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 Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple might have held onto 3rd place if it had a mid range desktop computer positioned between the mini and the Pro.
I know I would have bought a new Mac instead of not buying anything.
I know I would have bought a new Mac instead of not buying anything.
That's the problem. I see Dell, Hp, etc PC's at walmart with lower specs selling for $400-$500. You get what you pay for. Same for PC's at Bestbuy. The higher spec ones are in the $900 to $1000 range. I think if Apple was to move the price of the current white macbook to $500 more people would buy apple. Then cut the price of all other machines buy $100-$200.
I think also why you are not seeing much macs in the enterprise still:
1. Microsoft exchange and outlook. outlook combines your address book, calendar, mail, and tasks/todos without having 2 or more apps open.
2. Microsoft SQL Server. This has better ODBC connections than other databases when connecting to access, excel, etc. Plus, while I have not verified; other than a source who programs databases in Filemaker and SQL server... Filemaker is elegant, but cannot handle 1000's of transactions per minute like SQL server can. Thus not good for banking or healthcare.
3. iWork still a light application and Office is still the standard.
4. While I have not tried it, I heard Citrix is atrocious on non-windows platforms
5. MS keeps copying Apple features, so fewer people feel the urge to switch.
6. Also, you would be surprised that more and more big corporations are actually using Linux on their servers. Recently in the news, highlighting top North Carolina companies who have not been effected buy the recession; Redhat was focussed upon. They have grown tremendously and now only sell their OS plus applications to enterprise corporations. What makes them strong? RedHat gives 10 years of support for any version for free.
7. Mac pro is rediculous in terms of pricing. However, now that it is rebranded as a server, makes the price ok.
8. While Mac OS X is unix based (Free BSD); running Linux or unix applications on it is 25-50% successful at best. That stinks for open source only users.
As for the iPad, let's just say thanks to the app store - I use mine more than just a net book, toy, entertainment, etc. But I also still rely on my 2008 macbook for some heavy weight applications.
I don't know what you're talking about. I work at a university, and I have watched as Macs have become more and more abundant. It used to be that one only saw Macs in niche programs, like Music or Film Studies. Now, one in three commerce and MBA students have MacBook Pros. Half of the Engineering profs have Mac laptops, and about a third of those students. Macs have exploded in the last 10 years, almost exponentially.
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
True it is limited to to americas, but I would argue(without any real evidence) that americans in general have more disposable income to afford laptops(which are generally more expensive than desktops.) So i would guess the market for desktop is EVEN BIGGER outside the US.
Limited to adult is true.
Yes/no answer is true also, but the same can be said about households with 4 desktops and 1 laptop
.So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"?
I agree, the ipod was a very sucessful line of MP3 players and made more buy PMP than would have previously (if we class walkmans and portable CD players as PMP's)
The ipods rise and decline can be explained by something called the product lifecyle. Most products go through it. Here is a nice diagram to show the lifecycle.
Ipad is currently in the growth stage, Ipod on the other hand is in decline
Attachments
Indeed. Although I would argue that the ipad doesn't belong in this group but rather with other mobile devices like smart phones. Where it probably puts Apple at the top or at least second place.
Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
It's no surprise that Apple will never make much headway as they stubbornly refuse to make a range of computers to suit a range of customers.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from £199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from £199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
Last edited:
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
Let me try to explain what I mean from a different angle:
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
The hardware components in a server go through much more testing for reliability. They are meant to work 24/7.
Pretty much what you get is same stuff with better components/materials and etc. Does BMW differ any from FORD? Not really but in general what's believed they use better stuff.
Same thing with PCs. Server it's just a nice window for companies like Dell to put a higher $$ tag on it. What consumer gets is better warranty and USUALLY less power simply to prevent overheating issues that arise from long term continous usage.
I use server chips in my home PC for that exact reason. They are no different but "should" last longer and that is why I spend extra $$ on them.
Just a term.
*nice article that points few differences between a xeon and a Core 2 Quad.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14555
Last edited:
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
The iMacs are taking off the issue has always been support. Apple gives terrible enterprise support and fake roadmaps. It makes it very difficult to justify buying a machine that costs twice as much and comes with zero support.
Doesn't matter to me though I still order them for my clients like crazy.
What the heck are you talking about???
Yeah, he seems to have forgotton those personal computers known as the Apple ][, the Commodore PET, the Atari 400 and 800, and so on that predated the IBM PC. He's creating a very limited definition that ignores history.