Worldwide Mac Sales Hold Steady as PC Market Sees Shipments Decline 9.6% in Q1 2016

[mangonights]

Cook was making inroads with IBM. He really needs to keep pushing forward with the business market. There's definitely demand there for getting rid of the PCs and using Macs. It's become vastly more acceptable and wanted.

That said, Apple owns the consumer space. If those tables are re-done with just the consumer segment, their market share will look entirely different. Also, re-do those tables as a share of revenue and it would probably put Apple on top. The PC OEMS may be selling millions of PCs, but they're making pennies on each, if anything at all.

Apple is making great stuff. Looking forward to see what the new MBP and Apple Watch is like.

 

[NT1440]

I broke my 2009 iMac by trying to remove the dust that gathered inside the screen (known issue). Pro-tip: when they say "lift the screen" they mean "a tiny bit" not "180 degrees".

Yea that's true, it's not tempered (is that the right term?) so you'll get some nasty looking shards out of the coverglass. The trick is to be careful with the connecting wires underneath.

Having worked on 2006-2015 models of iMacs, it's been a dream to see how much easier they've gotten to work with in terms of not having display connectors that rip right out if you don't know they're there.

 

[throAU]

Maybe they are reliable enough not to need updating, especially as you can update individual components, thereby, a "sale" is not a sale.

PC sales are tanking because business isn't buying.

Win8 was a flop, 8.1 was a flop and 10 is not exactly taking the business world by storm.

Businesses generally upgrade hardware when they upgrade operating system, and there's been no driver (for business) to do so since windows 7 (and a huge number didn't even want to abandon XP).

In fact, unless you're buying Windows tablets (and not a huge number are), there's still no driver for business to upgrade from Windows 7 at this point.

Also the economy tanked.

That's why the PC market has tanked. Nothing to do with people fixing PCs piece by piece, that's a tiny segment of the market who do that, and that segment has been shrinking ever since the 90s.

Home users are migrating to tablets and in some part Macs and Android devices. The business computing landscape is pretty dead.


edit:
I'm a business OS platform guy. There's zero reason we need anything later than 7 on non-touch hardware (i.e., no need to upgrade software unless we upgrade hardware, and we don't want to upgrade hardware other than attrition), and a lot of our apps break on 8, 8.1 and 10. So...

 

[Virinprew]

7200 is not much faster for single user in any case, 5400 is quieter, larger, cooler. And if you're able to get a bigger drive at the same price point (which is generally the case), can even be effectively faster than a smaller 7200 due to the effects of short stroking.

So.... maybe Apple know what they're doing and people just comparing 7200 vs 5400 are not taking other factors into account.

Yes 7200 is faster if comparing same size for same size. But generally you're not.

At this point, it's not about 5400 rpm vs 7200 rpm. It's about that fusion drive vs pure hdd.

 

[throAU]

At this point, it's not about 5400 rpm vs 7200 rpm. It's about that fusion drive vs pure hdd.

Yup, i was just responding to the guy complaining about being stiffed with a 5400 drive.

If you want SSD, buy SSD. If you don't want to pay for an SSD, the 5400 vs. 7200 argument is not exactly cut and dried.

There's more to the package than the RPM number - as i mentioned earlier, short stroking by going for a bigger drive than required to reduce head movement has a lot more impact to system performance than increasing RPM from 5400 to 7200.

Whilst 7200 increases noise, heat, cost, etc.

And if you're talking 7200 vs 5400 in a fusion setup - you may as well go for the cheaper, larger 5400. For most access the extra 1800 rpm on the spinner will make ZERO difference as it's coming from SSD anyway, and throwing money at a 7200 rpm drive in that case is just a waste of time. Just put it toward an SSD if you're that worried about performance tanking if your hot data set can't fit in the fusion drive SSD.

 

[GhostRaider]

That's good to hear that Mac market share is increasing. I wonder how many of those are Hackintoshes lol.

But I still can't really see the value of the iMac. Sure it's a nice design but it's performance is gimped for such a high price. Hence I just prefer building a Hackintosh.

But for portability, a MacBook or MacBook Pro is the preferred choice. Great design, battery life, and lightweight. Windows Laptops, I don't like them. Features seem gimmicky.

