Who are these people buying Acer & Toshiba PCs!? I've never met or known anyone that's purchased from these vendors. My company would do anything to save a penny. But, they would never consider Acer or Toshiba.
I bought my daughter a Toshiba netbook for last summer.
I'm of the opinion that the iPad meets the definition of a NetBook as put out there by the industry before the iPad was rumored to be on the way: A low cost, very portable, limited OS device meant for browsing the web, reading email, and light computing duty (e.g word processing, etc.).
Only when it was convenient for the pundits and Apple naysayers to do so did a NetBook become a computer to be counted in the market share numbers, to counter the phenomenal growth the Apple is seeing in laptops and desktops.
Windows 7 Starter Edition is to WIndows 7 as iPhone 3.2 is to OSX 10.6.
Take the iPad expected sales, add them to the Mac sales, and by this time next year Apple is number 1 in PC market share in the US.
Right now, an iPad isn't an independent device. It requires a computer with iTunes. So its more like a peripheral than a separate device like a netbook. That might change at some point, but not yet.
Well what that chart clearly shows is how large their margins are on each computer they sell. There is simply no argument to say that Macs are not overpriced when you look at that. They objectively are massively overpriced compared to everyone else. That we as mac users decide to pay what Apple asks for is a different matter, but there is clearly no need in trying to claim that Macs are not extremely expensive machines relative to the others, and that Apple pockets that difference big time.
So what's your point? Is someone torturing you into buying a Mac, or are you a willing purchaser? If the latter, what does 'over'priced mean? That you are, willingly, a fool? That what is 'over'priced for you is also overpriced for me and everyone else?
C'mon. If something is overpriced, don't buy it. If you do, don't complain about it (unless you chose to return it).
So, are we to discern you're too cheap to splurge for a Macbook, think she's too young for a Macbook or both?
I've told this story now at least a dozen times here.
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
After she came home from the summer, and before she went back in the fall, I bought her a new 15.4" 2.80 GHz 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD MacBook Pro (matt), plus a 9 x 12 Wacom tablet, and installed CS4 on her machine, just as she has it in her 24" 3.06 GHz iMac at home.
The netbook stayed here.
I hope that answers the question.
As an addendum, the Toshiba cost, with 1 GB RAM upgrade, $479, not counting tax.
Well what that chart clearly shows is how large their margins are on each computer they sell. There is simply no argument to say that Macs are not overpriced when you look at that. They objectively are massively overpriced compared to everyone else. That we as mac users decide to pay what Apple asks for is a different matter, but there is clearly no need in trying to claim that Macs are not extremely expensive machines relative to the others, and that Apple pockets that difference big time.
I'm glad Apple is not interested in becoming a bottom-feeder. Too many junk-slinging companies these days that make money from volume, not quality. Apple is starting to achieve volume by adhering to quality. I admire that.
I've told this story now at least a dozen times here.
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
After she came home from the summer, and before she went back in the fall, I bought her a new 15.4" 2.80 GHz 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD MacBook Pro (matt), plus a 9 x 12 Wacom tablet, and installed CS4 on her machine, just as she has it in her 24" 3.06 GHz iMac at home.
The netbook stayed here.
I hope that answers the question.
As an addendum, the Toshiba cost, with 1 GB RAM upgrade, $479, not counting tax.
It's such a great story, we just can't hear it enough.
It's such a great story, we just can't hear it enough.
Yeah,
By the way, just as a point of interest, every time we spoke on the phone, or through Skype, she would ask me; "Dad, do you know I hate Windows?. You know I hate Windows, don't you? You know, I REALLY hate Windows!"
By the way, just as a point of interest, every time we spoke on the phone, or through Skype, she would ask me; "Dad, do you know I hate Windows?. You know I hate Windows, don't you? You know, I REALLY hate Windows!"
