or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's share of US PC market slips to 8% at hands of Acer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's share of US PC market slips to 8% at hands of Acer - Page 2

post #41 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post

The entire point of my original posting is to say that Steve Jobs called the Netbook market nascent. Nascent by meaning is to say it's in its infancy or beginning to develop.

Fine. So he was right!

Quote:
That in itself says that Apple missed the boat

Can you explain exactly what they have missed? All I can see, from these Gartner figures, is that Apple have maintained their prices and GAINED market share while the PC guys have lowered prices (and profits!) and LOST market share.

Perhaps Apple intends to catch the next boat.

Quote:
and will be following the rest of the market to put out a Netbook.

Why? (see above)
post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post

Your kidding right? Do a search on that term from this site alone will bring you up a big listing of forum posts.
Its widely expected.....at some point....that Apple will unveil either a tablet or a netbook of some manifestation soon. Of those who think it will be a tablet of some sort many have nicknamed it the "mactouch". I personally think its not going to be a tablet or a netbook but some new category of mobile that no one has thought up yet.

How about a nine inch iPod touch kind of device but with a mini chicklet keyboard, no track-pad (use the screen instead) running both the iPhones OS and regular OSX by having two seperate snap on plates. A thin design for the mobile OS and a heavier and thicker seperate full OSX when you want iPhoto etc?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #43 of 92
You seems to know a lot, are you running one of the big five computer companies, what is your vision of the computer industry and where it is heading and what are the innovations likely in these challenging time ahead?

Talk is cheap so show us the money.
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidste View Post

How much of Acer's growth is due to the late 2007 acquisition of Gateway and the early 2008 purchase of Packard Bell?

Packard Bell isn't sold in the United States. But that is the question, is Acer really selling more machines or is the growth because they got to count the Gateway and eMachines sales?
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post

[Apple] can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.

Apple could buy netbooks OEM'd from Acer, writer drivers for the Acer hardware that's not out-of-the-box compatible with OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the Acer logo, and sell them for a 20% markup. Starving students and road warriors would buy them in hordes.

BTW, that's essentially what tons of people are doing with their netbook Hackintoshes (install a hacked-up OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the PC maker's logo). I think the exploding popularity of the netbook-based Hackintosh marketplace (MSI Wind, Dell Mini 9, Asus Eee PC, etc) is evidence that there is a substantial market for these things.
post #46 of 92
Well, Apple makes a great product, but there are ways they can sell more Mac Units.

1- finally release revamped desktop models (new Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro)
2- include Blu-Ray integration into devices. including new monitors.
3- Release new Midsized Tower. One which is upgradable, powerful and a bargain.

Apple needs a $799 laptop as well, they have to price themselves a little better.

yes, Apple has better technology investment than their competitors, but they need to make some of their computers more affordable in this stressed economy. so... lets hope for this. if they do so they can expand their customer base.

oh well... we have tough economic times where companies need to offer more for the money, also it would be great to have a more dynamic and full product line to offer more choices for consumers on what they really need.
post #47 of 92
Hopefully, the new leadership at Apple will be inspired by these numbers.

What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?

These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.

So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?

Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.

The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:

Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/

Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/


A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.

post #48 of 92
Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.

How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.

The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.

I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.
post #49 of 92
They do only sell software right.

So why are they often in these discussions? Because they make a LOT of money?

Skip
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.

How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead? Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.

The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:
- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers
- They know a tower has the potential to last longer than a limited design like the iMac. That means fewer sales.
- They don't want to encourage people to invest in a separate display, even one of theirs, because they know the lifespan of a desktop display is often 10 years. They'd rather sell you a whole computer that'll be obsolete in 4 years or a notebook that'll be replaced sooner than that.
- They know many, if not most, buyers would buy another brand of display.
- They don't trust customers to modify their "perfect" Macs without screwing something up and deluging the Genius Bars with PCI card problems, etc.
- They want to keep pretending they aren't losing desktop sales to the $1000 PCs that have had quad core processors since early 2007.
- They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.
- They want to keep pretending they're a Green company even though tossing out an entire iMac and replacing it is much harder on the environment than simply getting a new computer and hooking it up to your old display.

I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.

I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

I like your post. It summarizes so many things. Ultimately, it shows that Apple can no longer compete in the hardware arena.

Which means - the MILLIONS of folks who got Apple to where they are today, Print media, graphics designers, TV, Video, Musicians, Newspapers, Advertising Agency, Insurance Companies, Schools and MILLIONS of small businesses will now have to purchase a "Acer, HP, Dell", to get the latest or greatest desktop unit?

I believe this will make Apples shares slip right?

Desktop units are not a dying breed, unless you say "If we don't make it, "they won't but it"! And if this is the goal, then YES Apple desktop, any desktop units for that matter, are going to be a dying breed.

I for one, NEED 4 new desktop units & monitors, and WILL purchase 4 new Apple Desktop units, if they come out with them.

4 isn't many, but when you multiply by the MILLIONS who are just like us, and many of these folks NEEDING hundreds more then 4 units, then I for one, think this is still a great market place for Apple to GET back into.

Oh did I mention that there are OVER 5,000 LARGE manufacturing companies just in the Promotional Products world i.e., BIC pens, Norwood, Gieger Bros., Leeds and the list goes on and on that REQUIRE Mac files when sending in artwork for ANY items to be imprinted! This is OVER 800,000 Items that can be printed with your company name on them and all work is done on Apple computers.

Skip
post #52 of 92
No surprise. I love OS X but Apple continues to put out computers that are more and more expensive and at the same time give people what Apple wants to give them NOT what the customers want. Glossy screen, no fire wire......

I was all set to get a brand new Macbook but a $300 increase and specs I wasn't too crazy about(not to mention the black keys), were deal breakers.
The Iphone is a huge money maker for Apple but unless they want to see a continuation of lost market share in the computer area, do what most companies do. CATER TO THE CUSTOMER
post #53 of 92
Just more info suggesting that apple is ignoring the low end of the market and is starting to suffer because of it.

They need a decent budget laptop and a decent budget desktop (and in apple's case, "budget" necessarily means headless). And no the mini doesn't cut it, nor would a simple speed bump be likely to cut it either, they need to take advantage of the chips Intel offers AND switch from using all laptop parts when so much money could be saved simply by using the desktop equivalents.
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Acer added 1MM units. Even if they are half the price of normal laptops, the question is if the added units made up for deteriation in average selling price.

From where I sit, a Netbook is an extra computer rather than a main computer. It might extend the time between purchase of a "main" computer, but it is a net benefit to both the consumer and the manufacturer (more money gets spent/more value is felt).

The market isn't as "nascent" as it was last August, and Apple is now trailing: every other manufacturer has a netbook offering (sans Toshiba?).

I think I represent Apple's current problem pretty well: my wife and I are not in a hurry to upgrade our Macs given the current economy. I am however happy to plunk down less than $500 on a new computer. This is a major problem to Apple, because it suggests that there is limited value (even to their high-end customers) for their premium product line.

Maybe it is a good time for SJ to step down.

I'm guessing Apple should put out a 900 dollar netbook like Sony did, that will do y'all good.
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

Hopefully, the new leadership at Apple will be inspired by these numbers.

What these numbers show is that Apple could compete if only it offered a desktop computer with the brand new Core i7 quad-core desktop processor from Intel. So, a competitive desktop computer with a quad-core Core i7 processor from Intel. Is that too much to ask from Apple?

These numbers also show the effect of Apple's fat 35% profit margins vs. Dell's slim 9% profit margins. While making less money on each computer, Dell is making far more money in the end because it sells so many more computers. And, for Apple, an explosive growth would secure the future of Mac OS X as a viable software platform.

So, what is Apple going to do? Keep a fat upper management with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option compensation, and no obligation to show up for work in the case of Steve Jobs, or cut the fat and cut the price of Macs by at least $300 to grow the Apple market share?

Apple, the choice is yours. You cut the prices and adopt the Core i7 processor in the iMac, or you go through yet another death spiral. As you see, your competition is relentless, but more importantly, Dell, HP and Acer are building computers that buyers want to buy at a price they can afford.

The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially launched on November 17, 2008. See:

Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/

Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/


A 35% profit margin? Underperforming dual-core mobile processors in desktop iMacs? Billions in stock option compensation for a greedy management? That's a recipe for disaster, Apple.


Apple is doomed while Dell is not, meanwhile in the real world, Dell is laying off workers everyday despite them being in a better position than Apple according to you, you gotta love the internet, it has given the opportunity for you to learn whole lot.
post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post

Because Steve said it isn't the right time. The market is still in it's infancy. Plus they can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.



OTimer,
I think that you're being a little on the harsh side.
I do agree that the 17" MB and the Air, appear to be a bit of bad timing, but Apple, could well afford to do that, just for the panache it gives them in the industry. Hey, somebody's gotta make "The Best", or a
Rolls Royce.. ya know?

For instance, how do you know that Apple / Jobs aren't poised and ready to release a netbook within the year? If they do, it'll probably be the coolest of the bunch, and on the pricey side.

And, you know what it'll come with? (That nearly every Apple product does, under Jobs reign) MARGIN!

Acer will have to sell three of theirs to earn the MARGIN that Apple will earn off of one of their MB nanos.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have working mock-ups, and one in Steve's hands.
I doubt anyone here would be surprised, either.
post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Good one. But I've never liked Job's use of the "puck" metaphor. Apple trails on technology as often as they lead. They seem to do things on their own time.

There is a difference between a fad and a sustainable business.

What makes you think it's a fad?

Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).

Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Once you achieve a market share sufficient to get software written for your platform further market share is meaningless unless total profit increases. Otherwise you're expending more effort and getting equal or fewer returns. Having iPhones running OS X is their way of grabbing market share, albeit in a different category of devices.

How many of the people buying $1299 MacBooks would opt for a $699 MacNetBook instead?

Many.

Quote:
Would there be enough new MacNetBook buyers to cover those losses and pay for the R&D, supply and support costs of a new model? I'm guessing Apple has decided the answer is no.

No. The corresponding increase in sales will not offset the corresponding reduction in profit.

Quote:
The same question applies to the mythical mini-tower Mac, but I think the answer to that question is purely political. I'm convinced that very few Mac Pro buyers would risk their productivity with a scaled down tower. No I believe the real reasons the mini-tower Mac doesn't exist are:

There's not mid-tower Mac because the margins on AIOs are far higher and a mid-tower mac would destroy iMac sales.

Apple is a profitable company and wishes to remain that way.

Quote:
They want to keep pretending that Macs are special despite being made in the same factories as low cost netbooks.

High end gear is often made in the sasme factories as low end gear. It's the design and components that matter. Even using a higher end touch pad improves user experience over a low end touch pad. Look at the various netbook threads about Synamptics cs Sentelic touchpads.

Quote:
I saw a report that said the average lifespan of a computer in 2001 was 6 years. Today that's dropped to just 2 years. Those numbers show Apple could've tripled their sales without gaining a single new customer.

One reason was that in 2001 computers did cost a little more than today. Especially with netbooks. If you believe that Apple hasn't gained significant customers you're kidding yourself.
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

What makes you think it's a fad?

Cheap computers aren't going away. If people can spend $400 or $800 on something, most of them are going to spend $400 (and half of the people who buy the $800 thing seem to think spending more makes them a better person).

Sure, netbooks are about as powerful as laptops were five years ago. Nobody cares. They're the cheapest, and they're good enough for almost everybody. That's not going to change.

It's not a fad but it's also not a market that Apple is likely to address directly except for perhaps a slimmed down 10" MacBook for $899 with a dual core Atom. A $400 netbook just isn't in the cards.
post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Yep, anytime now.

Yep, Apple is doomed......... again.
post #61 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

- Steve believes desktops are a dead end market for everyone but pros and gamers

When the Mini was first released it had a discrete ATI Radeon graphics card. Apple's page even remarked that it could be used as a decent gaming system, though of course not an advanced one. It's really sad that it went away. Or else I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Mini last August, even though it was a year old.
post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post

The entire point of my original posting is to say that Steve Jobs called the Netbook market nascent.

That in itself says that Apple missed the boat and will be following the rest of the market to put out a Netbook. Nascent by meaning is to say it's in its infancy or beginning to develop.

That is supposed to be Apple's claim to fame and interpet what is the next up and coming market. Steve Jobs comments make him sound as bad as Steve Ballmer when he discounted the iPhone as a toy. He is passed his time and needs to move on.

By the way Apple is currently trading at 79.30 after hours. Steve's not hurting anyone but the shareholders and they won't put up with it for very long. Especially with his lack of vision of late.

he's never been particularly visionary, all 'his' good ideas actually started with someone else.
post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinySteelRobot View Post

Apple could buy netbooks OEM'd from Acer, writer drivers for the Acer hardware that's not out-of-the-box compatible with OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the Acer logo, and sell them for a 20% markup. Starving students and road warriors would buy them in hordes.

BTW, that's essentially what tons of people are doing with their netbook Hackintoshes (install a hacked-up OS X, slap an Apple sticker over the PC maker's logo). I think the exploding popularity of the netbook-based Hackintosh marketplace (MSI Wind, Dell Mini 9, Asus Eee PC, etc) is evidence that there is a substantial market for these things.

apple would never sell a product with that low a profit margin.
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post

Because Steve said it isn't the right time. The market is still in it's infancy. Plus they can't figure out how to make a Netbook for less than $1000.


Not quite, they could do it but maybe not with the 30-35% juicy Apple tax on it.
post #65 of 92
What this analysis fails to point out is that Apple probably increased their share of revenue as rival PC vendors sold more of their cheap $300 netbooks. From a business perspective, Apple is much better off...
post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Just to make it clear, I didn't say the iPhone compares with a netbook, and I do not presume to suggest that.

I'll say it, they are a fad. They are a cool little geek toy that is getting bought up quickly by just about everyone who is gonna buy one, & then they will taper off.

Look, especially in a DOWN economy, people don't want to waste their money on lots of different toys, they ultimately want to simplify their device life & that is why I think Apple is on the right path.

The idea of something as small & underpowered as a netbook becoming one's primary computer is just stupid & silly. These people will play around with it for a while, then after a few thousand cricks in their neck, the loss of their sight, & the extreme boredom of carrying around a journal sized laptop just to check e-mail & surf the web, they'll loose interest & turn back to an all in one phone type device coupled with a true computer that is still fairly portable but has some real power to do more than just e-mail & web.

This happened to my father, he thought the power of an actual mini laptop would be something he'd love, hook it up to an external monitor & keyboard/mouse when he needed to really work. In the long run though he found the thing to be annoyingly small & just not the experience he was hoping for. He's now on the new Unibody MacBook & wishes he never wasted money on stupid gadgets to begin with.

People who think the netbook is a lasting idea are going to be very disappointed when it goes the way of the spice girls. Apple is very careful about markets it enters because they don't want to make the Newton mistake ever again.

For a great article on fads check this link.

http://ewalden.ba.ttu.edu/pages/docu...wne(2005)b.pdf
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

he's never been particularly visionary, all 'his' good ideas actually started with someone else.

Just gonna throw out backless claims or you gonna put some backbone into it. Please explain (preferably in list format) which of his ideas you are referring to & where they originally came from.
post #68 of 92
Visionary doesn't' necessarily mean you invented the wheel. It can mean you invented a better wheel or a better way to use the wheel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

he's never been particularly visionary, all 'his' good ideas actually started with someone else.
post #69 of 92
You keep throwing out this fallacy. Who else besides you claims Apple make 30-35% margins? Please give us evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

Not quite, they could do it but maybe not with the 30-35% juicy Apple tax on it.
post #70 of 92
I'd like to know whether this figure is just for Apple's hardware (in which case it is time to cut prices a bit) or includes software (which has high development costs but very little in actual manufacturing costs)
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

There's not mid-tower Mac because the margins on AIOs are far higher and a mid-tower mac would destroy iMac sales.

As you probably noticed I mentioned that towers encourage the purchase of displays that last too long and often don't have an Apple logo on them. That's certainly a hit to Apple any way you slice it. I also said that towers often last longer than all-in-ones because they're easier to upgrade. That's another financial hit for Apple.

At the same time the iMac is highly profitable because it's the only game in town if you want a decent desktop Mac under $2500. Apple used to sell towers at $1499 that should have had even higher profit margins than the iMacs that sat in the same price range. There's no reason why towers priced similarly to iMacs wouldn't generate good sales figures and high margins for Apple today. Replacing some of the expensive items the iMac uses with more standard desktop parts would only reduce production costs. Apple has always gotten away with charging a premium for the kind of expansion that PC buyers take for granted and could do it again if they really wanted to. I remain convinced that the main reasons why there's no consumer tower have nothing at all to do with money.

Quote:
Apple is a profitable company and wishes to remain that way.

I agree wholeheartedly. I was one of the fools who didn't sell his tiny number of AAPL shares in January 2008 when they were worth $200 each so I want them to continue to be successful.

Quote:
If you believe that Apple hasn't gained significant customers you're kidding yourself.

I believe they've gained a substantial number of new customers. In fact, I believe a huge number of early 21st century Macs are still in use while most PCs from that era have long since been abandoned.

Taking those two items together it appears obvious that Apple is sitting on the edge of an enormous growth in sales. All those long lasting old Macs are going to be replaced in the next couple of years along with the first batch of overheating, underperforming, 32-bit Intel Macs (overall economy willing). Then, as time moves forward, Apple will join the rest of the industry in seeing rapid replacement of computers leading to even higher sales again. That is, of course, if Apple makes machines people want and can afford to buy.
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Packard Bell isn't sold in the United States. But that is the question, is Acer really selling more machines or is the growth because they got to count the Gateway and eMachines sales?

Interesting. Acer gains market share, everyone discounts it. Apple gains market share, everyone praises it. Now, you are stating Acer cheated? (is that possible?). Curious, so what if they get to count Gatewayand eMachines?.So what if their growth is through acquisitions?. Is one growth more legitimate than another?.I bet when Acer checks their bank account, the money seems real. Now people are arguing Apple gains in revenue share?.. that is funny as if anyone on this message board can prove that, While revenue share is an interesting geek topic, market share has real relevance.. less computers means less iwork sales, means less apple software sales, means less people to upgrade their machines. Maybe you think apple has a winning formula.. perhaps they should take it up a notch and sell their computers for even more so they can lose more market share and maintain revenue share. Btw, that is stupid measurement.. is that a made up term?.. revenue share?. What happens when some other company overtakes apple in this made up geek term?.. what?.. then you'll gonna say apple lost marketshare and revenue share but gained in coolness share (hey, if you get to make up a term, so do i)
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You keep throwing out this fallacy. Who else besides you claims Apple make 30-35% margins? Please give us evidence.

I guess when Apple releases their financial data at the end of every quarter you bury your head in the sand so you can't see what the rest of us do.

Direct quote from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

"Gross margin was 34.7 percent, up from 33.6 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarters revenue."
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Interesting. Acer gains market share, everyone discounts it. Apple gains market share, everyone praises it. Now, you are stating Acer cheated? (is that possible?). Curious, so what if they get to count Gatewayand eMachines?.So what if their growth is through acquisitions?. Is one growth more legitimate than another?.I bet when Acer checks their bank account, the money seems real. Now people are arguing Apple gains in revenue share?.. that is funny as if anyone on this message board can prove that, While revenue share is an interesting geek topic, market share has real relevance.. less computers means less iwork sales, means less apple software sales, means less people to upgrade their machines. Maybe you think apple has a winning formula.. perhaps they should take it up a notch and sell their computers for even more so they can lose more market share and maintain revenue share. Btw, that is stupid measurement.. is that a made up term?.. revenue share?. What happens when some other company overtakes apple in this made up geek term?.. what?.. then you'll gonna say apple lost marketshare and revenue share but gained in coolness share (hey, if you get to make up a term, so do i)

Revenue share is actually very easy to understand.

Imagine a pie that represents all the money that was spent on computers last year. Apple got to cut the pie first. They took a small yet significant piece. The rest of the pie was cut into 99 pieces and served to all the PC makers.

This year Apple takes their same small piece of the pie again only this time the remaining pie is cut into 109 pieces.

So the market grew 10% in unit sales. There were 110 pieces of pie this year as opposed to only 100 last year.

But the pie wasn't any bigger; it was just cut into more pieces and Apple got the same size piece (revenue share) that they did last year.
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I guess when Apple releases their financial data at the end of every quarter you bury your head in the sand so you can't see what the rest of us do.

Direct quote from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

"Gross margin was 34.7 percent, up from 33.6 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarters revenue."

