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

[cmaier]

I think part of the confusion is that Apple reports units shipped into the channel, and the analysts are talking about units sold.

[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.)

 

[Strod]

[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?

OK, first: the table in this article refers to the Jan-Mar 2010 quarter as 1Q10. Apple's documents refer to the same quarter as Q2 2010, because its Apple's second financial quarter. Don't mix it with Q1 2010, that was Oct-Dec 2009.

Second, note that in Apple's tables "Retail" appears as a separate category. Note also that retail sales at the Apple stores take place overwhemingly in the U.S.

So:
Sales in the U.S. = (Sales in Americas - Sales out of U.S.) + (Retail total - Retail out of the U.S.)
That is,
Sales in the U.S. = (Sales in Americas + Retail total) - (Sales out of U.S. + Retail out of the U.S.)
We now that Sales in Americas + Retail total = 971 K + 606 K = 1577 K
Let's call NotUS = (Sales out of U.S. + Retail out of the U.S.).

If Gartener had been 100% accurate, then NotUS = 1577 K - 1398 K = 179 K, which makes some sense, although rather low.
If IDC had been 100% correct, then NotUS = 1577 K - 1100 K = 477 K, and that is way too high.

Also, if I'm right in my interpretation, the Year/Year change for the U.S. would be somewhere between 20% and 38%, making Garnter's 34% at least possible and IDC's 8.3% absolutely impossible.

(Note that for Gartner and IDC it doesn't matter through what channels the companies sold the computers, only where they were sold, so they don't discriminate as Apple does.)

 

[Makosuke]

Second, note that in Apple's tables "Retail" appears as a separate category.

Ahh, see, I looked right at that and it didn't register that the retail numbers were in addition to regional sales, not a subset thereof.

Makes way more sense now, and taking that into account, since the Americas were up 20% year-over-year and the retail segment, with 2/3 as many units shipped, was up 49%, one would guess that that works out to somewhere in the vicinity of Gartner's estimated 34% year-over-year improvement, regardless of raw numbers.

Which makes IDC entirely wrong, rather than just a little wrong.

Winner declared.

 

[Strod]

Makes way more sense now, and taking that into account, since the Americas were up 20% year-over-year and the retail segment, with 2/3 as many units shipped, was up 49%, one would guess that that works out to somewhere in the vicinity of Gartner's estimated 34% year-over-year improvement, regardless of raw numbers.

Which makes IDC entirely wrong, rather than just a little wrong.

Winner declared.

My point exactly. One small comment, though. The retail segment was up 38%, not 49%. But take into account that the portion corresponding to the U.S. in retail is probably higher than the portion in the Americas. What all that means is that the actual number is probably somewhere in the very high 20's, and almost certainly less than 34%. Still, Gartner was quite close (after all it was an estimate based on very incomplete data), and IDC was entirely wrong.

 

[Makosuke]

One small comment, though. The retail segment was up 38%, not 49%.

Argh. Somehow looked at the wrong number entirely on the % breakdown.

What I want to see (but am too lazy to do the numbers on) is a marketshare breakdown of computers that includes the broader definition of the category--meaning "full computer" smartphones like the iPhone and Android phones in addition to netbooks and traditional computers.

Since this number would include the iPod touch, iPad, and a decent number of full-featured "phones" from several manufacturers, Microsoft's marketshare wouldn't look nearly as dominating. Moreover, the trendline would look rather frightening to MS, which is probably why they're quietly soiling themselves over the mobile space where their desktop monopoly has completely failed to translate into even modest success.