Intel down over 7% this morning because they forecast a weak outlook. Spilling over to Microsoft which is down 3.5%.
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 Maintains Mac Sales Momentum Amid Overall Worldwide PC Market Decline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, if only count PCs (a dying breed), MS has higher share, Apple has smaller share.
If you include mobile computing units such as iPhone and iPad, MS share is miniscule and Apple's share much larger; also Android happens to be a very big PC vendor. As power of iPhone 6S, which I am using now, is exponentially higher than anything my first mac, LC 630, could provide, I think its fair to include smartphones into the mix.
Then Apple suddenly is one, which has a very large share of market.
If you include mobile computing units such as iPhone and iPad, MS share is miniscule and Apple's share much larger; also Android happens to be a very big PC vendor. As power of iPhone 6S, which I am using now, is exponentially higher than anything my first mac, LC 630, could provide, I think its fair to include smartphones into the mix.
Then Apple suddenly is one, which has a very large share of market.
Yeah, sometimes I don't get it either. For a solid year I was wondering why they didn't just take a more current CPU, an ac compatible wifi chip, and stick it into the Apple TV. But they didn't. And then eventually the more expensive Apple TV 4 came out. I bought it and since the Apps haven't really gotten there yet, the part of the $150 Apple TV that is impacting me the most is the CPU and the ac wifi. So the upgrade is seeming like a worthwhile upgrade. Clever right?
There are 1,000 of engineers. We know that. But I think Apple is hesitant to do upgrades until they can produce serious additional revenue. So the niche products get shafted. Think about how long the previous version of the iPod touch was sold as dodgy un upgraded device.
[doublepost=1452873185][/doublepost]
Well the Mac Pro is a special computer. I know a few people who use it and the current Mac Pro is okay for some of them. Two guys I know use the Mac Pro as home computers. Their process is to buy a good Mac Pro and use it for more than five years. They have each done this twice (during that same period I'm on my third iMac as comparison). One guy really takes advantage of adding extra storage and so I don't know if the current Mac Pro will work for him. They are still both using Mac Pros as their main home computer. I don't know if they will buy the trash can version (though one guy has just gotten a major promotion at work so going forward he can buy whatever he wants, he is just super frugal so I'm not sure what he will do). The third friend owns a design shop and so owns many powerful Macs for him and his employees. His workspace is fine for the trash can and he bought one or two and I don't think it was bad. They just take up less space on the floor under the desk where the old Mac Pros used to sit. I think he would have been fine with just the CPU upgrade that you talked about.
I don't think the new Macbook is at all unnecessary. It is focused on travel and that while a niche use case is a valid one. My GF uses a Macbook Pro because when she was buying a computer that was the only one with Retina screen. But if she were buying today she would buy the MacBook. For home use she would attach a hub with ports for a mouse and power. But since she frequently travels (going to auditions or rehearsals as an actor) and needs to work on her "day job" during downtime from a convenient wifi spot, the weight saving would be good for her. It was probably too early to kill the Air and its ports, but the Macbook is the computer for her and I think others. Though for many it will be the backup or travel computer and they will have something else at home and/or work.
I also hope that Apple doesn't just focus on fashion. Though I think what you are calling fashion is really Apple focus on making the computer more personal. That has always been their goal. I should also note that they have force people to pay heavily for that personal touch. That isn't changing. If you want to reuse old drives and PCI cards, well then that isn't really the point or commitment to their products that Apple asks of you.
Moderator Note:
A number of off-topic posts discussing encryption and snooping from government agencies have been deleted. If you wish to continue that line of discussion, please take it to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum where it belongs.
Thank you.
A number of off-topic posts discussing encryption and snooping from government agencies have been deleted. If you wish to continue that line of discussion, please take it to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum where it belongs.
Thank you.
You seem to be side-stepping my points.
I don't deny that the Mac Pro is useful, beautiful, and powerful. I'd buy one if I had the money to blow (on it and new enclosures for drives, etc., driving the total cost of ownership WAY up). But the issue is that Apple killed the old one's form factor, forcing it's loyal user base into a complete infrastructure overhaul. No one would have been unhappy with an old Mac Pro with the latest TB, USB and a MILD case redesign. Would I invest in Apple again? Nope. No. F'in. Way. Their dumbassery in this area (killing key features in and/or entire products) is my single biggest point of frustration with the company.
