NPD: 90% of $1,000+ PCs Sold in Fourth Quarter 2009 Were Macs

[csimmons]

I am a hater because I question numbers that seem 2 good to be true...... Apple record profits they made last quarter while good were not as good as apple reported. The numbers were a lot higher than expect. It is one thing to be a little off. It is other to be off by double. Apple did not wrong in it. Just change accounting to the new rules.

Here is another example of 90% of a limited high end market. it seems way to good to be true so you are damn right I question it.

I am not going to be like the blind fan boys who saw apple record quarter smashing the previous record and not ask the question of why. Those numbers do not add up or do not feel right.

Got to love blind apple fan boys though. Question the numbers at all and you are called a hater.

Yes, you are a hater. I'll tell you why:

Apple, like every other large company in the US is required by law to make accurate financial statements or face stiff penalties. Companies like NPD who report on such things therefore gain nothing by lying about the things they report. Whether or not you believe the numbers is totally irrelevant.

In other words, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men":

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[Povilas]

The $1000+ market that apple almost solo plays in is a shinking market. The iPad is not a computer replacement and the mac Mini is not that good. The size of apple market is shrinking as well.

Record sales is just ufimism for shrinking market I did learn something new today.

 

[Eidorian]

Well what is defined as premium I have noticed over the years has been dropping like a rock. Just 5 years ago premium computers started at around $2k and since have dropped to $1000. When I build my desktop it was around $1500 and was considered middle of the road.
In the next 5 years I would not be surprised to see a premium computer drop down to the $500 range. Computers are getting cheaper and faster.

The $1000+ market that apple almost solo plays in is a shinking market. The iPad is not a computer replacement and the mac Mini is not that good. The size of apple market is shrinking as well.

$500-700 on the tower is getting to be very upper midrange. AMD offers their quad cores starting at $99 and quite a few vendors are taking advantage of that. I've seen the prices on viable performance video cards drop from $300 to $100-179 in the past 3 years alone.

Spending more than $1,000 on something that's not a notebooks requires a lot of commitment, a grant, or a business expense.

Right but Microsoft is announcing record profits while most PC manufaturers are reporting losses or barely hanging by with mediocre profits.

What does Microsoft's profits have to do with the margins on hardware? We've talked about the race to the bottom in hardware prices before.

 

[locust76]

But a Mac's not a PC, so these numbers are obviously falsified...

 

[Goona]

Well what is defined as premium I have noticed over the years has been dropping like a rock. Just 5 years ago premium computers started at around $2k and since have dropped to $1000. When I build my desktop it was around $1500 and was considered middle of the road.
In the next 5 years I would not be surprised to see a premium computer drop down to the $500 range. Computers are getting cheaper and faster.

The $1000+ market that apple almost solo plays in is a shinking market. The iPad is not a computer replacement and the mac Mini is not that good. The size of apple market is shrinking as well.

Yeah I guess which is why Apple is announcing record Macs sold, iphone solds, ipod touches sold, record revenues, record profits, with 40 billion dollars in cash and investments.

 

[ShiftyPig]

Are you reading some other news source in a parallel universe?

Apple sold a record number of Macs. We're not talking about revenue or profits, or accounting. Unit sales of Macs were the highest ever. Every quarter Apple sells more Macs. So we have an upward trend on a group of products that are $1000+. In a recession. In the presence of lower-cost options. That's what's pretty mind-boggling.

Right, but total revenue in the Mac segment decreased. Would you rather sell one $100 item or 50 $1 items?

Apple's increased revenue for 2009 is 100% (actually about 125%, but that's probably over your head) attributable to iPhone.

 

[csimmons]

I doubt you have the expertise to make that judgment.

They "seem 2 good to be true" because you of all people just can't stand to wrap your head around Apple's success, and how it's humanly possible for a tech company in this economy to so completely and unabashedly flout all conventional retail wisdom with such unequivocal success.

