MacPing!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 07/18/2008 9:26:44 PM PDT by Swordmaker
There is much exuberance in the Mac orbit this week over news from market research and analysis firm Gartner Group that Apple has edged past Taiwan-based Acer into third-place spot for computer sales volume in the U.S. with 8.5 percent of the domestic personal computer market, although it still ranks sixth globally. However, domestically, according to Gartner estimates, Apple's sales now surpass all competitors save for for Dell and HP, showing amazing sales growth of 38.1 percent year-over-year, and that's with fourth-place Acer having gobbled up Gateway and Packard Bell whose sales are included in the Acer total. Gartner' market research competitor IDC in its report this week pegged Apple's gains somewhat lower, at a 7.8 percent share, up from 6.2 percent a year earlier, and with slightly slower growth (31.7%), locked in a virtual dead heat with Acer (Apple trailing by 2,000 units), but the trend is the same with Apple shipping an estimated 2.37 million Macs worldwide in the quarter.
Apple at either 8.5 percent or 7.8 percent of the personal computer market (up from 6.4 or 6.2 percent in the quarter a year earlier) is a figure unheard of by a generation or two of Mac-Users, although a few of us grizzled veterans can remember back to the early '80s when Apple (pre-Mac) had a heady 15 percent of the PC market. However, those sepia-toned nostalgic recollections need a bit of reality-checking for context.
For one thing, there was no DOS/Windows PC in 1980, and for that matter no Mac, so it's more than a bit of and oranges and.... well... Apples comparison. Apple's big competition in those days was from companies like Commodore and Sinclair that have long since faded into oblivion. And actually, the personal computer market in a mass consumer commodity sense was itself still in the future. In those days, only geeks bought personal computers, and Apple's 15 percent slice was from a very small pie by today's standards.
By 1985, 11 years into the Mac era and on the eve of Microsoft's Windows 95 release, Apple's share was just under five percent of the PC market, which is arguably a more realistic figure to use as a comparative base-line for today's figures. And of course the corollary to that is that Microsoft and its hardware vendor partners had roughly 95 percent of the PC market represented by the DOS/Windows operating system platform, which seemed to make the Mac's five percent pale by significance, although the reality was that the prices Apple charged for its hardware systems in the mid-90s had essentially ceded the mass market for the PC as a commodity to DOS/Windows by default, and it really wasn't that the Mac's market impact had eroded by two-thirds over the preceding 15 years, but looked at from another, "think different," perspective, it was a pretty impressive showing that the Mac had as much as five percent.
Just how remarkable that figure was slowly morphed into focus over the subsequent 10 years, with the Mac's market share nadir being plumbed in '95 - '96 at just above two percent in those dark days when virtually all news mention of Apple was preceded by the descriptor "beleaguered," and there was much serious and not-unwarranted speculation that the company might be taken over or even fold and disappear as so many of its competitors of the early-'80s era had.
But then in 1997, Steve Jobs returned, bringing with him his NextStep operating system that would be metamorphosed into Mac OS X, and most folks reading this column will be aware of what happened over the next ten years, which brings us back to the present and the 8.5 percent showing, which in real terms can be regarded as Apple's actual best market share performance in the commodity PC era ever, and with the momentum trending sharply higher.
In a macro-analysis context, Apple's market status looks even better. Apple still doesn't compete in the bottom-feeding end of the market, and back in May, research firm NPD Group revealed that Apple enjoyed a dominant share of the U.S. retail market for high-end computers in the first quarter of 2008, selling two out of every three PCs priced over $1,000, which all Macs are except for the Mac mini, which is priced without a monitor, keyboard or mouse.
One of the key factors in Apple's buoyant market performance in recent years has been its strong presence in the laptop computer sector, with Mac laptop sales showing '07-'08 year-over-year growth of more than 50 percent, with its desktop sales growing by a more modest 45 percent (mostly on the strength of the aluminum iMac), while during the same period the Windows PC market idled with zero growth in laptop sales and a 25 percent decline in desktop sales - both of which have now turned around somewhat with PC shipments in the United States reaching 16.5 million units in the second quarter of 2008, a 4.2 percent increase from the same period last year.
However, there are some storm clouds on the horizon, so to speak, and the fallout from the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and the near-doubling of oil prices works its way through the U.S. and by extension world economies, and the market's nominal acceleration appears to have been achieved at the expense of revenues as vendors cut prices in response to the economic downturn and widespread uncertainty.
