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

[mags631]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

You are right I apologize.

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

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

I know what a dedicated GPU is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vulpinemac]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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



The high end 15" did receive a price cut.



The lowest priced 15" MBP is $1699.

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[-hh]

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

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

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

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


-hh

 

[Evangelion]

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

 

[LagunaSol]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

And you are wrong

That is all I am saying.

Besides claiming that iMac is a laptop, that is?

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

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

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

 

[BaldiMac]

Minus the graphics card. You missed that part.

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

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

That is a price cut.

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

 

[-hh]

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

Based upon ... what metric?

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

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

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

Based upon ... what?

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

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

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


-hh

 

[Shiner]

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

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

 

[LagunaSol]

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

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

 

[BaldiMac]

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

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

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

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

 

[iBug2]

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

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

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

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

 

[uberamd]

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

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

 

[Shiner]

Based upon ... what metric?

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

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




Based upon ... what?

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

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

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


-hh

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

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

 

[BaldiMac]

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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

 

[BaldiMac]

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

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

 

[deconstruct60]

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

No, that is not what this says.

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

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

Go back to the conference call story a couple of days ago.
https://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/2...it-for-q3-2009-best-non-holiday-quarter-ever/

namely a quote from the conference call:

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

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


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

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




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

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

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