Can all the PC marketshare spouting morons just shut every hole in their heads now!!!
Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people.
Will do!! Thanks for your intelligent response!!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Will do!! Thanks for your intelligent response!!
More like 8:1, but who's counting? Windows - 84+%; OS X - 12+%; Others - 3+%. I'm talking Installed base, not sales. Even sales put Apple over the 12% mark last quarter when you exclude the sub-notebooks that are effectively useless for anything beyond web browsing and basic word processing.
Prove it. Start with your definition of "high end."
Prove it. He claims that you don't see many PCs over 3 Ghz. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
He never said that.
Can all the PC marketshare spouting morons just shut every hole in their heads now!!!
Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people.
Considering the vast majority of Mac internals are used in their PC counterparts, I would consider your "garbage scraps" remark quite stupid.
Apple can get growth buy consuming a larger share of the PC market.
The top 8 players in the PC market take market share away from the folks in the non-top 8 tier. Even if the PC market is flat in growth can still take share.
One factor for Apple doing that is to:
i. get into the top 8 .
ii. dispel the "Apple is going to die" , "Apple is doomed" , etc.
mantra that hung around the company for a long time.
iii. execute getting product to market well.
iv. maintaining a good delivery channel.
The other growth comes from entering new markets. Two ways to do that.
i. becomes more affordable in new regions.
ii. manage to lower the price to enter new market segments in established regions.
So yeah in some part you are right. If Apple refuses to do ii. and finishes expanding into all the available regions in i. they will be stuck with this strategy.
Growth can come from i. in an expanding world economy. Wages rise in some countries where few could afford a their products before. Worldwide recession means little help from that front for a while. (minus some short term exchange rate gains with the dollar tanking faster than a few other currencies. )
Are smart phones the "high end" or "low end"?
As a phone it is high. As a computer it is low.
The MP3 business they held a monopolistic high percentage in part because of tying. DRM made the music iPod only. Now that music is increasingly not DRM bound, means a slide for the iPod. It isn't going to tank overnight, but as folks get smarter about getting music in/out to 3rd devices it they will only improve share if offer compelling value. Before with the music trapped there is little compelling value to offer if can't play the music.
I think Apple is betting the standalone MP3 category disappears faster than someone else can come in and take away share from them.
Of course they can. In part, Apple is just dragging its feet. In part, they just cripple the lower end ones in some way. And ironically Microsoft has handed them a quasi-monopolistic position of handing them the buzz of an easily better experience.
Eventually they will have to come down into the sub $1,000 range. They can only swim upstream from Moore's Law, Store doubling even 18 months too, component costs for a "good enough" computer continuously dropping over time. Once a 8-16 core device is down around $600 what is apple going to do? What app are average people going to have that requires something twice as costly as that?
Apple can eeek out some more money by delaying for perhaps 18-24 months following the industry down. But down it will go eventually.... or their share will start to shrink. GM went from practical monopoly down to bankrupt because they failed to deliver overall real , not the perception of , customer value.
I did quote him wrong he said
"Macs are high-end equipment by comparison to the sub-$1000 PCs".
This is not true. He just has no idea what the sub-$1000 PC market looks like. He is too drunk drinking apple kool-aid.
The only problem with MBP's I can think of right now is the GPU, but 9600gt is fairly decent for the majority of the games out there if you /bootcamp. You will never get the best of the best GPU in any MBP at any time because Apple cares about thickness a lot. Any laptop featuring those state of the art mobile GPU's will have to be a lot more thicker. Apple can however upgrade their 9600gt to something along the lines of 3850m, but that doesn't increase performance by a lot either.
Not to mention people who buy macbooks don't buy them to play games, and a 3D GPU isn't required for anything else. 3D apps require much much stronger GPU's to become truly hardware accelerated, stuff which you cannot possibly put in a laptop.
Apple will only care about GPU upgrades more than they do now if people really demand to play lots of cutting edge games with their MBP's and iMacs.
