Mac sales continue to slide in Q2 as overall PC market rebounds [Update: Numbers refuted]

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

    Who cares?


     

    I do. Apple has been known to drop stuff that isn't profitable enough, i.e. even though it makes money, it doesn't make ENOUGH money. If the Mac continues to slide, it won't be long before Tim says "screw it" and focusses the company's attention on just being the preeminent mobile manufacturer. I don't wanna go back to using Windows.

     

    I agree with those who suggest that price is a factor. I'm hanging onto an aging machine even though I'd kinda like stuff like USB3 and solid-state storage just because the cost of entry is so bloody high. I use the machine for content creation so the Air, with its little screen and comparatively anemic guts, isn't a good option. By the time I load up a new one with comparable guts I'm up over three grand (pushing four after AppleCare and tax).

     

    Now let's say Apple put a little less Excellentium into each model. That would have two benefits for Apple. First, my aging machine would have failed by now, forcing me to buy a new one. Second, the price of a new one would not be so high that I would have waited this long and would already HAVE a new one (maybe even two by now).

     

    I know it's not a popular opinion, but I honestly think Apple's pricing strategy WRT Macs is self-destructive. I can't prove it without convincing Apple to try my approach though, so I guess we'll never know.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

    Still, Apple makes 35% to 45% of all profits in the PC industry, depending on who you read.

    Not bad for a single company with only 5 PC lines.

    (Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, in case anyone needed a refresher.)

     

    Sources:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/192273/article.html

    http://fortune.com/2013/04/16/pie-chart-of-the-day-apples-oversize-share-of-pc-profits/

    http://www.infoworld.com/t/macbooks/pcs-decline-its-apple-thats-making-real-money-pcs-216573


     

    That information is a year-and-a-half old (four years in the case of the first link). According to today's article that's no longer true. That's the point.


     

    Wait for the ARM Mac; then you'll get your wish of a much cheaper Mac.

  • Reply 102 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Count me as one of those people that have not bought a replacement iMac (mine's a late 2009) until I see the next refresh.




    Lots of people are waiting on Apple to do a decent upgrade to all of its Mac products. here are a few things Apple has done that are worthless:



    1. made the iMac thinner

    2. made the iMac next to impossible to upgrade.

    3. ignored the Mini and the fantastic potential the latest chips could have on that platform.

    4. updated the AIR and didn't bother to update the SSD to higher capacity devices at each price point. This actually boggles the mind.

    5. left the line up in limbo with some platforms supporting TB fully and others not.

    6. ignored competing i86 hardware that would have been a good fit in the Mini.

    7. ignored the display market.

     

    All points wrong or irrelevant. You need an upgrade to wizard70.

  • Reply 103 of 128
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    What is it with people from the UK always complaining that the Mac is not PC enough? If you want to buy a PC, there are plenty of them out there. If you want to think different, there's the Mac.

     

    We're a nation of dullards, sad to say.

  • Reply 104 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AndyB89 View Post

     

    I think it boils down to price. Personally I've seen little growth in Apple. I used to be wowed by their new product announcements and they used to have the best overall designs, even though they were expensive.

     

    Now, PC manufacturers have caught up in design, especially in the ultrabook category and win on design and features. I like Mac OS and Apple hardware (currently own a 2011 iMac 27") but Apple is just falling behind. I just bought a mid-tier Lenovo U430 Touch and I love using Win 8.1 and the touch screen is actually incredibly useful.

     

    Case in point, the MacBook Air. Why on Earth would anyone buy a 13" MBA when the MBP is 150 more and has much better specs with little sacrifice in battery life? Why does the MBA not have a retina screen yet? Why does Apple continually keep shooting itself in the foot on features and what it packs into the box?

     

    The iMac line, I like. Most of Apple's desktops are pretty bang on. However their notebook lines are suffering from stiff PC competition that offers amazing design, better specs and cheaper prices. Heck my U430 is built as sturdy as a MBP for half the cost.


     

    I would never use a PC simply because it has better specs.

    If "specs per dollar" were all that you care about, we have nothing in common.

