Netbooks skew the numbers. What is to say, an iPod Touch shouldn't be counted as a mini Mac? If so, Apple's numbers would be much greater.
absolutely agree...who buys a pc these days when you can do everything with an iphone / ipod touch? i'd like to see those numbers, and how they relate to the pc ones...
ACER is selling cheap machines. They own Gateway, E-Machines, Packard Bell, and their own brand.
Operating margins are 2.2%. Yes, that's not a typo.
Ouch.
Sales are up but they're hardly making any money. It's what happens when you head straight for the bottom. And you get just that . . . horrid netbooks. Even Michael Dell - of all people - admitted it:
What's he saying? His new iMac is about to become old - real fast. Then we will have our new non glAre industrial iMac !
I don't know when, but I am sure that something will happen. I know that Apple got a lot of negative feedback from businesses here in Europe, and I know two art schools that went from Mac to PC after over 20 years, only because of the glare issues and for no other reason. Even if this is only 1 or 2% of the market, it is an important part and it includes a lot of people that have high public visibility and supported Apple all the time. Apple has so far been the only company I know that reduced models and options while gaining market share. This has a limit. No idea where it is, but it definitely exists.
No whining necessary. But just look at the numbers for Acer for the answer to any of your questions.
TeckDud, even you must realize it's not how many you sell that's important, it's how much your net profit is after you're finished selling. Considering that Acer's main thrust is the lower cost netbook, etc, and Apple is not even in that market makes me glad my money is on Apple .... that and the stock's performance, of course.
It's so obvious that Apple should have had an answer to Acer netbooks like 2 years ago. They have infiltrated the consciousness of the youth today - they all have them.
I?m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn?t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
I think that's what the numbers do already -- add them all together, as if the companies can't be distinguished from one another in any useful way. Even if you don't buy my division of Apple from the OEM pack, the comparative growth numbers between Apple and the balance of the industry still apply. The trends would not be so impressive had they not been going on for so long. Put it this way, despite what the numbers from this quarter say, Acer is probably not actually making a move on HP and Dell. The only steady gainer over the past couple of years has been Apple.
That obviously lumps all consumers into one category. Bear in mind that although the share is not that low relative to the other manufacturers, those other manufacturers combined all offer significantly more options than Apple and for the 9% that went with Apple, 91% went without for one reason or another. So to define 'what consumers want' to be what Apple offer when their share goes up a point or two, isn't entirely a good measure.
If they lowered prices a bit, they hit a larger demographic, if they introduce an overpowered cube on top of the current models, they hit a larger market, if they unlock iphones, they hit a lager market. As I say, to suggest that they are doing something right by not doing these things simply because their share goes up a bit is plain wrong when every one of the changes would unquestionably increase marketshare.
All these figures prove is that Apple is gaining in popularity little by little but in the end the majority still opt for Windows PCs because they can afford them and they get options.
Show me any other computer manufacturer with a better balance sheet than Apple then I might agree with you. I can tell you of lots of companies with a great "market share" but they still go broke, so what's the value of market share? ..... nothing, absolutely nothing ... except bragging rights and that might satisfy one's ego ... but it does nothing for your bank balance.
I’m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn’t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
We don't do that because most people don't buy Macs to primarily use Windows. A small few may. Most of the rest that have Windows just use it a little bit, or are weaning themselves off it.
You might as well say that not all Windows PC are Windows PCs because they also have Linux on them.
That obviously lumps all consumers into one category. Bear in mind that although the share is not that low relative to the other manufacturers, those other manufacturers combined all offer significantly more options than Apple and for the 9% that went with Apple, 91% went without for one reason or another. So to define 'what consumers want' to be what Apple offer when their share goes up a point or two, isn't entirely a good measure.
If they lowered prices a bit, they hit a larger demographic, if they introduce an overpowered cube on top of the current models, they hit a larger market, if they unlock iphones, they hit a lager market. As I say, to suggest that they are doing something right by not doing these things simply because their share goes up a bit is plain wrong when every one of the changes would unquestionably increase marketshare.
All these figures prove is that Apple is gaining in popularity little by little but in the end the majority still opt for Windows PCs because they can afford them and they get options.
You forgot to mention that Apple accounts for nearly all of the PROFITS resulting from PC sales.
I WOULDN'T LAUGH AT 48.3% GROWTH IF I WERE YOU- looks rather FOOLISH.
Again TeckDud, fyi ... sales growth absolutely does not automatically equate to success ... does acer make as much profit as Apple? If I sell 1 computer and make 500.00 profit and you sell 4 computers and make 100.00 on each are you a more profitable company than me? HINT 4x100.00=400.00, 500.00 is bigger than 400.00 ... I can't dumb it down any further for you ....Sorry.
