Apple domestic desktop sales strong, iPhone sales slow in China

I am number one
Forever the first read here on this most important topic , I hope I am worthy of this great thanksgiving honour !!
So important IS this newsflash !! AI writers left their hovels and hobbit holes and rushed to an internet cafe to report this ground breaking story >>>>

China will not have great  sales yet .
Millions of jail broke  iphones arrived months ago .
and when  brings out there smaller faster  NANO phone we will see a tidal wave of  sales

2 to 4 month backlogs for the NANO PHONE WORLD WIDE .

CHINA will account for over half of all revenue one day if the wifi gets back on the phone .


happy thanksgiving to alll the  and NON>  users alike .


peace

9

lostplay

FTW

so Apple make expensive computers..

in other news... rain later..

Headline should read:


Apple Records Nearly Half of U.S. PC Desktop Retail Industry Revenue

I don't know how Apple is being marketed in China, but in India, marketing is non-existent. Yes, there are "Apple Authorized Resellers" in India, but the sales staff know nothing about the Macs or iPhones or iPods they have in stock. I once went to get a replacement power adapter for my 17" PBG4, and had to wait for an hour, while for guys huddled around a computer trying to find the adapter they were looking for.

As I understand, when the original iPhone was introduced in India, fewer than 50,000 had been sold in three months since its introduction. No wonder, really, as there was absolutely NO marketing, no advertising, no nothing in any media announcing the mere existence of such a device. Apple have only themselves to blame for that failure. You can't sell anything unless you get the word out.

The reason Macs and especially iPhones and iPods have been so wildly successful in the U.S., is because Apple has invested heavily in a very successful marketing campaign, and a strong support infrastructure, neither of which exists in India.

A common argument for why Apple wouldn't do well in India is that most Indians could not afford Macs or iPhones or iPods. That argument fails completely when you look at the high-end, high-priced electronics (plasma TVs, smart phones, etc.), luxury cars, jewelry, etc. that are heavily advertised on tv and in print media here.

Certainly there's a segment of the Indian population that can't afford to buy these higher-priced items, but there is also a strong middle class demographic, and a thriving film industryboth perfect markets for Apple in India. Now, if we can only convince the Apple execs...

For Apple to succeed in Chinaand India, they have to make a serious commitment to marketing themselves, providing adequate inventory and supporting their product.

So far, in India at least, Apple has done nothing more than drop-ship a few Macs to various locations and call it doneno marketing, no training of sales staffand then complain that sales in India are too slow to justify further investment.

I think I've probably repeated myself several times in this rant, but, as much as I love Apple, I'm really annoyed with them that they've largely ignored this part of the world.

So go and get yourself a dealership and do it right. You would clean up!

China was never a shoe-in for Apple. It is a different dynamic. Less than 10% of the people, 130 million, may have the money to buy the expensive wi-fi crippled iPhone in China. Plus Apple is dealing with nationalism - in other words many Chinese may prefer Chinese made and branded phones.

It'll take time for Apple and other american companies to crack the wall.

Damn apple owns the desktop sales revenue

I have never heard any complaints coming from Apple.

Oh, I'd be terrible at it. I'm a photographer, not a sales/marketing person. I'm just saying that people who are good at that sort of thing, if they directed their energies toward India as well, I think they'd see some worthwhile returns.

So much for the people saying that Apple needs the mythical xMac.

I figure that means Apple have taken 75%+ of the profit, and Microsoft took the rest except maybe for a single digit percentile.

Love to see quality products doing well. Quality is better value, especially essentials like food. Show 'em the way Apple!

.

That is a good point to bring up. If this is just revenue and we factor in the non-Mac PC average profit margin v. the Mac profit margin it does look like Apple is taking an excessive amount of the PC profits for a single PC vendor.

or it could just mean that they are way overpriced...

Just a rounding error!

That is the problem holding back Apple, steep prices.

It would be much more useful to measure the success or failure of Apple by the number of units sold vs. the number of units sold by competitors worldwide.

Mac OS X is Apple's greatest asset along with its variant, the iPhone OS. But it is only partly exploited because Apple will not licence it.

Quite the opposite. Those sales figures prove that Macs are not overpriced in the US market. If they were they would not be able to maintain those level of sales. By your argument Dell could elevate their financial problem by simply jacking up the price of their machines. FYI: Dell would make less money than they do now.

Since Apple doesnt have an illegal monopoly that is forcing people to buy their PCs it clearly means that people are choosing to pay more on average per PC to get a product they feel is worth the expense.

Apple may be getting the lions share compared to other hardware vendors but i wonder would os revenue would look like....how much do apple generate compared to ms.

i dont trust the chinese and seemingly they dont like us either. no loss. personalliy id stuff china

I am always amazed to read these kind of comments. You dont seem to be arguing that Apple isnt taking such a huge percentage of the PC revenue or an even larger percentage of the PC profit, but that Apple is a failure for not making cheaper machines that make less profit. I simply dont understand why you think unit sales are a better measure for success over making money.

Not much, but its impossible to honestly compare the two since MS sells each copy of their OS and Apple only sells their OS as an upgrade on the cheap but creates their OS to facilitate more of their Mac PC sales. Its a completely different business model.

MS charges significantly more. Even the 32-bit Windows 7 Starter for netbooks and other cheap notebooks is going for $50, according to MS, while the retail version of Snow Leopard is $29. Look at the retail version of a full install 64-bit Win7 Ultimate Edition. Its insane.

bingo, we have a winner...

Just wait for all the negative comments from the Apple shareholders here

Uh, not really.

We are talking about retail desktop computer sales, not OS sales.

In there, Apple is competing HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer. Microsoft is pretty much out of the picture, because, Microsoft is software vendor only and making money out of Macs as well.

I believe significant number of retail-sold Macs will end up bootcamping Windows, and that Windows will be retail copy. Since MS is making more money on retail copies compared to what they get from OEMs (per copy), I would not be surprised to learn that Apple is bringing MS more profit than some major OEMs.

At the end of the day, Apple computers are just another brand among MS customers. If Apple ever manages to make them self-sufficient, that is, that majority of Mac users don't have any need for Windows, yes that will hurt. But as it is right now...

On the other side, after a month only, number of Win 7 copies sold is already competing with total number of OSX installs out there... if you compare OS/software sales between MS and Apple - and that is the only PC segment you can compare them right now - you will realize that MS is in completely different dimension. Comparing software sales with combined software and hardware sales does not make much sense, likewise adding (for example) HP medical equipment, printers etc. numbers into their PC sales comparison against Apple does not make much sense either.

No- it simply means that PC shoppers were not buying as Windows 7 hadn't been released in this entire perod. The article clearly states that fact - how could you ignore it? On second thought-don't answer that.

So in October, Windows 7 was ONLY AVAILABLE from October 22-31 or approx. 1/3 of the month and we are comparing the two? HAha- FRKN BOGUS!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE.

REread the article it repeats what you say
except for the bogus part

happy black friday dude

Apple is extremely successful following the path that they are currently on. Market share - humbug???? I'd rather have profits....which Apple has in spades.

No, we are talking about retail desktop sales all of which include the cost of an OS (try buying a computer at retail sans OS). Or maybe we are talking about desktop + laptop computer sales (all of which include the cost of an OS).

[CENTER][/CENTER]


No. Microsoft is right in the center of the picture, they supply a component of most computer systems sold, often the most expensive component.


I disagree. Of course you could have wiggle room with your undefined phrase 'significant number'. From personal experience I have never bought a MS OS and don't know a Mac user who has to use on a Mac (most switchers keep their old Windows box until they realize that they don't use it anymore).


I disagree, MS itself characterizes Mac OS sales as a rounding error. Regardless the article and my comment are comparing computer sales not OS sales


.... the majority of Mac users do not use Windows on their Macs.


We are discussing desktop and laptop sales all of which include an OS. You introduced the spurious software vs combined software and hardware metric, I only discussed software + hardware. You are in a completely different dimension, what do printers have to do with the discussion?

MS OS is a major cost component of virtually all non Mac OS computers sold at retail. Numbers I've heard: some PC makers as low as 6% gross margin, MS Windows ~85% gross margin (sale to OEM ~$40 - $60).

PC wholesale @ $500, OEM = $30 profit, MS = >$34 profit (home premium)

PC wholesale @ $400, OEM = $24 profit, MS = >$34 profit (home premium)

Don't forget the largest profit proportion of the retail price goes to the retailer not the OEM or OS manufacturer. Retailer will typically take 15% - 20% of the retail price for their overheads and profit, lots of Windows PCs price to retailer are even less than $400 with less profit for OEM and yet no difference in profit for MS.

Here's a guess for you to shoot down, cut of retail computer profits by manufacturer:

Apple: 78%
Microsoft: 14%
All the rest: 8%

But I gotta say even these figures are unimportant, as far as I can see it is impossible that Apple is taking less than half of the profit from US retail computer sales. You have to smile at the temerity of Apple and the incompetence of the others.

To throw something off topic in to the ring, support. Windows OEM support falls on the shoulders of OEMs, ie sucks away OEMs' profit whilst leaving MS's profit untouched.

.

I wonder what the number is. Even though MS is surely making money from
selling retail copes of Windows I'd wager they would rarer have the sale come from a non-Mac PC. In the long run it seems that Windows will not be re-purchaed if users get another Mac.

If Chrome OS can hit them at the low end of the market where OS marketshare could be affected easily the. MS may some some very wary shareholders, even if they're still making plenty of profit. A year from now I think we'll know for sure what Chrome OS' minimum impact will be.


I think I read just this week that Win7 sales have already surpassed the Mac OS X installed base. That is quite expected since to measure Mac OS X means to measure Mac HW sales.

But Apple is making more profit than the rest of the retail industry combined so how are they held back? Seems to me like the other OEMs are held back by their dependence on Windows and focus on market share.

If you have ever worked for yourself you have heard and likely experienced the meaning of the phrase 'busy fool'.

Exactly, MS is providing a component that is almost exclusively used among "Windows" PC manufacturers (though I believe you can get some odd units with Linux pre-installed) but is also option on Macs... however, it is a component, like HDD is a component. I find it illogical to compare component earnings to complete system earnings. For me, only makes sense comparing competing products, and MS products are competing against other OS/office software, not against hardware - especially not against hardware that can (and to some extend does) run MS software.


True, I have no idea how many Macs are using Windows as well - I have a feeling many among people in this forum, but on global scale... how many Mac users are gamers or need compatibility with their office/school PCs? does anyone have clue?


Stevie Ballmer's opinion is hardly relevant, now, isn't it?


Numbers, anyone..? Quick googling didn't return anything useful.


I'm saying comparing OS sales with OS + hardware sales is like comparing hardware sales with hardware + peripherals sales. At least peripherals are hardware as well, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Likewise, no one is comparing Seagate HDD sales to Apple or HP computer sales, even if Seagate is component of most computers sold.


I don't really have to smile but great job they are doing, no doubt.

Apple is the only one that can differentiate itself. The rest of the generic box makers have no choice but to slum it with Windows, no matter what hardware they offer.

The vast majority of computers are bought by companies --- and that is NOT included as part of the "retail" consumer sales statistics.

Hence the use of the term retail. Since Apples business model isnt designed for the enterprise I wonder why youd bring up the obvious.