Apple's share of U.S. PC market slips on sales decline

[AppleInsider]

Apple's share of the U.S. computer market fell to 7.4 percent during the first calendar quarter of 2009 from 8.0 percent during the fourth quarter of 2008, market research firm Gartner said Wendesday.

U.S. Market

On a yearly basis, the Mac maker's share of the market remained relatively flat, slipping only a tenth of a percent from the 7.5 percent reported for the first quarter of 2008, the firm's preliminary data shows.

Apple is estimated to have shipped a total of 1.135 million systems domestically during the three-month period ended March, good enough for the Cupertino-based company to retain its fourth place ranking and fend off a charging Toshiba, which posted nearly 20 percent growth on sales of 1.005 million systems.

Overall, PC shipments in the U.S. totaled 15.3 million units in the first quarter of 2009, a 0.3 percent decline versus first quarter of 2008 -- better than expected thanks to price reductions and the steady penetration of mini notebooks, including netbooks.

“Mini notebooks did well in the challenging economic environment where consumers’ number one priority was to save money,” said Gartner principle analyst Mikako Kitagawa. “Mini notebooks continued to put pressure on low priced mobile PCs. This pressure was mainly felt in the consumer market, but it expanded into select professional markets as well, including the education segment."

HP was the No. 1 vendor in the U.S for the quarter, accounting 4.228 million or 27.7 percent of all PC shipments, which was good enough for it to steal the No.1 position away from slumping Dell for the first time since 2001.

HP’s strong portfolio of low priced consumer mobile PCs helped drive its growth in the U.S. home market while its improved channel programs helped it to increase its share in the professional market, Gartner said.

Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 1Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner

Meanwhile, Dell was severely challenged by tough competition in the retail space and weak U.S. professional market, and as a result dropped into the No. 2 position in the overall U.S. market with a 26.2 percent share on sales of 3.996 million systems.

Acer maintained its seat as the third largest U.S. despite growing its sales nearly 50 percent year-over-year to 2.076 million units, the majority of which were low-priced notebooks or netbooks.

Analysts for Gartner said they think that Apple’s relatively higher average selling prices created challenges for it in the tough economy, but that its deft control of inventories limited its shipment decline.

Worldwide Market

On a worldwide basis, PC shipments totaled 67.2 million units in the first quarter of 2009, a 6.5 percent decline versus first quarter 2008. However, Gartner research director George Shiffler said he's seeing evidence of channel inventory restocking and therefore warned industry watchers against interpreting these better than expected declines as evidence of recovery in PC end-user demand.

"[I]t’s still unclear if the global PC market has hit the bottom," he said.

Preliminary Worldwide PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 1Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner

Hewlett-Packard extended its lead globally, accounting for 19.8 percent -- or 13.305 million units -- of shipments in first quarter. HP registered higher growth rates than the regional averages in the U.S., Asia/Pacific, and Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), thanks to strength derived from its solid consumer PC portfolio, including low priced mobile PCs.

Apple sold less than the 3.688 million systems shipped by fifth-place Toshiba during the quarter and therefore did not rank in the top 5 PC vendors globally.

Rival research firm IDC has also delivered its preliminary estimates and paints a slightly different picture. In its view, Apple ultimately gained a small amount of American market share, climbing from 7.4 percent a year ago to 7.6 percent in the latest quarter; however, it would still have shipped fewer Macs in the newest period, dropping by 1.2 percent to 1.13 million units.

Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 1Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: IDC

The rankings nonetheless will have remained similar to Gartner's and show Toshiba failing to budge Apple from its No. 4 position while HP, Dell and Acer took the top three spots. Worldwide, HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba occupy the No. 1 through No. 5 ranks, again leaving Apple out of contention.

IDC saw the mix fueled by the obvious economic impact but also by the influx of netbooks and poor sales of desktops.

