Apple Now Ranked as Fifth Largest Global PC Vendor Due to Price Cuts, Improved Demand

[westrock2000]

Economical if they have money to burn--or no choice.

Macs cost less in the long run: they last longer (so you buy fewer), stay fast and stable longer, have lower support costs, and great resale value. These are concrete, measurable facts, and they save you big bucks.

My Mac Pro is only 8 years old and while it functions admirably, as far as Apple is concerned it is dead. Buying a computer every 6-7 years for several thousand dollars in order to have current features does have it's cost.

My poor Mac Mini G4 that I bought in 2005 was an ever worse story "the cheapest, most affordable Mac ever" ended up being very untrue only a year later.

I've got a 2005 Dell GX620 in the garage that is slow (SSD helped), but it still works no problem and runs current version of Windows, albeit 32 bit.

Apple is a luxury item. There is nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn't try to justify that owning an Apple is somehow a better choice in the long run from a financial perspective. They have a real history of forced obsolescence across all of their products.

 

[katewes]

If the figures were sorted into Microsoft-Windows vs Apple OSX, Apple is still pretty small.

----------

My Mac Pro is only 8 years old and while it functions admirably, as far as Apple is concerned it is dead. Buying a computer every 6-7 years for several thousand dollars in order to have current features does have it's cost.

My poor Mac Mini G4 that I bought in 2005 was an ever worse story "the cheapest, most affordable Mac ever" ended up being very untrue only a year later.

I've got a 2005 Dell GX620 in the garage that is slow (SSD helped), but it still works no problem and runs current version of Windows, albeit 32 bit.

Apple is a luxury item. There is nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn't try to justify that owning an Apple is somehow a better choice in the long run from a financial perspective. They have a real history of forced obsolescence across all of their products.

Forced obsolescence would be understandable from a profit-viewpoint -- but what I hate is that Apple no longer makes certain products, specifically Macs with anti-glare screens. So on one hand they force you off the old hardware, but no longer supply the replacement.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The era of the $1000+ PC is over.

It's been over for a while... the price of Windows PCs has been dropping for years.

I just looked at all the Windows PCs in the current Best Buy weekly ad... and the prices average $545

And out of the 17 models listed in the ad... only 3 are $900 and above.

But 10 of them are $500 and below.

 

[KohPhiPhi]

The strong point of Apple, which no other manufacturer benefits from, is total loyalty from their customer base. Once you start getting into the OSX / iOS ecosystem you realize how superior it is, and there's no way you go back to Windows, Android, whatever.

As a result, Apple keeps getting repeat customers over and over, which I doubt Dell or HP do.

 

[westrock2000]

It's been over for a while... the price of Windows PCs has been dropping for years.

I just looked at all the Windows PCs in the current Best Buy weekly ad... and the prices average $545

And out of the 17 models listed in the ad... only 3 are $900 and above.

But 10 of them are $500 and below.

I don't think this is a bad thing. I think this is really an amazing testament to the level of integration we are seeing in current computers. I have been extremely impressed with the graphics chips built-in to Intel's over the last several years. I can play World of Warcraft very respectfully using just the Intel HD4000 graphics chips. Meanwhile I do not get the heat or noise of a separate video card. And there is the Iris Pro version which is several times better.

The "SoC" or system on a chip is really making all this happen. Intel chips have the processor, the graphics chip, the memory controller and the PCI-express controller all built-in to the chip. For some Haswell chips meant to be used in Ultrabooks, the entire PCH (which encompasses USB and SATA connections) is integrated into the processor die. So you have almost the entire computer enveloped within one single chip.

This has allowed for all kinds of benefits.

• Less production cost of the chips themselves
• less heatsink material needed
• less PCB needed (the actual board the chips mount on)
• smaller cases due to less heatsink and physical real estate
• smaller power supplies

We now have $100 8" touch screen tablets running FULL BLOWN Windows 8. I don't care what you think about Windows, we are talking a fully functional mainstream operating system that runs on a $100 computer. It even comes with Microsoft Office already (which should come with Windows anyways in my opinion).

$100 any type of computer was practically unheard of a year ago. Only Chinese Android tablets hit that price point and they had horrible reviews for usability and (lack of) functionality. I bought my Surface RT last year for what I thought was a stellar deal at $180. Now you can buy a 10" Tablet running real Windows for just $20 more. Not some lame RISC processor on a gimped OS (Windows RT and Chromebook) that isn't compatible with the rest of the world, but a real bonafide Intel processor that will run anything.