Mika Kitagawa, principal analyst for Gartner's Client Computing Markets group noted this week that "Mobile PCs continued to lead unit growth across all regions as the average selling price (ASP) of mobile PCs declined sharply relative to desk-based PC ASPs. Economic uncertainties have hit PC revenues, resulting in steep ASP declines, especially in markets such as the United States and the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. The industry could ultimately see a significant wave of consolidation if stronger vendors continue to press their pricing advantage."
In January of this year, Gartner Group forecast that Apple would double its PC market share in the U.S. and Western Europe in computers by 2011, and current growth figures indicate that would be a possible objective. The most robust market performance is being seen in the home PC and education segment where Apple is particularly strong. Gartner also predicted that by 2012 half of business travelers will be leaving their laptops at home to travel with smaller units running Web-based applications that can be accessed anywhere there's wireless service. With the iPhone, Apple is well-poised to be able to take advantage of that market development.
Another potential trend related to the widespread adoption of smartphones and mini-notebooks could be a comeback for the desktop PC that some folks are predicting, although being convinced of the laptop's superiority I remain cautiously skeptical. That said, this week IDG News Service's Dan Nystedt posted a column noting that Converge, a company that works with chip spot markets, reporting report Wednesday that a shortage has emerged in desktop microprocessors, the report commenting that "The story of the third quarter has been the dramatic resurgence of shortages in the desktop market after a sustained period of relative calm."
THe article cites Gartner's observation that because desktop PCs cost less than laptops, they present a less expensive option for businesses with tightening IT budgets. That could pose an area of vulnerability for Apple, which has long had a hole in its desktop computer lineup where many critics contend a mid-range and mid-priced desktop model between the iMac and the Mac Pro towers should be.
On the other hand, the article cites Intel noting in its second quarter results, which were announced Tuesday, that number of laptop microprocessors it shipped in Q2 exceeded the number of desktop microprocessor shipments for the first time, occurring six months sooner than Intel had expected.
"We saw notebook unit shipments cross over desktops in the overall client PC category in the second quarter," Paul Otellini, Intel's president and CEO, is quoted saying during a conference call. "What I think we're seeing is a fundamental shift to notebooks."
I'm inclined to agree, and of course Apple crossed that watershed back in the early '00s. However, a looming problem for Apple is that it is not represented in an emerging new laptop market category.
TheStreet.com's Jonathan Blum this week chronicles a burgeoning trend toward "netbooks," which he defines as "a quick and relatively cheap portable computer that not only gets your small business more virtual but keeps your people off the road - and away from burning pricey fossil fuels....a line of computers with average computational power suited to run both standard business applications and the new generation of online business process apps delivered via the Web."
The typical netbook, says Blum, is relatively light, around four pounds, being nothing like the under-two-pound ultraportables, but lighter than eight-pound-plus desktop replacements, relatively cheap, starting in the $500ish range, with properly configured units running around $700. Apple's cheapest laptop is the entry-level MacBook, which sells for $1,199.
Blum says that Netbooks offer relatively modest performance, making them unsuitable for Photoshop and other hardware-taxing applications applications, but offer perfectly reasonable results running Web-based apps like Google Docs and offline tools like Microsoft Office while having sufficient hardware power ( say, 1.6 GHz clock speed and 2 GB of RAM) to support wireless access, Bluetooth and USB.
If you think that this sounds like your idea of an Intel-based replacement for Apple's late, much-lamented, four-pound 12" PowerBook, we're on the same page. The MacBook Air has enjoyed very respectable sales performance, at least initially, but it's a bit of a premium-priced boutique piece given its functional and engineering limitations, and I'm among the sizable cohort that still believes Apple needs a more comprehensively featured and capable subnotebook along the lines of the "netbook" profile Mr. Blum has described.
However, Apple's prospects are looking brighter than they have in nearly two decades, and 10 percent or more market share now seems easily in reach, probably before this decade is out.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Thanks for the 
!
Oh please. There are dozens of PC makers, and only ONE maker of computers that run OSX. Add all of the PC makers together and Apple is a minor blip.
Why do you think Apple doesnt allow clones?
But whatever makes your iHeart flutter...
Oh, just you wait until Apple achieves supreme dominance (10% market share). Microsoft won’t have a clue what hit them.
</sarcasm>
Huh?
Translation...
high-end == overpriced
bottom-feeding == good value
;-)
Let’s set that back in time about, oh, 30 years, shall we?
