Apparently we're all stuck using a Pentium 4 and power supplies consume 100% of their rated wattage 24/7 too.
I know people that still turn off their computers and some that even flip the surge protectors off. Scandal!
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
I know people that still turn off their computers and some that even flip the surge protectors off. Scandal!
If you read more than the title, you would find out that the 91% figure only applies to retail brick and mortar sales in the US. It is a rather meaningless figure outside of the success of their retail stores. It does not speak at all to Apple's overall market share in the $1000+ PC market.
Sorry, I corrected that.
What alternative universe is the article you are quoted from. The article this thread is based on here are a couple of quotes
So where is this article denial that there were upticks in the Windows PC market volume at the lower end? Exponential ... who threw that out there? That is an inaccurate adjective that has crept in through this forum. However, the trend is up; so contradicted isn't entirely accurate either.
In that Fall-Winter period Acer moved up in market spots on Gartner and IDC. Primarily riding on increases in netsbook market segment.
Every vendor without one was sliding backward.
Apple did once try to compete in the model and sector of the market you speak of and almost went out of business. Their resurrection and unprecedented success since has been because of the model you so freely disdain!
The notion that Macs needed a volume over a "survivable large player" percentage to be profitable was and still is correct. How they went about implementing that mid 90's (or so ) was flawed.
Apple was much more lacking in focus of effort than in what needed to get done. Similarly the R&D costs were dramatically higher and having much smaller top line impact. ( tried several efforts to switch internally to a new OS platform and blew off project to put Mac OS on the standard PC platform; Star Trek ).
Since then ....
Apple has nuked most Research. Apple has followed along after the market and done evolutionary refinements not revolutionary stuff. ( like Newton which Palm did leverage better. Mainstream GUI which Microsoft leveraged better. ). Since moving to being a better second/third market mover then have done better.
When MP3 vendors were slow to take them seriously Apple did do the inexpensive, high volume market with the iPod. They have made lots of money at it. So puzzling why sub 12% market share is suppose to be some kind of Apple standard operating procedure for success.
Gone to rigid product buckets and ignored a subset of consumer needs.
Similarly when Tim Cook came in he slashed several hundred millions in inventory costs in several months. Hard to tell how much was just sloppy stuff by his predecessor as much as him being a superman. He is very good but look even better after following folks who are bad.
Apple is also just selling 99% of the same hardware components at the electric level as everyone else is. So they get the same margins as the other players but don't pay any significant Microsoft OS overhead in units shipped.
Finally the Mac share tanked while Apple soaked it to launch iPods. No real adverstising for a year or so. Jobs milked the Mac like as cash cow exactly as he said he would a long time ago. Revisionists seem to want to gloss over it now but Mac share when dramatically down before it got better. Those low water marks were not sustainable.
Fortunately for the Mac, Apple has found a way to keep the Mac platform moving forward as not purely a cash cow .... for now. Being coupled at the core OS level helps alot.
for games any cheap pc with a discrete graphics card will outperform an iMac with a 9400m
for everyday tasks performance is about the same. Since all consumer macs are laptop parts they will probably win on power consumption, quietness and heat. And apple has better support
True, which is something I admittedly overlooked. Still, I think we can both agree that Dell is putting out comparable numbers with more opportunity (and that's the important word here) for growth in their respective markets, are they not? Add HP in the mix and the numbers look even better. I believe Apple sees this and will introduce some type of sub $1,000 laptop soon. (And no, $999 does NOT count.)
The title of this thread is a farce. Apple absolutely does NOT have 91% share of the overall over > $1,000 PC market.
That 2.5 billion for apple overwhelming did not come that market being measured at 91%.
Data is a bit old, but Apple hold a 66% marketshare in the $1000+ market.
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/19/mac-marketshare-growth-in-high-end-retail-market/
Thats units not profit.
Shiner, if I didn't have to work on PCs and maintain Windows for many more than simply one machine, then maybe you would be correct. However, having had to service Dell, HP, Compaq and other factory PCs and NOT having to service 5 Macs that I own and others that my clients own, the Kool-Aid is yours. You are such a blatant anti-Apple Zealot that you can't even see the facts when they're right under your nose.
I KNOW what the sub-$1000 market looks like... and honestly, the Apples have it all over those low-priced machines. I've bought. I've built. I've consulted. I have yet to find any PC priced below $1000 that could hold a candle to a Mac for cost of ownership, including all maintenance. To get the reliability, you have to pay about the same as a Mac. To get the functions, you have to pay about the same as a Mac. To get the cost down, you have to buy a Mac. You might buy cheaper up front, but by the end of 5 years, you've paid at least double than the equivalent Mac in repairs and software services.
