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

[triceretops]

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]

So where does Dell come in on that list? My work Dell is 2 years old. Has been sent back to the factory twice. Sent back to our IT department another couple of times. Currently it needs to be sent back again.

8 year old Powerbook, still running like a charm. In the shop ZERO times. A little on the slow side, but still does everything I need it to do.

One of these days I am going to post a video of the Dell taking a .50 calibre round. Should be awesome.

 

[xIGmanIx]

true as that may be, why discount those vendors from owning the enterprise space? That is a huge market and one that probably has the fiercest competition

What never gets discussed when these marketshare numbers come out is that they included corporate purchases, which last I checked, accounted for something close to 45 percent of total PC sales.

It would be interesting to see the non-corporate numbers.

 

[jragosta]

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]

Right.....

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/22/apple-is-no-1-in-reliability-survey/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/oct/06/news.uknews

Note that Apple wins by HUGE margins in these ones.

Regarding Consumer Reports, you're right about the customer satisfaction survey. Apple blew everyone away with a score in the 90's. The next highest score was far, far lower.

For reliability, Apple was #3 with a score of 70, Lenovo was 73. Margin of error was 3 points. Sounds like my statement that Apple was at or near the top was accurate (not to mention that they WERE #1 in previous years).

 

[ValSalva]

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

+1

 

[gnasher729]

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

I don't understand what you mean. An iPod Touch isn't large, and it isn't expensive. The iPad, on the other hand, is a cheap computer. Optimised to do those things that the typical netbook buyer wants very well, and those things that the typical netbook buyer doesn't care about possibly not at all.

 

[ValSalva]

I don't understand what you mean. An iPod Touch isn't large, and it isn't expensive. The iPad, on the other hand, is a cheap computer. Optimised to do those things that the typical netbook buyer wants very well, and those things that the typical netbook buyer doesn't care about possibly not at all.

That's what Steve says. What do they say about that reality distortion field? The iPad is expensive, is not optimized to do most things that a netbook can do, and as a bonus it's immediately obsolete.

 

[50548]

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.

The moron called John Sculley issued such a statement back in the late 80s on A+ magazine when the Apple // was about to die...no need to trust them anyway

 

[AidenShaw]

So where does Dell come in on that list? My work Dell is 2 years old. Has been sent back to the factory twice..

I call BS.

Dell includes on-site service as part of the warranty, and our corporate Dell contract automatically ups the warranty to 3 years.

And, even if it were shipped for servicing, it would be to a regional service center - not back to the factory.

 

[alhedges]

For reliability, Apple was #3 with a score of 70, Lenovo was 73. Margin of error was 3 points. Sounds like my statement that Apple was at or near the top was accurate (not to mention that they WERE #1 in previous years).[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what chart you're looking at...in the latest CR reliability survey, Apple was dead in the middle - behind Toshiba, Sony, Compaq, and Acer, and ahead of HP, Gateway, Dell, and Lenovo. (I tried and failed to paste the table...)

Note that the computers were all pretty close to each other in terms of reliability, with the most reliable (Toshiba) at 16 (the number refers to the percentage of computers from that brand which have had serious problems) being only 5 points better than the worst (Dell and Lenovo) at 21. Apple's rating is 19.

Given that these computers are made from the same parts in the same factories, it stands to reason that they will have similar reliability.

 

[jragosta]

I call BS.

Dell includes on-site service as part of the warranty, and our corporate Dell contract automatically ups the warranty to 3 years.

And, even if it were shipped for servicing, it would be to a regional service center - not back to the factory.

If you're going to call BS, you should probably get the facts:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/policy/en/policy?c=us&l=en&s=gen&~section=010

Depending on the product, Dell warranties can be as short as 90 days. AND, Dell can require that the product be returned to them.

On-site repair/replacement is a more expensive option.

I'm not sure what chart you're looking at...in the latest CR reliability survey, Apple was dead in the middle - behind Toshiba, Sony, Compaq, and Acer, and ahead of HP, Gateway, Dell, and Lenovo. (I tried and failed to paste the table...)

Given that these computers are made from the same parts in the same factories, it stands to reason that they will have similar reliability.

