Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
My bad. On the other hand in terms of absolute sales Mac desktop seem to do alright despite a late Pro entry.
I did read that desktop sales in the US has dropped 5% this year but notebooks grew 25%.
Quote:
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
So what? The company is very profitable, their share is on the rise in their most important market and in absolute terms the product base is larger than it was. Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share. None of Apple's product line is in this less profitable segment.
That Gateway and HP are now pricing dual core machines in the sub-$600 category means that desktop pricing is continuing to erode and that's the market that an Apple mid-tower will compete in. Gateway sells a $599 Conroe tower. That's what folks will compare an Apple mid-tower to despite that Apple's tower would likely use a Core 2 Extreme and not the budget Conroe.
You can't compare that to an iMac easily. You can compare an iMac to the clunky Gateway Profile 6...which isn't much of a contest. Or the Vaio VGC-LS1. Which is "Sony pretty" but coupled with a GMA950 and is $2K.
Besides, if you believe that 93.9% of the market is correct then perhaps Apple should be selling Windows as well as that's the dominant OS.
Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share.
Could you provide a link? Did the source provide other details? I'd be most interested to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
That Gateway and HP are now pricing dual core machines in the sub-$600 category means that desktop pricing is continuing to erode and that's the market that an Apple mid-tower will compete in. Gateway sells a $599 Conroe tower. That's what folks will compare an Apple mid-tower to despite that Apple's tower would likely use a Core 2 Extreme and not the budget Conroe.
Why would Apple stick to only Core 2 Extreme? That makes no sense at all. If you've gone to the trouble of making a motherboard and case that accepts Conroe, why restrict it to just the Extreme version? Why not also offer lower-powered versions for less money (with the usual 28% margins, of course)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You can't compare that to an iMac easily.
That's exactly the point. Currently, if you are a "fence-sitter" in terms of OS X / Windows, and are thinking of getting a new desktop machine, you've probably already got a monitor (which you may or may not want to keep), and are also very much in the "tower" "mindset" (as that's what you've been using all this time).
So you check out what Dell, HP etc. etc. have. Then you check out what Apple have. You find that Apple's price-comparable desktop hardware is actually laptop hardware and therefore considerably less powerful; the trade-off for that is simplicity and elegance. If you don't "get" that, then your only option is the Mac Pro. And you note that whilst it is significantly more powerful and flexible than the PC options you were looking at, it is also vastly more expensive and overkill for your needs.
So you shrug and say to yourself "huh, I would quite like to try OS X, but Apple just don't make the hardware I want, so I guess it's Windows for me".
The question is "how common a scenario is this?".
And another point: a lot of people like to point out how the iMac and Mac Mini actually fit the requirements of around 90% of home computer users, it's just that the users need to be educated of this fact. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is two-fold:
1.) Apple don't advertise anywhere near enough (they don't run any tv adverts for their computers in the UK, and I've never seen any print ones, either) so this "education" is not happening. If Apple don't do it, who will?
2.) Often it's easier to sell people what they expect. Yes, you can come along and say "well, why not just go the whole hog and sell them Windows, too". To which I would say that plenty of people have plenty of grievances about Windows and are open-minded about alternatives, but probably far fewer have grievances about the mini-tower form-factor.
So what? The company is very profitable, their share is on the rise in their most important market and in absolute terms the product base is larger than it was.
Many people use the argument that market share does not matter, as long as the company is very profitable. This logic may be true for a manufacturer of shoes or clothing. For example, the Gap likely does well with a small market share. However, it does not apply to an industry like computers or game consoles that depend on the support of application developers. If market share drops too low, it makes no sense to spend resources on a product that will not sell well.
Six percent of the US market is small. Why do developers write applications for the Mac? A great deal of this support is based on their belief that the Mac market will grow, and they are getting in on the ground floor. If total share stagnates for too long, or starts to drop, we will see application support begin to dry up. It started to happen before. Only continued growth will keep it from happening again. Once market share reaches a reasonable number, then it can stay there without ill effects.