I know. I've been there.
Have you ever looked at the retail price of Apple software?
Aperture 2: $199
Final Cut Studio: $999
XSan 2: $999
WebObjects: $699
Logic Studio: $499
Shake 4.1: $499
How can you say "Apple software is so rediculously cheap,..." when you look at professional software that exceeds $1000 and in some cases will exceed $2500? This only goes to prove that you, like the other anti-Apple Zealots don't know what you're talking about.
Well just like many have said to me, that is your opinion. I have no idea how much porn you guys must be watching on your computers but I have had zero maintenance on all of my PCs. The occasional memory stick might go bad and i might have a hard drive reach the end of life but I feel sorry for all of you guys that have so many problems with PCs. I will stop the argument. Obviously you NEED to use a mac computer. If everytime I touched a computer the hard drive blew up or malware snuck on and destroyed all of my parts I would run for cover. I might give up on computers all together. I see everyone's point. I just have a different view. I take care of my computers and in turn I have very few problems. All of the people on here have nightmare stories about how their PC is just the worst thing ever invented. I have the very opposite. I have had to send my MacPro in three times for repair. My macbook pro 13" which I had for 2 weeks never worked right. My black macbook was one of the slowest computers I have ever used. The only computer that was ever my baby was the my powerbook G4. All of my PCs including 7 I have built for my work and the 10 for my family and friends work great!! I also offer them full tech support. Not a single call last year
All of the last 7 i have built are using i7 and monster video cards for under $1,200 dollars and they all run Vista. I know I am so lucky no one can possible be this lucky with the horrible PC world.Assuming that fact is true, it just reinforces the fact that this is discussing a very small slice of the sales channels and is meaningless for anything other than a PR release.
It is a statistic that represents a small segment of all consumers (and excludes the business market where most computers are sold) and then limits that further to purchases over $1000 (where most of the Mac product line exists).
This is not to say that Macs are not selling well, when anyone asks me for a recommendation for a general use PC these days I recommend a MacBook Pro unless their budget is under 1K (and it usually is).
Do you have any idea how HUGE of a bang for your buck those programs are (Especially Final Cut and Logic Studio)?
"Ridiculously cheap" is probably an understatement.
I already refuted this statement about 4 pages back.
Which, unfortunately for you, they don't. While I don't deny Apple uses laptop parts in the Mini and the iMac, they pay more for high-quality parts, as evidenced by iSuppli's teardown of a $599 Mac Mini less than a month ago.
I've done that, and even the Mac Mini carries superior specs in the RAM it uses, DDR3 1066Mhz front-side bus.
As for the MacPro being a "...workstation not a desktop,..." Does that make the Alienware ALX X58 at $3699 a workstation--when they clearly label it as a "gaming machine?" Sorry, not accepting your excuses. Or your illogic.
The support provided by the memory controller being the defining specification of a computer?
Lets not even get into the fact that you're limited to DDR3-1066 RAM on the Mac mini's controller. You're pitting the MCP79A vs. Bloomfield?
What's with the lack of pride in what you've built? It's not the first time I've seen it mentioned here. What kind of shoddy machine did you put together then? I really doubt you did.
Are you talking Measured power, or Power Supply? For the moment, let's start with Power Supply. The average $1000 PC is running on a 300W or heavier power supply. The iMac runs on a 150W power supply.
Speaking of watt-meter recordings, my iMac driving a second display, 4 external hard drives and 10 external USB devices is using...110 watts. That's the reading off of my UPS which drives all those items described and gives me more than 30 minutes of battery time even though it's rated for 15 minutes for a conventional PC.
Yes, I think there's a power savings, too.
How about comparing those prices to the competition?
Lightroom $299
Adobe Production Premium $1699
I don't know what the direct competitors are for the other stuff.
I'm going to take you at your literal word here. You've never run a malware scan. You've never run a virus scan. You've never had to defrag your drive. You've never had to run a chkdsk. You've never had to clean out your registry. You've never had to do anything to maintain your computer.
All of these things count as productive time wasted at an average of $12/hour for the user and an additional $25/hr or more for technician costs ($90/hour if you call the Geek Squad or some of the other commercial service shops.) Even assuming that you only do some of these things once a week, others once a month and the most extreme once a year, that adds up to a minimum of 65 hours lost at approximately $37/hour for over $2405 in maintenance costs for the average PC.
