Apple dominates the $1000+ notebook market, confined mostly to purchases made from physical stores (Best Buy, etc.)
This has been in the news for the past two weeks.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Well it's a fairly interesting and specific fact. If you're hearing it for the first time you'd naturally ask for a source.
It surprsied me too. I understood Apple was doing very well in the Premium end of the market, but not this well.
Since this article has no Apple relavance, then it only has one purpose being posted here.
Please, focus on Apple products and such. I'm not here to read about M$ and their blunders. I want to read about Apple and their blunders (of which there are many)
Camroid, it's relevant.... enough. Every pundit and their son has been claiming that Apple should be in this bloody Netbook Market. After this statement and Microsoft's financials it's pretty clear that this market contains some downsides.
All the rumours about an iPad_Slate_Tablet_Whatever can't all be true... but informed and reasonable opinion is that something new is going to be coming out of Apple. My guess is that Jobs and Co are hoping to turn the netbook market on it's ear.
Google have also recently thrown their hat into this ring. I think the next two or three years could be verrry iiinteresting.
If we can debate about spy shots of iPhone covers why can't we debate about netbooks?
Since this article has no Apple relavance, then it only has one purpose being posted here.
Please, focus on Apple products and such. I'm not here to read about M$ and their blunders. I want to read about Apple and their blunders (of which there are many)
Dude, when this becomes your website, you can decide what gets posted. Having said that, when you see an article that you don't think has any relevance to this site, you can just not click the link, not read the article and not worry about it at all. Telling others what should or shouldn't be written will only fall on deaf ears and not change one thing.
I'd like to see the source you're quoting about the 90% of $1000+ computer market...could you site the article?
I'd also like to know if you missed the part in this posting where AI stated that MS dropped XP prices to allow for a stronger share of the netbook market, which it seemed to work (in the past few months) if you look at most netbooks out there (dell offers about 70%-80% windows netbooks).
...it has been reported, first by Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch that NPD reported that 91% of RETAIL PC sales revenue in the US were Apple's. He compares this to last year when NPD reported that Apple was only 66% of this segment. He gives some explanations as the ASP, average selling price, for PCs have dropped considerably due to netbooks, etc. I'm sure you can google it.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Last year Apple had a recorded 66% of the $1000+PC market, and even that seemed high back then. You have to understand that each $50 or $100 the percentage will fall drastically as the average PC price is about $700-800 by last estimate. But if we forget about unit share, for the entire PC market Apple has stated that they take ⅓ of every dollar for every PC sold. That simply means that those cheap $400 PCs which sell like hotcakes yield very little actual profit for their respective companies, yet they can?t easily lose that little market to their competitor. It?s not a place for them to be, especially for Dell who can?t seem to beat HP on any level.
Last year Apple had a recorded 66% of the $1000+PC market, and even that seemed high back then. You have to understand that each $50 or $100 the percentage will fall drastically as the average PC price is about $700-800 by last estimate. But if we forget about unit share, for the entire PC market Apple has stated that they take ⅓ of every dollar for every PC sold. That simply means that those cheap $400 PCs which sell like hotcakes yield very little actual profit for their respective companies, yet they can?t easily lose that little market to their competitor. It?s not a place for them to be, especially for Dell who can?t seem to beat HP on any level.
So now we're seeing the other shoe drop. The downside of getting involved in netbooks. This is what everyone's been saying all along.
So now we're seeing the other shoe drop. The downside of getting involved in netbooks. This is what everyone's been saying all along.
And while companies like Microsoft, ASUS, MSI, Dell, HP, etc. are scratching and clawing for their share of the increasingly saturated netbook market - investing R&D and money into an area the yields very slim profit margins to begin with - Apple is steadily and comfortably increasing their share of the top-end market.
Meanwhile, Apple continues to innovate and the others seem to be playing "follow the leader" - and playing very poorly.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!)
Im sorry to say that after being pretty impressed with windows 7 it has headed the way of previous Microsoft operating systems.
I have 7 installed on both a desktop machine and an Aspire One netbook. I have had this installed since the RC and steadily over the weeks both the desktop and netbook have become slower and slower. I notice this on the desktop which only runs Outlook and Office. I have cleared caches etc and defragmented the drives but it is becoming sluggish and is prone to random 'lags' in daily use.
