Mac Shipments Estimated to Be Down Over 20% While Demand Surges in Q1 2020

[farewelwilliams]

Maybe if Apple actually updated its desktop computers on a regular basis instead of once every 10 years, more people might be interested in buying. But since over 80% of Apple's revenue comes from mobile products, why would they care? Apple has been killing the desktop Mac for years.

maybe if intel didn't royally f*ck up their roadmap, we would see regular refreshes.

 

[benlukes]

Yes, and mine is that if you want to do so, the only way to go about it is to pirate macOS, which… be my guest?

I’m not following. I already have MacOS, so why would I have to pirate it?

EDIT:why can’t I just install the one I have in a virtual environment on a PC? You have already said I could install it in a virtual environment on a Mac, so what’s the difference?

 

[sirozha]

Well, their iPads are so good now, I sold my MBP and not buying another one. Using my iPad Pro instead. And iPads don't count as PC's.

Using your iPad for what? Email, FaceTime, and Facebook?
[automerge]1586643511[/automerge]

like I said, wear a mask and social distance to the wheels fall off. Just don’t bankrupt the world. Yes we need to “ reopen the country” versus keeping it closed and diying from everything but the corona

Like I said, you said wrong.

 

[CWallace]

Easily Apple’s weakest platform. I’d imagine the goal is to completely shift more towards what has worked so well for iPadOS. This will likely come with the move to house made processors. I do wonder if Apple would move on from macOS though and throw everything possible at iPadOS. Shift everyone possible to a locked in system, makes the most business sense.

The rumors of Apple moving to the Mac to ARM CPUs of their own design is probably the same reason they moved from PowerPC to Intel - lack of innovation from their existing vendor. When the PPC Alliance could no longer offer regular upgrades of appreciable performance, Apple dropped them and went to Intel, who could. Now that Intel can no longer offer regular upgrades of appreciable performance, they are moving on again.

I already have MacOS...why can’t I just install the one I have in a virtual environment on a PC?

The macOS Licensing Agreement requires macOS to be installed only on Apple-branded hardware (a Mac). Of course, that doesn't stop people from putting it on a PC ("Hackintosh"). And there are guides on how to install macOS using VMWare and such on a Windows PC, though it looks to be a rather involved process.

 

[trusso]

No, it’s based on the marketing fact that you market towards those in the best position to buy/acquire your products. For Apple products, those would would be younger folks at the start of their purchasing lifetime and not older folks, possibly on a fixed income, that haven’t bought a new system in years. If you read a lot of the comments here, it’s mainly about “Apple hasn’t made something I want to buy!” That’s correct, and they won’t because they’re making things a more valuable demographic want to buy.

And since when do young people know what they want, let alone what's good for them? I'm not saying anything's impossible, but I'm a tad bit amused by the number of individuals in this thread who seem to think that the Mac is going to go the way of the Dodo - and moreover, who think that would be a good thing. If y'all love your iPads, I'm happy for you, but don't keep spouting that baloney about not needing Macs anymore. Plenty of us require a powerful, Unix-based desktop operating system - and we know what the hell we're talking about.

Under Cook's leadership, Apple has certainly aimed to become a one-stop-shop, likely in an attempt to be the all-giving provider of services and gadgets that, as you say, people want. I tend to think Apple is stretching themselves a bit too thin in this regard, and losing focus on their original core competencies - making excellent hardware and rock-solid software. I am also of the mind that history has proven, time and again, that such a business model is unsustainable in the long-term. Let each business do what they're best at, and let the market decide. Beyond the social and economic implications of big tech behemoths becoming beneficent all-fathers, as Apple (among others) is trying to be, there are more pragmatic reasons for not having one's hand in so many cookie jars: namely, that some of the cookies simply suck - and quality suffers across the board.

All you have to do is read some of the recent pieces about the messed-up culture inside Cupertino to see that I have a worthwhile point. It may not be the whole story, but it's a large portion of it... and it's time that ignorance was put to bed on these matters.

 

[Mainsail]

Dumb question maybe, but how can sales be down but demand be up? How are they measuring demand if not by sales?
[automerge]1586633964[/automerge]


Doesn’t a MacOS license come with the computer I already have? In any case, I frankly don’t care if it’s legal as long as I can do it without too much trouble. Most things I could do on Windows just fine, but it would be nice to be able to run MacOS for some things.

If I wanted to do the opposite (run a Windows virtual machine on a Mac) there are plenty of options.

I suppose you could have lots and lots of orders that you can’t fill because the corona viruse has constrained your supply chain.

 

[CWallace]

Under Cook's leadership, Apple has certainly aimed to become a one-stop-shop, likely in an attempt to be the all-giving provider of services and gadgets that, as (some) say, people want. I tend to think Apple is stretching themselves a bit too thin in this regard, and losing focus on their original core competencies - making excellent hardware and rock-solid software.

I think what hurts Apple today is they still follow a Functional Management model even though the company is orders of magnitude larger than it was when Steve put that Functional Management model in place. This structure is extremely unusual for a company of Apple's size and the reason for that is because each C Suite executive is responsible for a significant and varied group of products and their people.

That being said, moving to a Divisional Management model - where every Apple product has their own management team from the Senior VP level on down - probably would not be a panacea. macOS 10.15 launched ugly because Craig Federighi oversees all of Apple's operating systems and macOS is one of the least-important so he focuses more attention on the others, but if each OS was led by its own SVP then we would not have anywhere near the synergy across the various Apple OS' we do now we do now and things like Catalyst likely never would have happened. And it's fair to throw stones at Catalyst now, but it could be the platform that keeps macOS viable by continuing to provide apps for the platform and those apps will get better over time as the process matures - and the potential customers demand they conform to a "Mac-like" experience before they buy them.

 

[femike]

I love to buy a mac but Apple does not make one for me. I just want a headless mac with decent built in graphics, cooling ability, space to add another storage and to easily to open up to replace parts and clean as necessary.

 

[Z400Racer37]

While demand *Plunges* in Q1 2020?

 

[azentropy]

Buying patterns change. I used to buy a new Mac pretty much every year. One year I would buy a new desktop, the next a new laptop. However the lack of innovation and removing things I liked kept me from upgrading. Just focusing on my laptop choice - The 13" MBP has been stuck on the same basic screen for 8 years and the same basic size bezels for 14 years, stuck on 16GB max memory for 10 years, they replaced a great keyboard with one that feels awful and is unreliable. They removed physical function keys. They removed all the ports so connecting to pretty much any device requires a special dongle (that of course is not included). They removed MagSafe etc.

 

[falainber]

maybe if intel didn't royally f*ck up their roadmap, we would see regular refreshes.

Funny. Intel releases dozens of new chip models annually. Every other PC vendor (all of them use Intel CPUs) updates their computers regularly. Yet Apple is still shipping Mac Minis with Intel's 8 generation CPUs and probably won't update until Intel releases 15th generation. Let's blame Intel.

 

[nvmls]

Right on Apple!

Keep putting out garbage on the Mac (hardware & software), we are all idiots and you are doing great.
Stockholders working on their ipads will love it. Go Timmy!

 

[mr.steevo]

Wait.
Are you telling me Mac sales are dropping due to CORONA19?

I thought Mac's were immune to viruses??

 

[PickUrPoison]

Funny. Intel releases dozens of new chip models annually. Every other PC vendor (all of them use Intel CPUs) updates their computers regularly. Yet Apple is still shipping Mac Minis with Intel's 8 generation CPUs and probably won't update until Intel releases 15th generation. Let's blame Intel.

1) Who else should be blamed? Intel didn’t release 9th generation 65W CPUs in a BGA package 🤷‍♂️

2) That said, the mini sells so few that it was never going to get an annual update in the first place.

3) After Intel releases 10th gen chips, rumored for 30 April, Apple will refresh the mini. June would be a good guess imo.

For those who disagree, which paragraph? I guess #3, the first too are facts.

 

[genovelle]

The missing element is that when Apple was releasing sales 50% of Mac sales were coming from their stores if my memory serves me well. Closing Stores worldwide has to have a effect.

 

[827538]

Well Intel only just started supporting 802.11ax with the 10th Generation Core CPUs, and even some of those still don't (like the U-Series that are in the 2020 MacBook Air).

Nothing stopping them including it, they have the AX200 chip available, Dell somehow manages it.
For the flagship laptop of the biggest company in the world (public one anyway) it's not good enough.

I do not understand why they don't have some Mac focused exec who's sole job it is to push the Mac forward. By every metric it's a very profitable segment that many people desire to own. It's not like Apple is struggling for capital. This may sound like armchair quarter back but I'm an electronic and electrical engineer, I know it doesn't actually take a huge amount of resources to do what I'm asking.

The whole lineup also needs a $200 price cut across the board to be properly competitive again although the new MacBook Air was a step in the right direction.

 

[citysnaps]

The missing element is that when Apple was releasing sales 50% of Mac sales were coming from their stores if my memory serves me well. Closing Stores worldwide has to have a effect.

Absolutely. That has a lot to do with the dip. Not everyone wants to order online. Especially if previous Macs/devices were purchased at nearby Apple Stores.

That's my situation. I can wait a month or two, or whatever.

 

[JWreck]

Guessing getting employees working from home has something to do with this, since Apple doesn’t have a great enterprise foothold.

Although, a MacBook Air is still a good machine for the money compared to things like the MS Surface Pro. Compatibility and support may be a factor, causing a rise in PC purchases.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I’m not sure the article provides enough evidence that that is the case. We know Mac shipments are down 21%, but I don’t think we can say for certain why. If it were a supply issue alone, why would Mac shipments be down 21% while other manufacturers are down less than 8% overall? Aren’t the other computers manufactured in China as well?

We really don’t know that. Canalys doesn’t have a very good track record. We’ll have real numbers on 30 April. Could be better or worse than 21% down; worse based on the fact Canalys doesn’t have visibility into Apple store sales, which are huge.

Something worth noting is that the PC numbers are sell-in, not sell-through. To the extent they don’t look like as bad a decline as Apple’s, that could very well represent nothing more than an increase in retailer inventory.

Apple doesn’t carry much inventory. If stores don’t sell as much, there’s fewer machines to replenish. Apple doesn’t stuff the channel, but that’s what ends up happening on the PC side, due to the distribution model’s heavy reliance on wholesale distributors and retailers.

 

[currentinterest]

Let's see what the real story is on April 30. These estimates are notoriously off, and supplier checks may be even more troublesome during the pandemic.

 

[Tech198]

This is like a bloody sea-saw..

You see increase, then it decreases with everything. It s probably worse, so are these figures supposed to give some hope?

 

[H2SO4]

- They refuse to keep the lineup updated
- Let old stuff like iMac's wither on the vine
- Overpriced
- Reduced benefits (buying a Mac as a student in the past would give 3 years of Apple care)
- Increased competition from the likes of Dell who've really done a great job with the XPS line

Not all of this stuff is Apple's fault, Intel has been a cluster of failure in recent years. But even ignoring dated designs like the iMac with its' giant bezels, they seem to release big updates which push things forward then spend years acting like the product doesn't exist.

Also a 720p FaceTime camera in 2020 on a MacBook Pro should have resulted in an executive getting fired.

It's not rocket science, update the devices with the latest silicon. Then when designs start getting dated like the iMac, do a refreshed design. Still no 802.11ax on the latest iMac when the iPhone and iPad have it.

The processor part is not true. The probems Intel has are Intels fault. The problem Apple has are the fault of Apple.
Apple have had more than one vendor to buy chips from and according to Cook from a while back, the A series chips are Desktop class.

I can't blame my lack of performance on you when I can either go to somebody else or do it myself.

