Research Firms Paint Contrasting Pictures of Apple's Mac Shipments in Q2 2019

[LordVic]

I have a total of 17 quality updates on Windows 10 Pro since 1-19, Build 1809. Hardly every day, you must have something else going on?

Probably confusing the Windows defender package updates (can be daily) with windows system updates. As they appear on the surface to be delivered via the same windows update delivery system.

Windows patches, unless critical security, are only released Tuesdays.

edit: wrong quoted post in the comment chain. sorry.

I don't know as it is company's laptop and not mine but the updates are almost on daily basis. Anyway, frequent updates are only one of many things that suck about Win 10. Btw since 1-19 there were 5 updates on macOS vs 17 on Win.

in addition to above, if it is your company control laptop than patch delivery is also not controlled by Microsoft. in enterprise joined laptops, we can control when patches are delivered rather than microsoft. if you are getting real actual system updates daily, than your IT administrators are releasing patches on a daily basis.. Which is just weird. It could be that they're vetting them one by one and then releasing as soon as vetted, instead of in one batch release. Which is stupid and would surely piss off users having to reboot daily.

 

[Rob_2811]

I think people underestimate the effort it takes to break into new markets.

First challenge would be the supply chain. To be able to sell over 200 million iPhones a year, you need to first be able to manufacture over 200 million iPhones a year. They don't just appear out of thin air. The same goes with products like the Apple Watch and AirPods which are quite difficult to manufacture. Tim Cook's forte is ensuring that Apple is actually able to manufacture the products they create at scale, because otherwise, the best-designed product in the world is moot if you can't make enough to sell.

He's done a great job with that no question about it.

Second is tackling the capricious political climate that China seems infamous for. I find that Tim Cook's steady hand has helped Apple weather a fair number of storms. I can't imagine Steve Job's acerbic tone going over well with the leaders and politicians on foreign countries.

Sorry this paints an almost ludicrous picture of who Steve Jobs was.

Sure Jobs could be acerbic but the idea that it was his default setting to the detriment of Apples business is well wide of the mark.

Is the same Steve Jobs that negotiated a deal with the enemy that helped save the company? or the guy who got the iTunes deals done ?

Sure Jobs could be hardnosed, there was even more evidence of it with the iBooks deal, and Apple got their wrist slapped over price fixing but Jobs got the deal Apple wanted, you can't really say that of Apple under Cook can you?

Without SJ, Eddy Cue couldn't get the TV deals Apple wanted, worth bearing that in mind.

Your post also implies that Cook is performing some kind of diplomatic miracle with foreign nations, the reality is iPhone sales have tanked in China and Apple have frantically cut prices in response. Cook is certainly no stranger to getting in trouble with foreign governments either. It cost them a $15 billion dollar fine in Europe.

To revise your analogy of the goose with the golden egg, it's like you received a golden goose but was then able to train the goose to lay even more eggs than before. Credit where credit is due. Truth be told, I’m not convinced Apple would have been better off with Jobs at the helm with the company at its current size and trajectory anyways. I have to wonder if he would have stepped aside anyway by now.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that Jobs would have fared much better as Apple CEO from 2011 to the present day than Cook would've done from 1997 - 2011.

If a Tim Cook would've gone in at Apple in '97 Apple would be dead. You can hire a steady hand and a good supply chain guy, you can't hire what Steve Jobs had. The old enemy said it best this week ..

[Steve Jobs was a wizard who "cast spells on people" to help keep Apple afloat during the company's darkest days, according to longtime rival Bill Gates.

 

[Abazigal]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that Jobs would have fared much better as Apple CEO from 2011 to the present day than Cook would've done from 1997 - 2011.

If a Tim Cook would've gone in at Apple in '97 Apple would be dead. You can hire a steady hand and a good supply chain guy, you can't hire what Steve Jobs had. The old enemy said it best this week ..

Different people are needed at different points in a company history. Jobs was right for his era, but I maintain that he would have been a disaster for the Cook era. Cook is amazing, and has been responsible for most of the achievements of Apple, but not the initial innovation and concept that Jobs provided. Cook has refined the culture and expanded it, and has done as fine a job as any CEO in American history, if not world business history.

Tim Cook is Eisenhower, not Churchill. Looking at Apple today, I am more convinced than ever that any would-be CEO for Apple, be it now or in the future, needs to be someone who moved up the ranks via operations. A functioning supply chain is needed to turn the design team's ideas into tangible products produced at scale. As such, a CEO with an operations background is incredibly valuable.

This means that your supply chain guy, amongst other things, needs to be able to tell your design team that their idea is simply not going to be feasible because it just can’t be readily mass-produced. That’s why Jeff Williams makes sense, though he likely won’t be under consideration for the next CEO anytime soon. I foresee Tim Cook sticking around for a good many years to come; Jeff is really only there as part of succession planning should anything uptoward happen to Tim.

