backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by sebmel.. on Aug 2 at 9:41 AM

Every other computer maker stuck with sub $500 netbook sales

Apple is certainly one of the most popular brands in the computer market. The company, however, often catches flack for the high price of its offerings. The company's Mac computers have a reputation for being higher-end products and catering to the more affluent buyer. The high price is the biggest barrier to entry to Mac notebooks.

Apple reported its latest sales figures this week and had some very impressive gains. The company sold a whopping 5.2 million iPhones along with 10.2 million iPods. Apple slipped in the latest rankings of the top computer makers in the U.S., but according to a new report the company owns a huge portion of the high-end PC market.

BusinessInsider reports that Apple holds 91% of the $1,000 and up computer market. With most users moving towards netbooks that sell for under $500, the over $1,000 computer market is a coveted prize by most computer makers.

In May of 2009, Apple reportedly had 88% of the $1,000 and over computer market and held 66% of the same market in Q1 2008. The overall average selling price in the U.S. for a computer in June 2009 was $701. The average selling price for a PC was $515 while the average selling price for a Mac was $1,400.

BusinessInsider reports that the small price cuts by Apple last month on MacBook models increased sales of Mac systems, but overall revenues shrank because of the price cuts.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In other news...
By Scrith on 7/24/2009 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 5
Ferrari dominates the market for cars that cost over $300,000.

Sure you can buy cars that perform as well (or better) for a lot less, but some people just enjoy spending (what is usually someone else's) money.




RE: In other news...
By xsilver on 7/24/2009 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 5
Great analogy because ferrari is not the most profitable car company - fiat actually held them afloat in the 80's.

Ferrari only leads in one thing and that is style.


RE: In other news...
By UNHchabo on 7/24/2009 12:58:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ferrari only leads in one thing and that is style.


And even then it's largely on reputation. Many of their recent cars have actually been kinda ugly.

As Jeremy Clarkson said:
"You just think 'It must be good looking; it's a Ferrari', but it isn't. It's like Sarah Jessica Parker: you think 'Oh, she must be pretty to be on that show', but she looks like a boiled horse!"


RE: In other news...
By xsilver on 7/24/2009 2:13:01 PM , Rating: 3
well I wouldnt say ferrari's are as ugly as SJP but yeah I know what you mean :)


RE: In other news...
By sprockkets on 7/24/2009 11:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ferrari's are known for their sexy exhaust note. Other than that, well, it still can cream most normal cars.


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By S3anister on 7/24/2009 5:05:51 PM , Rating: 5
Too bad Microsoft doesn't sell combined computer/software packages. Apple is the only brand of the two that does that. You're comparison is very rudimentary, not to mention that Microsoft stock has split two to one, seven times and three to one, twice. Apple has only had three two to one stock splits.

Microsoft's total assets as of 2008 - $72.793 billion.
Apple's total assets as of 2008 - $39.57 billion.

Do some research.


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 8/2/2009 9:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't very becoming to be arrogant. Even less so to be arrogant and wrong.

It is you who needs to do your research. The figures I gave were split adjusted. Since you are so quick to challenge what I state perhaps you will trust Microsoft's own guidance to investors. Follow the link below; download the share price spreadsheet from Microsoft; read the 'split adjusted column C

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/stock.mspx

Here is a split adjusted chart from Yahoo. Notice the splits represented by black triangles. Notice that the share price does not half at the split... because it's ADJUSTED!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=my&l=on&z=l...

Notice that the share price is where it was roughly in Jan 1998.


RE: In other news...
By headbox on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By sinful on 7/24/2009 6:44:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Guess what happens when you sell a Mac? There is RESALE VALUE! Buy a cheap Dell and it will eventually become a paperweight. Apple G4s still sell for several hundred dollars 7 years later, G5 desktops for even more. Got a Pentium 3 or 4 system that can do that? Absolutely not.


Yes, and in Cuba, cars & trucks from the 1950's still have RESALE VALUE. In the US, those same equivalent models are generally considered "garbage".

Why is that?

It's not because those models in Cuba are inherently better - it's because they're so limited in supply, people hang on to crappy vehicles MUCH longer because it's obscenely expensive to buy a NEW car.

That doesn't magically make them less crappy, it just makes it more expensive to have decent techology.

Way to bill "yesterday's technology at tomorrow's price" as a good thing.

LOL


RE: In other news...
By Tsuwamono on 7/25/2009 10:19:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Open up a Mac Pro and there is not ONE other brand of computer remotely close in build quality.


ROFL. Did you REALLY just say apple has the best build quality in the industry!?!

That's epic lawlz.


RE: In other news...
By jonmcc33 on 7/24/2009 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 5
It's actually correct. Apple is profitable due to it's iPod, iTunes and iPhone sales...not it's over $1000 PC sales.

Share prices tell the story? Hahaha! Wrong, Microsoft still owns 90% MARKET SHARE of OS sales that that equates to more money.

Microsoft 2008 FY revenue was $60.42 billion. Apple Inc 2008 FY revenue was $32.48 billion - again mainly due to it's iPod, iTunes and iPhone sales. Microsoft doesn't even sell computers. How do you like them apples?


RE: In other news...
By Tuxy79 on 7/24/2009 2:41:42 PM , Rating: 1
Ferrari is the ONLY car manufacturer that is making profit this year. Infact they're thriving.

Second, Ferrari's are pig-ugly, and have been so for the last decade.

So, your analogy falls a little falt.


RE: In other news...
By Murst on 7/24/2009 2:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ferrari is the ONLY car manufacturer that is making profit this year. Infact they're thriving.


Really? News from 2 days ago: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industrie...


RE: In other news...
By xsilver on 7/24/2009 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
eh I say dont bother - The guy didnt even read properly what I wrote.
I didnt say ferrari didnt make a profit - I said they are not the MOST profitable

Porsche is the envy of the car world. I find it amazing that they can own volkswagen (who in turn owns HEAPS of other companies)
And if you want to talk about ugly cars - wow they have some real dogs.