Oh, maybe you could try doing a Google search or check the links I gave you?

I addressed the 'same parts' fallacy above. First, a number of the parts (case, power supply, motherboard) are proprietary. Then, even the 'generic' parts are purchased to different specs by different vendors. Do you have any idea what Apple's purchase specs are compared to the rest of the industry? I didn't think so.

 

[AidenShaw]

If you're going to call BS, you should probably get the facts:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/policy/en/policy?c=us&l=en&s=gen&~section=010

Depending on the product, Dell warranties can be as short as 90 days. AND, Dell can require that the product be returned to them.

Nice try - the products with 90 day warranties are accessories like USB cables.

Please find a desktop system with a 90 day warranty.

The $269 Inspiron 570 MT home system has a one year in-home warranty standard. Even a $99 19" LCD monitor has a 1 year warranty (service is "exchange" - they ship you a new one, you return the bad one).

You FAIL.

Do you have any idea what Apple's purchase specs are compared to the rest of the industry? I didn't think so.

Do you? I didn't think so.

 

[mccldwll]

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]


Actually, CR said:

"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 75,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2005 and 2009 about their experiences."

And in desktops, Macs were far and away more reliable than the others, in a class by themselves.

Further, reliability was "for repairs", which didn't take into account bugs, viruses, Trojan horses, and all the other pleasures which come with non-Mac ownership. So try to keep it real.

 

[Bigonapple]

Norway prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, stranded in New York after volcanic ash closed airspace overseas, governs the country via iPad.

Maybe he was playing "Godfinger"

 

[gnasher729]

That's what Steve says. What do they say about that reality distortion field? The iPad is expensive, is not optimized to do most things that a netbook can do, and as a bonus it's immediately obsolete.

That's not what Steve says, that's what I say. Haven't met Steve Jobs in my life, so I don't think he would be able to influence me. On the other hand, I've used both netbooks and iPads long enough to know that the iPad beats a netbook for everything that 70 to 80 percent of netbook users do. On the other hand, your comments about the iPad are so far away from reality, I'd like you to explain what made you post that.

 

[satcomer]

- Why would we do that? Why would people buy them?
- OS X...
- Ah, of course! Can we do that with anything else?

Are you talking about Dell? They have already tried. When Apple rejected them they made the Mini 10 and setup support threads for OS X. This shows how desperate they are.

 

[John.B]

Are you talking about Dell? They have already tried. When Apple rejected them they made the Mini 10 and setup support threads for OS X. This shows how desperate they are.

And let's never forget that it was Michael Dell who said he would shut down Apple and "give the money back to the shareholders."

As of yesterday, DELL market cap: US$32.81B; AAPL market cap: US$224.34B.

How's that working out for you, Mike? Get offers to head up any hedge funds lately? LOL!

 

[xbjllb]

That's not what Steve says, that's what I say. Haven't met Steve Jobs in my life, so I don't think he would be able to influence me. On the other hand, I've used both netbooks and iPads long enough to know that the iPad beats a netbook for everything that 70 to 80 percent of netbook users do.

Just because 30 to 20% of users aren't intelligent or creative enough to use a particular function of any device, doesn't for a single second mean that device could be competitive or even marketable against competition without those particular higher functions. Now we're going to start defending reverse innovation?

Yes, the iPad is a single-tasking marginal "computer" for idiots and uncreative content swallowers, and with Lord Jobs particular hatred for flash thrown in to "sweeten" the deal to make browsing hateful. Market it for exactly what it truthfully is and see how far you get.

I HAD an Amiga for many years that wouldn't do flash. Web browsing was a constant irritation and nightmare. And I didn't blame flash, I blamed my Amiga. Only Steve Jobs could throw computing back as far as he did (early 80's) and still sell to iDiots.

 

[jragosta]

Just because 30 to 20% of users aren't intelligent or creative enough to use a particular function of any device, doesn't for a single second mean that device could be competitive or even marketable against competition without those particular higher functions. Now we're going to start defending reverse innovation?

Yes, the iPad is a single-tasking marginal "computer" for idiots and uncreative content swallowers, and with Lord Jobs particular hatred for flash thrown in to "sweeten" the deal to make browsing hateful. Market it for exactly what it truthfully is and see how far you get.