     

    But to address your question, I'm Mac user because I want to run Mac OS X and be part of the Apple ecosystem. I made the decision to convert fully in 2006. "Converting" meant making the choice to stop using Windows and Microsoft Office. Once I made the decision to run OS X, it doesn't matter how "specy" a U430 or any PC is. I like dealing with one company who is responsible for the hardware and operating system, and who offers genius bars in every Apple Store, for support and warranty needs.

     

    Your inability to understand, or your unwillingness to accept my priorities does not in any way invalidate my choice as irrational or stupid. They only seem that way because your priorities are different.

  • Reply 105 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    We're a nation of dullards, sad to say.


     

    Windows seems to have many vocal fans in the UK.

  • Reply 106 of 128
    andyb89andyb89 Posts: 5member
    I would never use a PC simply because it has better specs.
    If "specs per dollar" were all that you care about, we have nothing in common.

    But to address your question, I'm Mac user because I want to run Mac OS X and be part of the Apple ecosystem. I made the decision to convert fully in 2006. "Converting" meant making the choice to stop using Windows and Microsoft Office. Once I made the decision to run OS X, it doesn't matter how "specy" a U430 or any PC is. I like dealing with one company who is responsible for the hardware and operating system, and who offers genius bars in every Apple Store, for support and warranty needs.

    Your inability to understand, or your unwillingness to accept my priorities does not in any way invalidate my choice as irrational or stupid. They only seem that way because your priorities are different.

    Where on earth do you get off assuming I don't understand your priorities? I never once questioned them. I'm speaking of my experience and my opinion on Apple's pricing strategy. I never challenged yours or anyone else's reasoning for why they want to use a Mac.
  • Reply 107 of 128
    andyb89andyb89 Posts: 5member
    Besides that, I use to be all Apple ecosystem. Then Apple stopped innovating, their products became boring and I choose to buy products that meet my needs and have better value.
  • Reply 108 of 128
     
    We're a nation of dullards, sad to say.

    Windows seems to have many vocal fans in the UK.

    Cause and effect in action.
  • Reply 109 of 128
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

     

    32-bit? Seriously? LOL!!!!

     

    Anyways, if you look at the score, the Mac Pro blows it away, even in 32-bit multicore. Longer bars are better son. Regardless, who cares about 32-bit performance when everything you want to do is 64-bit? 

     


    In the case of X86 processors and their 64 bit implementation, it shouldn't change the difference between one and another by much. The 64 bit version requires a paid license. Because of that the results are averaged over fewer machines. Some people quote the 32 bit benchmarks for that reason. There was no reason to be rude.

  • Reply 110 of 128
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,871member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

     

    In the case of X86 processors and their 64 bit implementation, it shouldn't change the difference between one and another by much. The 64 bit version requires a paid license. Because of that the results are averaged over fewer machines. Some people quote the 32 bit benchmarks for that reason. There was no reason to be rude.


     

    Regardless, the 64 bit tests killed which if you're using a Mac Pro, it certainly does matter. If it didn't then there wouldn't have been the push to 64-bit. And don't BS me and say it was only for the 4GB barrier either. We should all know better.  I wasn't rude....if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. 

  • Reply 111 of 128
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

     

    Regardless, the 64 bit tests killed which if you're using a Mac Pro, it certainly does matter. If it didn't then there wouldn't have been the push to 64-bit. And don't BS me and say it was only for the 4GB barrier either. We should all know better.  I wasn't rude....if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. 




    The spread in benchmarks is fairly similar regardless of whether you look at 32 or 64 bit, as long as you look at multi-core benchmarks. Anyway I credit you for your linguistic progress from teenage colloquialisms to 70s cliches.

  • Reply 112 of 128
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    andyb89 wrote: »
    Besides that, I use to be all Apple ecosystem. Then Apple stopped innovating, their products became boring and I choose to buy products that meet my needs and have better value.

    You left the sarcasm tag off.

    Tell me what other company is innovating?
  • Reply 113 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    You left the sarcasm tag off.



    Tell me what other company is innovating?

     

    Xerox did, back in the 1970s...

     

    All the articles telling how Apple copied Android features can't all be lying...

     

    Everyone innovates, not all at once.  All one need do is research.

     

    It's a shame Mac sales are sliding - OS X is far more reliable than Windows and it will always be that way.