 

[Rob_2811]

Different people are needed at different points in a company history. Jobs was right for his era, but I maintain that he would have been a disaster for the Cook era. Cook is amazing, and has been responsible for most of the achievements of Apple, but not the initial innovation and concept that Jobs provided. Cook has refined the culture and expanded it, and has done as fine a job as any CEO in American history, if not world business history.

Tim Cook is Eisenhower, not Churchill. Looking at Apple today, I am more convinced than ever that any would-be CEO for Apple, be it now or in the future, needs to be someone who moved up the ranks via operations. A functioning supply chain is needed to turn the design team's ideas into tangible products produced at scale. As such, a CEO with an operations background is incredibly valuable.

This means that your supply chain guy, amongst other things, needs to be able to tell your design team that their idea is simply not going to be feasible because it just can’t be readily mass-produced. That’s why Jeff Williams makes sense, though he likely won’t be under consideration for the next CEO anytime soon. I foresee Tim Cook sticking around for a good many years to come; Jeff is really only there as part of succession planning should anything uptoward happen to Tim.

I'm sorry the bold parts are utter nonsense.

Do you think that Jobs wouldn't have been able to hire the right people to get that business ramped up to level it is now, where is the evidence for this?

You are talking as if Apple were selling a few hundred iPhones when SJ passed away. They sold 125 million in 2012, which had ramped up from just over a million units its first year. So the year immediately after SJ passed away they were already selling more than half the units they sold in 2018.

 

[Abazigal]

I'm sorry the bold parts are utter nonsense.

Do you think that Jobs wouldn't have been able to hire the right people to get that business ramped up to level it is now, where is the evidence for this?

You are talking as if Apple were selling a few hundred iPhones when SJ passed away. They sold 125 million in 2012, which had ramped up from just over a million units its first year. So the year immediately after SJ passed away they were already selling more than half the units they sold in 2018.

The point here isn’t that Steve Jobs wouldn’t have been able to hire a supply chain expert, but that while Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple on paper from 1997 to 2011, the reality was that Tim Cook was pretty much handling the bulk of Steve’s traditional CEO duties for more than a decade already.

So you had a funny situation where the COO was doing CEO stuff (for well over 13 years!), while the CEO was running off doing Jony Ive stuff, with Jony Ive doing well, Jony Ive stuff as well.

I am not saying that this arrangement is wrong. It clearly freed up Steve Jobs to focus on what he did best - designing products. But at the same time, what does it say when the CEO of a company is not doing the job of a traditional CEO (you know, the job he was hired to do), and instead delegating it to other people so that he can go on to do what is actually someone else’s job?

That’s why it’s no surprise that Steve Jobs chose Tim Cook as his successor. Tim Cook had already been doing Steve’s job for him anyways, and Steve Jobs evidently felt that the role of CEO didn’t have to be held by a product guy specifically (which is why he was comfortable handing over the reins to him). That’s what Jony Ive and his design team are there for.

Likewise, let’s not forget that Apple is also selling a lot more products today. In addition to iPhones, we have more models of iPads (Steve Jobs had just 1, Apple today has like 5?), Macs, as well as accessories like the Apple Watch and AirPods. The lineup is a lot more complicated these days, but I guess it’s necessary if you want to reach out to more users.

 

[Rob_2811]

The point here isn’t that Steve Jobs wouldn’t have been able to hire a supply chain expert, but that while Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple on paper from 1997 to 2011, the reality was that Tim Cook was pretty much handling the bulk of Steve’s traditional CEO duties for more than a decade already.

So you had a funny situation where the COO was doing CEO stuff (for well over 13 years!), while the CEO was running off doing Jony Ive stuff, with Jony Ive doing well, Jony Ive stuff as well.

I am not saying that this arrangement is wrong. It clearly freed up Steve Jobs to focus on what he did best - designing products. But at the same time, what does it say when the CEO of a company is not doing the job of a traditional CEO (you know, the job he was hired to do), and instead delegating it to other people so that he can go on to do what is actually someone else’s job?

That’s why it’s no surprise that Steve Jobs chose Tim Cook as his successor. Tim Cook had already been doing Steve’s job for him anyways, and Steve Jobs evidently felt that the role of CEO didn’t have to be held by a product guy specifically (which is why he was comfortable handing over the reins to him). That’s what Jony Ive and his design team are there for.

Likewise, let’s not forget that Apple is also selling a lot more products today. In addition to iPhones, we have more models of iPads (Steve Jobs had just 1, Apple today has like 5?), Macs, as well as accessories like the Apple Watch and AirPods. The lineup is a lot more complicated these days, but I guess it’s necessary if you want to reach out to more users.

