I was looking at a new laptop recently and I really can't afford a new Mac.
The Mac Mini is a joke compared to other desktop PC offerings that have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse included. The price of the Mac Mini needs to come down to $299 if they are really interested in building marketshare.
The Apple laptops, none of which have a matte screen or Blu-Ray drive, seem to be (in my opinion) twice as much as equivalent offerings from other companies.
A lot of people are also just hacking the MacOS to run on generic PC's. I am not sure if this is hurting the numbers. I personally love the Mac hardware and software, but really can't afford a new one right now. I'd have to visit a used computer website like GainSaver.com or ExperCom to get a Mac. I'm squeezing extra life out of my PowerBook...and part of Apple's plan seems to be expecting Apple users to buy a new machine every couple of years to accommodate the new OS.
In summation...Apple needs to react to the reality that people don't have money to toss around on new computers and lower the prices on their offerings or else they will continue to lose marketshare.
In summation...Apple needs to react to the reality that people don't have money to toss around on new computers and lower the prices on their offerings or else they will continue to lose marketshare.
I'll say it again.
One in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
And if we are talking about computers over $1000 then..
Two in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
There are plenty of other manufacturers chasing after the penniless computer buyer.
They are falling over themselves to slash prices and deliver the lowest possible price.
Take advantage of their generosity. They might not be around for much longer.
"?Low priced mobile PCs led market growth in the U.S. Mini notebooks did well in the challenging economic environment where consumers? number one priority was to save money,? said Ms. Kitagawa. ?Mini notebooks continued to put pressure on low priced mobile PCs. This pressure was mainly felt in the consumer market, but it expanded into select professional markets as well, including the education segment. U.S. mobile PC ASP likely will decline as much as 20 percent year-over-year in first quarter 2009. Overall, end user spending on PCs is likely to have contracted in the upper teens in first quarter 2009 compared to a year ago.?
To put that in some kind of perspective... In the US Hewlett Packard may have increased their unit sales by 11%... but each (well most!) machine earns a lot less cash!
"The margin on netbooks is negligible. It is not something we will focus heavily on," says Paul Parrish, UK managing director of hardware maker Fujitsu Siemens Computers (FSC). Story Link
Now separate the issue of small player attempting to compete with large player in the same market, from the issue of margins possible for netbooks. Economies of scale are fun.
Quote:
This is bad news for PC companies, says Barron's, as netbook sales could cannibalize the fatter profit margins attached to regular laptops. Story Link
when did baron make PC's Ohhhh, media... they always provide the best evidence
Quote:
Even the vendors to the netbook OEM face margin issues:
Low Atom margins hurt Intel again, says analyst Story Link
Fuinally youre cooking with gas. Intel misestimates the market trends and sticks their own foot up their butt.
Quote:
The most common justification for people people buying a netbook is that they will only use them for surfing and email as a companion for their PC. I don't think you really need a feature by feature comparison to realize that a netbook is not a fully functional PC.
Oh, so this is your strawman, sorry.
In other words, you have decided that a netbook is not a real PC and then comeforth with reason why, no matter how silly they are... like this
Quote:
I mean really, the trajectory for the Space Shuttle rendezvousing with the International Space Station can be figured out by hand using a pencil and paper, does that make the pencil and paper a PC as well?
Excellent material for a bonfire
Quote:
Yes the netbook can do some of the things a PC can, but it is surely not a replacement for the PC, and if it can't be a replacement offering the same functionality why call it a PC?
If my wifes netbook can do eerything that my imac does, how is this not a full functionality PC? sure it cant do it as quickly, but neither can an imac G5, or is that not a fully functioning comptuer either?
Quote:
Imagine General Motors holding a press conference. After much cheering and back patting they release a statement that they have sold 2 million more vehicles this quarter versus a year ago. Upon reading the small print you see that they have sold 1 million less cars and 1 million less trucks but have sold 4 million of the new vehicle (a Moped) in place of the lost car and truck sales. This is exactly what the PC manufacturers are doing!
imaging building a giant strawman and then defending it with pointless claptrap. Oh wait, you dont need to.
But to make things even clearer, consider this. The iPhone has 16 GB, and the iPod Touch 32GB. It has a smaller screen, but here you are, you can make docs, you can make spreadsheets, you can surf the net and it's way way more mobile and cool.
