Maybe I'm not being clear. I am referring to the 2009 WWDC keynote. Within the first three minutes of the video, Philip Schiller points out that in the last two years, users of Mac OS X have tripled from 25 million to 75 million.
Phil Schiller was showing the growth rate of OSX. That's the OS X versions that power the Mac, iPhone and iPod Touch.
Even though Apple has had 2 record years for Mac sales they only sold about 18 million. Not 50 million.
So I gather from reading here that the need for a mid and low level desktop is gone forever, filled with mini's and the imac lines .
So apple has simply been avoiding overlap in its computer lines.
I like the imac line allot and I hope they keep the small form and increase the screen size's even bigger. Also i hope the mini also gets expanded to fill the mid level desk top need's better, Well since the mini is really the old cube why not bring back the cube and add more power to it
The tower's are really for high level storage and very powerful needs.
A regular joe smoe should be happy with a high end mini or imac. So Apple needs to upgrade the power in these two lines .
Yet laptops are so powerful these days its hard not to but them no matter what ,
I just bought today the highest end 15 " MBP 3.0GHz , 7200 rpm 500 g and since my wife is a school aide so i got a nice discount and a FREE touch ,
The touch was a major surprise I did not realize I qualified to get one .A nice apple sales person asked me about my life and situation and we realized that I could get the education discount.
So now what do I with my new 32 g touch ? Maybe I will keep it sealed until we see what the upgraded touch brings us.
But then I won't stop thinking about my unopened touch all day.
Computers are moving away from bulky trash to life style devices. Apple is on board with it's range of devices.
The old Intel-Microsoft game of new release, upgrade hardware is no longer effective. Now we get pathetic <insert bad language here> game developers and "studios" releasing software that basically runs properly on hardware that is not available to the public yet (How about Crysis when it came out?). So the reason you upgrade your hardware is to play the new games. With virtualization taking off, corporates don't need to dole out the cash for every new server they need. The market is saturated right about now.
Computers are moving away from bulky trash to life style devices. Apple is on board with it's range of devices.
The old Intel-Microsoft game of new release, upgrade hardware is no longer effective. Now we get pathetic <insert bad language here> game developers and "studios" releasing software that basically runs properly on hardware that is not available to the public yet (How about Crysis when it came out?). So the reason you upgrade your hardware is to play the new games. With virtualization taking off, corporates don't need to dole out the cash for every new server they need. The market is saturated right about now.
There are declines but that is partially due to large companies cutting back on their computer refreshing cycle. A large number right now have held off from updating their hardware until Windows 7, Intel for example have held back refreshing their desktop systems which amounts to hundreds of thousands of desktops.
Desktops and Workstations will always be required as people need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility.
There are declines but that is partially due to large companies cutting back on their computer refreshing cycle. A large number right now have held off from updating their hardware until Windows 7, Intel for example have held back refreshing their desktop systems which amounts to hundreds of thousands of desktops.
From the linked article, which perhaps you didn't read:
Stephen Baker, an analyst for industry watchers NPD, shared with me a wider picture of how retail PC sales break down. The way he put it made measuring the rise and fall of sales percentages seem dumb--there really aren't any sales to lose: "In US retail, 80% of sales are notebooks now."
Quote:
Desktops and Workstations will always be required as people need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility.
Ordinary people don't! Do you need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility?
From the linked article, which perhaps you didn't read:
Stephen Baker, an analyst for industry watchers NPD, shared with me a wider picture of how retail PC sales break down. The way he put it made measuring the rise and fall of sales percentages seem dumb--there really aren't any sales to lose: "In US retail, 80% of sales are notebooks now."
Yes, but I am talking about desktops and workstations in general - not specific to the article. The article merely raised the issue of declines.
Quote:
Ordinary people don't! Do you need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility?
There are still many people out there who expect/want/demand desktops/towers, one only need to look at the numerous threads started by people going on about the xMac they want to see appearing.
Its true desktops do have advantages that cannot be fully matched by notebooks. The point of this article is the fact that sales show those advantages are not needed by the majority of the consumer market. Portability has become more important than power and expandability.
Yes there are some number of people who prefer desktops. The point of the article is that in comparison to the over all consumer market, those who prefer desktops are small. So small that investing in more desktop lines is less profitable than investing in notebook lines.