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Porsche were on the brink of owning VW but screwed up when the market fell... now the tables are reversed and VW are buying them.

Makes no difference... the families are cousins: Porsche/Piech


RE: In other news...
By MamiyaOtaru on 7/26/2009 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
And Ferdinand Porsche designed the original VW Bug


RE: In other news...
By crystal clear on 7/25/2009 2:07:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ferrari only leads in one thing and that is style.


Yes like Apple products !

Downraters here I come !


RE: In other news...
By atlmann10 on 7/27/2009 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ferrari only leads in style directly applies to the apple PC debate. Go on pricewatch or any pricefinder on the internet, and look for desktops. You will notice one thing market wide, the largest amount of PC desktops are $999.00 or lower. The statement that apple leads on the over $1000 dollar computer market is at most a ridiculous speculation.

Apple in general prices all there PC's in the +1000 to 3000 dollar range. Therefore commanding this market when your general price is over 1000 dollars but below a high end say 3500 dollar up range the product of this is of a very small market area.

I repeat a general windows PC is 1000 dollars or less for the general consumer. So to command this +1000 below $2500 sector of the market is actually a very small place. Consider the fact that 70% or more of all PC's run some version of windows. Then 5-15% of computers run something else for an OS of the Linux or other OS version, Apple commands a huge 10 of the market. I am sorry but that percentage of any market is in no way commanding, or even decently performing. This debate is pointless, and based on nothing but an OS, considering they to the largest part (Minus large servers, and databases) are a small specialized (apple, and apple approved hardware), not to mention minor market segment percent wise.


RE: In other news...
By Finnkc on 7/28/2009 10:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
yea that F1 team that dominated for many years knows nothing about performance or engineering... it's all show.

thanks of the lol.


RE: In other news...
By rs1 on 7/24/2009 12:24:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yep. The only PC's likely to retail for more than $1000 right now are gaming rigs, and most gamers would rather roll their own than buy a prebuilt. The "91% of PC's over $1000" stat is pretty meaningless.


RE: In other news...
By invidious on 7/24/2009 12:38:22 PM , Rating: 5
Anyone who pays more than $1000 for a computer that isn't for gaming got royally ripped off. The only gamers who get laptops are ones with very specific life style restrictions that prevent them from getting a desktop. And like you said any gamer who gets a desktop gets a custom built one.

So ultimately Apple controls and an increasing percentage of a declining market, and if you read a recent article on DT their overall PC sales are declining. The bar for computing power for casual users is low and as such computers just don't cost as much as they used to. The rest of the market is adapting to this, which is really the only useful thing to take from this article.


RE: In other news...
By Murst on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By invidious on 7/24/2009 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 5
Whatever, gaming/rendering same thing. The point is your building an enthusiast machine which is not the norm and you probably wont be buying a Mac. But your welcome to spend the extra $2000 to prove me wrong.


RE: In other news...
By PrinceGaz on 7/25/2009 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you think gaming and rendering are the same thing when it comes to the cost of a high-end box, then you obviously haven't checked out the cost of the high-end Quadro and FirePro cards recently :p


RE: In other news...
By EricMartello on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By Finnkc on 7/28/2009 10:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
"Whatever, gaming/rendering same thing."

not even close try again ... different parts, different core manufactures, and different specs.

a good render box doesn't need high end GPU but, it does need a kick ass CPU and loads of memory ... where as a frag box can get away with less in that department provided the GPU is of good quality.

If we are talking about high end graphic machines then we need to be talking in the 10's of thousands and no Mac is even going to come close.


RE: In other news...
By Newspapercrane on 7/24/2009 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 5
I think you're missing the point of what he's trying to say.

What he means is, the average computer user isn't going to need the power that a rig that costs over 1k will have.

3DS Max isn't exactly what I would call everyday use for the average computer user.

Furthermore, you will be building that computer yourself, which proves the point that most people that are going to spend that much on a computer are going to have a custom built rig.


RE: In other news...
By ZachDontScare on 7/24/2009 4:33:19 PM , Rating: 5
And, for that matter, if you're building it yourself, your PC wouldnt be tallied into this '91%' figure.


RE: In other news...
By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
That is the key flaw in the 91% figure. Expensive computers are typically custom built and are not reflected in the statistic at all. Every computer I build myself costs way over $1000 while all of the PCs I order off-the-shelf are cheapie-charlies from HP, Dell, or Acer. The other side of the statistic is that 0% of high-performance custom-built computers are Macs since you can't build your own (legally).


RE: In other news...
By EricMartello on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By murphyslabrat on 7/24/2009 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone who pays more than $1000 for a computer that isn't for gaming got royally ripped off.

3D rendering or even 2D photo editing thrives on a fast CPU and plenty of good RAM. I just built a computer for a friend, and it came out to nearly $1,600, though he only casually games. Part of that was a heavy premium for the NVidia Quadro card, but it is a beastly system.

Also, most home servers don't need much in terms of processing power, but people tend to heavily splurge on storage space. A media server or home-theater PC can easily run over $1000.


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 2:47:11 PM , Rating: 1
Except that, as Anand has pointed out, good quality LCD screens aren't getting cheaper anymore. Anyone who wants a big, fast, LED backlit screen with high contrast to watch films, or sports without losing sight of the ball, is going to eat a large chunk of that budget you are proposing just with that.

Then if they want the thing in their front room and don't want it sounding like they're running a wind tunnel they are going to have to pay for quality components that aren't going to be that cheap either.

So, the suggestion that anyone spending over $1000 is pretty much an idiot is something of an exaggeration. Yes you can hack together something powerful and cheap... but you're going to have to make compromises.


RE: In other news...
By crystal clear on 7/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By crystal clear on 7/25/2009 1:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which is really the only useful thing to take from this article.


Just like those thrash statistics published by some market research firm...this article is also worth its place in the thrash can.