I used to be pretty gung ho for Windows, but there is nothing about Windows 7 tempting me to go back.
has estimates of 2.9m (believe you mean M) & 3.1million Mac sales from Piper-Jaffrey's Munster & Caris' Robert Chira respectively for the 2q10 fiscal
since 1Q10 calendar roughly equates to 2Q10 fiscal, how can you justify two articles in the SAME DAY with conflicting numbers - with one set being 2-3x larger than the other set!!!!!
has estimates of 2.9m (believe you mean M) & 3.1million Mac sales from Piper-Jaffrey's Munster & Caris' Robert Chira respectively for the 2q10 fiscal
since 1Q10 calendar roughly equates to 2Q10 fiscal, how can you justify two articles in the SAME DAY with conflicting numbers - with one set being 2-3x larger than the other set!!!!!
What's conflicting? It looks like one article is reporting on estimates from two different firms. These aren't AppleInsider's estimates.
Even Apple would not agree with your definition. It separates its "computers" revenues from its iPod, iPhone revenues.
If you add those beyong what are technically defined as computers, to include smart phones, other mobile computing devices,,, then the players would change to include phone companies ,,, Nokia, RIMM, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc. Even cars are operated by much simpler computers these days.
It will muddy the waters.
There;s a reason why Apple dropped the "Computer" in "Apple Computer". Apple no longer considers itself solely as computer company.
Steve Jobs (S)) bragged Apple as the largest mobile computing company ... mainly because of its increasing mobile computing devices, i.e., the iPhone OS devices -- iPhone, iPod Touch and starting this year iPad. Apple may indeed become the largest mobile computing device in the near future, but when SJ claimed Apple is the largest mobile computing company in the world -- based on its estimated annual revenue -- it is questionable.
As of the end of 2009, Apple computers (not mobile computers) still comprise almost a third of its gross revenues. This may change this year because of increasing sales of its mobile computing devices.
One other thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly
Ergo - add in iPhone's 8,700,000 sales last quarter (number via Wiki) ...
Your numbers more than likely include total world sales, not US sales. The article refers only to US sales.
Apple need not be #1, in terms of unit sales. It can be a viable company and a very profitable company provided Apple is perceived to have high end quality products, just like Mercedez, BMW, Nordstrom, etc.
Apple these days though is attempting to be both the market leader in the new fields it entered by being the trailblazer, the game changer and still maintain its aura of high quality and its advantage in ease of use. In fact, Apple has even shown that it can be price competitive -- iPod, iPhone and more than likely the iPad -- in response to competing company market strategies.
I'd love to see the revenue, operating profit and net profit from these vendors. This Business Week chart from 23-MAR-2010 shows that Apple is the market leader.
Netbooks are counted as PCs. Rightly so, but it does skew the unit sales until you look at more valuable data like revenue, profit and average price per unit.. That shows that unit sales are a pointless metric unless qualified.
In retail merchandising, the profit margin of Walmart may be much lower than Target. I am making this up, but if the volume sales per unit area is higher for Walmart vs Target, then in this area of business, Walmart is more profitable than Target, In fact, the number of Walmart stores is more than Target so that the total profit of Walmart is greater than Target,
In this sense, the total unit sales matter. Thus, while it is true that
Quote:
...shows that unit sales are a pointless metric unless qualified.
the table itself in the article was about ranking based on gross revenue. Now, if you rank them based on gross income of the computer component, do the math and HP and Dell still rank higher than Apple.
However, Apple only gets about a third of its sales from computers as of 2009. This year computers may account for even less of Apple's gross revenue; and decreasing, in the future.
The aforementioned trend in revenue sources is the reason why Apple dropped "Computers" in "Apple Computers".
This diversification in sources of revenue is one of the reasons why Apple is more stable than Dell. Further, the perceived higher quality and ease of use of Apple products make them more desirable, especially among those who can afford them.
Ergo, the higher profit margin of Apple products. With higher profit margin, Apple had more price elasticity, and it used this several times to drop its prices, for the iPhone, iPods to thwart the competition, or respond to economic hardship (i.e., drop in prices of its computers in 2009).
These qualitative advantages are among reasons why Apple need not be the leader in terms of total unit sales and why Apple was able to amass more than $40 billion "cash reserve" with no debt; I believe the highest among any company in the world. This cash reserve is in itself a weapon that Apple has used to its advantage.
