or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mac sales continue to slide in Q2 as overall PC market rebounds [Update: Numbers refuted]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac sales continue to slide in Q2 as overall PC market rebounds [Update: Numbers refuted] - Page 2

post #41 of 128
Apple also hasn't been advertising the Mac much in the last couple of years. The Mac vs. PC ads, which were incredibly effective, have been gone for a few years. With those hundreds of billions, you'd think Apple could spare some change for a decent Mac campaign.
post #42 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The 2013 iMac is using technology from 2008? Shut the **** up!

 

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the 2013 iMac is technology from 1908.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 128
Come on Mickey, shipments are NOT sales, these marketing data reporting companies bend the data to their clients benefit. Remember the ZUNE, those same firms touted how it was outshipping the iPod and was going to take over the mobile media player market, only to find out it is exactly what they said, shipments out stripped those of the iPod only to languish on the shelves of retailers, to be later blown out or returned to MS. Internet use data is a better metric of market share. Of course that could be skewed as well, since I use my iPhone and iPad to browse the internet 95% of the time rather than my MBA or iMac.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #44 of 128
Fictitious numbers from these "research" whores - Apple sells most of their computers direct, numbers these guys can't track, but just guess.
post #45 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banyan Bruce View Post

It's all about cost. Macs are perceived to be too expensive. Few consider total through life costs.

Agreed.  We need some metric for measuring how many people are using macs.  I have a 3 year old MBA and a 6 year old Mac Pro and I keep thinking about upgrading but they work just fine.  And when I do upgrade, they will be passed on to others in the family, not thrown away.  Apple's true market share could be several times the number of sales.

post #46 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banyan Bruce View Post

It's all about cost. Macs are perceived to be too expensive. Few consider total through life costs.

I can still use my 2006 Macmini. I bought it when I had just moved to a new city and the laptop I was using was only 2 years old. The laptop now? recycled it 2 years ago as it no longer works at all.

Sales/Marketing often don't consider that most people are still using what they have because they haven't been forced to replace it. Nearly all Windows XP devices are still usable, but they would be better off replacing them with new devices if they saw the energy savings differential. Like if I use just my Mini's that's like using the same amount of power as one 60 watt lightbulb, where as using two Windows XP desktops (P4 to C2D Quad core, even that laptop which pulled 95 watts) uses 100 watts each if they are just barely above idle owing to much less efficient CPU and GPU's. Current SoC's despite being extremely pathetic (eg i3/i5/i7 HD4600) are good enough to supplant low-end GPU parts. When Windows XP came out, the high end was still single core P4's at 3Ghz. Dedicated GPU's bring the power draw up quite a bit.

In the end, the only way to convince people to upgrade is to show them that their existing device is inadequate or costing them money. You can still run Firefox, Chrome and World of Warcraft on Windows XP. You can't use more than 4GB of ram with them. The average application being developed TODAY still uses Windows XP as the target OS for no other reason than people are still using it. Using the current version of Chrome on Windows XP is faster than using it on Windows 7 on the same hardware. There is no getting around the fact that each new version of Windows comes with less performance, so you get this vicious cycle of "new computers are slower than older ones", which is also true because OEM's still flog weak devices that have no reason to exist (and we see this with Android.) Remember the eeePC? There's your blame for Windows XP continuing to exist. Suddenly everyone wanted netbooks, and Windows Vista and 7 were too bulky to run on the weak parts.

At any rate, even Microsoft discontinuing XP entirely won't force people off it. There are people who still need it and will push it to a virtual machine (I have at least two licenses for XP that have been migrated to virtual machines.) Microsoft would have to cut off and hide the patches to the OS before anyone would be forced to, and then only because people who work at BestBuy and similar and such charge more money to fix it than to replace it. That has always been the rule. If it costs more to fix/maintain then buy a new one.

It's ironic how one can have a completely obsolete cell phone and still use it, but you can't have an obsolete computer and still use it because the software support rapidly decays. Sure you might be able to run Chrome or WoW now, but in a few months they will only install on Windows 7SP1, and that will force such users off XP.