There is nothing useful here in this article or those statistics & neither the comments.....


RE: In other news...
By Silver2k7 on 7/26/2009 8:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
If you want a top of the line pc it will almost always cost above $1000.. im sure ive spent $2000+ on this pc even thought its starting to get a little dated..

Todays dream machine.. with todays prices from newegg..

ASUS P6T LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX $239.99
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor $279.99
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion Series $199.99
Pioneer Black 8X Blu-Ray DVD Burner (BDR-203BKS - Retail) $199.99
CORSAIR XMS3 12GB (6 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 $244.99
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB $89.99
Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB $219.99
Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB $219.99
Logitech G19 Black $205.99
Logitech MX Revolution $99.99
Logitech MX Revolution $99.99 (because you want one fully loaded at all times)
Steelseries large mouse pad $24.99
PC Power & Cooling S75CF 750W $119.99
LIAN LI PC-V2110B Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case $339.99
NEC Display Solutions LCD2490WUXi-BK Black 24.1" $1,099.99

About $2586 (without monitor) + $1100 for monitor = $3686



RE: In other news...
By Silver2k7 on 7/26/2009 8:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
ok some dream computer forgot to add a video card.. so lets say add $250-300 for a single high end card.

this was just a test to add components that I would like to have in my home computer.. it would ofc be very easy to make it alot more expensive. The only thing very expensive in this package is the monitor, wich is a more expensive color correct monitor.


RE: In other news...
By EricMartello on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: In other news...
By B3an on 7/24/2009 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. Most people who truly know anything about computers, or like to game, build there own.

I've built a desktop computer thats faster than any apple computer, has higher quality components and case, and also has the advantage of overclocking as it's PC. I've got over 1GHz extra speed on a i7 quad than the fastest comparable apple offering. Not to mention the faster GPU and RAM.

The funny thing is it's hardly any dearer than the considerably less powerful and lower quality apple machine thats comparable.


RE: In other news...
By headbox on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By jeff834 on 7/24/2009 7:39:21 PM , Rating: 5
You're and your, I learned the difference when I was 6 guess you didn't. Sorry couldn't resist :)


RE: In other news...
By daInvincibleGama on 7/25/2009 2:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
Perfect.


RE: In other news...
By banvetor on 7/24/2009 12:57:54 PM , Rating: 4
It would be much more meaningful if they also informed the percentage of the over $1000 PCs compared to the overall PC market...


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 2:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point, banvetor.

Considering Apple's growing income despite a bad recession there seem to be a reasonable number. Clearly Apple have hit their competitors hard by creaming off the profitable end of the market.

Imagine if Lexus sold 91% of all cars over $30k. Pretty much every single other manufacturer in the world would go broke... aside from the niche sport car only makes like Lotus and Ariel.


RE: In other news...
By rs1 on 7/24/2009 3:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
Or even better, the percentage of the under $1000 PC market that Apple has. I'm betting it's close to zero (does Apple even offer a sub-$1000 computer?).


RE: In other news...
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Mac minis and the white MacBook are the only sub $1000 computers... and the Mac minis have no screen.


RE: In other news...
By tmouse on 7/27/2009 8:08:16 AM , Rating: 4
Also keep in mind the NPD study ONLY covers RETAIL sales, not self builds or direct channel, so no enthusiast builds and most large business and government sales. In the end they have the lion's share of a very small market. Another point is Mac people have speculated about the June price cuts for a while and many waited to upgrade so I'm willing to wager a lot of these sales were to previous Apple owners, they lost .7% market share earlier this year and now they may get that back, but probably not much more in the long run.


RE: In other news...
By crystal clear on 7/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: In other news...
By alexfenway on 7/25/2009 2:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
Wow some awesome threads here, especially the top gear quote.


RE: In other news...
By granulated on 7/26/2009 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
Superb analogy.


Apple needs more software varieties
By SpaceJumper on 7/24/2009 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
Apple needs more software that can run on Apple computers. What's holding me back from buying an Apple computer is the lack of software varieties. I want to use my Apple computer like a PC.




RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By zaxxon on 7/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By brybir on 7/24/2009 12:22:22 PM , Rating: 5
Because then I have to pay for an additional Windows Vista license. Why would I pay say $1400 for a mac only to have to turn around and buy another $150 software just to "use it like a PC"?

If I want to "use a PC" I am definetly better off buying a PC. If I want to "use a Mac" I am better off just getting the Mac (rather than making a hackintosh).

Buy what works for you. I like to use my PC for a mix of gaming, work and personal use, and since none of my games work on Mac's natively, I just use a PC.


By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why would a person willing to pay the huge Apple premium balk at the small extra amount for a Windows license>


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By Truxy on 7/24/2009 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
For me, the answer is 'a reasonable budget'.


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By invidious on 7/24/2009 12:42:28 PM , Rating: 5
For everyone else the answer is 'common sense'.

Paying the Apple markup only to switch to a superior microsoft OS means you basically spent that money on the case because it makes you look like an Apple person.


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By UNHchabo on 7/24/2009 1:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I were in the market for a notebook, I'd probably get a Macbook Pro, because of the build quality, and run Linux on it, because I can't stand OSX.

There's another benefit to running a Macbook though; one of my friends switched his notebook out for a Macbook, and noticed that all of a sudden he stopped being asked "computer questions" when he was working in public places. :)


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By TSS on 7/24/2009 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's another benefit to running a Macbook though; one of my friends switched his notebook out for a Macbook, and noticed that all of a sudden he stopped being asked "computer questions" when he was working in public places. :)


i'd figure thats because nobody took him seriously anymore.

besides that, buy a mac and then run linux? sell your soul to Jobs *and* not ask anything in return?

go get one of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

just as expensive as the cheapest mac. only a 3" bigger screen, double the memory (more bandwidth too), triple the HDD space and a *better* graphics card. the latter beeing more usefull because it actually can play games. dual boot, and voila, linux. i highly, highly doubt any mac's build quality beats the machine i listed above.


