iMac - It's an all in one DESKTOP
Mac Mini - That's also a (small) DESKTOP
The point highlights the fundamental reason that people have not been hitting. Neither of those products actually competes with your basic budget midtower.
Desktop sales are down overall because of three basic reasons: the economy, shifts to notebooks, and marginal performance gains. Those who are buying are buying the econoboxes--higher end machines and niche products in general are suffering an above-average cut as the low end increases relative market share.
Apple would be expected to have a higher-than mean loss in sales as a result, aided in part by old products in the tail ends of their demand curves.
Now WHY aren't they SELLING well is the REAL problem, huh?
And worse yet, why are they UNDER-SELLING Windows desktops?
The data doesn't demonstrate that. The data shows a shift to the low-end, where Apple has no products to compete. There is a cyclical loss because of old products as well. Neither of these indicate a problem.
Only Steve Jobs and Apple are to blame for this, wrong products/pricing for the current economic times, period, end of story.
And? During times of economic hardship, a company with a diverse set of products will often see demand diminish in some of them. That does not mean they have to stop selling those products or make any radical changes. It simply means you have to look to other products to make up the difference.
Notebook sales are up 22%, resulting in a net curb of 1%. In an economic downturn, staying that close to flat is beating the overall economy. All things being equal, with consumer spending down 10-15%, sales should be down the same.
The personal computer market as a whole is roughly flat (desktops down 15%, notebooks up 15%). Apple is roughly in line, given the inherent error in the projections. This does not suggest a problem.
All the current PC manufacturers already have these products that Apple doesn't currently sell.
And yet they are not enjoying better overall sales, and all of them are struggling to stay profitable as they have been for years. Meanwhile, Apple continues to make money and maintain its relative status quo within the industry.
And I could be wrong as well - although I have several hundred years of MACRO economics on my side.
You don't appear to be using that "centuries" of wisdom at the moment.
It is excessive to MOST. As I have said for YEARS - Apple would eventually hit the saturation point at their current pricing structure.
So?
Apple does not NEED to use Xeon CPU's in the Pro and there is not need for other choices Apple uses that does not directly affect the performance of the OS or the stability.
Spoken like someone totally ignoring the lessons that centuries of economics should be teaching. You are reducing the market to a single variable and assuming that competition and success depends solely on price per specs. Every decision made impacts sales, and every alteration involves a consequence. Every improvement has an attendant step backwards, and the trick is accurately navigating an array of choices to minimize losses. Ditching those "other choices Apple uses" would change the entire character of their product line. Such a radical risk is only merited if there is an immediately foreseeable problem.
If Apple would offer a Mac Mini with reasonable specs for $499 or even $399 they could capture the low-end market that will not and maybe cannot afford the high-end products.
Why would they want to? (
Edit: capture the low end, not offer a decent mini)