In the case of the Macbook, you said it yourself: your woman would have bought an Air with Retina. Given its existence, the Macbook becomes unnecessary. The weight difference between the 2 really is negligible, and the Air is far, far more capable. And they could have painted it Gold, too.
Apple is focusing on fashion already: all their aesthetics changes are responsible for the removal of key features to make room for them, whether it means making the device too-thin (Macbook) or unnecesarily small (Mac Pro). Removing functionality also has a convenient side effect: it costs Apple less to build a machine while charging the same or more for it. Making an item thinner/smaller uses less "aluminium". Not having ports means less cost to put it in. I wonder what the difference in cost of building the new mac pro vs the old one is. I bet the margins on the new one are ENORMOUS; that's a LOT of aluminium they got rid of.
This habit then forces its customers to choose one compromise over the other.
But hey, they all match and look pretty together.
I (almost desperately) want to buy my next PC from Apple.
But I'm really getting sick and tired of their games, and right now they offer NOTHING I want. In my case, their "focus" has led me from being a "buy-everything-they-make" type of customer to one who will not buy ANYTHING they make.
They're using fashion to make money, hand-over-fist. And THAT, my friend, is the driver for it all. Steve Jobs' Apple died with him. Best products, "my ass."
Well I guess if there are businesses with racks and investments in hard drives that they just want to install into a modern Mac Pro, I can see how this was annoying.
In the case of the Macbook I'd have to say that for my GF she would go with a Macbook and save the one pound over ports and power from a Macbook Air. I think the vast majority of her work is done in the cloud anyway. So I think the Macbook is powerful enough for her as long as it is powerful enough to drive its retina screen. But she has a situation where she has to do an audition at 34th, sit around where she can log into wifi, then one hour later walk up to 42nd, do another audition, then kill some time in a Starbucks, then go to acting class on 70th street. So she might be walking several miles during the course of a day with her computer, a book of music, and maybe a change of clothes. Every pound helps in that situation.
To be frank, Apple has always focused on Aesthetics. Their PCs have always looked good. They focused on typography with the first Mac. This is their thing and it hasn't changed. However I guess as Apple claims larger and larger marketshare the sacrifices forced by Apple are more likely to impact more people. Hence it looks like there is a big change going on. But the focus has always been on elegant and personal computing devices. The Mac Pro as an industry workhorse was an exception to Apple's normal way. The current Mac Pro is much more consistent with Apple's philosophy and strategy.
As for cost, Aluminum costs less than $1 per pound. Apple makes life much harder and more expensive for itself by designing small and thin. Saving on material costs does not save appreciable amounts of money when we are talking about devices that sell for $1,000 or even $2,000. But building an efficient manufacturing process could save money, and less ports in a Macbook does mean less cuts to the aluminum case. But Apple clearly did not skimp at all in the manufacture of the Mac Pro. That was made to look very nice.
As for your own case, you may be too technical a person or have too technical use cases for Apple's computers. Apple is trying to make very personal computers and you may not need or value that. But if you don't, then I understand your frustration if all you really want is to continue to us Mac OS. There was something to be said about when people used to make their own Apple computers. I do think sometimes Apple does not realize that they are getting sales mainly due to great software and they can sometimes go a bit easy on the hardware being totally forward thinking. I will probably buy an iMac this year as my current iMac will be five years old. And I will probably have to buy an external DVD player for it. The sleek and skinny iMac design does little for me since this is a desktop. Though the peculiarities of my home office are such that thin side will be completely visible. So I've at least got the setup where the design will be visible. But I can't switch to a Mini because Apple doesn't upgrade it enough. And even the Mac Pro, if I wanted to go that route, isn't as powerful as the current iMacs except for certain multi-processor workflow.
Oh well. I will spend the extra money and Apple will force me to buy the super pretty 27" so that I can get a dedicated graphics card in a PC. I don't have much in way of options. But it will be a very nice computer at a good price considering the value of the screen.