The aforementioned advantages created an Apple that was almost recession proof Apple in 2009, while most tech companies experienced drop in sales and profit, or even a net income loss.
In this aense, Apple need not be the leader in total unit sales (as is the case with its computer products) and still be commercial company. It thrived when all these years, even if it had only 3% of the market, much like high end companies, e.g., Mercedes, BMW, etc., are well-managed, and have higher profit margin.
There is a price to pay though when you are smaller, especially in technology where the company is dependent on the products of other companies. Apple and its customers knew this too well.
A much better situation is a company with a higher profit margin (for reasons stated above) and the market leader in unit sales. The new Apple is trying to achieve this.
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
You're responsible for importing Windows netbooks into London? As if we don't have enough pollution here already!
That is certainly one way to look at it, but how do we subtract the thousands of Dell and HP PCs in enterprises that are only used as clients, only being satellite devices to a server/mainframe? Does it make sense to ignore a $829 computing device (yes, it is personal and yes, it is a computer), when there are $200 netbooks included in the list that can barely surf the Web or play back video as well as the iPad (not true for all netbooks, but there are definitely a few that would lose here)?
It is an interesting question and I do not know the answer, but I am not sure that the case is anywhere that clear.
You don't.
We just double the numbers for each Mac sold. After all, it can be used as a PC at the same time. Seems fair to me.
So we all know how all the pundits (and other "movers and shakers") have at various times demanded to know what keeps Apple going. In that light a quick, movie quote based review of the top mortality quotes about Apple:
a frustrated Freddy "Steve Ballmer" Krueger asks Jason "Apple": "Why won't you DIE?"
"Michael Dell" Janus: Why can't you just be a good boy and die?
Bond/Jobs: You first.
Hugo "Thurrott" Drax, (with a side of How Many Times Must I Kill You):
"Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you."
"Enderle"Creedy asking V/Apple "Why won't you die! Why won't you die!" after V/Apple massacres him and his men despite having been shot dozens of times. Apple: "Because beneath this mask there is more than flesh, there is an idea. And ideas are bullet proof."
Cramer/Jafar to Aladdin/Apple: "How many time do I have to kill you boy??!!"
Doesn't this reflect on the continued frustration brought to this forum by so many contra-commenters like SpotOn, TechStud, et al?
In retail merchandising, the profit margin of Walmart may be much lower than Target. I am making this up, but if the volume sales per unit area is higher for Walmart vs Target, then in this area of business, Walmart is more profitable than Target, In fact, the number of Walmart stores is more than Target so that the total profit of Walmart is greater than Target,
In this sense, the total unit sales matter. Thus, while it is true that
the table itself in the article was about ranking based on gross revenue. Now, if you rank them based on gross income of the computer component, do the math and HP and Dell still rank higher than Apple.
However, Apple only gets about a third of its sales from computers as of 2009. This year computers may account for even less of Apple's gross revenue; and decreasing, in the future.
The aforementioned trend in revenue sources is the reason why Apple dropped "Computers" in "Apple Computers".
This diversification in sources of revenue is one of the reasons why Apple is more stable than Dell. Further, the perceived higher quality and ease of use of Apple products make them more desirable, especially among those who can afford them.
Ergo, the higher profit margin of Apple products. With higher profit margin, Apple had more price elasticity, and it used this several times to drop its prices, for the iPhone, iPods to thwart the competition, or respond to economic hardship (i.e., drop in prices of its computers in 2009).
These qualitative advantages are among reasons why Apple need not be the leader in terms of total unit sales and why Apple was able to amass more than $40 billion "cash reserve" with no debt; I believe the highest among any company in the world. This cash reserve is in itself a weapon that Apple has used to its advantage.
The aforementioned advantages created an Apple that was almost recession proof Apple in 2009, while most tech companies experienced drop in sales and profit, or even a net income loss.
In this aense, Apple need not be the leader in total unit sales (as is the case with its computer products) and still be commercial company. It thrived when all these years, even if it had only 3% of the market, much like high end companies, e.g., Mercedes, BMW, etc., are well-managed, and have higher profit margin.