Those who advocate xMac cannot see the paradigm shift that is happening. For the general consumer the notebook is what the desktop used to be, the smartphone is what the notebook used to be. This is clearly is where Apple is placing the majority of its resources and attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macintoshtoffy
Yes, but I am talking about desktops and workstations in general - not specific to the article. The article merely raised the issue of declines.
There are still many people out there who expect/want/demand desktops/towers, one only need to look at the numerous threads started by people going on about the xMac they want to see appearing.
Its true desktops do have advantages that cannot be fully matched by notebooks. The point of this article is the fact that sales show those advantages are not needed by the majority of the consumer market. Portability has become more important than power and expandability.
Yes there are some number of people who prefer desktops. The point of the article is that in comparison to the over all consumer market, those who prefer desktops are small. So small that investing in more desktop lines is less profitable than investing in notebook lines.
Those who advocate xMac cannot see the paradigm shift that is happening. For the general consumer the notebook is what the desktop used to be, the smartphone is what the notebook used to be. This is clearly is where Apple is placing the majority of its resources and attention.
I hope they still continue the iMac given that writing a long assignment on a laptop can be a nightmare and I'd prefer not to have a frankenstein setup with wires, cables and leads everywhere with monitors and keyboards/nice I hook and unhook.
Here in New York I regularly see iMac's used in college computer labs, internet cafe's, and in museums. These are circumstances were a notebook doesn't fit the need as well.
They can lock the machines in a desk and use cheap external displays - this has a lower cost of ownership as wear on the display does not mean an expensive repair, plus they can and should be using Minis anyway. I have found very few cases where Apple's laptops couldn't replace their iMac line. The only case where this will change is if they put quad-cores in the iMac and not the laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Would you prefer to sell more computers, or make more money per computer sold?
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success. Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You're kidding right. You're concerned that Apple is losing mindshare?
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
This isn't about the mid-range options specifically but it's where Apple's line offers the worst value. The laptops are not that bad vs PC manufacturers - at worst twice the price for the same spec and you get a robust, long lasting machine with a decent spec. With the iMac, you get the same performance as a laptop for the same price but you can't take it anywhere and the repairs are expensive whereas you can get a PC quad mini-tower for 1/3rd of the price that is twice as fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet.
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Only has a 1366 x 768 screen, you cannot watch the Blu-ray in full 1080.
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
They can lock the machines in a desk and use cheap external displays - this has a lower cost of ownership as wear on the display does not mean an expensive repair, plus they can and should be using Minis anyway. I have found very few cases where Apple's laptops couldn't replace their iMac line. The only case where this will change is if they put quad-cores in the iMac and not the laptops.
Why go through all of that? Running wires and locking things down. The advantage of the iMac is that the entire computer is contained in one unit.
Quote:
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success. Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
My statement was not from a consumer point of view, it was from a in business to make money point of view.
There are also numerous high quality applications exclusive to the Mac that are not available for Windows.
AutoCAD is not available on the Mac because Autodesk has stubbornly made the choice to not support it. Within this stubbornness Autodesk is leaving good money on the table. Apple's dominant growth in the $1000+ computer market is forcing Autodesk to no longer ignore the money it is missing. Autodesk Autocad for Mac OS X
Quote:
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
Outside of internet lists there is no general perception of Mac users. Most people don't care.
The majority of the Mac users I know purposefully decided to be Mac users. The majority of the PC users I know don't care either way, they just bought the cheapest computer available.
Quote:
With the iMac, you get the same performance as a laptop for the same price but you can't take it anywhere and the repairs are expensive whereas you can get a PC quad mini-tower for 1/3rd of the price that is twice as fast.
You are looking at this only from the geek point of view. Most people don't care about hardware specs. The value of the iMac for the common consumer is in having the entire computer in one unit, with a beautifully large screen and slim attractive case. The iMac is sexy.
Quote:
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
Blu-ray has no impact on mindshare, few people care about watching blu-ray on a notebook, or blu-ray at all for that matter. As far as your price and features argument. There is no evidence that Apple is having any problem with how it prices its machines. Even with the economic downturn Apple still makes nearly as much money as the two largest computer manufacturers.
Quote:
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
1920x1200 does not automatically make it a good quality panel. A cheap machine likely means a cheap panel.
Quote:
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
This is like looking for the solution to the VHS sales problem. There is no solution to the desktop sales problem. Consumer desktop sales are coming to the end of its days.
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success.