 

[Marshall73]

Apple need to stop with the 40% margins on everything, as people look at what they spend money on due to the current situation, companies like Apple will be hit hard. Who is going to spend over 1k on a phone or computer when the economies are crashing around them. All the other vendors have lower cost options which are high quality and high performance these days.

 

[ani4ani]

If we were not social distancing, we would have 50% of the US population already infected, and the death rate would have been higher than 10%, like it is in Italy (11%) or In Spain 14%. Thirty-five million people requiring hospitalization (20% of 165 million) with only 1 million hospital beds available in the US, would result in 20 million dead (at least) by the end of Spring 2020.

So, the reason that the number of those infected (500,000) and those dead (20,000) so far in the US being relatively low (yet the highest in the world in absolute numbers) is the result of us having practiced social distancing for the past three-four weeks. As soon as we “reopen the country” we will be back to the pandemic levels.

Sorry to be off topic.

You cannot compare the numbers like you are because each country’s cases are determined in a different way, e.g. the UK’s method until recently was to only test those presenting themselves to a hospital, I.e. if the symptoms had persisted for 7 days and your condition had been deteriorating then present yourself at hospital where you would be tested. The U.K. does not test outside the hospital environment (until the last week, when frontline health workers can go to Drive-throughs). Then you are testing these same key workers multiple times. This is basically what Spain, France and Italy have been doing. The outcome of this is the mortality rate looks much higher than it is. It is certainly not 14%. The WHO has suggested it is something less than 1%.

The CMO in the U.K., thinks the actual infection rate is probably nearer “high single digit percentages” of the population now (6M+) rather than the 80K+ “confirmed cases.” Until the antibody tests exists no one can know. What is a sobering thought is that at least in the U.K., of those who enter hospital, around 20% need an ICU, and 50% of those who end up there are dying.

Every country has been isolating (too late in imo) and so the US numbers are not “lower” because of this and in time, sadly the mortality rate will be similar, because much depends on whether a health system can cope, e.g. New York. New York has been isolating for much longer than many US states and still probably hasn’t hit the peak?

 

[sirozha]

Sorry to be off topic.

You cannot compare the numbers like you are because each country’s cases are determined in a different way, e.g. the UK’s method until recently was to only test those presenting themselves to a hospital, I.e. if the symptoms had persisted for 7 days and your condition had been deteriorating then present yourself at hospital where you would be tested. The U.K. does not test outside the hospital environment (until the last week, when frontline health workers can go to Drive-throughs). Then you are testing these same key workers multiple times. This is basically what Spain, France and Italy have been doing. The outcome of this is the mortality rate looks much higher than it is. It is certainly not 14%. The WHO has suggested it is something less than 1%.

The CMO in the U.K., thinks the actual infection rate is probably nearer “high single digit percentages” of the population now (6M+) rather than the 80K+ “confirmed cases.” Until the antibody tests exists no one can know. What is a sobering thought is that at least in the U.K., of those who enter hospital, around 20% need an ICU, and 50% of those who end up there are dying.

Every country has been isolating (too late in imo) and so the US numbers are not “lower” because of this and in time, sadly the mortality rate will be similar, because much depends on whether a health system can cope, e.g. New York. New York has been isolating for much longer than many US states and still probably hasn’t hit the peak?

The official mortality rate in Spain is certainly 14% of those confirmed infected. You can check that out for yourself. What the Real percentage Is no one know because no one has tested everyone. Nevertheless, most countries have issued “stay at home” orders with various degree of compliance and enforcement. This has slowed down the spread of the virus dramatically. As soon as people go back to work, the worst case scenario will recur.

Even if the real infection rate in the US is currently 10 times that of the official numbers, i. e. 5 million infected, and the death rate is 1.5 times the official rate (as those who die untested are not considered having died from Coronavirus), the death rate is 0.75%. Now take 0.75% of 165 million, and you will get 1.2 million people dead by the end of summer if we reopen the US economy now. By the time the vaccine is available, 2.5 million Americans will have died from Covid-19.