How invalid is your point until you actually back up your assertion regarding those items? Entirely.
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.
Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market
- Thread starter IJ Reilly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We have moved beyond this issue, which is a cul-de-sac anyway. Please read above.
Nice cop-out. You made a sweeping dismissal of several past predictions about Apple's decisions, placing them in a different category from the one presently made, and then failed to illustrate why they deserved to be labeled as such; it's entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
But then it's far easier to sidestep an issue than to actually support one's side of it.
The low-end cutthroat PC market has been there for ages, and barriers to entry are huge in comparison with the ROI. Therefore, it makes little sense for Apple to fight for every inferior Acer out there.
As for the iPod, Apple CREATED a whole new market and a whole new demand. Therefore, it was in a position to address every corner of it as a de facto firstcomer in a successful way.
And even then, I hope you are not as naive as to believe that Apple's bottom line comes from 1Gb Shuffles, right?
Skewed in what sense, would you care to explain? You mean Y-o-Y sales versus absolute marketshare?
Whoever needs one
Whoever needs one.
I don't, but I don't have a choice.
I don't need a new monitor.
I don't need 8 Cores.
I don't need fancy-pants ram.
I do need/want a machine that is about as powerful as the 24" imac, with the possiblity of upgrading to a quad (or in the future if I want). I want N and Bluetooth as options. I want the ability to change or add a HD or 2 or set up RAID without buying a special controller.
If you can build a decent homemade quad PC for $400, then apple can sell me one for $999 and still make a killing on it.
I think I paid ~1299 for my G4 933 in 2001, which was just a little more than my PC the year before. Why is there no comparable mac now?
I can't really justify buying a MacPro right now and I don't really want an iMac.
I want my mid range tower!
(or any other form factor with user accessible parts and room for upgrade)
So, i'm holding off and not making any purchase at all, and still using my G4, which runs pretty darn well. Not buying 10.5 becuase it will be on the new machine (whenver I get it) and not buying iLife 08 for the same reason.
I'm just one person who isn't forking over the cash (yet) for a machine he doesn't really need.
Whoever needs one.
I don't, but I don't have a choice.
I don't need a new monitor.
I don't need 8 Cores.
I don't need fancy-pants ram.
I do need/want a machine that is about as powerful as the 24" imac, with the possiblity of upgrading to a quad (or in the future if I want). I want N and Bluetooth as options. I want the ability to change or add a HD or 2 or set up RAID without buying a special controller.
If you can build a decent homemade quad PC for $400, then apple can sell me one for $999 and still make a killing on it.
I think I paid ~1299 for my G4 933 in 2001, which was just a little more than my PC the year before. Why is there no comparable mac now?
I can't really justify buying a MacPro right now and I don't really want an iMac.
I want my mid range tower!
(or any other form factor with user accessible parts and room for upgrade)
So, i'm holding off and not making any purchase at all, and still using my G4, which runs pretty darn well. Not buying 10.5 becuase it will be on the new machine (whenver I get it) and not buying iLife 08 for the same reason.
I'm just one person who isn't forking over the cash (yet) for a machine he doesn't really need.
I'm not terribly surprised at the exaggerations of the state of Windows hardware and software while placing Apple on a pedestal. I love Apple but I'm not going to blindly defend it without at least having tried the rest. I've learned to like Vista over the past few weeks even if it isn't OS X. I have no idea what you're going to draw from my change in being a hard line XP user when not using OS X.
I have purchased several Dells among other vendors in the past few years under Medical/Government, Higher Education, and a Home stores. At worst Dell had preinstalled Adobe Acrobat Reader and Google Desktop beyond the stock Windows XP image. I still direct users to continue purchasing XP since their software situation is a little more shaky then my cutting edge.
I'm not suggesting that Apple needs to hit the cutthroat market of the $499 Windows PC. $999 would make me more then happy.
I miss the $1,499 Power Mac era myself.
I have purchased several Dells among other vendors in the past few years under Medical/Government, Higher Education, and a Home stores. At worst Dell had preinstalled Adobe Acrobat Reader and Google Desktop beyond the stock Windows XP image. I still direct users to continue purchasing XP since their software situation is a little more shaky then my cutting edge.
I'm not suggesting that Apple needs to hit the cutthroat market of the $499 Windows PC. $999 would make me more then happy.
I miss the $1,499 Power Mac era myself.
Why is this limited to retail sales? You can't really draw any solid conclusions without knowing the data for total sales. We haven't bought a computer in an actual store in more than a decade, and we've easily purchased 7 or 8 computers (Macs and PCs), mostly $1000+, over that time.
