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

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%.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

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