As with Vista it started off well but after a while it too slowed down.
I have since reinstalled 7 on the desktop and it is running quickly again but such a difference in only a few weeks is not a good sign. The netbook is going back to XP Pro which runs fine on it.
I have to keep testing 7 on the desktop as more of our clients will inevitably be picking up new laptops with 7 on over the holiday season.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!)
Sure, np.
This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.
Im sorry to say that after being pretty impressed with windows 7 it has headed the way of previous Microsoft operating systems.
I have 7 installed on both a desktop machine and an Aspire One netbook. I have had this installed since the RC and steadily over the weeks both the desktop and netbook have become slower and slower. I notice this on the desktop which only runs Outlook and Office. I have cleared caches etc and defragmented the drives but it is becoming sluggish and is prone to random 'lags' in daily use.
As with Vista it started off well but after a while it too slowed down.
I have since reinstalled 7 on the desktop and it is running quickly again but such a difference in only a few weeks is not a good sign. The netbook is going back to XP Pro which runs fine on it.
I have to keep testing 7 on the desktop as more of our clients will inevitably be picking up new laptops with 7 on over the holiday season.
Sounds like the same old system. Flashy OS Stacked on top of the house of cards that is the Registry. Scary!
So, for all the time that Microsoft has been claiming that Macs are overpriced, it turns out that Windows has been priced too low to maintain a profitable business?
It'll be interesting to see where prices are a year from now...
Well Prince's prose might be labouring the point a little.... but there is a point.
Microsoft doesn't like selling a dirt cheap version of XP for netbooks. The OEMs (apart from maybe Acer) aren't that keen either. Selling low price, low margin netbooks that cannibalise ( a little!) hasn;t done much for their bottom line.
There has even been some negative feedback from some consumers, disappointed with the capabilities of these machines.
So, with some higher specs and a better OS perhaps folk might not find it a problem to pay a few dollars more. Everybody's happy. Even Apple! And that is Prince's point because if they enter the market the price differential (and there will be one!) won't be as large.
This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.
Sure, but my point is ... do they care? Even people buying PC systems for under $1000 are still buying Windows.
And I wouldn't put too much importance on those NPD figures. It's US only. Retail only. I am not saying the figures are wrong... it's just that it's the HPs and Dells that are affected more than Microsoft. It's still good news for the Apple train.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!)
Besides what Quadra 620 said, MS doesn?t make the same from different priced OSes. They make a lot more on a higher version of Windows than they do a lesser version. Those cheap PCs that Windows and the majority PC HW vendors dominate usually come with a lower-tier version of Windows. Usually to help bring the cost down, but also because they can?t run certain things like Aero on some of that HW, at least they couldn?t when Vista first appeared.
The PC vendors that try to compete at the high end can often more expensive than Apple?s comparable product. Usually when you have a cheap product with little profit margin you have to make up for it by trying to upsell to a more expensive product with a higher profit margin. Since Apple isn?t playing that game Apple can be seen a better value when you get into the more expensive PC offerings.
Each model has its place in the market and I don?t see how any of that will be changing anytime soon. I do see that eventually Apple will saturate their current segment and will have to offer more products at lower prices if they wish to still increase their year-over?year sales. They can also move into new markets but offering more products is usually the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Microsoft doesn't like selling a dirt cheap version of XP for netbooks. The OEMs (apart from maybe Acer) aren't that keen either. Selling low price, low margin netbooks that cannibalise ( a little!) hasn;t done much for their bottom line.
MS was put in a tough spot. They didn?t want to sell XP when they are pushing Vista, but it simply wouldn?t run on Atoms and they couldn?t let the very low end of the PC market be domianted by Linux-based OSes. The netbook vendors had a position to really squeeze MS to make XP very cheap to buy.
Sure, but my point is ... do they care? Even people buying PC systems for under $1000 are still buying Windows.
And I wouldn't put too much importance on those NPD figures. It's US only. Retail only. I am not saying the figures are wrong... it's just that it's the HPs and Dells that are affected more than Microsoft. It's still good news for the Apple train.
