Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent

[AppleInsider]

First on AI: Sales of Apple's Macintosh computers over the past twelve month's have grown faster than any other major PC manufacturer, boosting the company's share of the U.S. PC market to 6.1 percent, according to data released by Gartner on Wednesday.

Between the third calendar quarter of 2005 and the third quarter of 2006, Apple's U.S. Mac unit shipments grew 31 percent from 744,000 units to 975,000 units, preliminary data from the firm shows.

Apple's 6.1 percent share puts it right behind Gateway, whose 6.4 percent share allowed it to maintain its No. 3 position for U.S. PC shipments.

Dell held onto the No. 1 position in the U.S. PC market with a 32.1 percent share despite a 7.1 percent decline in shipments year-over-year. It was followed by HP, which grew its share of the market from 21.2 percent to 23 percent.

Behind Apple in fifth place was Toshiba, which shipped 813,000 units during the third quarter -- good enough for 5.1 percent share.

On the other hand, Apple did not place within the top five PC manufacturers worldwide, and therefore data on its worldwide market share and PC shipments was not included in Gartner's preliminary third quarter results.

"Since these are preliminary figures, we only have the top 5 vendors worldwide at this time and Apple was not in the top 5," a spokesperson for the firm told AppleInsider.

Gartner said Hewlett-Packard regained the No. 1 position for worldwide PC shipments in third quarter for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2003.

HP's 16.3 percent share was followed by Dell with 16.1 percent. Lenovo's 7.5 percent share, Acer's 5.9 percent and Toshiba's 4.3 percent rounded out the top five.

In total, Gartner said worldwide PC shipments totaled 59.1 million units in the third quarter of 2006, a 6.7 percent increase from the same period last year.

At the same time, the U.S. PC market experienced a year-over-year shipment decline of 2 percent. The last time the U.S. PC market suffered a decline in PC shipments was the second quarter of 2002, the firm said.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[jadams]

Nice. And remember this is computer sales not installed base. Mac users arguably hang on to their Macs longer than PC users which would suggest that the installed base is most likely somewhat larger than 6.1%

[pmoshay]

I think that Apple should do some serious research to establish a stat on percentage of HOME Users. Just talking about the entire Domestic/World PC penetration includes huge corporations whose MILLIONS of employees did not actively CHOOSE to use WinTEL boxes, but instead dictated what they must use. How about touting
the penetration numbers of people that have free choice...and excluding the boat loads of Dell's shipped to biz's? Seems more relevant to me.

[rebel_without_a_pc]

Apple is clearly pacing thier technology releases so that they do not grow too quickly. It will be intersting to see how well they are able to forecast these growth trends and if they correctly estimate supply and demand for this first Intel-based holiday season. I like how Apple always leaves me wanting every Mac they make, yet always wanting more. I think that is part of thier secret formula. 8)

[lakingsfn]

Originally Posted by rebel_without_a_pc

Apple is clearly pacing thier technology releases so that they do not grow too quickly. It will be intersting to see how well they are able to forecast these growth trends and if they correctly estimate supply and demand for this first Intel-based holiday season. I like how Apple always leaves me wanting every Mac they make, yet always wanting more. I think that is part of thier secret formula. 8)

IMO, this is key because I worked for Gateway in the late 90's/early 2000 and they did grow too quickly, as a result, the product fell far below quality standards and the company itself got too big and ended up having to restructure itself (ultimately costing me my job).

[rain]

I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.

Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
I'm still running a G3 350mhz as a server with the latest OS on it. How many 8 year old PC's can run Windows XP smoothly? (how many PC's will be able to run Vista... none, without upgrades.)

To use the same car analogy, you get way way more milage out of the Apple then a PC.
So maybe we should ask; Is there a difference between 'market share' and 'user base'?
I would think so, and if Apple's do last twice as long, I think we can safely say that Apple has a %12.2 market share / user base.

Just a thought.

[Ireland]

"Apple's share of U.S. PC market jumps to 6.1 percent"

From what??

[aegisdesign]

This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html

Got to love analysts.