Quote:
Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share. None of Apple's product line is in this less profitable segment.
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range. You assume Apple must price any popular form-factor desktop the same as its Windows counterpart, and therefore be unprofitable. Both are false assumptions as I see it.
I am not going to read six pages just to see if this was said or if we are even still on topic but.....
If you ask me don't we already have a perfect lineup? If I were a consumer looking to buy a computer for the first time and I went to say the Dell website....I would not even know where to begin. There are so many bloody options! And that's not even building the machine!
Everything Apple offers is simple. It's built in and the price is right. Rather than giving them the completed option of choice and if they will need it or not, Apple for the most part just bundle everything you would need right in except a DVD-R drive on there first three entry level products.
I am not going to read six pages just to see if this was said or if we are even still on topic but.....
If you ask me don't we already have a perfect lineup? If I were a consumer looking to buy a computer for the first time and I went to say the Dell website....I would not even know where to begin. There are so many bloody options! And that's not even building the machine!
Everything Apple offers is simple. It's built in and the price is right. Rather than giving them the completed option of choice and if they will need it or not, Apple for the most part just bundle everything you would need right in except a DVD-R drive on there first three entry level products.
I guess its better then what Apple has now which is nothing. I just bought my first Dell Tower Dual Core Machine so thats 1 sale Apple looses. 4 Slots, upgradeable everywhere Free Vista upgrade and the ability to use real video cards and its under a grand. Get this Mini lovers....even comes with a keyboard iMac games and Mini crippling lost this sale. Sure I would have rather bought a Mac but the hardware offerings kind of suck on the low- medium end. HIgh end is good but $2500 for a tower was out.
Haha, you've actually got a point though... People who were complaining about iPod being high-end and expensive and so on, flipped when the shuffle was release: "Why doesn't it have a screen? It doesn't even have a click-wheel!1!", etc....
@ Aurora: What are we supposed to do, cry about you? If you're dumb enough to think that the decision between Mac and PC is mainly a hardware one, then, hey, Good Luck with your free Vista Upgrade. dumba**
@ everyone else who wants an upgradeable Mac that's got lower priced/ lower performance parts in it: Buy used! Hello, people, that's all your looking for! Yesterday's components in a machine you can upgrade=used Mac Pro. Wait 6 months or a year and buy one on Ebay.
I guess its better then what Apple has now which is nothing. I just bought my first Dell Tower Dual Core Machine so thats 1 sale Apple looses. 4 Slots, upgradeable everywhere Free Vista upgrade and the ability to use real video cards and its under a grand. Get this Mini lovers....even comes with a keyboard iMac games and Mini crippling lost this sale. Sure I would have rather bought a Mac but the hardware offerings kind of suck on the low- medium end. HIgh end is good but $2500 for a tower was out.
Apple selling last years tech at Tomorrows prices and then playing the All in one game just so you can get the OS is kind of a joke on the consumer. 4 upgradeable slots ready to hold whatever I want to put in them, Not having to buy other tech just for that 1 item you want is sweet in the PC world. I mean really I configured my Machine for just me, not for some boardroom marketing brown nosing guy who has determined GMA950 for everyone or if you want a 7600GT you must buy a $2000 2 footer all in one. Lame is Lame. See Yah latter Apple. I cant help it Apple hates Gamers and the Tv.
Everyone here claims to be advocating for the consumer, and arguing that upgradeability is what people want. How do you know? Where is the market research? All I have seen is anecdotal evidence and some strong arguments as to why it could be useful. But the only people I know who upgrade their computers are a small section of people who are really into computers, like, for example, the people on this forum. But most other people I know have added RAM or attached an external hard drive. Many of them found it problematic and were scared of messing up the components that were splayed out there like guts when they tried to insert the DIMMs. Are these people idiots? Hells no! They just don't spend time around computers and don't want to waste hundreds of dollars by screwing up. Considering that, I think that by putting the RAM on the bottom of an iMac makes it more helpful to consumers, because it doesn't make them feel stupid when it does not look more complicated than it really should.
I could go for some more customization of computers, like a wider availability of graphics cards, but RAM, HD, Monitor, some video cards, and others are changeable at purchase of an iMac. Plus, you can always append peripheral devices to it. For most other people, what Apple decides is a good-enough choice. These people are not stupid; they've been ahead of the curve on almost everything, even when that seemed foolish back then.
But that said, there are people who would buy a mid-range tower, and Apple probably should look into servicing it. However, I think that you are grossly overestimating the percentage of people who would actually buy a prosumer tower. That's just my opinion, though and I'd love to be proved wrong. But - I place my bet squarely on this not happening: Stevie-poo will never go for it. He'll just lean back, cock his eyebrow, and ask, "Do you customize your fridge? Do you customize your printer?"
Everyone here claims to be advocating for the consumer, and arguing that upgradeability is what people want. How do you know? Where is the market research? All I have seen is anecdotal evidence and some strong arguments as to why it could be useful. But the only people I know who upgrade their computers are a small section of people who are really into computers, like, for example, the people on this forum. . .
This line of reasoning has been brought up several time in this thread, and there is a simple marketing reply. Most people expect a computer to be some kind of tower today. It is all that's been available on the Windows side, and what they are familiar with. Also, most people know very little about computers, so they buy what others tell them they need. Does Apple want to sell to these people? If Apple really does want switchers from the Windows side, Apple needs to sell them what they want to buy. Otherwise, the only Mac that looks vaguely familiar to them is the Mac Pro, and you know how many will be attracted to that for doing email, internet and word processing.
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
. But - I place my bet squarely on this not happening: Stevie-poo will never go for it. He'll just lean back, cock his eyebrow, and ask, "Do you customize your fridge? Do you customize your printer?"
__________________
PowerBook G4 2.33GHz
Did you customize your Powerbook?LOL.
Hell even Macbook's have progressed to user customized (upgradable) HD's - iMac... well.. errr. No!
Windows XP SP2 Home Edition with Media Player Genuine Advantage?
Okay, okay. You know we are discussing hardware. \ Yet, can they not run all that on a new Mac with Bootcamp? Mac hardware is the only stuff that will run all the major "PC" operating systems.
Okay, okay. You know we are discussing hardware. \ Yet, can they not run all that on a new Mac with Bootcamp? Mac hardware is the only stuff that will run all the major "PC" operating systems.
Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
I agree fully that a lot of people simply won't look at a non-tower. However, these people are largely idiots. They also won't look at anything with OS X or an Apple logo on it, or anything above $300.
I don't think these people would buy an Apple period until the market share is big enough that they're manhood isn't threatened by it.
On a sidenote, I overheard a guy on a train who was buying his son a laptop. The guy was actually trying to talk his son out of a laptop and into getting TWO $300 Dells. His reasoning? "Think of all the SLOTS!" A lot of these people are absolute retards, I'm telling you.
As for us geeks, be honest. You use a computer every single day. Probably for hours. You'll spend a few thousand for something that'll last you a few years.
Please,calling people idiots because they need a video card or Tv tuner card,or sound card,or wireless card and all the other cards shows you have some missing slots in your brain. The retard is buying a mac with a gma950 in it. Thats a tard if i ever saw one.
I agree fully that a lot of people simply won't look at a non-tower. However, these people are largely idiots. They also won't look at anything with OS X or an Apple logo on it, or anything above $300.
I don't think these people would buy an Apple period until the market share is big enough that they're manhood isn't threatened by it. . .
I have to disagree with you. You're correct about some Windows users, but a lot of them are intelligent, their manhood isn't tied up with their computer, and they are looking for a Windows substitute. I know several, but not well enough to influence buying decisions.
One is a civil engineer who travels all over the world as a consultant. He was absolutely livid when he installed Windows XP. He is sensitive about Windows calling home about his computer. He may have switched back to Windows 2000, I don't know.
I talked to him enough to know he doesn't like an AIO. He wants a separate monitor, which he has plenty of. He laughed when I mentioned the Mac Mini, so we didn't get a chance to discuss his reasons. He did mention Linux as a possibility, keeping Windows just for internet and email.
So, I don't think we can write off the Windows people who tend to buy towers.
Quote:
As for us geeks, be honest. You use a computer every single day. Probably for hours. You'll spend a few thousand for something that'll last you a few years.
A few thousand is more than I intend to spend. I keep current by always being a few years out of date, and then buy the stuff that cost a few thousand several years ago. However, if Apple had a simple and smaller tower, or an inexpensive, beefy and larger Mini style Mac, I might consider it. I will say, one computer must be good enough for new games, and the G5 fills that role now. I don't mind that computer being big. In two or three years it may be today's Mac Pro that fills that spot for me.
Comments
Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
My bad. On the other hand in terms of absolute sales Mac desktop seem to do alright despite a late Pro entry.
I did read that desktop sales in the US has dropped 5% this year but notebooks grew 25%.
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
So what? The company is very profitable, their share is on the rise in their most important market and in absolute terms the product base is larger than it was. Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share. None of Apple's product line is in this less profitable segment.
That Gateway and HP are now pricing dual core machines in the sub-$600 category means that desktop pricing is continuing to erode and that's the market that an Apple mid-tower will compete in. Gateway sells a $599 Conroe tower. That's what folks will compare an Apple mid-tower to despite that Apple's tower would likely use a Core 2 Extreme and not the budget Conroe.
You can't compare that to an iMac easily. You can compare an iMac to the clunky Gateway Profile 6...which isn't much of a contest. Or the Vaio VGC-LS1. Which is "Sony pretty" but coupled with a GMA950 and is $2K.
Besides, if you believe that 93.9% of the market is correct then perhaps Apple should be selling Windows as well as that's the dominant OS.
Vinea
Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share.
Could you provide a link? Did the source provide other details? I'd be most interested to find out.
That Gateway and HP are now pricing dual core machines in the sub-$600 category means that desktop pricing is continuing to erode and that's the market that an Apple mid-tower will compete in. Gateway sells a $599 Conroe tower. That's what folks will compare an Apple mid-tower to despite that Apple's tower would likely use a Core 2 Extreme and not the budget Conroe.
Why would Apple stick to only Core 2 Extreme? That makes no sense at all. If you've gone to the trouble of making a motherboard and case that accepts Conroe, why restrict it to just the Extreme version? Why not also offer lower-powered versions for less money (with the usual 28% margins, of course)?
You can't compare that to an iMac easily.
That's exactly the point. Currently, if you are a "fence-sitter" in terms of OS X / Windows, and are thinking of getting a new desktop machine, you've probably already got a monitor (which you may or may not want to keep), and are also very much in the "tower" "mindset" (as that's what you've been using all this time).
So you check out what Dell, HP etc. etc. have. Then you check out what Apple have. You find that Apple's price-comparable desktop hardware is actually laptop hardware and therefore considerably less powerful; the trade-off for that is simplicity and elegance. If you don't "get" that, then your only option is the Mac Pro. And you note that whilst it is significantly more powerful and flexible than the PC options you were looking at, it is also vastly more expensive and overkill for your needs.
So you shrug and say to yourself "huh, I would quite like to try OS X, but Apple just don't make the hardware I want, so I guess it's Windows for me".
The question is "how common a scenario is this?".
And another point: a lot of people like to point out how the iMac and Mac Mini actually fit the requirements of around 90% of home computer users, it's just that the users need to be educated of this fact. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is two-fold:
1.) Apple don't advertise anywhere near enough (they don't run any tv adverts for their computers in the UK, and I've never seen any print ones, either) so this "education" is not happening. If Apple don't do it, who will?
2.) Often it's easier to sell people what they expect. Yes, you can come along and say "well, why not just go the whole hog and sell them Windows, too". To which I would say that plenty of people have plenty of grievances about Windows and are open-minded about alternatives, but probably far fewer have grievances about the mini-tower form-factor.
