Apple's struggles to gain PC market share continue
The popularity of Apple Computer's iPod digital music players is helping it sell more Macs, but so far it hasn't been enough to spark a rise in the company's share of the personal computer market.
According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent, the firm's data shows.
Similarly, Apple's share of the personal computer market in the United States also remains relatively flat at 3.6 percent. Although this figure is down from 3.8 percent in the first quarter of 2005, Gartner's data indicates that Apple gained one tenth of a percent in share over the fourth quarter of 2005.
To Apple's credit, this uptick in U.S. PC market share was achieved during a quarter when most prospective Mac buyers were prolonging their computer purchases in favor new Intel-based models that had yet to come to market. This suggests the company could begin to realize some share gains in the latter half of the year, once all of its PC offerings are readily available with Intel processors.
Meanwhile, Apple rival Dell was able to maintain its No. 1 position in worldwide PC shipments during the first quarter with a 16.5 percent share. However, the company's shipment increase of 10 percent year-over-year marked its weakest performance since the third quarter of 2001, according to Gartner.
Taking advantage of Dell's weakness, Hewlett-Packard increased shipments by over 22 percent and significantly narrowed the gap between it and Dell with a 14.9 percent market share. Lenovo, Acer and Fujitsu Siemens rounded out the top five vendors, each with significantly less share than frontrunners Dell and HP.
In the U.S., Dell remained the clear leader in PC shipments with an 11.3 percentage point market share lead over HP. However, shipments were almost flat compared to a year ago and it's the first time that the company has exhibited growth below the U.S. market average, Gartner said.
According to the firm's data, overall PC shipments in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2006 rose 7.4 percent to 16.4 million units.
According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent, the firm's data shows.
Similarly, Apple's share of the personal computer market in the United States also remains relatively flat at 3.6 percent. Although this figure is down from 3.8 percent in the first quarter of 2005, Gartner's data indicates that Apple gained one tenth of a percent in share over the fourth quarter of 2005.
To Apple's credit, this uptick in U.S. PC market share was achieved during a quarter when most prospective Mac buyers were prolonging their computer purchases in favor new Intel-based models that had yet to come to market. This suggests the company could begin to realize some share gains in the latter half of the year, once all of its PC offerings are readily available with Intel processors.
Meanwhile, Apple rival Dell was able to maintain its No. 1 position in worldwide PC shipments during the first quarter with a 16.5 percent share. However, the company's shipment increase of 10 percent year-over-year marked its weakest performance since the third quarter of 2001, according to Gartner.
Taking advantage of Dell's weakness, Hewlett-Packard increased shipments by over 22 percent and significantly narrowed the gap between it and Dell with a 14.9 percent market share. Lenovo, Acer and Fujitsu Siemens rounded out the top five vendors, each with significantly less share than frontrunners Dell and HP.
In the U.S., Dell remained the clear leader in PC shipments with an 11.3 percentage point market share lead over HP. However, shipments were almost flat compared to a year ago and it's the first time that the company has exhibited growth below the U.S. market average, Gartner said.
According to the firm's data, overall PC shipments in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2006 rose 7.4 percent to 16.4 million units.
Comments
I am at work using my PC, while my new Macbook sits next to me. I cant use it at work because IT wont let me have it on the network. But the difference between the 2 machines is night and day. The Mac hardware is slick, and the operating system is immeasurably more efficient and effective than XP. Why doesn't the average computer user get it and switch...is playing games that much of a big deal ? if so, just buy a console. And price..last night I found the sales receipt for my 3 yr old eMac, it was $150 more than the 2.0 Macbook I just bought. I brought the macbook to work to increase Apple?s market share one machine at a time. Sorry about the rant.
Originally posted by crees!
I believe the title should read "Apple's struggles to gain PC market share continues"
The "struggles" continue. They used it correctly.
This whole issue of marketshare is pointless. Apple is a healthy, profitable company. And they are growing. That's all that matters.
Originally posted by saleski
I don't get it ?
