Apple's iMac accounts for 33% of all-in-one PC sales

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    33% surprises me. I would have thought it was more like 80%. Not too long ago the iMac was basically the only credible AIO in the game.



    Indeed.



    I flat out don't believe it actually. I've heard this same thing before from the same source but I've never heard anyone say *what* other "all-in-ones" there are.



    HP makes the touch smart series, that's one. Who the hell even makes another all-in-one?



    When the iMac came out it was pretty much the only all-in-one there was so they had 100% of the market. Where is the list of Windows based all-in-ones that are so popular that they nudged Apple from the top spot all the way down to 30%? Why haven't we even heard of these mythical computers that are so good they bested Apple's flagship product?



    I think this is just another cooked up statistic. Perhaps some fortune 500 company buys enough of the HP product to make it look like there is a competitive market when there isn't.



    Edit: It's also very very suspicious that both this article and the previous one I read six months ago are basically more about announcing new products than they are about market share per se. This is an ad for a couple of new all-in-ones coupled with some dodgy statistics about the "market" that probably doesn't really exist.
  • Reply 42 of 91
    slapppyslapppy Posts: 331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy View Post


    I thought Apple's market share was over 10% now...right? No way it could outpace the industry in sales for 3+ years and still be at 5%.



    The numbers currently range from 5% to 5.3%. Search online and you'll see the numbers for yourself.
  • Reply 43 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    33% surprises me. I would have thought it was more like 80%. Not too long ago the iMac was basically the only credible AIO in the game.



    It sure is to me. Once I laid eyes on my 27 inch iMac, it was love at first sight. Put off the buying decision for a few weeks, but it preyed on my mind, and I kept going back and looking, and touching, and using. Now that I have had this for about five months, I am still supremely happy with it, and I expect it to be a long relationship. I love a gloss screen, and others love matte. Personal preference takes the day.
  • Reply 44 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    ... I don't see the iMac and Mac Pro as alternatives of each other....



    You are quite right. They are not at all.



    The MacPro is complete overkill for anything except video production and (maybe) Art & Design. You have to be a very unique user to get any real use out of a Mac Pro besides simple bragging rights.
  • Reply 45 of 91
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post


    Do you do any gaming on it by chance? I am looking to upgrade my old PC, and am strongly considering either a MB Pro or an iMac. Would love the portability obviously, but just not sure if an MB Pro would be beefy enough to handle some moderate gaming (not Crysis or anything).



    While not a 'gamer' per se, I do, now and again, play Call of Duty, GTA, Half Life, Second Life, Bio Shock, Quake and the like all without any problems and all at maxed out graphics settings. Some run on the Cinema display fine some prefer the built in screen for maximum performance. This is a 15" MBPro i7 with 8 GIGs of RAM and a 1 TB drive. Only owned Mac Pros and MBPros, I have never had an iMac so I cannot compare. What is weird my MBPro is better than any of the the Mac Pros I've had for games ... perhaps because the graphics cards I have always used on Mac Pros were chosen for real time video rendering in FCPro not gaming.
  • Reply 46 of 91
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    You are quite right. They are not at all.



    The MacPro is complete overkill for anything except video production and (maybe) Art & Design. You have to be a very unique user to get any real use out of a Mac Pro besides simple bragging rights.



    There are a lot of people need them for those exact requirements so I hope Apple keep them going. The irony is those are the very people that kept Apple going throughout the bad years and would be the most hurt if Apple concentrated only on consumers now.
  • Reply 47 of 91
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    No no no... This article is WRONG!



    The 33% only goes to prove that all-in-ones are a failure. You see, Apple owns less than 10% of the world's market, and 33% of that is iMac, this proves that due to the LACK of Apple desktop options, Apple customers resort to an iMac.



    Got it? Now go and change the article.



    I was wondering the same thing...does this represent the great success of the iMac or the lack of another viable option from Apple? If you decide you want a Mac, and don't want the underpowered mini (a fine machine for basic tasks) or the very expensive Mac Pro, you don't have a choice. If all the PC manufacturers stopped making headless desktops and only shipped all-in-ones, Apple's 33% would quickly drop to someething closer to its 10% overall marketshare. The 33% figure is a useless statistic because it ignores all the other variables.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I'm curious why you don't like the all-in-one format. I see some shortcomings but went ahead and bought two for my kids, and they now never leave their desks.



    Other than the glossy vs matte debate, there the simple lack of choice of screen sizes, aspect ratios, or other features (the monitor connected to my mini also has a TV tuner so it can serve double-duty).



    Also, I've not seen the cost breakdowns for the iMac specifically, but generally the screen is one of the most expensive components of a computer system. (In the iPad I believe it's the 2nd largest contributor the component cost.) Why do I have to replace it everytime I want to upgrade my computer?



    If the iMac was more expandable or user serviceable (internal hard drives, graphics cards, etc) this would perhaps be less of an issue because I'd get more useful life out of the computer, and therefore more use of of the monitor that comes with the computer. Lack of expandability means I'm having to upgrade my computer more often, which in turn means I'm also forced to get a new monitor. Not only is this financially wasteful, but for a company that prides itself on its environmental record, this is also environmentally wasteful.



    Of course, this is great for Apple's bottom line. In the past, when Apple sold non-AIO desktops, I've either used the same monitor through at least one CPU replacement (IIsi and Quadra 630), or have extended the life of the CPU by upgrading it's components (Beige G3). By only selling the iMac, Apple is forcing you to: 1) buy new computers from them more often, and 2) forcing you to buy a new monitor everytime you want to replace your CPU. Yes, the iMac is very nice system, but very limited and wasteful of resources (financial and environmental).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    A MacBook Pro i7 plus an Apple monitor sitting waiting on your desk is a pretty sweet combo ... mobility by just yanking out the monitor connection and a work station when at your desk. As a long time Mac Pro user I find this a great compromise now I have scaled down.



    Yes, that is a very nice system. And a very expensive one, too!
  • Reply 48 of 91
    chiachia Posts: 713member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slapppy View Post


    Playing with numbers again. Although it looks quite impressive, 33% for all in one sales is merely a blip for the entire operating system/hardware market share. With Apple having a mere 5% share, it's quite obvious that Apple has not gained any ground since the inception of the iMat and Pro lines. These numerical breakdowns are just laughable. Specially the reaction from users taking this as a win or gain for Apple.



    When it comes to marketshare, China and India together have 40% population marketshare, the USA, like Apple, only has 5% population marketshare.



    So, should the USA embark on the mother of all baby booms to seize 50% population marketshare, thinning out its resources, thus lowering the average American living standard to the level of the average Chinese and Indians living in rural poverty?



    Or should the 5% USA "blip" focus on maintaining its high quality lifestyle which that 40% in India and China can only dream of?



    When it comes to significant marketshare, yours is a large slice of the Appleinsider trolls: just like those beige PC box shifters, it's of little consequence.

    I've already given you far more attention than you deserve.
  • Reply 49 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


    OT - Welcome back.



    Thank you sir.
  • Reply 50 of 91
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChiA View Post


    There is the QUAD-core i7 Mac Mini server, perhaps that's closer in performance to the iMacs.

    Unfortunately it doesn't have the discrete graphics of the high end non-server Mac Mini.



    Performance-wise, the mini is a laptop, not a desktop. All of it's components are laptop components. So while the names of the components may be similar to the iMac's, they are lower powered versions. Lower performance CPUs, GPUs, hard drives (slow, limited capacity laptop hard drives). Not only are they less powerful, they sometimes cost more than an equivalently performing desktop component (HDs being the prime example).



    Imagine if Apple made the mini's case a little bitter and put the iMac's components inside it. For about the same price, you could have a much more powerful machine.
  • Reply 51 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    While not a 'gamer' per se, I do, now and again, play Call of Duty, GTA, Half Life, Second Life, Bio Shock, Quake and the like all without any problems and all at maxed out graphics settings. Some run on the Cinema display fine some prefer the built in screen for maximum performance. This is a 15" MBPro i7 with 8 GIGs of RAM and a 1 TB drive. Only owned Mac Pros and MBPros, I have never had an iMac so I cannot compare. What is weird my MBPro is better than any of the the Mac Pros I've had for games ... perhaps because the graphics cards I have always used on Mac Pros were chosen for real time video rendering in FCPro not gaming.



    Gotcha. That's pretty much the level of gaming I'm looking to do. Thanks so much for the reply.
  • Reply 52 of 91
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    HP makes the touch smart series, that's one. Who the hell even makes another all-in-one?



    When the iMac came out it was pretty much the only all-in-one there was so they had 100% of the market. Where is the list of Windows based all-in-ones that are so popular that they nudged Apple from the top spot all the way down to 30%? Why haven't we even heard of these mythical computers that are so good they bested Apple's flagship product?



    Did everyone just skip over my other post when I said there are $350 and $500 AIO being advertised in best buy ads every week?



    Compaq, Gateway, HP, and Dell (even Sony on occasion although they are around $700-$800).



    $350 or $400 computers sell. Thats where the market comes from. Bottom of the barrel POS computers. Just like Android's numbers- from Free and $50 phones.
  • Reply 53 of 91
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MeLoveAppleLongTime View Post


    It sure is to me. Once I laid eyes on my 27 inch iMac, it was love at first sight. Put off the buying decision for a few weeks, but it preyed on my mind, and I kept going back and looking, and touching, and using. Now that I have had this for about five months, I am still supremely happy with it, and I expect it to be a long relationship. I love a gloss screen, and others love matte. Personal preference takes the day.



    No doubt. I liked it so much I bought two. One for home, one for office. I can't tell you how much more productive it has made me and the "Holy crap thats a big screen" comments from coworkers.
  • Reply 54 of 91
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy View Post


    While I like the look of the iMac, the all-in-one paradigm does not appeal to me. My next Mac will be a Mac Pro. I'll buy refurb or used if necessary.



    Good choice. I've always bought towers so I could expand, keep current display etcetera. Even though I hardly do much video editing, and so much Aperture photo stuff I love it that I can throw anything at my MP. That, and the fact that I dislike glossy screens. I know, of topic, but still relevant as the iMac only comes in glossy. With the iPhone it's ok since it's such a small screen, but I still don't like the glossy iPad screen. But the device is so great, there's no alternative; I take it as it comes. With the iMac, I am happy they also (used to) make the cinema displays. If mine were to break down, I don't know what I'd do. Possibly search for the 30" Dell - cough cough.
  • Reply 55 of 91
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    5 years out I no longer see Apple making a Mac Pro.



    I would certainly hope not! And since the Xserve got EOL'd I can only presume they will keep the MP. What is Pixar using, still Sun boxes? Their Renderman software runs on OSX as well, so if they don't sell that many MP's they could use that... There still is a market for it, just as Steve said it would with his truck analogy.
  • Reply 56 of 91
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    No no no... This article is WRONG!



    The 33% only goes to prove that all-in-ones are a failure. You see, Apple owns less than 10% of the world's market, and 33% of that is iMac, this proves that due to the LACK of Apple desktop options, Apple customers resort to an iMac.



    Got it? Now go and change the article.



    Apple is one hardware computer maker, Windows has 200 of them. 33% given that fact is impressive, and it isn't because of any failure. It's merely because anyone who wants an all in one buy an iMac, and most computer buys want a laptop.
  • Reply 57 of 91
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


    There still is a market for it, just as Steve said it would with his truck analogy.



    Steve never mentioned the Mac Pro. If you think Apple are not planning on fading the Mac Pro out in the next 5 years then we may need to talk.
  • Reply 58 of 91
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ?..the company is considering axing the Mac Pro lineup and sparing the resources currently devoted to it.



    1. Who said anything about Apple considering axing the Mac Pro lineup? I keep on reading articles on AI but dont see anything other than assuptions, wild guesses. Source please.



    2. "sparing the resources currently devoted to it" What resources? Making assumptions, again, source please.



    3. What's up with the images from the original article in the forum lately? It used to load faster on a crappy 3G or Edge link without them... I could simply tick on the 'xx comments' on the homepage without loading the original article.
  • Reply 59 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


    1. Who said anything about Apple considering axing the Mac Pro lineup?



    Lack of sales, lack of Intel's ability to produce timely updates, massive backlash at Apple's new pro products?



    Quote:

    2. "sparing the resources currently devoted to it" What resources?



    Uh, what do you mean, "what resources"? You don't think it takes time, money, and effort to build a Mac Pro? We don't have Mac Pro orchards.



    Quote:

    3. What's up with the images from the original article in the forum lately?



    I absolutely love this. I never go to the actual article, so seeing the images here when they're referenced in the text is a big plus.
  • Reply 60 of 91
    chiachia Posts: 713member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    ...there the simple lack of choice of screen sizes, aspect ratios, or other features...

    the screen is one of the most expensive components of a computer system.

    ...

    Why do I have to replace it everytime I want to upgrade my computer?



    If the iMac was more expandable or user serviceable (internal hard drives, graphics cards, etc) this would perhaps be less of an issue because I'd get more useful life out of the computer, and therefore more use of of the monitor that comes with the computer. Lack of expandability means I'm having to upgrade my computer more often, which in turn means I'm also forced to get a new monitor.

    ...



    By only selling the iMac, Apple is forcing you to: 1) buy new computers from them more often, and 2) forcing you to buy a new monitor everytime you want to replace your CPU. Yes, the iMac is very nice system, but very limited and wasteful of resources (financial and environmental).



    The elephant in the room is that a laptop is also an all in one with a fixed screen, etc etc.

    It seems people prefer this way of buying computers - laptops are now beginning to outsell desktops.



    Consumers and businesses tend to replace rather than upgrade, generally consumers don't have the awareness of how to upgrade a desktop. Businesses may find it cheaper to replace a desktop instead of committing technicians to purchasing parts and upgrading the insides of dozens to hundreds of PCs.



    Granted, there is the advantage of reusing a separate monitor; screens on an environmentally conscious all in one an be recycled, perhaps even reused to repair broken or refurbished units.

    A computer designed with the environment in mind can be resold if working, otherwise sent for recycling thus reducing its environmental impact.

    Consider also the environmental impact of making unnecessarily large containers, components likely to remain unused, for PCs.



    The G4 Cube had desktop components yet didn't do well. If Apple felt it was worthwhile making a Mini with desktop components I'm certain they would do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.