[slughead]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html

Got to love analysts.

Holy crap..

"Gartner: Apple should quit hardware business"

Did I really just read that?

[extremeskater]

Originally Posted by rain

I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.

Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
I'm still running a G3 350mhz as a server with the latest OS on it. How many 8 year old PC's can run Windows XP smoothly? (how many PC's will be able to run Vista... none, without upgrades.)

To use the same car analogy, you get way way more milage out of the Apple then a PC.
So maybe we should ask; Is there a difference between 'market share' and 'user base'?
I would think so, and if Apple's do last twice as long, I think we can safely say that Apple has a %12.2 market share / user base.

Just a thought.

The way they are calculating market share actually makes Apple look better. The 6.1% looks pretty good until you see 975,000 units. Dell and HP control market share with Apple, IBM,Fujitsu/Siemens and Acer all between 7-3.5%.

At the WWDC to hint that Apple is targeting Dell is a joke, they have to see another 15 million units a year to even hit the same ballpark.

The reason Mac users hold onto their computers longer has nothing to do with hardware its the fact that Macs are in a bubble when it comes to software upgrades. The fact is third party software for the Pc sees constant upgrades and additions for the exception of the OS, third party software is next to nothing for Mac users.

Macs are like the AOL of computers, you can't upgrade them even if you have a minor problem you have to send the unit back in for repair. As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.

Users have been asking for an upgradable mid range tower for years, Jobs will never allow one to go into production. Its pathetic.

[pt123]

Originally Posted by jadams

Nice. And remember this is computer sales not installed base. Mac users arguably hang on to their Macs longer than PC users which would suggest that the installed base is most likely somewhat larger than 6.1%

Unfortunately, not for me. The L2 cache on my Powerbook G3 Lombard died after 3 years so I got a Powerbook G4. The LCD backlight died after 3 years so I had to get a Macbook. While my wife's Sony Vaio keeps chugging along, though I wish it would die.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

The way they are calculating market share actually makes Apple look better. The 6.1% looks pretty good until you see 975,000 units. Dell and HP control market share with Apple, IBM,Fujitsu/Siemens and Acer all between 7-3.5%.

At the WWDC to hint that Apple is targeting Dell is a joke, they have to see another 15 million units a year to even hit the same ballpark.

Your maths is way off.

975,000 represents 6.1% of US marketshare.
Dell have 32.1% of marketshare, which is 5,130,000 units roughly.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

The reason Mac users hold onto their computers longer has nothing to do with hardware its the fact that Macs are in a bubble when it comes to software upgrades. The fact is third party software for the Pc sees constant upgrades and additions for the exception of the OS, third party software is next to nothing for Mac users.

And you base that on what exactly?

Microsoft Office gets updated MORE often on the Mac. Adobe's apps come out at the same time on both platforms. Apple's apps get updates every year at least and quite often during the year there's significant updates too.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Macs are like the AOL of computers, you can't upgrade them even if you have a minor problem you have to send the unit back in for repair. As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.

That's funny, I could have sworn I've added extra RAM and a new hard disk to this Mac. Less screws than my PC too.

Sales up 30%, Laptop sales up more. Which other computer company is gaining sales at that rate?

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Users have been asking for an upgradable mid range tower for years, Jobs will never allow one to go into production. Its pathetic.

Ah, gamer trolls again. Every bloody thread.

[TenoBell]

Great news for those who complain that Apple needs to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. Apple is doing something no one else is doing. Increased marketshare and made half a billion in profit.

I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.

This is true from the standpoint that their are many submarkets that Apple does not compete in at all. If marketshare was divided into video, graphics, music, publishing, web design. Mac marketshare would be quite different.

[extremeskater]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Your maths is way off.

975,000 represents 6.1% of US marketshare.
Dell have 32.1% of marketshare, which is 5,130,000 units roughly.



And you base that on what exactly?

Microsoft Office gets updated MORE often on the Mac. Adobe's apps come out at the same time on both platforms. Apple's apps get updates every year at least and quite often during the year there's significant updates too.



