Single digit growth boosts Apple's share of US PC market to 8.7%*

[AppleInsider]

Apple's share of the U.S. computer market grew 2.5 percent in the second quarter while the PC industry as a whole saw shipments slide 1.2 percent, according to new figures released Wednesday by market research firm Gartner.

But competing firm IDC released numbers that showed a very different picture. Their report said Apple had an estimated year-over-year decline of 12.4 percent in shipments.

Gartner

The preliminary data has Apple garnering an 8.7 percent share of the U.S. computer market for the three-month period ended June, good enough for the Mac maker to maintain its ranking as the nation's fourth largest computer maker.

Apple next week will announce finalized figures for the same time frame, which coincides with its third fiscal quarter of the year. If Gartner's data is of any indication, the company is likely to post respectable single-digit growth in U.S.-based Mac given the challenging economic backdrop.

The Cupertino-based company's performance during the second calendar quarter also signals a turnaround from the first quarter, when the year-over-year comparison saw Mac shipments decline a little over 1 percent. From January to March, Apple managed to grab 7.4 percent of U.S. sales.

Overall, 16.4 million computers were sold in the U.S. during the second quarter, with 1.4 million of those being Macs. The number one vendor was Dell, which saw a massive 18.7 percent year-over-year decline. Nipping at its heels in second place was Hewlett-Packard, which actually topped Dell in the first quarter of year, but now trails by just a fraction of 1 percent.

Meanwhile, the biggest growth spurt came from netbook maker Acer, which saw year-over-year sales skyrocket 74.2 percent. The next nearest company, in terms of growth, was Toshiba with 22.5 percent. Acer and Toshiba ranked third and fifth, respectively, in U.S. market share.

Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 2Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner

While an overall shrink of 1.2 percent in the U.S. might be seen as bad news, Gartner had predicted that the market would see a 12 percent slide.

"Mini-notebooks aside, some vendors had very aggressive pricing of regular mobile PCs below $500 at U.S. retailers," said Mikako Kitagawa, principal analyst at Gartner. "Aggressive pricing determined the winners and losers for market share gains in the U.S. consumer market."

Globally, the PC market saw a 5 percent decline, also beating Garter's June estimate of a 9.8 percent slide. A total of 68.1 million units were sold in the second quarter.

Preliminary Worldwide PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 2Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner

Worldwide, Hewlett-Packard was king, with 19.6 percent of the total market. Apple does not appear among the top five global computer manufacturers.

“Though the market was still in decline, the better than expected results can be interpreted as a small sign of a PC market recovery in terms of shipment volumes in some regions," Kitagawa said. "PC shipments in Asia/Pacific and the U.S. were better than our expectation, while shipments in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region indicated on-ongoing weakness.”

IDC

In addition to the 12.4 percent Q2 decline, IDC's preliminary results showed Apple with a lower market share. The report states Apple held a 7.6 percent market share in terms of shipments, ranking the Cupertino, Calif., company fifth behindDell, HP, Acer and Toshiba, in that order.

The report said Apple shipped a total of 1.2 million computers for the quarter.

In the U.S., IDC estimated an industry-wide 3 percent year-over-year drop, slightly worse than the Garter estimate.

"Ongoing healthy volume through Retail spurred Portables to exceed forecasts, but that was offset by Commercial sluggishness and Desktop volume below expectations," the IDC says of American shipments. "Dell regained the lead by a small margin, but remains hampered by slow commercial spending."

IDC said worldwide shipments declined 3.1 percent. That number was, like Garter, better than expected. The firm had predicted a decline of 6.3 percent for Q2.

“These results are a very positive indicator for the second half of the year,” said Loren Loverde, program director for IDC’s Tracker Program. ”We are seeing continued demand from consumers and limited impact from supply chain factors such as inventory balancing. New product launches in the second half of the year combined with seasonal growth and greater economic confidence resulting from factors such as government stimulus, a more liquid housing market, relatively stable stock market and interest rates, and progress in the auto and financial industries, should support the expected return to growth by year-end.”

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[bluedalmatian]

If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by bluedalmatian

If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking

I wouldn’t say that. Their ads barely have a pic of a Mac and that is at the end of the ad for a second. The “I’m a Mac” ads compare the benefits of the whole widget.

It would be nice to show the actual OS but it may be hard to have a commercial that illustrates those benefits in under 30 seconds. Eventually they’ll have to retire the “I’m a Mac” ads.

[MacTel]

Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.