Gartner's four quarterly reports for PC market share during the 2008 calendar year are available below:

Fourth quarter 2008 (fall)
Third quarter 2008 (summer)
Second quarter 2008 (spring)
First quarter 2008 (winter)

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[zunx]

How to boost market share:

Apple should make the iTablet with full Mac OS X inside for Apple Keynote and Microsoft PowerPoint presentations:

Next Apple moves will be Books and Games…
http://spidouz.wordpress.com/2008/09...ooks-and-games

[slapppy]

Competing against a monopoly is very difficult. You have to innovate and work 10x harder just to gain a point. The only innovation the monopoly has to work on is how to extend and keep that cash cow going.

[dreyfus2]

Hm, as Apple is not that big in enterprise, year-over-year comparisons are much more important than the previous quarter... so, the news here is only a 0.1% slip in market share, despite actual price increases for the most popular computer (the MacBook) - and, accounting for missing remotes and display adapters, a price increase almost across the board, excluding iMacs... Sounds good.

[Daniel001]

A 0.1 percent fall in market share in the current circumstances doesn't seem like much of a calamity to me.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Daniel001

A 0.1 percent fall in market share in the current circumstances doesn't seem like much of a calamity to me.

I'd say that is damn good. HP and Acer seemed to only increase because of netbook sales, which we know don't profit the company much.

[UltimateKylie]

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

Hm, as Apple is not that big in enterprise, year-over-year comparisons are much more important than the previous quarter... so, the news here is only a 0.1% slip in market share, despite actual price increases for the most popular computer (the MacBook) - and, accounting for missing remotes and display adapters, a price increase almost across the board, excluding iMacs... Sounds good.

Actually the plastic MacBook became more affordable when it dropped to $999 while overall increase in specs (first time to have SuperDrive and later updated to 9400M Graphics).

If this is a stagnation in growth due to the recession or just further cementing the idea that Apple is purely a premium brand is yet to be known. I would however suggest to keep the plastic MacBook and consider making the entire lineup more competitive especially at the lower ends such as the Mac Mini, plastic MacBook, and the 20" iMac.

And while it did only slip 0.1% compared to last year... its still a slip when for the past few years every quarter has been growth even compared to the last (generally) and thus it shouldn't be dismisses do lightly.

[macFanDave]

If netbooks count, why don't iPhones?

The line between a highly-capable smartphone and a dumbed-down PC is getting blurry so stats like these are in danger of becoming meaningless.

I'll bet the margins on the best-selling netbooks are miserable, so the makers who boast great volume are going down the same rabbit-hole that ate eMachines.

My mom was at our local Apple Store today at about 2pm and she was amazed at what a madhouse of activity it was. And it is Tax Deadline Day here, too, where lots of people have to pay taxes at the last minute. (Or file extensions! ) I wouldn't worry too much about Apple's stats according to "researchers," things in the real world are very positive.

[Mister Snitch]

Originally Posted by zunx

How to boost market share:

Apple should make the iTablet with full Mac OS X inside for Apple Keynote and Microsoft PowerPoint presentations:

Next Apple moves will be Books and Games…
http://spidouz.wordpress.com/2008/09...ooks-and-games

I agree. It's the move to Netbooks that hurts Apple here. They need that iTablet (or whatever they'll call it), and like Zunx says, ideally it should also be capable of running the full OS X as needed. (Though I don't know if that can, pragmatically, be done.)

[bodypainter]

sorry, but i can not believe that apple really wants to have market share. why not? well, if they REALLY would like to have market share, they'd have to put the price tag of the mac mini to seducing 349 US$, or the mac book price tag to 699 US$.

i fear that apple is actually more interested in generating money, and with a cheap product you can't.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Mister Snitch

I agree. It's the move to Netbooks that hurts Apple here. They need that iTablet (or whatever they'll call it), and like Zunx says, ideally it should also be capable of running the full OS X as needed. (Though I don't know if that can, pragmatically, be done.)

How do netbook's hurt Apple's profit, which is the only think worth considering? I've had two of them and while they work in a pinch they are not a replacement for a real notebook for the average user. Any netbook Apple created would be well above the average $300 netbooks are selling at and any MacBook Touch would be well above the cost of a simple Apple-branded netbook as it has some advanced HW tech and requires a new UI. I see nothing in this article that demonstrates a need for Apple to do anything but what they are doing. As a stockholder I am excited about their year-over-year results in this recession.