The point here, is that computers have come such a long way in the hardware department over the last 5-6 years, yet the software requirements haven't changed that much. As a result there is no reason an average user should be paying $1000 for a computer anymore. They are commodity items. And they have commodity prices.

If Apple can convince people to spend money for features outside of the hardware department (such as software, materials, form factor, status symbol) then that is great. We can have luxury brands. But the other side of the spectrum is equally exciting right now.

----------

The strong point of Apple, which no other manufacturer benefits from, is total loyalty from their customer base. Once you start getting into the OSX / iOS ecosystem you realize how superior it is, and there's no way you go back to Windows, Android, whatever.

As a result, Apple keeps getting repeat customers over and over, which I doubt Dell or HP do.

I agree. I didn't buy an Apple phone, for its phone qualities. I bought it because I love iTunes and listen to music a lot and have several iPods. Same with buying an Apple TV and now I have 2 Macs running 24/7.

It's the integration, and I can't stress this enough to people who only look at their products individually.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I don't think this is a bad thing. I think this is really an amazing testament to the level of integration we are seeing in current computers. I have been extremely impressed with the graphics chips built-in to Intel's over the last several years. I can play World of Warcraft very respectfully using just the Intel HD4000 graphics chips. Meanwhile I do not get the heat or noise of a separate video card. And there is the Iris Pro version which is several times better.

The "SoC" or system on a chip is really making all this happen. Intel chips have the processor, the graphics chip, the memory controller and the PCI-express controller all built-in to the chip. For some Haswell chips meant to be used in Ultrabooks, the entire PCH (which encompasses USB and SATA connections) is integrated into the processor die. So you have almost the entire computer enveloped within one single chip.

This has allowed for all kinds of benefits.

• Less production cost of the chips themselves
• less heatsink material needed
• less PCB needed (the actual board the chips mount on)
• smaller cases due to less heatsink and physical real estate
• smaller power supplies

We now have $100 8" touch screen tablets running FULL BLOWN Windows 8. I don't care what you think about Windows, we are talking a fully functional mainstream operating system that runs on a $100 computer. It even comes with Microsoft Office already (which should come with Windows anyways in my opinion).

$100 any type of computer was practically unheard of a year ago. Only Chinese Android tablets hit that price point and they had horrible reviews for usability and (lack of) functionality. I bought my Surface RT last year for what I thought was a stellar deal at $180. Now you can buy a 10" Tablet running real Windows for just $20 more. Not some lame RISC processor on a gimped OS (Windows RT and Chromebook) that isn't compatible with the rest of the world, but a real bonafide Intel processor that will run anything.

The point here, is that computers have come such a long way in the hardware department over the last 5-6 years, yet the software requirements haven't changed that much. As a result there is no reason an average user should be paying $1000 for a computer anymore. They are commodity items. And they have commodity prices.

If Apple can convince people to spend money for features outside of the hardware department (such as software, materials, form factor, status symbol) then that is great. We can have luxury brands. But the other side of the spectrum is equally exciting right now.

Yeah it's not a bad thing.

I was agreeing with the previous poster that Windows computer don't have to cost $1000 anymore. And most of them don't.

I just bought a Toshiba ultrabook for $600... with a current Core i5 processor and an full 1080p screen. It's a hell of a machine for the money.

I still build my own desktops... but I needed a laptop to travel with.

 

[H2SO4]

Not a chance of going over 10%. Macs are still a niche market of high-end computers that cannot compare to the number of PC spread literally everywhere.

Apple has never acted in the least like it wants to take on mainstream computer sales. Not only does that involve low-cost units that Apple isn't interested in it would also mean keeping operating systems up and current for many years as required by businesses. That directly conflicts with Apple's yearly OS fashion show.

Consider that one could have purchased Windows 7 back when the EOL'd Snow Leopard was alive and that there are still five more years to go before W7 dies. At Apple's current pace even Yosemite may be gone while W7 is still supported.

I agree, and IT managers hate that. I think that along with possible security issues continuity and support is the biggest barrier to Apple in enterprise.

----------

My Mac Pro is only 8 years old and while it functions admirably, as far as Apple is concerned it is dead. Buying a computer every 6-7 years for several thousand dollars in order to have current features does have it's cost.