If a netbook is a "pc", how come then these two aren't? Where to draw the line then?
Lets see,
lets see... with my ipod touch can i;
touch type?
load photoshop?
what about play flash online?
what about load and edit full powerpoint, word, excel, export to pdf?
what about access the internet while only having wired access?
What about plugging a USB into it to play a video file with encoded via xvid?
plug into an external monitor and keyboard to enable seamless experience?
what about loading an iPod classic with 80gb of files? (oh wait, you think a netbook has a 6gb drive dont you...)
Install software that is outside of the protective domain without hacking?
download cheaper music from outside of itunes?
replace the storage for a larger size without replacing the entire unit?
I think the practice of including these $299 netbooks with their whopping 6GB drives and limited functionality (not all of them just the really cheap ones stacked by the hundreds at Wal-Mart) into the PC shipment market share numbers is suspect. If these netbooks are being counted as PC's then the iPod Touch should as well.
edit: (further thoughts) Windows Based cash registers/sales terminals and ATM machines are not counted in the PC shipments market share calculations and some of them have more functionality than these ultra cheap netbooks. iPod Touches, iPhones, other smart phones and netbooks should be counted in their own category as they are blurring into many categories but they are not traditional PCs.
New form factors, new device classes, improvements in cellco data speed, maturation in mobile OS's and apps and the fact that more and more people can do most of what most people want or need to do in/on/with/through/over the net will blur categories more and more. But for now, I'm reasonably sure that 95%+ of netbook buyers think of their purchases as computers - and many as their primary or only computer.
As for iPhones and Touches, they're converging, but one does belong more in a basket of smart phones and the other may even be able to Skype, but is still more a media device.
Netbooks will also spawn gussied up/beefed models - and Apple will enter the segment or create a new branch of it - and more notebooks will shed optical drives, adopt SSD, higher watt-density batteries, etc. and slim down ala the Air.
Lines drawn will certainly be arbitrary to an extent. Still, as one of my unversity profs long ago said, "Just because no one can tell you exactly where the front of your head ends and the side of your head begins doesn't mean you don't have a front and a side of your head."
Clearly, though, the metrics need to be updated and made more granular so that subcategories stand out.
My REAL surprise at this article, though, and it's not on the first page of comments either, is that unit shipments are only one part of the story. Apple's dollar market share of the PC market (however defined) would certainly raise its rankings significantly - it would certainly leap past Acer whose average gross per unit (let alone net) must be less than half of Apple's. So, just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Apple's domestic dollar market share is around 20% give or take 5%.
What was that figure a few months ago about Apple having some amazing share of the $1000+ notebook market? It was at least north of 33% or maybe quite a bit higher.
Further, developers and peripheral makers have learned that Mac owners buy more software and add-ons, upgrade their OS's more often, etc., adding a vibrant support network (already including iTunes, the App Store, Apple.com and the B&M Apple Stores) not aimed at or particularly benefitting any commodity Win PC maker.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards. It's pointless to reference old hardware and say something like 'hey, these machines were actually far LESS powerful'. While true, it has no bearing, here. A commodore 64 was a 'real computer' too... but that doesn't mean selling one today with the same features and characteristics is a good idea.
Net-books average $300 to $400 dollars, and typically have about 1Gb RAM, no optical drive, and tend to have a 1.6 GHZ atom or equivalent. If you add an optical drive, then you might as well consider the range to be $350 - $450. So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it. On the other hand, laptops with core 2 duo or athlon X2 can be had starting around $520! So, for maybe $100 - $150 more you get 2 or 3GB RAM, a 2GHZ plus dual core processor, optical drive, larger screen... is there any need to continue?
Net-books are, in my opinion, an atrocious rip-off for consumers.
If you want to apply that argument to netbooks, then its equally applicable to all notebooks being gutless pos compared to desktops, perhaps iMacs are not real computers compared to a decent quality non-notebook componented box? yadayad
If you want to apply that argument to netbooks, then its equally applicable to all notebooks being gutless pos compared to desktops, perhaps iMacs are not real computers compared to a decent quality non-notebook componented box? yadayad
You strike me as someone looking for a pointless argument, and I'm not inclined to engage in one. Just to clarify, however, I never said a net-book is not a real computer - I said just the opposite. I also never argued that it shouldn't be counted in sales figures, or anything even remotely like that; I think you have confused me with someone else.