  • Reply 114 of 128
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,871member
    Quote:

    Quoted by: Elijahg 

    Amazingly, the early 2009 Xserve is benchmarked faster than the new trashcan Mac Pro in some cases.



     

    Quote:

    Quoted by: Elijahg


     


    It hardly "blows it away". The very best Mac Pro is scored at twice the Xserve, which for a three year gap is pretty poor.


     

    So first you say its not faster, but then you say it is faster but ONLY twice as fast...so which is it? You need to get your story straight before you post. Considering processors haven't really gotten much powerful over the years (just more efficient) its rather impressive. 

     

    I don't care if the last gen Xserve had 8 cores (2xquad CPUs) and the new Mac Pro has 12 cores with 1 CPU. Considering they can fit a 12 core processor in a small design is very impressive along with dual workstation GPU's. If its slower then its not Apple's fault your software sucks and totally relies on the CPU to do the work. Get better software. 

  • Reply 115 of 128
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,871member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AndyB89 View Post



    Besides that, I use to be all Apple ecosystem. Then Apple stopped innovating, their products became boring and I choose to buy products that meet my needs and have better value.

     

    What company is putting out better products than Apple at the moment?

  • Reply 116 of 128
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by AndyB89 View Post

    Then Apple stopped innovating...



    Five posts? Better quit while you’re behind. Way behind. Leave now, and never come back. *gollum gollum*

  • Reply 117 of 128
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     Who wants a tiny little 11" screen for their primary computer?


    I do. Portability.

  • Reply 118 of 128
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AndyB89 View Post



    Besides that, I use to be all Apple ecosystem. Then Apple stopped innovating, their products became boring and I choose to buy products that meet my needs and have better value.

    Sounds likely.

  • Reply 119 of 128
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post





    That's the old saying. Since RR was sold to Volkswagen and then to BMW (who were already making engines and other parts for RR), it really doesn't have the same appeal as it used to; today it is more brand and specific design than unique quality. If I'd be asking for RR price, it would be because I want to see what can Merc, Bentley, BMW... offer me for that price; and they could probably offer more.

    100% true.

    I recently had a look at a maxed out Mercedes for my needs, an energy-efficient berline, not a sports model. Went upwards of €160k.

    That's more than a Lamborghini Huràcan, and the high end Mercedes models go into out-this-world-pricing territory.

    As for RR themselves, I've been a great fan of the brand's design through the 70 to early 90, but they now look like generic fat berlines. Bentleys look far more luxurious. Also, RR's emphasis had been on bespoke for decades, and now bespoke is a small part of their website. Hell, it's not even on the main page... What on the main page is "preowned". http://www.rolls-roycemotorcars.com

     

    Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, and RR, anyway, all belong to german groups. Why not buy the real thing, if you want german engineering?

  • Reply 120 of 128
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,788member
    macxpress wrote: »

    So first you say its not faster, but then you say it is faster but ONLY twice as fast...so which is it? You need to get your story straight before you post. Considering processors haven't really gotten much powerful over the years (just more efficient) its rather impressive. 

    I don't care if the last gen Xserve had 8 cores (2xquad CPUs) and the new Mac Pro has 12 cores with 1 CPU. Considering they can fit a 12 core processor in a small design is very impressive along with dual workstation GPU's. If its slower then its not Apple's fault your software sucks and totally relies on the CPU to do the work. Get better software. 

    I said the 2009 Xserve is faster than the base 2013 Mac Pro, the very best 2013 Mac Pro is only twice as fast as the 2009 Xserve. I can't make it much clearer than that.

    If Apple put two 12 core CPUs in the Mac Pro as they could with the old design (or the Xserve design) the speed increase would be many times faster than the 2009 Xserve as opposed to just twice as fast. Doubling the speed in 6 years isn't much of an improvement in the grand scheme of things. Read up on Moores Law.

    Most applications are CPU bound. Very few other than video editing programs use the GPU, as GPUs are highly parallel and not suited to most tasks.

    Yes it's impressive that Intel, not Apple, have been able to fit 12 cores onto one CPU. It's impressive that Apple can cool a CPU in a fairly small space, though that's not what Pros were asking for. They were asking for a more powerful desktop, size was far from their primary concern.

    It does seem you're ignoring most points and burying your head in the sand when anyone says something you can't counter.
Sign In or Register to comment.