Ask old Amiga and Atari fans how much it might or might not matter. Apple making lots of money ensures an Apple the next upgrade cycle. It's not like if Dell goes under...there is still HP, Acer, etc.
Quote:
Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
Hence Bootcamp.
Quote:
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
Given the success of the iPod and iPhone on Apple's image this seems to be limited to crufty old geeks and some geek teens. Most folks don't care or have experience that Apple tends to provide higher quality/better user experience for the extra money. Hence the high JD Power scores for user satisfaction for the iPhone (as a device anyway).
Quote:
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
And increasing mac sales are not an indicator that Apple is addressing it? And at far better ASPs and margins than Acer...who's gaining share mostly on the strength of low end netbooks.
A certain demographic would rather have the refinement of a MBP over that Acer despite the difference in technical bang for the buck. This is the demographic that Apple targets and quality and user experience are very much part of that price vs features equation from the consumer perspective.
Given it's my mind I get to determine who gets the share and my looking at Acer diminished Apple's mindshare not one iota. Nor do I care that much about BluRay given I haven't bought one.
Quote:
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
So go buy the Acer and enjoy BluRay. Windows 7 will be a solid OS and you wont have hardware envy anymore.
Quote:
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
Quote:
As we got into March and announced a completely new desktop line, we saw acceleration of sales and that acceleration allowed us on sell-through basis to be approximately equal to year before. After we did the desktop launch, we began to ship higher mix of desktops than before the transition, helping push overall ASP down. Within desktops, top end of line (Mac Pro) lower mix, higher mix to the Mac mini than before the transition.
Tim Cook - Apple Q2 2009 Earnings Call
The mini really needed a refresh and the iMac line up needed a refresh. So it got a design one rather than significant compute one because mobile Nehalem wasn't out in Q1 2009 as Intel projected a while back. Not much changes tick part of the Intel cycle. The large disparity between iMacs and towers is that the towers are on the tock part while notebooks and AIOs are still in tick.
Given the lag in mobile parts I think you will continue to see this pattern where Intel lags nearly a year from desktop to mobile. By the time mobile Nehalems appear, desktop Westmeres will be close.
Apple desktop sales volume was down in Q1 due to the economy and expectations of an iMac refresh.
The only place, based on actual performance, that the lineup needs help is with the Mac Pro with a slightly cheaper low end model given the economy. Most likely, however, is that pro users are deferring new buys in this environment rather than getting Dells if they are already an Apple shop.
This is like looking for the solution to the VHS sales problem. There is no solution to the desktop sales problem. Consumer desktop sales are coming to the end of its days.
I agree, what I'm saying is how long does the iMac have to go before Apple get rid of it too? If laptop purchases are made because people don't want static desktops then the iMac will surely suffer the same fate.
It's interesting when a significant majority of people buy laptops vs desktops Apple don't cut some of the desktop line but they do it with matte displays. Of course, this is because they are clearly making a lot of profit in this case. (I know the desktops bounced back a bit after the refresh but Apple cut matte on the first generation. They are quick to act when it suits them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple making lots of money ensures an Apple the next upgrade cycle.
One that a lot of people still can't afford though. Apple pander to the upper-middle-classes and that generates a negative stereotype of them and the users. I get the point about longevity, I just think that overpricing and under-powering your hardware and then covering that deficiency with aesthetics and a good locked-in OS is an underhand way to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And increasing mac sales are not an indicator that Apple is addressing it?
Not really - they noted themselves that the number of users has tripled in the last 2 years i.e since the iphone was introduced. Taking the iphone out of the equation, their Mac prices have systematically risen to the point where a Mac Pro is out of most people's price range and they offer laptop chips in everything below this at substantially higher cost than PC manufacturers.
They appear to be milking the iphone status and profiting highly on their Macs. It shows an ugly side to Apple that even when people are struggling financially that they push their price points higher. They even said they would cut back on profit margins and that was a blatant lie because it hasn't happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So go buy the Acer and enjoy BluRay. Windows 7 will be a solid OS and you wont have hardware envy anymore.
It was someone earlier who had the hardware envy. They said:
"You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet."
I was just pointing out when someone dismissed the screen resolution that Apple also have poor screen resolutions and they don't support Blu-Ray at all and yet are still twice the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The only place, based on actual performance, that the lineup needs help is with the Mac Pro with a slightly cheaper low end model given the economy.
I'd say a more affordable 15" laptop would be good too (better value than the one they introduced with IGP) and the iMac needs a quad core (it should have had one 5 months ago) and the Mini should be $100 cheaper.