By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
HP HDX 16-1370US NoteBook Intel Core 2 Duo P7550(2.26GHz) 16" 4GB Memory 500GB HDD 5400rpm DVD Super Multi NVIDIA GeForce GT 130M - $999

Not bad... better than the MacBook in many ways but that screen is very low res for a 16" and the reviews say the battery life isn't great and the thing gets hot.

Heavy, hot laptops with short battery life are always going to be cheaper than ones refined for weight and power consumption... but there's the beauty of competition: we've got choice.

Me, I'd pay a little more and get the 13" MacBook Pro... the light weight, better screen, backlit keys, sturdy case and great battery life (7hrs) would make the laptop fit studying at Uni better... saves me lugging extra batteries.


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:43:56 PM , Rating: 1
This "I can't stand Mac OSX" or "Microsoft's superior OS" only convinces those who know no better. If you have good reasons to warn people off a product it is only useful if you actually mention them.

I use "Microsoft's superior" and "Apple's inferior" every day and have for 15 years. They each have their merits but the latter causes less work and, thus, does more.

But don't take my word for it just check the industry. Microsoft tech to computer ratios have been 1/20 for years... an incredibly high level.

Basel University has a 1/1000 ratio (2000 computers/2 techs), and the Isle of Mann 1/2000 (4000 computers/400 networks/the whole school system/2 techs)... how do they achieve it? Mac OS X.

Everyone's welcome to their own personal preference but an OS that allows an organisation to use two orders of magnitude fewer techs is offering astounding performance.


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By UNHchabo on 7/24/2009 4:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Except that I didn't compare OSX to Windows, I compared it to Linux. :)

On that note though:
quote:
They each have their merits but the latter causes less work and, thus, does more.

I find that Windows puts near-zero overhead on me. I have automated jobs to run CCleaner and defrag, but setting those up is no more work than setting up LogRotate on a Unix system. What is there that puts so much overhead on your work in a Windows environment?


By sebmel on 7/24/2009 5:01:56 PM , Rating: 1
Just look at the figures from Basel and the Isle of Mann. I've no doubt a skilled person can manage Windows well but there really is no argument which OS causes less work overall.

I don't want to get into a debate on which is better/safer/easier.

It's just real world experience. I use both, I know both and the endless lesson of my experience and the other techs I've had contact with is that Mac OS X causes less work... and by a wide margin.

If I had to put my finger on the difference? They're all over the place... no registry so no corruption... much faster install... more complete software update... no driver issues... never seen a live exploit that caused me more work that turning off javascript in the browser... never needed security software... no defraging necessary... no long term loss of performance so fewer reinstalls... no marginal software hacking deep into the OS causing instability... no inconsistent installs throwing files all over the place... apps generally come in and go out as a simple packet file... no app menu issues.

and then there's the speed... Mac OS X got faster from 10.0 to 10.4... 10.5 showed a very small reduction in speed... so hardware stood up well. Vista forced a big hardware change. Windows 7 looks better but I think Mac OS X is still ahead on the same hardware... and Mac OS X 10.6 appears likely to speed up again... though it's putting paid to pre 2006 PPC computers.

A lot of small issues add up to consistency.


By atlmann10 on 7/27/2009 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Within a reasonable budget, you definitely should not be looking at a MAC.I could build a Dual XEON system with a professional graphics GPU (not a gaming GPU) for less than a MAC high end with 500 dollars left over at the apple set price.

IN fact I have systems priced on newegg for a Photographer who wants me to build him a new system. The price difference for a XEON, I7, and AM3 Phenom2 are less than 30 dollars in difference on a complete system 1300 dollars down to 1200.


By EricMartello on 7/28/2009 4:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
That may be the most asinine comment I've ever read, anywhere. Why would you pay for overpriced, out of date Mac hardware AND a vista license just to remove osx and use vista? There is no logical reason for doing so.


By cfaalm on 7/24/2009 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 1
What kind of software are you talking about?

There are lots of professional, especially creative, apps for OSX. Some are even OSX exclusively: Final Cut, Logic. They're not too bad. Besides games there aren't many Windows apps that don't have an OSX version or counterpart. Maybe some very specialized app; that why I ask.


RE: Apple needs more software varieties
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
More software needed? The Mac is able to run Mac OSX/ Free BSD/Unix, Linux and Windows.

Mac OS comes with it
Linux is free
Windows XP is around for next to nothing and the Windows 7 upgrade is currently reasonable (via Bootcamp, Parallels or VM Fusion)

Should you not want the Windows license cost you can try out Crossover which installs Windows APIs into OSX without a copy of Windows.

So the reverse of what you say is true, the Mac will run virtually any software... whereas you'll have to choose components with care if you wish to try to do the same with a PC... and you'd find yourself hesitant to accept updates for fear of breaking compatibility.


By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't aware of anything that the Mac can do that can't be done using Windows or Linux.


This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By AEvangel on 7/24/2009 12:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the over $1,000 computer market is a coveted prize by most computer makers.


I think I would rather covet total sales and profit like PC's do rather then such a SMALL and insignificant niche market.

Even before I read the article I knew why they did hold that market because like several have already said all their units are over a $1000.




RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By tim851 on 7/24/2009 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think I would rather covet total sales and profit like PC's do rather then such a SMALL and insignificant niche market.


Yeah, and that is why you are writing comments on Dailytech and Steve Jobs is a billionaire.

Seriously, if you have apparently NO clue about economics, why not just shut up, why draw attention to yourself?


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2009 7:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you don't remember Apple before their iPod/iTunes and iPhone products. Apple wasn't doing very well at all.


By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother arguing with Apple true believers. You might as well tell them that their God, Steve Jobs, can't walk on water and doesn't fart sunshine and roses.