Your reasons may be true for Apple not selling a cheap 500 dollar pc, but I don't see a reason why not to sell a tower with the same hardware as a high end imac & sell it for over $1000.00. I would buy one...
It is a somewhat peculiar statistic, but the real significance isn't the market share as much as Apple's impressive growth within that market over the last several years. Apple is targeting this market and hitting a bulls-eye.
Probably because it would cannibalize another part of their market. Again, I don't understand why so many people seem so certain that Apple is completely stupid about this stuff.
Ditto...as if Apple didn't have A SINGLE PERSON studying the market and reaching the obvious conclusion that a low-cost midtower makes no sense in Apple's strategy, given the UNBELIEVABLE success of iMacs and MBs/MBPs (unless we consider the opinion of a few of our fellow MR members, of course)...
I understand why you say that but I don't think that's it.
Look at the ipod line up, most all of the ipods fill a need for what the customer wants & each ipod cannibalizes on another...
I would agree that it's difficult to draw solid conclusions from any partial data. and this data doesn't claim to be impartial, it's almost practically labeled partial data and makes no excuses.
your post however hinted me toward another aspect surrounding this subject we really haven't addressed. It concerns consumer behavior and the PC as a product.
Why don't we see PC's in retail much anymore? and PC's priced over 1k even less? (apple aside) . value is correct but there are more specific and varying values.
It's because your average PC manufacture has failed or stopped trying to captivate the interest of the consumer to come into a store and "touch" and "feel" and "see" the product in person.
Consumer behavior in this regard applies well to food retailers and clothing retailers. they sell less online because they create products who's value is in the "touch, feel, and see in person"
PC manufactures used to have this advantage (moderately at best) . "have u seen the new slim PC Win Book?!" .. "have u seen the new Alien Gamebox PC?!" . Well that's old news, and there's no or little new news.
Apple has managed to continue to add value in this department of consumer features. thats the point.
So yes the data is partial and Apple's share probably grew less than others' market share decreased! true . But people seem to forget that it's the comparison between the state of market 5 years ago to today that is significant.
I don't claim to know for certain; this is just my best guess. The point being that if Apple could make good money doing something then I think it's fair to assume that they'd be doing it. I've honestly never understood why anyone would argue otherwise, but this reasoning does seem to be at the heart of every suggestion that Apple should be selling a (fill in the blank) product that they don't now. Put it this way: If you've thought about a product Apple could be selling, you can be pretty certain that Apple has thought it about it too. And if they aren't selling it, you can also be pretty certain that there's a damned good reason why.
Vista Ultimate single copy retail $180
If you're going to make claims on price, at least check that you're in the same ballpark. (And obviously, a big computer vender isn't going to be paying the $180/unit street price for Vista).
Vista Home is $89.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490
If you're going to make claims on price, at least check that you're in the same ballpark. (And obviously, a big computer vender isn't going to be paying the $180/unit street price for Vista).
Vista Home is $89.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490
Attachments
The issue may not be the product itself selling or not selling, but rather Apple's "image."
Apple may believe that it can only sell computers if they are pretty, (imac), cool/cute (mini, iphone), or niche (mac pro). (feel free to switch up the categories)
So, while a mid-tower may be desired by current mac users, it doesn't have the pull that the mini or imac have. It may not catch your eye and pull you away from that $399 Dell.
However, as more and more consumers appreciate mac for what it is, ie. an easy to use, stable computer rather than what it looks like (don't get me wrong, they are pretty), perhaps apple will consider a product that doesn't have the bling, but gives users what they want.
I think that while many or most of the readers of this forum love their macs, they would like a mid-tower, or at least something that you can add more internal drives to. It is easier to change a laptop HD than an iMac HD, and the iMac has more internal case room.
My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe?
Yes, you maybe able to find vista ultimate for 180 on newegg, and i admit I was wrong, but microsoft's suggested retail price for vista utimate full version is 319.99, not 180.00. I was referring to the price that a consumer would pay, not the prices that the manufactures pay.
My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe?
Maybe, but if I needed a Mac Pro I would get one.
For me, the cost is not really justifyable.
It may sound whiney, but why is apple forcing me to get a Mac Pro if I want upgradability?
How many people out there need 8 cores? How much software even knows what to do with 8 cores? Why buy what I don't need? And why the $$$ for RAID? Why no eSATA?
There's nothing inherently "ugly" about a mid-tower computer. If anyone could do it right aesthetically, it would be Apple. I would be surprised if they haven't mocked up mid-tower designs already.
Sorry but a lot of this stuff is misleading.
First, without actual figures on what % of the market is > $1000 versus the rest of the market, or figures on what % of retail market is of the entire computer-buying market, we have no actual figures of how much growth there is.
For example, HP Dell Lenovo etc. make the majority of their money off enterprise sales. Considering that Apple barely makes a dent in the business sector of PC hardware and software, and that almost the entire world's business is run off that stuff, I'd say its a pretty sizable market that is ignored. As someone stated earlier in this thread, with business contracts, a $2000 notebook might be < $1000 since they're being bought in volume.
Yes profit margins might be lower at < $1000, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe companies can't be profitable with volume sales. For instance, whenever Intel rolls out a new chip, that first wafer may cost millions to make, but each chip afterwards will cost only hundreds of dollars. Its also why the Intel Extreme processors cost $1000+ while the regular Core 2 Quad processors cost hundreds, but I don't see Intel losing profits off that.
Also, one big factor to count into all this data is the fact that hardware prices have dropped while Macs have not, despite using similar hardware. You're kidding yourself if you think that Apple is getting hardware that is that much better - they're all manufactured by the same companies in factories in China. Quality might differ a bit, but if you look into PC hardware, getting a high quality reliable motherboard vs. a budget one of the same chipset rarely varies by more than $100. And that's retail pricing.
Also, hardware prices have dropped big if you think about it. Back 3 years ago, getting a premium notebook could cost you $2000+. Now? You'll get a great performing one (non-gaming etc.) for < $1000 easily. Heck, $400-600 notebooks can be found regularly now.
Also, look at PC's - you can get a Q6600 quad cored PC from Dell etc. for $600 now. If you build your own, you can build a mean rig for $600. For that same performance even a year ago (and trust me, I know cause I built one then), it would've cost you $1300+. Look at DDR2 RAM prices to just know how much they dropped as well (from $150 for 2GB 1 year ago this time to practically free). Think about a Q6600 1 year ago this date - it was $530. Today? $200.
Finally, look at market trends. First, PC gaming has been agonizing because PC game developers are moving to consoles. Part of this is because consoles have become more powerful, and the other part is because most people are tech illiterate. Thus those who are likely to buy a premium PC for home use (usually gaming) is decreasing. Workstations are another story.
Next, those who do game these days tend to build their own PC's, because for $800 you can get a better PC than a pre-built one for $1200 easily. This isn't about manufacturers captivating users or not - people who aren't sure about building their own computer will still go to manufacturers. If you look at big parts sellers like Newegg, revenue has been huge from the large # of people learning to build PC's. Really, build one once and you won't forget how to do it.
And with market trends, if the majority of the market buys computers for casual home use, then the fact that you can build a budget PC for $400 these days (even thats too much, I just built one for $300 and its dual core and all that jazz) will not help the cause for > $1000 computers.
Thus, without any reliable information on what percentage of each market belongs to the rest of the market, all this stuff doesn't prove anything in terms of how much stuff is actually being sold and how many people are using it.
First, without actual figures on what % of the market is > $1000 versus the rest of the market, or figures on what % of retail market is of the entire computer-buying market, we have no actual figures of how much growth there is.
For example, HP Dell Lenovo etc. make the majority of their money off enterprise sales. Considering that Apple barely makes a dent in the business sector of PC hardware and software, and that almost the entire world's business is run off that stuff, I'd say its a pretty sizable market that is ignored. As someone stated earlier in this thread, with business contracts, a $2000 notebook might be < $1000 since they're being bought in volume.
Yes profit margins might be lower at < $1000, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe companies can't be profitable with volume sales. For instance, whenever Intel rolls out a new chip, that first wafer may cost millions to make, but each chip afterwards will cost only hundreds of dollars. Its also why the Intel Extreme processors cost $1000+ while the regular Core 2 Quad processors cost hundreds, but I don't see Intel losing profits off that.
Also, one big factor to count into all this data is the fact that hardware prices have dropped while Macs have not, despite using similar hardware. You're kidding yourself if you think that Apple is getting hardware that is that much better - they're all manufactured by the same companies in factories in China. Quality might differ a bit, but if you look into PC hardware, getting a high quality reliable motherboard vs. a budget one of the same chipset rarely varies by more than $100. And that's retail pricing.
Also, hardware prices have dropped big if you think about it. Back 3 years ago, getting a premium notebook could cost you $2000+. Now? You'll get a great performing one (non-gaming etc.) for < $1000 easily. Heck, $400-600 notebooks can be found regularly now.
Also, look at PC's - you can get a Q6600 quad cored PC from Dell etc. for $600 now. If you build your own, you can build a mean rig for $600. For that same performance even a year ago (and trust me, I know cause I built one then), it would've cost you $1300+. Look at DDR2 RAM prices to just know how much they dropped as well (from $150 for 2GB 1 year ago this time to practically free). Think about a Q6600 1 year ago this date - it was $530. Today? $200.
Finally, look at market trends. First, PC gaming has been agonizing because PC game developers are moving to consoles. Part of this is because consoles have become more powerful, and the other part is because most people are tech illiterate. Thus those who are likely to buy a premium PC for home use (usually gaming) is decreasing. Workstations are another story.
Next, those who do game these days tend to build their own PC's, because for $800 you can get a better PC than a pre-built one for $1200 easily. This isn't about manufacturers captivating users or not - people who aren't sure about building their own computer will still go to manufacturers. If you look at big parts sellers like Newegg, revenue has been huge from the large # of people learning to build PC's. Really, build one once and you won't forget how to do it.
And with market trends, if the majority of the market buys computers for casual home use, then the fact that you can build a budget PC for $400 these days (even thats too much, I just built one for $300 and its dual core and all that jazz) will not help the cause for > $1000 computers.
Thus, without any reliable information on what percentage of each market belongs to the rest of the market, all this stuff doesn't prove anything in terms of how much stuff is actually being sold and how many people are using it.
Newegg is a place where consumers are welcome - $180 is the retail street price for Vista OEM version.
Two things:
- Nobody pays Microsoft list price
- If you're building or upgrading a system, you don't need the "full version" - you can get the OEM version legitimately
I just don't like to see arguments that are based on wildly inflated prices. A claim that a product is $400 when it is widely available for under $200 is at best careless writing.
While there's no doubt in my mind that Mac's market share has risen, these stats- by excluding all the corporate/online sales - seem quite polished and favored.
It reminds me of the DirectTV commercial about cable companies:
-"90% of stats can be made to say anything."
--"90%?"
-"50% of the time."
It reminds me of the DirectTV commercial about cable companies:
-"90% of stats can be made to say anything."
--"90%?"
-"50% of the time."
Btw, if you want to see Microsoft disappear then Apple needs to sell cheaper computers. If other companies can sell PCs for $400 all inclusive then you can bet Apple can build something pretty similar and sell it for $600 and make more profit or less of a loss.
Then again, I think some of this comes back to Apple being as much of a "look at me" brand as it is a brand selling functional devices. Refer to people who buy BMWs, Mercedes etc, many buy the product because it really can be a quality offering, but too many buy it because they want to be seen in a brand name vehicle, even though "lesser" companies like Hyundi can now out rank Mercedes on quality.
Many people by the iPhone because of the features it provides, many just buy it because OMG its trendy and I HAVE to be seen holding it, I must hold it and show the world as opposed to carrying it in your purse or jacket pocket etc. And of course you can get a Blackberry for much less than an iPhone etc etc, but it is viewed as a workers tool not a fashion accessory.
If I do get around to buying a Mac it will either be a mini which can be used to play around with and maybe be a media store, or a minitower version where I can upgrade it when I choose, no need for a closed system where the only upgrade is replacement or buy an extremely expensive MacPro which is way more than I will ever need.
Apple is a business and can choose to go for whatever markets it wants, but given the way things are now, I can't see how they can't produce a stylish mini tower version and sell it at a decent profit whilst keeping the cost under $750. They won't need to advertise the product because every media outlet i the country will do it for them for free.
Then again, I think some of this comes back to Apple being as much of a "look at me" brand as it is a brand selling functional devices. Refer to people who buy BMWs, Mercedes etc, many buy the product because it really can be a quality offering, but too many buy it because they want to be seen in a brand name vehicle, even though "lesser" companies like Hyundi can now out rank Mercedes on quality.
Many people by the iPhone because of the features it provides, many just buy it because OMG its trendy and I HAVE to be seen holding it, I must hold it and show the world as opposed to carrying it in your purse or jacket pocket etc. And of course you can get a Blackberry for much less than an iPhone etc etc, but it is viewed as a workers tool not a fashion accessory.
If I do get around to buying a Mac it will either be a mini which can be used to play around with and maybe be a media store, or a minitower version where I can upgrade it when I choose, no need for a closed system where the only upgrade is replacement or buy an extremely expensive MacPro which is way more than I will ever need.
Apple is a business and can choose to go for whatever markets it wants, but given the way things are now, I can't see how they can't produce a stylish mini tower version and sell it at a decent profit whilst keeping the cost under $750. They won't need to advertise the product because every media outlet i the country will do it for them for free.
Creating desire for a product is just as important as it's function. All the reasons you listed for why Apple products are popular are valid. That said, they can charge whatever the market allows. It's been working for an awfully long time.