Print 35 comment(s) - last by Nagorak.. on Jan 17 at 2:09 AM

IDC shows a smaller 5.6% decline in the global PC market

The latest metrics for the Pc industry are in form research firm Gartner. Gartner shows that the global PC industry declined 6.9% in Q4 2013. That marks the worst decline in the history of the PC market. The upside for the PC industry is that industry analysts think we have reached the bottom.
Hitting bottom means that sales and shipments of PCs are expected to level out and hover around the current level. The top computer maker in the industry for Q4 2013 was Lenovo with 18.1% of the market. Lenovo was followed by HP with 16.4% of the PC market. Rounding out the top five were Dell, Acer, and Asus.

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon
Gartner's top chart looks a bit different when you consider the U.S. market alone. HP was the top company in the U.S. with 26.5% of the market followed by Dell with 22.8%. Apple was number three in the US at 13.7% of the market with Lenovo not showing up until fourth place with 9.7% of the U.S. market. Toshiba has the fifth place spot in the U.S. with 7.2% of the market.
The numbers for research firm IDC are similar, but show a less significant decline in the overall PC market – 5.6% -- for Q4 2013.
IDC lists Lenovo as the top firm in the global PC industry with 18.6% of the market followed by HP with 16.8%. The remainder of the top five include Dell, Acer, and Asus. In the U.S., the top firm is HP with 24.6% of the market followed by Dell with 21.7%, Lenovo with 9.8%, Apple with 9.3%, and Toshiba with 8.2%.

Sources: Gartner, IDC

Comments     Threshold

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

I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 4
Especially after all the other retail sales numbers that came out this morning.

Truth be told, the average American is hurting. While Corporations are recording record profits and productivity numbers, most families are taking home less annually than they did five years ago. They've received pay-cuts while the CEOs and Executives of these firms have given themselves drastic pay raises.

Now, to be fair, these CEOs have certainly done a good job on paper; with the numbers looking so good and the ship running so lean, they have more than enough ammunition to go to their boards and petition for a raise. The problem with the boards are they are... nothing more than made up of CEOs of other companies--their peers. It's a rigged system in their favor which is doing nothing but hurting the rest of us.

If you sit back and look at the whole situation since the Great Recession started, several things can be observed:

1. The Government has spent incredible sums of money on this whole problem and at the end of the day, the average American is worse off than they were before it started.

2. Corporations have saved up incredible sums of money both onshore and offshore.

3. The primary beneficiaries of any of these Federal funds have been the financial institutions.

4. Hardly any Financial system employees have been incarcerated over the whole blow-up we had a few years ago--aside from the few obvious individuals such as Madoff or Stanford and a few other small-bit guys.

When you consider the above, you can come to several conclusions:

1. Federal spending has been worthless beyond the initial TARP program which was necessary to stave off a run on the banks.

2. The Government is basically run by the Financial system. The truth is, multitudes of ex-Federal and State employees are given nice positions in these firms when they leave public service.

and the 3rd one is the most important:

3. The single most effective way to improve our Economy, beyond anything else, is to encourage Corporate spending. Without their spending, we will never fully recover. The spending should be two-part:

3a. Employee pay raises
3b. Spending on improvements/expansion/general items etc. for the Company beyond acquisitions

All that money sitting in their bank accounts... would do wonders for our Economy and is essentially, the largest sum of money sitting on the sidelines that is needed to spark it back to life. The only way for that to happen is for it to end up in the pockets of the American worker and the American Small Business Owner (which ultimately goes into the pockets of workers).

No amount of Government spending will bail us out of this situation. As Japan has shown, all it leads to is stagflation and a horizontal economy for decades. These spending policies have been a complete, utter failure.

Granted, none of this addresses the extreme wealth disparity facing our Country and how disproportionate and out of control it really is--for the time being, we've got to put gas back into the tank for the engine to start running.