I HAD an Amiga for many years that wouldn't do flash. Web browsing was a constant irritation and nightmare. And I didn't blame flash, I blamed my Amiga. Only Steve Jobs could throw computing back as far as he did (early 80's) and still sell to iDiots.

Funny how hatred for Apple is supposed to represent logical thinking from some people.

Jobs doesn't have any particular hate for Flash. It is still offered standard on Macs, including laptops. It's just that it's not suitable for mobile, low powered devices like the iPhone and iPad.

The fact that Adobe still doesn't have a full version of Flash with hardware requirements low enough to work on the iPhone 3GS says (even Flash 10.1 which is supposed to fix all the problems requires an 800 MHz Cortex A8 so it won't run on the iPhone 3GS, either), says that Adobe agrees that it won't work on these mobile devices. It's just hard for me to figure out why all the Apple haters are attacking Apple over this when even Adobe says it won't work.

 

[John.B]

I HAD an Amiga for many years that wouldn't do flash. Web browsing was a constant irritation and nightmare. And I didn't blame flash, I blamed my Amiga. Only Steve Jobs could throw computing back as far as he did (early 80's) and still sell to iDiots.

So go buy one of the other smartphones that runs Flash. Oh wait, there isn't one?

 

[Vulpinemac]

Do you? I didn't think so.

I do. Apple's rejects are quite often purchased by their competition. How do I know? I worked for one of Apple's suppliers. I do know what kind of specs they demand. I also know what they do if those specs aren't met.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Just because 30 to 20% of users aren't intelligent or creative enough to use a particular function of any device, doesn't for a single second mean that device could be competitive or even marketable against competition without those particular higher functions. Now we're going to start defending reverse innovation?

Yes, the iPad is a single-tasking marginal "computer" for idiots and uncreative content swallowers, ...

Yup. Non-creative. It's not like the cover art for the New Yorker has never been painted on an iPhone. An iPhone is far more limited than the iPad, so just keep telling yourself that you can't create on one.

 

[xbjllb]

Yup. Non-creative. It's not like the cover art for the New Yorker has never been painted on an iPhone. An iPhone is far more limited than the iPad, so just keep telling yourself that you can't create on one.

Yep. And an Etch-a-Sketch is on the wall in the Guggenheim.

Also a urinal.

 

[cvaldes]

Looks like IDC was closer.

 

[Strod]

Huh?

Looks like IDC was closer.

cvaldes, care to explain why you say that?

According to TFA, Gartner predicted a 34% year-over-year growth in Mac sales, and IDC predicted a paltry 8.3% year-over-year growth.

In the actual data from the conference call (reported here) Mac sales had a year-over-year growth of 33%. Yes, that is worldwide while the predictions were in the U.S. only, but given that Apple's performance in the rest of the world is far inferior to the domestic one, you can only conclude that Gartner was by far closer.

 

[Makosuke]

[Edit: Strod, given 20% year-over-year in the US, looks like reality was smack in the middle of the two predictions.]

Ok, I came back to this article to see who was closer, but now I'm just confused, because Apple's Macs-shipped numbers for the Americas, according to their own PDF, show 971K CPUs, which is a 20% increase from the same quarter last year. Gartner said 34% growth, so they missed that, and IDC said 8.3%, which Apple beat comfortably.

Yet the table in this article shows 971K computers as being a HUGE decrease versus last year, and that 971K is for the entire Americas, not just the US.

It also shows 1.398M Q1 2010 shipments, a number I don't see anywhere on Apple's real numbers--the actual units shipped to the Americas was 1.187M in that quarter, and worldwide was 3.362M.

Where the hell are these research firms getting these numbers from? Somebody better informed care to explain?

(Also, unrelated, if you count iPhones and iPads as CPUs, which you definitely should for iPads and probably should for iPhones and iPod Touches as well, Apple's numbers look a LOT better. Given that that's where the future of average-consumer computing is headed, 10% marketshare is paltry. I don't think that means they'll stop selling Macs, just that they're going to end up being "pro" machines for developers and such, which is a small but profitable market, like the XServe is now.)