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

[dontmatter]

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

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

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

 

[manu chao]

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

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

 

[DELLsFan]

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

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

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

 

[alent1234]

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

that's completely normal

graphics cards double in performance every year or two

 

[alent1234]

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

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

 

[uberamd]

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

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

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

 

[Carniphage]

Apple is the most profitable of all

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

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

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

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

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

C.

 

[alent1234]

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

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

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

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

 

[DELLsFan]

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

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

 

[Vulpinemac]

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

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

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

 

[deconstruct60]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[alent1234]

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

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

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

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

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

C.

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

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

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

 

[DELLsFan]

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

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

Yeah, I've noticed.

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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

 

[Vulpinemac]

I am simply stating a fact that they are not.

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

 

[LagunaSol]

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

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

He's educated too. Beware...

 

[BaldiMac]

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

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

 

[Vulpinemac]

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

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

Well:

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

 

[coleridge78]

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

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

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

 

[Shiner]

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

He's educated too. Beware...

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

Beware....He is dumb

 

[Vyriss]

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

They are Acer, Dell and HP.

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

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

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

C.

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

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

 

[MacFly123]

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

Have fun fighting over the garbage scraps PC people.

 

[Shiner]

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

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

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