I'm not surprised one bit about PC numbers slipping. As a PC Gamer, I'm okay with that. We're a niche crowd and we'll manage despite it all. PCs will still continue to be used in businesses around the world.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/10/14, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 11:12:56 AM , Rating: 2

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Da W on 1/10/2014 11:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
Except TARP and baillouts were styarted by Bush.

It would have been more effective to take all this money the Fed printed and parachute it directly to people. They would have spend it.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/10/14, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 12:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter who started what. The only thing that does matter is what accomplished what.


Prevented a run on the banks. A bank run would have sent us into a full-blown depression making the great recession look trivial.

Everything else (including Quantitative Easing):

Senseless expenditures that have accomplished little regarding our Economy.

Bernanke should have been fired if he hadn't resigned and Yellen, the new Fed Chairman, promises to be no better.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Spuke on 1/10/2014 3:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
*drops mic on stage*

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MichalT on 1/10/2014 8:07:04 PM , Rating: 1
Now we know how many posts it takes for a non-political post to be trolled by a political one.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Motoman on 1/10/2014 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 3
Umm...ok. Or:

1. There hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade an old PC in a really, really long time. People are not buying new PCs for the simple reason that basically everyone has one, and has no need for a new one.

2. Tablets are still pretty new and evolving rapidly, both in features and falling prices. So people are either buying their first tablets, or replacing ones that are a couple years old because of the rapidly improving technology.

In the end, I still say we need to stop forcing this kind of market segmentation. Tablets and even phones are computing devices...if you buy a tablet and then splurge another $30 or so for a keyboard and mouse to go with it, you basically have a laptop *and* a tablet. And then, if you're one of the likely 90% of the home computing market that doesn't really do anything more than email and Facebook, you're good. The tablet *is* your computer.

If traditional desktop and laptop manufacturers are missing the boat on the new form factors of computers (tablets and phones), they need to pull their heads out. All of these things are computers...and everyone needs to understand that.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Nutzo on 1/10/2014 11:50:46 AM , Rating: 2
I just updated my almost 4 year old i7 Desktop by installing an SSD. Figure I should be good for another 3-4 years.

Don't see any reason to replace the system, as even the current fastest i7 desktop chip is only around 20% faster.
This is a big change from years ago where you would see a 50%+ improvement every couple years.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By aliasfox on 1/10/2014 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
My 6+ yr old machine with quad Core 2 cores works perfectly fine for me now that it has 12GB of RAM. The only time when it chugs is when it's batch processing lots of RAW files, which most people don't do.

And with more people moving towards mobile, we'll likely see more a) web based apps and b) lighter weight apps designed to be run on slower/lower power hardware anyway. Similar things have already happened to gaming - why write a game for a Radeon 7970 or 780Ti when most of your players will be playing on seven year old xBox 360 and PS3 systems?

Push software that people want that crushes current computers and you'll see new computer spending pick up. Until then, I'll happily surf the web on an iPad.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 12:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Four words:

Star Citizen + Oculus Rift

RE: I'm not surprised...
By aliasfox on 1/10/2014 1:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't ways to crush modern computers now - I'm sure there are plenty of ways to bring down 24 cores of Xeon, let alone 12-8-6-4 cores.

But I'm not talking about editing multiple streams of uncompressed 4K video with live preview or processing thousands of 36MP RAW files. I'm not really talking about an expensive space sim or VR glasses that I wanna try.

There needs to be something that everyone wants that can't be done. Even the push to big data within corporations is actually pushing the need for power away from personal computers - for the past few years I've had a laptop that queries servers to pull data/run code, there's not much that's done locally that needs a lot of power.

Now that we have the basics covered ('good enough' gaming/productivity/media), what's next to push the frontier?

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 1:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Forced obsolescence. Ever wonder why you can't buy stuff that lasts for decades anymore like you could years ago? Things are engineered to break.

I'm not saying Computer hardware is. In our case it is the software. Software updates are pushed out to make stuff run like crap to entice users to upgrade. I suspect there are many companies doing this already.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By StevoLincolnite on 1/10/2014 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
Four words: Star Citizen + Oculus Rift

Even though the PC market as a whole is in decline, the PC gaming market is actually on the rise, Star Citizen + Oculus Rift will probably just help maintain that momentum.

