Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What the h*ll would one expect with so overpriced models? Of course people will think twice before paying the Apple tax... (Same case as with the new iPhones.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
They will solve this by not supporting older machines with the next OSX , give them time and they will force update soon and sales will rise again ;)
 
Clearly Tim Cook should immediately cut off 32 bit program access to all Apple iPhones and Macs.

It's a feature that will and has sparked sales. Look at the iPhone XR. And we know, nobody ever wanted to downgrade to IOS 10. :D

I predict that Tim Cook will ultimately undo all the advantages of the iPhone & Mac that Steve Jobs worked so hard to create. He's a bean counter by nature and that is what they do. He is after all a "Fuqua" Businesses Scholar. :D

And finally, "economic uncertainty in countries, including the U.S." ??? Are you kidding me? America had the best economy last year in 60 YEARS! And that's simply economic data, not opinion. If people aren't buying, it's because you must be making crappy products or not ones they want.

Best economy last year in 60 years? You do understand your monetary System, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
They will solve this by not supporting older machines with the next OSX , give them time and they will force update soon and sales will rise again ;)
Yep,making the next macos supported only by maca with t1 and t2 chip will resolve this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marekul
I'd like to replace my 10 y.o. MBP but not at these prices. NO!

I’m not very well practised in Numbers, but I threw this together at the time the last MBPs were released. The prices don’t seem too far different from years past, especially if adjusted for inflation.

SvW9lcZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nihil0
I guess you don’t understand how insane a $25B MAC business is despite a move to iPad and mobile computing. Look at the iPhone and iPad charts...you are missing the bigger story.

People are buying mobile devices A LOT more than Macs (so Apple still wins) AND YET the MAC is still half the size of the entire Disney company.

Not exactly winning debating points here, pal!

Why would you compare computer sales numbers/figures with (children's) entertainment figures? Why not relatable figures from other computer hardware or software figures.

What next - the GDP of a small nation or the price of an aircraft carrier?

Most people buying Mac PCs are stuck in the environment - and not happy. More expensive, less engineering effort (heat dissipation), stripped off their own unique features that were iconic and useful, and making the feel of the keyboard feedback useless, the unwanted changes list is long.

iOS and macOS - not in the same league.

Shouting does not emphasize a point in the way it comes across here.
[doublepost=1547189440][/doublepost]
I’m not very well practised in Numbers, but I threw this together at the time the last MBPs were released. The prices don’t seem too far different from years past, especially if adjusted for inflation.

Prices are supposed to come down, even adjusted for inflation, year on year, definitely over longer periods like a decade or two.
 
I guess you don’t understand how insane a $25B MAC business is despite a move to iPad and mobile computing. Look at the iPhone and iPad charts...you are missing the bigger story.

People are buying mobile devices A LOT more than Macs (so Apple still wins) AND YET the MAC is still half the size of the entire Disney company.
so people should be gratful a bad thing is doing well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleScruff1
Prices are supposed to come down, even adjusted for inflation, year on year, definitely over longer periods like a decade or two.

Well they certainly did come down if you look at the image. No MBP base model today costs $3,505 adjusted or even $2,799 like it did in 2006.

Only if nothing changes in the product, and efficiencies are made in production, should prices decline. It doesn’t cost less to provide workers with income and benefits than it did last year. The suppliers don’t provide less to their employees either. Does Apple spend fewer hours on design, engineering, software, and custom scilicon than years past?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nihil0
Of course sales drops. Apple must start prioritising its desktop line again and provide more frequent updates to iMacs and iMac Pros. I've been waiting for buying a new one, the past year. Still waiting.. That simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Of course sales drops. Apple must start prioritising its desktop line again and provide more frequent updates to iMacs and iMac Pros. I've been waiting for buying a new one, the past year. Still waiting.. That simple.
Lenovo didn't drop so why give Apple a pass?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPandian1
Your experience fully supports IBM's statement Mac's are cheaper then PC's by $543 dollars a year. In your case a total savings of $5,430. The Total Cost of Ownership or Return On Investment what really counts. In your case, awesome ROI.

