Report: Apple's market share of PCs over $1,000 hits 66%
Here's a new way to slice Apple's growing share of the computer market.
Last March, the NPD Group reported that Apple's retail market share — its cut of the computers sold in brick-and-mortar stores — had climbed to 14%, a figure that's roughly double its overall share of the U.S. market and reflects the power of the Apple Store to draw customers and move product.
What NPD didn't report at the time was the huge growth in Apple's share of the so-called "premium" computer market — machines that cost more than $1,000.
To some extent, Apple's (AAPL) share of this market is growing by default. Companies like HP (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Lenovo ship enormous quantities of PCs at price points between $500 and $750, whereas the only Macintosh that sells for less than $1,000 is the $599 Mini.
Still, Apple's share of the $1,000-plus retail market was less than 18% in January 2006 according to NPD. By September 2007, it had grown to more than 57%. And in the first quarter of 2008 it hit a record 66%.
This nugget of retail data comes from Joe Willcox, who writes the Apple Watch column for eWeek (see here). He extracted it from an interview last Friday with Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis.
"Apple has got better distribution than it's had in the last 15 years," Baker told Willcox. "They're in the right spot right now."
It doesn't hurt Apple that once you're in its store, you can't buy any computer with a screen for less than a grand. "If you don't give people a choice," Baker said, "people will spend more."
[Chart courtesy of eWeek.]
Bit of a problem with those figures there is that a large proportion of high end PC users build their machines from scratch. Since there's no easy way to tell how many >$1000 PCs have been built from components rather than bought as a package deal the figures are largely irrelevant. The majority of family PC owners buy a cheap deal because they don't need anything flashier, whereas a lot of PC gamers as well as people who work in design or like myself, sound production build their machines as it's a lot cheaper and they get the balance of their machine just right for their purposes.
Lets get right to the bottom line here from someone who has spent 18 years supporting both platforms in many environments including business, home and government.
YOU GET MORE DONE ON A MAC
PERIOD
Hehe… This sort of article always re-starts the PC VS Mac debate. The reality is that if you're a tinkerer and enjoy "tweaking" and care-and-feeding your computer (just as some enjoy caring for their yard), then a PC is fopr you. If you just want an "appliance" to get your work and play done, then a mac is for you. When all the non-tinkerers have switched over to macs, a sort of "equillibrium" will be reached and Apple's market share will stop growing so fast.
Since I use both Macs and PC's I know where a lot of those sub 500 dollars PC's wind up. Either on a desk, never used, dead with viri or in the closet.
As far as a trashed OS X computer and a trashed XP computer I can get the OS X machine up and going with most information intact much faster than I can an XP machine and I am a MCSE!
Comparing an Apple to a PC is like comparing a Cadillac to a Dodge. Yes, the Dodge may serve your purposes, but anyone who is looking in the $12,000-20,000 price range for a vehicle is not someone Cadillac is interested in targeting from the outset. If you want a $15,000 car, you have choices, but Cadillac is not one of them.
Reading what everyone stated. Let's be clear. Part for part, Apple is not better than PC parts. Rather that the parts are limited to Apple Specifications and re available in most Win-Tel machines. So you DO pay more for the parts!
Now, there is a difference between value compare to part costs…. Why do Apple charge you a premium is the integration and optimization for those parts to the OS X. They guarantee the parts and application (as well as OS) will work very efficiently and helps to curb/eliminate known issues with Wintel (like viruses, crashes with parts, etc.) That is the premium that all Apple users are talking and stating in terms of ease of usage, etc.
So saving $200 bucks to work with Wintel better than paying premium for a MAC? For me, NO WAY! All my applications needed are Windows based (like most business applications) and I know how to fix my part and optimize it. It does not take much time to resolve most issues! (Now, there are many cases of issue that could be long but if you ever destroyed a OS X, try reinstalling back.. You will see the OS X is sturdy but IF it breaks, you will spend a bit of time to reinstall or fix it)..
If I was a novice user who walks to use Internet and fear about viruses, etc as well as for graphic designers…. Well, MAC is not a bad but a good choice.
At the end, both will survive and like it or not… Both are good and needed either way. If Microsoft became hardware and software company (like they did with Media Center Extender and XBox), they could probably do the same thing like Apple (the assumption is strategy and management were even for both companies). Since Microsoft on-purposely went Software and hold all hardware/OS Support to its vendors are the major issues with Win-tel (since so many vendors to support with hardware), lack of support from Microsoft directly (Fee-basd for direct technical support), and OS market leader (with lots of history)…
At the end, MAC will continue to take market share until Microsoft start changing their business model plan (especially they are burning money to compete with Google and Yahoo and their core business is impacted).