My poor Mac Mini G4 that I bought in 2005 was an ever worse story "the cheapest, most affordable Mac ever" ended up being very untrue only a year later.

I've got a 2005 Dell GX620 in the garage that is slow (SSD helped), but it still works no problem and runs current version of Windows, albeit 32 bit.

Apple is a luxury item. There is nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn't try to justify that owning an Apple is somehow a better choice in the long run from a financial perspective. They have a real history of forced obsolescence across all of their products.

100% agree although if you don’t know you may be able to extend its life for very little extra cost.

----------

The strong point of Apple, which no other manufacturer benefits from, is total loyalty from their customer base. Once you start getting into the OSX / iOS ecosystem you realize how superior it is, and there's no way you go back to Windows, Android, whatever.

As a result, Apple keeps getting repeat customers over and over, which I doubt Dell or HP do.

That I don’t think, is as true as you are making out. Of all the people that I know that have iPhones the vast majority do not own Macs or Apple TVs - some don’t even have computers. You need additional hardware to be part of the collective don’t you?
They do have loyal customers - yes, (I consider myself one of them), but I think I am the exception rather than the rule.
Dell or HP might not get as many repeat customers but the 'Windows Ecosystem’ does. Most of the people I know, (and don’t know it would seem), want to go into a shop and buy almost any hardware and have it work with their PC when they get home. They don’t want to have to read the ’supported OS notes on the box and have upgrade inducing artificial restrictions placed upon it by the manufacturer.

 

[Merkie]

iPhone is the gateway drug to the Mac

That's true, but most people use their phones more than their laptop. I have a cheap Dell (with matte full HD screen though), put an SSD in it, and now it flies. Does everything I want. Not as pretty as a Macbook though, but it's also less than half the price. So yeah. That's my story. Not sure why I'm sharing it actually.

 

[StoneJack]

That's true, but most people use their phones more than their laptop. I have a cheap Dell (with matte full HD screen though), put an SSD in it, and now it flies. Does everything I want. Not as pretty as a Macbook though, but it's also less than half the price. So yeah. That's my story. Not sure why I'm sharing it actually.

Exactly. And yet Mac share is rising. To be honest, in falling PC market to have a rising market share, you just need to ship constant number of macs, which Apple is perfectly capable of; it also manages to ship actually more of its notebooks and extremely expensive (for average users) desktops. It also manages to be most profitable vendor at same time and even be most valuable company in the WORLD. So despite the stories of cheap and cheaper PCs, that fly with SSD inside (which is true), there is untold Apple story, also true. There is something wicked well thought of in Apple strategy, something that Jobs created, something that neither Dell nor HP can crack, even whole Android can't crack, including Samsung with free falling profits.

----------

One can argue that Apple has iOS and OS X, true two differentiators; however, everybody with half brain would figure that out and yet smart folks at Vaio Sony, Samsung, HP all fail to replicate even small portion of that success.

 

[H2SO4]

Exactly. And yet Mac share is rising. To be honest, in falling PC market to have a rising market share, you just need to ship constant number of macs, which Apple is perfectly capable of

You actually just need to have less losses. One thing that has always intrigued me though is peoples priorities. Mine aren’t perfect for sure but in the recent financial climate the number of people still buying high value goods, (not just Apple ones), was astonishing.

 

[Michael Scrip]

One can argue that Apple has iOS and OS X, true two differentiators;

Apple makes hardware and their own software. They control the entire stack. Apple is rather unique in that respect.

however, everybody with half brain would figure that out and yet smart folks at Vaio Sony, Samsung, HP all fail to replicate even small portion of that success.

HP, Dell, Sony, Acer, whoever.... all sell PCs running Microsoft Windows. They really can't venture out too far from that.

I don't know what you expect these PC vendors to do.

They can't run OSX... because Apple doesn't allow it. There's always Linux... but that's never become popular on the desktop.

They could each make their own operating systems... but remember how crappy that experience was a long time ago?

So they're back to Microsoft Windows... along with every other PC vendor.

The strength of Windows is that anyone can build and sell a Windows PC.

But that's also its biggest drawback for a vendor... because you're selling the same basic product that everyone else sells.

 

[gnasher729]

It's more about profit margins than sheer volume. If you are shifting 3 times as many but only make $1 a unit apposed to $100 then you aren't really in fith place....

Land Rover didn't used to sell all that many Range Rovers in the early 2000's but the markup was described to me as "astonishing".