One that a lot of people still can't afford though. Apple pander to the upper-middle-classes and that generates a negative stereotype of them and the users. I get the point about longevity, I just think that overpricing and under-powering your hardware and then covering that deficiency with aesthetics and a good locked-in OS is an underhand way to do it.
So any brand catering to the upper middle class is underhanded and has a negative stereotype.
Please.
Quote:
Not really - they noted themselves that the number of users has tripled in the last 2 years i.e since the iphone was introduced. Taking the iphone out of the equation, their Mac prices have systematically risen to the point where a Mac Pro is out of most people's price range and they offer laptop chips in everything below this at substantially higher cost than PC manufacturers.
As long as their products are selling they aren't too overpriced or too underpowered for the target market.
The iPhone suffers the same "bang for the buck" comparisons with other phones with more features (better cameras, better BT, better battery life, blah blah) locked into AT&T.
Folks understand that shelling out more for the iPhone is better than shelling out $0 for a free phone and paying $30 extra per month is a good deal despite lower spec'd hardware (camera, BT, etc) because of the user experience.
And that translated to more Mac sales.
Quote:
They appear to be milking the iphone status and profiting highly on their Macs. It shows an ugly side to Apple that even when people are struggling financially that they push their price points higher. They even said they would cut back on profit margins and that was a blatant lie because it hasn't happened.
Yes, it's ugly to make money on luxury items that folks can simply...not buy during an economic downturn. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Do you need a wambulance?
They did cut back profitability by lowering ASPs. That doesn't reduce margins but does reduce profits and was noted in the telecon.
Quote:
It was someone earlier who had the hardware envy. They said:
"You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet."
Jeez, you act like no one can like non-Apple hardware without whining about Macs.
That's not envy, that's admiration. It's not like no one else can build great machines. There are Toshiba and Sony laptops I like too but prefer to own a MBP.
Quote:
I'd say a more affordable 15" laptop would be good too (better value than the one they introduced with IGP) and the iMac needs a quad core (it should have had one 5 months ago) and the Mini should be $100 cheaper.
Did someone say "target market?" My guess is Apple has, and will always want to be, the Mercedes Benz of computers. The problem with that is Mac OS is very cool. People who can't justify the cost of the machine, will never experience Mac OS. That is sad. Steve Jobs loves to claim his 75% market share (runaway) with the iPods. All those songs, movies, and app downloads at the iTunes Store. Why does Steve love being the leader in some areas, but doesn't wish to get off his high horse and make more choices available, so more will get on board with Mac OS? My step-dad left me a little jingle in his trust. I bought my iMac with his money. Had it been my own, I would not have made the choice to go Mac. I am bound to get slapped around for my comments here, I always do. I suspect some people figure they will refresh their computer every three years or so. Apple, and everyone else, refreshes their offerings, and/or deletes an element of reverse compatibility, like the PPC. My redneck mentality <smile> says why spend a bundle on something I will replace in a few years? Until very recently, I never considered dropping a ton of money on a Mac Pro. Spending 3X the cost of a good mini on a Pro, would likely result in at least 6X life expectancy, maybe 12X.
When will their mindshare fade? The reason Apple has the mind share it does is because they deliver exciting products that people want to buy. Once they are no longer able to do this then I can see your point about lowering the price.
Everyone else has to compete on value because they don't deliver exciting products that people want to buy.
Apple has been selling expensive machines long before the iPhone was around. What does it matter if some people see Apple has over priced and over hyped? Apple isn't targeting the value based market.
The iMac is making Apple money, I don't understand the logic of dropping a product that makes you money. Notebooks aren't practical for literally every situation.
Here in New York I regularly see iMac's used in college computer labs, internet cafe's, and in museums. These are circumstances were a notebook doesn't fit the need as well.
I have to agree with you here. Apple will sell what makes money and what is consistent with their brand strategy. The iMac does well for them, so they sell it. Portables are the new thing, so they focus more on those. The Mac Pro is for people that need desktop connectivity and expandability. Perhaps it's overpriced, but it's not "half the performance for twice the price," either. Especially when you factor in that it's the only tower in the world capable of (legally) running OSX.
Comments
Maybe I'm not being clear. I am referring to the 2009 WWDC keynote. Within the first three minutes of the video, Philip Schiller points out that in the last two years, users of Mac OS X have tripled from 25 million to 75 million.