Yes doing Jony Ive stuff, like developing the products for the supply chain to manufacture. You can have the greatest supply chain in the world its pointless if you haven't got anything that people want to buy. Almost all the products that Cook has scaled are iterations on the products Jobs helped develop, AirPods and Watch aside, both of which are basically accessory products to the iPhone.

Cook is a great supply chain guy nobody is disputing that but you're talking like he's the only great supply chain guy.

Jobs could've found a world class COO to handle the supply chain, Cook could not have developed those products with Ive we've seen clear evidence of that.

Again to say that Tim Cook is responsible for most of Apples achievements is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here.

 

[Abazigal]

Jobs could've found a world class COO to handle the supply chain, Cook could not have developed those products with Ive we've seen clear evidence of that.

Again to say that Tim Cook is responsible for most of Apples achievements is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here.

If finding a great COO was that easy, Tesla wouldn’t be in the mess it is today.

And if Tim Cook isn’t responsible for Apple’s successes today, then I don’t know who is. If you all want to blame him for all the things that you think are wrong with Apple right now, should you at least all first acknowledge the things that he has done right and well for Apple?

I said it before, and I will say it again. The Apple of today needs a Tim Cook more than it needs a Steve Jobs. But I guess it’s a moot point. Steve Jobs is dead and I foresee Tim Cook staying on as Apple CEO for a good many many more years.

 

[Rob_2811]

If finding a great COO was that easy, Tesla wouldn’t be in the mess it is today.

And if Tim Cook isn’t responsible for Apple’s successes today, then I don’t know who is. If you all want to blame him for all the things that you think are wrong with Apple right now, should you at least all first acknowledge the things that he has done right and well for Apple?

I said it before, and I will say it again. The Apple of today needs a Tim Cook more than it needs a Steve Jobs. But I guess it’s a moot point. Steve Jobs is dead and I foresee Tim Cook staying on as Apple CEO for a good many many more years.

Dear me, again this ...

Jobs was right for his era, but I maintain that he would have been a disaster for the Cook era. Cook is amazing, and has been responsible for most of the achievements of Apple

.. is one of the most preposterous things ever posted on the Internet.

The Tesla analogy is weak also they are manufacturing electric cars at a scale nobody has done before. There is no Foxconn for cars.

I'll say this much and leave it there beacuse its way off topic.

The company wouldn't exist without Jobs, he founded the company and played a pivotal role in the development of all of its iconic products. Were it not for Jobs Tim Cook would be working at HP and nobody would have a clue who he was.

 

[Abazigal]

I'll say this much and leave it there beacuse its way off topic.

The company wouldn't exist without Jobs, he founded the company and played a pivotal role in the development of all of its iconic products. Were it not for Jobs Tim Cook would be working at HP and nobody would have a clue who he was.

And I am in no way refuting this.

Steve Jobs was right for his era (An Apple teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with nothing to lose).

Tim Cook is right for his era (a prosperous Apple whose challenges today are not Samsung or Microsoft, but the FBI and foreign governments).

What we disagree on is whether Apple today would be better served if someone similar to Steve Jobs (both in terms of talent and temperament) were to be running Apple today, rather than Tim Cook.

Anyways, if we want to go back to the main topic, I would say not to trust either company. Aboveavalon has this to say.

https://twitter.com/neilcybart/status/1149714655302049792
Quarterly PSA: Ignore Gartner and IDC when it comes to quarterly Mac sales. Apple sells ~40% of Macs through their own distribution channel. Gartner / IDC have no visibility there. Their estimates are routinely way off.

I'm all for people coming up with their own financial estimates - as long as they match with the info that we are given. The problem with these industry research firms is that their numbers simply aren't good and yet the #'s are circulated through the blogosphere w/o hesitation.

You will end up with more reliable Mac sales estimates by going off of management’s guidance, commentary, and your own estimates for channel inventory channels based on model refreshes (assuming you have a robust earnings model).

 

[nihil0]

These updates have nothing to do with Windows. They are pushed by your IT (probably for a reason). Many of your other points are also debatable. For example, there are free apps for preview. Whether the app uses sing;e or multiple windows also has nothing to do with OS. It's the choice of the app designer and there are pros and cons for each design (often depends on the app purpose)

Since I have company laptop I can't install whatever I like and therefore default macos functions such as preview or pdf export are a must to have. Also, the app which doesnt allow multiple window instances is Excel. If there are bugs and security holes in Win, that is the only reason updates are being pushed by IT. Or are you telling me that enterprise Mac users also have system updates pushed almost on daily basis?

 

[throAU]

So MacOS still has single-digit marketshare. It's not even *high* single-digit anymore.

