Single digit growth boosts Apple's share of US PC market to 8.7% 

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple's share of the U.S. computer market grew 2.5 percent in the second quarter while the PC industry as a whole saw shipments slide 1.2 percent, according to new figures released Wednesday by market research firm Gartner.



But competing firm IDC released numbers that showed a very different picture. Their report said Apple had an estimated year-over-year decline of 12.4 percent in shipments.



Gartner



The preliminary data has Apple garnering an 8.7 percent share of the U.S. computer market for the three-month period ended June, good enough for the Mac maker to maintain its ranking as the nation's fourth largest computer maker.



Apple next week will announce finalized figures for the same time frame, which coincides with its third fiscal quarter of the year. If Gartner's data is of any indication, the company is likely to post respectable single-digit growth in U.S.-based Mac given the challenging economic backdrop.



The Cupertino-based company's performance during the second calendar quarter also signals a turnaround from the first quarter, when the year-over-year comparison saw Mac shipments decline a little over 1 percent. From January to March, Apple managed to grab 7.4 percent of U.S. sales.



Overall, 16.4 million computers were sold in the U.S. during the second quarter, with 1.4 million of those being Macs. The number one vendor was Dell, which saw a massive 18.7 percent year-over-year decline. Nipping at its heels in second place was Hewlett-Packard, which actually topped Dell in the first quarter of year, but now trails by just a fraction of 1 percent.



Meanwhile, the biggest growth spurt came from netbook maker Acer, which saw year-over-year sales skyrocket 74.2 percent. The next nearest company, in terms of growth, was Toshiba with 22.5 percent. Acer and Toshiba ranked third and fifth, respectively, in U.S. market share.



Preliminary U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 2Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner



While an overall shrink of 1.2 percent in the U.S. might be seen as bad news, Gartner had predicted that the market would see a 12 percent slide.



"Mini-notebooks aside, some vendors had very aggressive pricing of regular mobile PCs below $500 at U.S. retailers," said Mikako Kitagawa, principal analyst at Gartner. "Aggressive pricing determined the winners and losers for market share gains in the U.S. consumer market."



Globally, the PC market saw a 5 percent decline, also beating Garter's June estimate of a 9.8 percent slide. A total of 68.1 million units were sold in the second quarter.



Preliminary Worldwide PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 2Q09 (Thousands of Units) | Source: Gartner



Worldwide, Hewlett-Packard was king, with 19.6 percent of the total market. Apple does not appear among the top five global computer manufacturers.



?Though the market was still in decline, the better than expected results can be interpreted as a small sign of a PC market recovery in terms of shipment volumes in some regions," Kitagawa said. "PC shipments in Asia/Pacific and the U.S. were better than our expectation, while shipments in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region indicated on-ongoing weakness.?



IDC



In addition to the 12.4 percent Q2 decline, IDC's preliminary results showed Apple with a lower market share. The report states Apple held a 7.6 percent market share in terms of shipments, ranking the Cupertino, Calif., company fifth behindDell, HP, Acer and Toshiba, in that order.



The report said Apple shipped a total of 1.2 million computers for the quarter.



In the U.S., IDC estimated an industry-wide 3 percent year-over-year drop, slightly worse than the Garter estimate.



"Ongoing healthy volume through Retail spurred Portables to exceed forecasts, but that was offset by Commercial sluggishness and Desktop volume below expectations," the IDC says of American shipments. "Dell regained the lead by a small margin, but remains hampered by slow commercial spending."



IDC said worldwide shipments declined 3.1 percent. That number was, like Garter, better than expected. The firm had predicted a decline of 6.3 percent for Q2.



?These results are a very positive indicator for the second half of the year,? said Loren Loverde, program director for IDC?s Tracker Program. ?We are seeing continued demand from consumers and limited impact from supply chain factors such as inventory balancing. New product launches in the second half of the year combined with seasonal growth and greater economic confidence resulting from factors such as government stimulus, a more liquid housing market, relatively stable stock market and interest rates, and progress in the auto and financial industries, should support the expected return to growth by year-end.?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking
  • Reply 2 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post


    If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking



    I wouldn’t say that. Their ads barely have a pic of a Mac and that is at the end of the ad for a second. The “I’m a Mac” ads compare the benefits of the whole widget.



    It would be nice to show the actual OS but it may be hard to have a commercial that illustrates those benefits in under 30 seconds. Eventually they’ll have to retire the “I’m a Mac” ads.
  • Reply 3 of 38
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.



    Add in a subsidized Mac Net (netbook) and the numbers would have been through the roof.
  • Reply 4 of 38
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post


    If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.



    Add in a subsidized Mac Net (netbook) and the numbers would have been through the roof.



    Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/

    BUT to all you dolts.

    why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??



    We have two true facts to consider.

    FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .



    2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.





    Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.



    Go apple
  • Reply 5 of 38
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post


    If Apple insists on charging a premium for its Macs it needs to make sure its ads tell why OS X is so good and worth the extra money. Otherwise people just compare the hardware only. Apple's Mac ads seem to just give the impression Macs are better looking



    Really? If that's the case, shouldn't their numbers be declining, by comparing their system hardware with clones?



    Sorry, but family members and visitors at retail stores where population density is high view the systems, third party software, and OS X and are slowly moving to the realization that it's worth the price.
  • Reply 6 of 38
    nuduanudua Posts: 5member
    People should pay more attention to revenue and not units.



    $ is what that ultimately counts. Wonder how much of the $ spent on computers Apple received, should be much more than 8%.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/

    BUT to all you dolts.

    why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??