Other than GPU's Apple uses the highest end parts in all their lineups.
Not to mention people who buy macbooks don't buy them to play games, and a 3D GPU isn't required for anything else. 3D apps require much much stronger GPU's to become truly hardware accelerated, stuff which you cannot possibly put in a laptop.
Apple will only care about GPU upgrades more than they do now if people really demand to play lots of cutting edge games with their MBP's and iMacs.
Other than GPU's Apple uses the highest end parts in all their lineups.
I differ with your beliefs but could you point me to the link that shows apple's special high end parts.
But, you need to look at the total market share of the people who use Microsoft PCs, purchased over the past 10 years! Apple is still a very small part of the PC market share.
This "market share" stupidity was the argument that was used against the Apple supporters several years ago, and now that the market share is expanding, the critics will probably try to claim that it doesn't count.
This "market share" stupidity was the argument that was used against the Apple supporters several years ago, and now that the market share is expanding, the critics will probably try to claim that it doesn't count.
I think I must take exception to this point above all others. Are you saying, part for part, Macs are basically equivalent to *any* PC?
These PCs you hold as => Macs: Do you have examples of them, or are they only those you build?
Who said I was referring to hardware? I was referring to fighting and competing in the low end of the market with cutthroat tactics of trying to gain slim margins. I would MUCH rather be in the high end where Apple is!
Who are you talking to? I don't have anything to get over. I'm merely pointing out the fact that, out here in the real world, many of us who understand computers intimately (like, say, someone who has been a professional developer for a long time, and is writing software at a top supercomputing center, and wrote assembler for the 80-column graphics card on the ][e ) know exactly what parts are in that iMac or whatever other machine. The fact that they are also commonly used in laptops has precisely zero bearing on anything, because they get the job done without being as large and noisy as an equivalent Windows tower using "desktop" parts.
You're the one with something to get over--your unwillingness to consider that different people have different needs. That people can perfectly well understand something, but come to a different conclusion than you as to value.
A couple of factors you are blowing off.
i. None of those others are software vendors. The margins on OS software are substantially higher than hardware if you have any traction that is reasonable.
ii. One of the highest priced components of a lowest cost personal computers is the OS/software. Microsoft takes a much larger percentage of the pie from a $499 PC than it does from a $1,000 PC. [ For example a large price barrier for Netbooks is to get a "below average" priced version of Windows to install. Similarly on the One Laptop Per Child, OLTPC, machine windows would have been the most expensive component. That's why they dumped it for a chopped down version of Linux. ]
Notice how when go down scale that Apple takes both halves software margin and hardware margin whereas the others take only the hardware margin. Therefore, that in part explains the differences in profits.
Has diddly squat to do with hardware costs or quality.
So half of the profits is off. It is some subset of half of the profits.
The primarily reason why Apple would might make less money is because the lower price hardware was actually a better match to their customer needs. In that case the customers would move the less expensive computers that fit their needs at the market price point. That will eventually happen whether Apple participates or not. Over time folks will drift away once they realize that they aren't actually getting added value.
The other folks will be around longer because they are matching the overall market forces ( as oppose to using artificial segmentation to raise prices.)
The other major profit center you are off on is that Dell and HP make money on services. They sell the machines and then sells services to help administer the machines. Those put together will also bring the profits more into balanced. Apple "sells" integration on the inside of the machine and those two are selling integration into organizations processes that use the machines. Microsoft is sitting down below so they go for the more holistic systems integration value add.
Apple is executing a bit better than HP and Dell. That is in part because they are fewer designs they are focused on. Therefore they have the time to be obsessive compulsive with aspects associated with their delivery. It is also slighltly easier problem to solve (higher prices also means you can be more sloppy and still get a profitable pay off. )
So Apple, at least narrowly focused on the Mac segment, has to balance driving for a niche market. But not going tooooo niche so that they get too small to be a player to get better component pricing/access.
1. I'm sure most high-end PC's are custom (I have 3 here myself)...not bought, or they are bought cheap (ie under $1000) and later upgraded. Can't say the same for Macs (for the most part).
2. I'm sure most Laptops sold are less than $1000.
The numbers look better than they actually are.
edit: and no I didn't read the rest of this thread...just commenting on the numbers.
2. I'm sure most Laptops sold are less than $1000.
The numbers look better than they actually are.
edit: and no I didn't read the rest of this thread...just commenting on the numbers.
Why is it not true? Can you defend your opinion? Why do you refuse to define what you think high end is? Do you think insulting people is the only way to defend your opinion?
"Garbage" would imply that the low-end section is somehow less profitable [ or less desirable] than the high-end. It may be on an individual sale basis, but considering the tremendous exponential growth of sales in the low-end market [compared to the high-end], I'm not so sure what your getting at. Apple has already "cornered" the high-end market, as evident in the heading. Where exactly do you expect future the growth to come from? Those "Garbage Scraps", as you call them, are proving to be the better future investment. Dell makes $2.914 billion in net income with a measly 14% market share in the "garbage scraps" market. Apple's Mac business makes around the same amount with 91% market share. So, YOU may prefer to live in the "high end", but any intelligent person SHOULD be able to discern the better market here [from a business perspective, that is].
Competition is simply part of the game, it shouldn't drive any competent company away from potential profits.
I haven't used the term at all. You keep saying various posters are wrong about Apple being high end compared to sub-$1000 PCs. If you tell someone they are wrong, you should be prepared to defend your statement.
I'll answer this. "High-End", or "up-market" is simply a term describing products developed and marketed at high-income consumers. By this definition, Macs are high-end, considering it's average selling price is more than double that of Windows-based PCs. This term, however, speaks nothing of value and and ability over "Low-End" products. Such products in the High-End could be described as either overpriced or superiorly engineered. Products in the Low-end could be considered bargains, or... trash. Surely each moniker could be applied to many products in both market.
Conclusion: The only thing that dictates "High-End" is a price-tag.
That would be true if Apple was a software company like Microsoft. Apple is a hardware company that makes nearly all it's money from hardware. OS X, iLife, Final Cut etc. is there as an incentive to buy Apple hardware, hence why Apple software is so ridiculously cheap, since it is subsidised by the hardware.
The pc loving ceo here at my company just got a $1700 pc laptop with 13" screen.
The PC is very poorly made compared to a 13" Mac.
The pc:
- Comes with a video "vista made easy". The video is over 4 hours long.
- The pre-installed spam filter puts the seller's email as junk mail. Smart.
- Power button is on the outside. He can't figure out where it is for 3 minutes and I told him.
- Battery is poorly designed. Need special angle and both hands to put it in.
- Battery life is just over 2 hours, when it's way more on the Mac
- Only has 9300m, when Macs come with 9400m
- Plastic body, with extremely tiny port for exhaust
What a joke. Most people smart enough to do some research know that a Mac is an excellent deal for that price segment.
Oh and he can't install his home printer driver on that thing.
The PC is very poorly made compared to a 13" Mac.
The pc:
- Comes with a video "vista made easy". The video is over 4 hours long.
- The pre-installed spam filter puts the seller's email as junk mail. Smart.
- Power button is on the outside. He can't figure out where it is for 3 minutes and I told him.
- Battery is poorly designed. Need special angle and both hands to put it in.
- Battery life is just over 2 hours, when it's way more on the Mac
- Only has 9300m, when Macs come with 9400m
- Plastic body, with extremely tiny port for exhaust
What a joke. Most people smart enough to do some research know that a Mac is an excellent deal for that price segment.
Oh and he can't install his home printer driver on that thing.
I think that was his point. When people look at PC margins they include the cost of a Windows license. When people look at Mac margins, they do not account for OS X.