6% is not nothing, but in the context of OSes it can definitely be rounded to nothing. (Especially since it is still sub-1.0% in enterprise.)

On the bright side, at least they are reselling lots of low-quality Doctor Dre headphones at super high margins.

I'm sure that's pretty much the same thing as being the world's greatest product company. No fall from grace here.

#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT #COOKISTHENEWSCULLY

6% is approximately 5-6x the Linux desktop market share (based on the steam user surveys - i'd argue that it may even be higher than that as people running Linux on the desktop are often not steam users as gaming isn't exactly a linux strong point, but hey...).

Let that sink in for a bit.

Despite the (alleged) hardware "quality", despite the supposed virtues of Mac OS and the support of a trillion dollar (near enough) multinational corporation, macOS is at 5-6x the share of Linux on teh desktop, and losing ground.

This is the Mac/macOS competing against a platform that is a complete UI dumpster fire, running on supposedly inferior quality PC hardware. And against Windows 10... which is so enticing (lol) that it has users hanging on to Windows 7 for as long as they can.

I say that as a user of all three platforms (Mac, Windows PC, Linux PC).


Apple should be making hay right now with macOS against the competition they have, but somehow seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the ridiculous decisions being made by the mac hardware team and then doubling down on stupid when it proves to be a problem...

The fact that we are still discussing this keyboard fiasco in 2019 (for one, but not the only example), when the problem became apparent in 2015 is a total and utter joke. Apple should be mortified that they have put out 2 replacement cycles of product now (assuming typical computer replacement cycle of 3 years based on tax depreciation/extended warranty support) without fixing the problem.

 

[0388631]

Research specialists spew twaddle. More at 10!

 

[Dirtfarmer]

6% is approximately 5-6x the Linux desktop market share (based on the steam user surveys - i'd argue that it may even be higher than that as people running Linux on the desktop are often not steam users as gaming isn't exactly a linux strong point, but hey...).

Let that sink in for a bit.

Despite the (alleged) hardware "quality", despite the supposed virtues of Mac OS and the support of a trillion dollar (near enough) multinational corporation, macOS is at 5-6x the share of Linux on teh desktop, and losing ground.

This is the Mac/macOS competing against a platform that is a complete UI dumpster fire, running on supposedly inferior quality PC hardware. And against Windows 10... which is so enticing (lol) that it has users hanging on to Windows 7 for as long as they can.

I say that as a user of all three platforms (Mac, Windows PC, Linux PC).


Apple should be making hay right now with macOS against the competition they have, but somehow seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the ridiculous decisions being made by the mac hardware team and then doubling down on stupid when it proves to be a problem...

The fact that we are still discussing this keyboard fiasco in 2019 (for one, but not the only example), when the problem became apparent in 2015 is a total and utter joke. Apple should be mortified that they have put out 2 replacement cycles of product now (assuming typical computer replacement cycle of 3 years based on tax depreciation/extended warranty support) without fixing the problem.

but...but....the account king kept the stock price up by selling Steve's old ideas while hollowing out the company from the inside.

Does anything else even matter to a technology company aside from today's stock price?

#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT

 

[developer13245]

~10% Q2 Year over year growth is just not believable. IDC is way off.
The Gartner 06-19 trend graphic accurately represents the Mac's trajectory.
As Apple began implementing planned obsolesce by soldering on components, Mac sales trends flattened and will now decline. There will always be small group of flavor aid drinking dolts who will always use macs but the unit sale numbers attributed to their purchases will also decline - this is because they will buy more expensive macs (more soldered on memory and storage), but less frequently due to higher acquisition costs. Apple will indeed increase unit profit from sales to such dolts, but as they say: A sucker is born every day.

 

[extrachrispy]

[...exorbitant storage upgrade prices then vs. now...]

The good, better, best on storage is really ****ing terrible, terrible, and acceptable on the storage side and then terrible, terrible, terrible on the price side.

It’s $200 to upgrade the ram to 16gb and $400 to upgrade the ssd to 512. Surely I’m not the only person who refuses to buy a MacBook Pro because of those exorbitant prices.

They didn't fix the storage pricing. They cut down the two most exorbitant cash grabs on their product catalog and left the base and next level up unchanged. It's clever cutting pricing on your two least purchased items and getting a lot of pub for it, but until they touch the stuff 90% of the people buy, it's all show.

Unless you need an MBP or MBA right now, buy them when they hit the refurb section of the store. I picked up a 32GB i9-based 2018 15" MBP with a 2TB SSD and Vega 16 about a month ago, for less than the cost of the base MBP + SSD upgrade alone.

Yeah, it still hurt, but I make my living with this machine.

Keep watching: if Gartner was right, there's further downward pressure on Apple's pricing. The SSD price cuts are a good start.