Do they care? Absolutely! Do it affect their bottomline at this point? Nope. But they have to look toward the future. Mac OS X is a gaining momentum. The iPod/iPhone halo effect, the move to Intel so one can install XP as a dual-boot, and internet?s move to OS-agnostic and browser-agnostic coding have all helped make the transition easier, but the Apple Stores have likely been the biggest contributing factor as people who had heard about Macs but never used one were able to finally get their hands on one. People can say they are expensive, but most of here likely remember when computers cost a lot more and did a lot less so I don?t think $1000 or $1500 is unreasonanble for the machine you want. MS is afraid of what the future holds for their OS dominance, and I think Chrome OS will be a huge factor in the developing world where Apple simply can?t touch with their premium product. That is not to say MS won?t thrive or that they will lose the majority of the OS marketshare, but losing enough could reduce their valuation and unravel some other business end features that are the real money makers for them.
I still don't understand what MS wants to do here. They couldn't sell them when they were cheaper, so now charging MORE will move product?
Yes but they are selling. 4.5 million Q1 2009. That's the fastest growing segment of the market. Some IDC figures.
Microsoft is just pissed because they have to virtually give away XP 'cos Vista don't work!
Quote:
Wasn't it MS' whole strategy for months now to compete on price?? So now they want to make greater margins by charging more for the same product they couldn't move in the first place?
MS's ad strategy was trying to move more laptops... not netbooks.
Windows being more expensive might increase the price of the machines they come loaded on.
So . . . Ballmer thinks that raising the price will help sell them? Does he think that a higher price tag will give the illusion of greater desirability? Will the other box makers magically start building Apple-like systems with unibody encolsures now? LOL this is interesting.
Can someone chime in on this, please.
MS/PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc.) find themselves in a very common business situation-diminishing profit margins where they all end up chasing the bottom. My father used to be in the milk business in the '70's and SealTest Food's (owned by Kraft) profit margin was called an "Eagle." In other words, .001%! All they were doing was wearing out the plants and trucks. They would actually make more money "not producing" milk!
Comments
Apple dominates the $1000+ notebook market, confined mostly to purchases made from physical stores (Best Buy, etc.)
This has been in the news for the past two weeks.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Well it's a fairly interesting and specific fact. If you're hearing it for the first time you'd naturally ask for a source.
It surprsied me too. I understood Apple was doing very well in the Premium end of the market, but not this well.
And this relates to Apple how?
Apple currently has no netbook.
Since this article has no Apple relavance, then it only has one purpose being posted here.
Please, focus on Apple products and such. I'm not here to read about M$ and their blunders. I want to read about Apple and their blunders (of which there are many)
Camroid, it's relevant.... enough. Every pundit and their son has been claiming that Apple should be in this bloody Netbook Market. After this statement and Microsoft's financials it's pretty clear that this market contains some downsides.
All the rumours about an iPad_Slate_Tablet_Whatever can't all be true... but informed and reasonable opinion is that something new is going to be coming out of Apple. My guess is that Jobs and Co are hoping to turn the netbook market on it's ear.
Google have also recently thrown their hat into this ring. I think the next two or three years could be verrry iiinteresting.
If we can debate about spy shots of iPhone covers why can't we debate about netbooks?
And this relates to Apple how?
Apple currently has no netbook.
Since this article has no Apple relavance, then it only has one purpose being posted here.
Please, focus on Apple products and such. I'm not here to read about M$ and their blunders. I want to read about Apple and their blunders (of which there are many)
Dude, when this becomes your website, you can decide what gets posted. Having said that, when you see an article that you don't think has any relevance to this site, you can just not click the link, not read the article and not worry about it at all. Telling others what should or shouldn't be written will only fall on deaf ears and not change one thing.
I'd like to see the source you're quoting about the 90% of $1000+ computer market...could you site the article?
I'd also like to know if you missed the part in this posting where AI stated that MS dropped XP prices to allow for a stronger share of the netbook market, which it seemed to work (in the past few months) if you look at most netbooks out there (dell offers about 70%-80% windows netbooks).
...it has been reported, first by Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch that NPD reported that 91% of RETAIL PC sales revenue in the US were Apple's. He compares this to last year when NPD reported that Apple was only 66% of this segment. He gives some explanations as the ASP, average selling price, for PCs have dropped considerably due to netbooks, etc. I'm sure you can google it.