    We have two true facts to consider.

    FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market



    iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing? one can do on them they still don?t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren?t going to replace most people?s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories. However, in the end marketshare means nothing without profit so as a shareholder I?m okay with a couple percent a quarter on average.



    Quote:

    2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.



    That would go to installed base and if true the installed base for Macs should be growing faster per quarter than the sales? with the caveat that pirated versions of OSes can skew these numbers.
  • Reply 8 of 38
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    Cheaper Mac Pros, iMacs, Mini (over priced about $100) would have made it much higher.



    Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a

    lower price, they would sell more?
  • Reply 9 of 38
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a

    lower price, they would sell more?



    Actually I doubt it. Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."
  • Reply 10 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Actually I doubt it. Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."



    In that scenario, it wouldn?t make a difference, however it unfortunately seems people usually go with what they have available to spend, where it is cash or CC, and then determine if they want to spend that much on wares, instead of first determining what they actually need and then making a decision if they can afford it. Some on this forum may see each scenario as having the same end result, but they don?t; making each machine $100 cheaper would sell more Macs, but that doesn?t mean that it would make more profit for the company for the number of additional product sold. MacTel seems to be focusing on improving marketshare, which is fine if are improving your bottom line at the same time.
  • Reply 11 of 38
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    In that scenario, it wouldn?t make a difference, however it unfortunately seems people usually go with what they have available to spend, where it is cash or CC, and then determine if they want to spend that much on wares, instead of first determining what they actually need and then making a decision if they can afford it. Some on this forum may see each scenario as having the same end result, but they don?t; making each machine $100 cheaper would sell more Macs, but that doesn?t mean that it would make more profit for the company for the number of additional product sold. MacTel seems to be focusing on improving marketshare, which is fine if are improving your bottom line at the same time.



    Right - clearly it would sell more, but I don't think it would increase revenue because I don't think it would draw in enough incremental sales to cover the lower cost for everyone else.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    oldmacguyoldmacguy Posts: 151member
    What's that quote? Oh yeah. "Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics." I guess I'm sticking with a loser.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Right - clearly it would sell more, but I don't think it would increase revenue because I don't think it would draw in enough incremental sales to cover the lower cost for everyone else.



    Simply by virtue that we are speculation and Apple has teams of people crunching the numbers I have to agree with you. There is also an issue with lowering the price of a product and/or brand. It’s easy to lower a price but raising it back up again if expenses increase can have disastrous effects. We already enough bellyaching on these forums about how an <iProduct> used to start at this price and now starts at a higher price, regardless of how many years or engineering changes have occurred. These people are simply going by the product name and nothing else. There is also a potential issue with weakening a product or brand’s longterm desirability by making it too accessible to too many people too quickly. So far, Apple has shown they are doing it right, even if it does seem as though they are being too cautious at times.



    PS: That is just a general statement. I know you know all this already.
  • Reply 14 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/

    BUT to all you dolts.

    why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??



    We have two true facts to consider.

    FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .



    2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.





    Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.



    Go apple



    Because iPhones don't runs OS X software.
  • Reply 15 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing? one can do on them they still don?t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren?t going to replace most people?s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories. However, in the end marketshare means nothing without profit so as a shareholder I?m okay with a couple percent a quarter on average.



    It would be hard to tell the difference between the really cheap notebooks, and the really good netbooks.



    I suppose one could separate them out by processor type. Anything running on an Atom class chip would be ruled a netbook.
  • Reply 16 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if Apple sold the same products for a

    lower price, they would sell more?



    And then profits would disappear, and they would become another Dell.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    bobrikbobrik Posts: 36member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nudua View Post


    People should pay more attention to revenue and not units.



    $ is what that ultimately counts. Wonder how much of the $ spent on computers Apple received, should be much more than 8%.



    Depends on who pays that attention. Developers needing to decide whether they will produce a Mac version of their app (in addition to a Windows version) care only about market share, and don't give a damn about Apple's revenue. Also since Mac users care more about what apps are available for them then what profit Apple generated, market share, not revenue, should be IMHO more important to Mac users as well.
  • Reply 18 of 38
    akhomerunakhomerun Posts: 386member
    4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.



    you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.



    when you go for marketshare in the computer industry you are also aiming for dangerously slim margins. apple needs just enough to keep OS X development healthy and not so much that they end up like dell right now.
  • Reply 19 of 38
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post


    4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.



    you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.



    when you go for marketshare in the computer industry you are also aiming for dangerously slim margins. apple needs just enough to keep OS X development healthy and not so much that they end up like dell right now.







    The mini and lower end iMacs all use laptop parts. Dell and hp sell similar products at the same prices. I was looking yesterday.



    I'll probably be replacing my desktop soon and Looking at a mac as well. But having trouble finding the configuration I want at my price level. I might just end up building another pc but with a nicer case. Still haven't priced out the build it myself price
  • Reply 20 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    Since they must include shitty acer devices which are really junk . Then of course market share is skewed/

    BUT to all you dolts.

    why don't we add the i phones sales into the overall totals since there better computers than acer makes ??



    We have two true facts to consider.

    FIRST OFF What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market .



    2ND OFF>> And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included lets pro-rate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.





    Let compare apples to apples / and we would minus out the empty dell boxes that run off servers.

    Go apple









    I have a cheap Acer laptop that is 6 years old and has never had a problem EVER

    My macbook is on its 3rd magsafe and the top panel has been replaced twice due to cracking .

    What was that about quality again ? Applecare is £150 I can buy a 3 year on-site warranty from Acer for £60.

    I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!
Sign In or Register to comment.