Apple Maintains Mac Sales Momentum in Holiday Quarter

[Michael Goff]

Does it matter? The key is they're barely usable as laptops. Might as well, call a keyboard+Ipad bundle a PC by this measure...

The distinction here between PC and Tablets is arbitrary and stuff is moved from one to another to suit the stats... This makes both PC and mobile sales records pointless.

I also agree that Retail sales should be distinguished from Business channel sales since they are very different beasts. Most Apple PC's are sold through retail channels and I'd guess that they are definitively close to the top in those kind of sales.

No, the iPad runs a mobile OS. The 150$ Windows tablet runs a desktop OS. That is hardly arbitrary, the software is important. That is, in fact, the only thing that can be used to determine the type of computer in a world where form factors are being blended at times.

 

[jovada]

Draw a line indicating the average in that graph and watch how it's reaching its maximum... Will it decline in the coming years?

 

[fermat-au]

A better headline would have been
Mac sales keep pace with the rest of the PC industry
Apple grow 11.5% only a little below the 13.1% of the industry over all.

 

[springsup]

The story is that Apple sold more units in Q4 2014 than they did a year ago. Apple is up year-over-year.

Other companies are up too... the entire market is growing. But Apple is just one of those companies.

I understand the analysis that Apple didn't grow as much as the entire PC market. But Apple can only be responsible for what Apple does. And frankly... that's all they should be concerned with.

The PC market is made up of a dozen companies... a dozen individual companies that have nothing to do with each other.

These companies only ever appear together on charts like these. But their individual performances are their own responsibility and separate from everyone else.

So again... Apple sold more units last quarter than they did in the same quarter the year before. I don't see how that is in any way a problem.

The reason you compare companies against the market at large is to judge their individual performance.

In this case, the entire PC market saw an uptick. That means that Apple's increased sales aren't necessarily a result of them putting their message out better and convincing a larger proportion of buyers to choose them. Apple's unit growth very nearly just kept up with the increased supply of buyers.

Apple sold more units, but didn't improve their overall position in the PC market because they just about kept up with the industry growth (within error).

 

[robjulo]

If you don't think Apple is concerned about share, I'm not even going to bother.

Macrumors, where 75% of the posters haven't spent a day in the business world yet love to opine on marketing, corporate sales strategies, patent law, business law etc etc.

Which one of those do you think Apple really cares about?

Their own sales? Or their percentage of sales compared to everyone else?

 

[AFEPPL]

The title is somewhat of a marketing stretch, yes a few more units sold, but the market share went down vs same period last year. This shows declining momentum for apple or increasing momentum for the other vendors. Glass half full or glass half empty?

 

[TWSS37]

So in YoY growth Apple only outpaced ASUS and "Others"? OK.

 

[haydn!]

How did you get into the Top Comments section with 0 votes?

The top comments section shows the 10 most popular, or most recent comments if less than 10. At the time you posted, there was less than 10 comments.

 

[HiVolt]

iMac Retina 5K. Better screen than can currently be purchased separately, but sold at same price as the top of the line 4K standalone monitors. But comes with top of the line PC components built into very thin frame.

I agree with the screen part, but that's about it. The iMac is un-necessarily thinned out, after all the stand still takes up space. This sacrifices the space needed for a real video card to drive the 5k screen. What you've got inside is a mobile graphic chip, because there is not enough room in there to put a better GPU and associated cooling.

And you don't get top components. Apple is still skimping with Core i5 on the Retinal model as the base. pretty pathetic.

Upgrading anything in it is pretty much impossible because the screen is glued on. at least you can still upgrade the ram, for now. Give it another generation and you won't be.

 

[TallManNY]

I agree with the screen part, but that's about it. The iMac is un-necessarily thinned out, after all the stand still takes up space. This sacrifices the space needed for a real video card to drive the 5k screen. What you've got inside is a mobile graphic chip, because there is not enough room in there to put a better GPU and associated cooling.

And you don't get top components. Apple is still skimping with Core i5 on the Retinal model as the base. pretty pathetic.

Upgrading anything in it is pretty much impossible because the screen is glued on. at least you can still upgrade the ram, for now. Give it another generation and you won't be.

I agree that the iMac gained nothing of significance by being made that thin. I have the last of the prior generation, the Mid-2011, and I'm really happy I got that one. It looks just as good as the current form factor and it was easier to design.
Yes it is a mobile graphic card, but if you buy the best one they have available it is generally a very good card. When I got my 2011, the mobile chip available was the leading mobile chip and it had plenty of power.

When you consider the quality of the monitor, the price is very fair, so buy the two upgrades (i7 and better GPU). Yes it brings it to $3,000. But it will be a beast of a computer and it will look great.

But Apple is also pushing the envelope and I'd like to see what the next generation GPUs can do with that 5K screen. So I'm glad I'm not in the market for a desktop right now.

I hope they don't seal in the RAM, while at the same time making it a serious profit center. I've always upgraded the RAM in my iMacs in order to stretch their useful life. This has worked out great for me.

 

[2457282]

I have had a Mac since 1989, but I am beginning to doubt my next will be one. I do not like sealed desktops that will not let me upgrade. I thought I was going to get a mini until it came in with such poor specs and soldered RAM. If only Apple would make a prosumer model.

Isn't the prosumer model called the Mac Pro?

 

[IJ Reilly]

YEs, I did. Reread it yourself. Not commenting further.

Neither will I, since I'd answered your question before you even asked it.

 

[SirCheese]

Not the Mac Mini. No slots, so it's not a real PC.

I was just kidding. People are always arguing about categories. The iPhone has more computing power than a Cray Supercomputer from the 1980s. Certainly it's more powerful and capable than my old Amiga 1000. But the Amiga was a "real PC" and the iPhone is not. When Apple started removing built in CD drives from their computers, people complained that without a CD drive, it wasn't a real PC any more. Really, they did! In a few years people are going to look back at todays arguments about what constitutes a real PC, and they'll say "Whaaaa?"

It's a real PC....

 

[blackpond]

The competition is moving fast, and we're reaching the point where the question "Why should I pay way more to get that Mac/iPhone/iPad again?" doesn't have a very substantial answer.

Well said. My iPhone 4s, iPad 2 and AppleTV 2 are all running just fine, thanks.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If you don't think Apple is concerned about share, I'm not even going to bother.

Macrumors, where 75% of the posters haven't spent a day in the business world yet love to opine on marketing, corporate sales strategies, patent law, business law etc etc.

Apple has NEVER had a significant share of the computer market in their 30 year history. They just do what they feel is right and march to the beat of their own drum.

I don't think Apple will suddenly be concerned about their share now.

Apple has 100% of the Macintosh market... while everyone else is selling commodity Windows machines.

Apple's share is pretty good in their chosen market.

Yes... the other guys, combined, will always sell more units and thus have a bigger share than Apple. But Apple isn't exactly playing the same game.

The reason you compare companies against the market at large is to judge their individual performance.

In this case, the entire PC market saw an uptick. That means that Apple's increased sales aren't necessarily a result of them putting their message out better and convincing a larger proportion of buyers to choose them. Apple's unit growth very nearly just kept up with the increased supply of buyers.

Apple sold more units, but didn't improve their overall position in the PC market because they just about kept up with the industry growth (within error).

Yeah... I know why they compare all computer companies together on a single chart. I was just saying that each company on that chart is only responsible for their own actions.

Apple sold more Macs... so that's a good thing for Apple.

Nearly every other company sold more Windows PCs... so that's good for them too. But since there are more of them... of course their share will affect Apple.

It should also be noted that the other companies gets the same credit for selling one unit of a $300 entry-level Windows laptop that Apple gets for selling one unit of a $900 entry-level Macbook Air.

Guess which product will sell more units and thus increases their share?

That's kinda why I have a problem with these charts. Apple's laptops have an average selling price above $1000... while everyone else is far less than that.

But these charts count all units the same.

I can see comparing HP to Dell because they have similar products and price points.

With Apple it's a little bit more difficult. Apple's laptops start at $900 while everyone else sells laptops at half or a third of that price.

That's why I sorta have a problem seeing Apple on the same chart with everyone else. They're not playing the same game as everyone else.

 

[SirCheese]

If you don't think Apple is concerned about share, I'm not even going to bother.

Macrumors, where 75% of the posters haven't spent a day in the business world yet love to opine on marketing, corporate sales strategies, patent law, business law etc etc.

Of course they are concerned about market share, to many times I see Apple fanatics claim they don't care about this at all.

 

[LordVic]

Does it matter? The key is they're barely usable as laptops. Might as well, call a keyboard+Ipad bundle a PC by this measure...