Sales are up but they're hardly making any money. It's what happens when you head straight for the bottom. And you get just that . . . horrid netbooks. Even Michael Dell - of all people - admitted it:
ACER looks to be going the way Dell went. Dell sold ever cheaper machines in a hopeless quest to become the worlds biggest seller of PCs. In that quest they went from being a well run, profitable company with good margins, to a marginal company.
When Michael Dell came back, he acknowledged that his company done wrong. That's why they bought Alien, and came out with a more expensive luxury brand.
But they kept on selling cheap junk, because that's what their customers expected, and they didn't want to lose them.
Sales are sliding, profits are getting harder to come by.
Now ACER is following their lead. The chairman announced that they surpassed Dell in worldwide marketshare, and they hoped to pass Hp.
All on the back of netbook sales.
Meanwhile, sales in dollars were down, and profits were down. They cut their dividend.
Particularly in the US. Are they big on the netbook scene too?
Not as much. I bought my daughter early this summer before she went away to school, a Toshiba netbook, a Mini NB205. Good for a netbook, but not good. Just usable for what she needed during the summer in a new country. Skype, Internet, IM, etc.
Now that she started the fall semester, she has a 15" MBP 2.8 GHz.
We don't do that because most people don't buy Macs to primarily use Windows. A small few may. Most of the rest that have Windows just use it a little bit, or are weaning themselves off it.
You might as well say that not all Windows PC are Windows PCs because they also have Linux on them.
You're playing the semantics game with this.
Yes I am, that was my point. When comparing HW sales each company should be accounted for seperately, not lumping them all into one giant conglomerate simply because they don't run OS X natiely.
Comments
Netbooks skew the numbers. What is to say, an iPod Touch shouldn't be counted as a mini Mac? If so, Apple's numbers would be much greater.
absolutely agree...who buys a pc these days when you can do everything with an iphone / ipod touch? i'd like to see those numbers, and how they relate to the pc ones...
Once again, someone assuming that what is perfect for them is perfect for everyone.
What's he saying? His new iMac is about to become old - real fast. Then we will have our new non glAre industrial iMac !
This I agree with.
No need to confirm that you drink from the same cup
ACER is selling cheap machines. They own Gateway, E-Machines, Packard Bell, and their own brand.
Operating margins are 2.2%. Yes, that's not a typo.
Ouch.
Sales are up but they're hardly making any money. It's what happens when you head straight for the bottom. And you get just that . . . horrid netbooks. Even Michael Dell - of all people - admitted it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...l_club_speech/
What's he saying? His new iMac is about to become old - real fast. Then we will have our new non glAre industrial iMac !
I don't know when, but I am sure that something will happen. I know that Apple got a lot of negative feedback from businesses here in Europe, and I know two art schools that went from Mac to PC after over 20 years, only because of the glare issues and for no other reason. Even if this is only 1 or 2% of the market, it is an important part and it includes a lot of people that have high public visibility and supported Apple all the time. Apple has so far been the only company I know that reduced models and options while gaining market share. This has a limit. No idea where it is, but it definitely exists.
No whining necessary. But just look at the numbers for Acer for the answer to any of your questions.
TeckDud, even you must realize it's not how many you sell that's important, it's how much your net profit is after you're finished selling. Considering that Acer's main thrust is the lower cost netbook, etc, and Apple is not even in that market makes me glad my money is on Apple .... that and the stock's performance, of course.
It's so obvious that Apple should have had an answer to Acer netbooks like 2 years ago. They have infiltrated the consciousness of the youth today - they all have them.
As Forrest Gump says...stupid is as stupid does.
I?m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn?t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
I think that's what the numbers do already -- add them all together, as if the companies can't be distinguished from one another in any useful way. Even if you don't buy my division of Apple from the OEM pack, the comparative growth numbers between Apple and the balance of the industry still apply. The trends would not be so impressive had they not been going on for so long. Put it this way, despite what the numbers from this quarter say, Acer is probably not actually making a move on HP and Dell. The only steady gainer over the past couple of years has been Apple.
That obviously lumps all consumers into one category. Bear in mind that although the share is not that low relative to the other manufacturers, those other manufacturers combined all offer significantly more options than Apple and for the 9% that went with Apple, 91% went without for one reason or another. So to define 'what consumers want' to be what Apple offer when their share goes up a point or two, isn't entirely a good measure.