What I do agree with some who wrote is MAC offers many good software for free (they had to since there are not many OS X software vendors in comparison to Wintel as well as compete head to head with Wintel software for acceptance and growth). So everything has a purpose and I would not be surprised that Apple will start the similar model of Microsoft and I hope they do not go through the exclusive IBM model of the past (and their own past of not being open)
"If what you need is to look at porn and play computer games, and your time is worth nothing, and you are interested in knowing what can go wrong with computers…… a PC is for you. Hell, you’ll save 200 bucks until it breaks, and seeing as your time is worth nothing, that 200 bucks is worth a lot of your time!"
DURRR!!
that explains why i work at a fortune 500 company and we all use pcs.
btw, when a pc 'breaks' it's quite easy to fix. not the same with apple computers.
If what you need is to look at porn and play computer games, and your time is worth nothing, and you are interested in knowing what can go wrong with computers…… a PC is for you. Hell, you'll save 200 bucks until it breaks, and seeing as your time is worth nothing, that 200 bucks is worth a lot of your time!
These folks are a large part of the market. In the final breakdown, all computers can do is process information fast, and most people do not have information that needs to be processed reliably or sensibly. Hence, PC's do the job.
@Todd from Escondito:
The MacBook Pro starts at $2000, why you chose to arbitrarily compare the model that is $500 more expensive than the lowest cost one, I don't understand.
So now the cost difference is $700 not $1100 as you stated.
I can't locate the configuration you mentioned from Toshiba's website, the 15.4" screens that support two drives don't seem to take 3GB of memory or the 3650 graphics chip.
The systems that take 3GB with a 15" screen don't support dual drives.
Am I just clueless or does Toshiba's web store suck?
My guess is that the stated system doesn't exist since he didn't mention any part/model numbers.
And yes, that a MBP is about 1" thick closed is valuable to me, most of Toshiba's notebooks are bulky and heavy.
As to the article in general:
This is what I, and many others, have been saying for some time. When you exclude the embedded systems and corporate bulk purchases and look at just systems sold at retail to people who have a choice, Apple's share numbers are much larger than generally reported in "market share".
As consumers catch on the other markets will start to understand the benefits and the general market share numbers will catch up to the retail numbers.
IT can't bury their heads in the sand forever, at some point XP will no longer be available for new installs and their choices will be Vista, Windows 7, or OS X. They obviously don't want Vista and W7 looks to continue the issues with Vista.
Let me start by saying I've used PC's and PC hardware since I bought a 286 in college, and I've used DOS and almost every version of Windows. That being said, I bought my first Mac this year. I have a 2.4 GHZ gaming PC I built sitting next to it, but I prefer using the Mac.
Yes, the Mac seemed more expensive at first, but:
1. My machine boots and signs me in in about 10 seconds – much faster than the Intel 2.4 Duo Gaming machine I built.
2. It included tons of software that I would have had to buy for the PC. To do the same things I'm doing on my Mac on my PC, I would have to download and buy 5 or 6 software packages, or take my chances with 5 or 6 "free" downloads.
3. I have a 3 year warranty for much cheaper than most PC makers and I can go to the store and see someone, rather than speaking to someone in an overseas call center for support.
4. It looks cooler than the gaming PC I built.
5. The OS and the software is integrated and it works well. I've had much less problems than I've had on Windows XP. ( I've already had to completely wipe and reinstall XP on the gaming PC. )
6. It looks cooler than any PC hardware I have. Including the gaming PC which I have in a $200 dollar black alumnium case on rollers.
So at this point, I use the PC for some games and email, while I do software developement, web site development, manage my photos, download and manage music, keep my contacts and calendars, and just play around on my Mac. How much money have I spent on Mac software in the last 2 months since I bought it? 0 dollars – it all came with the Mac or I was able to download it for free from Apple.
the operative word here is "premium" I work all day on a PC doing cad work in Rhino and on a mac doing graphics work making the catalog to sell what i make in Rhino. To day (for example) i had to print a manual in pdf form from the pc. to do that i had to go to HP and load the drivers a295 meg download. The first time i accidentally downloaded the 64 bit version which crashed my pc and required 3 restarts to clear.
by the time i was done and printing 3 hours had slipped by to load the same printer on my mack i plug it in and it recognizes it picks a driver and starts to print 5 minutes later im done i put a "premium" on my time and there is no savings with a 600 dollar win-tel box that does not get quickly eaten up in wasted time and i dare any win-tel user to tell me I'm wrong and they never spent the better part of a day installing some stupid hardware or new software.macs make you more productive because they just work…the value of that"Priceless"
I have to say that I agree that there is a price difference between Apple and Windows-based machines. I wasn't sure, so I did some research on-line today.