[quinney]

On a more positive note, Cisco is now giving its employees the choice between
having a company-paid PC or Mac, and one fourth of the people chose the Mac:

http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...cs-–-and-more/

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

Actually the plastic MacBook became more affordable when it dropped to $999 while overall increase in specs (first time to have SuperDrive and later updated to 9400M Graphics).

Hm, yes, but it is rather old technology and therefore even more subject to unfavorable price comparisons. Comparing it to the entry-level unibody model, I would call it rather expensive. I would only consider it for the Firewire port. Anyhow, we do not know the sales breakdown, so we can only speculate. My Apple dealer has not sold a single white model since the aluminum ones are out, but this does not prove anything either.

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

If this is a stagnation in growth due to the recession or just further cementing the idea that Apple is purely a premium brand is yet to be known.

Yes, but considering the price attack by all other players and the netbook invasion, I would still consider it a positive result. If consumers would really consider Apple overpriced, the decline should be a lot higher than 0.1%. I expect international sales to be quite good from what I have seen, and the weak Dollar should help Apple's international revenue quite a bit. The quarterly result should be about as good as it can possibly be in the current circumstances.

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by Mister Snitch

I agree. It's the move to Netbooks that hurts Apple here. They need that iTablet (or whatever they'll call it), and like Zunx says, ideally it should also be capable of running the full OS X as needed. (Though I don't know if that can, pragmatically, be done.)

Well, there are PC tablets since ages. They are expensive and they are absolutely no success (as could be expected, as Gates was calling them the next great thing). I am sure Apple could do them better, but I would not really count on Apple releasing a cheap tablet that would price-wise compete with Acer/Asus/MSI/etc. netbooks. I expect the price tag of a 10" touch tablet to be close to 1k... how would that change the premium/expensive stigma?

[wealthychef]

Originally Posted by zunx

How to boost market share:

Apple should make the iTablet with full Mac OS X inside for Apple Keynote and Microsoft PowerPoint presentations:

Next Apple moves will be Books and Games…
http://spidouz.wordpress.com/2008/09...ooks-and-games

Originally Posted by slapppy

Competing against a monopoly is very difficult. You have to innovate and work 10x harder just to gain a point. The only innovation the monopoly has to work on is how to extend and keep that cash cow going.

Apple does not want to gain market share -- they are interested in and committed to creating insanely great products, period. The race for market share is inevitably a competition on price basis, and Apple does not enter that foray because it is antithetical to their mission.

[SmilinGoat]

lower the bloody price!

seriously i want to get a new iMac, but will not spend $700+ premiums compared with other All-in-Ones, especially when others included full multipoint touch screens.

but for now, im waiting, i have high hopes that apple will replace the aged iMac this late fall/winter, and i would think would add multitouch. *crossed fingers*


*before attacks, i'd like to say that yes, i do need an all in one, first, they fit on the wall (also good to have touch screen for this) in the kitchen, second they also can be easily moved to a desk, they also travel really well, while not being as small as a laptop (requiring a bigger screen purchased in each home)

[Mister Snitch]

Originally Posted by solipsism

How do netbook's hurt Apple's profit, which is the only think worth considering?

Simple: The overall PC market is shrinking right now, while the market for netbooks is expanding. That is the reality, right now.

Eventually, the market for laptops will grow again. The market for PCs (desktops, etc.) will grow also, though more slowly. But even then, the market for 'netbooks' will grow FASTER than those markets.

Why? Because the public clearly wants more-portable computing platforms (netbooks, iPhones, Blackberrys, even the limited Kindle is doing pretty well) than laptops will allow. And because, while laptops have been around for awhile (and therefore, the market is more or less saturated, with more laptops being replaced than bought for the first time), the netbook market is not saturated (therefore, no one can 'make the old one last another season').

The public also likes netbooks' lower prices in the current economy.

SInce Apple has nothing to offer in the netbook space, it's getting squeezed a bit right now. (The general public overall does not consider the iPhone the equivalent of a netbook, even if some do.)