I am at work using my PC, while my new Macbook sits next to me. I cant use it at work because IT wont let me have it on the network. But the difference between the 2 machines is night and day. The Mac hardware is slick, and the operating system is immeasurably more efficient and effective than XP. Why doesn't the average computer user get it and switch...is playing games that much of a big deal ? if so, just buy a console. And price..last night I found the sales receipt for my 3 yr old eMac, it was $150 more than the 2.0 Macbook I just bought. I brought the macbook to work to increase Apple?s market share one machine at a time. Sorry about the rant.
Tell the IT team to go *uc* themselves.
Originally posted by saleski
I don't get it ?
There have been numerous discussions at this forum concerning this. Several members (myself included) feel Apple's offerings are to narrow to attract a broad audience. Example, subnotebooks. Many pc vendors offer them but Apple does not. Mac mini notwithstanding, Apple does not have enough sub $1000 computer models to increase market share IMO. Hopefully this will change but if you have niche models you get a niche market share.
Originally posted by backtomac
There have been numerous discussions at this forum concerning this. Several members (myself included) feel Apple's offerings are to narrow to attract a broad audience. Example, subnotebooks. Many pc vendors offer them but Apple does not. Mac mini notwithstanding, Apple does not have enough sub $1000 computer models to increase market share IMO. Hopefully this will change but if you have niche models you get a niche market share.
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains. The products you speak of will come, but only when the technology and development allows for for unique capabilities and design values and not 'me too' products.
Originally posted by vinney57
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains.
Yes but clearly market share is not a short term phenomena - reference PC Windows.
Originally posted by Cubert
These "market share" numbers are always misleading. It represents the percent of computers sold in that quarter. It isn't the percent of Mac users out there, which I hazard is much higher. Consider, that Macs last longer than a PC and many of those PC's sold are for businesses. I'd like someone to do a survey of consumers regarding what they use at home. THAT would represent the real market share.
Actually, the market share numbers are not misleading...
There is only one way to determine overall marketshare, and that is based on numbers sold. If 1000 computers are sold and 50 of them are Macs, then Macs have a 5% market share... That's all there is to it.
A consumer survey would not (as you say,) represent "real market share," it would only represent a segment of the total market.
Apple's market share numbers are completely accurate in relation to the market as a whole..
The biggest mistake Apple could make (regarding profits) would be to sell dirt cheap computers.
- students
- post high school students
- school and education
- graphic studios
- illustrators
- video editors
- TV broadcasting
- News n publishing
- small business in general
- big companies in general
- government & law
- core 3D gamers
- xbox owners
- nintendo owners
- ipod owners
etc...
This kind of investigation would reveal where Apple is strong, and where Apple is not so strong. I guess such an investigation would also reveal that Apple is strong and growing exactly where they want to be strong today. And it will probably in long term also mean a growth in other sectors too.
Originally posted by solsun
Actually, the market share numbers are not misleading...
There is only one way to determine overall marketshare, and that is based on numbers sold. If 1000 computers are sold and 50 of them are Macs, then Macs have a 5% market share... That's all there is to it.
A consumer survey would not (as you say,) represent "real market share," it would only represent a segment of the total market.
Apple's market share numbers are completely accurate in relation to the market as a whole..
That's true. On the other hand, folks use market share to say that the market for Apple has become too small for developer support. Developers are more likely to use total user base size for that calculation (if the figure was more readily available anyway). Hopefully we'll see more sales as the transition completes. I still run a G4 at home but the new mini's seem like a nice upgrade.
We may also see faster replacement cycles which won't impact user base but might translate into more share.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinney57
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains. The products you speak of will come, but only when the technology and development allows for for unique capabilities and design values and not 'me too' products.
Spot on! The cry for cheap Macs is pointless as it would hurt Apple's bottom line while increasing unreliablity and the "cool" factor. The point that is missed is that no matter the PC, it still uses Windows, thus while "cheap and Windows" may be the average person's goal it is not in Apple's interests to take OSX and its computers on that route. But, if Apple hits, say, 15% or more market share, they will then need the support of others to manufacture computers and that is when licensing of OSX becomes a realistic option for Apple-- and then will come the cheapo computers-- but not Apple branded.
The idea of a plethora of Mac models, cheap, upgradeable, using any parts the user wants, is simply not on. If Apple EVER did that, their decline into oblivion would become the legendary case taught in classes about what NOT to do with a proven classy working model.
Originally posted by vinea
That's true. On the other hand, folks use market share to say that the market for Apple has become too small for developer support. Developers are more likely to use total user base size for that calculation (if the figure was more readily available anyway). Hopefully we'll see more sales as the transition completes. I still run a G4 at home but the new mini's seem like a nice upgrade.
We may also see faster replacement cycles which won't impact user base but might translate into more share.
Vinea
I agree. I also think developers have a good idea of these numbers based on the numbers that they sell to Mac users.
Originally posted by rjwill246
The idea of a plethora of Mac models, cheap, upgradeable, using any parts the user wants, is simply not on. If Apple EVER did that, their decline into oblivion would become the legendary case taught in classes about what NOT to do with a proven classy working model.
They've actually done it once already, and they quickly put a stop to it. They thought that by monitoring exactly who was producing Mac clones, they could still have a standard of quality control, but it didn't work out so well.
But I can't wait... hahaha
Originally posted by saleski
I don't get it ?
I am at work using my PC, while my new Macbook sits next to me. I cant use it at work because IT wont let me have it on the network. But the difference between the 2 machines is night and day. The Mac hardware is slick, and the operating system is immeasurably more efficient and effective than XP. Why doesn't the average computer user get it and switch...is playing games that much of a big deal ? if so, just buy a console. And price..last night I found the sales receipt for my 3 yr old eMac, it was $150 more than the 2.0 Macbook I just bought. I brought the macbook to work to increase Apple?s market share one machine at a time. Sorry about the rant.
Well, one easy reason would be "But then I'd have to buy all new software? Um, not worth the effort, time, money, or anything, just so I can get email on a mac instead of windows".
Originally posted by Aurora
Lets see now, Apple makes the best OS in the world but you can only get it with the purchase of hardware. Thats not smart. Then it Plays the move up game by using cheap integrated graphics in the macbook and Mini trying to force folks into higher priced machines. Apple will allways be a fringe player with those two policys while Microsoft and Dell sets the pace. Its Apple's own stupid fault. Building the best OS but not wanting to sell it
At some point, Apple may really become the consumer electronics/licensed OS company they are shaping up to be. It's a long road to obsolesence, but making multiple OS changes and radical hardware changes in such a short time frame splits the already niche area of Apple's market too much, IMO. I would prefer a migration of Apple's OS into many more products tout de suite, and I think it would make them a much more powerful player against Microsoft. iPod/iTunes business notwithstanding, Apple is not growing at the pace they need right now.
I, for one, would welcome our new Apple overlords.
Originally posted by vinney57
You are correct and this is GOOD thing. The long term protection of brand qualities are far more important than short term market share gains. The products you speak of will come, but only when the technology and development allows for for unique capabilities and design values and not 'me too' products.
That is a non-sensical comment. How can you really increase market share if you don't sell computers that people want/need. Macs are considered elitist computers based on price (much more expensive at the base price then PC offerings - I'm not talking the stupid "But if you expand the PC to all the crap in the mac that you don't need but are forced to get, the prices match up!" argument here) and the fact that Apple tends not to care what people want. There are many computer users who'd love to go mac if they could get one that (a) didn't cost an arm and a leg, and (b) was upgradable (in any sense of the word) to handle newer technologies as they come about.
What does having a "cheap" (as in price) mac, or offering several new offerings outside the stupid product constraints they have now (Pro's apparently do not need/want 13" laptops, consumers don't want/need 15" laptops???), blow up brand quality? (And what 'quality' are you speaking of, the quality used to create the whining/hissing macbooks? or the quality used to create the exploding capacitor imacs?)
How would having a mac that could take a PCI card, or have upgradable graphics, for less than $2000, be considered a bad thing? In fact, if Apple weren't so enthralled with style over substance, maybe they could produce a "Pro" computer with more then three USB ports and didn't weigh 60 pounds, or increase the size of the mini from 3 inches to 5 inches, and increase the base an inch, so it could take a standard hard drive, thus allowing for larger drives? Or, hell, couldn't they just screw the freakin' bottom on, so you could open it without the need for a sharpened putty knife???