

HP does not have a copyright or patent on paper. Apple does have a copyright on OS X.

Apple doesn't prevent anyone from installing any OS on their hardware. Just like HP doesn't limit which paper to use in their hardware.

However, copyright law gives Apple exclusive rights to copying, distributing, and creating derivative works in respect to OS X with specific limitations. Apple is simply exercising those rights. Psystar claimed that Apple was misusing those rights in tying the two products. The judge denied that claim in summary judgment.

Why would I? It's 100% irrelevant. Apple has a market for OSX. There are people that WANT OSX.

The fact that someone wants OS X is irrelevant.

No one says you cannot choose something else other than OSX. But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine?

Because it belongs to Apple, and they do not want to sell it to you for that purpose.

It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it?

Copyright law.

The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product.

Only is specific circumstances. See the basic requirements above. Or the FTC fact sheet on single firm conduct in respect to tying claims.

If you buy OSX (and they DO sell it by itself before you even go down that road), they have no right to tell you that you cannot put it on a Dell computer. It is that simple.

The judge in the Psystar case disagrees.

Their contract is NULL AND VOID by the tying provision of the Clayton Act.

It the contract is NULL AND VOID than you have no rights to copy OS X or create derivative works thereof other than the specific limitations listed in copyright law. According to the Psystar judgment, both are required to install and use OS X on a PC.

That Act only requires proof of a reasonable amount of market impact. The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

No, it requires more than that. See the basic requirements above. And again, you are making up the claim of "almost half of market revenue."

[AidenShaw]

And let Dell make their own OS.

...after all, an OS only costs a handful of pennies for the DVD blanks. There's an obscene markup to be made.

;)

[DMann]

...after all, an OS only costs a handful of pennies for the DVD blanks. There's an obscene markup to be made.

;)

Yeah, tell us about it. :rolleyes:

http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/windows_7.jpg

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The terms have a specific legal and economic meanings. It's not just whatever definition you pick from a lay dictionary.

Just spare me the BS excuses why you cannot READ basic English.


Requirement 3 would require that Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market.


Nowhere does it say that. Apple has significant economic power in the hardware market BECAUSE it restrains the use of its OS to its own hardware, despite selling it separately. I don't care what you LIE and make up, guy. I read the law and it does NOT SAY what you keep insisting it does say. Where does it say Apple must have power in the OS market? Nowhere. It doesn't talk about the OS market! It says one product cannot be used to "substantially lessen competition" for another product by tying them together in such a way that the sale of one requires the sale of the other as well.

NONE of this other CRAP (and it IS *crap*) you keep spouting on about is written in that law. A company has no right to use one product to force sales of another product for which there is no alternative. That is why the law was written for the tying provision and it is the spirit of that law. Its sole purpose is to PROMOTE COMPETITION *not* RESTRAIN IT for the benefit of the CONSUMER. It is a consumer protection law! I as a consumer should be able to buy an operating system and buy a computer and one should not be able to dictate the other. There are very real reasons for this, not the least of which are a lack of hardware choices from Apple and overly inflated prices that are a DIRECT RESULT of the total lack of competition for hardware that runs OSX. It's that simple. You making up crap about monopoly power being required and other nonsense that is not there is just smoke and mirror tactics. You probably own stock in Apple and stand to gain by them continuing to have no hardware competition. Everything else you have said is just nonsense based on the fact it's not in that law.


Your printer and paper analogy is not on point.

HP does not have a copyright or patent on paper. Apple does have a copyright on OS X.


Copyrights are IRRELEVEANT. The Psystar case on copyright infringement has NOTHING TO DO with the anti-trust law in question. Psystar had no right to modify Apple's code to install it. If they can install it without modifying any Apple code (as they later did), then there would be no copyright case there. My argument has NOTHING and I mean *NOTHING* to do with copyright law or that part of the case. The fact you bring it up just proves what a straw-man your entire argument is.


Apple doesn't prevent anyone from installing any OS on their hardware. Just like HP doesn't limit which paper to use in their hardware.


No, they prevent people from installing their OS on someone else's hardware. In the equation A+B = C, it doesn't matter if the paper or the printer is A or B. It's beside the point since the law simply talks about two products tied together to substantially lessen competition.


However, copyright law gives Apple exclusive rights to copying, distributing, and creating derivative works in respect to OS X with specific limitations.


"Installing" an OS or other software is not considered "copying" under law. If someone buys the OS off the shelf at Best Buy and installs it on a Dell computer without modifying it, they have not broken any copyright law. They have only broken the license agreement for OSX which forbids its installation on all but Apple brand hardware. Since that part of the license is null and void to the Clayton Act, it is meaningless in that regard.


Apple is simply exercising those rights. Psystar claimed that Apple was misusing those rights in tying the two products. The judge denied that claim in summary judgment.


Sorry, but that's not why Psystar lost the copyright case. Psystar was modifying OSX early on in order to get it to install. That is why they lost the case. The case solely involving anti-trust tying is still pending in Florida. One moronic judge dismissing something in a lower level court does not equate to the case being worthless regardless. Many cases are overturned at various levels. Psystar also had to reword their case. My arguments do not depend on the competency of Psystar's lawyers, regardless. My focus is purely on Apple's violation of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act when it attempts to thwart competition instead of simply offering a superior product that I would actually WANT to buy (i.e. compete).


The fact that someone wants OS X is irrelevant.


Your arguments are irrelevant.


Because it belongs to Apple, and they do not want to sell it to you for that purpose.


It's not their choice. They have to obey the laws of the country they operate in.


Copyright law.


No, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. Get a clue.


The judge in the Psystar case disagrees.


The judge in the Psystar case hasn't ruled on the case yet. GET A CLUE.



It the contract is NULL AND VOID than you have no rights to copy OS X or create derivative works thereof other than the specific limitations listed in copyright law. According to the Psystar judgment, both are required to install and use OS X on a PC.


Who said the entire contract was null and void? I said THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT was null and void. GET A CLUE.


No, it requires more than that. See the basic requirements above. And again, you are making up the claim of "almost half of market revenue."

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD and the article that goes with it. GET A CLUE.

[cmaier]

Oh goody, he's back, and still insisting he knows more than the judges who wrote the decisions that disagree with him.

[BaldiMac]

Psystar had no right to modify Apple's code to install it. If they can install it without modifying any Apple code (as they later did), then there would be no copyright case there.

OS X still cannot be installed on a PC without modifying Apple's code.

"Installing" an OS or other software is not considered "copying" under law.

Yes. It is. Because a copy is created.

If someone buys the OS off the shelf at Best Buy and installs it on a Dell computer without modifying it, they have not broken any copyright law.

Because they have permission to do so.

Who said the entire contract was null and void?

You did.

I said THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT was null and void. GET A CLUE.

Their contract is NULL AND VOID by the tying provision of the Clayton Act.

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD and the article that goes with it. GET A CLUE.

I have read the title of the thread. Would you please join me? The figure cited is nearly half of US PC Desktop Retail revenue. This is a small part of the overall PC market.