Originally Posted by Messiah
I make that out to be (roughly) 71/29!
Wow, that's quite a difference!
Yep and the conclusion we can reach is that given how the rest of the industry is sitting at nearly even desktop and laptop sales (45% - 55% respectively), we can safely assume that Apple make great laptops and poor desktops. Apple will of course read the figures to mean that people are just moving to laptops when in fact Mac users are being coerced more to laptops. In much the same way that the next sales figures will reveal that 100% of Macbook and 15" Macbook Pro owners prefer the new look.
On the other hand, if Apple were offering quad core desktops, the figures would be a lot more evenly spread as they are on the PC side of things. Apple are doing this deliberately though because they know that any quad is a pretty high end processor. The low end Core i7 and Core 2 Quad are fairly evenly matched:http://www.flickr.com/photos/simongreen_uk/3107114721/
This means that a very cheap quad desktop will come close to the Mac Pro performance (80-90%). Apple don't like this so they stick with dual core mobile chips on the consumer 'desktops' and produce an artificial barrier between pro and non-pro suggesting that by paying double the price, you can get over double the performance. The truth is that you can get double the performance for 2/3rds of the price.
A consumer would have to be pretty stupid to see quad core PCs for £550 and dual core iMacs for £700 and think they were getting a better deal with an iMac. The consumers I mean here are possible switchers. Now if this wasn't the case, the desktop sales would follow the industry trends more closely.
On the laptop side, you see horribly ugly plastic PC models that are really thick and heavy whose fans kick in often and make a lot of noise for maybe £500-600 and then you see similar spec laptops with magnetic clips and power adaptors, solid unibody aluminum shells, chiclet keyboard, built-in isight, gesture trackpad, easy upgradability for £930. Depending on the comparison model, it's 25-50% premium for far better quality.
Once they step up and do this on the desktop end, the sales figures will even out.
Maybe this is their strategy with the Macbook and the LED display. One day they will likely only sell laptops and Mac Pros. Where I work, people are doing this already and have probably added to the recent figures - they have the latest MBPs hooked up to 24" external matte screens instead of opting for the iMacs or Mac pros. Their reasoning is that if they are paying for mobile performance, they'd be as well getting mobility to go along with it so they can do their work at home. they can also be sold far more easily when new models come out while keeping the same quality of external screen.
Although they have the same problem with the internal screen replacement meaning sending the whole thing away, the drives can be removed so that their work doesn't go with them. After suffering broken displays on their iMacs, they have decided they won't ever buy one again and much prefer the laptop setup. An iMac screen is about $900 for the part no service and difficult to find. The MBP screen including repair is half that and very easy to find.