Plus, it's almost upgrade time for all those who are still hanging onto 6-7 year old Core 2 Quad Q6600's thanks to the consoles finally catching up.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By w8gaming on 1/10/2014 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you cannot crush current computers because the performance is not improving fast enough without a sharp rise in cost. Sure, someone can write software that requires massive parallel processing power to run acceptably, but how many is going to afford the cost of owning such computers?

RE: I'm not surprised...
By aliasfox on 1/10/2014 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter. If the software is enough of an advancement, people will figure out a way to run it. People ponied up to take advantage of color screens and gamers paid big bucks for 3D acceleration in Quake/Unreal back in the day - to jumpstart computer sales, there just need a new killer app that people can't live without that is difficult to run on a Core 2-class computer and impossible to run on phones and tablets.

Without enough demand for higher performance, we'll be stuck in this rut for a while, and let's face it: when average selling price is around $500, the average consumer's obviously happy enough with 'baseline' performance.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/10/2014 7:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Having what was considered a Supercomputer just a few years ago sitting on our desks? Yeah let me tell ya, we're in a real rut, lol!

RE: I'm not surprised...
By retrospooty on 1/11/2014 7:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
"The problem is you cannot crush current computers because the performance is not improving fast enough without a sharp rise in cost. Sure, someone can write software that requires massive parallel processing power to run acceptably, but how many is going to afford the cost of owning such computers?"

99% of users dont need it. You could take today top end core i7 and give it 10x the processing power and it wouldnt matter for normal consumers. It wouldnt run Windows any faster, nor office apps, or browsing the web. Todays mid and high end CPU's sit idle most of the time ramping from a few to 10 % most of the day rarely going higher for most users. It's not that CPU performance isnt improving fast enough, it's that it has far outpaced the need. That is why tablets and phone with less than 10% the processing power get the job done just fine for most people.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2014 11:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
That is why tablets and phone and Chromebooks with less than 10% the processing power get the job done just fine for most people.

Fixed :)

heheheh I can hear the Google haters now :P

RE: I'm not surprised...
By PaFromFL on 1/11/2014 4:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
I buy a new computer when I can double my speed at my usual price point, or when my motherboard dies. Those events occur less frequently since the Intel Core chips came out and power supplies, hard drives, etc. have become more efficient (cooler). The lack of sales indicates that people are happy with their current systems. Also, light users can now get by with a mobile device and won't ever buy another desktop system.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MichalT on 1/10/2014 8:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in a similar position. I've put in SSDs, upgraded the video card and am about to put in a USB 3.0 PCIe card. I'm trying to figure out what would cause me to replace this computer. I used to upgrade every couple of years, but to even match what I have now from 2008 (8 core mac Pro) will be fairly expensive.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By troysavary on 1/10/2014 9:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
The traditional PC and laptop manufacturers are not missing the boat. The people making tablets and phones are basically the same ones who have been making PCs and laptops. Apple, Acer, Samsung, Asus, Lenevo, Dell, and HP are all traditional desktop and/or laptop manufacturers. Every one of these companies has some sort of tablet or convertible and most of them also have phones.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Nutzo on 1/10/2014 11:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
So they real question is how do you get corporations to invest/spend more, and how do you get them to give thier employee's raises?

The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Combined with all the new regulation (just another form of taxation) the past 5 years, is it any wonder they don't want to spend?

Cut regulation, and cut taxes on corporations to the point where it's more profitable for them to spend the money growing thier companies instead of sitting on the cash.

When they make more growing thier business and hiring people, instead of sitting on thier cash, you will see job growth. Once you have job growth, you will eventually start seeing pay increases, as the corporations have to pay more to hold onto thier staff.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/10/2014 11:58:55 AM , Rating: 1
Corporations spend money when the economy grows. Obama has discouraged economic growth, so the spending isn't going to happen magically on it's own.

Right now everyone is holding onto their cash until Socialists move out of the White House and Congress. A bit simplistic statement, but pretty much accurate.