Granted, you, as a Geek and a technician/professional don't see the direct cash outlay, but a business will see that in lost productivity by the user plus IT costs for maintenance. If you had to put a monetary cost to every minute of downtime you spend doing routine maintenance, the numbers would add up, and quickly.
I don't deny that some of these same preventative maintenance measures may be helpful on a Mac in OS X; but for now, the down time for such maintenance averages less than one hour per month--totalling maybe $444 in a year, almost 20% of the maintenance cost of the average PC. This does not take into consideration energy savings (if any, and I know there is) you would experience with every model of desktop Mac compared to any desktop PC.
You may not be aware of it, but the bean counters are.
Why else would 50% of enterprise in the US and worldwide be looking at alternatives to what they are currently using? Why else would 12% of these already be implementing a changeover from Windows? The snowman is melting, and that rate of melt is accelerating.
You completely misunderstood me. It's 2am and I can't be bothered to explain what I meant, but it's basically the opposite of what you thought I meant.
So if shoot a movie with a $65,000 camera and make a $600,000 on the movie is the camera ridiculously cheap ? Or becomes ridiculously cheap when make 6,000,000 on the movie? Or isn't so ridiculously cheap that you would leave lying around unattended.
Software that costs as much or more than the computer it is running on is relatively not ridiculously cheap. Software that costs a sizable percentage of the underlying computer is also probably not "super" cheap either.
One would hope that the computer and software that you buy would return more in end product value generated than it costs to buy it if being used for a business.
To be meaningful relative expensive/value should be made relative to something would trade off in buying ( buy item A or item B) as opposed to item A leads to payday X and item B leads to payday Y. This second thing is more return on investment than a peer relative value (or measure of expensiveness. )
If you lost $900 from your wallet is that "relatively cheap" loss?
if your $900 software craps out and doesn't work ... is it a easy write off as a "ridiculously cheap" buy?
I imagine there are other A/V industry software product that cost $10K or $15K more than the Mac + pro tool solution. That is actually indicative of this whole thread. Those are much higher than the PC software average software. Long term they have problems against similar software offerings that can generate higher volume. They end up having a user base of a 1,000 customers and while the order of magnitude cheaper software ends up with a user base of 20,000 customers. If set the barrier to entry toooooooo high fewer folks with problems your software solves and jump in.
Fewer copies to amortize the costs over leads to higher prices. Higher prices leads to fewer copies sold on the next round.
Apple pro software is priced so that have good chance of making money off of it in the pro space. If you can put $999 software on the "petty cash" acquisition account, with about zero approval process, then you work somewhere unusual or small (where you do the approving.)
If Apple really wanted to make money though would put the pro software on a subscription/upgrade plan where just effectively buy new copy every 3-6 years by sending in 10-30% per year. That's how high end business software generates wads of cash. ( or can just have high upgrade packages on a 1-2 year basis. )
Doing tech support for Microsoft PCs has been a total waste of my time. It seemed like every week there was some new complaint to fix, some update that crashed, some software conflict, or a PC that was getting slow and crashy again.
Why were these PCs getting so slow? Because they were running anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-phishing, and all this other junk that slowed everything down to a crawl. Add to those problems the incessant Microsoft bloat and I often wonder how anybody can possibly concentrate on doing real work.
DDR 3 is useless without 3 RAM chips. it's just DDR 2 with a much higher price tag
I agree some of this software is inexpensive. My son is in an animation program and some of the software he is using comes at much higher cost than anything listed above.
He is using all PC based software
Earth to '-hh', can you hear us?
I wonder if -hh has us on his ignore list, since he doesn't seem to notice that we've blown a garage-door sized hole in his TCO calculations.
Please explain your TCO calculations, otherwise we might have to assume that there are some lies somewhere.
As I pointed out earlier, your numbers are absurd.
Please show all the calculations that go into that $1000 extra cost figure.
I think that it's BS, simply because I'm looking at the screen of my "watt's up?" and it's showing that my Studio XPS (with 12 GiB of RAM and the 2.93 GHz Core i7-940) is averaging about 94 watts with 5 windows open and 6 gadgets running.
That's actual system power draw, counting NICs, graphics card, memory, CPUs, disk, keyboard, mouse, WiFi, ....
It's also actually fewer watts (about 5 to 10) less than my Q6600 Core 2 Quad system.
Oh wait, while I was typing this on the Q6600 system - the Core i7 dropped to 4.3 watts (Windows 7 RTM defaults to rather quickly go into hybrid sleep state - basically its "screen saver" is to go to hybrid sleep).
Actually, a fair bit of that 4.3 watts is probably due to the 12 GiB of RAM. If I had a more typical load of RAM it would probably be 20% to 40% less.