What I did say, and pretty clearly I think, is that I think the net-book offerings right now are largely junk. I do not consider them worth the money; they represent a step backward and are not far removed from the results of selling 5 year old hardware in new packaging.
Given that this is an entirely personal viewpoint about a subjective matter of valuation, I really don't see what basis you might have for your attack.
This is my opinion of net-books; It will not vary based upon your profligately negative behavior.
One in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
And if we are talking about computers over $1000 then..
Two in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
There are plenty of other manufacturers chasing after the penniless computer buyer.
They are falling over themselves to slash prices and deliver the lowest possible price.
Take advantage of their generosity. They might not be around for much longer.
C.
Why do people need to spend over a $1000 on a computer anymore though? This isn't the early 2000's, and components are cheap - if all I need to do is browse the web, e-mail, watch some online videos, store images, audio, downloads, etc (which is what I think most people really do with their computers), the OS isn't a deal breaker.
Even though netbooks seem to getting bigger, and getting away from what they started out as (small, cheap, and portable), they have plenty of storage space and horsepower to run things like a browser, OOo, e-mail, etc, Choice of OS flavors too: Windows, Linux, and OSX (if hacking is your thing).
The Mini is fine, but it's still a comprise in some areas, like a whopping 1 GB standard in 2009 on a $600 PC.
It's because of Windows and Linux that so many people actually have computers. It doesn't matter how great something is, if most people can't afford it, or it doesn't run the applications they need. There comes a point, where you're just paying more for a trendy label, which is what I think Apple has really become, ever since they became Apple Inc, rather than Apple Computer, that and the switch to Intel.
U.S. mobile PC ASP likely will decline as much as 20 percent year-over-year in first quarter 2009. Overall, end user spending on PCs is likely to have contracted in the upper teens in first quarter 2009 compared to a year ago.?
To put that in some kind of perspective... In the US Hewlett Packard may have increased their unit sales by 11%... but each (well most!) machine earns a lot less cash!
Yes, ASP matters almost as much as margins when it comes to absolute profits. Something xMac proponents seem to miss. Now that notebook ASP and margins are slipping badly Apple is more and more likely to get into some oddball notebook niches like AIOs and SFF are for desktops. Ultrathins and maybe tablets may become the Apple mainstays in a few years.
Quadra - I don't think this should turn into a thread about licensing the OS - We should stick to the market share debate....
.....but a well controlled licensing process would maintain the hardware / software connection that makes OSX so reliable. Lock OSX to machines which fully conform to Apple's HW standards.
There's this straw-man argument that if Apple sell the OS, they will have to copy all of Microsoft's errors and then OS X will get as bad as Windows. Apple can licence OS X without duplicating Microsoft's model.
C.
I still think there's something to the speculations about one Apple reason for buying PA Semi is adding proprietary if not patented chips to their mobos that a future release of OS X won't run if it doesn't find them. In other words, for you old-timers out there, an internal dongle.
Of course they'd have to add the chips a machine gen or three before turning that on in the OS or lose upgrade sales to real Mac owners.
But even if a noticeable Psystar style clone market starts to develop in the interim (and Apple loses the lawsuit in at least some countries), that should kill it cold. And as long as the chip had some other significant function in making OS X function better, even Euro regulators couldn't force Apple to sell the chip, even if they had to sell the OS.
Psystar is contesting the software EULA, and I don't think custom mobos fall under the same legal doctrines. A patented chip would also be harder to reverse engineer. AMD would have gone under long ago if they hadn't had a (litigated) technology sharing agreement on x386 Intel tech, and still almost did when Intel jumped to the Pentium level.
Why do people need to spend over a $1000 on a computer anymore though? This isn't the early 2000's, and components are cheap
Speaking personally, my computer is how I make my living. I use my computer more than my car. To be honest my computer it is worth more to me than my car. So the fastest, most reliable, most usable computer is essential to me. I have spent about $5000 on it, and it's been an awesome investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
It's because of Windows and Linux that so many people actually have computers. It doesn't matter how great something is, if most people can't afford it, or it doesn't run the applications they need. There comes a point, where you're just paying more for a trendy label, which is what I think Apple has really become, ever since they became Apple Inc, rather than Apple Computer, that and the switch to Intel.
