Apple so far immune to PC price "collapse"
Apple (AAPL) is the exception to what one analyst describes as a "permanent and structural" collapse of PC pricing and revenue triggered by the onset of the recession and the rise of low-cost netbooks.
In the chart reproduced at right (click to enlarge), TBR analyst Ezra Gottheil documents a 13% drop in average selling price (ASP) and an 18% decline in PC revenues in the fourth quarter of calendar 2008.
"ASPs have been declining over the long term," Gottheil writes in a report to clients released Thursday, "but the fall-off became steeper in 2008 and the bottom dropped out in 4Q08."
The silver lining for Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Lenovo, writes Gottheil, is that customers didn't stop buying computers. "In a dramatic and frightening economic crisis," he writes, "unit volume was down only 5%. TBR believes this demonstrates the price‑elasticity of the PC market."
Apple's unit sales actually rose in the December quarter, although the rate of growth, 9% year-to-year, was considerably below the 44% recorded one year earlier. But unlike its competitors selling Windows PCs and netbooks, Apple's average selling price has held remarkably steady, as you can see in an exclusive TBR chart — not included in Gottheil's report — that breaks out ASP's by manufacturer. We pasted it below:
"Apple’s a special case in that not only are its ASPs much higher than the others," Gottheil explains, "but also they have been amazingly flat over the eight years of data that I have, while the others have showed a steady erosion. The differences have only gotten wider over the years."
Apple's ASPs did drop, however — 8.1% year-to-year, from $1,532 in 4Q07 to $1,408 in 4Q08. Gottheil attributes this decline to a change in product mix.
"When Apple introduced the new MacBook in October, it drove down ASPs in two ways: it introduced a new price entry point with the MacBook White, but more important, we think, was making the $1,299 MacBook so attractive that it shifted the mix between MacBooks and MacBook Pros."
Gottheil is one of those analysts who believes Apple will eventually produce a netbook, despite Steve Jobs' and Tim Cook's disavowals. (For a well-reasoned contrary view, see here.)
And there is no question in his mind that if Mac sales drop far enough, Apple will eventually adjust its price points, one way or another.
"They can profitably produce Macs at lower prices," he says. "Still high quality, just not as much horsepower."
I am proud to say I have no idea of what the mac equivalent of a bio is! Which is the way Apple wants it. Unfortunately, too many people have had to learn the inner workings of their PC to correct issues.
I have purchased and used both. I will pay more for macs because they are cheaper in the long run. They are more productive for longer periods of time.
If you make the claim that you are using a 6 year old PC and its still working fine – I just cannot believe that unless you reimage it every 8 months.
To address a point from JJ, Austin.
"And anyone that knows anything about buying a Mac will tell you to NEVER BUY RAM UPGRADES FROM APPLE! NEVER! You can change the RAM yourself on the cheap, and it won’t void your warranty. And it’s real hard to do on the iMac, I mean, you take out two whole phillips head screws, remove the little panel, pop out your old RAM, pop in your new RAM, and reinstall the panel. WHEW DOGGY! A whole whopping 3 minutes of work!!"
His response above was to mine quoting apple.ca that it costs $1200 for 4GB of DDR3 RAM on an iMac. It's usually always cheaper to change things on your own PC or MAC. I was merely comparing for the average person who will order everything from say dell.ca or apple.ca. I think it is fair to say most people that buy computers buy all they will need directly from the vendor, they don't go out and add RAM chips or bigger hard drives at home. For the average user, Apple socks it to em with that whopping $1200 4GB RAM charge, that RAM should be around $200-$300. At the worst that is a $1000 premium!!! It's no wonder Apple is in such a great CASH position at the moment.
Bailout 2008, a poem by David Jeffrey:
Like a bloodied warrior,
laying broken and torn.
Like a dying soldier, hopeless and forlorn.
But the blood, it be green,
the color of money.
And the soldier is an economy,
and it is anything but funny.
Broken are it’s people and shattered are their dreams.
Thanks to the ultra rich and their full proof schemes.
It is a tragedy with more pain to come.