C'mon. It's not just businesses. EVERYBODY had to figure something out when Apple released the new Mac Pro. The old one held 4 drives internally. Used PCI cards that were upgradeable and interchangeable should anything go wrong. Now you have to take your "sealed" box to the Apple Store. It's supposed to be a PRO machine.
In the case study of your girlfriend, I call BS. There is a .38 pound difference between the 11" Air and the MB. Same battery life. EVERYTHING else is better on the Air, except for....wait for it.....the screen. That's a $400 upcharge for the Retina screen plus the inferior keyboard, inferior connectivity, inferior processors. This is not debatable. This is obvious. There is a reason why Apple offers the MacBook in colors and not the Air. Fashion.
I know Apple has always focused on aesthetics. That is not the point. The point is that NOW the aesthetics are being taken too far, to the point of interfering with functionality. Until now, Apple machines we're easily accessible, easily upgradeable, AND beautiful. From the Power Mac to the Mac Pro, Apple machines we're the epitome of form AND function. No longer. I think that Apple is making the computer more impersonal, because there is nothing I can do. They are turning everything into an appliance, sealing it up, locking it up and throwing away the key.
You have to be kidding with the aluminum cost savings. That is the single most obvious piece to the puzzle, as they do this in bulk. The difference in weight between Mac Pros is 28 pounds. I'm sure not all the weight is in the aluminum, but you also have to think of the volume of each.In the old Mac Pro, everything was made of aluminum, the case, the HD sleds, the trays for CP and RAM... If we rough estimate it, thats maybe 20 pounds, and thus $20 saved per machine built. The fact that they've been reducing aluminum across all product means the savings and earnings adds up, quick.
Granted, the iMac is still a good value, but it is also still an appliance. I don't like having to replace the entire machine when upgrading it was feasible so few years ago. Alas....
I work for a large company with 250,000+ employess, and we are no longer providing "traditional" desktops or laptops to the majority of the firm, instead we are upgrading them to a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (Dumb Terminals). We use to have 2-3 year upgrade cycle.
Well I don't think she would go for the 11" machine. I think screen size is key and 11" is too small. If she were buying today she'd be comparing the 13" models across the line. And i think the retina screen is the key for her after the size of screen. But yes if they had put the retina screen into an Air, she might buy the Air. But the weight difference is a full pound between Air and Macbook. And then another near pound to go up to the Macbook Pro.
I think I'm a bit too removed from the Mac Pro work scene to realize how disruptive it was to go to the small form factor. I know my one friend has all those drive bays filled in his Mac Pro with pictures of his kids. I don't think he will buy the new Mac Pro when it is time for an upgrade. But I don't for a second believe that Apple changed the Mac Pro form factor to save $10 to $15 in Aluminum costs. On a $2,500 machine, no those type of savings do not add up. They are meaningless. The R&D spent to get the form factor that small and machinery to build the product that small is going to dwarf the savings on raw materials.
But I don't disagree with your statement. As I said I might buy the iMac. To be honest, I think the 27" is unnecessarily large for me. If the 21" came with a discrete graphics card and user upgradeable RAM, it would be more compelling. But I may end up getting the 27" just for those features, which frankly should be standard. It is kind of crazy how few lines of Macs currently have a discrete graphics card in them.
I think Apple feels we are entering a post-PC world where iOS devices are going to dominate. I think they thought people were going to switch the iPad more than they actually have. And in any case the focus was the Watch for the last few years and the focus is probably now the car. That doesn't mean we won't be seeing new good hardware. But it may not be the hardware techs and professionals will want.
Totally agree they need to move to a 2 year upgrade cycle for OSX and iOS. The current system is ridiculous. By the time they get a totally stable release out, the next version is due. Leaves users constantly upgrading.
Yeah, that is my biggest issue these days, just as they drop a final version that is stable, we get an upgrade that introduces bugs again.
The reality hit home when Windows 8.1 was running solid and stable on my PC and OS X was buggy. A 2 year or even a 3 year cycle would be great. 12 months is not realistic on the Dev team.