Most compeling? The base level Macbook is $1099. You can meet or exceed every spec except Bluetooth for $899 (HP dv2845e at BestBuy).
The data at: my blog.
I'm not surprised by this number at all. Most people buy PCs on price. And there are no Macs that can compete in the sub $500 range. Apple sells premium products only.
When you compare Macs to PCs at $1000 and over, there's no comparison. Not only do you get more for your money, in terms of hardware, but form and function are vastly better, and OS X, simply rocks!
Someday, those price conscious people are going to get the value bug, and realize that the total cost of ownership of a Mac is significantly better than a PC. So much so, that a $1000 mac is a much better bargain than a $500 PC.
-zach bass
I don't begrudge Apple or Mac owners. The company has done quite well lately and seems to be the only PC maker capable of extracting continued large sums from purchasers. That is a winning strategy for the company. For the consumer, it might be a win if you prefer the mac hardware and OS-X.
But I wince every time I hear a mac fan repeat how macs really don't cost any more than a PC. On the PC side you have dozens (probably more options) filling every price point. And a carefully shopped windows machine will nearly always cost less – usually much less – than a comparably spec'd mac.
Although not a perfect "Apples to Apples" comparison (pun intended), here is a case in point:
I just bought a 15.4 inch Toshiba with a 2.4 GHz penryn, 3 GB of RAM, one 120 GB HD and a second 200 GB 7200 rpm HD, ATI 3650 graphics card, 5-1 one card reader, and HDMI output for $1300 USD. The closest Mac is the MacBook Pro, which DOES NOT even offer a 2nd HD capability, DOES NOT have a Card Reader, and DOES NOT have HDMI output. The mac does have a nicer screen and better graphics card, but it is also priced at $2400. That's an $1100 spread – a HUGE price differential. If the price difference is "worth it" because you like OS-X, or like the Apple hardware design, or just like the company – I have no problem at all with that.
But please don't argue the price difference vs. a PC does not exist.
To charanischiu:
Apple's stock price may only be $40 higher than RIM's while at the same time selling a wider selection of products. This means absolutely nothings. Look at the market capitalization. Apple's market value is more than double that of RIM's. By the looks of things, RIM doesn't seem to be able to develop any truly innovative products. Their now following in the footsteps of Apple with a touchscreen phone (with QWERTY) and a soon-to-be touchscreen phone with a virtual keyboard (which they criticized earlier). They seemingly unable to create an original phone that doesn't follow in the shadow of the iPhone. I'd hate to be them when iPhone 2.0 along with the SDK is unveiled this June!
You have to be a little careful about percentages of percentages. Another example of this is the MP3 player market where Microsoft took on the hard drive player market which everyone except Apple had abandoned — so Zune came second. But if you looked at the overall picture, their sales vs. not only iPod but the other competitors were tiny. Now they are making flash players as well, this is even more obvious.
On the plus side, Apple has always done well on the premium end of the market. Their big losses 1995-6 were from having unsaleable low-end models. Having this kind of niche is great as a base for building new niches. Ask everyone else in the industry if they would like Apple's margins.
The only thing really missing from their lineup is a step above the Mini with upgradeable graphics + 1 or 2 slots.
An ultra-cheap Mac? I would get one. But otherwise I am happy to buy new computers 20% less often than a typical Windows user to make up the difference. And anyway, when I want a quality low-cost computing experience, I go to Linux.
All the numbers from analysts should be looked at carefully. They are deduced numbers from different data sources at the end numbers give is the idea plus/minus huge error.
Anecdotal evidence on the other hand: I was Mac hatter for many years (my college made us buy Mac 1992). Last year after reading articles about switching, I decided to do an experiment, i.e. 100% switch to Mac. Well over a year later, I am not looking back. Because of my positive experience, I evangelize Apple computers and other products to everybody. my 2c. http://www.ismashphone.com
The computer manufacturer's graveyard is loaded with names that lost a little on each sale but tried to make up the loss with volume. Apple's margin and cash flow is the envy of the market. Stock up 2700% in 10 years! Market share without profit is a fools game. IE – IBM PC's, Compaq, Radio Shack PC's, Gateway, etc., etc.