That's funny, I could have sworn I've added extra RAM and a new hard disk to this Mac. Less screws than my PC too.

Sales up 30%, Laptop sales up more. Which other computer company is gaining sales at that rate?



Ah, gamer trolls again. Every bloody thread.

Actually Dell has approx 16-17% and HP approx 14% , this comes directly from AI's June report on this site. This year alone HP has seen a 22% growth in sales and Acer a 53% growth in sales.

You just made my point about software being upgraded more often on a pc, that was my point, Apples upgrades come very slow for the exception of their OS which gets upgraded everytime you turn around.

As far as Mac's lasting longer or users holding on to them longer I would have hated to by a G5 iMac in Jan seeing in less than a year its third gen already.

By the way everyone that has something negative to say about Apple is not a troll, history has proven their hardwar has issues, mostly heat related because they would rather look cute than be functional.

I use both platforms the pc side has many issues as does the mac.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed ...

Got to love analysts.

They are the experts, their heads are in the subject-matter 24/7. Nobody knows anals like analysts.

[SpamSandwich]

No one in their right mind should pay attention solely to an analyst for investing advice. These guys are only concerned about short play investors. Weasels.

[BRussell]

One other thing to consider is that in the PC world, the OS and the boxes are split. For every % of Dell's market share, MS gets a nice cut. Apple is both the Dell and the MS for their customers.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

By the way everyone that has something negative to say about Apple is not a troll, history has proven their hardwar has issues, mostly heat related because they would rather look cute than be functional.

I use both platforms the pc side has many issues as does the mac.

Okay, you're not a troll ... your arguments are flawed and you choose stupid, out dated criticisms. And Georgia got punked.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Actually Dell has approx 16-17% and HP approx 14% , this comes directly from AI's June report on this site. This year alone HP has seen a 22% growth in sales and Acer a 53% growth in sales.

You're moving the goalposts.

The original article mentioned 975,000 Macs and 6.1%. Dell having 32.1% of the US market. It's Gartner's figures we're discussing here not those from 5 months ago in a different article.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

You just made my point about software being upgraded more often on a pc, that was my point, Apples upgrades come very slow for the exception of their OS which gets upgraded everytime you turn around.

Huh? I thought I'd made exactly the opposite. Who else comes out with major releases every year and point releases in between?

Originally Posted by extremeskater

As far as Mac's lasting longer or users holding on to them longer I would have hated to by a G5 iMac in Jan seeing in less than a year its third gen already.

That's technology for you, ever marching on. I imagine there's people with Pentium M laptops thinking the same.

However, I have a G5 iMac. It runs Photoshop quicker than any of the Intel Macs still. I don't hate that.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

By the way everyone that has something negative to say about Apple is not a troll, history has proven their hardwar has issues, mostly heat related because they would rather look cute than be functional.

As do many other PC manufacturers. The iMac G5 had exactly the same poor quality capacitor issue that hit Dell. The battery recalls are all Sony's fault.

In context, Apple's problems are small.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

I use both platforms the pc side has many issues as does the mac.

Sure. They're built in the same factories using the same components.

[zunx]

Apple, license Mac OS X to run on PCs from Dell and HP to make Mac OS X gain 50% of market share. Then Windows will be history.

Related: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,3...9284186,00.htm

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by zunx

Apple, license Mac OS X to run on PCs from Dell and HP to make Mac OS X gain 50% of market share. Then Windows will be history.

Related: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,3...9284186,00.htm

Do keep up.

Apple's hardware sales would also be history. Guess where they make most of their profits.

[kim kap sol]

Wow, extremeskater, wow.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Great news for those who complain that Apple needs to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. Apple is doing something no one else is doing. Increased marketshare and made half a billion in profit.

Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.

Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.

.

[BlackSummerNight]

I don't see why people are jumping for joy. Apple don't give 2 shits about you. I like their OS, but I could care less about how much marketshare they have.

[Gon]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

I don't see why people are jumping for joy. Apple don't give 2 shits about you. I like their OS, but I could care less about how much marketshare they have.

Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
Next question.

[ctachme]

Umm... so Apple wasn't even in the top 5 worldwide? That sucks, Apple needs to start focusing on more than just the US.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by rain

I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.

Another lame auto analogy?

I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.

Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.

This may or may not be the case. Anecdote is not proof. It's not even admissible as evidence or even a suggestion that it might be true.

Besides, you are confusing installed base with market share. Market share has always been how many units SOLD in a given period. Installed base is how many units IN USE. Installed base isn't something that's nearly as easy to track.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html

Got to love analysts.

He's half right. Apple could make a lot of money by licensing to top PC makers as long as they met criteria like EFI. How many of you would buy a non-Apple computer anyway? Not many.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Do keep up.

Apple's hardware sales would also be history. Guess where they make most of their profits.

Says who. Apple has a very strong niche. Mac OS X is an operating system, the Mac is a total concept.

[BlackSummerNight]

In what shape, form, or factor. Every report that has been released the last few years shows that they have gain a very small amount of marketshare. This is the biggest I've seen. I have yet to see mroe access to any cheaper/better software.

Originally Posted by Gon

Because marketshare is the only way Mac users will have access to more, cheaper and better available software.
Next question.

[wirc]

I think that the points made about duration of Macs are a little off the mark.

I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine. I don't remember the last one that's failed me, usually it's no more than a hard drive that fails, which is basically a maintenance item anyway. Some of them are too slow for me to use, but they still work, stuff a half gig of RAM into it and it works fine for a good range of software for most people. IMO, the 8 yr old Macs would be completely unusable to me.

Macs made 8 years ago were not designed with OS X in mind so the benefits of having Apple's integrated hardware are lost to the crushing march of time. Similarly with software changes. But anecdotally, I know of plenty of cases where people have ancient G3s chugging along or even a few Quadras. And they're doing fine. The same is true with all other companies' computers. Plenty have died, but plenty soldier on.

As far as Mac's lasting longer or users holding on to them longer I would have hated to by a G5 iMac in Jan seeing in less than a year its third gen already.

This is just stupid. Plain and simple. My parents at their house are using a 2003 Dell. That's so like 12 generations ago. It still works fine for what they need. This obsession that one needs to get the latest iteration is painfully overblown. Yeah, after 2 years, problems start cropping up for gamers, and then 4 years, some other software, and then at 6 years OS requirements get out of hand. But for most people there is not really a problem until at least 4 years. People on this thread are not typical.

Design professionals, gamers, and businesses are a large section of the marketshare, even if they are not the same as owners, because they enter the market more often. And they probably need to get upgrades more often, but not after 6 months. A C2D iMac doing better does not lessen the fact that a Rev. 3 G5 iMac still kills with speed and has the webcam and FrontRow? Sure it's not as good, but is it good enough?

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

In what shape, form, or factor. Every report that has been released the last few years shows that they have gain a very small amount of marketshare. This is the biggest I've seen. I have yet to see mroe access to any cheaper/better software.

Going from about 3.3% to 6.1% is a large jump, but yes it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the whole computer industry. It's also about 9% less than what the Mac as a platform need to be safe.

[cincytee]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Macs are like the AOL of computers, you can't upgrade them even if you have a minor problem you have to send the unit back in for repair. As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.

Hmmm. This spring I installed a new processor, hard drive and optical drive in my old Mac in a couple of weekend hours. This not including new connectivity via expansion cards. I have never found Apple's pro-oriented machines to be particularly closed. Consumer all-in-ones, especially like the CRT iMacs, I admit are another story....

[melgross]

Originally Posted by rain

I think these numbers are wrong. I think the entire way of calculating 'Market share' is wrong.
Imagine Apple computers are diesel Volkswagons, and PC's are Ford Festiva's.
When you buy the VW, you know that car is going to last 15 years plus. The Ford on the other hand, will be dead after 4 years.
This means the Ford buyer will be buying on average, 3 vehicles to the one VW. Since market share is mostly based on sales, does this mean Ford has 3 times the market share? I don't think so.