I'll share one small story just to keep this relevant. A few months before XP was ended, I reinstalled my 1998 Pentium 3 PC with Windows XPSP1. Over the course of doing so, I could not install a web browser, network card drivers, video drivers (XP SP3 required), and Microsoft's Windows Update site would not allow me to download SP2, and SP3 because it wanted me to be using SP3 with MSIE 8. Chicken and egg problem. So I gave up and put the service packs on a USB stick and then installed those. After getting SP3 installed I was finally able to install the network card, video drivers and Chrome. So you might ask, why didn't I just install SP3 in the first place? That's not the license I have for that machine, and the only way to put something newer would be to install and patch a machine up SP3 and then make an image of the hard drive.

Now compare this to OS X. Insert Disc, install OS X. No screwing around at all. The 2012 MacMini I'm however worried about, as if/when that needs a reinstall, it will require network access. As it is, to install some software I already had for the 2006 model but was moving, I had to use the 2006 model as a dvd-rom drive. That's one reason why I keep it around.
post #47 of 128

For most people, their computer just isn't that important any more.  

 

Your computer USED to be the way you got online, kept in touch, read about the world, played games, downloaded pictures, stored your music, and a LOT more.

 

But these days most people use their computers to do light internet and Mail, or Microsoft Word.  You just don't need to spend big bucks for that.

 

The iMac is becoming something people would like to have, but yet, they don't really need it.

 

I think Apple should evolve the personal computer to something else that costs like a third of the price.

 

What about just selling a screen, drive and keyboard that turns your iPhone into your desktop computer? Or not lol.  

 

I don't know what it should be -- but iMac feels old school.

 

post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The 2013 iMac is using technology from 2008? Shut the **** up!

I'm not sure of the year they started producing that panel, but display panels have very long shipping cycles compared to something like a cpu. Year to year changes are quite minor. In Apple's case they may still be using a significantly older panel design on the 21". The panel in the 27" could be similar to what became available in late 2009, but I don't see how that matters.

post #49 of 128

Make a real desktop computer.

post #50 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm not sure of the year they started producing that panel, but display panels have very long shipping cycles compared to something like a cpu. Year to year changes are quite minor. In Apple's case they may still be using a significantly older panel design on the 21". The panel in the 27" could be similar to what became available in late 2009, but I don't see how that matters.

Similar, but I doubt it's the same as they started using in Late-2009 as they have worked to make the panels thinner and machines more power efficient. In 2008 they weren't using IPS or LED backlit panels, and had a lower PPI. Even if we look at the the 27" ACD, which looks to be the same panel, that didn't come out until 2010.

Since 2008 isn't even in the running for being the exact same display here is Late-2009 from iFixit compared to Late-2012, only 3 years. Does the new panel look thinner to you?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #51 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

"...a sizable number of PCs are still running Windows XP and the impetus to upgrade them continued to boost shipments..."

And Windows 8 will be "good enough" for businesses for then next 14 or 15 years.
Despite Microsoft releasing Windows 9, Windows 10, ad nauseam.

More like windows 7 will be good enough for Chez Whitey's underlings for a decade or so
post #52 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

I do. Apple has been known to drop stuff that isn't profitable enough, i.e. even though it makes money, it doesn't make ENOUGH money.
Such as the Xserve, which was pretty much essential for schools. A couple of those in a rack was all you needed for the biggest of schools or universities, but now you have Mac Pros rolling around on their sides instead. Amazingly, the early 2009 Xserve is benchmarked faster than the new trashcan Mac Pro in some cases.

You can't even put PCI-e cards in the new Mac Pro, how does one use industry standard fibre RAID arrays?! ...Oh yeah, you have to throw those out and get ThunderBolt ones at twice the price.
Quote:
I agree with those who suggest that price is a factor.

I agree too. Especially over here in the UK, the prices of Macs are going up and up. Yes Apple needs to make a profit, but you don't need 40% profit to make a premium product. There's paying for quality, then there's extortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Its only irrelevant because it invalidates your piss-poor argument that Macs are too expensive. First of al, we don't know for a fact that sales are declining.