True. Apple is estimated to make more than 50% of all profits from desktop and laptop hardware sales.

----------

if it was not obvious.... The title of this thread includes "PC Vendor"

since ipad is a toy, NOT PC, hence not included. this should be clear now?

You keep making this claim that the iPad is a toy, but there are millions of professional users, plus many million users who use it exactly as they would use a laptop. You making a claim doesn't make it true.

 

[Tech198]

yay,, Lenovo !!

Good to see..

This must be world wide... There is no way Apple sell number #1 in Australia.... No chance in hell..

These stats, I like It's more realistic, than just centered in Cupertino.

 

[gnasher729]

You actually just need to have less losses. One thing that has always intrigued me though is peoples priorities. Mine aren’t perfect for sure but in the recent financial climate the number of people still buying high value goods, (not just Apple ones), was astonishing.

In my personal experience, if you don't look at purchase price, but at the cost of having a working computer for one year, the low end MacBooks are really cheap.

----------

Apple really needs Windows as a pre-installed Boot-camp option on new Macs. This should add several million sales.

In the enterprise, many companies have company wide Windows licenses, and people with a little bit of power make sure that their laptop is a Mac, and installing Windows on it is no problem whatsoever. Once one of them has a Mac (used as a PC), all the others copy him.

----------

Windows based cpu's are still the economical avenue for the mass of the globe. I don't think top-notch quality and performance is what the globe is looking to do for everyday computing.

Of course everyone wants top quality and performance. They just don't like paying for it. But more and more people learn by bad experience that in the long term, a Mac is also not more expensive. That's a slow process, but going from (not in the top 5) to #5 in world wide unit sales shows that there is progress.

 

[H2SO4]

In my personal experience, if you don't look at purchase price, but at the cost of having a working computer for one year, the low end MacBooks are really cheap.

I don’t know where people get that from. My PCs only have one at the moment, have cost me virtually nothing over the years. You can get massively more good and free software for a PC than you can for a Mac. The hardware is just as reliable. If you don’t tweak it the software, (much as I personally don’t like it), is fine.

Here’s the thing.
My Mac Pro cost me over £1700 8 years ago. That was a massive cost but I was lucky enough to be able to buy one. Now, Macs hold their value much more than PCs we know that. But IIRC I could have had a similarly or better specced PC for about £800.
So, and let’s be quite optimistic in favour of Apple;
A Mac retains 60% of its value at three years.
A PC retains 30% of its value at three years.
My Mac has therefore cost me £680 in that time, the PC has cost me £560.

I simply prefer the Mac and am footing the bill for that preference. It doesn’t at all make it a better product. Though it might make it a better experience.
The first is objective, the second subjective.

 

[M-O]

Does this include iPad shipments as 'PCs'?

seeing as they sold 13 million iPads last quarter, to sell a combined total of 5 million Macs & iPads would be pretty terrible news for Apple.

To answer your question, no. Had iPads been included, the number would have been closer to 18 million and Apple would have been number 1.

 

[gnasher729]

seeing as they sold 13 million iPads last quarter, to sell a combined total of 5 million Macs & iPads would be pretty terrible news for Apple.

To answer your question, no. Had iPads been included, the number would have been closer to 18 million and Apple would have been number 1.

Some people have actually published statistics like that with Apple on #1 (and Samsung, who apparently left the PC business in the UK a while ago, relatively high up). I personally find that kind of number meaningless, since I actually want to know how computer sales are developing. For a software developer, adding computers + iPads produces a rather meaningless number.

----------

My Mac has therefore cost me £680 in that time, the PC has cost me £560.

You started with a very expensive Mac, and still the cost was almost equal. My experience is that I buy a Mac for £1000 and use it for five years, while family members on a budget buy a laptop for £400 and have to replace it before two years, and all the time I actually have a computer that works a lot better.

 

[Lictor]

The average person isn't building a computer.

Well, they should, it's easy and it helps you learn how it works.
And my point is indeed that the average person will not build his PC, but that about anybody can build a PC. There is not point anymore in buying a HP or an IBM. You can just buy the components and pay a little extra to have the computer built or use a pre-built option. The notion of brand for PC is obsolete, since you have the same components inside, except for the noname low quality parts where brands cut the corners because it's not visible (cases and PSU are usually very cheap for instance).

The MacPro may not have the "best" but it surely can probably do soo much more than the average PC which is costly.