Finance will be Hell, and their wills will be done.
http://www.voicesnet.org/allpoemsoneauthor.aspx?memberid=982900010
I have to agree with the comment that most Mac users are underinformed. I have been working in the tech support area for 10 years and even though I have had less exposure to Mac problmes (they ARE still under 10% of the user population)I have found that most Mac users have no idea how to troubleshoot computer problems (and yes Macs DO have them. Most of them don't even know how to back up their email. In wwriting and article about how to do this I found that most Mac users DON'T back up their email and the ones who accepted Apples excellent support suggestions don't even know that you can't transfer that backup to much of anything useful.
I also workwith folks who have diabilities. Many of the best accesibility programs on themarket today are not available for the Macs. Some are but among the substitutes many of them are very poor. Especially voice recognition. Dragon (Nuance) sold their speech engine to MacSpeech and they promptly turned out a very poor software using that interface.
As for performance evidently Mac users aren't too aware of the Hackintosh. Folks are installing the Mac operating systems on pc computers and benchmark comparisons show that a pc runs the Mac OS BETTER. The only mark the Mac did better in was hyperthreading (I don;t ecpect Mac users to understand that term) and tha was because the Mac used in the study had dual processors where the Hackintos had one dualcore processor.
I say we let the Mac users feel secure in theri beleif that they are runing superior machines that they pay way too much for adn let them be stisfied that they can't run many of the software programs available to pc computers (and pay too much for the ones they can get0, and run down to the Mac store to pay a Mac Genius to solve any problems they have while they drool over the latest iPhone or iTouch.
I'll say one thing for Apple, they sure know hwo to market to the gullibles and separate them form their money!
I have owned and like pc and apple computers for 13 years and apple computers last much longer than my pc computers. Also I can sell them after a few years which I can't with pc computers. prob because education industry uses them.
"The BIOS is why your generic PC can’t keep up with a Mac in terms of booting, rebooting, or even running Windows (uugh!) as fast as relatively equivalent Mac hardware."
LOL, I have not heard this one yet. I guess you didn't realize that Windows 64-bit OS's do support EFI, heck even windows CE supports it. The reason that manufacturers have not moved to it is the fact that it is an Intel patent product my man and well not every manufacture follows what Intel wants so there hasn't been an industry wide acceptance for it. Apple deals only with Intel so the switch is easy. I love when I hear these people come out with gotcha's that are far from it. Maybe it is an advantage for the Mac, but Windows is not what is holding up EFI adoptions, its the hardware vendors. Sorry I had to break the news to you. I have too much time on my hands, I manage Windows systems so I get to play on the internet alot. Have a good day.
"Does this person know what BIOS is?! And that it really doesnt effect a thing other than a bootup screen and OSX being locked down to 1 expensive hardware vendor?!"
The BIOS is why your generic PC can't keep up with a Mac in terms of booting, rebooting, or even running Windows (uugh!) as fast as relatively equivalent Mac hardware.
Talk about uninformed. I have a LOT of experience with PCs. They would be far better off with a MODERN firmware implementation, but Microsoft has fought against it. The 'hardware vendors' on the PC side of things really don't do much, and they pretty much just take what MS allows. That is a big part of the current Mac PC difference and why a Mac will trounce the PC even at running windows.
Hey realist, I got plenty of old PC's that are running no problems, actually they are over 8 years old and are running XP with no problem. I got servers that are cracking the 15 year mark with no problem, running windows 2003. Still I can buy the same hardware that Apple has in its machines for much cheaper. Its fact my man. Depends alot on what you need a computer for. I mean how many people need to use the full capabilities of their machine. You people just can't get over the fact that the end users are the problem and well take your bad habits over to the Mac and the big red target will start to get bigger and well you all will be playing the same game, click "yes" to install this codec. Whoops, no OS is gonna stop you from clicking the go ahead on the codec install. Your system just got compromised, sorry Mac OS can't stop that either can UNIX, Linux, or Windows. Social engineering is a beautiful thing and all those Mac heads don't want to install AV software and the malicious code writers know this. Don't be a fool, accept it and install it.
To all those who think that Apple uses the same hardware as all the PC vendors, you are almost correct. Apple specs specific components (drives, RAM, etc.) that will work together and with OSX. Most PC vendors buy their components on the commodity markets – whoever has the cheapest price at the time. Open up several same model PC's from HP or Dell (or any of the others except Sony possibly) and chances are you will find different components. I have personally purchased 3 Dells of exactly the same model, at the same time, and had different hard drives, NICs, and memory in each. That doesn't happen with Apple. And how many of the die hard PC users out there have a 6 year old PC that is still useful and productive day in, day out? My dual processor Power Mac is still going strong with only a $120 OS update needed to date. That is the value of Apple products. By the way, I have sold and supported PC's since 1985, so I have a fair amount of experience and am not "uninformed".