Guess i'm not keeping up. We'll that's probably because all these new iPhone iPod touch users and switching to Apple. but I haven't read any article yet, just a guess.
Last year Apple had a recorded 66% of the $1000+PC market, and even that seemed high back then. You have to understand that each $50 or $100 the percentage will fall drastically as the average PC price is about $700-800 by last estimate. But if we forget about unit share, for the entire PC market Apple has stated that they take ⅓ of every dollar for every PC sold. That simply means that those cheap $400 PCs which sell like hotcakes yield very little actual profit for their respective companies, yet they can?t easily lose that little market to their competitor. It?s not a place for them to be, especially for Dell who can?t seem to beat HP on any level.
Last year Apple had a recorded 66% of the $1000+PC market, and even that seemed high back then. You have to understand that each $50 or $100 the percentage will fall drastically as the average PC price is about $700-800 by last estimate. But if we forget about unit share, for the entire PC market Apple has stated that they take ⅓ of every dollar for every PC sold. That simply means that those cheap $400 PCs which sell like hotcakes yield very little actual profit for their respective companies, yet they can?t easily lose that little market to their competitor. It?s not a place for them to be, especially for Dell who can?t seem to beat HP on any level.
So now we're seeing the other shoe drop. The downside of getting involved in netbooks. This is what everyone's been saying all along.
So now we're seeing the other shoe drop. The downside of getting involved in netbooks. This is what everyone's been saying all along.
And while companies like Microsoft, ASUS, MSI, Dell, HP, etc. are scratching and clawing for their share of the increasingly saturated netbook market - investing R&D and money into an area the yields very slim profit margins to begin with - Apple is steadily and comfortably increasing their share of the top-end market.
Meanwhile, Apple continues to innovate and the others seem to be playing "follow the leader" - and playing very poorly.
MS are virtually locked out of the Premium end.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!
I have 7 installed on both a desktop machine and an Aspire One netbook. I have had this installed since the RC and steadily over the weeks both the desktop and netbook have become slower and slower. I notice this on the desktop which only runs Outlook and Office. I have cleared caches etc and defragmented the drives but it is becoming sluggish and is prone to random 'lags' in daily use.
As with Vista it started off well but after a while it too slowed down.
I have since reinstalled 7 on the desktop and it is running quickly again but such a difference in only a few weeks is not a good sign. The netbook is going back to XP Pro which runs fine on it.
I have to keep testing 7 on the desktop as more of our clients will inevitably be picking up new laptops with 7 on over the holiday season.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!
Sure, np.
This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.
Im sorry to say that after being pretty impressed with windows 7 it has headed the way of previous Microsoft operating systems.
I have 7 installed on both a desktop machine and an Aspire One netbook. I have had this installed since the RC and steadily over the weeks both the desktop and netbook have become slower and slower. I notice this on the desktop which only runs Outlook and Office. I have cleared caches etc and defragmented the drives but it is becoming sluggish and is prone to random 'lags' in daily use.
As with Vista it started off well but after a while it too slowed down.
I have since reinstalled 7 on the desktop and it is running quickly again but such a difference in only a few weeks is not a good sign. The netbook is going back to XP Pro which runs fine on it.
I have to keep testing 7 on the desktop as more of our clients will inevitably be picking up new laptops with 7 on over the holiday season.
Sounds like the same old system. Flashy OS Stacked on top of the house of cards that is the Registry. Scary!
Please stop with the glorified titles Prince. MS are not the devil, you know.
Huh? Microsoft has been the devil we have known for over 20 years now!
It'll be interesting to see where prices are a year from now...
This makes no sense to me.
Am I missing something here?
Well Prince's prose might be labouring the point a little.... but there is a point.
Microsoft doesn't like selling a dirt cheap version of XP for netbooks. The OEMs (apart from maybe Acer) aren't that keen either. Selling low price, low margin netbooks that cannibalise ( a little!) hasn;t done much for their bottom line.
There has even been some negative feedback from some consumers, disappointed with the capabilities of these machines.
So, with some higher specs and a better OS perhaps folk might not find it a problem to pay a few dollars more. Everybody's happy.
This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.
Sure, but my point is ... do they care? Even people buying PC systems for under $1000 are still buying Windows.