Add in a subsidized Mac Net (netbook) and the numbers would have been through the roof.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by bluedalmatian

If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking

Originally Posted by MacTel

Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.

Add in a subsidized Mac Net (netbook) and the numbers would have been through the roof.

Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/
BUT to all you dolts.
why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??

We have two true facts to consider.
FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .

2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.


Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.

Go apple

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by bluedalmatian

If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking

Really? If that's the case, shouldn't their numbers be declining, by comparing their system hardware with clones?

Sorry, but family members and visitors at retail stores where population density is high view the systems, third party software, and OS X and are slowly moving to the realization that it's worth the price.

[nudua]

People should pay more attention to revenue and not units.

$ is what that ultimately counts. Wonder how much of the $ spent on computers Apple received, should be much more than 8%.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by brucep

Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/
BUT to all you dolts.
why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??
We have two true facts to consider.
FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market

iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren’t going to replace most people’s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories. However, in the end marketshare means nothing without profit so as a shareholder I’m okay with a couple percent a quarter on average.

2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.

That would go to installed base and if true the installed base for Macs should be growing faster per quarter than the sales… with the caveat that pirated versions of OSes can skew these numbers.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a
lower price, they would sell more?

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by quinney

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a
lower price, they would sell more?

Actually I doubt it. Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by cameronj

Actually I doubt it. Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."

In that scenario, it wouldn’t make a difference, however it unfortunately seems people usually go with what they have available to spend, where it is cash or CC, and then determine if they want to spend that much on wares, instead of first determining what they actually need and then making a decision if they can afford it. Some on this forum may see each scenario as having the same end result, but they don’t; making each machine $100 cheaper would sell more Macs, but that doesn’t mean that it would make more profit for the company for the number of additional product sold. MacTel seems to be focusing on improving marketshare, which is fine if are improving your bottom line at the same time.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by solipsism

In that scenario, it wouldn’t make a difference, however it unfortunately seems people usually go with what they have available to spend, where it is cash or CC, and then determine if they want to spend that much on wares, instead of first determining what they actually need and then making a decision if they can afford it. Some on this forum may see each scenario as having the same end result, but they don’t; making each machine $100 cheaper would sell more Macs, but that doesn’t mean that it would make more profit for the company for the number of additional product sold. MacTel seems to be focusing on improving marketshare, which is fine if are improving your bottom line at the same time.

Right - clearly it would sell more, but I don't think it would increase revenue because I don't think it would draw in enough incremental sales to cover the lower cost for everyone else.

[OldMacGuy]

What's that quote? Oh yeah. "Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics." I guess I'm sticking with a loser.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by cameronj

Right - clearly it would sell more, but I don't think it would increase revenue because I don't think it would draw in enough incremental sales to cover the lower cost for everyone else.

Simply by virtue that we are speculation and Apple has teams of people crunching the numbers I have to agree with you. There is also an issue with lowering the price of a product and/or brand. It’s easy to lower a price but raising it back up again if expenses increase can have disastrous effects. We already enough bellyaching on these forums about how an <iProduct> used to start at this price and now starts at a higher price, regardless of how many years or engineering changes have occurred. These people are simply going by the product name and nothing else. There is also a potential issue with weakening a product or brand’s longterm desirability by making it too accessible to too many people too quickly. So far, Apple has shown they are doing it right, even if it does seem as though they are being too cautious at times.

PS: That is just a general statement. I know you know all this already.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by brucep

Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/
BUT to all you dolts.
why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??

We have two true facts to consider.
FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .

2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.


Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.

Go apple

Because iPhones don't runs OS X software.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren’t going to replace most people’s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories. However, in the end marketshare means nothing without profit so as a shareholder I’m okay with a couple percent a quarter on average.

It would be hard to tell the difference between the really cheap notebooks, and the really good netbooks.

I suppose one could separate them out by processor type. Anything running on an Atom class chip would be ruled a netbook.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by quinney

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a
lower price, they would sell more?

And then profits would disappear, and they would become another Dell.

[bobrik]

Originally Posted by nudua

People should pay more attention to revenue and not units.

$ is what that ultimately counts. Wonder how much of the $ spent on computers Apple received, should be much more than 8%.

Depends on who pays that attention. Developers needing to decide whether they will produce a Mac version of their app (in addition to a Windows version) care only about market share, and don't give a damn about Apple's revenue. Also since Mac users care more about what apps are available for them then what profit Apple generated, market share, not revenue, should be IMHO more important to Mac users as well.

[akhomerun]

4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.

you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.

when you go for marketshare in the computer industry you are also aiming for dangerously slim margins. apple needs just enough to keep OS X development healthy and not so much that they end up like dell right now.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by akhomerun

4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.

you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.

when you go for marketshare in the computer industry you are also aiming for dangerously slim margins. apple needs just enough to keep OS X development healthy and not so much that they end up like dell right now.

The mini and lower end iMacs all use laptop parts. Dell and hp sell similar products at the same prices. I was looking yesterday.

I'll probably be replacing my desktop soon and Looking at a mac as well. But having trouble finding the configuration I want at my price level. I might just end up building another pc but with a nicer case. Still haven't priced out the build it myself price

[fourthletter]

Originally Posted by brucep

Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/
BUT to all you dolts.
why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??

We have two true facts to consider.
FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .

2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.


Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.
Go apple

I have a cheap Acer laptop that is 6 years old and has never had a problem EVER
My macbook is on its 3rd magsafe and the top panel has been replaced twice due to cracking .
What was that about quality again ? Applecare is £150 I can buy a 3 year on-site warranty from Acer for £60.
I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!

[bigpics]

Originally Posted by melgross

It would be hard to tell the difference between the really cheap notebooks, and the really good netbooks.

I suppose one could separate them out by processor type. Anything running on an Atom class chip would be ruled a netbook.

Originally Posted by solipsism

iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren’t going to replace most people’s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories.

The metrics we've been seeing lately cry out for re-definition in several respects - and should be more segmented by classes of device.

And actually one can do more "personal computing" on the latest iDevices than on many netbooks. e.g., I was testing the Verizon-bundled HP/XP/IE-running netbook to get some directions on Google Maps and it wouldn't show me actual maps of where I had to walk after getting off the subway. My Mac and old XP tower do, and I'll bet an iPhone would.

Also, the redefinitions need to be forward-looking as paradigms of both consumer and business computing evolve. In point of fact "most people's" and many businesses' needs for digital services will increasingly be met by devices which are not what we've come to accept as a personal computer. You can cogently argue that towers (from the Mac Pro to the Mini) are already well on the way to becoming niche devices and their market share will certainly steadily decline in the future.

And laptops/notebooks are overkill for millions and will only become more so as iDevices, netbooks and others (e.g., "Chromebooks" and whatever Apple has up its sleeves) evolve and proliferate. The replacement LG Voyager I picked up yesterday at the Verizon store for my busted one is no iPhone, but now has usable links to my various email accounts and will do the web OK in a pinch.

Originally Posted by cameronj

Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."

I agree to an extent, but quite a few people do have budgets they pay attention to as well as dreams, and incremental price changes do have some influence on buying decisions at the margins.

And marketing and pricing - and the perceptions they create - are linked to buying decisions - especially in tough and uncertain economic times. Otherwise many products would have been priced at $1.00, $100 or $1000 for decades (or centuries, more like) rather than the transparent, but enduring 99 cents, $99.95 and $999.

Personally, I was also impressed (and motivated) when Apple recently not only updated, but gave real, if modest, price decreases on the latest Macbook refreshes.

Originally Posted by solipsism

There is also a potential issue with weakening a product or brand’s long term desirability by making it too accessible to too many people too quickly. So far, Apple has shown they are doing it right, even if it does seem as though they are being too cautious at times.

Generally, yes. I've watched many companies cheapen "premium" brands over time. Way back when, Panasonic went from mid-level to junk in stereos, and then brought out their "Technics" lines to regain prestige. And within a year began to apply the Technics label to cheaper and cheaper machines. Sony did the same with its Triniton TV's and other brands. More recently, companies like Canon and Nikon have cannibalized the value of brands like PowerShot, Elph, Coolpix, etc.

So Apple has really distinguished itself by not succumbing to this temptation. Still, as a cheap old curmudgeon, I've done much of my Apple buying during the back to school specials to buy still great products during their "channel clearout period."

And the recent $99 pricing on the 3G phones - with its development costs already amortized and its guaranteed stream of ongoing revenue from ATT and the App Store guaranteeing long-term margin, shows a newish strategy wrinkle which may eventually bring more Apple products to the more huddled masses without cheapening the brand itself. (Confession: sometimes I do feel a bit elitist showing off my Apple logo around friends who simply have no access other than used machines they probably wouldn't and likely don't know how to find and buy.)

(Note: A few companies have successfully done the opposite, e.g., Toyota bringing out the Lexus.)

Originally Posted by akhomerun

4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.

you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.

Again, better differentiated metrics would give us a lot more insight into what's really happening in buying and use of computers and multi-function computing devices. And see below.

Originally Posted by brucep

What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market.

And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included let's prorate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.

The bombastic tone of your overall post led people to mostly ignore the above salient facts.

In fact, I remember AI posting a story which showed Apple does indeed OWN the over-a-grand computing market. It was an astounding percentage if anyone remembers it (30%? 60%). So ranking Apple by revenues should place them much higher on the totem pole if it takes four-five Acer notebooks to bring in what one 13" MBP does - and Apple probably makes more on that one machine than Acer does on their four or five.

One can go broke selling any amount of anything without sufficient margin. Most one client/night call girls probably live better (and longer!) than street prostitutes turning half-hour tricks on street corners.

(This post written on my still sassy and classy five year old iBook G4, which just yesterday survived yet another trip from a bed to a hard floor, and, no, LOL, no lustful activities were involved.)

[PXT]

For heaven's sake, GLOBAL figures please ! Haven't these analysts heard of globalization?

[melgross]

I recently bought my daughter a Toshiba mini NB205, upgraded to 2 GB RAM.

This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.

My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.

But, boy, is that SLOW!

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

I recently bought my daughter a Toshiba mini NB205, upgraded to 2 GB RAM.

This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.

My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.

But, boy, is that SLOW!

Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?

PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It’ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?

PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It’ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.

Yes, it's XP. There is no way anything heavier than the version that came with it could function usefully.

She'll end up with a 24" iMac in the fall.

Skype works. Everything is slow though. And Toshiba loads their own software on it as well. Since I couldn't buy this earlier than the day before we left. I did install all the software she needed. I didn't get a chance to check Toshiba's software out, and optimize the machine. It has a 9 hour battery.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by solipsism

iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. .

My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by brucep

My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .

You run to problems if you want to start including any device that can technically “compute”.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by fourthletter

I have a cheap Acer laptop that is 6 years old and has never had a problem EVER
My macbook is on its 3rd magsafe and the top panel has been replaced twice due to cracking .
What was that about quality again ? Applecare is £150 I can buy a 3 year on-site warranty from Acer for £60.
I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!

Hey i am sorry about your apple woes and its great that a cheap netbook fills your needs.

I regret that my tone was abrasive is a ny thing .

9

[brucep]

Originally Posted by solipsism

You run to problems if you want to start including any device that can technically “compute”.

No my dear friend a computer is a computer.
And the iphone is an amazing computing machine that mimics much of what an acer can do.
And by the by, who decided that the ipodtouch was not an ipod anymore and it sales get thrown into a phone sales basket ?

[brucep]

Originally Posted by melgross

Because iPhones don't runs OS X software.

Well an iphone links and syncs with OSX
so something of OSX must be inside of the iphone . The iphone still computes.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by brucep

No my dear friend a computer is a computer.
And the iphone is an amazing computing machine that mimics much of what an acer can do.
And by the by, who decided that the ipodtouch was not an ipod anymore and it sales get thrown into a phone sales basket ?

These are different types of devices. You can make any broad or narrow category you wish to satisfy your needs, but it’s disingenuous to not see the limitations of these different devices and how they fit into different groupings.

The iPod Touch is an iPod. It name starts with iPod. You may be thinking of the web stats that show the number of mobile OS X devices, which is fair since the Touch and iPhone use iPhone OS X. This does make the Touch an iPhone or mean it should be grouped into iPhone sales because of the nomenclature of the OS by Apple.

[Lemon Bon Bon.]

I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!

Heh.

The light from Apple blinds some fans from their faults.

They are overpriced. They are worth a premium but not the premium Apple charges.

There are desktop design cul-de-sacs and inexplicable CPU choices...when cheaper stronger performing parts are there to be used.

And they're a year behind the PC industry on quad core...on consumer desktops.

5/6s of the line is laptop performance in one form or another.

*Shrugs. 'X' is nice. But if it wasn't. I wouldn't buy Apple computers.

Still...my iMac is nice and sexy. And I have no complaints so far. Except it gets really hot on the left side.

[Capnbob]

Originally Posted by bobrik

Depends on who pays that attention. Developers needing to decide whether they will produce a Mac version of their app (in addition to a Windows version) care only about market share, and don't give a damn about Apple's revenue. Also since Mac users care more about what apps are available for them then what profit Apple generated, market share, not revenue, should be IMHO more important to Mac users as well.

It is a fair point but not IMO wholly correct. There are several other factors:
1) Apple's revenue/average unit price is also a indicator of the wealth of the buyer which should correlate to propensity to spend further $s on software, accessories etc. While I agree mkt share is probably the #1 consideration, in your example, propensity to spend is also important - if mac's are 10% of the market, but average spend is 3x that of PCs, and that correlates to software/accessory sales (which seems fair watching people buy stuff in the Apple stores), then is makes Macs the equivalent of about a quarter of the market - still smaller, but large enough to drive a worthwhile market in Mac SW/accessories
2) Segments - think of all the PCs that are out there in corporate hands - that will only minimally drive consumer software purchases, or accessories. Therefore, the Mac share is going to be much more significant in consumer/personal use machines than of the whole market, again making the Mac market a better proposition for makers of consumer software. Obviously, the same has always applied to niche markets like high end audio/video etc.

Market share is not to be ignored but it is too blunt an instrument to make any worthwhile sweeping generalizations about

[Capnbob]

Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

Heh.

The light from Apple blinds some fans from their faults.

They are overpriced. They are worth a premium but not the premium Apple charges.

There are desktop design cul-de-sacs and inexplicable CPU choices...when cheaper stronger performing parts are there to be used.

And they're a year behind the PC industry on quad core...on consumer desktops.

5/6s of the line is laptop performance in one form or another.

*Shrugs. 'X' is nice. But if it wasn't. I wouldn't buy Apple computers.

Still...my iMac is nice and sexy. And I have no complaints so far. Except it gets really hot on the left side.

This overpriced mantra is soooo boooring and just plain wrong in most cases.

It only works when you compare Apples and Oranges.
Yes, you can build a MacPro out of parts with i7 processors for less - not comparable
Yes, the mini is a little niche machine that is expensive for the parts - but you cannot get another desktop as small - the minute you try, the mini looks like a decent deal again
Yes, the MacBook Pro is more than some fat, heavy plastic POS from Dell/HP - but those are not comparable either - inferior in many meaningful ways - construction, battery life, weight, design, etc.

If you spec a truly comparable PC laptop against a 13" MBP it becomes far more competitive. I just went through all this for a friend's daughter about to go to college...
MBP with decent spec (edu discount) - $1479 (inc Applecare) + iPod Touch
Sony SR - similar weight, spec etc. $1650 w/3yr warranty
Dell XPS 13 - heavier, crap battery life, overheats, etc. $1429 w/3 yr warranty

When truly looking at comparable machines by features and by packaging, Macs turn out to be good value. That is where Apple is competing.
The fact that Apple doesn't address all mkt segments is their choice. It's like saying that a Chrysler 300 SRT8 is a much better deal than a BMW M3 coz it's cheaper and (almost as fast). Very few M3 buyers would ever buy an SRT8 and certainly not one as or more expensive than the BMW as my examples above proved to be.
Apples and Oranges... (and look what happened to "good value" Chrysler)

[melgross]

Originally Posted by brucep

My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .

But it must use an OS that can work with computer software, not just phone software. Those are a separate category.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by brucep

Well an iphone links and syncs with OSX
so something of OSX must be inside of the iphone . The iphone still computes.

My microwave computes too, but we can't count that.

It's accepted that there are three "computer" operating systems around today.

One is Windows and it's variants.

Two is OS X and its variant (such as Server).

Three are Unix based or inspired OS's.

There are a number of Phone and PDA OS's, but they really don't qualify. They run different software, they have much smaller screens. They have much less storage. They don't connect to standard networks. They have very small keyboards, both mechanical and virtual. Their processors are much weaker.

They don't easily connect to peripherals.

They are in a group by themselves, and that is ok. We don't have to squeeze them into a netbook sort of category.

I know that Apple has sorta kinda said that the iPhone is their netbook, but they don't really mean it.

And, should you be thinking of bringing it up, yes, the iPhone/Touch do use a basic version of OS X. But it's got so much of what the computer version needs to run left out that it can't run the same software. And that includes the fact that it has its very own GUI.

We'll see what happens in October if all the rumors about Apple coming out with a 9.7" tablet device are true.

[freakboy]

If apple does another price drop, beefs up/lowers the price of the mini and comes out with a netbook, they'll be competing all across the board and will start to do some serious damage.

The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.

we'll see.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by freakboy

If apple does another price drop, beefs up/lowers the price of the mini and comes out with a netbook, they'll be competing all across the board and will start to do some serious damage.

The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.

we'll see.

If Apple can afford to do that. You might notice that Apple didn't just lower prices, they modified what is in the machine.