 

[mantan]

I'd conjecture that consumers don't really care to see the latest chipset or GPU. Infact, I'd go as far as to say that most computers (PC or Macs) from 2012 are powerful enough for most consumeres, never mind 2016.

Other makers update their lines like crazy and have tried to cut the prices on their way to financial ruin.

I'm not saying I'm happy with the situation, but then I think myself and many people here at MacRumors do not fit the idea of a typical consumer.

I agree that things don't need to be the latest and greatest. What's frustrating is that hardware is remaining stagnant or even worse, taking a step backward.

For example, we still have iMacs with 5400 speed hard drives. That's bad enough, but at least the Fusion drive provided a nice alternative. But then they DECREASED the SSD size in the Fusion drive. In many ways the old version is a superior machine....how is that an upgrade?

Same with the Mac Mini. It would have been very easy to spec out a nice upgrade with current (not even cutting edge) technology....instead the hardware took a step back. The previous Mac Mini is a superior machine to the new one. Again, what kind of upgrade is that?

I love the idea of Apple holding the line and building high quality premium products. But it seems like they've taking the high quality out and are increasingly happy to release compromise products. And that's where I'd like to see sales compel them to act in a way that benefits us as consumers.

 

[uid15]

I stick with building my own PCs anyway. I wouldn't be figured into this. I <3 my Macbook and eventually will do either an iMac or Mac Pro, but will always have a custom built PC on hand for gaming, and for my wife since she hates Mac OS

How can you "hate" OS X? That's like hating tidiness, common sense and peace.

 

[kevinkyoo]

Outdated yet perfectly capable devices yes. I'd like to see the Mac Pro actually get updated, the TB display actually get updated, etc. But don't act like you were forced to do anything. In three years time that you owned the 2012, there was only a few months total that any of the Apple offerings would have been using the absolute latest components. If it's so important to you to get a 15% CPU bump then buy the tool you need, which doesn't sound like a mac.

If you honestly are okay with outdated yet "perfectly" capable devices at the price that they are, then wow. No words. Software on Apple is dominant, but not at the price of thousands that Apple is overpricing the devices for. I bet you're also okay with Apple still pushing out 16GB at the price that they're at now, even though having 32 or even 64GB makes more sense in 2016.

And why are you assuming that I went through all of the mess with my MBP for the sake of a slight bump in improvements? My MBP had random resets, freezes, etc. in the 3 years that I owned the device. Of course I brought it in each time for a total of 5, when in reality I reported these problems dozens and dozens of times, with a logic board replacement each time. Apple was finally smart enough to realize that it was an inherent design flaw with how the graphics card worked in the model, and so they thought that giving me a 2015 MBP would solve the issue. Hardly. It has the same issues - Apple designs 15" in a **** way where the MBP cannot handle the transition from iGPU to eGPU, which causes them to freeze, shut down, etc. It's not that I wanted to get a % bump in performance, whatever that may be. It's that I paid $2500 for a top of the line MBP in 2012, and not for one week did I have a stable experience with it.

The fact that you're letting Apple slide with the lack of upgrades in their computers as a whole, and within each the lack of inclusion of competent hardware, is disgusting. Add onto the fact that you think I went through all the troubles in the 3 years that I owned the MBP that included wasting my own time calling the reps, wasting gas money to go down, etc. only for a small CPU bump shows how really incompetent you are with how Apple is handling with these supposed "Pro" devices. It's sad - Apple is trying to redirect that "Pro" market towards its latest iPad, even though that thing is slightly more powerful (If that) as an XBox 360, a console from the early 2000's that is comparable to a grossly downgraded PC. If Apple keeps going in this pathway of ******** on people who want powerful hardware and are willing to give a good amount of money, only to be lied to and mishandled by Apple, and people like you are excusing the company, shame. Absolute shame.
[doublepost=1460474603][/doublepost]

How can you "hate" OS X? That's like hating tidiness, common sense and peace.

Maybe it has to do with the ridiculous amount of bugs associated with the current OSX.

 

[theluggage]

They did it because people keep buying them.

Yup. Apple tried the technical superiority angle for the last quarter of the 20th century without crawling out of their niche. Then Jobs launched the iMac in a choice of 4 colors and they took off (OK, the iPod helped).

Sad, but profitable.

...and now, as people have pointed out, the PC is mature and there's little to distinguish a brand new PC from a 5-year-old one. Maybe your 1-hour video compression job will now take 50 minutes so you can shave 10 minutes off your lunch break. Whoopee.

...what todays processors can do is pack the same power as 5 years ago into something half the size. That's why small-form-factor, all-in-ones and ultrathin laptops are still selling (and at nice high margins to) and desktop mini-towers aren't.

 

[usarioclave]

Because any PC is good for 6+ years. People and the enterprise don't need to refresh them every 3 years like they used to.

Move off of a core2 to an i5 and that i5 will last for 5-6 years.

 

[navaira]

If you want SSD, buy SSD. If you don't want to pay for an SSD, the 5400 vs. 7200 argument is not exactly cut and dried.

Once more, we here know what a SSD is, but the lessers (i.e. people who are not techy members of MR) don't. It's perfectly reasonable (I'd think) to expect a fast computer when the 27" costs € 2.129,00 for cheapest model.

Whilst 7200 increases noise, heat, cost, etc.

Oh no, we wouldn't want to cut into Apple's precious margins! Or make iMacs thicker – my 2011 model is 2 cm thick from the side and every time I look at it I think "if only it was thinner – I can't invite anyone to my studio because they will laugh at my fat computer".

 

[brewmonkey]

Anecdotally among the non-geeks that you know, why are PC shipments falling?

For myself, I personally cannot tolerate Microsoft's nearly-sinister approach to privacy and will not be rewarding that behavior with my voting dollars anytime in the short to midrange time frame.

I hope the metrics in this news bit cause Apple to refocus their effort on updating Macs and not (continue to) rest on their laurels.

 

[LordVic]

Anecdotally among the non-geeks that you know, why are PC shipments falling?

Its got a few reasons, but can't necessarily be nailed down to just one.

First, have to understand that these numbers are for pre-built, or all-in-one computers. This does not take into account after market upgrades of existing machines, or the hobbyist and do-it-yourself crowd that is also building their own (or for others).

So now we know that these numbers are missing a large chunk of actual information. We can start trying to make conclusions. Why are pre-built computers selling less?

1. It could be more PC users are swtiching to DIY builds.
2. People buying Pre-builts aren't as tech-savvy and don't require as much updating / replacing hardware
3. Computer performance in the mainstream for prebuilts hasn't grown significantly. 5 year old computers are still running fine and can still do most of what the mainstream computer users want. This extends the upgrade cycle by years. The average user, who isn't looking for bleeding edge performance from their computer isn't going to replace a computer just because something is newer and shinier. Most PC users in this category only replace their computers when they either fail, or the system is no longer powerful enough for daily driving. And with the diminishing returns we've seen in mid-range computing parts, this time between need to update has grown.

So, pick your reason, could be one of many. But PC shipments from system builders and laptop makers are generally decreasing year after year these days. Especially since things like Hybrid Devices (2-in-1 windows machines) aren't counted here, have seen dramatic sales increase. This doesn't include tablets' of any sort, regardless of running Windows or iOS or Android.


I also love the MacRumours' factually incorrect slant in the headline. "Apple sales hold".. no, they didn't. Apple sold 100,000 less Apple computers in 1stQ 2016 than they did in 1stQ 2015. thats not "holding steady".
I also think for Apple's slowdown in sales from previous quarter is a lack of meaningful updates to their bulk lines of computers. Their best selling has been the MacBook Air. This laptop is no longer being seen as a "best buy" due to old specs. Lack of updates and a downright terrible display that almost every single other competitor in the same price points can beat out. The options in Apple Land is only to spend more money to get things that other companies are offering inclusive. Higher Resolution display. Better Cameras, More ports, and even equal or better CPU performance due to faster updates (and in the rMacBook's case, terrible thermal throttling)


Basically TLR

mainstream computers are a mature product category. Almost everything we are seeing today is revisionary at best, and often don't offer compelling reasons for regularly replacing entire PCs'
[doublepost=1460480078][/doublepost]

7200 is not much faster for single user in any case, 5400 is quieter, larger, cooler. And if you're able to get a bigger drive at the same price point (which is generally the case), can even be effectively faster than a smaller 7200 due to the effects of short stroking.

So.... maybe Apple know what they're doing and people just comparing 7200 vs 5400 are not taking other factors into account.

Yes 7200 is faster if comparing same size for same size. But generally you're not.

Including a 5400RPM hard drive in ANYTHING that is not a cheap, low end laptop is inexcusible in 2016, ESPECIALLY with how much Apple charges already for their computers.
[doublepost=1460480413][/doublepost]

Number 5 in market share, number 1 in profits! Must be doing something right

can you provide data to say that they're #1 in profits in the PC industry? Because Apple hasn't historically announced a breakdown of profits based on product categories. There's no way to know just how profitable in the PC space alone Apple is. Considering that Something like 80-90% of their revenues last announcement came from iOS and iPhone related markets, I am willing to bet that Apple is really not as insanely profitable in the PC space as some of the other competitors are like Dell or Lenovo.

it is also a false equivalence that MacRumours users tend to forget. profit doesn't mean quality, nor does it indicate popularity. (EG, sell 100 items at $1 and make .01c profit on each, or sell 1 item at $10 and make $5 profit, the most profitable item in this case isn't the most popular, nor indication of best quality)

 

[Glassed Silver]

These stories don't make me happy.

It reaffirms a philosophy of eeking out updates, watering down specs and cutting corners at every opportunity. (See the MacBook, iMac and Mac Mini) A decease in sales may compel some action. This type of news means more of the same.

I remember very well those days when I got yelled at for saying that Apple should stay a niche company.

Nowadays more and more people give you likes and agree in comments.

On one hand it feels great to see that more people are seeing this trend for what it is, on the other hand I really wish I had always been wrong, everything had just been a mere moment in time and invalidated by following product releases proving my fears wrong and everything was back to normal.

The surge of sales worries me even more, customers are voting to get screwed over more, or if you will: individually probably less, because what they move away from (terrible PC manufacturers and Windows as a place of frustration is a frequent sight) makes them realize Apple does do better in many areas, in some it's not noticeable for the layman.
Many of them don't have the direct comparison to the old Apple that really did care a bit more about form being something that follows the function a whole lot more.

Actually, considering all the joy I've had with Apple products throughout my life and all the things they have let me do I wish Apple all the best and theoretically to reach more people with their great products, but reality shows me it doesn't work this way with a more conventionally and "bean-counter"-ish thinking CEO and other executives being in charge.
It doesn't work that way when yes indeed, profit does seem to have taken the first place on the priority list.
Practically I cannot be happy for the surge in sales, I've seen too much how that affects product quality, by the way, not only at Apple mind you. It's almost natural, few companies in this world have tried and succeeded in keeping quality at an exceptional level for end users after they became go-to brands.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[LordVic]

Of course you can upgrade older Macs to the latest version of OS X, certain Macs going back to 2007 can run El Capitan and most Macs since then. How many PC's from 2007 can update to Windows 10?

Just about every single one.
Windows 10 requirements are fairly low. If it could run Windows Vista, you can run 10. I've test win10 running on an Old Pentium 4 with 2gb RAM and an 8800GTS graphics card. With an SSD, it ran extremely smoothly for day to day activities, and would still be perfectly suitable for your "facebook" and "web browsing" needs. Still capable of running youtube with HD and other Misc day to day activities
[doublepost=1460481374][/doublepost]

Because putting out a $3000 MBP with Haswell and an outdated AMD Radeon chip is acceptable? If they're charging premium for the laptops, then yes, I expect as a customer for Apple to put the newest processors.

What I don't think many Apple fans understand is that CPU/GPU/RAM and the internals update faster than Apple tends to update. Other companies like Dell, update their internals much faster than Apple. Because of this, Dell will also discount the old internals in sales to try and clear inventory for the new internals. This allows for "two tiers". you can get the same basic laptop, with nearly identical build and quality, but you can get options that make it cheaper, like last years CPU.

Apple on the other hand, Is very slow updating their lineups. But unlike Dell/HP Etc, they don't discount the hardware just cause it's no longer the most modern in the industry.

You see this sort of timeline:
1. Dell and Apple release near identical internals based on the same chipsets / architecture at same time at same price.
2. 6 months pass: Dell updates their laptop with newer internals cause, hey, 6 months, even if it's not a full new architecture, there's still constant updates to performance. Apple does nothing
3. Dell drops the price of the 6 month old version. They are now selling the exact same spec laptop as Apple, but at less price. Meanwhile, for the same price as Apple, They have a newer, more up to date unit.
4. A full year goes on. Some of Apple's products are now a year+ old (look at the Mac Pro for example) and are the same price. While the competition, once again updates their internals, and sells the olders tuff at discount.

Don't take this as a slam against the quality of Apple's machines. They make good quality, well built hardware. I own a MacBook Air. But this is where the "Apple Tax" comes in cycles. when Apple hasn't updaetd their computers in a while like we're seeing now, you are literally paying more for an Apple computer, than one of the competition, for less hardware. Yes, you can make the argument over OS. But is OSx worth enough as an intangible to warrant $100? $300? $500? extra for older internals? I can't answer this for you. it'll be different for everyone else.

 

[SBlue1]

Holy cow, and all of this with outdated computers...

 

[DevNull0]

Imagine how much market share Apple could have if they actually targeted a market segment besides ultrabooks and small desktops made from ultrabook parts.

 

[Gudi]

7200 is not much faster for single user in any case, 5400 is quieter, larger, cooler. And if you're able to get a bigger drive at the same price point (which is generally the case), can even be effectively faster than a smaller 7200 due to the effects of short stroking. So.... maybe Apple know what they're doing and people just comparing 7200 vs 5400 are not taking other factors into account. Yes 7200 is faster if comparing same size for same size. But generally you're not.

All true, but he's not really comparing 5400 vs 7200 rpm HDDs. We're speaking about the system volume in a $1000+ computer. No SSD is simply not acceptable in this day and age. Unlike 16GB iPhones, 5400rpm iMacs are actually crippled, meaning they run a lot slower than it needs to be. And Apple owns the Fusion Drive technology to speed them up at virtually no cost.

 

[Studioman]

Where are all the Surface units that they claim were a real computer so not to really be compaired to iPad sales?

 

[Steve121178]

Hummm.... not at our company. Our policy is 2 years and that seems about right. Our Windows machines are feeling pretty old after 2 years. It's amazing the little advancements that are made over 2 years.

Minor advancements in all the generations of the i5/i7 CPU's. There's been nothing earth shattering during that time. The biggest advancements have been with the integrated graphics.

A 2 year refresh is ridiculous and a waste of money.

 

[NT1440]

Minor advancements in all the generations of the i5/i7 CPU's. There's been nothing earth shattering during that time. The biggest advancements have been with the integrated graphics.

A 2 year refresh is ridiculous and a waste of money.

It's just the standard in the industry. Everything here (ESPN) is on a three year cycle....because that's what the Vendor (HP/Apple/Lenovo) offers.

 

[DevNull0]

Hummm.... not at our company. Our policy is 2 years and that seems about right. Our Windows machines are feeling pretty old after 2 years. It's amazing the little advancements that are made over 2 years.

I work for the government. We get the machines your company is dumping as "refurbished". It's amazing how old they feel for an almost new refurbished machine .

Now what really disgusts me is for what we pay to lease these $250 refurbs, we could actually get brand new iMacs.

 

[briloronmacrumo]

instead of waiting for a CPU & GPU update that is a significant update.

Of course, "significant" is subjective, so difficult to argue. However, there have been, IMO, "significant" possible upgrades ( newer Xeon etc. ) for the 2013 Mac Pro and waiting 2 years 4 months for a "pro" user seems patient to me. Thing is, when Apple brands something "Pro" they need to be willing to update it more often because pros need it. For consumer MacBooks etc., used to web surf and read email, the update need is diminished and possibly non-existent.

 

[the8thark]

Overall it looks like the winners here are Apple and Dell. Apple is seeing slightly more worldwide sales and slightly less US sales. Dell the reverse.

We all know why Apple is doing so well. But Dell? How are they still doing so well?