And I wouldn't put too much importance on those NPD figures. It's US only. Retail only. I am not saying the figures are wrong... it's just that it's the HPs and Dells that are affected more than Microsoft. It's still good news for the Apple train.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. You said something similar on the other Balmer thread.
MS make their money from the software not the hardware. They might earn the same money from a $600 HP as they do on a $2000 Dell Adamo. (Best product name evah!
Besides what Quadra 620 said, MS doesn?t make the same from different priced OSes. They make a lot more on a higher version of Windows than they do a lesser version. Those cheap PCs that Windows and the majority PC HW vendors dominate usually come with a lower-tier version of Windows. Usually to help bring the cost down, but also because they can?t run certain things like Aero on some of that HW, at least they couldn?t when Vista first appeared.
The PC vendors that try to compete at the high end can often more expensive than Apple?s comparable product. Usually when you have a cheap product with little profit margin you have to make up for it by trying to upsell to a more expensive product with a higher profit margin. Since Apple isn?t playing that game Apple can be seen a better value when you get into the more expensive PC offerings.
Each model has its place in the market and I don?t see how any of that will be changing anytime soon. I do see that eventually Apple will saturate their current segment and will have to offer more products at lower prices if they wish to still increase their year-over?year sales. They can also move into new markets but offering more products is usually the way to go.
Microsoft doesn't like selling a dirt cheap version of XP for netbooks. The OEMs (apart from maybe Acer) aren't that keen either. Selling low price, low margin netbooks that cannibalise ( a little!) hasn;t done much for their bottom line.
MS was put in a tough spot. They didn?t want to sell XP when they are pushing Vista, but it simply wouldn?t run on Atoms and they couldn?t let the very low end of the PC market be domianted by Linux-based OSes. The netbook vendors had a position to really squeeze MS to make XP very cheap to buy.
Sure, but my point is ... do they care? Even people buying PC systems for under $1000 are still buying Windows.
And I wouldn't put too much importance on those NPD figures. It's US only. Retail only. I am not saying the figures are wrong... it's just that it's the HPs and Dells that are affected more than Microsoft. It's still good news for the Apple train.
Do they care? Absolutely! Do it affect their bottomline at this point? Nope. But they have to look toward the future. Mac OS X is a gaining momentum. The iPod/iPhone halo effect, the move to Intel so one can install XP as a dual-boot, and internet?s move to OS-agnostic and browser-agnostic coding have all helped make the transition easier, but the Apple Stores have likely been the biggest contributing factor as people who had heard about Macs but never used one were able to finally get their hands on one. People can say they are expensive, but most of here likely remember when computers cost a lot more and did a lot less so I don?t think $1000 or $1500 is unreasonanble for the machine you want. MS is afraid of what the future holds for their OS dominance, and I think Chrome OS will be a huge factor in the developing world where Apple simply can?t touch with their premium product. That is not to say MS won?t thrive or that they will lose the majority of the OS marketshare, but losing enough could reduce their valuation and unravel some other business end features that are the real money makers for them.
I still don't understand what MS wants to do here. They couldn't sell them when they were cheaper, so now charging MORE will move product?
Yes but they are selling. 4.5 million Q1 2009. That's the fastest growing segment of the market. Some IDC figures.
Microsoft is just pissed because they have to virtually give away XP 'cos Vista don't work!
Wasn't it MS' whole strategy for months now to compete on price?? So now they want to make greater margins by charging more for the same product they couldn't move in the first place?
MS's ad strategy was trying to move more laptops... not netbooks.
I'm not sure what's going on.
Windows being more expensive might increase the price of the machines they come loaded on.
So . . . Ballmer thinks that raising the price will help sell them? Does he think that a higher price tag will give the illusion of greater desirability? Will the other box makers magically start building Apple-like systems with unibody encolsures now? LOL this is interesting.
Can someone chime in on this, please.
MS/PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc.) find themselves in a very common business situation-diminishing profit margins where they all end up chasing the bottom. My father used to be in the milk business in the '70's and SealTest Food's (owned by Kraft) profit margin was called an "Eagle." In other words, .001%! All they were doing was wearing out the plants and trucks. They would actually make more money "not producing" milk!