And if they really are declining, what is your explanation? Cannibalisation from iPad? Surely that's a bad thing, since the iMacs are $1000+ and the iPads are $399+. If it was all iPad cannibalisation, surely the PC sales would be falling too?
Quote:
The price of Apple's products is the same as its always been. Its not like people are just saying Macs are too expensive. I'd like to see some proof there. Show me an article, or survey that shows people aren't buying Macs because they're too expensive. 

Its more like you're just pissing and moaning because you don't want to spend the money to buy a new Mac because YOU perceive them to be too expensive. 

There's really no need to get aggravated and attack someone.

You answered your own question, Lorin isn't buying a new one because of the expense. In 2013 I bought a top of the line 27" iMac which cost over £2400 ($4100). Luckily I didn't have to pay for it, but had I been paying I would never have bought it. It's just way too expensive compared to a same spec PC, which would have been half the price. So in this very small sample size survey, in which you presumably would buy a new Mac at any price point, but Lorin and myself wouldn't, that makes 66% of people in our mini survey failing to buy a Mac because of the price. I know many more who always quote price over anything else as the main reason they won't buy a Mac, especially in the UK where prices are even more than in the US.

Back in the early Intel era, you got much more bang for your buck, and even more so in the late PPC era when the Mac Mini was $499. Now the ageing base model is $599, which in comparison to a PC is pretty poor. Yes PC support costs are much higher, but the initial purchase price for a Mac is too high.

The 2007 iMac was $1199, and had upgradable RAM, a DVD burner, 2ghz CPU. The current cheapest iMac is $1099, with soldered on RAM, sans DVD burner, and with a CPU that's not all that much faster than the 2007 model. For over $1000, that really isn't good value at all.

Dell's 27" AIO is similar to Apple's base 27" model (though lacking a dedicated GPU); but it's $200 cheaper, and you don't have to pay for phone support nor for a DVD drive. Of course non-AIO PCs are even less, with Dell's small PC starting at $249 (granted with a crap CPU) but with the same specs otherwise for which Apple charges $599. Alternatively, Dell's $599 PC has twice the RAM and twice the HDD space that Apple's Mini has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Lots of people are waiting on Apple to do a decent upgrade to all of its Mac products. here are a few things Apple has done that are worthless:

1. made the iMac thinner
2. made the iMac next to impossible to upgrade.

I really can't understand why the rest of Apple allows Johnny Ive to continue with his OCD on thinness. Eventually we'll have Macs that just have a painted picture on the screen coz there won't be enough space for anything inside 1wink.gif

Apple's iPhone battery woes would be solved if the iPhone 5/5s was a few mm thicker, I'm sure many more people would take better battery life over a phone that's 6mm thick instead of 8. I certainly would.

Same with the iMacs (and Mac Pro to a certain extent). Nigh on impossible to take apart, and so thin it compromises on features. Who the hell needs a thin desktop? I hear people every day complaining how they wish their desktop was thinner... /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Thats my point. "Marketshare" is almost irrelevant in the PC space, because Macs are not even competing in the price bracket of 80% of PCs out there. The VAST majority of PC sales are sub $1000 machines, which Apple does not play in- so making the marketshare comparison is brain-dead. Also, Apple is shipping SO many more iOS devices per year, which obviously are cannibalizing Mac sales, especially iPads. 

They used to, until their price bumps pushed them out of that market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


1.  I love the thin design.  I like that Apple cares about appearance, as well as what goes inside.  I have zero problem with it.  In addition, it's lighter, uses less resources, and on the logistics level, saving weight, packaging, etc. means less fuel burned shipping that stuff everywhere in the world.

It uses hugely fewer resources and fuel to put a new HDD/RAM/GPU into the computer rather than throwing the whole thing out and getting a new one every couple of years. My Mac Pro was going strong for 7 years with incremental upgrades until its PSU went pop.
Quote:
2. Most people will never upgrade their iMac once it's on their desk.  That's the reality.  The 27" iMac can upgrade memory easily.  Everything else (including memory on the smaller iMac) can be done by spending the extra 10 minutes opening the front and most likely, never open the unit again.  It's a non-issue.  I did it on my iMac a year ago.  It is totally doable with patience.  From start-to-finish, I upgraded the SSD on my 2009 iMac in 30 minutes.  Done.