Those $543 savings on TCO that IBM published in 2016 were not per year, but over a four year lifespan. Also, it was not $543 per Mac, but between $273 and $543 depending on the model.

That is still quite a bit of money on average, but one should also keep in mind that:
a) they were comparing fairly different types of hardware (e.g. the biggest saving was MBP13 vs Lenovo X1 Yoga - the latter being a 2-in-1, not exactly the same use case),
b) they were extrapolating the Macs' maintenance costs based on one year of deployment and comparing this to the known maintenance costs of old Windows machines,
c) the projected savings included the estimated resale value after four years, and that was with 2015-Macs; will the current glued-up and soldered Macs keep a similar resale value, especially once the keyboard replacement program is over?
d) they included various additional software licensing costs that they had to pay for on the Windows machines only because they refused to use the built-in solutions. There may be good reasons for this, for IBM, but it seems a bit dubious to include that in a general Mac savings estimate - few people have the specific corporate software requirements of IBM.

Overall I find these estimates too vague, with too much potential for fudged numbers, to use them as a guidance for my own purchasing decisions.
 
Looks like solid sales. The industry declined in general at a larger rate than Macs.

Nice to see someone read, and understood, the figures.

Macs are high-end, expensive products, so on the basis of turnover (receivables, whatever you like to call it) they were probably highest in the industry.
 
Those $543 savings on TCO that IBM published in 2016 were not per year, but over a four year lifespan. Also, it was not $543 per Mac, but between $273 and $543 depending on the model.

That is still quite a bit of money on average, but one should also keep in mind that:
a) they were comparing fairly different types of hardware (e.g. the biggest saving was MBP13 vs Lenovo X1 Yoga - the latter being a 2-in-1, not exactly the same use case),
b) they were extrapolating the Macs' maintenance costs based on one year of deployment and comparing this to the known maintenance costs of old Windows machines,
c) the projected savings included the estimated resale value after four years, and that was with 2015-Macs; will the current glued-up and soldered Macs keep a similar resale value, especially once the keyboard replacement program is over?
d) they included various additional software licensing costs that they had to pay for on the Windows machines only because they refused to use the built-in solutions. There may be good reasons for this, for IBM, but it seems a bit dubious to include that in a general Mac savings estimate - few people have the specific corporate software requirements of IBM.

Overall I find these estimates too vague, with too much potential for fudged numbers, to use them as a guidance for my own purchasing decisions.
Plus IBM bought Red Hat Linux for $32 billion last year so we know where their "Unix" is going forward (hint: it's not the Mac)
 
I have a 2014 and 2015 MBP. I have no desire to downgrade to the recent versions. I don't want touchbar, don't want only USB-C, don't want worse keyboard, don't want oversized touchpad, don't want to give up magsafe. It's almost hilarious that they've gone backwards in so many areas. All they had to do is add TouchID and bump the hardware after 2015 and people would have been reasonably happy.
 
Last edited:
Remains the question, why is Lenovo successful and Apple not ?

Apple not successful? Apple is not just a Computer company anymore. Comparing computer sales of the two companies really makes no sense. Lenovo's revenue for 2018 was 45.35 billion and Net income was 126 million. Apple's revenue for 2018 was 265.595 billion and Net income was 59.531 billion. I think Apples pretty successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nihil0
I know several people who refuse to buy any Apple laptop that has the crappy NuKeyboard / dust condom. Instead, they stick with their 5+ yo MacBook Pros.

The desktop side is also annoying. Being able to easily access and upgrade RAM is a basic design requirement. Periodic component refreshes are another basic requirement Apple consistently fails at.

Sculley 2.0 and Captain Thin aren't the dynamic duo we need to lead the Mac (or Apple) to greatness.

This! I have a late 2014 machine, the top spec at the time. I think it was $3200. I'd like the replace it with a new machine but I can't get the like for like without the stupid emoji bar. My Mums 2011 Mac Mini has just died with the classic bad balling issue, why I can't buy a new machine and swap the SSD into it is beyond me.
 
These stories should also always state that data is estimates that have never actually matched official quarterly reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marekul
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.