“Oh, just you wait until Toyota achieves supreme dominance (10% market share). GM won’t have a clue what hit them. /sarc”
Hmmm... I don’t see GM laughing any more.
Cheap PCs are generally a mistake. They run poorly, they have substandard hardware and they give a poor user experience.
$400 PCs are the Yugos of the computer world.
Is this Toyota/GM comparison the new thing for Apple sycophants? I didn’t get the memo until recently.
You are aware that there is next to no reasonable comparison between automobiles and computers, are you not? Nearly all computers these days use the same parts. Cars do not, and the fact that Toyotas were demonstrably more reliable played a huge part. They simply provided much better value for the dollar. This isn’t and wasn’t due to a cult following and dishonest ad campaigns.
My point is that laughing at a company with a small but rapidly growing percentage of a particular market is *always* a bad idea.
See Toyota v. GM, FedEx v. UPS, Apple iPod v. everyone else’s players, Walmart v. Target... the business world is full of examples of just how stupid dismissing the competition can be. And the Windows drones, like you, are dismissing the competition.
Looks like a typo to me. I suspect, since 1984 (intro of Macintosh) plus 11 years is 1995, and 1995 is the year Windows 95 was released, that is the case. Poor editing.
Add all of those PC makers together and Apple is fast approaching 10% of all computers sold in the United States. Hardly a "blip."
I’m not dismissing anything, unlike you (having dismissed me as a “Windows drone” when I have used and continue to use nearly all operating systems). I am amused at the number of Apple sycophants on Free Republic. I’m also amused at the constant Vista bashing propagated mainly by Apple sycophants - especially since it does not at all match with my experiences (nor anybody else I talk to regularly for that matter).
I would remind you that other “competitions” like you list below did not end because the “upstart” marketed its product largely to fickle youth. Toyota, for example, made a superior product at a better price. Apple is not significantly better in any particular metric even though they certainly present themselves that way.
Sony vice GE/Zenith/RCA? Marketed to fickle youth - see “Walkman.”
Honda vice Harley Davidson? Marketed to fickle youth - see “You Meet The Nicest People On A Honda” and “Super Cub.”
Nintendo vice Atari/Coleco? Marketed to fickle youth. See “Nintendo Entertainment System.”
There are plenty more examples.
Cars don't all have tires made by third party manufacturers? They don't have radio's built by companies that compete for inclusion in various models (or is that a Toyota Radio?), they don't have glass windows manufactured by third party makers that often sell to other car builders?
. . . and the fact that Toyotas were demonstrably more reliable played a huge part.
And Macs are demonstrably more reliable than most PCs. Check out Consumers Reports where Apple computers—particularly their desk tops—are several percentage points ahead of the nearest PC competitor in reliability and have been at the top of the computer reliability lists for years.
They simply provided much better value for the dollar.
Repeated Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Return on Investment (ROI) studies done by independent parties have shown that Macs provide FAR BETTER value for the dollar than PCs.
This isn’t and wasn’t due to a cult following and dishonest ad campaigns.
And just exactly wwhere are all those NEW TO MAC buyers coming from? Were they also members of the "cult following?" If so, they sure were hidden from sight four years ago when there were only 18,000,000 OSX Mac users since there are now 14 million more of us. Or are you arguing that all 2.47 million Macs sold in the last quarter were sold to "cultists" who already own Macs?
And what's dishonest about the ads? Please provide specific examples.
GM v. Ford might be a better example. In the early 20s, Ford had better than 70% of the consumer automobile market. A mere 10 years later, upstart GM had 67% of that market.
Automobiles are a poor comparison:
A 1991 computer isn’t as useful to most, as is a 1991 car.
All cars run on the same OS: The human driver.
How well does Apple run software like SolidWorks, NASTRAN, etc. with full hardware graphics support? How well do these systems run popular games like Crysis? As long as Apple is limited by these constraints, it will continue to hold a minority share.
However, there is a market for the “dumbed down,” , entertainment, email/text document/internet-only crowd out there, and that is what Apple largely serves.
The Mac Ping list has grown from fewer than 150 members just one year ago to 319 today. Apparently as Freepers dump their Windows computers, to your mind, they become Apple sycophants.
I would suggest, instead, that these Freepers are perspicacious people who have made an intelligent decision to get rid of their Windows aggravation and move to a better computing experience. Almost every Freeper who has switched from Windows to Mac OS X has, at one time or another, commented that they wished they had made the switch years ago—including some who were as rabidly anti-Apple as you present yourself to be.
The numbers and the growth of Mac using Freepers merely reflect what is happening in the computer market in general.
A couple of statisticians have pointed out that comparing Apple Mac year-over-year US sales growth (38%) to the entire Windows PC year-over-year US Sales growth (1.9%) shows that Macs' US sales are growing 20 times faster than PC Windows' US sales. In fact, ALL Windows PC makers sold ~780,000 more computers in 2nd quarter 2008 than they did 2nd quarter 2007. Apple alone sold ~386,000 more computers 2ndQ '08 compared to 2ndQ '07. That's Apple against ALL other computer makers in the US.
Mac’s are the Prius of the computer world.
You pay more for the same performance as cheaper PCs, but its branding makes you feel special and superior.
You are aware that NASTRAN runs quite nicely in UNIX? In fact, NASA runs it on BSD UNIX. Are you also aware that OS X is fully certified UNIX? So, it actually runs quite nicely. Thank you.
SolidWorks
"SolidWorks, a recognized leader in CAD software development, has broken out of the PC mold to produce a powerful and successful Mac OS X product."
Crysis
It runs. Incidentally, PC Magazine reported last November that the fastest Windows Vista computer they had tested in 2007 was a Mac... and Vista is required for DX10.
Perhaps you don't know as much about Macs as you think you know?
No. We pay for increased productivity... not speed. Speed is as speed does. And performance is as performance does. Mere specs do not translate into productivity or performance.
If you compare made-to-order comparable Windows PCs assembled by name brand companies with Apple's Macs, you will often find that the Mac is often both cheaper and has better specs than the name brand. Building a Dell Workstation to match the entry model Xeon 8 Core Mac Pro ($2799), which I did about a month ago, resulted in the similar 8 Core Xeon Dell being almost $1000 more expensive than the off-the-shelf Mac—and the Dell had a far slower FSB and lacked the suite of software that comes free with the Mac.
Hold on to your horses, now!
I asked, "How well does Apple run software like SolidWorks, NASTRAN, etc. with full hardware graphics support?"
I'm not sure how any serious user would look into running a resource-hungry application like SolidWorks on a virtual machine, with ATI graphics, no less. As for the native version, would you mind showing me where I may have to go, to purchase such a version? I don't see it anywhere on their website:
http://www.solidworks.com/pages/products/3dmech.html
From an engineering forum here:
"Please Note: SolidWorks 2007 is not currently supported on Apple Mac®-based machines. Please consult your reseller for future updates."
And
"The 2008 SolidWorks will also need specific graphics cards to work. The only Mac graphics card that will run correctly on SolidWorks is a $1700 upgrade!
Mac laptop graphics are not supported."
"I've got Solidworks loaded onto a 17" MacBook Pro under BootCamp. It runs perfectly, except Real View Graphics is not available. My main machine is a Mac, but have done most of my CAD on a separate Windows PC desktop. It is wonderful to be able to do everything on a single portable machine."
"I think the limit might be in the Mac's ability to use hardware-based OpenGL--essentially proper drivers formatted to take advantage of such a system. From what I understand you're forced to use software-based OpenGL (WAY slower) to get the graphics working at all--and the RealView feature is narrowly limited only to certain cards to begin with. I'd guess it really comes down to getting the hardware to properly play with the OS in dealing with the software (guessing). So I'm not sure you'll see this working with a Mac anytime soon."
The forum is interesting, with lots of arguments for and against the Mac (you may even find something to argue against the above, for I have only skimmed it, and most likely, with a bias :] ). That RealView feature would be a dealmaker. I wouldn't want to pay for an expensive machine that does not fully support a very, very expensive piece of software.
The link I have provided above is for SolidWorks 2008. I wouldn't mind being corrected over any of the above, but I cannot find a Mac version of the software, anywhere there. If you do, please provide the relevant link.
Indeed.
The snotty comments from PC people whenever Macs are brought up always remind of the way the stupid Liberals respond to names like “George W. Bush” or “Rush Limbaugh” - no discussion / thought / argument allowed. Only a cheap shot, and shallow laughs of imagined superiority.
We Mac users, of course, are of a higher class. :-P.
You can think whatever you want. The vast majority of computer users are likely to blame the operating system for any number of problems not actually related to the operating system (such as driver problems, application problems, or - most commonly - user error). Society does not often like to accept responsibility for its own shortcomings. To that end, people surely blame Windows because they are not using a computer responsibly. This is akin to blaming the car manufacturer because they got in an accident by running through a red light at 70.
Your numbers are also plainly disingenuous. Mac sales are not growing 20 times faster. That statistic is merely a play on the actual percentages and reflects the fact that Apple has a very small piece of the market. For example, Dell, in all its relatively stale goodness, sold 557,000 more year-over-year. This is considerably more than Apple, yet Dell’s percentages are less than a third of Apple’s. Why? Obviously because the initial market share is much higher. HP and Dell combined sold 779,000 more year-over-year, more than twice Apple’s increases. I’d be willing to bet that a majority of those machines represent HP and Dell’s entry-level computers, an area in which Mac refuses to enter.
As for your other analogies, you’re referring to relatively insignificant car parts. The stereo has next to nothing to do with a car’s reliability. The engine, on the other hand, does. Tires are important, of course, but the truly important parts are those under the hood.
As for total cost of ownership, I’d love to know precisely how Macs have a lower total cost of ownership. The initial cost is likely higher. Most every employer I know of treats Mac boxes and Windows boxes identically in terms of security (Linux, too, for that matter, though those procedures are different). It’s not like Apple software is free and it’s also not like IT departments say “Oh, you’re using a Mac? No security software for you.”
As for the dishonest ad campaigns, start with security. The vulnerability statistics say what they say. Both operating systems have the same types of flaws. XP and OSX are pretty similar in their vulnerability statistics over time. Vista is actually doing quite well in that regard. The thing is automakers like BMW don’t claim to be inherently safer because they are involved in fewer fatalities than Toyotas and Hondas. In identical testing, one car might very well have an advantage in a certain crash. Apple, however, chooses to overstate this considerably.
Same line from a year ago, and two years ago, and three years ago.
Keep telling yourself that...
Does Vista make your PC/heart flutter?
Well it’s the truth. Sorry if it doesn’t fit the template.
And Im not aware where I talked about Vista anywhere.
Funny because hundreds of millions have and use it everyday.
Ever had short term memory loss?
Then Windows users are significantly more irresponsible than are Mac users. They must run lights a lot more often. And since Macs do not seem to have the same problems in proportion to their share of the market, the shortcomings of Windows must be much shorter than Mac users.
Your numbers are also plainly disingenuous. Mac sales are not growing 20 times faster.
No, you are wrong. Growth rates are growth rates. Sheer numbers or size of the market have nothing to do with the mathematical rate of growth. PC sales (minus Mac sales), year-over-year, grew at a mere 1.9% rate.
Are you familiar with compounding rates?
Apple Macs sold at a year-over-year rate of 38%. That IS 20 times faster than the growth rate for PCs in general. If you look at ALL computers, factoring Macs into the total, then Macs grew at 9 times faster than the US market in general.
Add to that that the numbers of Mac sales were NOT insignificant. Market leader Dell (with 28% of the entire market) sold only 557,000 more computers, this quarter, this year, compared to the same quarter last year. Apple—with only 8.5% of the market—sold 386,000 more. In other words, Dell, with three times the market share of Apple, only sold 1.5 times more computers. Extending that to ALL computers sold in the US, Apple, with only 8.5% of the market sold ONE-THIRD of the growth numbers!
As for your other analogies, you’re referring to relatively insignificant car parts. The stereo has next to nothing to do with a car’s reliability. The engine, on the other hand, does. Tires are important, of course, but the truly important parts are those under the hood.
Transmissions, brakes, lubricants, alternators, batteries, etc., are all generally provided by third party contractors to the primary car manufacturers. While the analogy does not hold up when going further, it still is valid.
As for total cost of ownership, I’d love to know precisely how Macs have a lower total cost of ownership.
There are numerous independent studies as well as real world examples. Begin with the fact that 1 IT guy can service many more Macs than he can PCs.
“Ever had short term memory loss?”
Ever here of staying on topic?
I’m talking about THIS thread.
I’m one of those new people on the ping list. My son got me a Mac for Christmas almost 2 years ago. I accepted it kicking and screaming. Didn’t want it. At first I barely touched it. Now I do most of my work on it. I’d do ALL of my work on it, except that I refuse to put Windows on the machine and some of the programs my clients use aren’t available for the Mac. There is no comparison.
Dont knock yugo’s like that!
My brother was one fortunate yugo owner back in the early 90’s (maybe late 80’s)... He paid 3900, got 5 years and 50K miles out of it (at 40MPG) and other than replacing one transmission (which was on him) the car never had a problem. He got 500 for it when he traded it in...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.