I agree that Microsoft made a big contribution to getting computers into the hands of everyone and turning them into commodity items. They did a lot of this while Apple was not in the best of shape.
But looking at this report, people read these unit figures and read them incorrectly. They see these figures as reflecting the relative strengths of the companies concerned. It looks like Apple's commercial strategy is wrong. And HP is "winning"
But these numbers do not reflect the strength of these various businesses. HP and Dell and Acer are selling lots of units. But the revenue for each computer is falling fast - and the profit is falling faster. HPs PSG group makes only a 5% profit margin. Apple is nearer 15%.
Cheap computers are great for consumers. Not so great for businesses.
Only Microsoft is profiting from the netbook phenomenon.
If Microsoft were smart, it might use some of its profits to encourage consumers to buy computers from HP.
Not sure if someone else already posted this - but at some point - someone should find a way to track how many PCs are disposed of relative to Macs. Or how many new units purchased are in addition to vs to replace existing equipment.
I've got Macs that are 10 years old and still in use - PCs that old - if they still work at all - may only be useful in a thin client mode if you have a system powerful enough to run a number of virtual machines that the thin clients can remote into.
Comments
In other words - nearly one out of every three dollars spent on a computer (in the US) goes to Apple.
This must put Apple near the top of the list even without iPhone revenues.
It would be interesting to see what the market-share of all these companies is by revenue.
C.
Apple's Share of the market = 27%-30%
If you measure market share by revenues. Which is the normal way to measure markets.
In other words - nearly one out of every three dollars spent on a computer (in the US) goes to Apple.
This must put Apple near the top of the list even without iPhone revenues.
It would be interesting to see what the market-share of all these companies is by revenue.
C.
That does beg the question, why don't we see articles, even from AI, that layout that marketshare based on revenue?
That said, dropping like it did in this terrible economy means little and while dome would like to believe otherwise, it simply isn't true.
If you measure market share by revenues. Which is the normal way to measure markets.
In other words - nearly one out of every three dollars spent on a computer (in the US) goes to Apple.
This must put Apple near the top of the list even without iPhone revenues.
It would be interesting to see what the market-share of all these companies is by revenue.
C.
I was looking at a new laptop recently and I really can't afford a new Mac.
The Mac Mini is a joke compared to other desktop PC offerings that have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse included. The price of the Mac Mini needs to come down to $299 if they are really interested in building marketshare.
The Apple laptops, none of which have a matte screen or Blu-Ray drive, seem to be (in my opinion) twice as much as equivalent offerings from other companies.
A lot of people are also just hacking the MacOS to run on generic PC's. I am not sure if this is hurting the numbers. I personally love the Mac hardware and software, but really can't afford a new one right now. I'd have to visit a used computer website like GainSaver.com or ExperCom to get a Mac. I'm squeezing extra life out of my PowerBook...and part of Apple's plan seems to be expecting Apple users to buy a new machine every couple of years to accommodate the new OS.
In summation...Apple needs to react to the reality that people don't have money to toss around on new computers and lower the prices on their offerings or else they will continue to lose marketshare.
That does beg the question, why don't we see articles, even from AI, that layout that marketshare based on revenue?
Because such stats are hard to gather. But it is disappointing that companies that call themselves "analysts" do not do a little more sifting of data.
For Dell and HP - increasing unit sales makes a company sound healthy. Declining revenues per sale does not.
C.
In summation...Apple needs to react to the reality that people don't have money to toss around on new computers and lower the prices on their offerings or else they will continue to lose marketshare.
I'll say it again.
One in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
And if we are talking about computers over $1000 then..
Two in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
There are plenty of other manufacturers chasing after the penniless computer buyer.
They are falling over themselves to slash prices and deliver the lowest possible price.
Take advantage of their generosity. They might not be around for much longer.
C.
I'll say it again.