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 5:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think I would rather my shares go up 10 times in ten years than half in value:

Microsoft July 1999 $45
Microsoft July 2009 $25

Apple July 1999 $15
Apple July 2009 $150

Of course, that makes no difference to your own personal preference but some people here a confusing preference with what is good, successful business. How simply can it be put?

The investors aren't happy with Microsoft for loosing half their money.


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By Murst on 7/24/2009 5:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The investors aren't happy with Microsoft for loosing half their money.

Has MS ever even lost a cent in a quarterly report? Not to mention HALF of its assets... care to link to any credible business site to back up that claim?

Also, if you are going to compare stock values, you need to take into account the splits that have happened during that time.


By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2009 7:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Of course he won't though, because then it makes Microsoft look better than Apple. It'd be a bad argument if the person you're defending comes out on bottom.


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By talozin on 7/24/09, Rating: 0
By Murst on 7/24/2009 10:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
You also seem to have missed the point. Since 1999, MS has split its stock 2x ( both 2:1 ), so you would have 4x as much stock as 10 yrs ago. Microsoft also has paid out dividends on their stock since 2003 ( quarterly since like 2005 or 2006, annual before that ). You simply cannot compare stock prices for two stocks between time A and time B, especially when splits and dividends come into play. It is just a bad comparison.

For instance, if you purchased a single share of Microsoft in 1989 when the company went public, you would have paid about $23 per share. Today, the price of Microsoft stock is about $23 as well. By your logic, you wouldn't have made a profit at all on your investment. However, since opening day, Microsoft shares have split 9 times, and your single share from 1989 would be 283 shares today, and be worth over 6.5k at today's price.


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By bruce24 on 7/24/2009 11:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
care to link to any credible business site to back up that claim?


Split adjusted, Microsoft's share price closed at $37.27 on 7/23/99. It closed at $23.45 today.

Split adjusted, Apple's share price closed at $13.33 on 7/23/99 it closed at $159.99 today.

quote:
Also, if you are going to compare stock values, you need to take into account the splits that have happened during that time.


Did you check what splits there were before making you post?

In the last ten years Microsoft has split once.
In the last ten years Apple has split twice.

Microsoft had an amazing run up through 2000, but in the near decade since like other techs such as Intel, Cisco and Dell, their stock has not provide a good return for investors while Apples has.


By crystal clear on 7/25/2009 2:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
Cash and marketable securities totaled more than $31 billion, one of the biggest cash hoards in all of technology.

The results demonstrated the consumer appeal of Apple's products despite a troubled economy that has dented sales at competitors selling less expensive products.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE56...


By sebmel on 7/25/2009 4:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, bruce24, for explaining that my figures were already split adjusted.

As for your question about losing money, Murst, what I wrote was ambiguous. Microsoft has lost billions on products such as the Xbox but overall you are correct that they have not lost money. However, I was talking about share price and the money investors have lost.

The figures I gave are split corrected but not inflation corrected. Even without accounting for inflation losses an investor who bought shares in Microsoft in 1999 has lost considerably. When you take inflation into account they have lost well over half their money.


RE: This Blogger is obviously a moron....
By atlmann10 on 7/27/2009 5:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Microsoft shares in ten years have gone down. That is because they split and then tripled. So yes Apple shares have gone up, but if you'd bought Microsoft shares you would have 600% more shares for nothing ( I buy 1 it splits to two, then triples to 6). So I have 1 share worth 150 versus 6x25 (which by the way also equals 150), makes absolutely no difference.

The deciding factor here is how many shares does Apple have versus the number of Microsoft shares out there. I would imagine that amount is 3 to 4 times the amount of apple shares. So a 600% increase in split owned by 3-400% more shares equals the companies worth, and Microsoft's is in the end worth roughly 7 complete Apple companies stock wise.

You might want to get your investment calculator back out Sebmel!


By sebmel on 8/2/2009 9:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
As explained, twice already, the figures I gave are split adjusted. It is you that need to read further. On January the 16th, 2003, Microsoft started paying dividends, something they had not done previously. They did so because the company's share price had not grown for some time.

Microsoft's share price has been split on nine occasions, not just twice as claimed here, and has not grown over the last decade. Perhaps you will understand & accept Microsoft's own figures:

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/stock.mspx


Did I read too fast, or
By wookie1 on 7/24/2009 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Does the article completely skip around the size of the over-$1K market and the trend in this market? The way sales seem to be going, Apple might attain 99% of this market that may also be quickly shrinking, which would decrease revenue. The article only seems to provide additional info for iPhones and iPods. Maybe things aren't so rosy for the Macbooks.




RE: Did I read too fast, or
By zaxxon on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Did I read too fast, or
By brybir on 7/24/2009 12:26:24 PM , Rating: 5
His point is that the increases in sales could be because of short term gains i.e. Apple getting a larger chunk of teh +$1000 market, even though the market itself is shrinking. As you say, this is simple math.

If Apple goes from 91% of a market that sells 1,000,000 units and then goes to 95% of the same size market, it gains. If it goes from 91% of 1,000,000 and then 95% of 990,000, it still gains this quarter, but when happens in a year when the same market is down to 800,000 units?

I think that was his point. If the market continues to contract eventually Apple will lose out, even if it has 100% of that market. As you say, basic math!


RE: Did I read too fast, or
By wookie1 on 7/24/2009 2:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
"you DID notice that apple sold MORE computers in your shrinking economy, not less?"

I checked the article again, and couldn't find any sales numbers for anything other than iPods or iPhones. That seems strange to report that they have 91% of the market, but who knows how big that is. Maybe 100 computers were sold, and Apple sold 91 of them, or maybe 10M were sold, who knows? Is this market growing, shrinking, holding steady - who knows?

I'm sure that there's a wealth of information out there about this, but the article leaves this lacking. They went out and got the iPhone and iPod numbers, which aren't the subject of the headline. Why the distraction from the subject of the article? Is this just a press release from Apple? The distraction makes it all sound like some kind of PR spin machine.