Obamacare has also caused MASSIVE uncertainty in the Corporate world. But it's hit small businesses the hardest. It seems like every day a mandate is being pushed back, put on hold, or changed. Imagine if you were a CEO or small business owner and spent company dollars to adhere to this law, only to have it changed overnight, essentially wasting that money?

The impacts of Obamacare on hiring alone are...incalculable. You are basically PUNISHED for growing your business. The more you grow your full-time workforce, the more you're reamed. It's a no-win situation.

But did you hear their new plans for job growth and economic prosperity? Crank the minimum wage up, and subsidize joblessness with another round of unemployment extensions... Oh and food stamps, yes food stamps for EVERYONE! Yup, that will really fix this mess.

This Administration has no clue how to promote economic growth and job creation. They're against those things on an ideological level.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/10/2014 12:38:46 PM , Rating: 3
Cutting Corporate taxes would be a great start--especially though by giving a one-time incentive to bring money back from overseas to pour into our own country.

The disgusting thing though is how CEOs have been awarding themselves gigantic pay raises while cutting everyone else's pay. That's a travesty.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Hakuryu on 1/10/2014 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 5
Most very large US Corporations pay ZERO taxes. I think GE's tax was in the negative.

Google does this - claims they are headquartered in Ireland (low corporate tax rate), and then shuffles the money to Bermuda (ZERO corporate tax rate). I pay more in taxes than Google, GE, Bank of America, and others. Really pisses me off.

So, tell me again how cutting taxes on ZERO paid would help?

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Nutzo on 1/10/2014 2:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
And if our corporate tax rate was the same or lower than Ireland, why would they go through the expense of claiming they are headquartered in Ireland?

Instead, we raise the rate to give them even more incentive to move elsewere.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/10/14, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not surprised...
By inperfectdarkness on 1/11/2014 3:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
All of what you posted is why I favor eliminating minimum wages in favor of a salary ratio. In the post WWII boom years, CEO's would rarely make more than 50x what the lowest paid employee in the company made. Since the year 2000, this has risen to over 300x.

All I propose is that we federally mandate a 50x maximum. For example, if a CEO wanted to bank 1,000,000 in total compensation (yes, stock options and bonuses are included), that CEO would have to make sure that the lowest paid employee in the company earned at least $20,000 annually (which is ~$10/hr.) 2M salary would require $40,000 minimum compensation. It also doesn't hurt small businesses--like the minimum wage policy does--because it would be almost unheard of for a small company to have such a pay differential that it would violate a 50x rule.

Beyond all of this though, it insures that the company invests more in its people--and most likely more in infrastructure & benefits for employees--rather than bonuses for the top wage-earners.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By MrBlastman on 1/13/2014 10:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for your idea. It is sound and makes sense.

RE: I'm not surprised...
By Nagorak on 1/17/2014 2:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Something to reign in CEO compensation is necessary. The fact is most, if not all, of the big time CEOs are just horrendously overpaid. I see very little evidence these guys actually perform better than a no-name would who made $1 million per year. In fact, they often perform worse, and basically run their company into the ground or in the wrong direction entirely.

Look at how many millions financial company CEOs were pocketing prior to the financial crisis, while they loaded up their companies with subprime and other crap that basically would have put them out of business, had the government not bailed them out. Then, after the bailout they went straight back to paying out massive compensation to their CEOs. It's disgusting.

Pay absolutely should be capped. Either that or every dollar made over $10 million (in whatever form) should be taxed at 90%.

By btc909 on 1/10/2014 11:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
The economy is going into the bleeper again.

Economy + Microsoft
By talikarni on 1/10/2014 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
Here we have someone (Obama) who has said himself that he wants to knock America off its economic high horse, and put it on par with most 3rd world African countries. Add in that Microsoft is trying to jam this useless junk OS called Windows 8 on everyone and its no wonder PC sales are down, and expected to get much worse. Crumbling economy combined with products people do not want. Things will get much worse before it gets better...

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein
Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki