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's US Market Share Slips in 1Q 2009
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a shame that your searching skills don't reach as far as the first post in this thread. There you will find a link to Gartner's report. You know, the one we are all allegedly discussing. Here is a quote from the report:
"“Low priced mobile PCs led market growth in the U.S. “Mini notebooks continued to put pressure on low priced mobile PCs. U.S. mobile PC ASP likely will decline as much as 20 percent year-over-year in first quarter 2009. Overall, end user spending on PCs is likely to have contracted in the upper teens in first quarter 2009 compared to a year ago.”
That's what all you crappy armchair CEOs are recommending to Apple. "Reduce your prices" and then "Build a netbook" and "reduce your prices even further"
Take another look at that Gartner report. Take a look at the US table.
Apple sells a few less computers than last year ..... but at around the SAME PRICE. And the rest of the PC industry also gets to sell a few less... but only after they have CUT THE PRICE by nearly 20%
Remind me again Magnus. Who's losing money?
Well there's a lot of rubbish articles out there. This is the internet!
Did you follow the link? Did you see the figures? Apple dropped by 1.1% The whole market by 0.33 %. It's not 'equal' but its pretty darn close.
You know what's curious cjm? There is another link on the same front page story that goes to the IDC PC market report. That report pegs Apple at a 1.2% decline (US. YonY) and the rest of the market at .... 3.1% .... down! Do you know what that means cjm? According to IDC, Apple actually GAINED a little market share.
But don't tell any of the business whiz kids on this thread. They have there own ideas about facts and figures.
Weird isn't it? Truth can be stranger than fiction.
Not really. Apple's share rose in value, but their market share decreased. It is plain and simple for many of us. I was simply pointing out something that was a bit deceiving in your post.
The Gartner figures show Apple losing less than 1/10 of a percent of US (YonY) US market share. I think that entitles me to credit both 'sides' with losing "a few" sales"
Well it appears to be far from plain and simple. One research company says their (Apple) market share increased and another research company says it decreased. The most logical path would be to take an average of the two sets of figures. .... that still comes out with Apple slightly ahead of the game.
I am not getting at you cmj but I just don't understand why most people on this thread, and now you, choose to ignore the figures from te original story. Got any ideas?
I looked at the figures. It said that Apple lost market share, in fact, the title even stated so.
No you didn't. Not all of them.
Quoted from the first post
"IDC has released a similar report showing Apple with 7.6% market share and a decline in U.S. sales of 1.2% over the year-ago quarter. IDC's numbers, however, are showing a slightly steeper decline in U.S. sales for the overall PC market at 3.1%."
Plain and simple enough?
(I think this user could be "flamed" off this forum in 3...2...1...
)But seriously, despite what Jobs thinks, Apple will likely end up with a netbook laptop and the small tower machine I've been suggesting for some time. The reason is simple: their current hardware looks increasingly overpriced in today's economy, especially when you look at the price for their MacBook line of laptops and iMac all-in-one desktop machines. I can right now walk into Fry's Electronics and get (based on this week's ads) an HP Pavilion m9520f with Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 CPU, 8 GB RAM, 750 GB Serial ATA-II hard drive with Windows Vista Home Premium (SP1) preloaded, graphics card with nVidia GeForce 9600GS chipset and DVI-D/VGA output, and BD-ROM/multiformat DVD burner drive plus a name-brand 24" 1920x1200 resolution LCD monitor and a decent set of speakers for under US$1,400. To get an iMac with anything similar to the Pavilion m9520f plus the monitor will probably cost close to US$2,000!
Macs are technically nice machines but they're too much catering to what I call the "BMW crowd" for their higher end MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros. The success of the current netbooks shows that threat from lower-powered, but still capable hardware is a serious one, especially with the upcoming release of Windows 7 probably late this fall for retail release.
Yes, I saw it. I made as much of it as the people who wrote the article, the ones who titled it "Apple's US Market Share Slips."
Oh I see. You choose to ignore it, I missed the memo explaining that IDC's research carries less weight than the others.
This is the internet. I like to weigh up all the info and try and make up my own mind and not rely on a click generating, headline writing, sub-editor to make it up for me.
I didn't choose to ignore it. And it has nothing to do with IDC's research. It has to do with Gartner being on top of the game. They have 4 times the employees and resources or so as IDC so I do believe that their research carries more weight.
If you choose to weigh all things equal that is great, but I hope you are able to identity what statistics and opinions do not deserve the same credibility as others.