I wonder if -hh has us on his ignore list, since he doesn't seem to notice that we've blown a garage-door sized hole in his TCO calculations.
Please explain your TCO calculations, otherwise we might have to assume that there are some lies somewhere.
As I pointed out earlier, your numbers are absurd.
Please show all the calculations that go into that $1000 extra cost figure.
I think that it's BS, simply because I'm looking at the screen of my "watt's up?" and it's showing that my Studio XPS (with 12 GiB of RAM and the 2.93 GHz Core i7-940) is averaging about 94 watts with 5 windows open and 6 gadgets running.
That's actual system power draw, counting NICs, graphics card, memory, CPUs, disk, keyboard, mouse, WiFi, ....
It's also actually fewer watts (about 5 to 10) less than my Q6600 Core 2 Quad system.
Oh wait, while I was typing this on the Q6600 system - the Core i7 dropped to 4.3 watts (Windows 7 RTM defaults to rather quickly go into hybrid sleep state - basically its "screen saver" is to go to hybrid sleep).
Actually, a fair bit of that 4.3 watts is probably due to the 12 GiB of RAM. If I had a more typical load of RAM it would probably be 20% to 40% less.
Like looking both ways when crossing the street...
Speaking of ignorant, try reading that line again. They were taking out the netbooks to help make the Windows notebooks look better at $569 instead of $520. It had nothing to do with making Apple's numbers look better.
The word "nasty" was likely a very minor reference. More like a nasty paper cut, the low price of the netbooks were lowering the overall average price Windows notebooks.
Re-reading is like looking back and forth while crossing the street. You might not have expected someone to pull out of a nearby parking lot, and they might not be expecting a nearby crosswalk and may be looking the opposite direction for oncoming traffic. With reading it's similar, because you might have been expecting the author to be supporting something you are against, and think you found it even when it isn't happening, as in this case.
It wasn't a mark against netbooks, and it wasn't a defense for Apple not making netbooks. It was just a point of fact that netbooks are priced less than standard notebook computers, which happens to be part of their selling point. And lower numbers make lower averages of those numbers. Basic math.
Though, I'd question the numerical results, I just don't trust journalists or bloggers to interpret numbers properly. Particularly when they start comparing things with a Hummer, it's very likely their math is way off. Let's see that scratch sheet of paper. Come on, show your work! Well, nevermind, they got their hits on their website, and at this point they likely don't care if their numbers are correct. *sigh* Journalism isn't reporting, it's merely journaling.
Speaking of ignorant, try reading that line again. They were taking out the netbooks to help make the Windows notebooks look better at $569 instead of $520. It had nothing to do with making Apple's numbers look better.
The word "nasty" was likely a very minor reference. More like a nasty paper cut, the low price of the netbooks were lowering the overall average price Windows notebooks.
Re-reading is like looking back and forth while crossing the street. You might not have expected someone to pull out of a nearby parking lot, and they might not be expecting a nearby crosswalk and may be looking the opposite direction for oncoming traffic. With reading it's similar, because you might have been expecting the author to be supporting something you are against, and think you found it even when it isn't happening, as in this case.
It wasn't a mark against netbooks, and it wasn't a defense for Apple not making netbooks. It was just a point of fact that netbooks are priced less than standard notebook computers, which happens to be part of their selling point. And lower numbers make lower averages of those numbers. Basic math.
Though, I'd question the numerical results, I just don't trust journalists or bloggers to interpret numbers properly. Particularly when they start comparing things with a Hummer, it's very likely their math is way off. Let's see that scratch sheet of paper. Come on, show your work! Well, nevermind, they got their hits on their website, and at this point they likely don't care if their numbers are correct. *sigh* Journalism isn't reporting, it's merely journaling.
Fair enough, but so far all I hear in an opinion. Do you have a specific model laptop which is => any MBP? Something you personally would prefer to own, use, and recommend, over the MBP? Make, model, and price would suffice
What "laptop parts" go into what Mac-which-is-not-a-laptop, please? I do hope you are not talking about the Mini...
Why is i7-to-iMac the only "proper" comparison?
Compared to a PC desktop, yes, the MacPro is a workstation. But it's a desktop, a very high performance desktop.
imacs take so-dimm RAM which is laptop memory. and all the graphics options are laptop chips. the entry-level imacs only have the 9400M which is a laptop integrated graphics solution.
Dell Studio laptops have the ATI HD 4570 option. when you configure the laptop with all high end parts it's about the price of a MBP, but the graphics performance is better unless you buy the $2000 and up MBP