Isn't it reasonable to assume that consumers now are focused on maximizing value? If that's the case and it is conceded that Apple produces a superior product, that delivers a better user experience with less hassle and a longer useful life, why is it so hard to believe that consumers are willing to pay more for an Apple product with a longer life span that a cheaper machine with a shoter life. Buy quality the first time and you'll never regret it. Take a shortcut and you'll pay for it repeatedly.
I have come to terms with the fact that I have fallen for Apple's marketing and that at the end of the day, it might be worth the premium…
But I really to like all my Apple products, so I'm willing to buy the "Pretty Tax".
The economy is seemingly getting worse for arguably the nations most important industry (IT). In fact, computer and IT training just took a huge hit as well: http://www.ittrainingblog.com/2009/03/sallie-mae-wtf-obama-save-me-too.html
Apple know from the last quarter sales that their pricing is holding up despite the down turn.
I don't want a netbook from apple, but I do want a ultra portable like the vaio TZ.
Belkin….that is an inaccurate assessment. Not all PC buyers buy on price alone. In fact that statement is way way out of whack. I consider myself an educated PC buyer, though not solely dedicated to PCs. No I do not own a Kia, I've owned Honda's, BMW, Nissan and VW and I'm 28. No more BMW, had to buy a house. The car analogy does not apply to all either. A Mac does not give you relatively the same benefits that a BMW does over a Kia as a Mac to a PC. To use your $900 premium, I wouldn't pay $900 to have OSx and the nice design. Look at some of these comments, some people still don't know that it isn't MAC hardware components inside, it is the component set that is used on PCs! Yes Windows XP has problems and I'm sure Mac does too….look at all the people that have faulty Macbook Air hinges, Apple hasn't supported the vast majority of them. Educated PC owners weigh the benefits equally, Mac owners seem to be too smug to admit anything.
"I think Apple is being held afloat by uninformed buyers. Remember their assertions that their PowerPC computers were faster than Intel PCs? Now we all know the truth. Well there are still more truths for Mac buyers to learn about their Macs. Unfortunately for them it will be an expensive lesson."
Umm, the PowerPC chips WERE faster than the Intel chips of the time. They had to switch to Intel chips due to heat issues. Do some research before you spout off about that which you know nothing about. The PowerPC G4 was the last PowerPC chip used in a notebook Mac. The G5 chip, although markedly faster, generated too much heat for laptop use. They couldn't seem to get it to work without generating too much heat, so Apple did the smart thing, and switched to Intel.
"To prove a point about hardware costs, apple.ca quotes $1200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB DDR3 RAM for an iMac…..that is not worth it at all, you can get a Dell with the latest Intel i7 processors and 8GB of DDR3 RAM for $1200….don’t forget to add the cost of the iMAC to that $1200 and you are close to $3000. Whereas the same hardware in a PC can be had for around $1800 or so including a fantastic 24″ colour accurate monitor."
And anyone that knows anything about buying a Mac will tell you to NEVER BUY RAM UPGRADES FROM APPLE! NEVER! You can change the RAM yourself on the cheap, and it won't void your warranty. And it's real hard to do on the iMac, I mean, you take out two whole phillips head screws, remove the little panel, pop out your old RAM, pop in your new RAM, and reinstall the panel. WHEW DOGGY! A whole whopping 3 minutes of work!!
Bottom line..Mac users are willing to pay the extra money for a quality machine, with customer service that is second to none. PC users in general view a computer as an appliance, and nothing more, so in their view, the cheaper the better. They figure they're gonne replace it every other year anyways, so why pay more?
Ok, so you compare Apple to HP, Dell, and Lenovo. I would say over that time period you specified that there is alot more competition to HP, Dell, and Lenovo and this is what is causing prices to fall. Apple doesn't compete so it can hold its price points with no worry to rush a price drop out the door. I think its so funny how these people say Apple hardware is so much better. I would bet that they are probably using the same exact outsourced hardware that all the other computer makers use. Computer parts are a commodity and Apple buys the same stuff as HP and Dell but then marks it up huge for a gravy train of profits. Go ahead and investigate it you will find Apple is not a hard drive maker, not a RAM manufacturere, and not a motherboard manufacturer. They produce software and that is it. So they buy off the same ship from China that everyone else does. Is their OS worth $900 more than Windows? Far from it especially if you only surf the web and watch video's. Thats just a waste plain and simple.