I am still running my five year old Macbook Pro, and I am having a very difficult time justifying the upgrade to either a new Macbook or a PC based laptop.
The current generation of Retina and non-Retina Macbooks have been horribly neglected. They all use last generation's Intel Processor, I am still waiting for a Skylake Macbook.
But even PCs I am having a hard time justifying the expense. Memory is incredibly over price and its not like I can go to the local store and buy another stick of 16 GB of ram because it is solder on to the motherboard. So basically to buy a new computer, I have to anticipate my needs for the next five years which requires me spending significantly more money upfront rather than spreading the cost out over a few years.
On top of that, since with almost every computer these days, all the parts are soldered on the Motherboard (Logicboard), if even one part fails, it will likely require me to buy a whole new computer. A minor failure with something like the SSD or RAM is still likely. This is especially frustrating on a "pro" line computer where it is expected to last several years.
I think all computer manufacturers are really going down a dark path on this.
The current generation of Retina and non-Retina Macbooks have been horribly neglected. They all use last generation's Intel Processor, I am still waiting for a Skylake Macbook.
But even PCs I am having a hard time justifying the expense. Memory is incredibly over price and its not like I can go to the local store and buy another stick of 16 GB of ram because it is solder on to the motherboard. So basically to buy a new computer, I have to anticipate my needs for the next five years which requires me spending significantly more money upfront rather than spreading the cost out over a few years.
On top of that, since with almost every computer these days, all the parts are soldered on the Motherboard (Logicboard), if even one part fails, it will likely require me to buy a whole new computer. A minor failure with something like the SSD or RAM is still likely. This is especially frustrating on a "pro" line computer where it is expected to last several years.
I think all computer manufacturers are really going down a dark path on this.
Sounds like the mainframe computers from when I started working oh so long ago now
Building a hackintosh is one of the wisest tech decisions I ever made. If you have the time and energy I highly recommend it.
Sounds like the mainframe computers from when I started working oh so long ago now
We're coming back full circle. The idea of a central place that most of the heavy lifting is done isn't new. THe problem was in the distant past of computing, networking technology couldn't keep up.
Now with even internet connectivity being fast, nevermind internal networks, it's far more economical to use technologies like Application Virtualization, Remote App, Terminal Services and centralized processing than to try and put beefy desktop computers on everyones desk. A lot of places these days can easily get away with extremely low end dumb terminals connecting to an RDP session (or using something like Citrix) now. The Financial industry has been heavily shifting towards this model even more so now than I have ever seen it in the past.
pardon my ignorance, I am a heavy excel user at work (multiple files containing several hundred thousand rows each), is this something that could be done behind the scenes on a server somewhere with me using a dumb terminal? currently my PC does the processing and I just store the files on the network.
thanks
That depends on what exactly you're doing:
in my above description, and what we're finding a lot of clients are doing these days are buying lower end computers for the end user, and using RDP to a central terminal server. Or using Microsoft Remote app services to RDP to specific Applications.
So, in this case, a user would be running teh excel document directly on the remote server.
Why this is starting to make more sense for corporate is cost. Security and the ability to work frome anywhere. Servers can be built that are super powerful and able to handle multiple high workloads at the same time. So instead of spending thousands on individual powerful computers, you spend very little on the end user (or even let the BYOD), and put all your money into the powerful Terminal server architecture.
In your case, you could do this, But if you're regularly manipulating a lot of data, adn doing a lot of CPU intensive calculations, you're probably better served by an appropriate Database backend system and use some reporting tools (Microsoft Reporting service or custom application), that would handle the complex calculations for you.
I built my own P.C. a year ago, which I use for work and games. But I need something to replace my laptop, which is my on the go device.
That is fine that you have such a massive hatred for Windows and are a massive Mac fanboy but the reality is that Macs also have their fair share of issues. The corporation I work for has a large amount of Macs that I service. I have seen a huge variety of issues over the 10 years I have been working there. Macs freeze up, crash, get malware, etc... hardware also craps out. I also hate to break it to you, but Macs also require protection otherwise Apple would not include "built in" protection in OSX. Point is Macs are far from perfect. I prefer them over PCs but there is nothing wrong with going PC either.