RE: Did I read too fast, or
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 4:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's available on the net if you look:

Sales of Macintosh computers were strong too, perhaps thanks to a bit of a price cut that Apple introduced during the quarter. Apple sold 2.6 million computers, up 4 percent from last year. With market research analysts expecting the overall PC market to decline by as much as 5 percent this year, "this puts us 7 to 9 percent ahead of the market," Cook said.

Sales of portable Macs—MacBooks and MacBook Pros—did even better, growing 13 percent in the quarter. Another interesting factoid: Apple says half of the people who bought a Mac in the quarter had never bought a Mac before, a sign that Windows users are continuing to convert.

So desktop sales are up 4%
Laptop sales up 13%

The rest is here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207837


RE: Did I read too fast, or
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2009 6:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
And percentages mean nothing without numbers to back them up. Doesn't matter if they doubled their market share if the market shrunk 80%.

Ohhh, and how many of these new Mac consumers didn't even have a computer beforehand? If most of them never had a computer before you can't say they are converted.


RE: Did I read too fast, or
By sebmel on 7/25/2009 4:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
You are confusing what I said with the article. The article talks about an increase in market share, I didn't. I said that their sales increased... not share. Their sales numbers are up.

You'll find the actual numbers here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/141829/2009/07/app...

3rd Quarter 2009
Laptops 1,754,000
Desktops 849,000
Total 2.6 million

3rd Quarter 2008
Laptops 1,553,000
Desktops 943,000
Total 2.45 million

So those are a 4% increase when the PC market shrank by about 5%. Not fantastic... but against the run of the recession it makes for their most profitable third quarter ever.


RE: Did I read too fast, or
By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
One possible reason for the sales are PC users that are buying Macs to write applications to sell on the highly lucrative and expanding Apple App store.
You have to buy one of their computers to run the SDK, so this is likely a contributing factor.


Doesn't surprise me
By thekdub on 7/24/2009 11:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
Of course Apple is going to dominate in the $1k+ market, because nearly all of their computer products are in that range. The majority of prebuilt PCs right now are under $1000, and netbooks/small notebooks are "in". So, most people buying a PC are going to buy one for less than $1000, leaving Apple to cater to those willing to spend more money.




RE: Doesn't surprise me
By Goty on 7/24/2009 11:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Were you and I separated at birth? We both posted comments with very similar titles, making the same point, and within two minutes of one another.

Spooky =P


RE: Doesn't surprise me
By thekdub on 7/24/2009 11:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
BRRRRRROTHERR!

</Metal Gear>


RE: Doesn't surprise me
By tayhimself on 7/24/2009 11:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
This is RETAIL sales only. Excludes all corporate, DIY, and on-line purchases.


RE: Doesn't surprise me
By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
So these are truly off-the-shelf, no customization at all computers being compared. I think the only PC you can even buy at a Best Buy in that price range would be a premium laptop or VAIO system.


RE: Doesn't surprise me
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2009 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. All their products but the Mac Mini are $1000 or more.


probably leaves out business PCs
By LongTimePCUser on 7/24/2009 11:20:45 AM , Rating: 5
I suspect that this only includes home consumer PCs and ignores business desktops, laptops and servers.

If you include data center servers and measure by dollars spent rather than by count, I suspect that Apple has much less than 1% ot the server market.




RE: probably leaves out business PCs
By djc208 on 7/24/2009 12:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if including those sales would make a huge dent in these figures. Most companies buy the cheapest equipment that will run their software, and I'm not sure how many places require large numbers of high end PCs for their work.

The reason net-books are doing as well as they are is that they perform 90% of the stuff people want their machine to do and they're usually not that concerned about the other 10%.

The problem with these stats is that that basically ALL Mac users are in this catagory, regardless of what they're using their machines for, just because they only have one or two Macs that aren't >$1000.

Where as PC users spending more than $1000 are power users by default (or stupid). And of those power users most don't buy their machines pre-built. So these numbers sound impressive as a headline but are meaningless in the PC market in general.


RE: probably leaves out business PCs
By brybir on 7/24/2009 12:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
My experiance was that it was Min/Max setups at a lot of corporations. If you did the word processing/small spreadsheet/email stuff you were on the cheapest box HP could make or are now on a citrix or other type thin client.

The analysts, engineers and others often have very expensive computers with computers being quad core, often dual socket, lots of ram and multiple hard drives. BUT, these would clearly be considered workstations. So, the crap boxes we get from HP for $400 for the admins to use makes HP's desktop numbers below $1000 go up, while our "workstations" do not show that HP is actually selling us $1800-$2500 systems by the hundreds.


RE: probably leaves out business PCs
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Where as PC users spending more than $1000 are power users by default (or stupid)."

There we go again... there's nothing stupid about wanting a good LCD display that's capable of representing shadow and highlights... and track a ball without losing it. Have you tried to watch football on a slow LCD screen? It's torture.

It's no accident that retailers only ever show animation on LCDs.


the 1000 dollar mac
By superunknown98 on 7/24/2009 11:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
They have 91% of the $1000 and up market because Windows PC's with the same or better hardware are all less than $1000. God microsoft screwes everything up! I don't think I can ever forgive them. LOL.




RE: the 1000 dollar mac
By teng029 on 7/24/2009 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 3
your sarcasm would work better had microsoft actually been responsible for making the pc hardware. last i checked, they still only sell the OS.


RE: the 1000 dollar mac
By tim851 on 7/24/2009 4:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
last i checked, they still only sell the OS.


And I'd like to know how many people building their own computers actually BUY Windows...


RE: the 1000 dollar mac
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much of the DIY market Microsoft would have if people were paying the correct price for Windows.

Newegg selling OEM copies to hobbyists is pushing the definition of OEM somewhat.

So crowing about Microsoft PCs being cheap actually flies in the face of the prices they charge. Hardware manufacturers do an incredible job of keeping prices down in a very competitive market.

Microsoft certainly do not.


Yet...
By Murst on 7/24/2009 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 5
Yet OSX probably accounts for less than 0.1% of the DIY $1000+ market...




