Apple Maintains Mac Sales Momentum in Holiday Quarter

[LordVic]

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.

yes. it's the exact same thing

This chart is measuring one thing and one thing only

Unit count

thats it.

Apple is choosing not to compete at the same levels as everyone else. therefore, by their own choice their unit count is lower. It is still a unit count.

unfortunately just because you can't see the similarities of the internals, doesn't mean they're not the same

Apple isn't unique anymore in their hardware choices. They're buying the exact same parts off intel that dell and HP are. they're using the same architecture, same chipsets. they're buying their ram off the same vendors and they're following industry standards for Personal computers for them.

the only difference is the operating system which they are laying on top of it. and thats a personal preference which doesn't preclude them from the Personal Computer world.

Now if this chart rated different market segments by dollar amount within it, or even were to show market size by revenues, your argument would be valid. But it's not. This is a UNIT COUNT measurement only.

 

[Michael Scrip]

yes. it's the exact same thing

This chart is measuring one thing and one thing only

Unit count

thats it.

Apple is choosing not to compete at the same levels as everyone else. therefore, by their own choice their unit count is lower. It is still a unit count.

Yes... I know it's a unit count. That's how market share is measured... by counting the total number of units shipped in a quarter and figuring out the percentage that belong to each company.

And you're right... Apple is choosing not to compete at the same levels as everyone else. Like I said before... Apple isn't playing the same game as everyone else.

So because of that... Apple's "low market share" shouldn't be considered some kind of failure.

unfortunately just because you can't see the similarities of the internals, doesn't mean they're not the same

Apple isn't unique anymore in their hardware choices. They're buying the exact same parts off intel that dell and HP are. they're using the same architecture, same chipsets. they're buying their ram off the same vendors and they're following industry standards for Personal computers for them.

the only difference is the operating system which they are laying on top of it. and thats a personal preference which doesn't preclude them from the Personal Computer world.

Similar internals does not mean the same internals.

You can't say with a straight face that a $200 HP Steam 11 is the "exact same thing" as a $900 Macbook Air 11"

The processor alone is 3 times more powerful in the Macbook Air than in the HP Stream.

Now if this chart rated different market segments by dollar amount within it, or even were to show market size by revenues, your argument would be valid. But it's not. This is a UNIT COUNT measurement only.

Agreed... different charts measure different things.

This is strictly a unit count chart.

Apple did grow their unit count year-over-year... which no one seems to care about.

All they say is "Apple failed to grow as much as a dozen other companies combined..."

Considering all we've said about Apple choosing to only sell certain types of machines... it's clear that Apple's isn't playing the same game as everyone else.

But yes... the other guys sold more units than Apple. Then again... they always have.

 

[LordVic]

Yes... I know it's a unit count. That's how market share is measured... by counting the total number of units shipped in a quarter and figuring out the percentage that belong to each company.

And you're right... Apple is choosing not to compete at the same levels as everyone else. Like I said before... Apple isn't playing the same game as everyone else.

So because of that... Apple's "low market share" shouldn't be considered some kind of failure.



Similar internals does not mean the same internals.

You can't say with a straight face that a $200 HP Steam 11 is the "exact same thing" as a $900 Macbook Air 11"

The processor alone is 3 times more powerful in the Macbook Air than in the HP Stream.



Agreed... different charts measure different things.

This is strictly a unit count chart.

Apple did grow their unit count year-over-year... which no one seems to care about.

All they say is "Apple failed to grow as much as a dozen other companies combined..."

Considering all we've said about Apple choosing to only sell certain types of machines... it's clear that Apple's isn't playing the same game as everyone else.

But yes... the other guys sold more units than Apple. Then again... they always have.

yeah, my comment isn't to pass judgement on apple's numbers as some win/loss

I hate this mentality that if you're not first you're last. You can be widely succesfull and not be #1 in every single field. Apple is one of the most succesfull companies of our time. Guess what, they're not technically #1 in most of their markets.

Apple has grown in < 10 years from having <2% computer marketshare to their current 11% (and it varies depending on quarter). They have grown their sales numbers by a lot. They should be ecstatic over their results.

everyone else whose attacking them in this thread or trying to discredit what they did cause they're not #1 are looney and really don't understand how business works

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Important to notice that Gartner included "windows-based tablets" in their statistics. So out of the three groups of iOS-based tablets, Android-based tablets, and Windows-based tablets, one group is counted and two are not counted. This obviously favours companies making windows-based tablets.

 

[FloatingBones]

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

There's a bunch of raw data. What "story" you concoct from the raw data is your choice, but there is no right choice.

Do you have any idea why HP had such a surge in sales? Was it $200-300 machines? If so, why should anyone at Apple be concerned?

 

[IJ Reilly]

There's a bunch of raw data. What "story" you concoct from the raw data is your choice, but there is no right choice.

Do you have any idea why HP had such a surge in sales? Was it $200-300 machines? If so, why should anyone at Apple be concerned?

The Windows OEMs are constantly trading market share with each other. This goes on quarter after quarter, year after year. What it means, more or less, is that Windows PCs are virtually commodity items. We're seeing perhaps a little more innovation in that space recently with tablets, creating some reason to choose one over the other, but I'm not sure that accounts for much.

The real point here though is that market share is more of an issue for the Windows OEMs because they are fighting for a piece of the same pie. Apple is going to be far more concerned with their own units, prices and margins.

 

[Michael Goff]

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.

Yes, market share typically deals with numbers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yes, market share typically deals with numbers.

Yes... I understand that.

But it's people's analysis of those numbers that drives me crazy.

Apple sold more Macs last quarter than they did the year before... which can be credited to Apple.

But then the story shifts to how Apple is failing to keep up with the industry because of increased sales by the dozen other companies who are NOT Apple.

Gee... one company versus a dozen. That's a fair fight

Oh I understand the numbers... I was just looking for a better way to measure Apple's performance.

Strictly comparing unit sales doesn't tell much of a story.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yes... I understand that.

But it's people's analysis of those numbers that drives me crazy.

Apple sold more Macs last quarter than they did the year before... which can be credited to Apple.

But then the story shifts to how Apple is failing to keep up with the industry because of increased sales by the dozen other companies who are NOT Apple.

Gee... one company versus a dozen. That's a fair fight

Oh I understand the numbers... I was just looking for a better way to measure Apple's performance.

Strictly comparing unit sales doesn't tell much of a story.

Really, Apple had a great quarter. They're selling moreacs this quarter than they did some years when they were on PPC and even after the move to Intel. They're making massive piles of money, even if it isn't much to them.

Really, though, numbers don't matter. I'm using a SP 3 as my primary computer, and it didn't sell well. I was using a 1520 before moving to Sprint and their good iPhone plan. Apple will continue to make Macs, and as long as people like their products they will keep buying them.

 

[LordVic]

Important to notice that Gartner included "windows-based tablets" in their statistics. So out of the three groups of iOS-based tablets, Android-based tablets, and Windows-based tablets, one group is counted and two are not counted. This obviously favours companies making windows-based tablets.

This has been covered numerous times in the past and ignoring the reason for it is disingenuous or ignorance to actual understanding.

Its not based on form factor of the device but the architecture and platform of the device.

Android tablets and Apple tablets do not run the same architecture that windows tablets, Apple computers or Windows and linux computers run. These devices all have the x86 platform at the heart of it. Each of those windows tablet, despite subjective performance and form factor, runs the exact same hardware and software that your desktop or laptop run. Therefore it is being included in the value for PC's, since, they are in fact, personal computers in a handheld formfactor.

iPads and 95% of Android tablets do not operate on this architecture, but operate on the ARM based systems. These are NOT included in Personal Computer numbers and have never been (AFAIRecall).

Bitching that "oooh, PC shipments are only higher cause they include windows tablets" is just you trying to justify the numbers. they don't need to be justified. They're just statistics and are presented as is.

Detractors are going to tell you "but look apple didn't increase it's marketshare!!!" and ignore all other possible inferences one can make from these numbers. its just numbers, it's how you interpret them that matters.