Research Firms Paint Very Different Pictures of First Quarter U.S. Mac Sales

[Piggie]

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.

Well, of course, I know (we all know) there are good and bad qualities of RAM chips (going back decades) the old talk about good quality memory and cheap memory.

But I did not know that Intel, ATI etc made special "higher quality than those put into PC's" CPU's and GPU's just for Apple. Wow, learn something every day.

 

[MisterK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I think these numbers sound fairly expected, all things considered. Above $1k laptop sales are great for them (they don't any traditional computers any lower than that). There hasn't been a significant update to any desktops in ages, so not a lot of movement there. This is something I hope they rectify soon. The iTouch line does take care of the netbook situation for a lot of people; sure, you'll find those who have a netbook as their single primary computer, or those writing a novel on their cramped keyboard, or running photoshop. Most people, I believe are using it for iPad stuff. It doesn't do Flash, but the lamen will run games and play video on their ipads and wonder what's missing.

Obviously Apple needs a design change on their desktops if only to arouse more interest than spec bumps. Everyone is essentially getting the same parts and Apple won't lower their margins. Apple, as a spec machine, can't beat the compitition. They must be working on things besides batteries to rectify this.

 

[jragosta]

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.

Yes, Munster's 600-700 K was a wild guess that proved to be wrong. Most of the estimates were around 200-300 K - which proved to be right (for a change).

But to say that 2-3M in the first quarter is speculation with no basis is just silly. We now have some facts to work on.

The first week, Apple sold 500 K. You can even break that down to 300 K the first day and 200 K the rest of the week. And that's only with 1/2 of their models available. They have 11 weeks left in the quarter and a second model coming out (plus, International sales should start before the quarter is over).

Now, you can do the math any way you wish. There are a lot of estimates to be made (how many 3G models will sell relative to WiFi, how fast the purchase rate will decline, whether it will pick up again after people show their friends, etc, etc, etc). But regardless of how you make the estimates, 2-3 million in 3 months is not unreasonable given 500 K in the first week, US only, Wifi only. It could even be low, but only time will tell.

 

[HyperX13]

Apple is eventually going to kill the mac osx desktop line anyway. I hope I am wrong, but the trend is there. I am thinking my next computer will be windows 7, unless I see apple release a statement and say they are in for the long haul.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Actually, I think Apple will be challenging Dell for overall revenue reasonably soon. Revenue last year: Apple $46bn, Dell $52bn. That's just 10 million iPads that Apple has to sell

It is just a few years ago that Apple was far behind Dell in market caps - they are far, far ahead now. Apple was behind Dell in profits - they are far, far ahead now. Company revenue is close. Computer revenue will take a while longer, because Dell is mostly computers while Apple is about half computers. Market share (in number of computers sold) depends on whether the iPad counts as a computer. HP will want the two dozen slates that it will sell every month to count as computers, Acer's netbooks count, so why shouldn't the iPad count?

 

[alent1234]

Apple is eventually going to kill the mac osx desktop line anyway. I hope I am wrong, but the trend is there. I am thinking my next computer will be windows 7, unless I see apple release a statement and say they are in for the long haul.

how are you supposed to develop apps for the iPad then?

 

[alent1234]

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.

it's not the CPU specs, but tight RAM specs. Apple branded RAM will have the same specs, timing, etc. a lot of brand X RAM will be labeled as DDR3 or whatever, but the chips will have different timings, etc. this is what causes problems.

few years ago and AMD/ATI first put the memory controller on the CPU the same thing happened. it was engineered for average RAM. a lot of people who built their own bought the super duper gold plated premium RAM that was supposed to run 20% faster and they had a lot of problems because the memory controller was a lot more finicky.

 

[Gasu E.]

I find it hard to believe that Apple is not gaining US market share. Personally I know quite a few recent or prospective switchers. I don't know anyone who has gone, or is thinking of going, the other way.

 

[mdatwood]

how are you supposed to develop apps for the iPad then?

Exactly. The problem is, and we're already seeing it, is that Apple will wait longer and longer between updates. Basically they'll tell the content producers that even though Apple hardware is outdated and over priced deal with it if you want to play in the i* sandbox.