One in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
How about a more direct approach...[CENTER]Macs have over 30% marketshare[/CENTER]
"?Low priced mobile PCs led market growth in the U.S. Mini notebooks did well in the challenging economic environment where consumers? number one priority was to save money,? said Ms. Kitagawa. ?Mini notebooks continued to put pressure on low priced mobile PCs. This pressure was mainly felt in the consumer market, but it expanded into select professional markets as well, including the education segment. U.S. mobile PC ASP likely will decline as much as 20 percent year-over-year in first quarter 2009. Overall, end user spending on PCs is likely to have contracted in the upper teens in first quarter 2009 compared to a year ago.?
Link
To put that in some kind of perspective... In the US Hewlett Packard may have increased their unit sales by 11%... but each (well most!) machine earns a lot less cash!
"The margin on netbooks is negligible. It is not something we will focus heavily on," says Paul Parrish, UK managing director of hardware maker Fujitsu Siemens Computers (FSC). Story Link
Now separate the issue of small player attempting to compete with large player in the same market, from the issue of margins possible for netbooks. Economies of scale are fun.
This is bad news for PC companies, says Barron's, as netbook sales could cannibalize the fatter profit margins attached to regular laptops. Story Link
when did baron make PC's Ohhhh, media... they always provide the best evidence
Even the vendors to the netbook OEM face margin issues:
Low Atom margins hurt Intel again, says analyst Story Link
Fuinally youre cooking with gas. Intel misestimates the market trends and sticks their own foot up their butt.
The most common justification for people people buying a netbook is that they will only use them for surfing and email as a companion for their PC. I don't think you really need a feature by feature comparison to realize that a netbook is not a fully functional PC.
Oh, so this is your strawman, sorry.
In other words, you have decided that a netbook is not a real PC and then comeforth with reason why, no matter how silly they are... like this
I mean really, the trajectory for the Space Shuttle rendezvousing with the International Space Station can be figured out by hand using a pencil and paper, does that make the pencil and paper a PC as well?
Excellent material for a bonfire
Yes the netbook can do some of the things a PC can, but it is surely not a replacement for the PC, and if it can't be a replacement offering the same functionality why call it a PC?
If my wifes netbook can do eerything that my imac does, how is this not a full functionality PC? sure it cant do it as quickly, but neither can an imac G5, or is that not a fully functioning comptuer either?
Imagine General Motors holding a press conference. After much cheering and back patting they release a statement that they have sold 2 million more vehicles this quarter versus a year ago. Upon reading the small print you see that they have sold 1 million less cars and 1 million less trucks but have sold 4 million of the new vehicle (a Moped) in place of the lost car and truck sales. This is exactly what the PC manufacturers are doing!
imaging building a giant strawman and then defending it with pointless claptrap. Oh wait, you dont need to.
But to make things even clearer, consider this. The iPhone has 16 GB, and the iPod Touch 32GB. It has a smaller screen, but here you are, you can make docs, you can make spreadsheets, you can surf the net and it's way way more mobile and cool.
If a netbook is a "pc", how come then these two aren't? Where to draw the line then?
Lets see,
lets see... with my ipod touch can i;
touch type?
load photoshop?
what about play flash online?
what about load and edit full powerpoint, word, excel, export to pdf?
what about access the internet while only having wired access?
What about plugging a USB into it to play a video file with encoded via xvid?
plug into an external monitor and keyboard to enable seamless experience?
what about loading an iPod classic with 80gb of files? (oh wait, you think a netbook has a 6gb drive dont you...)
Install software that is outside of the protective domain without hacking?
download cheaper music from outside of itunes?
replace the storage for a larger size without replacing the entire unit?
etc etc
I think the practice of including these $299 netbooks with their whopping 6GB drives and limited functionality (not all of them just the really cheap ones stacked by the hundreds at Wal-Mart) into the PC shipment market share numbers is suspect. If these netbooks are being counted as PC's then the iPod Touch should as well.
edit: (further thoughts) Windows Based cash registers/sales terminals and ATM machines are not counted in the PC shipments market share calculations and some of them have more functionality than these ultra cheap netbooks. iPod Touches, iPhones, other smart phones and netbooks should be counted in their own category as they are blurring into many categories but they are not traditional PCs.