I'd hazard the guess is "probably not".
Vinea
PS I'll look for the link. Its more industry analysis stuff without access to the raw data. I would take the 51% number with a grain of salt.
So what? The company is very profitable, their share is on the rise in their most important market and in absolute terms the product base is larger than it was.
Many people use the argument that market share does not matter, as long as the company is very profitable. This logic may be true for a manufacturer of shoes or clothing. For example, the Gap likely does well with a small market share. However, it does not apply to an industry like computers or game consoles that depend on the support of application developers. If market share drops too low, it makes no sense to spend resources on a product that will not sell well.
Six percent of the US market is small. Why do developers write applications for the Mac? A great deal of this support is based on their belief that the Mac market will grow, and they are getting in on the ground floor. If total share stagnates for too long, or starts to drop, we will see application support begin to dry up. It started to happen before. Only continued growth will keep it from happening again. Once market share reaches a reasonable number, then it can stay there without ill effects.
Besides I've read that the sub-$500 market accounts for 51% of the desktop market share. None of Apple's product line is in this less profitable segment.
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range. You assume Apple must price any popular form-factor desktop the same as its Windows counterpart, and therefore be unprofitable. Both are false assumptions as I see it.
If you ask me don't we already have a perfect lineup? If I were a consumer looking to buy a computer for the first time and I went to say the Dell website....I would not even know where to begin. There are so many bloody options! And that's not even building the machine!
Everything Apple offers is simple. It's built in and the price is right. Rather than giving them the completed option of choice and if they will need it or not, Apple for the most part just bundle everything you would need right in except a DVD-R drive on there first three entry level products.
I am not going to read six pages just to see if this was said or if we are even still on topic but.....
If you ask me don't we already have a perfect lineup? If I were a consumer looking to buy a computer for the first time and I went to say the Dell website....I would not even know where to begin. There are so many bloody options! And that's not even building the machine!
Everything Apple offers is simple. It's built in and the price is right. Rather than giving them the completed option of choice and if they will need it or not, Apple for the most part just bundle everything you would need right in except a DVD-R drive on there first three entry level products.
A lot of people want those options.
The Headless mac is here!
Introducing The iMac shuffle
Sorry coulden't resist
Hey All
The Headless mac is here!
Introducing The iMac shuffle
Sorry coulden't resist
Haha, you've actually got a point though... People who were complaining about iPod being high-end and expensive and so on, flipped when the shuffle was release: "Why doesn't it have a screen? It doesn't even have a click-wheel!1!", etc....
@ Aurora: What are we supposed to do, cry about you? If you're dumb enough to think that the decision between Mac and PC is mainly a hardware one, then, hey, Good Luck with your free Vista Upgrade. dumba**
@ everyone else who wants an upgradeable Mac that's got lower priced/ lower performance parts in it: Buy used! Hello, people, that's all your looking for! Yesterday's components in a machine you can upgrade=used Mac Pro. Wait 6 months or a year and buy one on Ebay.
I guess its better then what Apple has now which is nothing. I just bought my first Dell Tower Dual Core Machine so thats 1 sale Apple looses. 4 Slots, upgradeable everywhere Free Vista upgrade and the ability to use real video cards and its under a grand. Get this Mini lovers....even comes with a keyboard
Hey, that's okay. Self-hatred can be cured.
Hey, that's okay. Self-hatred can be cured.
Maybe...
Ignorance can also be cured, but stupidity can't.
I could go for some more customization of computers, like a wider availability of graphics cards, but RAM, HD, Monitor, some video cards, and others are changeable at purchase of an iMac. Plus, you can always append peripheral devices to it. For most other people, what Apple decides is a good-enough choice. These people are not stupid; they've been ahead of the curve on almost everything, even when that seemed foolish back then.
