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.
Research Firms Paint Very Different Pictures of First Quarter U.S. Mac Sales
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No one is going to pay for Macs? Then why is their market share increasing (to either 6.5% or 8%, depending on who you believe? Why are they earning about 35% of the entire industry's profits? Why are they the 5th largest computer manufacturer in the world - in spite of the fact that they don't even try to compete at the low end where most of the volume is? Why do they account for about 90% of all PC purchases over $1 K?
The refresh of the MacBook Pro which 'will finally break Jobs' run' is selling well by all accounts.
And two bombs in a row? I wonder what that would be? The iPad? Hardly - they sold something like 500,000 units in the first week for over $250 M in revenues. You can probably name all the products ever to have had that kind of first week on the fingers of one hand (Nintendo Wii, and then.....?).
I guess you could argue that the Apple TV was a bomb - or maybe the Cube, but you have to go back quite a ways.
well we'll find out for sure next week. but at least all companies saw growth. i find this a good thing
Man I don't know about this tons of mac computer sales comes from students going to University or College and let me tell you these mini gadgets like the iPad need a better OS. While writing papers and doing research. I could never see myself not having tons of windows open and easy access to them plus having a larger screen is key.
Doesn't anyone remember SJ's 90-minute announcement?
The iPad is a computer just as the netbook is a computer--Steve Jobs distinctly and directly aimed the iPad at the netbook market during that announcement. This quarter won't give us any clues as to the effect the iPad has on the market, but I'd bet that Q3 and Q4 will give some very clear indicators.
Well, since the first thing iPad fans will point out when you ask about the lack of certain features is "It's not meant to be a computer" or "You need a Macbook, not an iPad", I'd say... no.
The iPad is a computer just as the netbook is a computer--Steve Jobs distinctly and directly aimed the iPad at the netbook market during that announcement. This quarter won't give us any clues as to the effect the iPad has on the market, but I'd bet that Q3 and Q4 will give some very clear indicators.
I'm glad you're doing very well.
You know, you seem to be overlooking one quite serious point: Not even 2 years ago, Apple only held 2% of world-wide shares, while its US shares were near 8%. Now their World shares are near or above 8% while its US shares have reached 13% or higher. It looks to me like either Windows is being abandoned, or OS X and Apple itself are truly beginning to make their point that quality trumps quantity.
Push comes to shove
Maybe Apple will LEARN that making its laptop users wait a full 2yrs before a significant cpu/gpu/performance update is just TOOO long to affect marketshare and overall revenue. Their not hurting and the recent MBP updates WILL help.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Apple's iPad shortage during the last month before the new quarter ships is of NO coincidence. wait and see this next 3mths report has a significant jump coinciding with new MBP sales and iPad international shipment sales, hmmm.
Maybe Apple will LEARN that making its laptop users wait a full 2yrs before a significant cpu/gpu/performance update is just TOOO long to affect marketshare and overall revenue. Their not hurting and the recent MBP updates WILL help.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Apple's iPad shortage during the last month before the new quarter ships is of NO coincidence. wait and see this next 3mths report has a significant jump coinciding with new MBP sales and iPad international shipment sales, hmmm.
I'm glad that we cleared what moves them. Usually, corporations have some sort of noble aim apart from the obvious need to provide good investment for their investors. Here, it's money, money, money... No pelicans!
"- Hey, I've got an idea! Let's make PCs, but call them MacBook and charge a premium!
- Why would we do that? Why would people buy them?
- OS X...
- Ah, of course! Can we do that with anything else?
- Sure we can! We can put a fancy cover on these PCs from aluminium and call them 'Pro'. AND charge a premium!
- You mean 'Professional'?
- No, but only us will know. We could sell these babies with ancient processors, people only check the high numbers, anyway. Let's do a music player with a touch screen, let's make a phone version and let's make a large version!
- You mean, like something magical and revolutionary?
- Of course, not! Don't you remember, how badly we burnt ourselves with the Newton? Something very basic. Put it in an aluminium shell and behind a shiny glass and people will love it! But I love the sound of 'magical and revolutionary'.
- Well, I love the sound of 'money'. Ching ching!"