But don't worry, a lot of analysts still can't seem to comprehend how Apple does it.

Apple is a company that is not only able to execute on stated stratgy like no one else, but it has the unique and very rare ability to tap into the "I want" zone of the average consumer psyche. And I'm thankful that someone out there (Apple) is able to pull it off, so we can actually enjoy the tech we use every day.

Thank you.

 

[*LTD*]

....not good for us. Why are we so 'happy' that Apple can retain high prices? Give me an Apple....at a PC price!

A healthy Apple is an Apple that can continue to innovate comfortably. In turn, we get more goodies like the iPhone, iPad, etc.

It also shows that consumers are willing to pay more for a better value proposition.

 

[Goona]

Right, but total revenue in the Mac segment decreased. Would you rather sell one $100 item or 50 $1 items?

Apple's increased revenue for 2009 is 100% (actually about 125%, but that's probably over your head) attributable to iPhone.

If Apple's revenues from Macs is decreasing, its because they are dropping prices. At least they are in a better position than PC companies who are struggling to get by. Their revenues are not only decreasing, but so are profits. The only company getting rich of PC's is Microsoft.

 

[nick9191]

funny just looking on the dell website I couldn't justify spending more than $1k on a machine and that's with an i7..!

I don't think this is news really.

Whats Mac marketshare worldwide these days?

4%..?

why is a company deliberately shafting its' users a good thing on a consumer site.

The world hates mac users after laughing at them...the world is right...


the bigger question is that having sold 250m iPods in 8.5 years how Apple isn't converting that leverage into more meaningful marketshare in computers and phones..

And yet Apple is one of the most profitable OEM's in the world.

Marketshare means sweet FA.

 

[archipellago]

Exactly. What these numbers mean is that Apple is wiping the floor with every other hardware manufacturer who sells PC's for over $1000.

true but when you can buy an i7 PC ( i7 - 920 btw) for $100 less than a grand from nearly every PC vendor out there, again, where's the news.

This headline should read

Apple gets users to pay more...for less.......again.

 

[*LTD*]

Q1 2010 Revenue by Product

Desktop: $1.7 billion, up 62 percent from $1 billion a year earlier.

Portables: $2.76 billion, up 9 percent from $2.52 billion a year earlier.

iPod: $3.4 billion, up 1 percent from $3.37 billion a year earlier.

Music: $1.16 billion, up 15 percent from $1.01 billion a year earlier.

iPhone: $5.6 billion, up 90 percent from $2.9 billion a year earlier.

Peripherals: $469 million, up 21 percent from $387 million a year earlier.

Software & Services: $631 million, up 4 percent from $606 million a year earlier.

 

[archipellago]

I guess nature was a bit cruel to you, well *hit happens.

wow, what a comeback.... guess you were right there ARE enough suckers out there..!

 

[GFLPraxis]

All the discussion regarding the actual numbers has already taken place, so I'll gloss over that in my comment; but I really think Apple is missing an enormous opportunity by focusing too heavily on the premium market.


I feel that at similar prices, Apple's offerings provide a much better experience to the consumer. A $999 MacBook vs a $999 Dell isn't going to offer you much performance advantage for the Dell, and a much better software experience and more streamlined hardware.

However, what is beginning to occur is that the cost expectation of the common user (not tech people like those who peruse these boards) is lowering quite drastically, and in that category, Apple isn't even an option.

As an example; My father was very recently looking to replace his ancient Athlon XP desktop with a new laptop. His needs? 20-30 GB of space, Microsoft Word, Outlook, basic web browsing (including Flash for online games), the ability to dock with his current monitor, and the ability to sync contacts and music with his iPhone. Nothing intensive at all.

He looked at an Asus Eee PC for $299 on NewEgg, with some extra RAM for $20-40. It fits all of his criteria. The hard drive is larger than he will ever use, it runs all of his existing software, it does everything he needs to. How am I to tell him to spend three times as much for a MacBook, especially when he's not familiar with the better experience of a Mac?