That gross margin is calculated based on ALL sales realized in fiscal 2008. It was based on 32.5 billion dollars in net sales from every product sold in every country. This includes Mac, iPod, iPhone, software, extended warranties, Music related, etc.. It doesn't mean that every product has a 35% margin. iPods and iPhones are probalblly closer to 50%. Extended Warranties are probably in the 80% range. Macs are more likely in the 20 to 25% range. It also includes any favorable foreign exchange rate. The gross margin is the total sales of all products ($32.5 billion in fiscal 2008) minus the total cost of doing business ($21.3 billion in fiscal 2008). It does not mean that every product Apple sells have a 30 to 35% "Apple Tax". If Macs has a 30 to 35% margin, Apples gross margin would easily in the the 40 - 45% range.


Go here to learn more. page 41 to 46

http://library.corporate-ir.net/libr...L_10K_FY08.pdf

Apple margins on Macs are in line with that of Dell PC's. Dell also makes over 20% margin on their expensive PC's. What bring down their overall margin on PC's is that they sell a lot of $399 desktops and $699 laptops. These cheaper units only have about a 10% margin. Thus Dells average margin is in the mid teens (about 15% and declining the last I remember) for all PC sales.

Apple don't break down their margins based on products. But when you think of all the products Apple sells, Macs probably has the lowest margin of any of their core products. And it's most likely below 30% in most cases. But you have to remember that a 25% margin on a $2000 Mac is $500. While a 50% margin on a $150 iPod is $75. And an 80% margin on a $350 extended warranty is $280.
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Revenue share is actually very easy to understand.

Imagine a pie that represents all the money that was spent on computers last year. Apple got to cut the pie first. They took a small yet significant piece. The rest of the pie was cut into 99 pieces and served to all the PC makers.

This year Apple takes their same small piece of the pie again only this time the remaining pie is cut into 109 pieces.

So the market grew 10% in unit sales. There were 110 pieces of pie this year as opposed to only 100 last year.

But the pie wasn't any bigger; it was just cut into more pieces and Apple got the same size piece (revenue share) that they did last year.

I am aware what it is.. i was mocking it. Revenue share is the code for "I'm losing market share so to feel good, i put out this other metric that no one on wall street cares about". There is a reason all companies obsess about market share. I bet supercomputers have a huge margin (after all, really, how much can a 100 million computer hardware cost.. most of the cost is for intellectual property)... so, a company who sells two supercomputers but has only like 0.0003% market share would quote revenue share to feel good.. no one cares about revenue share.. when you have to quote that number, you are losing
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

Just gonna throw out backless claims or you gonna put some backbone into it. Please explain (preferably in list format) which of his ideas you are referring to & where they originally came from.

The original logic board and ipod are two that spring readily to mind.

SJ's great strength is convincing people that they 'need' his product.

He is an excellent marketeer, nothing more nothing less.
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You keep throwing out this fallacy. Who else besides you claims Apple make 30-35% margins? Please give us evidence.



google is your friend....

or just even read their annual results.
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

I am aware what it is.. i was mocking it. Revenue share is the code for "I'm losing market share so to feel good, i put out this other metric that no one on wall street cares about". There is a reason all companies obsess about market share. I bet supercomputers have a huge margin (after all, really, how much can a 100 million computer hardware cost.. most of the cost is for intellectual property)... so, a company who sells two supercomputers but has only like 0.0003% market share would quote revenue share to feel good.. no one cares about revenue share.. when you have to quote that number, you are losing

Are you really going to sit there and say market share is a more important measurement of success than profit? Apple could make huge advances in market share by selling a $500 netbook, but they'd probably lose money doing it. Sounds like a great business strategy to me
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Are you really going to sit there and say market share is a more important measurement of success than profit? Apple could make huge advances in market share by selling a $500 netbook, but they'd probably lose money doing it. Sounds like a great business strategy to me

Oh it's a strategy. BMW uses that strategy too but i doubt they will generate as much revenue as Toyota or as much profit. The more of something you can sell, the cheaper you can sell it while maintaining your profit. Allow me to explain to the slow among you..

If person A sells 10 items at $50 profit/item, then person A makes $500 profit.

If person B can sell 100 item at $20 profit/item, then person B makes
$2000 profit.

That is why everyone except Apple fans look at market share.. do you realize in terms of units the difference a 1% market share has?.. 1% probably represents over 1 million units. At that scale, you can definetly still make more profit while selling each item at a lower price. I realize this is a difficult concept for apple fans to grasp, hence why i included basic economics for dummies above.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's share of US PC market slips to 8% at hands of Acer