I purchased my first Apple a year ago. Prior to owning a MAC, I had PCs. It is true the PCs are cheaper, but I have to say the reliability of the MAC is impressive. It is as reliable as a light switch.
The PCs need more management. Since I have three children. They are constently finding way to lock those machines. I also help my neighbors with their PCs.
So as a previous post stated, the Cost of Ownership for the MAC is a lot cheaper.
I am buying my first MAC shortly. I like it because it is based on BSD UNIX. It is the only commercially supported UNIX with wide acceptance. I am not uninformed. I have been a UNIX/ORACLE Admin for many years.
It's very simple. PC buyers buy on price alone because to them it's a commodity thing not worth anything more. To them, the OS is usable if it's part of the $499 to $299 machine but pay to upgrade, no thanks. Macs on the other hand are purchased by people who do not just judge on price alone – the reasons are not as important as that simple fact as evident by the trend. The ONLy factor in choosing a PC is the price and as long as someone is willing to drive the prce pint lower, Pc users are willing to buy. Mac users weigh that but choose to spend about $900 more than a typical Pc buyer … just as the Kia buyer thinks who would pay more than they did for a car (after all, anyone who spent more MUST e an idiot?) … it's just a differnt value. Pc buyers think a personal computer shoudl be judged on price alone, no other factor is important enough … the NPD data also backs this up. Macs have a 67% share of $1k+ computers at retail. WIN PC market share of $1k+ has fallen from 98% in 8 years to 34% It is the budget buyers choice while Macs are for those who either have more money or are willing to spend more … simple as that.
Actually, PC buyers are the most uninformed. Almost all Mac owners have used PCs (or are also still using PCs) and have experienced the difference.
But most PC buyers have never used a Mac; yeah, some used one years ago (likely before OS X Jaguar arrived), or they've played with one for a few minutes, but they haven't had to experience it day-to-day to realize the very real productivity gains that come with it.
I've used both (and am still using XP and Vista) and there is a huge difference. And not just me, but I see it everyday at work with others, as they struggle with startup, sleep or shutdown, and little boxes popping up with errors all day. Yeah, go ahead and say that if I/we had just configured my/our PC(s) properly, it would be just as good. Yeah, we're all just dumb, and IT is dumb, too. That in and of itself makes my point.
For my money you can't put a price on reliability. The mac lasts so much longer than any pc I've ever had, and I still have to use them. They just get perpetually slower. The mac lasts forever becuase it's not effected by viruses becuase the OS won't let it. Why can't microsoft make itself able to do the same? Because they wantyou to continue tospend money on protection from it.
It's like the mafiA making you pay them so they don't trash your store. Fix that and I will buy PC or apple will be forced to charge less for their product.
I can be so care free on my iMac and it's been runni g great for 4 years. 3 of my PC's have not. Go ahead and try to say why the PC is better, but for my money I'm all set with my mac.
Apple hardware is more expensive….but the total cost of ownership is MUCH less for those of us who are not technical. I was a PC user for years and converted to Apple a few years ago. When I owned a PC I was replacing the crap every 3 years with new hardware. Spyware, Viruses, etc make the machines unusable over time. I don't have any issues with my MAC. The thing works. I have no virus software, no anti spyware…my total cost of ownership is much less with Apple than it was with PC/Microsoft.
"THe hardware is far more similar than it once was, but the Mac experience is still way better.
All the other PCs are generic. They run anything BUT Mac OS X. But a Mac, it runs everything, and well. It is not crippled with a BIOS (like most PCs are). "
Does this person know what BIOS is?! And that it really doesnt effect a thing other than a bootup screen and OSX being locked down to 1 expensive hardware vendor?!
And someone mentioned that "I think Apple is being held afloat by uninformed buyers. "
Boy that could not be a truer statement!
Sorry, kids, you're not getting better performance or quality for the Mac premium. When I was using both Windows machines and Macs a few years back, the Windows machines were much less crash-prone. I was surprised. The EFI implementation and power management in Macs seems buggy as hell. I'll stick with boring old BIOS, thank you. It gets the job done and it's reliable. Repair statistics on notebook computers show Lenovo the only brand that stands out for reliability, followed by Compaq (surprise). Mac notebooks are at best no better than Dell or HP notebooks.
"…Apple’s unit sales also declined, or course …"
as always the bloggers, analysts and pundits got it wrong. they can't even check some basic facts. (looking at you philip): apple's calendar Q4 units were not DOWN. they were up year over year by 9%.
ex ped: Arrgh. You are right, of course. Rate of growth was down, but sales were up. I'll fix forthwith. Thanks for the catch.
To prove a point about hardware costs, apple.ca quotes $1200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB DDR3 RAM for an iMac…..that is not worth it at all, you can get a Dell with the latest Intel i7 processors and 8GB of DDR3 RAM for $1200….don't forget to add the cost of the iMAC to that $1200 and you are close to $3000. Whereas the same hardware in a PC can be had for around $1800 or so including a fantastic 24" colour accurate monitor.
I think Apple is being held afloat by uninformed buyers. Remember their assertions that their PowerPC computers were faster than Intel PCs? Now we all know the truth. Well there are still more truths for Mac buyers to learn about their Macs. Unfortunately for them it will be an expensive lesson.
To some people's responses to my comments below. I am comparing in Canadian dollars and not comparing all-in-one PC to iMac, since there aren't any decent ones out there. I think it is fair to compare a standalone PC to an iMac and not to a Mac Pro (there is too much of a diff. there). Somebody below said the engineering of the components needs to be considered. It is the same manufacturer of parts, Intel, nVIDIA etc etc. So the engineering of the name brand components for a Mac isn't better than the PC. As for the engineering that goes into an iMac case, yes it does looks nice and is aluminum, fantastic, but that's not worth hundreds more TO ME. If the hardware was the same in a $2000 iMac as in a $1300 PC (the PC at this price having a better processor, more RAM and better video card) I would buy the iMac. But the $2000 iMAC has the hardware in a $900-1000 PC. To the people who say the prices aren't high compared to PCs, you are kidding yourselves. Apple even states their profit margins are high compared to PC manufacturers and good on them. Nobody is ragging them for making money.
THe hardware is far more similar than it once was, but the Mac experience is still way better.
All the other PCs are generic. They run anything BUT Mac OS X. But a Mac, it runs everything, and well. It is not crippled with a BIOS (like most PCs are).
With a generic PC, you can run Linux, but your only commercial CHOICE is WIndows. Actually it's not that tough to get OS X to run on there in some fashion, but that would not make it a real mac either. It would lack so much of the built in simplicity.
Computers need to be easier to deal with. Microsoft has failed people miserably on this front. Apple has some of the same problems, but there are a lot of advantages to their approach of basically building in everything you could need.
Buy a mid to high end PC w/o an OS, download Debian, Fedora or OpenBSD with your old computer and then install and OpenOffice. You now have a very reliable, fast machine that was cheaper than either.
Three things: one, the first chart just illustrates the commodity PC market's race to the bottom. Two, the spread between Mac ASPs has increased substantially from PC ASPs. This is something that Apple should consider in its pricing. And, three, Apple won't release a netbook, like others in the market have by dumbing down a laptop. It'll build up from a smartphone, just as it has. First, with an iPhone and iPod touch, then a new device like an iPad with double the screensize. Smartphone ARM processors use far less power than the Intel Acorn processors do now, and yet, there's not much a netbook does that a smartphone can't do. By evolving up from a smartphone, Apple will have a killer device that does more with less power.
If you want a Mac there is only one choice, Apple. While if you want a PC there and so many choices out there and the competition is tough, especially in this recession. This explains the drop the in prices of PC which a comman man ,who doesn't care about the fight between Mac and PC, can go ahead an buy a computer.
Mac is like BMW with all the pretty features while PC is like a Civic which most can buy (though I am not saying that PC is as reliable as a Civic 
Such a tiny screen? I use a MacBook with a 12 inch screen and find it small often. Younger users can't play games on them, older users can't read the small text and have to expand it beyond the bounds of browser real estate. It isn't really portable like an iPhone or iPod Touch. It may fit in as a 'couch computer' for the occasional use to Google something or check Facebook.
and of course, reliability, speed (no need to have half your computer looking for viruses), and less downtime.
AND before you all post that you've had no problems with your PCs maybe you haven't BUT plenty have.
…or you could be paying for quality, dependability, usability and service. (not to mention iLife and OS X) It depends on how you look at it…
OSX vs. Windows is not a trivial value difference ( I am a recent shifter from Windows to OSX). Also there is reliability and after sales support that Apple has consistently rated highest in (in PC based organizations surveys including Consumer Guide) When my computer is down because of virus, malware, OS system instability, etc. it costs me more in less than a 1/2 day any purported difference in purchase price. Also when I have matched a comparatively configured Dell lap top to a Power book Pro, there is no real price advantage (and I avoid Dell's atrocious after sales support reputation). I have been a Windows user for over 10 years and I have never gone for more than a month without some issue or other cropping up. This experience has been at home and in the corporate world where quality IT support was available.
The added value to their Mac products is OSX and the integrated iLife suite of software. One could argue it's a better value for the average user than PCs when evaluated as an entire package (hardware and software).
"Same Hardware" is a vague, and dubious statement. Despite the marketing bullet points, a computer is comprised of far more than the CPU, RAM, HD, and graphics processor. The level of engineering that goes into the motherboard, case, and power electronics design is significantly greater at Apple than for the majority of commodity PC makers. The sole exception might be Sony, which not coincidentally is also known for selling higher priced hardware.
I have 2XP and 1 Vista machine at home, and my spouse and I each have a XP laptop from work, I've never used a Mac, but it's highly probable my next machine will come from Apple and I'm okay to pay what appears to be a premium. If I can get a machine that doesn't go into a deep coma when it's supposed to just fall asleep, that won't slow to a crawl 2 months after I buy it, that I'll worry less about getting a virus, that I won't spent time futzing with it instead of working on it, then that premium will be worth it. Heck, when I look at the value of the OS and other software, and really compare the hardware that I'll really get, I'm not even sure there is a premium.
Wintel, you had me for years and years, and I used to rail AGAINST Apple and the Mac, but I think you're just about to lose another one of the faithful.
Apple pricing holds up because you can only buy an Apple from Apple. All others comparisons are based on competing companies offering similar features with a slight twist on branding. If Apple clones where available then the pricing structure would be the same.
What is ironic, is that these other manufacturers are now competing with Apple because it is so easy to run Windows on Mac,
A couple of interesting contrasts:
1. Apple ASPs usually go up from 3Q to 4Q, whereas for PCs overall it goes down. This means for Xmas, people buy nicer Macs but cheaper PCs.
2. PCs have their highest ASPs in the 1Q, while Apple has it in their 4Q (except for 2008). Do corporations buy more in the 1Q, and consumers buy more in the 4Q?
Sheldon from Toronto obviously has no idea what he is talking about. If he had read Oppenheimer from March 3rd he would have seen the following comparison:
“A side-by-side comparison suggests the new iMacs match up favorably against Dell and HP’s All-in-One’s on a price-to-performance basis. For example, the $1,499 model has a faster CPU and RAM with better or comparable graphics, and is still $100-$250 cheaper (though it lacks a TV Tuner, ~$60-$100 upgrade).”
>The same hardware in a PC is hundreds of dollars less,
That's not clear to me. Sure the components meet the same standards, but I've found that the quality of Apple hardware to be a lot higher than Dell or HP, for example. That's an empirical measurement, based on reliability, as well as looking at a couple of the things that I could actually compare like-to-like.
But the price differential is probably not -that much- on the price of the machine, which says more about Dell, HB, etc cutting corners than Apple retaining a higher price point.
Of course Apple can produce the computers they do at lower prices. The same hardware in a PC is hundreds of dollars less, this is so easy to compare now that Apple uses the same hardware found in PCs. With Apple you pay for name, style and Operating System.
I've read all the comments and the bottom line is the market decides what is good and what is bad. If apple computers were bad and/or priced too high, the market would relect that. But because most users of apple products LIKE, and often love, the product and user experience, they are willing to pay a premium (warranted or not), and reward apple with future purchases. This is reflected in apple's profits. People who prefer the PC experience will continue to purchase PC's. From my personal experience, Apple products have rewarded me with excellent performance and value. I cannot say the same with any Windows product I have ever used.
Honestly, with the headaches I get from using Microsoft software, it makes me wonder if MS employees even use their own products.