 

[Gasu E.]

Apple is eventually going to kill the mac osx desktop line anyway. I hope I am wrong, but the trend is there. I am thinking my next computer will be windows 7, unless I see apple release a statement and say they are in for the long haul.

How is the trend there?

 

[HyperX13]

How is the trend there?

Mac Pro lineup - not refreshed in almost 2 years. Professional Mac market is dwindling, and Apple's attitude towards Adobe (maker of Photoshop) is "I don't care". Like I said, I pray I am wrong here. I switched to Mac from Windows 4 years ago and I am in heaven, I do not want to go back.

 

[Gasu E.]

Apple DO care about marketshare... they just say they don't because for laptops they have very little and doesn't sound so good, compared to iPod , iTunes where 70% marketshare sounds great in presentations etc. Its all about marketing. *Marketing*

Another reason why Apple care about marketshare - very little marketshare - very little / sub standard 3rd party vendor support, for printers, software etc. I've seen more and more 3rd party support for these as Apple marketshare has risen in recent years. An OS that supports very little hardware and third party software isn't very attractive for the average consumer -which Apple target mostly these days.

Obviously you are correct-- market share matters to Apple. But I think the more pertinent point is that maximizing profitability is a more germane corporate goal than maximizing revenue. All things being equal, larger marketshare should increase profitability. But you can also increase profitability by dominating a defensible niche. Apple is trying to balance both approaches-- maintaining their niche as their core strategy while increasing marketshare as best as they can at the same time. This approach seems to be working.

 

[Gasu E.]

Mac Pro lineup - not refreshed in almost 2 years. Professional Mac market is dwindling, and Apple's attitude towards Adobe (maker of Photoshop) is "I don't care". Like I said, I pray I am wrong here. I switched to Mac from Windows 4 years ago and I am in heaven, I do not want to go back.

Hmmm... at the same time, Apple is now offering five laptop and four desktop/deskside form factors, as well as a server. That's a lot by historical standards, and indicates a pretty high level of investment in Mac hardware. Perhaps they have taken their eye off the ball in the professional market-- I don't know. Or maybe they think the professional action is in laptops. I think they are doing great on the consumer side.

 

[jragosta]

Mac Pro lineup - not refreshed in almost 2 years.

Mac Pro was refreshed in March, 2009. That's 'almost 2 years'?

I wonder why people lie about things that are so easily verified.

Just in case you're really interested in facts rather than making things up, you can follow Mac update history here:
https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//#MacBook_Pro

Exactly. The problem is, and we're already seeing it, is that Apple will wait longer and longer between updates. Basically they'll tell the content producers that even though Apple hardware is outdated and over priced deal with it if you want to play in the i* sandbox.

That is, of course, nonsense. Apple updated the iMac to i processors last year. They just updated MBP to i processors (15 and 17" and had very solid reasons for not using it on the 13"). The Mac Pro is already using Xeon processors that are very, very close to the iProcessors in performance.

The real problem is that Apple tends to wait for 2 things:
1. They wait until chip availability is sufficient to update their lines. It's one thing to offer a new processor on a limited line of systems, but it's another to offer it across the board. There was a time when Apple announced a new processor (I don't remember which one) 2 months after everyone else - but Apple actually shipped systems at the same time.

2. CPU horsepower is just not the issue that it was even a few years ago. For most users, the amount of gain from new systems is miniscule - no matter who you're buying your system from. A decade ago, you could double system performance every year and a half or two years. Now, a year only gains you 5-10% in system performance in most cases, so the upgrades are not as critical.

Bottom line is that Apple's customers are apparently happy. In fact, even non-Apple customers are apparently switching because Apple's market share is growing. It therefore appears that all your whining represents people who aren't buying Macs, anyway.

 

[HyperX13]

Mac Pro was refreshed in March, 2009. That's 'almost 2 years'?

I wonder why people lie about things that are so easily verified.