When dealing with older people who are looking at laptops under $599, it's almost impossible to suggest a Mac. The low end fits everything they need in a computer and we're talking about spending double for an entry level Mac and then rebuying Mac versions of all of their software or buying Parallels + Windows.

In the desktop arena, at least the Mac Mini is available, but spec-wise it's horrific compared to other machines in it's price class, mainly due to the small form factor.

If Apple were to offer a lower-end MacBook (1.86 GHz, 120-160 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, Combo Drive, Intel GPU) for $699, they'd make enormous headway into that market. They don't have to make a netbook, but they need something that'll attract people who see $1000 as simply far too much to spend on a computer and aren't familiar enough with Macs to be swayed.

 

[cmaier]

I am a hater because I question numbers that seem 2 good to be true...... Apple record profits they made last quarter while good were not as good as apple reported. The numbers were a lot higher than expect. It is one thing to be a little off. It is other to be off by double. Apple did not wrong in it. Just change accounting to the new rules.

You are aware that their record numbers are record even taking the accounting method into account, right? You are aware that Apple went back two years and re-released their results using the new method, so it's easy to compare? And you certainly don't mean to accuse Apple of securities fraud by saying "Apple record profits they made last quarter while good were not as good as apple reported" because you understand that under the 1933 and 1934 securities acts, apple's actual profits must be "as good as apple reported?"

 

[ShiftyPig]

Yes, you are a hater. I'll tell you why:

Apple, like every other large company in the US is required by law to make accurate financial statements or face stiff penalties. Companies like NPD who report on such things therefore gain nothing by lying about the things they report. Whether or not you believe the numbers is totally irrelevant.

In other words, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men":

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

NPD is a research company that offers prizes to its survey respondents. It doesn't use financial statements to formulate these reports. Also NPD doesn't include direct sales.

Its data routinely skews toward Mac users, ie the report here that indirectly gives Mac a 25% market share: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/826818/

You come across as someone who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[archipellago]

And yet Apple is one of the most profitable OEM's in the world.

Marketshare means sweet FA.

sweet FA?

really...

 

[*LTD*]

true but when you can buy an i7 PC ( i7 - 920 btw) for $100 less than a grand from nearly every PC vendor out there, again, where's the news.

This headline should read

Apple gets users to pay more...for less.......again.

When you buy a Mac, you're paying for a lot more than the parts and raw specs. Anyone can cram parts into a case. Acer does it all the time.

 

[cmaier]

If Apple were to offer a lower-end MacBook (1.86 GHz, 120-160 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, Combo Drive, Intel GPU) for $699, they'd make enormous headway into that market.

They don't want "headway." They want profits. They make 40% profit margin using their current scheme. If they offered the machine you suggest, it would not only have a much lower profit margin, they'd have to also reduce all the prices of their other machines (who is going to buy a $1000 machine that's only a little better than the $699 machine?) So they would sell some more machines but take a larger cut in profit margin, and, in the long term, dilute the brand - once prices go down, they don't go up. That's why ferrari doesn't make an entry-level commuter car.

 

[archipellago]

All the discussion regarding the actual numbers has already taken place, so I'll gloss over that in my comment; but I really think Apple is missing an enormous opportunity by focusing too heavily on the premium market.


I feel that at similar prices, Apple's offerings provide a much better experience to the consumer. A $999 MacBook vs a $999 Dell isn't going to offer you much performance advantage for the Dell, and a much better software experience and more streamlined hardware.

However, what is beginning to occur is that the cost expectation of the common user (not tech people like those who peruse these boards) is lowering quite drastically, and in that category, Apple isn't even an option.

As an example; My father was very recently looking to replace his ancient Athlon XP desktop with a new laptop. His needs? 20-30 GB of space, Microsoft Word, Outlook, basic web browsing (including Flash for online games), the ability to dock with his current monitor, and the ability to sync contacts and music with his iPhone. Nothing intensive at all.