If they lowered prices a bit, they hit a larger demographic, if they introduce an overpowered cube on top of the current models, they hit a larger market, if they unlock iphones, they hit a lager market. As I say, to suggest that they are doing something right by not doing these things simply because their share goes up a bit is plain wrong when every one of the changes would unquestionably increase marketshare.
All these figures prove is that Apple is gaining in popularity little by little but in the end the majority still opt for Windows PCs because they can afford them and they get options.
Show me any other computer manufacturer with a better balance sheet than Apple then I might agree with you. I can tell you of lots of companies with a great "market share" but they still go broke, so what's the value of market share? ..... nothing, absolutely nothing ... except bragging rights and that might satisfy one's ego ... but it does nothing for your bank balance.
I can see you playing the roll of Steve Balmer on stage.
(jumping up and down with abandon, with tongue sticking out and waving his hand behind his ears)
NETBOOKS, NETBOOKS, NETBOOKS!!!
Good one .... ROFLMAO
I’m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn’t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
We don't do that because most people don't buy Macs to primarily use Windows. A small few may. Most of the rest that have Windows just use it a little bit, or are weaning themselves off it.
You might as well say that not all Windows PC are Windows PCs because they also have Linux on them.
You're playing the semantics game with this.
My 5-year-old iMac G5.
Ah, you'll have to replace it at some point.
That obviously lumps all consumers into one category. Bear in mind that although the share is not that low relative to the other manufacturers, those other manufacturers combined all offer significantly more options than Apple and for the 9% that went with Apple, 91% went without for one reason or another. So to define 'what consumers want' to be what Apple offer when their share goes up a point or two, isn't entirely a good measure.
If they lowered prices a bit, they hit a larger demographic, if they introduce an overpowered cube on top of the current models, they hit a larger market, if they unlock iphones, they hit a lager market. As I say, to suggest that they are doing something right by not doing these things simply because their share goes up a bit is plain wrong when every one of the changes would unquestionably increase marketshare.
All these figures prove is that Apple is gaining in popularity little by little but in the end the majority still opt for Windows PCs because they can afford them and they get options.
You forgot to mention that Apple accounts for nearly all of the PROFITS resulting from PC sales.
I WOULDN'T LAUGH AT 48.3% GROWTH IF I WERE YOU- looks rather FOOLISH.
Again TeckDud, fyi ... sales growth absolutely does not automatically equate to success ... does acer make as much profit as Apple? If I sell 1 computer and make 500.00 profit and you sell 4 computers and make 100.00 on each are you a more profitable company than me? HINT 4x100.00=400.00, 500.00 is bigger than 400.00 ... I can't dumb it down any further for you ....Sorry.
Tell it to Acer- I bet they're pretty happy with those numbers.
And they'd be even happier if they showed the same profit as Apple does.
Ouch.
Sales are up but they're hardly making any money. It's what happens when you head straight for the bottom. And you get just that . . . horrid netbooks. Even Michael Dell - of all people - admitted it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...l_club_speech/
ACER looks to be going the way Dell went. Dell sold ever cheaper machines in a hopeless quest to become the worlds biggest seller of PCs. In that quest they went from being a well run, profitable company with good margins, to a marginal company.
When Michael Dell came back, he acknowledged that his company done wrong. That's why they bought Alien, and came out with a more expensive luxury brand.
But they kept on selling cheap junk, because that's what their customers expected, and they didn't want to lose them.
Sales are sliding, profits are getting harder to come by.
Now ACER is following their lead. The chairman announced that they surpassed Dell in worldwide marketshare, and they hoped to pass Hp.
All on the back of netbook sales.
Meanwhile, sales in dollars were down, and profits were down. They cut their dividend.
Good move!
I hope they keep it up.
Particularly in the US. Are they big on the netbook scene too?
So what's the story behind Toshiba?
Particularly in the US. Are they big on the netbook scene too?
Not as much. I bought my daughter early this summer before she went away to school, a Toshiba netbook, a Mini NB205. Good for a netbook, but not good. Just usable for what she needed during the summer in a new country. Skype, Internet, IM, etc.
Now that she started the fall semester, she has a 15" MBP 2.8 GHz.
We don't do that because most people don't buy Macs to primarily use Windows. A small few may. Most of the rest that have Windows just use it a little bit, or are weaning themselves off it.
You might as well say that not all Windows PC are Windows PCs because they also have Linux on them.
You're playing the semantics game with this.
Yes I am, that was my point. When comparing HW sales each company should be accounted for seperately, not lumping them all into one giant conglomerate simply because they don't run OS X natiely.
Not as much....
What I should have asked is : What's driving Toshiba's growth in the US?