New form factors, new device classes, improvements in cellco data speed, maturation in mobile OS's and apps and the fact that more and more people can do most of what most people want or need to do in/on/with/through/over the net will blur categories more and more. But for now, I'm reasonably sure that 95%+ of netbook buyers think of their purchases as computers - and many as their primary or only computer.
As for iPhones and Touches, they're converging, but one does belong more in a basket of smart phones and the other may even be able to Skype, but is still more a media device.
Netbooks will also spawn gussied up/beefed models - and Apple will enter the segment or create a new branch of it - and more notebooks will shed optical drives, adopt SSD, higher watt-density batteries, etc. and slim down ala the Air.
Lines drawn will certainly be arbitrary to an extent. Still, as one of my unversity profs long ago said, "Just because no one can tell you exactly where the front of your head ends and the side of your head begins doesn't mean you don't have a front and a side of your head."
Clearly, though, the metrics need to be updated and made more granular so that subcategories stand out.
My REAL surprise at this article, though, and it's not on the first page of comments either, is that unit shipments are only one part of the story. Apple's dollar market share of the PC market (however defined) would certainly raise its rankings significantly - it would certainly leap past Acer whose average gross per unit (let alone net) must be less than half of Apple's. So, just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Apple's domestic dollar market share is around 20% give or take 5%.
What was that figure a few months ago about Apple having some amazing share of the $1000+ notebook market? It was at least north of 33% or maybe quite a bit higher.
Further, developers and peripheral makers have learned that Mac owners buy more software and add-ons, upgrade their OS's more often, etc., adding a vibrant support network (already including iTunes, the App Store, Apple.com and the B&M Apple Stores) not aimed at or particularly benefitting any commodity Win PC maker.
Follow the money. It's always been true.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards. It's pointless to reference old hardware and say something like 'hey, these machines were actually far LESS powerful'. While true, it has no bearing, here. A commodore 64 was a 'real computer' too... but that doesn't mean selling one today with the same features and characteristics is a good idea.
Net-books average $300 to $400 dollars, and typically have about 1Gb RAM, no optical drive, and tend to have a 1.6 GHZ atom or equivalent. If you add an optical drive, then you might as well consider the range to be $350 - $450. So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it. On the other hand, laptops with core 2 duo or athlon X2 can be had starting around $520! So, for maybe $100 - $150 more you get 2 or 3GB RAM, a 2GHZ plus dual core processor, optical drive, larger screen... is there any need to continue?
Net-books are, in my opinion, an atrocious rip-off for consumers.
If you want to apply that argument to netbooks, then its equally applicable to all notebooks being gutless pos compared to desktops, perhaps iMacs are not real computers compared to a decent quality non-notebook componented box? yadayad
If you want to apply that argument to netbooks, then its equally applicable to all notebooks being gutless pos compared to desktops, perhaps iMacs are not real computers compared to a decent quality non-notebook componented box? yadayad
You strike me as someone looking for a pointless argument, and I'm not inclined to engage in one. Just to clarify, however, I never said a net-book is not a real computer - I said just the opposite. I also never argued that it shouldn't be counted in sales figures, or anything even remotely like that; I think you have confused me with someone else.
What I did say, and pretty clearly I think, is that I think the net-book offerings right now are largely junk. I do not consider them worth the money; they represent a step backward and are not far removed from the results of selling 5 year old hardware in new packaging.
Given that this is an entirely personal viewpoint about a subjective matter of valuation, I really don't see what basis you might have for your attack.
This is my opinion of net-books; It will not vary based upon your profligately negative behavior.
I'll say it again.
One in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
And if we are talking about computers over $1000 then..
Two in three dollars spent on computers goes to Apple.
There are plenty of other manufacturers chasing after the penniless computer buyer.
They are falling over themselves to slash prices and deliver the lowest possible price.
Take advantage of their generosity. They might not be around for much longer.
C.
Why do people need to spend over a $1000 on a computer anymore though? This isn't the early 2000's, and components are cheap - if all I need to do is browse the web, e-mail, watch some online videos, store images, audio, downloads, etc (which is what I think most people really do with their computers), the OS isn't a deal breaker.