Phil Schiller was showing the growth rate of OSX. That's the OS X versions that power the Mac, iPhone and iPod Touch.
Even though Apple has had 2 record years for Mac sales they only sold about 18 million. Not 50 million.
You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet.
So apple has simply been avoiding overlap in its computer lines.
I like the imac line allot and I hope they keep the small form and increase the screen size's even bigger. Also i hope the mini also gets expanded to fill the mid level desk top need's better, Well since the mini is really the old cube why not bring back the cube and add more power to it
The tower's are really for high level storage and very powerful needs.
A regular joe smoe should be happy with a high end mini or imac. So Apple needs to upgrade the power in these two lines .
Yet laptops are so powerful these days its hard not to but them no matter what ,
I just bought today the highest end 15 " MBP 3.0GHz , 7200 rpm 500 g and since my wife is a school aide so i got a nice discount and a FREE touch ,
The touch was a major surprise I did not realize I qualified to get one .A nice apple sales person asked me about my life and situation and we realized that I could get the education discount.
So now what do I with my new 32 g touch ? Maybe I will keep it sealed until we see what the upgraded touch brings us.
But then I won't stop thinking about my unopened touch all day.
Well....
The old Intel-Microsoft game of new release, upgrade hardware is no longer effective. Now we get pathetic <insert bad language here> game developers and "studios" releasing software that basically runs properly on hardware that is not available to the public yet (How about Crysis when it came out?). So the reason you upgrade your hardware is to play the new games. With virtualization taking off, corporates don't need to dole out the cash for every new server they need. The market is saturated right about now.
Computers are moving away from bulky trash to life style devices. Apple is on board with it's range of devices.
The old Intel-Microsoft game of new release, upgrade hardware is no longer effective. Now we get pathetic <insert bad language here> game developers and "studios" releasing software that basically runs properly on hardware that is not available to the public yet (How about Crysis when it came out?). So the reason you upgrade your hardware is to play the new games. With virtualization taking off, corporates don't need to dole out the cash for every new server they need. The market is saturated right about now.
Exactly why i just spent over 3k for a laptop
games
cryis
Desktop PC sales have declined 23%. The steepest sales decline in computer sales history.
Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales.
Gizmodo
There are declines but that is partially due to large companies cutting back on their computer refreshing cycle. A large number right now have held off from updating their hardware until Windows 7, Intel for example have held back refreshing their desktop systems which amounts to hundreds of thousands of desktops.
Desktops and Workstations will always be required as people need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility.
There are declines but that is partially due to large companies cutting back on their computer refreshing cycle. A large number right now have held off from updating their hardware until Windows 7, Intel for example have held back refreshing their desktop systems which amounts to hundreds of thousands of desktops.
From the linked article, which perhaps you didn't read:
Stephen Baker, an analyst for industry watchers NPD, shared with me a wider picture of how retail PC sales break down. The way he put it made measuring the rise and fall of sales percentages seem dumb--there really aren't any sales to lose: "In US retail, 80% of sales are notebooks now."
Desktops and Workstations will always be required as people need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility.
Ordinary people don't! Do you need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility?
From the linked article, which perhaps you didn't read:
Stephen Baker, an analyst for industry watchers NPD, shared with me a wider picture of how retail PC sales break down. The way he put it made measuring the rise and fall of sales percentages seem dumb--there really aren't any sales to lose: "In US retail, 80% of sales are notebooks now."
Yes, but I am talking about desktops and workstations in general - not specific to the article. The article merely raised the issue of declines.
Ordinary people don't! Do you need powerful number crunchers with huge expandability and flexibility?
There are still many people out there who expect/want/demand desktops/towers, one only need to look at the numerous threads started by people going on about the xMac they want to see appearing.
Yes there are some number of people who prefer desktops. The point of the article is that in comparison to the over all consumer market, those who prefer desktops are small. So small that investing in more desktop lines is less profitable than investing in notebook lines.
Those who advocate xMac cannot see the paradigm shift that is happening. For the general consumer the notebook is what the desktop used to be, the smartphone is what the notebook used to be. This is clearly is where Apple is placing the majority of its resources and attention.
Yes, but I am talking about desktops and workstations in general - not specific to the article. The article merely raised the issue of declines.
There are still many people out there who expect/want/demand desktops/towers, one only need to look at the numerous threads started by people going on about the xMac they want to see appearing.