RE: Yet...
By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
Since you can't just buy an OSX license and starting building I am going to guess that the percentage is actually 0%.


Not too surprising
By Goty on 7/24/2009 11:06:46 AM , Rating: 3
It's not hard to sell a lot of $1000 computers when almost every single model you sell has a STARTING price over that mark.




RE: Not too surprising
By Denigrate on 7/24/2009 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well, lets see. 95% of PC's are probably priced under $1000 for the same exact or better tech specs as most Apple products. So if you look at it from this standpoint, Apple should be holding a very high percentage of the over $1000 market since they hold what, 10% of the overall market?


By T2k on 7/24/2009 11:52:52 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously: this is released by NPD, a so-called "market research" group that does not include several chains including those "insignificant" ones like Walmart...

They got burned year after year with their wacky video games numbers etc - I am constantly amazed that they are still alive, that anyone is willing to pay for their utter sh!t estimations, pulled out of their butts by some "analysts" (=people with no profession and little clue even about their supposed 'industry' but a lot of free time to read the same news you can except they can do it a little bit before you.)




By ZachDontScare on 7/24/2009 4:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you in having serious doubts about this 91% figure. Given the amount of retailers and DIY systems, such a figure cannot be created with any reliability.

Also, many macs are all-in-one, with monitor built in. PC's arent typically like that. Are they comparing non-apple boxes (no monitor) with apple computers (with monitor)? I never buy a PC with a monitor, and never spend more than $1000. But add in the cost of my monitor, and its definately over $1000.


What kind of idiotic study is this ?
By wempa on 7/24/2009 3:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I read this over on another site as well. This is one of the most meaningless studies I've read lately. WOW, who on the planet would have thought this ? Apple dominates the "pre-built computers over $1000" market. Nearly every computer Apple sells is more than $1000. On the PC side, you basically have 2 main groups of buyers. The first group requires only basic functionality and buys the $500 Dell PC. The other group includes gamers and power users. They usually custom build a PC to fit their needs and are almost certainly excluded from this study. I think I actually lost intelligence for reading such worthless information.




RE: What kind of idiotic study is this ?
By sebmel on 7/24/2009 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're reading this like it should matter to you... a computer user. It doesn't... you care about component price and quality... you make your own PC.

This story matters to the markets. They see a company grabbing a large chunk of the most profitable end of the market. They see poor sales at Microsoft, Dell and HP... and rising sales at Apple. They respond by putting up Apple's share price while Microsoft's is almost half what it was 10 years ago and still falling. If you account for inflation then Microsoft's share price is even lower than that.

The markets are betting. They bet too high on Microsoft 10 years ago and they are probably betting a little low now... why? Because they are using this data to look forward when obviously sales are being help up by the imminent release of Windows 7.

As for this: Apple computers are expensive argument... there are ways to save on them if you like the product.

With Windows you make your own and upgrade it... you buy an OEM copy of the OS and get away with authenticating it... not strictly legal. You eBay what you upgrade.

With Apple you buy with the Back to School offer in the Fall... get a free printer and/or iPod and a discount of up to 12%. Don't want the iPod/printer? eBay it and it's just another discount.

After a year you don't upgrade: eBay the lot and do it again. Apple computers hold their value really well.

So which is cheaper? If you follow those too scenarios neither is very expensive but in my experience of doing both the Apple computer turns out cheaper because the second hand prices on eBay have historically been very strong. I've often paid nothing overall for the Apples... just tied up the capital for a year.


By wempa on 7/26/2009 9:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter who this information is important to. It's still extremely misleading. To compare an open system (PC) to a closed system (Mac) is meaningless. For this study to hold any water, they would have to divide the users purchasing "premium" computers into the following categories:

1) Users who buy a MAC
2) Users who buy a pre-built PC
3) Users who custom build a PC

Basically, all this study is saying is that Apple has 91% of the first 2 groups combined. As somebody else has mentioned, every single motherboard purchase is basically a PC purchase. You have a point about the cost of the operating system. Unless you buy a pre-built PC, you really have to add the OS cost to a PC (which I'm sure a lot of people don't do). Personally, I have an MSDN license, so this doesn't add any cost for me. Still, even the cost of a recent Windows OS doesn't add enough to offset the price difference. I'll give you resale value. That definitely holds some weight. Keep in mind that I'm not bashing either one. I've used both and I believe that both have their places. I'm just saying that this study is really worthless.


By honestIT on 7/24/2009 7:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
Complain how are those other companies mark up their product and claim your brand does the same thing those other guys do.

So keep buying those $300 netbooks and $500 excuses for laptops and tell everyone else how stupid they are for buying something better. Keep making $20 margins..

Worked for GM and Chrysler... No one is buying more expensive foreign cars right?




By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2009 7:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be true if Macs were cheaper in the long run, or even in the short run, but they aren't. These better quality foreign cars we bought cost us much less in repairs down the road, properly maintained computers don't just fall apart at random, even if they truly are built crappy. Only thing my $380 laptop can't do, that I would ever want it to do, is game. A Mac laptop would be comparable but far more expensive and provide nothing extra.

Ohh, and you can't even say they are like GM and Chrysler since they aren't going bankrupt and need financial bailouts. Though I can't say they are making profit because I truly don't know at the moment.


By honestIT on 7/24/2009 10:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
AD AV and software costs for the AV consumer. Also down time which Ever PC user experience

Add the slow computer due to the need for AV constantly crunching away at the speed

MAC saved you money over time.


Does this take into account -
By Crota on 7/24/2009 11:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
Does this include users who build their own computers? I'm just curious as this on going Apple vs PCs feud is getting a little old to me. From how I view things(in the desktop realm anyways), if you are new to the computer world, you buy a pc as its cheap - if you have some experience with PCs and want it to work out of the box with all the software you want, you buy a Apple - if you are really good with computers, you just build your own PC.