The word is 'irony'. But most importantly, for a lot of people, it's not the matter of 'cannot afford'. They just don't want an Apple computer. Do you think that less than 10% market share in the US indicates that another 90+% cannot afford a 1k MacBook? Nope. Some people just don't want Apple, that's all. For some members here, that might be hard to swallow.
So, I think the statement of "People buy what they can afford" might be a completely misleading, short-sighted statement. Making a purchase depends on so many other factors. Sub-prime mortgages? That's what many can't afford. A PC for premium price - most could, if they really wanted. In fact, I think the whole idea of defining Macs as premium stinks.
Sorry, but that's utter rot.
How do those number come about?
Are PC's made with lower quality CPU's. GPU's and Memory chips that go poof after 1 - 3 years?
Or do Apple products hover near the opening of a black hole so they age more slowly than PC's using the same technology?
An i7 PC will be just as old after 5 years as an i7 MAC.
Albeit a typical high end (same price) i7 PC will still be performing faster in 5 years than that same mac as it's probably got a far faster GPU than the mac does.
If, what you are really saying is that in 5 years time the MAC will still be a current model in Apples range and the PC won't still be being made, as the world has moved on 5 years and newer faster hardware is out there. Well, Apple exists in this same world and will be just as old.
The PC will be able to run Windows 8 or Windows 9 and the MAX will be able to run a newer version of OSX.
You seem to be thinking of long long in the past before technology reached where it is now. Very little really has changed in the past 5 years.
Where as people used to keep upgrading PC's due to the fantastic and exciting speed things were evolving that's almost died off now, due to everyone hitting Mhz limitations (a shame as even Intel printed articles saying they's be at 10Ghz years ago)
Just because Apple hang onto old products and PC's (used to at least) move forward faster. I don't agree in any way that a PC ages faster, or is in any way more unreliable if looked after than an Apple machine.
I think the only reason PCs seem to age faster than Macs is because a lot of software for the PC (Windows) asks for a lot of resources. A lot of Apple's software and even third party Mac software just doesn't ask for a lot.
For example. My friend put together a Hacintosh with.
1GB DDR 2 RAM
2.0 GHz Solo core processor
128 MB video
30GB HD
Mac OS X 10.6 ran faster than Windows Vista and 7 on the same hardware.
What people don't get I don't think is that even though they use the same parts as a PC now... its still not exactly the same thing. I mean, it runs a different OS and OS X is more efficient with resources unless you tweak the heck out of Windows. My point being. Its not the numbers, it's how well the computer runs. And Macs obviously keep up well with Windows based PC running double the specs.
For example. My friend put together a Hacintosh with.
1GB DDR 2 RAM
2.0 GHz Solo core processor
128 MB video
30GB HD
Mac OS X 10.6 ran faster than Windows Vista and 7 on the same hardware.
What people don't get I don't think is that even though they use the same parts as a PC now... its still not exactly the same thing. I mean, it runs a different OS and OS X is more efficient with resources unless you tweak the heck out of Windows. My point being. Its not the numbers, it's how well the computer runs. And Macs obviously keep up well with Windows based PC running double the specs.
300,000 on the first day, then continuous sales of 200,000 per week. 11 weeks left = 2.2 million, total of 2.7 million. That's WiFi only. We don't know how many 3Gs will be sold, is it 50% of WiFi, or 100%, or 200%. Say 100%, released a few weeks later, thats 1.8 million, total 4.5 million.
Half of that is straight in the middle of "two to three millions". It's not wild speculation, it is an educated guess - different thing. And not a very optimistic educated guess. Four to five million would be optimistic, two to three million isn't. So if Acer isn't prepared for Apple to sell two to three million iPads this quarter, with corresponding damage to Acer's netbook sales, then we might have a huge pile of unsold Acer netbooks in the quarter after that, which will have to be sold at rock bottom prices to recover a bit of money.
Umm MBP was late because of the short intel chip supply in Jan & Feb time. Mac OS X like always will certainly be talked about at WWDC during the summer, New Mac pros are also rumoured in early june time
Hard to argue with a company that is now #56 in the Fortune 500. Fact is, Apple is not now, nor will it ever be a challenge to the MS's, Dell's or HP's of the world on the market share or overall revenue end of things. But they are OK with that. They would rather have a smaller slice of the pie, and have their slice carry more nutrients (more profit). They are extremely profitable, and get much more bang from their market share and revenue stream than any of the bigger companies.
Frankly, the only real gotcha I see for Apple coming down the road is the fact that MS is providing a true challenger for an operating system for the first time in nearly 10 years. Win7 truly narrowed the gap in usability, if not stability and security.
However, the overwhelming success that the iPad is showing in early sales might cause the same overflow sales into Macs that the iPod and iPhone did. People who have never used a Mac before might give it a look because of their experience with either their own or their friends' iPads. I can tell you that I have never had more interest in any tech gadget that I have carried in public than I have with my iPad. It's really kind of getting annoying
Seriously, a LOT of people want to see and touch my iPad. And most of them leave me with the statement "I've gotta have one of those." Stands to reason that the increased traffic at the retail stores/website is only going to serve to create ancillary interest in the Mac products.
He may have aimed the iPad at the Netbook market but that doesn't mean it will successfully make any dent into it. Like you say the Q3 and Q4 numbers will shed some more light on it.
The iPad is a computer because it has a CPU inside it. Most cars are computers. I still think this whole 'paradigm shift' is manufactured without any real need or desire from the vast majority of computer users. File management via iTunes? What a joke.
It wouldn't piss me off so much for the fact that Apple is all but abandoning the Mac. This latest MBP update was more like this from Apple: "Oh, the MPB's need an update. We're busy with the iPad and iPhone OS 4, just throw in some new processors and be done with it." On Apple's web site you have to go out of your way to even find out that the MBP line has been updated. The Air is dead. They've stopped their switcher ad campaign.
All this for what many perceive to be a toy. That loss of focus will also show in the Q3 and Q4 numbers, sadly.
We've been hearing "things could slip in the future" for several years now.
Mac sales comprise half of Apple's revenue.
Of course you are. Showing up after a 2.5 year vacation to again push mr. softy. A switch for you would be to apple.
Anyone who truly believes that aapl's introduction of the iPad is a distraction from Mac sales and will hurt future earnings, really should stay away from the stock market. You'd lose your shirt.
It's funny how people keep saying this - when it's pretty far from reality.
Apple cases are proprietary.
Apple power supplies are proprietary.
Apple motherboards are proprietary
Those just happen to be the items that fail most frequently.
In addition, for the 'generic' parts, there's really no such thing as 'generic' RAM or GPU or CPU or hard disk for an OEM. Those things are purchased with specific specifications and the specs vary with the purchaser. Apple can be buying a CPU with tighter specs than Dell, for example. There is, in fact, evidence of that in that when people installed 'generic' RAM into earlier Macs, it often failed while Apple RAM worked perfectly.
The proof is in the pudding. Every time a magazine does a reliability survey, Apple at at or near the top of the list. ALWAYS. Apple is always at the top of the list for customer satisfaction.
So please stop with the 'they're all the same' nonsense.
I've always wondered why analysts and shareholders always "want" more and more growth. A steady market-share or steady profit of millions is almost considered a really bad thing.
A lot of IT-managers are wasting so much money. Especially when it comes to office computers which are only used for wordprocessing or simple spreadsheet stuff. For that even Windows 2000 with Office 2001 is good enough, with a good old Pentium 1 PC.
I haven't seen any time-improvement in our offices with newer computers. In fact... every 2 years when the IT department brings in new computers with or without new Windows installations, there's a considerable slowdown in efficiency for serveral months because of all kinds of software- or network-bugs.
A lot of IT-managers are wasting so much money. Especially when it comes to office computers which are only used for wordprocessing or simple spreadsheet stuff. For that even Windows 2000 with Office 2001 is good enough, with a good old Pentium 1 PC.
I haven't seen any time-improvement in our offices with newer computers. In fact... every 2 years when the IT department brings in new computers with or without new Windows installations, there's a considerable slowdown in efficiency for serveral months because of all kinds of software- or network-bugs.
Yes. 2-3M in the U.S. This Q is speculation with no basis. And Munster's 600-700K (not 750K) came out of thin air and doubled his estimate from days earlier. The estimate made zero sense and his explanation of how he got there made even less sense. But the iPad is a runaway success so it sounds pretty silly to suggest otherwise.
That sounds like some professional financial advise!
Semi-pro. And common sense. The iPad will hurt Mac sales and aapl earnings in the same way that the iPod and iPhone have hurt Mac sales and aapl earnings.