Its true desktops do have advantages that cannot be fully matched by notebooks. The point of this article is the fact that sales show those advantages are not needed by the majority of the consumer market. Portability has become more important than power and expandability.
Yes there are some number of people who prefer desktops. The point of the article is that in comparison to the over all consumer market, those who prefer desktops are small. So small that investing in more desktop lines is less profitable than investing in notebook lines.
Those who advocate xMac cannot see the paradigm shift that is happening. For the general consumer the notebook is what the desktop used to be, the smartphone is what the notebook used to be. This is clearly is where Apple is placing the majority of its resources and attention.
I hope they still continue the iMac given that writing a long assignment on a laptop can be a nightmare and I'd prefer not to have a frankenstein setup with wires, cables and leads everywhere with monitors and keyboards/nice I hook and unhook.
Not bad, its a bit thick and heavy. Only has a 1366 x 768 screen, you cannot watch the Blu-ray in full 1080.
Me want 1366 x 768! Is kinda stupid to include Blu-ray.
You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet.
Just curious ... where did you find this Acer?
Here in New York I regularly see iMac's used in college computer labs, internet cafe's, and in museums. These are circumstances were a notebook doesn't fit the need as well.
They can lock the machines in a desk and use cheap external displays - this has a lower cost of ownership as wear on the display does not mean an expensive repair, plus they can and should be using Minis anyway. I have found very few cases where Apple's laptops couldn't replace their iMac line. The only case where this will change is if they put quad-cores in the iMac and not the laptops.
Would you prefer to sell more computers, or make more money per computer sold?
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success. Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
You're kidding right. You're concerned that Apple is losing mindshare?
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
This isn't about the mid-range options specifically but it's where Apple's line offers the worst value. The laptops are not that bad vs PC manufacturers - at worst twice the price for the same spec and you get a robust, long lasting machine with a decent spec. With the iMac, you get the same performance as a laptop for the same price but you can't take it anywhere and the repairs are expensive whereas you can get a PC quad mini-tower for 1/3rd of the price that is twice as fast.
You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet.
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
Only has a 1366 x 768 screen, you cannot watch the Blu-ray in full 1080.
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
They can lock the machines in a desk and use cheap external displays - this has a lower cost of ownership as wear on the display does not mean an expensive repair, plus they can and should be using Minis anyway. I have found very few cases where Apple's laptops couldn't replace their iMac line. The only case where this will change is if they put quad-cores in the iMac and not the laptops.
Why go through all of that? Running wires and locking things down. The advantage of the iMac is that the entire computer is contained in one unit.
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success. Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
My statement was not from a consumer point of view, it was from a in business to make money point of view.
There are also numerous high quality applications exclusive to the Mac that are not available for Windows.
AutoCAD is not available on the Mac because Autodesk has stubbornly made the choice to not support it. Within this stubbornness Autodesk is leaving good money on the table. Apple's dominant growth in the $1000+ computer market is forcing Autodesk to no longer ignore the money it is missing. Autodesk Autocad for Mac OS X
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
Outside of internet lists there is no general perception of Mac users. Most people don't care.
The majority of the Mac users I know purposefully decided to be Mac users. The majority of the PC users I know don't care either way, they just bought the cheapest computer available.
With the iMac, you get the same performance as a laptop for the same price but you can't take it anywhere and the repairs are expensive whereas you can get a PC quad mini-tower for 1/3rd of the price that is twice as fast.
You are looking at this only from the geek point of view. Most people don't care about hardware specs. The value of the iMac for the common consumer is in having the entire computer in one unit, with a beautifully large screen and slim attractive case. The iMac is sexy.
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
Blu-ray has no impact on mindshare, few people care about watching blu-ray on a notebook, or blu-ray at all for that matter. As far as your price and features argument. There is no evidence that Apple is having any problem with how it prices its machines. Even with the economic downturn Apple still makes nearly as much money as the two largest computer manufacturers.
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
1920x1200 does not automatically make it a good quality panel. A cheap machine likely means a cheap panel.
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
This is like looking for the solution to the VHS sales problem. There is no solution to the desktop sales problem. Consumer desktop sales are coming to the end of its days.
From a consumer point of view that answer is clear. Why should consumer's care how much money Apple make? Their success is not our success.
Ask old Amiga and Atari fans how much it might or might not matter. Apple making lots of money ensures an Apple the next upgrade cycle. It's not like if Dell goes under...there is still HP, Acer, etc.
Volume sales mean software and hardware support and better value machines as they can lower costs. The reason there is no 3DS Max, AutoCAD or the multitude of games for OS X has nothing to do with how profitable Apple's machines are.
Hence Bootcamp.
Not concerned from Apple's point of view but it has a negative impact on how Mac users are viewed by the rest of the world. Even when Macs weren't that badly priced, PC users - even computer-illiterate users - automatically label Mac users as arrogant, elitist snobs or people who are so stupid as to have been conned out of a lot of money when they could have bought much better value machines. Now, disregarding those kind of idiots isn't a huge task but Apple aren't making things better with their hardware choices.
Given the success of the iPod and iPhone on Apple's image this seems to be limited to crufty old geeks and some geek teens. Most folks don't care or have experience that Apple tends to provide higher quality/better user experience for the extra money. Hence the high JD Power scores for user satisfaction for the iPhone (as a device anyway).
Mindshare lost already. Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray and offers slower graphics for twice the price. It's a nicer shell but there is no such thing as a non-value-oriented market and price + features are on everyone's mind. It's true there is value in different areas like the OS but it's an issue FROM THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE that Apple should address.
And increasing mac sales are not an indicator that Apple is addressing it? And at far better ASPs and margins than Acer...who's gaining share mostly on the strength of low end netbooks.
A certain demographic would rather have the refinement of a MBP over that Acer despite the difference in technical bang for the buck. This is the demographic that Apple targets and quality and user experience are very much part of that price vs features equation from the consumer perspective.
Given it's my mind I get to determine who gets the share and my looking at Acer diminished Apple's mindshare not one iota. Nor do I care that much about BluRay given I haven't bought one.
Whereas on a Mac, you can watch Blu-Ray in... oh, right. Apple's laptops aren't that high-res either. I remember 8 years ago, one of my friends had a cheap Dell or Acer that had a 15" screen that went up to 1920 x 1200. To this day, Apple only give you glossy and 1440 x 900 unless you spend $2,500.
So go buy the Acer and enjoy BluRay. Windows 7 will be a solid OS and you wont have hardware envy anymore.
As I say though, Apple's laptops aren't all that bad, what's interesting is that Apple's desktop sales are way down too. Their current sales in 2009 show 70% laptop sales vs 30% desktop. This means that the iMac is not the solution to the desktop sales problem.
As we got into March and announced a completely new desktop line, we saw acceleration of sales and that acceleration allowed us on sell-through basis to be approximately equal to year before. After we did the desktop launch, we began to ship higher mix of desktops than before the transition, helping push overall ASP down. Within desktops, top end of line (Mac Pro) lower mix, higher mix to the Mac mini than before the transition.
Tim Cook - Apple Q2 2009 Earnings Call
The mini really needed a refresh and the iMac line up needed a refresh. So it got a design one rather than significant compute one because mobile Nehalem wasn't out in Q1 2009 as Intel projected a while back. Not much changes tick part of the Intel cycle. The large disparity between iMacs and towers is that the towers are on the tock part while notebooks and AIOs are still in tick.
Given the lag in mobile parts I think you will continue to see this pattern where Intel lags nearly a year from desktop to mobile. By the time mobile Nehalems appear, desktop Westmeres will be close.
Apple desktop sales volume was down in Q1 due to the economy and expectations of an iMac refresh.
The only place, based on actual performance, that the lineup needs help is with the Mac Pro with a slightly cheaper low end model given the economy. Most likely, however, is that pro users are deferring new buys in this environment rather than getting Dells if they are already an Apple shop.
This is like looking for the solution to the VHS sales problem. There is no solution to the desktop sales problem. Consumer desktop sales are coming to the end of its days.
I agree, what I'm saying is how long does the iMac have to go before Apple get rid of it too? If laptop purchases are made because people don't want static desktops then the iMac will surely suffer the same fate.
It's interesting when a significant majority of people buy laptops vs desktops Apple don't cut some of the desktop line but they do it with matte displays. Of course, this is because they are clearly making a lot of profit in this case. (I know the desktops bounced back a bit after the refresh but Apple cut matte on the first generation. They are quick to act when it suits them)
Apple making lots of money ensures an Apple the next upgrade cycle.
One that a lot of people still can't afford though. Apple pander to the upper-middle-classes and that generates a negative stereotype of them and the users. I get the point about longevity, I just think that overpricing and under-powering your hardware and then covering that deficiency with aesthetics and a good locked-in OS is an underhand way to do it.
And increasing mac sales are not an indicator that Apple is addressing it?
Not really - they noted themselves that the number of users has tripled in the last 2 years i.e since the iphone was introduced. Taking the iphone out of the equation, their Mac prices have systematically risen to the point where a Mac Pro is out of most people's price range and they offer laptop chips in everything below this at substantially higher cost than PC manufacturers.
They appear to be milking the iphone status and profiting highly on their Macs. It shows an ugly side to Apple that even when people are struggling financially that they push their price points higher. They even said they would cut back on profit margins and that was a blatant lie because it hasn't happened.
So go buy the Acer and enjoy BluRay. Windows 7 will be a solid OS and you wont have hardware envy anymore.
It was someone earlier who had the hardware envy. They said:
"You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet."
I was just pointing out when someone dismissed the screen resolution that Apple also have poor screen resolutions and they don't support Blu-Ray at all and yet are still twice the price.
The only place, based on actual performance, that the lineup needs help is with the Mac Pro with a slightly cheaper low end model given the economy.
I'd say a more affordable 15" laptop would be good too (better value than the one they introduced with IGP) and the iMac needs a quad core (it should have had one 5 months ago) and the Mini should be $100 cheaper.
One that a lot of people still can't afford though. Apple pander to the upper-middle-classes and that generates a negative stereotype of them and the users. I get the point about longevity, I just think that overpricing and under-powering your hardware and then covering that deficiency with aesthetics and a good locked-in OS is an underhand way to do it.
So any brand catering to the upper middle class is underhanded and has a negative stereotype.
Please.
Not really - they noted themselves that the number of users has tripled in the last 2 years i.e since the iphone was introduced. Taking the iphone out of the equation, their Mac prices have systematically risen to the point where a Mac Pro is out of most people's price range and they offer laptop chips in everything below this at substantially higher cost than PC manufacturers.
As long as their products are selling they aren't too overpriced or too underpowered for the target market.
The iPhone suffers the same "bang for the buck" comparisons with other phones with more features (better cameras, better BT, better battery life, blah blah) locked into AT&T.
Folks understand that shelling out more for the iPhone is better than shelling out $0 for a free phone and paying $30 extra per month is a good deal despite lower spec'd hardware (camera, BT, etc) because of the user experience.
And that translated to more Mac sales.
They appear to be milking the iphone status and profiting highly on their Macs. It shows an ugly side to Apple that even when people are struggling financially that they push their price points higher. They even said they would cut back on profit margins and that was a blatant lie because it hasn't happened.
Yes, it's ugly to make money on luxury items that folks can simply...not buy during an economic downturn. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Do you need a wambulance?
They did cut back profitability by lowering ASPs. That doesn't reduce margins but does reduce profits and was noted in the telecon.
It was someone earlier who had the hardware envy. They said:
"You know that $750 Acer with blu-ray and GT130 sounds pretty sweet."
That's not envy, that's admiration. It's not like no one else can build great machines. There are Toshiba and Sony laptops I like too but prefer to own a MBP.
I'd say a more affordable 15" laptop would be good too (better value than the one they introduced with IGP) and the iMac needs a quad core (it should have had one 5 months ago) and the Mini should be $100 cheaper.
Yah, maybe Steve should buy everyone a pony too.
When will their mindshare fade? The reason Apple has the mind share it does is because they deliver exciting products that people want to buy. Once they are no longer able to do this then I can see your point about lowering the price.
Everyone else has to compete on value because they don't deliver exciting products that people want to buy.
Apple has been selling expensive machines long before the iPhone was around. What does it matter if some people see Apple has over priced and over hyped? Apple isn't targeting the value based market.
The iMac is making Apple money, I don't understand the logic of dropping a product that makes you money. Notebooks aren't practical for literally every situation.
Here in New York I regularly see iMac's used in college computer labs, internet cafe's, and in museums. These are circumstances were a notebook doesn't fit the need as well.
I have to agree with you here. Apple will sell what makes money and what is consistent with their brand strategy. The iMac does well for them, so they sell it. Portables are the new thing, so they focus more on those. The Mac Pro is for people that need desktop connectivity and expandability. Perhaps it's overpriced, but it's not "half the performance for twice the price," either. Especially when you factor in that it's the only tower in the world capable of (legally) running OSX.