There is a price to pay though when you are smaller, especially in technology where the company is dependent on the products of other companies. Apple and its customers knew this too well.
A much better situation is a company with a higher profit margin (for reasons stated above) and the market leader in unit sales. The new Apple is trying to achieve this.
CGC
If in fact these numbers also do not separate out HP's other lines, like Printers & All-in-ones, Ink, Toner & Paper, Monitors, Accessories & Software, Scanners, Handhelds, Calculators, Storage devices, Home Media Servers and of course services for the devices. And you have to consider HPs other services for the enterprise: warranty servicing, application services, business process and infrastructure outsourcing, support center operations and leasing/financing.
Dell largely mirrors this same product and service delivery portfolio as well - we use both in our infrastructure operations. You are looking only at the consumer side of these companies. By not taking into account the enterprise deliverables you miss out on significant profit centers for both Dell and HP. But by rights, this discussion should only be about profitability in the desktop/notebook markets based on the article.
I'm glad Apple is not interested in becoming a bottom-feeder. Too many junk-slinging companies these days that make money from volume, not quality. Apple is starting to achieve volume by adhering to quality. I admire that.
The App Store is a counter-example. It is Billions and Billions served, but the quality is lacking.
Comments
Who are these people buying Acer & Toshiba PCs!? I've never met or known anyone that's purchased from these vendors. My company would do anything to save a penny. But, they would never consider Acer or Toshiba.
I bought my daughter a Toshiba netbook for last summer.
I'm of the opinion that the iPad meets the definition of a NetBook as put out there by the industry before the iPad was rumored to be on the way: A low cost, very portable, limited OS device meant for browsing the web, reading email, and light computing duty (e.g word processing, etc.).
Only when it was convenient for the pundits and Apple naysayers to do so did a NetBook become a computer to be counted in the market share numbers, to counter the phenomenal growth the Apple is seeing in laptops and desktops.
Windows 7 Starter Edition is to WIndows 7 as iPhone 3.2 is to OSX 10.6.
Take the iPad expected sales, add them to the Mac sales, and by this time next year Apple is number 1 in PC market share in the US.
Right now, an iPad isn't an independent device. It requires a computer with iTunes. So its more like a peripheral than a separate device like a netbook. That might change at some point, but not yet.
Well what that chart clearly shows is how large their margins are on each computer they sell. There is simply no argument to say that Macs are not overpriced when you look at that. They objectively are massively overpriced compared to everyone else. That we as mac users decide to pay what Apple asks for is a different matter, but there is clearly no need in trying to claim that Macs are not extremely expensive machines relative to the others, and that Apple pockets that difference big time.
So what's your point? Is someone torturing you into buying a Mac, or are you a willing purchaser? If the latter, what does 'over'priced mean? That you are, willingly, a fool? That what is 'over'priced for you is also overpriced for me and everyone else?
C'mon. If something is overpriced, don't buy it. If you do, don't complain about it (unless you chose to return it).
I bought my daughter a Toshiba netbook for last summer.
So, are we to discern you're too cheap to splurge for a Macbook, think she's too young for a Macbook or both?
So, are we to discern you're too cheap to splurge for a Macbook, think she's too young for a Macbook or both?
I've told this story now at least a dozen times here.
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
After she came home from the summer, and before she went back in the fall, I bought her a new 15.4" 2.80 GHz 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD MacBook Pro (matt), plus a 9 x 12 Wacom tablet, and installed CS4 on her machine, just as she has it in her 24" 3.06 GHz iMac at home.
The netbook stayed here.
I hope that answers the question.
As an addendum, the Toshiba cost, with 1 GB RAM upgrade, $479, not counting tax.
Well what that chart clearly shows is how large their margins are on each computer they sell. There is simply no argument to say that Macs are not overpriced when you look at that. They objectively are massively overpriced compared to everyone else. That we as mac users decide to pay what Apple asks for is a different matter, but there is clearly no need in trying to claim that Macs are not extremely expensive machines relative to the others, and that Apple pockets that difference big time.
I'm glad Apple is not interested in becoming a bottom-feeder. Too many junk-slinging companies these days that make money from volume, not quality. Apple is starting to achieve volume by adhering to quality. I admire that.
I've told this story now at least a dozen times here.
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
After she came home from the summer, and before she went back in the fall, I bought her a new 15.4" 2.80 GHz 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD MacBook Pro (matt), plus a 9 x 12 Wacom tablet, and installed CS4 on her machine, just as she has it in her 24" 3.06 GHz iMac at home.
The netbook stayed here.
I hope that answers the question.
As an addendum, the Toshiba cost, with 1 GB RAM upgrade, $479, not counting tax.
It's such a great story, we just can't hear it enough.
It's such a great story, we just can't hear it enough.
Yeah,
By the way, just as a point of interest, every time we spoke on the phone, or through Skype, she would ask me; "Dad, do you know I hate Windows?. You know I hate Windows, don't you? You know, I REALLY hate Windows!"
Yeah,
By the way, just as a point of interest, every time we spoke on the phone, or through Skype, she would ask me; "Dad, do you know I hate Windows?. You know I hate Windows, don't you? You know, I REALLY hate Windows!"
I used to be pretty gung ho for Windows, but there is nothing about Windows 7 tempting me to go back.
I used to be pretty gung ho for Windows, but there is nothing about Windows 7 tempting me to go back.
She's been a Mac user since she was 2 1/2. She's now 18 1/2, so she's been using Macs longer than most people here in this forum.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ket_share.html
has estimates of 1.398M & 1.130M units shipped in 1Q10 calendar yr from Gartner &IDC respectively
whereas your page FROM THE SAME DAY:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...mac_sales.html
has estimates of 2.9m (believe you mean M) & 3.1million Mac sales from Piper-Jaffrey's Munster & Caris' Robert Chira respectively for the 2q10 fiscal
since 1Q10 calendar roughly equates to 2Q10 fiscal, how can you justify two articles in the SAME DAY with conflicting numbers - with one set being 2-3x larger than the other set!!!!!
your page
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ket_share.html
has estimates of 1.398M & 1.130M units shipped in 1Q10 calendar yr from Gartner &IDC respectively
whereas your page FROM THE SAME DAY:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...mac_sales.html
has estimates of 2.9m (believe you mean M) & 3.1million Mac sales from Piper-Jaffrey's Munster & Caris' Robert Chira respectively for the 2q10 fiscal
since 1Q10 calendar roughly equates to 2Q10 fiscal, how can you justify two articles in the SAME DAY with conflicting numbers - with one set being 2-3x larger than the other set!!!!!
What's conflicting? It looks like one article is reporting on estimates from two different firms. These aren't AppleInsider's estimates.
.
Believe this article and statistics relate to "personal computers ...
Also is about as personal of a personal computer as personal computers can get...
So let's Get Real™ about our definitions and include iPhone...
Ergo - add in iPhone's 8,700,000 sales last quarter (number via Wiki) ...
And believe that puts them at #1
Oh yea - and here comes the iPad
BC
Even Apple would not agree with your definition. It separates its "computers" revenues from its iPod, iPhone revenues.
If you add those beyong what are technically defined as computers, to include smart phones, other mobile computing devices,,, then the players would change to include phone companies ,,, Nokia, RIMM, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc. Even cars are operated by much simpler computers these days.
It will muddy the waters.
There;s a reason why Apple dropped the "Computer" in "Apple Computer". Apple no longer considers itself solely as computer company.
Steve Jobs (S)) bragged Apple as the largest mobile computing company ... mainly because of its increasing mobile computing devices, i.e., the iPhone OS devices -- iPhone, iPod Touch and starting this year iPad. Apple may indeed become the largest mobile computing device in the near future, but when SJ claimed Apple is the largest mobile computing company in the world -- based on its estimated annual revenue -- it is questionable.
As of the end of 2009, Apple computers (not mobile computers) still comprise almost a third of its gross revenues. This may change this year because of increasing sales of its mobile computing devices.