The problem with the MacPro is the very slow lifecycle. When it's a brand new product, it's a very good slightly overpriced PC. One year later, it's a good very overpriced PC. Two years later, it is an average extremely overpriced PC. You should buy a MacPro when it is a new model, but certainly not years after.
Moreover, to have the best of a component, you have to buy the best of everything. For instance, if you just need a lot of RAM but could do with a slow HDD and an entry level CPU, you have to buy a MacPro. If you need a gamer GPU but can do with a fast dual core, you still have to fork a lot of money into a MacPro and you won't even get the best GPU...

So you're suggesting that the average person just dig in their pocket juuuust a lil bit deeper to get the product that will be more cost effective in the long run.

The MacPro is a pro choice, not a consumer choice. You have to balance the cost of the MacPro with the daily cost of the person that will use it and how much more productive it will make him and how much wasted time will be saved. For instance, most pro users I know in small companies (without an IT department) battle for at least a few of days every three years with bugs and virii. The cost of these days usually cover the difference between a PC and a Mac...

 

[iMi]

Windows based cpu's are still the economical avenue for the mass of the globe. I don't think top-notch quality and performance is what the globe is looking to do for everyday computing.

You are right about only one half of the equation. I read recently that many businesses, for example, now look at the hardware and software reliability when selecting the platform to use. Something like 70% of business now offer Macs to employees. Also, some studies suggest employees using Macs are more productive and report higher job satisfaction. It's a changing landscape for sure, but you are still right about the average user and for most consumers price is still king.

----------

You actually just need to have less losses. One thing that has always intrigued me though is peoples priorities. Mine aren’t perfect for sure but in the recent financial climate the number of people still buying high value goods, (not just Apple ones), was astonishing.

Depends on how you look at it. Value isn't the same as price.

 

[H2SO4]

Some people have actually published statistics like that with Apple on #1 (and Samsung, who apparently left the PC business in the UK a while ago, relatively high up). I personally find that kind of number meaningless, since I actually want to know how computer sales are developing. For a software developer, adding computers + iPads produces a rather meaningless number.

----------



You started with a very expensive Mac, and still the cost was almost equal. My experience is that I buy a Mac for £1000 and use it for five years, while family members on a budget buy a laptop for £400 and have to replace it before two years, and all the time I actually have a computer that works a lot better.

That’s not my experience with PCs at all. The point is the PC still works out cheaper and if you apply some scale, ie how much it costs to run lots in a business especially when you factor in repair costs I think that Macs are like exotic cars. Nicer to have and to own but you sure as hell pay for it.
That’s also why people don’t buy expensive cars. They cost a lot to fix when they go wrong and only ‘specialists’ are advise to look at them.

----------

You are right about only one half of the equation. I read recently that many businesses, for example, now look at the hardware and software reliability when selecting the platform to use. Something like 70% of business now offer Macs to employees. Also, some studies suggest employees using Macs are more productive and report higher job satisfaction. It's a changing landscape for sure, but you are still right about the average user and for most consumers price is still king.

----------



Depends on how you look at it. Value isn't the same as price.

Highly priced goods was what I actually meant, bad word choice.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Cutting prices for increased market share is a dangerous game...

 

[Moto G]

Often said: "A Mac has a lower TCO"

A very generalised statement which assumes a windows PC *will* go wrong and *will* need tech support. How about this - I buy my £359 Acer PC, I keep it for 5 years and in those 5 years it makes me £10,000 in client work. Why do I care about resale value? I can give it to a family member or a charity.

Once said: "Post PC era" ... Uhmm... So why are Apple still making Desktop and laptop machines? Have you tried using Maya or doing extremely detailed cad work on an iPad? Lol... Yeah, righty ho.

I love Macs, but let's not distort reality into an Apple shaped box here.

 

[Taz Mangus]

if it was not obvious.... The title of this thread includes "PC Vendor"

since ipad is a toy, NOT PC, hence not included. this should be clear now?

What is clearly obivious is that you seem to think your opinion is fact.

 

[Ronlap]

Marketshare is not as important as net revenue from the products. For example, Samsung may have 90% market share and is losing money, while Apple could have 9% market share and is making money hand over fist.

 

[tkermit]

in the recent financial climate the number of people still buying high value goods, (not just Apple ones), was astonishing.

Well there's that quote about being too poor to buy cheap...