Even though netbooks seem to getting bigger, and getting away from what they started out as (small, cheap, and portable), they have plenty of storage space and horsepower to run things like a browser, OOo, e-mail, etc, Choice of OS flavors too: Windows, Linux, and OSX (if hacking is your thing).
The Mini is fine, but it's still a comprise in some areas, like a whopping 1 GB standard in 2009 on a $600 PC.
It's because of Windows and Linux that so many people actually have computers. It doesn't matter how great something is, if most people can't afford it, or it doesn't run the applications they need. There comes a point, where you're just paying more for a trendy label, which is what I think Apple has really become, ever since they became Apple Inc, rather than Apple Computer, that and the switch to Intel.
U.S. mobile PC ASP likely will decline as much as 20 percent year-over-year in first quarter 2009. Overall, end user spending on PCs is likely to have contracted in the upper teens in first quarter 2009 compared to a year ago.?
Link
To put that in some kind of perspective... In the US Hewlett Packard may have increased their unit sales by 11%... but each (well most!) machine earns a lot less cash!
Yes, ASP matters almost as much as margins when it comes to absolute profits. Something xMac proponents seem to miss. Now that notebook ASP and margins are slipping badly Apple is more and more likely to get into some oddball notebook niches like AIOs and SFF are for desktops. Ultrathins and maybe tablets may become the Apple mainstays in a few years.
Quadra - I don't think this should turn into a thread about licensing the OS - We should stick to the market share debate....
.....but a well controlled licensing process would maintain the hardware / software connection that makes OSX so reliable. Lock OSX to machines which fully conform to Apple's HW standards.
There's this straw-man argument that if Apple sell the OS, they will have to copy all of Microsoft's errors and then OS X will get as bad as Windows. Apple can licence OS X without duplicating Microsoft's model.
C.
I still think there's something to the speculations about one Apple reason for buying PA Semi is adding proprietary if not patented chips to their mobos that a future release of OS X won't run if it doesn't find them. In other words, for you old-timers out there, an internal dongle.
Of course they'd have to add the chips a machine gen or three before turning that on in the OS or lose upgrade sales to real Mac owners.
But even if a noticeable Psystar style clone market starts to develop in the interim (and Apple loses the lawsuit in at least some countries), that should kill it cold. And as long as the chip had some other significant function in making OS X function better, even Euro regulators couldn't force Apple to sell the chip, even if they had to sell the OS.
Psystar is contesting the software EULA, and I don't think custom mobos fall under the same legal doctrines. A patented chip would also be harder to reverse engineer. AMD would have gone under long ago if they hadn't had a (litigated) technology sharing agreement on x386 Intel tech, and still almost did when Intel jumped to the Pentium level.
Why do people need to spend over a $1000 on a computer anymore though? This isn't the early 2000's, and components are cheap
Speaking personally, my computer is how I make my living. I use my computer more than my car. To be honest my computer it is worth more to me than my car. So the fastest, most reliable, most usable computer is essential to me. I have spent about $5000 on it, and it's been an awesome investment.
It's because of Windows and Linux that so many people actually have computers. It doesn't matter how great something is, if most people can't afford it, or it doesn't run the applications they need. There comes a point, where you're just paying more for a trendy label, which is what I think Apple has really become, ever since they became Apple Inc, rather than Apple Computer, that and the switch to Intel.
I agree that Microsoft made a big contribution to getting computers into the hands of everyone and turning them into commodity items. They did a lot of this while Apple was not in the best of shape.
But looking at this report, people read these unit figures and read them incorrectly. They see these figures as reflecting the relative strengths of the companies concerned. It looks like Apple's commercial strategy is wrong. And HP is "winning"
But these numbers do not reflect the strength of these various businesses. HP and Dell and Acer are selling lots of units. But the revenue for each computer is falling fast - and the profit is falling faster. HPs PSG group makes only a 5% profit margin. Apple is nearer 15%.
Cheap computers are great for consumers. Not so great for businesses.
Only Microsoft is profiting from the netbook phenomenon.
If Microsoft were smart, it might use some of its profits to encourage consumers to buy computers from HP.
Oh yeah - it is!
C.
I've got Macs that are 10 years old and still in use - PCs that old - if they still work at all - may only be useful in a thin client mode if you have a system powerful enough to run a number of virtual machines that the thin clients can remote into.