You know I stupidly thought that you might have had a real point to make. I won't make that mistake again.
I hope that you inform Reuters, the NYT, WSJ group, Boston Globe, London Times, The Guardian, PC World, the BBC, ZDNet, Business Week etc etc that IDC's figures are not to be trusted.... 'cos they can't get the staff.
Did I say they were not to be trusted? I said I choose to trust Gartner more. If the NYT and the NY Daily News run conflicting stories might you not choose to believe one over the other? If ESPN posts a different score for a game than FOX Sports may you not tend to believe one more than the other?
Wow you just won't let this go will you. This is nothing like a "conflicting story" or posting different "scores". Some of these figures are estimated. It's not a basketball game!
These are two different research firms who use different methodologies and come up with slightly different results.
For over a decade I have seen news and tech sites quote these two companies' results in many, many stories. Most stories explain any difference in the PC market stats as I have above. I have never ever seen the difference put down to the relative capabilities, or indeed sizes, of the companies. I have not heard that explanation from anyone else on this thread and it was not mentioned in the original story.
It's a lame excuse. It may be your real opinion but I suspect it's just a fabrication.... after the fact.
Funny how you keep ignoring facts and instead try to finish each post with a 'witty' ad hom attack.
I don't know how else to explain this to you, Gartner is a billion dollar company. IDC at best, does a fraction of what Gartner can do. Do some reading and you will find lots of complaints about IDCs research and Gartner's superior quality.
I am done though, no point in trying to change the mind of some one as stubborn as yourself.
Dell - take out-of-the-shelf parts, assemble them and sell. That includes cases (plastic and common to a bunch of computers they make), heatsinks and motherboards.
Apple - take some out-of-the-shelf, design a case that is unique among computer manufacturers, sometimes design a whole computer that is unique (see the Mac Book Air and the specially designed processor in collaboration with Intel, or see iMacs when nobody had something similar, or the unibody MBP, etc), etc. Point is, if you take the sticker off of a Mac, you still know it is a Mac. If you take the sticker off of a Dell, it's just another ugly computer.
It takes time and money to do that, believe or not.
I don't mean that in terms of functionality they are innovative or superior, etc (the MBA rev A was a total mess and a piece of crap not worth that money in my opinion), but design is important for Apple and they would spend tones of money trying to make an appealing computer. That was my point.
You're wrong on this point
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811164060
There's nothing especially unique about the MacPro case. The iMac is nice looking, but other people have been making similar devices for some time. But you know what? Honestly, I don't give a damn what a desktop computer looks like - seriously - if that's the saving grace of the high prices - the damn metal box it lives in - then the product inside must have some serious shortcomings.
You're also wrong - Dell design and build their own Mobo's. Just like Apple. Just like Lenovo, HP etc etc. And Apple's mobo's, like the others, have the same parts, made by the same people, almost certainly built in the same damn factory by the same people. Take the sticker of a Mac, and it's just an overpriced PC. Like it or not - that's the facts.
That 'special' CPU for the MBA - it's been available for any manufacturer to buy from the day the MBA was out. It wasn't some special collaboration - Apple didn't 'help' Intel - it was just a smaller package that Apple asked for, and Intel made, knowing that multiple manufacturers would use it.
Mac's are just PC's.
Nothing more.
Infact, if you count things like screen quality, number of USB ports, useability of the ports, usability of video out, quality of audio etc....they're a bit less.
That's the price, however, some of us are prepared to pay to use a machine that has OSX working properly. For the vast majority of IT users, it is not.
What facts? Your opinion is that the IDG figures are not relevant. That is not a fact. All of the facts that I have been talking about came from the original story and the links it contained.
I have no wish to attack you and, believe me, I am not trying to be funny. I simply do not believe you. My point has always been that there are two sets of figures in this story, and parsing both of them tells a slightly different story. If you believed the IDG figures to be irrelevant, you could have said so at the start of this conversation.
Let's try and not be condescending. I understand. You believe that the larger company will produce better results. That is not a fact! And you have provided not a jot of evidence to support it.
Don't ask me to back up your argument. The reading I have done shows that IDC is a subsidiary of a larger company IDG. Also a "billion dollar" company. As I mentioned before, many reputable old, and new media companies are happy to quote IDC figures. Often basing whole articles and opinion pieces on them.
Look cmj, I don't expect you to go off scavenging for evidence of IDC misdemeanours. I am probably as bored of this topic as you are! However if you do ... can you make sure that they are relevant? Thanks.