RIMM has only one or two model of smartphone, Blackberry Bold and Thunder, the stock up 142.00
Apple has so many products, computer, iPod, Software, iPhone, iTune, the stock down 186.00
How to compare, which stock should actually own?
This can be argued many ways. One way that I haven't seen argued is the value proposition.
Porsche doesn't sell stuff in the $20K range. Does that mean that Porsches are over-valued, or that there's something in there besides just plain cost?
An interesting research thought would be to determine for everyone buying $1k Apple machines, is whether (a) they know about $600 PCs and then (b) why they didn't buy the cheaper PC.
I'm not trying to be Apple Fanboy (here, at least), rather to point out that frankly, some more data is needed to get to the kinds of conclusions that various people have asserted about the data presented. (p.s. Fanboy time: I have Macs based on the -total value proposition-. I'd pay the premium for a machine that saves me time/effort/frustration. That's not everyone's value system.)
This article is from the Reality Distortion Field. Market Share of Brick and Mortar is different than total market share. Overall, Mac marketshare was 8% in Jan 2007. Most PCs over $1000 are laptops and customized PCs which are sold online. Overall marketshare, online and offline, in the $1000+ range would be a more apples to apples comparison.
When you price out identical hardware, Macs are actually cheaper. Apple chooses not to sell the low-end Celeron and other low-priced, low-quality components.
Add in the much lower ongoing cost of ownership and Macs end up being substantially cheaper to own over the lifetime of the device. Oh, and the lifetime tends to be much longer, with substantial resale value left when you want to upgrade, something you won't see with a 4-year-old PC.
When you consider all the relevant factors, Macs are the cheapest choice. You'll pay a bit more up front, but you'll save plenty over time.
Windows-based PCs are the adjustable-rate mortgages of the computer world.
Many people are buying macbooks from the refurbished section of the Online Apple store for under $1000.
Those seem to sell pretty fast when you compare what was for sale in the morning as oppposed to what's on sale that same night. Good deals.
Anyway, I always enjoys mac Apple laptops. The keyboard feels sturdy and comfortable, on both the powerbook and macbook. I'll never give money to MS. I'll use Ubuntu if Jaguar was to dissapear today.
Two factors: Apple doesn't make too many "junk", disposable sub-$1000 computers. And, secondly, Macs draw power users. If you want to do 6 things at once, you want a solid OS that doesn't fall on its face when you push it, like XP and Vista.
Well here we have – once again – another very misleading headline.
Apple does NOT have 66% of over-$1000 PCs, only that percentage of over-$1000 sold in retail stores. Most businesses do not buy from "brick-and-mortar" stores, so the implications are not what the headline would suggest.
SO, while this is a very important milestone, there is still lots of room to grow. (Not to mention overseas)
This statement «If you don’t give people a choice, people will spend more.» is just plain nonsense.
If people are willing to spend more than a 1000 bucks for a Mac when they can buy cheaper computer, it's because they think they can get more value for there money.
It is because people have a choice that they're willing to spend there cash on a Mac.
this nonsense that Apple's computers are more expensive is total bull…
I think finally people are realizing Apple make very competitively priced computers and they are fed up with MS .
My wife just received a new Toshiba protege' from work
it's $2000 of CHEAP plastic, 1gb ram a slower hard drive, loaded with vista (the company promptly swapped for XP)
Now when I looked at that thing and held it I remembered why I use a macbook then I turned it on to install palm desktop software for her and it froze, I stopped using windows 5 years ago but some things never change
Growth story Ending? Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple is in START UP MODE. True growth is just starting and the foundation is firm and true. Unlike windows, which is dying out. June brings the World Wide Developers Conference with, possibly, an iPhone with 2-way video-conferencing built in. Prepare to be amazed, very amazed!
Just with the numbers given, it would seem that Apple's growth story is ending.
However these numbers do not show how much the premium market grew: could it be that Apple's computers are of such high quality that users are willing to pay more for a "real" computer? Also, these numbers are only for retail sales. What about online sales?
Lies, dang lies, and statistics. Those numbers are skewed to appease the writer. The fact is, Apple still has less than 10% of ALL computer sales. The only numbers that really matter. http://www.pcworld.com/article/152366/apple_market_share.html?tk=rss_news This is what happens when you compare Apples to orang..er…PCs…