Just in case you're really interested in facts rather than making things up, you can follow Mac update history here:
https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//#MacBook_Pro

OK , double the usual refresh. 407 days vs the average of 236. That shows trend in lack of commitment. 2 years I wrote was wrong - I was typing the message as I was sitting on the phone.

 

[Winni]

We've seen great updates in the past, or are you going to tell me that the unibody build was meager at best? Seriously guys, Apple doesn't have to innovate for EVERY update. Get real.

Fascinating. EVERY other computer manufacturer is able to introduce those features. Only Apple REFUSES to add those new features.

Maybe you should get real.

An Unibody case is a nice design gimmick, but certainly not a killer feature. Leaving real technological features like USB3 and BluRay to the competition is ridiculous for a notebook product family that claims to be innovative and PROfessional.

Their 27" iMac model is ahead of the curve in the all-in-one market. Their notebooks are behind.

(3) Sure it's expensive, but you do get what you pay for. Average life span of the PC is 1 - 3 years, macs will last you 5 (from experience).

Only when you decide NOT to upgrade your software. Just ask all those Quad G5 buyers how much they like Snow Leopard - as you know, that was that software upgrade that rendered their machines useless that were not even three years old by the time Apple shipped their new OS version.

And my Mac Pro 1,1 also ran Snow Leopard only with certain restrictions: No 64 Bit kernel. And yes, this -is- an issue when you run a 64-Bit app like Aperture, and it makes a performance difference.

So, please, just don't tell people that a Mac will last you five years and a PC would not. 64-Bit Windows 7 runs perfectly on five years old computers. Snow Leopard does NOT. So much for the longevity of an Apple product.

QED and end of discussion.

 

[ericinboston]

I wonder how the iPad is going to affect Mac sales.

First, in general, a lot of "personal computing" is done these days (the past 5+ years) on the web...surfing, banking, research, email, chat, photography, sharing docs/files, etc. So if you spied on the average consumer user, I'd say a very high percentage of them use the internet 90% of their sit-down experience. Business users are a different class as you/your job may revolve around Office documents, thick client apps like Oracle and Seibel, etc.

Second, the iPad is $499 while the cheapest Mac is $999 (actually the Mini is cheaper but to the AVERAGE person out there, they will need to buy a keyboard/mouse/monitor which gets you up to $900+ easily). It's a no brainer if someone was in the market to buy a device to do internet stuff (and wanted an Apple product) to buy an iPad over a Mac.

So...is the iPad going to reduce Apple's marketshare? I think so...because the iPad is a device that's not labeled as a computer...it's a device to get people on the net and have fun with games and music, too. True personal computers will continue to live on for a very long time...but I believe the Macs will be hurt by the iPad. Until a few days ago, the only choice a consumer had when walking into Apple was either a laptop or desktop and paying $1000 or more...even if all they wanted to do was very basic stuff that rarely involved a thick client app. Now? Heck, they walk in and think "I can buy this thing for $499 and if I need to do some basic Office junk, I buy the app for $30". Bye bye Mac sales.


I agree with so many others here...the Macs should drop in price **IF** Apple wants to increase marketshare. If all Apple wants to do is hover around 5-8% personal computer marketshare while enjoying great profits (the consumers don't benefit on this, ya know) that's fine, too.

-Eric

 

[ericinboston]

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

(3) Sure it's expensive, but you do get what you pay for. Average life span of the PC is 1 - 3 years, macs will last you 5 (from experience).

The average PC lasts only 1-3 years? Can you generalize any more?! Sheeez! I've owned PCs since 1993...and every single one of them has lasted more than 3 years...yet I choose, as a technologist, to buy a new one (or upgrade) my PC every 3-5 years...simply because I enjoy faster and faster computers that also take advantage of new technologies as they arise(USB, SATA, multi-core technology, HDMI ports, wireless, etc.)...and I'm not just sitting there emailing all day long...I'm doing audio production, video rendering, gaming, etc. Sure, there are COMPUTERS that fail (hardware wise) after 3 months or even 3 years. So what? I dare you to elaborate more on your 1-3 year statement. Let me guess...you'll probably play the virus card...or, maybe you'll play the Windows-is-too-hard-to-use-yet-it's-used-by-95%-of-the-world-for-the-past-20-years card.

If you decide to buy a new mac, that's your choice. Whichever company you choose, money distribution evens out. I happily pay extra to know that a virus won't fry my motherboard, or have to deal with the hassles of windows. Just the other day a large hotel received a virus on one PC, that spread all throughout (to 100 other PCs). Totally screwed up their system, and the system of the hotel. You have no idea what painstaking measures they have to go through right now.

Do you even know what the difference is between hardware and software?! I am laughing so hard at your ridiculous comment- that a virus (software) can fry a motherboard. Your comments read like an urban legend email. Did a hotel guest also wake up in the bathtub full of ice with a letter about his kidney being removed?

 

[John.B]

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.

If iPhones and Android phones should be excluded from OS/platform marketshare calculations then netbooks should get similar consideration.

 

[jragosta]

Their 27" iMac model is ahead of the curve in the all-in-one market. Their notebooks are behind.

Based on what?

Yes, Apple doesn't compete in the 12 pound, full-fledged hyper-gaming machine market. But for the market they're in, their computers are quite competitive.

There just aren't many computers from any vendor that offer the size, weight, features, reliability, and performance of the MBP computers. I'm sure there are a couple, but to say that Apple is behind the curve is nonsense - unless you expect Apple to be able to break the laws of physics and constantly do things that no one else can do.

 

[ValSalva]

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.

I do stay away from things I'm interested in - too much emotion and bias.

iPad may help Apple's stock price short term. No doubt about it. Their Mac numbers will suffer because of the reasons I mentioned. I don't think the iPad will drive any significant numbers to switch to Mac in the business setting in particular. I guess Apple has given up any hope of significant business uptake.

To me this is sad. OS X has so much potential in business. Maybe Apple feels there's not enough margin there.

 

[gnasher729]

I wonder how the iPad is going to affect Mac sales.

First, in general, a lot of "personal computing" is done these days (the past 5+ years) on the web...surfing, banking, research, email, chat, photography, sharing docs/files, etc. So if you spied on the average consumer user, I'd say a very high percentage of them use the internet 90% of their sit-down experience. Business users are a different class as you/your job may revolve around Office documents, thick client apps like Oracle and Seibel, etc.

Second, the iPad is $499 while the cheapest Mac is $999 (actually the Mini is cheaper but to the AVERAGE person out there, they will need to buy a keyboard/mouse/monitor which gets you up to $900+ easily). It's a no brainer if someone was in the market to buy a device to do internet stuff (and wanted an Apple product) to buy an iPad over a Mac.

So...is the iPad going to reduce Apple's marketshare? I think so...because the iPad is a device that's not labeled as a computer...it's a device to get people on the net and have fun with games and music, too. True personal computers will continue to live on for a very long time...but I believe the Macs will be hurt by the iPad.

The iPad will have some negative impact on everyone's computer and laptop sales, but where it will really hurt will be the netbook market. Netbooks are bought by people who already knew that they didn't need all the things that a laptop could do. So instead they bought a device that is cheap, and can do all the things that a laptop could do and they didn't need, just not as well. Now they have an alternative that is cheap and that does the few things they need very, very well.

 

[alhedges]

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.

WRONG! Stop lying. Seriously.

Consumer reports ranked Macs as AVERAGE for reliability. Not the top. Not close to the top. AVERAGE.

CR also ranked Macs at the top for consumer satisfaction. Which is something different from reliability. Don't confuse them.

Macs have AVERAGE reliability. They have AVERAGE reliability because they are built of the same parts in the same Chinese factories as PCs.


[/QUOTE]

 

[triceretops]

How to count?

In my opinion, if they are going to count Netbooks, then they should count iPads also. Add half a million in sales.

 

[kernkraft]

Netbooks are bought by people who already knew that they didn't need all the things that a laptop could do. So instead they bought a device that is cheap, and can do all the things that a laptop could do and they didn't need, just not as well. Now they have an alternative that is cheap and that does the few things they need very, very well.

What if they want cheap computers, rather than a large and expensive iPod Touch?