The distinction here between PC and Tablets is arbitrary and stuff is moved from one to another to suit the stats... This makes both PC and mobile sales records pointless.

I also agree that Retail sales should be distinguished from Business channel sales since they are very different beasts. Most Apple PC's are sold through retail channels and I'd guess that they are definitively close to the top in those kind of sales.

"barely usable"

It might not perform great, but if it's running on x86 hardware, with full window 8.1, is it not a Personal Computer?

I think that is the big differentiating factor between a "PC" and a "Tablet" for these stats.

yes, those are really cheap, $150 piece of junk computers. I wouldn't wish them on anyone, But by all technicalities, because it is running on x86 hardware, with a full desktop Operating system (whether it's windows 8.x, OSx, Linux), it does qualify as a PC.

Why iPads don't fit into this, nor Android tablets is architectural. They run ARM (or similar) CPU's. Run custom Operating systems and are not geared, nor intended for personal computing tasks. The iPad is a great device. it's the best tablet in the world, But it is still closer in architecture to an iPhone than it is your Macbook. Where many of those cheap windows garbage computers share their harware and software with desktops and laptops.

you might not like it. It might frustrate you cause it doesn't give apple the #1 spot, but its still true.

now, if they're including arm based Windows RT devices, then its just padding. Though I think the abomination of RT is essentially dead.

----------

That's why I sorta have a problem seeing Apple on the same chart with everyone else. They're not playing the same game as everyone else.

Most of what you said might have been 100% true when Apple were running a fundamentally different architecture, but not anymore.

What is the difference between Apple and their competitors? From a hardware and performance standpoint, They are shipping the exact same thing. in a shiny, flashy, (Subjectively) nicer looking case. With their own OS.

Apple is no longer in their own market. They are now a PC vendor. A boutique PC vendor, but still a PC vendor.

you're able to take any Apple product and install any x86 OS on it and run any software geared for that OS.

cause fo that, its perfectly fair to compare them to the rest of the market. Now, you're not wrong with the value. Apple wont sell the same volume because they don't have the wide variety of products that the competition has. That is really neither good nor bad, it's just the decision Apple as a corporation has chosen to go.

Sitting at 11% market share though, Apple should feel good. There was a time when they were sitting at barely 2%

 

[fourthtunz]

hard to understand Apples thinking regarding the mini

Just imagine how well Apple would have done if they offered a 17" laptop, a powerful, user upgradeable tower and an enthusiast-friendly mini!

Hard to understand Apples thinking regarding the mini..
Fear of success?:roll eyes:
I understand they worry about one mac cannibalizing other parts of the line
but if apple made a kick ass mini, is it really going to stop people from buying an iMac or laptop? Aren't those directed at different price points and missions?
What if they made the mini a loss leader? Just to get folks into Mac?
My mini from almost 4 years ago kills anything mini they make now..sad

 

[LordVic]

Hard to understand Apples thinking regarding the mini..

1 word

Profit

 

[fourthtunz]

1 word

Profit

Yes, some bean counter might have envisioned it that way but
I wonder if it will work out that way?

 

[LordVic]

Yes, some bean counter might have envisioned it that way but
I wonder if it will work out that way?

Time will tell, but I think it will.

Apple products have gained a cult of personality around it. You can see it here on the forums. Often the product itself can be identical, or even inferior, but because of history, clever marketting and constant attention, Apple is prominent and sells fantastically well.

your average person isn't going to know that the 2014 Mac Mini is 1/2 as powerful as the 2012 mac mini. They just know it's got an Apple logoo on it, it's newer than what they had, and therefore it must be good.

 

[Nimrad]

*warning* Highly subjective opinion:

Is it me, or is Apple news this period just depressing?

Apple is doing fine, Macs, iPhones and iPads are still better than the competition overall, and the company has enough money to declare itself an independent state. But it really feels the post-Jobs era is starting to show.

Where are the new stuff that the rest of the industry typically copies? Be it technologies, interfaces, or industrial design. It's the first time a new OSX came out and I just can't even be bothered installing it. Plus it looks kinda meh. The new iPhone is probably the ugliest device of the last decade, and the iPad has almost a desktop level CPU, but still cant handle chatting and browsing at the same time.

Maybe this is a very personal disillusionment here, but I used to be the 100% fanboy, and gradually, for the past 2-3 years, I simply don't care what's coming out of Cupertino. All the news are about lawsuits, more vendor lock-in, crippling bugs, soulless marketing, and.. a fat watch to have annoying marketing notifications on your wrist.

I mean, I get it. When you are on the top of your game, why bother innovate and risk. Just focus on fashion and brand, and let someone else do the geeky stuff.

Still, it looks to me that Apple has focused so much on the super-high-profit-margin tip of the market, that at some point the only competing advantage that is left is the brand. I used to believe everyone should buy a Mac, because it was technology at it's best, how computing is supposed to be experienced. But today? Not so much anymore.

The competition is moving fast, and we're reaching the point where the question "Why should I pay way more to get that Mac/iPhone/iPad again?" doesn't have a very substantial answer.

I think you're right, but I don't think you're right about your arguments.
I'm not gonna unproven your arguments but I'm gonna tell you what I think Apple has lost the last years and that is their extreme attention to detail:

1. The camera sticking out from the body in the iPhone 6. Steve Jobs made people totally redo everything they had worked on just to make the inside of older macs look good. Did it really make any extreme difference? Not at all, neither does the camera and I personally don't mind the camera sticking out, but I do mind the less attention to the small things because I think it may be the first steps to loosing their focus.

2. The small irritation moments in iOS 8: the lag when you quit an app opened from a folder because the phone has to load 2 folders in landscape mode. Does it really make a huge difference? No, but if you know Steve Jobs you know that the chance of him firing the guy causing that lag would be surprisingly high. And there are more of these irritating moments.


These are not huge problems. I personally think that CarPlay, Apple Watch and Apple Pay shows that Apple still knows how to make great things that just sets a new standard that the competition measures themselves towards. I just fear that the competition makes Apple do shortcuts just to keep up.

 

[FloatingBones]

As usual the real story is not market share, but unit growth.

Please. There are all sorts of different "real stories" in the data. The IDC report provides some of the info for those stories, and is woefully lacking in others.

By that measure Apple did not keep up with the growth of the overall PC market

If HP hadn't had a huge surge in units shipped, AAPL would have seen an increase in market share. The natural question is where that surge happened in HP's product line. If it came in $600-$1000 PCs, then AAPL should be concerned. If it came in $200-$300 PCs, that's a completely different story.

So a more accurate headline would be, "Apple Loses Some Mac Sales Momentum in Holiday Quarter," since that is what actually happened.

That would only be the "actual" story if you happen to lump all PC sales into a single bucket.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Most of what you said might have been 100% true when Apple were running a fundamentally different architecture, but not anymore.

What is the difference between Apple and their competitors? From a hardware and performance standpoint, They are shipping the exact same thing. in a shiny, flashy, (Subjectively) nicer looking case. With their own OS.

Apple is no longer in their own market. They are now a PC vendor. A boutique PC vendor, but still a PC vendor.

you're able to take any Apple product and install any x86 OS on it and run any software geared for that OS.

cause fo that, its perfectly fair to compare them to the rest of the market. Now, you're not wrong with the value. Apple wont sell the same volume because they don't have the wide variety of products that the competition has. That is really neither good nor bad, it's just the decision Apple as a corporation has chosen to go.

Sitting at 11% market share though, Apple should feel good. There was a time when they were sitting at barely 2%

Yes... it's Apple's choice to only sell "expensive" computers. But no... I don't think they belong on the same chart.

Let's say HP sells three $300 11" laptops for every one $900 Macbook Air 11" that Apple sells.

Are those laptops really the "exact same thing" as you put it?

Of course not. One is a plastic laptop with a slow spinning hard drive running Windows. The other is an aluminum laptop with fast PCIe flash storage running OSX.

But the chart makes no distinction between the types of units... only the number of units.

I understand that they are both "laptops" but the similarities end there. And that's why I have a problem with the chart.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Please. There are all sorts of different "real stories" in the data. The IDC report provides some of the info for those stories, and is woefully lacking in others.



If HP hadn't had a huge surge in units shipped, AAPL would have seen an increase in market share. The natural question is where that surge happened in HP's product line. If it came in $600-$1000 PCs, then AAPL should be concerned. If it came in $200-$300 PCs, that's a completely different story.



That would only be the "actual" story if you happen to lump all PC sales into a single bucket.

Assuming you get to choose the only correct methodology for counting. Which, of course, you don't.