One other thing:
Ergo - add in iPhone's 8,700,000 sales last quarter (number via Wiki) ...
Your numbers more than likely include total world sales, not US sales. The article refers only to US sales.
Apple need not be #1, in terms of unit sales. It can be a viable company and a very profitable company provided Apple is perceived to have high end quality products, just like Mercedez, BMW, Nordstrom, etc.
Apple these days though is attempting to be both the market leader in the new fields it entered by being the trailblazer, the game changer and still maintain its aura of high quality and its advantage in ease of use. In fact, Apple has even shown that it can be price competitive -- iPod, iPhone and more than likely the iPad -- in response to competing company market strategies.
CGC
I'd love to see the revenue, operating profit and net profit from these vendors. This Business Week chart from 23-MAR-2010 shows that Apple is the market leader.
Netbooks are counted as PCs. Rightly so, but it does skew the unit sales until you look at more valuable data like revenue, profit and average price per unit.. That shows that unit sales are a pointless metric unless qualified.
In retail merchandising, the profit margin of Walmart may be much lower than Target. I am making this up, but if the volume sales per unit area is higher for Walmart vs Target, then in this area of business, Walmart is more profitable than Target, In fact, the number of Walmart stores is more than Target so that the total profit of Walmart is greater than Target,
In this sense, the total unit sales matter. Thus, while it is true that
...shows that unit sales are a pointless metric unless qualified.
the table itself in the article was about ranking based on gross revenue. Now, if you rank them based on gross income of the computer component, do the math and HP and Dell still rank higher than Apple.
However, Apple only gets about a third of its sales from computers as of 2009. This year computers may account for even less of Apple's gross revenue; and decreasing, in the future.
The aforementioned trend in revenue sources is the reason why Apple dropped "Computers" in "Apple Computers".
This diversification in sources of revenue is one of the reasons why Apple is more stable than Dell. Further, the perceived higher quality and ease of use of Apple products make them more desirable, especially among those who can afford them.
Ergo, the higher profit margin of Apple products. With higher profit margin, Apple had more price elasticity, and it used this several times to drop its prices, for the iPhone, iPods to thwart the competition, or respond to economic hardship (i.e., drop in prices of its computers in 2009).
These qualitative advantages are among reasons why Apple need not be the leader in terms of total unit sales and why Apple was able to amass more than $40 billion "cash reserve" with no debt; I believe the highest among any company in the world. This cash reserve is in itself a weapon that Apple has used to its advantage.
The aforementioned advantages created an Apple that was almost recession proof Apple in 2009, while most tech companies experienced drop in sales and profit, or even a net income loss.
In this aense, Apple need not be the leader in total unit sales (as is the case with its computer products) and still be commercial company. It thrived when all these years, even if it had only 3% of the market, much like high end companies, e.g., Mercedes, BMW, etc., are well-managed, and have higher profit margin.
There is a price to pay though when you are smaller, especially in technology where the company is dependent on the products of other companies. Apple and its customers knew this too well.
A much better situation is a company with a higher profit margin (for reasons stated above) and the market leader in unit sales. The new Apple is trying to achieve this.
CGC
My daughter is going to the University of The Arts, London. She had to go last summer as other foreign students did, before the year started. She's a photography major. She wanted a cheap, small netbook for IM, Skype, the internet, and to listen to her iTunes collection with, as well as having a machine to plug her new, bought in London 3GS into. As going to the UK was new to her, she was afraid to take a bigger, more expensive machine then, because she was afraid she might lose it.
You're responsible for importing Windows netbooks into London? As if we don't have enough pollution here already!
That is certainly one way to look at it, but how do we subtract the thousands of Dell and HP PCs in enterprises that are only used as clients, only being satellite devices to a server/mainframe? Does it make sense to ignore a $829 computing device (yes, it is personal and yes, it is a computer), when there are $200 netbooks included in the list that can barely surf the Web or play back video as well as the iPad (not true for all netbooks, but there are definitely a few that would lose here)?
It is an interesting question and I do not know the answer, but I am not sure that the case is anywhere that clear.