But that said, there are people who would buy a mid-range tower, and Apple probably should look into servicing it. However, I think that you are grossly overestimating the percentage of people who would actually buy a prosumer tower. That's just my opinion, though and I'd love to be proved wrong. But - I place my bet squarely on this not happening: Stevie-poo will never go for it. He'll just lean back, cock his eyebrow, and ask, "Do you customize your fridge? Do you customize your printer?"
Everyone here claims to be advocating for the consumer, and arguing that upgradeability is what people want. How do you know? Where is the market research? All I have seen is anecdotal evidence and some strong arguments as to why it could be useful. But the only people I know who upgrade their computers are a small section of people who are really into computers, like, for example, the people on this forum. . .
This line of reasoning has been brought up several time in this thread, and there is a simple marketing reply. Most people expect a computer to be some kind of tower today. It is all that's been available on the Windows side, and what they are familiar with. Also, most people know very little about computers, so they buy what others tell them they need. Does Apple want to sell to these people? If Apple really does want switchers from the Windows side, Apple needs to sell them what they want to buy. Otherwise, the only Mac that looks vaguely familiar to them is the Mac Pro, and you know how many will be attracted to that for doing email, internet and word processing.
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
. But - I place my bet squarely on this not happening: Stevie-poo will never go for it. He'll just lean back, cock his eyebrow, and ask, "Do you customize your fridge? Do you customize your printer?"
__________________
PowerBook G4 2.33GHz
Did you customize your Powerbook?LOL.
Hell even Macbook's have progressed to user customized (upgradable) HD's - iMac... well.. errr. No!
If Apple really does want switchers from the Windows side, Apple needs to sell them what they want to buy.
Windows XP SP2 Home Edition with Media Player Genuine Advantage?
Windows XP SP2 Home Edition with Media Player Genuine Advantage?
Okay, okay. You know we are discussing hardware.
Okay, okay. You know we are discussing hardware.
Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
I agree fully that a lot of people simply won't look at a non-tower. However, these people are largely idiots. They also won't look at anything with OS X or an Apple logo on it, or anything above $300.
I don't think these people would buy an Apple period until the market share is big enough that they're manhood isn't threatened by it.
On a sidenote, I overheard a guy on a train who was buying his son a laptop. The guy was actually trying to talk his son out of a laptop and into getting TWO $300 Dells. His reasoning? "Think of all the SLOTS!" A lot of these people are absolute retards, I'm telling you.
As for us geeks, be honest. You use a computer every single day. Probably for hours. You'll spend a few thousand for something that'll last you a few years.
I agree fully that a lot of people simply won't look at a non-tower. However, these people are largely idiots. They also won't look at anything with OS X or an Apple logo on it, or anything above $300.
I don't think these people would buy an Apple period until the market share is big enough that they're manhood isn't threatened by it. . .
I have to disagree with you. You're correct about some Windows users, but a lot of them are intelligent, their manhood isn't tied up with their computer, and they are looking for a Windows substitute. I know several, but not well enough to influence buying decisions.
One is a civil engineer who travels all over the world as a consultant. He was absolutely livid when he installed Windows XP. He is sensitive about Windows calling home about his computer. He may have switched back to Windows 2000, I don't know.
I talked to him enough to know he doesn't like an AIO. He wants a separate monitor, which he has plenty of. He laughed when I mentioned the Mac Mini, so we didn't get a chance to discuss his reasons. He did mention Linux as a possibility, keeping Windows just for internet and email.
So, I don't think we can write off the Windows people who tend to buy towers.
As for us geeks, be honest. You use a computer every single day. Probably for hours. You'll spend a few thousand for something that'll last you a few years.
A few thousand is more than I intend to spend. I keep current by always being a few years out of date, and then buy the stuff that cost a few thousand several years ago. However, if Apple had a simple and smaller tower, or an inexpensive, beefy and larger Mini style Mac, I might consider it. I will say, one computer must be good enough for new games, and the G5 fills that role now. I don't mind that computer being big. In two or three years it may be today's Mac Pro that fills that spot for me.