No, the memory on the cheapest smaller iMac isn't upgradable. It's soldered on. Apple prides themselves on design, but they can't design in a door like on the 27" model to access the memory? That's the worst design conceivable. It also takes a whole lot longer than 10 minutes to take apart the latest (late 2012 onwards) iMacs. The screens are glued in. It really isn't a "non-issue".

The later iMacs have a custom firmware on the HDD preventing upgrades, unless you want the fan going at 2000RPM all day.
post #53 of 128

Sorry, Tim, no Haswell Mac mini, no sale.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #54 of 128
No new Mac mini
No new iMac
No new MacBook Pro

We did get a refreshed MacBook Air and an all new Mac Pro but the others are from 2013

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #55 of 128
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post
Apple blew it on the TV.

 

Yes, Apple blew it by not releasing a product THEY NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF CREATING, EVER, AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON¡

 
I'm a proud owner of a new 49" 4K Sony TV as of July 3rd and am loving it. 

 

And guess what Apple gets to sell you to plug into it. Talk about blowing it, am I right?¡

 
And the rippling surface of a mountain lake in the breeze seems very appealing.

 

Fixed. :p

 

Originally Posted by xZu View Post
Make a real desktop computer.

 

Have a real argument.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Originally Posted by xZu View Post

Make a real desktop computer. 
Have a real argument.

 

The MacMini hasn't been updated in forever, the iMac is laptop attached to a flat panel with laptop graphics, and the Mac Pro is only suitable for specific things. I really didn't want to take the time to type this out, but I will for you on a Hackintosh. My point was that if you don't make a computer that people want to buy, then you won't sell as many computers. The numbers kinda prove that. 

 

post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by xZu View Post

The MacMini hasn't been updated in forever, the iMac is laptop attached to a flat panel with laptop graphics, and the Mac Pro is only suitable for specific things. I really didn't want to take the time to type this out, but I will for you on a Hackintosh. My point was that if you don't make a computer that people want to buy, then you won't sell as many computers. The numbers kinda prove that. 

You think the CPU in the iMac is a laptop CPU?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #58 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

your piss-poor argument [… ] you're just pissing and moaning

 

I'm gonna stick to my guns here and continue trying to be civil despite your obviously provocational language, and just ask, have I done something to offend you? Is there some reason you need to insult me to state your position?

 

Biting my tongue...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

The price of Apple's products is the same as its always been. Its not like people are just saying Macs are too expensive.

 

In a market that has seen dramatic reductions in prices, "staying the same" is tantamount to "increasing" because the difference in price between a reasonable alternative and a Mac is growing. Mac prices may be staying the same, but the price of alternatives is falling.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

I'd like to see some proof there. Show me an article, or survey that shows people aren't buying Macs because they're too expensive.

 

You just finished saying you don't consider expert reporting credible, now you're asking me to provide it. Why? So you can say you don't believe it?

 

The "proof" is self-evident. A fairly decent starter machine can be had from HP for about $500 (CAD). You can't get a Mac for under a grand (again, CAD). If you want a 15" screen the cost of entry doubles.

 

I'm not saying the $500 HP is equivalent to an 11" Air, because obviously it's not. The point I'm making is that I don't believe MOST people will pay twice as much to get the advantages of the Air. They'll settle for the $500 machine because it's good enough, the same way they buy Hondas instead of Mercedes. And despite all the pontificating to the contrary here, that $500 HP *WILL* be just fine for the vast majority of buyers.

 

There's a huge segment of the market Apple has chosen to ignore, and I think it's a mistake. You can think whatever you want.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

Its more like you're just pissing and moaning because you don't want to spend the money to buy a new Mac because YOU perceive them to be too expensive.

 

My wife's new machine was $2000 because that's the least expensive 15" machine Apple makes! A comparable HP was half that (same RAM/CPU/drive/screen size, better res). For that same $1000 we could also get an Air, but only with an 11" screen. Unless she decides she's happy with a smaller screen (never gonna happen) our choices are to buy something other than Apple or pay TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS BASE PRICE! At that price we're probably not going to be getting a new machine every time a cool new feature comes along.