Apple computers last on average, twice as long as a PC.
I'm still running a G3 350mhz as a server with the latest OS on it. How many 8 year old PC's can run Windows XP smoothly? (how many PC's will be able to run Vista... none, without upgrades.)

To use the same car analogy, you get way way more milage out of the Apple then a PC.
So maybe we should ask; Is there a difference between 'market share' and 'user base'?
I would think so, and if Apple's do last twice as long, I think we can safely say that Apple has a %12.2 market share / user base.

Just a thought.

This has nothing to do with longitevity.

It's purely an indication of where sales are now. It indicates trends. Is a company doing better or worse?

It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

This is the same Gartner who on Tuesday this week claimed that Apple would not gain any significant market share and their best bet for success was to quit the hardware business and licence the Mac to Dell...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18102006/15...-business.html

Got to love analysts.

But don't forget that they were predicting that Apple could quickly hit 20% marketshare if they did that.

[CharlesS]

Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable. All those people who bought Macs without USB 2.0 and then have to chuck the machines less than 2 years later and buy a whole new machine because there's no way to add USB 2.0 to theirs - what's their longevity? A machine whose USB or FireWire ports blow out (I've seen them) with no way to add some more ports to replace them - what's its longevity? I've seen people make really old Macs from before the time when they made them all closed boxes last forever by upgrading the processor, adding new-style ports via PCI, etc.

You say you can upgrade the hard drive easily to your Mac... what Mac do you have? Good luck upgrading the hard drive on a recent iMac or MacBook Pro. And on the Mac mini, you're not even supposed to open the case.

This is coming from a guy who's been a Mac user for almost 20 years, and who is not a gamer.

[TenoBell]

Apple doesn't need to sell sub-$1000 computers to increase marketshare. But they'd need 'em to increase marketshare even more quickly.

Apple apparently agrees, since they introduced a $999 iMac recently.

Still not a sub-$1000 computer.

I have several 8yr old Windows systems that are working just fine.

I have a friend with an 8 year old Dell that's still going. But its stuck at Windows '98. He would have to update components to install XP.

My oldest Mac is a 7 year old blue iMac that runs Tiger just fine.

Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable. All those people who bought Macs without USB 2.0 and then have to chuck the machines less than 2 years later and buy a whole new machine because there's no way to add USB 2.0 to theirs - what's their longevity?

I never heard of anyone buying a new Mac simply to get USB 2.0.

My oldest iMac has USB 1 and its not incompatible with anything. It just cannot send files as quickly.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, you've gotta admit it's a bit ironic when people tout longevity for Macs when most of them are completely non-upgradable.

Actually, that rather adds weight to the point that most users *DON'T* upgrade anything on their machines. Computers have matured into a commodity for most consumers - you buy them as an entirely new unit, and replace that entire unit when you want to change it. Upgrading components is becoming more and more a niche/hobbyist requirement. And yes, I include hard-core gamers in that niche category. Compared to the sheer masses of consumer and enterprise boxes out there, the high-end gaming rigs are a drop in the bucket. Even more-so, hardly anybody buys a *low-end* gaming rig and tricks it out - if you're going to go for power, you go for power. And 'hardly anybody' is a pretty good definition of a niche. Sure, a BTO where you can customize every nook and cranny is great if you're a HW geek - but we're becoming an ever smaller percentage of the market.

ie, the 'low-end tower' market is going to die out, IMO. The only reason people buy them is because they're what's offered, not because they need the expansion. I expect we'll see more move towards form factors like the Mac mini, leaving the expansion chassis boxes for the high end units.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Still not a sub-$1000 computer.

$999 < $1000, so yes, actually it is.

One can say, "What about sales tax?", but some states don't have it, and Amazon doesn't charge it. That's where I got my iBook.

In any case, its kind of a dishonest end run. When people talk about price points, they usually mean sans tax.

.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by melgross

It's almost impossible to know how many machines remain in productive service. One can only guess.

I thought that web use by platform could be tracked. Indirect I know, but another data point. Also I can count the number of MacBooks in college libraries and coffee shops and it is not indirect, just a limited sample.