You don't.
We just double the numbers for each Mac sold. After all, it can be used as a PC at the same time. Seems fair to me.
a frustrated Freddy "Steve Ballmer" Krueger asks Jason "Apple": "Why won't you DIE?"
"Michael Dell" Janus: Why can't you just be a good boy and die?
Bond/Jobs: You first.
Hugo "Thurrott" Drax, (with a side of How Many Times Must I Kill You):
"Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you."
"Enderle"Creedy asking V/Apple "Why won't you die! Why won't you die!" after V/Apple massacres him and his men despite having been shot dozens of times. Apple: "Because beneath this mask there is more than flesh, there is an idea. And ideas are bullet proof."
Cramer/Jafar to Aladdin/Apple: "How many time do I have to kill you boy??!!"
Doesn't this reflect on the continued frustration brought to this forum by so many contra-commenters like SpotOn, TechStud, et al?
In retail merchandising, the profit margin of Walmart may be much lower than Target. I am making this up, but if the volume sales per unit area is higher for Walmart vs Target, then in this area of business, Walmart is more profitable than Target, In fact, the number of Walmart stores is more than Target so that the total profit of Walmart is greater than Target,
In this sense, the total unit sales matter. Thus, while it is true that
the table itself in the article was about ranking based on gross revenue. Now, if you rank them based on gross income of the computer component, do the math and HP and Dell still rank higher than Apple.
However, Apple only gets about a third of its sales from computers as of 2009. This year computers may account for even less of Apple's gross revenue; and decreasing, in the future.
The aforementioned trend in revenue sources is the reason why Apple dropped "Computers" in "Apple Computers".
This diversification in sources of revenue is one of the reasons why Apple is more stable than Dell. Further, the perceived higher quality and ease of use of Apple products make them more desirable, especially among those who can afford them.
Ergo, the higher profit margin of Apple products. With higher profit margin, Apple had more price elasticity, and it used this several times to drop its prices, for the iPhone, iPods to thwart the competition, or respond to economic hardship (i.e., drop in prices of its computers in 2009).
These qualitative advantages are among reasons why Apple need not be the leader in terms of total unit sales and why Apple was able to amass more than $40 billion "cash reserve" with no debt; I believe the highest among any company in the world. This cash reserve is in itself a weapon that Apple has used to its advantage.
The aforementioned advantages created an Apple that was almost recession proof Apple in 2009, while most tech companies experienced drop in sales and profit, or even a net income loss.
In this aense, Apple need not be the leader in total unit sales (as is the case with its computer products) and still be commercial company. It thrived when all these years, even if it had only 3% of the market, much like high end companies, e.g., Mercedes, BMW, etc., are well-managed, and have higher profit margin.
There is a price to pay though when you are smaller, especially in technology where the company is dependent on the products of other companies. Apple and its customers knew this too well.
A much better situation is a company with a higher profit margin (for reasons stated above) and the market leader in unit sales. The new Apple is trying to achieve this.
CGC
If in fact these numbers also do not separate out HP's other lines, like Printers & All-in-ones, Ink, Toner & Paper, Monitors, Accessories & Software, Scanners, Handhelds, Calculators, Storage devices, Home Media Servers and of course services for the devices. And you have to consider HPs other services for the enterprise: warranty servicing, application services, business process and infrastructure outsourcing, support center operations and leasing/financing.
Dell largely mirrors this same product and service delivery portfolio as well - we use both in our infrastructure operations. You are looking only at the consumer side of these companies. By not taking into account the enterprise deliverables you miss out on significant profit centers for both Dell and HP. But by rights, this discussion should only be about profitability in the desktop/notebook markets based on the article.
I bought my daughter a Toshiba netbook for last summer.
How is it working out for her? Why a Toshiba?
I'm glad Apple is not interested in becoming a bottom-feeder. Too many junk-slinging companies these days that make money from volume, not quality. Apple is starting to achieve volume by adhering to quality. I admire that.
The App Store is a counter-example. It is Billions and Billions served, but the quality is lacking.