 

Once you get into the top-teir machines like mine the differences are not as great. Mine was about $3500 with all the BTO options (~$4000 with AppleCare and taxes). At that time Asus had a machine with slightly better screen, drive, RAM, ports and CPU for about $500 less. You have to admit, that's a pretty healthy premium for the "Apple experience." Today it's harder to compare because there are so few competitors for a high-end MBP, so I guess Apple can essentially charge whatever they want.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

Bottom line, the Mac isn't going away

 

I hope you're right!

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 its very silly to think it is any time soon.

 

…and with that final insult, I've had enough.


Edited by Lorin Schultz - 7/9/14 at 9:56pm

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #59 of 128
What is it with people from the UK always complaining that the Mac is not PC enough? If you want to buy a PC, there are plenty of them out there. If you want to think different, there's the Mac.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #60 of 128
Originally Posted by xZu View Post

The MacMini hasn't been updated in forever

 

Yep. And? No chips.

 
the iMac is laptop attached to a flat panel with laptop graphics…

 

Yeah, no.

 
and the Mac Pro is only suitable for specific things. 

 

Also no.

 
I really didn't want to take the time to type this out, but I will for you on a Hackintosh.

 

Aww, you shouldn’t have. No, really. You shouldn’t have.

 
My point was that if you don't make a computer that people want to buy, then you won't sell as many computers. The numbers kinda prove that.   

 

So it seems kinda stupid that you’d suggest Apple make a computer of a type that sells LESS than the ones they already make, doesn’t it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #61 of 128

I actually thought the reverse was true - overall sales were declining and Macs were picking up.

Well, over the years I have read many times how eggs are great for you and how eggs are really bad for you, so I take all this with a pinch of salt.

 

I'm currently running Yosemite on my late 2009 27" iMac and for the first time it is slow. Of course, I don't expect it to be the same once Yosemite is out of beta, but the fact is that I need to upgrade my desktop.

 

I was hoping for the rumoured retina-display iMac, which may not even be feasible in the near future. But now I am seriously considering the Mac Pro. I have started some video editing and plan on making it a small business in the near future. From what I keep reading about it, the Mac Pro seems like the ideal machine for my needs.

 

I hope Apple releases a refreshed Thunderbolt display when I am ready.

 

As for people who feel Macs are expensive - well, there is an old saying - if you ask for the price of a Rolls Royce, you cannot afford it.

post #62 of 128

I think it boils down to price. Personally I've seen little growth in Apple. I used to be wowed by their new product announcements and they used to have the best overall designs, even though they were expensive.

 

Now, PC manufacturers have caught up in design, especially in the ultrabook category and win on design and features. I like Mac OS and Apple hardware (currently own a 2011 iMac 27") but Apple is just falling behind. I just bought a mid-tier Lenovo U430 Touch and I love using Win 8.1 and the touch screen is actually incredibly useful.

 

Case in point, the MacBook Air. Why on Earth would anyone buy a 13" MBA when the MBP is 150 more and has much better specs with little sacrifice in battery life? Why does the MBA not have a retina screen yet? Why does Apple continually keep shooting itself in the foot on features and what it packs into the box?

 

The iMac line, I like. Most of Apple's desktops are pretty bang on. However their notebook lines are suffering from stiff PC competition that offers amazing design, better specs and cheaper prices. Heck my U430 is built as sturdy as a MBP for half the cost.

post #63 of 128

That analogy would make sense if you were actually getting a Rolls Royce. MBA and MBP have stiff competition from PC ultrabooks that actually have better design, specs and cost. The only Mac that technically performs to its cost is the Mac Pro.

 

I like OS X, but I've been liking Win 8.1 more, especially using a touch screen laptop. 

post #64 of 128
I would have upgraded to a new mac pro if the kept the old form factor. I'm probably the only one though. 1wink.gif
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

I would have upgraded to a new mac pro if the kept the old form factor. I'm probably the only one though. 1wink.gif

 

I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.

 

Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #66 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.

 

Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.

 

Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card.  I need cores, powerful cores.  The new pros aren't fast enough to justify upgrading.  I wish they would have at least made it dual socket.  Then two of the fast 8 cores would do some damage.

post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post

Those numbers are totally wrong. Apple has been shipping about 4 million macs, quarter after quarter, for years.


Hey people, there is life behind US borders as well :-). 4 milions is for whole world and article is about US shipment. ;-)

post #68 of 128

Who really gives a dam!

post #69 of 128
Apple is a global company. The article uses survey data to put a microscope on one country, and headlines with a decline. However , Mac shipments keep on being profitable at the same level, give or take, for the last umpteen quarters.
post #70 of 128

This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.

 

As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.

post #71 of 128

The price differences really come down to comparing apples to oranges. Apple is producing complete systems and is responsible for the complete platform including hardware design, development, and support, software design, development, and support, product design, development, and support, and system integration. The only way you could truly compare Apple to say Dell on price would be to take Windows out of the equation and have Dell also be responsible for providing their own operating system and software for their hardware platform. This would include of course all of the system drivers for the required peripherals. In other words, you'd have to take Microsoft out of the picture to equitably compare Apple to Dell on value for the cost.

 

Of course we'll never know how Dell and Apple would compare based on them competing head to head at all levels because they are in two different ecosystems. In Dell's ecosystem nearly all of the value that Dell can deliver is based on the hardware specs and product design. Every one of their direct competitors is using the same generic dogfood operating system so of course they need to keep their hardware specs as high as possible at every price point and keep their prices as low as possible because they have numerous competitors playing exactly the same game they are playing. This is just the nature of the Windows PC marketplace. If Microsoft decides to take a year or three off in terms of upgrading the OS what are the hardware vendors supposed to do to keep their products shipping? Upgrade the hardware specs of course. 

 

Apple is different. They are playing a totally different game and no matter how many ways you try to force fit them into the Windows PC marketplace you're never going to come up with a comparison that will tie out across the board. Yeah, as consumers we want something better than the same old dogfood operating system and OSX is reliable and compelling. We also want the high build quality of the Macs that most of the Windows PC builders struggle with because they mostly compete based on spec sheets and low price. We want it all and we don't want to pay for it.

 

The good news for most consumers is that you don't have to pay for it. The PC market is still overwhelmingly dominated by Windows PCs. If you don't want to "pay for it" you're swimming in a vast sea of opportunities to not pay for it. What is there not to love about having a vast universe of choices that almost fit almost every one of your desires for the perfect PC? If you sat down in a restaurant and 90% of the menu was filled with things that you really enjoy at the prices you want to pay, why wouldn't you be totally ecstatic? Why indeed.

 

Oh, and then there's Apple. They are the 10% part of the menu that is different and based on a completely different model. Yup, their prices are a little higher because they are playing a totally different game. They are going it alone in a PC world dominated by Windows PCs. What's not to like about them giving an alternative path a try? Their total product is compelling. At a paltry 10% marketshare why would we even care about the small price differential when there are so many cheaper alternatives? Why would we be asking them to give up what makes them so unique and different and jump on the 90% train to commodityville? 

 

Apple is Apple. Either you respect what they are trying to accomplish and are willing to pay a small premium to cast your vote of approval, or you get in line with the rest of 90% club. It's your choice and choice is a good thing. But the reason there is a choice here is because there is a real difference. You can't have it both ways. If Apple tried to play the commodity PC game using Windows PC rules, they would not exist, plain and simple. I suppose that's exactly what some people would like, for reasons that I will never understand.

post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You think the CPU in the iMac is a laptop CPU?

You are right, I as referring to the expandability, graphics and heat constraints. I think Apples laptop lineup is great, I just think their desktop lineup could be expanded. Taking three years to update the MacPro, the only computer without laptop graphics is not really addressing the desktop market. 

 

Expandable!

 

Quote:

So it seems kinda stupid that you’d suggest Apple make a computer of a type that sells LESS than the ones they already make, doesn’t it. :rolleyes:

 

 

I hope they don't make a larger iPhone, the one people want, it will be a disaster. ;)

post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post


And absolutely nobody in any of those professions worth a grain of salt as an employee is going to base future decisions on that not entirely accurate fallacy. What will determine, in the future, whether businesses upgrade from whatever they're jumping to will be whether existing machines can handle the new operating system, whether existing software can handle the new operating system, and ultimately, whatever costs and benefits are associated with that upgrade.

Entirely true. They would be stupid to base decisions involving millions (or any money, for that matter) based on a statistical rule that has been true in the past. However, Windows 8, like all previous even number releases, is a flunk. It's unlikely this one gets chosen after that rigorous process you describe.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #74 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by justmark View Post
 

This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.

 

As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.

Interesting fact. The timing of XP's end of life might play a role in these "forced updates", but then again, how many big businesses run in-house flavours of Windows anyway? I sure have seen several. As for the iPad, that's my point exactly ^^

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #75 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
 

 

LOL.  I seem to recall that the predecessor to Windows 7 was called "Windows Vista."  Not Windows 6.

So that even / odd theory is too new for any "IT department, advisor, consultant, or in-house semi-geek" to trust yet.

 

Oh, sure, the internal designation for Windows Vista was Windows 6.0.  Yeah, knew that.  Even number.

But the internal designation for Windows 7 was "Windows 6.1."  Kinda like a bug-fix release would be designated.

Here it is from the horse's mouth:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/is-microsoft-windows-7-the-same-as-windows-61/1fe12fe6-5c10-4926-89d3-249e8cabc06f

So what does that do to the even / odd theory?

 

Nitpicking much? You have to admit that Windows 7 is a good release, and it's an odd number. Works for my theory.

Besides, it's irrelevant, Linux will soon take over the world ;)

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post
 


2. Most people will never upgrade their iMac once it's on their desk.  That's the reality.  The 27" iMac can upgrade memory easily.  Everything else (including memory on the smaller iMac) can be done by spending the extra 10 minutes opening the front and most likely, never open the unit again.  It's a non-issue.  I did it on my iMac a year ago.  It is totally doable with patience.  From start-to-finish, I upgraded the SSD on my 2009 iMac in 30 minutes.  Done.

 

Congratulations, but you completely ignored the original poster's point, which was that since you bought your 2009 iMac 5 years ago, Apple has made the iMac line almost impossible to upgrade.  Try swapping in or adding on a SSD on a 2011 or later iMac.  I've called every repair shop in town, and nobody will do this procedure, not even Apple themselves.  The machines have room for 2 drives, for pete's sake, but you can't access them without removing more screws and components than there are weeks in a year.

 

You ought to make sure you understand all of the facts before you declare authoritatively what is and isn't an issue for people.

post #77 of 128
Originally Posted by mutoneon View Post

since you bought your 2009 iMac 5 years ago, Apple has made the iMac line almost impossible to upgrade.

 

It’s just as difficult on the modern iMac as on his. What’s your point?

 

You ought to make sure you understand all of the facts before you declare authoritatively what is and isn't an issue for people.

 

The irony HURTS.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post
 

Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card.

 

Same here. We use it for Pro Tools, which is 100% CPU-centric. It's still WAAY faster than the 2009 it replaced.

 

We replaced a quad with a quad. Based purely on unscientific, casual observation, I'd say most of the operations we perform regularly are at least twice as fast and in some cases five or six times as fast.

 

Connecting solid-state storage directly to the PCIe bus doesn't suck either, though admittedly with only 1TB max on board you're still stuck with outboard storage. Our interim solution is a Thunderbolt RAID with hard drives which isn't bad but doesn't come close to the speed of the onboard SSD. We'll see what it's like when our new Avid Isis system is up and running.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #79 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

No new Mac mini
No new iMac
No new MacBook Pro

We did get a refreshed MacBook Air and an all new Mac Pro but the others are from 2013
The year isn't over yet. Plus Broadwell isn't available, so what exactly would Apple be refreshing?
post #80 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You think the CPU in the iMac is a laptop CPU?
Isn't the one in the new 21" iMac the same as what's in the MBA?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mac sales continue to slide in Q2 as overall PC market rebounds [Update: Numbers refuted]