BTW, telling the world you're a stockholder is NOT the equivalent of actually understanding the marketplace. There's a vast distance between your inflated estimation of your own knowledge and a competent, functional and practical understanding of the dynamics of consumer behavior. And - I own stocks, too.

In fact, I make my living as an investor. I can do that because not only are many stockholders clueless, but they have egos to maintain that are the size of aircraft carriers. They will make the same arrogant assumptions over and over again until their money's gone... into my pocket. (Thanks!)

[kirasaw]

This story is complete FUD and I am saddened that AppleInsider posted it. Apple does not release their 1st quarter financial report until next week on April 22. The fact that "anal"yst guess that Apple sold x number of computers is BS. A huge part of Mac and iPod sales are through Apple Stores which NO analyst has access to and no way to know how many Mac's were sold until Apple releases the information next week. Most analyst and Wall Street thieves usually under estimate Apple sales, so take this story with a grain of salt. And I certainly hope AppleInsider next week admits that this story was bogus if Apple blows away estimates like some expect and they usually do!

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by Mister Snitch

Simple: The overall PC market is shrinking right now, while the market for netbooks is expanding. That is the reality, right now.
...
SInce Apple has nothing to offer in the netbook space, it's getting squeezed a bit right now. (The general public overall does not consider the iPhone the equivalent of a netbook, even if some do.)

BTW, telling the world you're a stockholder is NOT the equivalent of actually understanding the marketplace.

Well, now you have explained "market share", but you have not explained "profits". You know what happens to Apple stock when there is a severe drop in profit margins (look at Dell, Nokia, etc. for examples)? All these netbooks do barely cover one single support incident or a repair/exchange. They would only make good sense, if they would cause customers to stay with the brand for better products. This is unlikely to happen – as these brands have "cheap" written all over the face, and I barely know a single person who would buy a netbook again either. Apple will not play here, and shareholders will benefit from it.

[tt92618]

Originally Posted by SmilinGoat

lower the bloody price!

seriously i want to get a new iMac, but will not spend $700+ premiums compared with other All-in-Ones, especially when others included full multipoint touch screens.

but for now, im waiting, i have high hopes that apple will replace the aged iMac this late fall/winter, and i would think would add multitouch. *crossed fingers*


*before attacks, i'd like to say that yes, i do need an all in one, first, they fit on the wall (also good to have touch screen for this) in the kitchen, second they also can be easily moved to a desk, they also travel really well, while not being as small as a laptop (requiring a bigger screen purchased in each home)

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the economics of it stack up better if you want flexibility and performance. To be blunt, the base iMac running OS X performs way better than a similarly equipped PC and isn't significantly more expensive. Mac OS is just a better performer; there is less memory utilization, better CPU handling, etc. In addition, with the Mac you can use something like VMWare Fusion and run windows, too... at the same time as OSX. My experience is that Vista performs so well running in a VM that most users are not likely to notice the difference.

I used to be a die-hard PC user and have developed on PC's for years. However, I really think the Mac is a superior machine, and the OS is *certainly* superior.

Not sure where the $700 premium thing came from; to get that kind of differential, you have to go to the absolute barest all-in-ones out there, and they have either an Atom or a core duo mobile in them... which is simply not comparable and you will get the performance you pay for. To get an all-in-one from someone else (HP, for example) with similar CPU, etc, you are at the same price-point as the iMac base and you get less for your money in terms of performance. BTW, the HP touchsmart intros at 1299, and has a slower CPU. Most of the windows boxes do have more RAM, but that's because Windows memory utilization is so bad that they _need_ it.

Not a fan boy here, by the way. I am, however, a power-geek and having developed on PC's for 15 years now, you'd have to pry my mac out of my dead fingers to get me to go back at this point. I run Vista on my Mac and I am happy as a clam.

[SmilinGoat]

Originally Posted by tt92618

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the economics of it stack up better if you want flexibility and performance. To be blunt, the base iMac running OS X performs way better than a similarly equipped PC and isn't significantly more expensive. Mac OS is just a better performer; there is less memory utilization, better CPU handling, etc. In addition, with the Mac you can use something like VMWare Fusion and run windows, too... at the same time as OSX. My experience is that Vista performs so well running in a VM that most users are not likely to notice the difference.

I used to be a die-hard PC user and have developed on PC's for years. However, I really think the Mac is a superior machine, and the OS is *certainly* superior.

i like both a lot. however ive been leaning Mac for a while now. one thing is for sure though, when im spending $1800-$2200 on a computer, the Mac better not be more than $300 for a comparitivally priced machine... also doesnt help that just about every PC (we are talking All-in-Ones) at that price including more ram/blue-ray/quad cores, so where OSX might be better on less fast machines, that advantage is pretty much lost when its lacking a lot in those areas... and in some cases still costs more...

[Tyrihans]

As in share of total revenue.

With the netbooks and the big race to the OEM margin-bottom and certain doom, I would not be surprised to see Apple at 30%+ marketshare...

[silicon_dioxide]

The drop in marketshare is due to explosive netbooks growth. That's it.
Apple shouldn't be worried. Let other companies build crappy pcs for very low prices.

[delreyjones]

Originally Posted by tt92618

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the economics of it stack up better if you want flexibility and performance. To be blunt, the base iMac running OS X performs way better than a similarly equipped PC and isn't significantly more expensive. Mac OS is just a better performer; there is less memory utilization, better CPU handling, etc. In addition, with the Mac you can use something like VMWare Fusion and run windows, too... at the same time as OSX. My experience is that Vista performs so well running in a VM that most users are not likely to notice the difference.

I used to be a die-hard PC user and have developed on PC's for years. However, I really think the Mac is a superior machine, and the OS is *certainly* superior.

Yes, I agree with tt92618 (such a poetic name!). If you're unwilling to pay a bit more for a Mac, that suggests you don't really appreciate OS X and perhaps it'd be best if you stick with Windows. It's okay to stay on that side of the fence if that's where you belong.

[jwdav]

Originally Posted by solipsism

How do netbook's hurt Apple's profit, which is the only think worth considering?

I agree - netbooks don't hurt Apple's profit at all.

They do affect these marketshare reports that count "units" instead of revenue. A $300 NetBook is a "unit", just like a $4000 Mac Pro is a "unit".

I'd like to see market share numbers include both revenue and profit.

[bloggerblog]

For the 1,000,000th time already, MID SIZE TOWER... sub $1,000

[elliots11]

This price subject comes up at least once a week, and the reason why is....

It's time for Apple to introduce a lower priced product.

My friend bought a PPC white iMac a few years back, and now he's due for a new computer as it's dying. He's just out of college and got a new job the other day, but he still can't reasonably expect to afford a real Apple computer, so he's looking into making a hackintosh out of a low end notebook pc or a netbook.

Now that Apple's on nearly the same hardware as everyone else, it's time to realize that people will take the other option of making their own, especially in a down economy. Or they'll get their sympathetic techy friends to do it. Sure he's not a premium customer (neither am I, I bought my MBP with student loan $), but he's got money that he'd love to give to Apple if they'd just take it and give him something reasonable.

People talk about marketshare and this and that, but if Apple could just make one affordable product and sell it a bunch of times (like they did with ipod/iphone) it would boost their user base even more and when the economy recovered those same people would be back with even more money for a Macbook or MBP.

[tt92618]

Originally Posted by SmilinGoat

i like both a lot. however ive been leaning Mac for a while now. one thing is for sure though, when im spending $1800-$2200 on a computer, the Mac better not be more than $300 for a comparitivally priced machine... also doesnt help that just about every PC (we are talking All-in-Ones) at that price including more ram/blue-ray/quad cores, so where OSX might be better on less fast machines, that advantage is pretty much lost when its lacking a lot in those areas... and in some cases still costs more...

Sorry, I just disagree. I've used both PCs and Macs in abundance, and Apple's hardware and OS is just better, in my opinion. Most PC's do ship with more RAM, but they need it because windows memory utilization is so bad.

But even so, let's compare. HP touchPro, with a 22 inch display, 4GB Ram, 880MHZ bus, 500GB HD, and 2.0ghz duo intros at $1299. iMac with 4GB ram, 1066MHZ bus, 640GB HD, and 2.66GHZ duo is $1499. You get a larger display, faster bus, bigger hard drive, and faster CPU for $200. In fact, the iMac most comparable is the 20 inch model, which still has a faster CPU and a faster bus, but is $100 less.

And, these are just hardware comparisons - they say nothing about performance, which is just much better on the mac.

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by Mister Snitch

Simple: The overall PC market is shrinking right now, while the market for netbooks is expanding. That is the reality, right now.

The PC market is growing just much slower than last year. Notebooks are projected to sell 140 million units while netbooks are projected at 20 million.

SInce Apple has nothing to offer in the netbook space, it's getting squeezed a bit right now. (The general public overall does not consider the iPhone the equivalent of a netbook, even if some do.)

Netbooks aren't squeezing anything. Smartphones are projected to sell 192 millions units this year.

[sidste]

How did Acer do it? What happened to Gateway? Oh, yea! Acer bought Gateway! I have never seen in one of these article the authors talk about acquisitions. Apple could pay cash for Dell and jump to the top of this chart.

Where is the discussion of margins?
Sales of HP and Dell total over $160B and flat. They have a combined market cap of $103B.
Sales of Apple (all products) are around $35B. They have a market cap of $104B.

[tt92618]

The whole net-book thing sortof irritates me, to be honest. I understand very well why Jobs has been so against net-books; they are mostly underpowered junk destined for landfills after a very short usable life.

What gets me about net-books is that many of them are selling at price points where, a year or two ago, you could have gotten a real laptop, and for that matter one with at least the same performance, if not better. What net-books represent is a very smart move on the part of manufacturers, but a very bad move for consumers. With net-books, manufacturers have managed to convince consumers that they are getting a deal because the sub-$500 price point makes them seem insanely cheap. But what has also happened is that the manufacturers get to deliver less performance, smaller displays, less memory, etc... than they were previously doing at nearly the same price point. It's a margin win for manufacturers, or perhaps a margin reprieve... but it is no good for consumers.

One interesting point to note in this is that for HP, a net-book probably reduces margin pressures because they get to sell underpowered junk at near the same price point as a bare bones laptop before... which likely reduces pressure on their margins. But for Apple, this would be a move backwards, since they would have to seriously cut into margins to deliver anything in that space that wasn't pyre junk like the rest of the net-books are.

I have to admit, I have a bad attitude about net-books and think most of the people who buy them got suckered. Most of the people that I know who actually bought them think much the same.

[walshbj]

Originally Posted by Mister Snitch

...BTW, telling the world you're a stockholder is NOT the equivalent of actually understanding the marketplace. There's a vast distance between your inflated estimation of your own knowledge and a competent, functional and practical understanding of the dynamics of consumer behavior. And - I own stocks, too.

In fact, I make my living as an investor. I can do that because not only are many stockholders clueless, but they have egos to maintain that are the size of aircraft carriers. They will make the same arrogant assumptions over and over again until their money's gone... into my pocket. (Thanks!)

We are all so impressed ! Your parents must be very proud !

[heavydevelopment]

As long as they sell enough to keep their current level of innovation, but not enough to attain critical mass to catch the attention of virus writers works the best for all of us Mac users!

[LTMP]

I'd love to know what Apples share of revenue was, or even better, their share of profit from hardware.
Revenue wise, I'll bet they're in third place in the US. In terms of profit, maybe even second place.

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by elliots11

Now that Apple's on nearly the same hardware as everyone else, it's time to realize that people will take the other option of making their own, especially in a down economy. Or they'll get their sympathetic techy friends to do it.
...
People talk about marketshare and this and that, but if Apple could just make one affordable product and sell it a bunch of times (like they did with ipod/iphone) it would boost their user base even more and when the economy recovered those same people would be back with even more money for a Macbook or MBP.

There are some mistakes in that picture:
- The iPhone is "affordable" only because of a huge subsidy; subtract that from any Mac (even if this makes no sense) and their price is great.
- If your friend builds a hackintosh, Apple does get 129 USD for a copy of OS X and does not even need to support it, nearly all of that is profit. Acer/Dell/Whoever will maybe make a 40-50 USD profit out of that cheap PC he wants (and zero profit if it has one single repair), MS may get 35 bucks for the included OEM version of Vista Home crap. So, even in this picture: the biggest profit goes to Apple... why should they bother?

I do understand that people want something, and I certainly wish everybody that they can afford whatever they desire. But using such a need to make a business case is not working out. Apple does need the premium customers (even the few morons that really only buy it for the logo), a company that caters for every need will loose it's premium customers. To bring a stupid car analogy: since Mercedes and BMW started to offer cheaper models, other premium brands like Porsche and Jaguar have more customers...

[SmilinGoat]

Originally Posted by tt92618

Sorry, I just disagree. I've used both PCs and Macs in abundance, and Apple's hardware and OS is just better, in my opinion. Most PC's do ship with more RAM, but they need it because windows memory utilization is so bad.

But even so, let's compare. HP touchPro, with a 22 inch display, 4GB Ram, 880MHZ bus, 500GB HD, and 2.0ghz duo intros at $1299. iMac with 4GB ram, 1066MHZ bus, 640GB HD, and 2.66GHZ duo is $1499. You get a larger display, faster bus, bigger hard drive, and faster CPU for $200. In fact, the iMac most comparable is the 20 inch model, which still has a faster CPU and a faster bus, but is $100 less.

And, these are just hardware comparisons - they say nothing about performance, which is just much better on the mac.

can agree to disagree. ive not developed for either, however i have used both for years (Which is why my Mac needs replacing, its just too old!) i do look at the high end of the all-in-one market, and quad core/twice the ram alone (along with normally a better graphics card) really make it so no matter how much more efficient the OS is, its brought back by the lack of hardware, which is almost 100% the same as a PC counterpart these days (except for casing, even the RAM isnt any faster than what you get with most PCs)

i just gotta compare the computers at the price point im paying, $1800-$2200, at that point the margin only grows. and it sadly doesnt help me that the lower end models are more closely matched...

Edit: the ram is the same now, sorry. but quad core is a pretty big difference, along with more storage, and blu-ray.

[kresh]

I think the practice of including these $299 netbooks with their whopping 6GB drives and limited functionality (not all of them just the really cheap ones stacked by the hundreds at Wal-Mart) into the PC shipment market share numbers is suspect. If these netbooks are being counted as PC's then the iPod Touch should as well.

edit: (further thoughts) Windows Based cash registers/sales terminals and ATM machines are not counted in the PC shipments market share calculations and some of them have more functionality than these ultra cheap netbooks. iPod Touches, iPhones, other smart phones and netbooks should be counted in their own category as they are blurring into many categories but they are not traditional PCs.

[teckstud]

Many of us predicted that throwing Macs under the bus (changing from Apple Computer to Apple Inc) and devoting all its R&D efforts, etc on the iPhone would eventually hurt Apple's Mac sales.
The super glossy screens and lack of a new iMac haven't helped either. And I won't even mention the MacBook Air and lack of netBook or smaller MacBook Pro.

[mdriftmeyer]

The 1st Quarter is always the lowest of the year. What's more interesting is the year over year same quarter and how the rest of the industry is doing compared to their year over year with the current economy.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by kresh

I think the practice of including these $299 netbooks with their whopping 6GB drives and limited functionality (not all of them just the really cheap ones stacked by the hundreds at Wal-Mart) into the PC shipment market share numbers is suspect. If these netbooks are being counted as PC's then the iPod Touch should as well.

I've always heard the iPod Touch and iPhone counted as part of OS percentages so I really don't understand the gripe.
Also, while netbooks may be considered a PC remember the iPhone itself was touted as the best iPod ever made- remember? Part of the confusion stems from Apple itself.