He looked at an Asus Eee PC for $299 on NewEgg, with some extra RAM for $20-40. It fits all of his criteria. The hard drive is larger than he will ever use, it runs all of his existing software, it does everything he needs to. How am I to tell him to spend three times as much for a MacBook, especially when he's not familiar with the better experience of a Mac?

When dealing with older people who are looking at laptops under $599, it's almost impossible to suggest a Mac. The low end fits everything they need in a computer and we're talking about spending double for an entry level Mac and then rebuying Mac versions of all of their software or buying Parallels + Windows.

In the desktop arena, at least the Mac Mini is available, but spec-wise it's horrific compared to other machines in it's price class, mainly due to the small form factor.

If Apple were to offer a lower-end MacBook (1.86 GHz, 120-160 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, Combo Drive, Intel GPU) for $699, they'd make enormous headway into that market. They don't have to make a netbook, but they need something that'll attract people who see $1000 as simply far too much to spend on a computer and aren't familiar enough with Macs to be swayed.

you wanna check those $999 price points again..you'd be amazed.

btw. the Mac experience isn't better per se. Its better for some, worse for others but for everyone..its' different.

 

[xStatiCa]

I love my macbook air but this is like saying a year ago that Sony had 100% of the market for game systems over $499. Umm.. hello... Of course they did. Most all other games systems are priced below that point.

Medium performance macs are priced above $1000 while medium performance PCs are well under $1000.

All that matters is the overall picture for consumer level computers (maybe $200 to $4000 range). Singling out certain price points seems very misleading.

 

[Digitalclips]

That quote is by betanews, and not from NPD. If the NPD numbers tell us anything, it's that Apple computers are more expensive than other PC's, and that Apple is over-charging for what they offer.

Good for shareholders, but not for consumers.

So one would have to assume, using your logic, that higher priced manufacturers in any particular market segment are not better, simply over-charging. A Mercedes isn't any better than a Ford simply over priced. A Rolex is no better than a Timex, simply over priced. You dismiss R&D, Materials, Design costs etc. Any cheap knock off is the same quality as the premiere products which are simply over priced. Interesting theory to be sure.

 

[archipellago]

When you buy a Mac, you're paying for a lot more than the parts and raw specs. Anyone can cram parts into a case. Acer does it all the time.

gee this should be fun... what are you paying for then?

Ive's razors?
Schillers' burgers?
Cook's speech lessons?
Jobs ego?

The constant yellow screen repairs?
new iPhone cases?


Apple has created a club like mystique about their products that appeal to a certain demographic of consumer, they sell an image and a vision of 'ease' which is rarely matched by the product itself.

The are perfect for the modern world... shiny and cool sells.

There are companies out there with better products and better prices that just don't know how to sell them or create that image.

I applaud them for their business acumen. Getting this many people to believe the hype is a feat of true awe.

the products...not so much. I can buy cheap chinese crap anywhere, I just expect them to be..ya know...cheap.!

 

[cmaier]

I love my macbook air but this is like saying a year ago that Sony had 100% of the market for game systems over $499. Umm.. hello... Of course they did. Most all other games systems are priced below that point.

But that's the point. In a free market goods will sell for what the seller can get. The "worth" of something is reflected in the price. The fact that Apple can get 5-10% of the market despite charging so much says something - Acer, HP, Dell, etc. would price their machines over $1000 if they could get away with it.

 

[archipellago]

So one would have to assume, using your logic, that higher priced manufacturers in any particular market segment are not better, simply over-charging. A Mercedes isn't any better than a Ford simply over priced. A Rolex is no better than a Timex, simply over priced. You dismiss R&D, Materials, Design costs etc. Any cheap knock off is the same quality as the premiere products which are simply over priced. Interesting theory to be sure.

wow, now how did you draw that comparison..?