By mooncancook on 7/24/2009 1:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I think it's a little deceptive too. The average PC users today does not need a PC over $1000, and the enthusiasts who wants the best will build their own PCs with CPUs and GPUs alone that cost as much as an average consumer PC. On the other hand no one build his own Mac.


By DragonMaster0 on 7/26/2009 8:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
... or people with $1000+ PCs don't waste their times answering NPD research surveys.




By bruce24 on 7/26/2009 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
The data NPD research puts out is for sales at U.S. retail stores (ie. Best Buy, Apple Store, Staples, Frys...). If you look at these stores the vast majority of Windows based systems are priced below $1000. With Mac's it's just the Mini and the lowend Macbook that sell for less than $1000.

It does not include online sales, direct sales or sales through distributors, which is where most businesses buy their computers.


By tilandal on 7/24/2009 11:15:29 AM , Rating: 3
This market share estimate does not include the DIY market or the high end custom gaming market. While Apple may be gaining market share in the >$1000 category this is only because PC consumers have fled this category. Apple consumers still buy Apple but PC consumers have either moved to lower price points for basic needs or use boutique online sellers for gaming needs. This has left the "high end" market to Apple but that is a shrinking market segment.




Apple uses better parts. Period
By honestIT on 7/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Apple uses better parts. Period
By stubeck on 7/24/2009 7:47:56 PM , Rating: 3
No they don't. I have had 3 Apple laptops, all have had hardware issues fairly quickly. While my current MBP (bought it a month ago and not including it in the 3 mentioned above) is better quality, it does have some annoying issues. The hinges aren't strong enough to keep the display open, and the keyboard has a very annoying squeak when you use it.

My previous MB had the hard drive fail (a known issue because Apple used sub par hard drives) and the top case which cracked because of the stupid design flaw. My MBP had the power button pull out a few days after I bought it, and I wasn't willing to go to Apple and wait a week (they've since gotten better) to have it fixed. Both the hinges on the MB and MBP were really bad too. The G4 had the display's backlight fail on me.

IBM Thinkpads have been the best notebooks I've ever used. The price of the MBP makes it a laptop which should last a long time. The build quality is also about on par with the Latitude E6500 we buy at work that costs $1400 less.


By T2k on 7/24/2009 11:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously: this is [b]released by NPD,[/b] a so-called "market research" group that [b]does not include several chains including those "insignificant" ones like Walmart...[/b]

They got burned year after year with their wacky video games numbers etc - I am constantly amazed that they are still alive, that anyone is willing to pay for their utter sh!t estimations, pulled out of their butts by some "analysts" (=people with no profession and little clue even about their supposed 'industry' but a lot of free time to read the same news you can except they can do it a little bit before you.)




By stubeck on 7/24/2009 12:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Retail or online sales? Which companies does it look at? A lot if missing from this. The toilet across the hall from me us where I take a crap 100% of the time from 8 to 5, but its not the only toilet I ever use.




Just FYI
By Smilin on 7/24/2009 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you follow the train of "so and so reports that.." all the way back to who reports it you'll find this story begins on a fanboy site.

Go check it out.

I'm not saying it's inaccurate (frankly I don't care one way or the other).




ouch
By Wierdo on 7/24/2009 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like pretty negative PR for Apple if true, MS could take great advantage of it for their recent PR campaign.




High-End?
By edge929 on 7/24/2009 5:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
according to a new report the company owns a huge portion of the high-end PC market.


Define "high-end" please. Are we talking "high" price or "high" performing?

Any sub-1000 dollar PC with an overclock can beat anything, performance-wise, that Apple has to offer 2000 or below.




By SirKronan on 7/25/2009 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, to the comment that no one else makes a quality laptop like the Macbook Pro ... I own a Macbook Pro, and I've seen some very nice quality machines from HP and Asus, and they're finally starting to make them look better - and they're still usually cheaper than the Macbook counterpart.

The reason I bought mine is for it's 7 hr. battery life, great screen, backlit keyboard, and yes, I openly admit to caring how my laptop looks. Call me vain, but it's exactly what I wanted, and as a student it was only $1099 with a free iPod Touch.

People keep pointing out that they won't gain market share unless they have lower prices. How the HECK do we really know for sure that they even want to gain market share in lower priced computers? They already own 91% of their favorite price bracket according to this article. When you cut below $1000 you're not really cutting costs as much as you're cutting profits.

Why move into mass production of cheaper units that don't have as much profit on them?




This can't include business sales?
By Dribble on 7/27/2009 5:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Every PC in our office cost more then $1000, we don't have any mac's.

As for private sales - well a lot of people spending > $1000 on a PC would build their own hence not be included, but the net result is still a very expensive PC.




Apples and Oranges
By finbarqs on 7/24/2009 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
I opened an Apple G4 computer a few months ago. Keep in mind that a G4 computer is approximately 7 years old. They already started using Solid Capacitors, and power supplies that tested to be at least 80% efficiency. So Apple computers were already using high quality components before PC's even heard of solid capacitors.

Since someone made the analogy of comparing an Apple computer to the Ferrari, and then someone else quoted the King of Analogies Sir Jeremy Clarkson, I shall say something that Jeremy Clarkson would say:

Having an Apple computer is like hiring Britney Spears at her prime for sex: Incredible and fun, but you always end up cursing at how dumb she can be.

Some say, she was once courted by an alien being, and that the alien race, considered her tits to be the 8th wonder of the world. All we know is, she's called Britney Spears.




Congratualtions PC users!
By honestIT on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Congratualtions PC users!
By Smilin on 7/24/2009 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 5
So does your mom.

:)


RE: Congratualtions PC users!
By honestIT on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Congratualtions PC users!
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2009 7:14:56 PM , Rating: 5
No, we were up all night playing Bioshock. You know, because we can actually play games on the computers we buy. Ohhh, and we enjoy using all the freeware out there that is available to us. Good luck doing that on your Mac.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki