SuperSite Blog

Hey, in this economy, no matter how you cut it, these are good numbers! There are TONS of things I would change and products I would advocate, but I can't argue with success!  They must know more than me cause their making the numbers!  

they said iPod Touch sales were up 100% year on year - thats big.

Really?  7.49%?  What happened to the 10% estimates that Goatburg and the Mackie Cronies were fawning over all last year?

"There's a weird psychology with Mac fanatics, where they believe every positive bit of news about their favorite platform, and use it all as evidence that Macs will one day rule the world. Well, here's one fact you guys can simply ignore: While overall PC sales jumped a whopping 13 percent year-over-year in January, sales of Mac computers actually dropped 6 percent in the same time period. The reason? The average selling price of a Mac is about $1500, or double the average selling price of a PC. On the good news front for Mac fanatics (i.e., you guys can start paying attention again), revenues on the PC side were flat in January because more and more buyers are turning to low-cost netbook computers. Overall, these numbers won't mean a thing to Mac market share, which is still mired at 3.2 percent worldwide and under 5 percent in the US. Yeah, a couple of other inconvenient truths."

Paul Thurrott

wininfo-short-takes-week-of-february-23

@SPiotr:

You forget that in January, people were waiting for announcements from MacWorld before they bought anything.

So Daring Fireball was right when he said that Apple had invented the next big platform:  The iPhone/iTouch?

Paul, would you agree?

Yeah, I was right. Even in this economy there are enough people buying premium (=Apple) devices.

I knew it. The so-called crisis mostly hurts those who would not buy expensive devices anyway.

And people who want Macs and can afford Macs just don't care about ads like those "Laptop Hunter" ones.

Yep maati, I think that it applies to most expensive wares, even cars. The rich can still afford them, but the less expensive, or entry level luxury models probably aren't selling as well. But buying higher end stuff can sometimes last longer. That's what's said about Macs, but I have the same experience with two expensive, high end Dell laptops. One hat I bought in 2001 [Inspiron 7500] with all the lights, whistles and bells for $3,600, is still running fine. I upgraded to XP, then gave it to my mom. The vid cable in my Inspiron 8200 is loose, but I could have used glue or a glue gun, rather than but my prized $399 ACER laptop. I was happier than Lauren!

Wae, the really silly market share figures (like 10% +) come from Apple talking about US retail sales.  A retail sale is not an enterprise buying 50,000 Dells (or even 50).

I don't think it's a consumer buying from Apple's or HP's or Dell's (etc) web site either, although I haven't seen a definitive statement one way or the other.

If it means brick and mortar (1x4 and wallboard) stores, Apple's share naturally shows up well.  And meaninglessly.

 --John (long time and still Mac user typing on his new Dell Studio)

John, did you get the Blu-ray?

@Waethorn

I didn't forget. The quote is Paul's.

No, DRWAM, I concluded that I didn't want to spend extra for Blu-ray.

The 10 percent usually applies to retail; in a broader sense, it might only have happened if the economy hadn't tanked.  I do think Apple needs a real sub-$1K portable, though, and needs to be more aggressive about updating its desktops.

You do start to wonder how much of the netbook market is robbing Peter to pay Paul; Apple mentioned in its call that netbooks are padding the PC market's numbers.  It's true that Apple is missing out on a market, but it's a market where the participants are complaining: Microsoft doesn't like it because it has to charge just $15 per copy for Windows XP, PC makers that aren't Acer and ASUS don't it because it destroys their margins, and Intel doesn't like it because you're buying an Atom and not a Core 2 Duo.

I'm most anxious to see next quarter's results.  If there aren't real signs it's recovering, then it's in trouble.  But I wouldn't count on that.

I think there really has not been enough time since the release of the new iPod Shuffle to gauge it's success.  As to Apple ever ruling the world. Not what I want. I got my Mac. The rest of you can use what ever you want. The more of you that use PC's the better for us Mac users. I am perfectly happy not being hacker bait.

@johnbaxter

"If it means brick and mortar  stores, Apple's share naturally shows up well"

You haven't being paying attention John. All the recent US retail figures have looked poor for Apple. Hence the quote I posted above. Paul's response to some more Apple doom and gloom from NPD.

This is not a fanboy thing. This is an economics thing! For the last 6 months we have ben hearing from pundits and fanboys (of ALL persuasions) that Apple is going to be hit really badly with this crunch. "Apple will HAVE TO drop their prices" "They lack CHOICE" "They NEED a netbook" etc etc.

And when the real figures actually appear... what do we see?

The PC vendors, with their choice and low prices and ruddy netbooks... losing market share .... squeezing their margins,,,  and dropping their ASP by 20%

So, marketshare is up, profits are up. Yah, the lack of that netbook is just KILLING Apple.

The PC industry, except for Apple, is in a desperate race to the bottom. Cheaper hardware, lower margins. Volume doesn't help if you don't make any money from it.

Microsoft is now in the same trap. To keep unit sales up, they have to accommodate to the the netbook niche. And what does that mean? It means the Zombie-like continuation of Windows XP, because they can sell it cheaply, and that is just bizarre, since they are simultaneously trying to roll out Windows 7 and explain to everyone why they "need" it.

And speaking of Vista SP2, uh, I meant to say, Windows 7, the netbook market requires the creation of a lobotomized version of Windows 7, the "Starter Edition", so that Microsoft can sell it cheaply, followed by a bait and switch upgrade strategy.

Apple continues a one OS strategy, giving people all the features for one price. Microsoft is now caught with the hardware vendors in the bottom feeding market of "cheaper and cheaper". My god, it's in their ads; it's the whole theme.

It's great that Paul gets such solace from the 3.36% "marketshare" number. Yes, there are lots of Windows cash registers out there!

Every PC vendor in existence would kill for Apple's numbers, marketshare and all. Moneyshare matters too.

What is so FRAKING hilarious about this crap Paul spews is that Apple is an hardware company first and then whatever else.  You know the tax part on the hardware, that everyone is moaning about.

Paul compares market shares of a software OS (Windows) to Mac's, as in hardware??

From these numbers we can clearly see that Apples year over year Mac sales were down a small percentage, but because iPod and iPhone sales were up Apple over all was up.

Paul one more time....

Microsoft = Software/Business focus

Apple = Hardware/consumer focus

The two are really hard to compare.  Sure there is overlap, Zune, 360, OS X, iWork, video and photo software from Apple but that overlap is tiny really.

I learn more and more from everyone all the time. Thanks for allow me to be a voyeur.

Doc

PS

John, I didn't think that Blu-ray was a worthwhile upgrade for many too, but some models had it included recently.

Great job, Apple. Success is a good thing! I know that in any industry it is good to see positive numbers theses days. Say what you want, but Apple had a good quarter again. Now, that does not mean that Microsoft is in the tank...that is just not true. The release of Windows 7 will bolster the rest of their year. Both companies will still be in existence for a long time to come. Get used to it and get over it.

--tayme

Good point and he is right. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. You got that one right on the money, Real! The comparison between sales from the 2 companies are really meaningless.

--tayme

I would hope one of the takeaways from this is that people should stop listening to these stupid NPD estimates.  They are always, and I mean ALWAYS, wrong about Apple.  I don't know why they bother.

"The company posted revenue of $8.16 billion and a net quarterly profit of $1.21 billion."

That works out to a whopping "Apple Tax" of 14.8 percent.  Wow that's terrible, apple and its employees are really ripping off consumers by working hard, innovating and making a reasonable profit

Meanwhile, MS's profit margin was 35.7 percent last quarter (they have not announced this quarter yet).  And that's after factoring in the money losing businesses, the margin on windows and office is much higher

@cesjr:

Apple's gross margin for the quarter was 36.4 percent

"Meanwhile, MS's profit margin was 35.7 percent last quarter (they have not announced this quarter yet).  And that's after factoring in the money losing businesses, the margin on windows and office is much higher"

o0o0o They must be evil!!! o0o0o overthrow the government! Let the revolution begin!!

douchebag.

"Apple's gross margin for the quarter was 36.4 percent"  

Gross margin doesn't take into account all costs.  Do the math - 1.21 divided by 8.16 = 14.percent.  I used the same math for MS.

"o0o0o They must be evil!!! o0o0o overthrow the government! Let the revolution begin!!"

dimwit.

O0o0o0o I can do math! This shows that I am smart and my statements are meaningful! Yes, what I say is true everyone.

douchebag 5x.

Pingback from  I AM OSX » Mac market share in Q1 2009 = 3.36 percent, Apple earnings strong …

@SPiotr

According to the SEC filings Apple desktops were down 4% and laptops 2% over last year and don't forget that 13% increase for PCs is almost all down to netbooks which are 8X more popular in Europe than the US.

Effectively the iPod Touch and iPhone are Apple's netbooks (for the moment).  Sales stand at 37 million.

Just to be clear, this is proof that Apple's pricing is smart.  It's not clear that cutting their prices would result in higher profits, since you'd have to more than make for the lost per-unit profit with increased volume.  Since they're clearly running a great business, I think it's reasonable to expect that they're following the market demand closely and weighing the potential of changes to their pricing all the time.

So, is there an "Apple Tax"?  Not according to their happy customers who are still lining up during the worst economy since the great depression.  Again, when the demand really drops off, expect to see price cuts.  Not before.  That'd just be stupid business and anyone advocating that should recognize it as such.

ps. does that mean I'm happy Macs cost more money?  no.  i wish they were cheaper.  Hell, I wish they were free. But I'll still keep buying them because I think they're better even at the higher price.

Exactly. I hope we'll soon see an end to the "Apple Tax" discussion silliness. They don't have to join pc makers' panicky price competition in order to stay in business or follow Microsoft's suit in crippling their os to the point of being useless to justify including it with netbooks at low prices.

There is absolutely no doubt Apple makes good products. Apple managed to squeak by this quarter compared to 2008 and 2007. However, the slide in Mac unit sales continues and I believe this is several months of consecutive slide in the Mac unit. Also, Year over Year they were down 3 percent. So Apple is being impacted by the economy. With the number of well off, millionaires, and billionaires in the United States, these guys will continue to go to bat for Apple. Good for them.

Yet it doesn't change the word on the street. Consumers with budgets and middle class sensibilities don't want to buy Apple. Its a win for Apple and its a win for the Rest of PC industry.

Last I checked, the PC industry is coming of a low and the stage is set for a return to growth. So all of this, Apple's right and the rest of the PC industry is wrong, doesn't match to the data. Dell maybe doing bad, but others are taking its place. HP is in the number one spot is up 2.9 percent world wide. Netbook sales continue to be hot fot the industry. As Intel CEO Paul Otellini said "We believe PC sales bottomed out during the first quarter and that the industry is returning to normal seasonal patterns."

HP isn't the only brightspot. Acer is doing very well making with their March 31st sales on Windows based netbooks. Acer virtually tied with Dell and is in a position to take 2nd place away from Dell. That sounds like a competitive market to me.

Its tough for everyone, but its not like the PC industry is dead or is going to die tomorrow. Apple in most places is in the 5th spot with consumers. Apple is making progress, but don't count out guys like HP and Acer yet.

"Just to be clear, this is proof that Apple's pricing is smart.  It's not clear that cutting their prices would result in higher profits, since you'd have to more than make for the lost per-unit profit with increased volume."

I agree and think that people wrongly assume that apple "has to" price the mac or all its products "high".  With the mac, apple has to pick a profitable and viable niche.  The fact is that Windows dominates.  It would be plain stupid, from a business standpoint, to just blindly offer the same products or target the same markets as Windows.  Apple has a high-end, non-geek consumer niche (and also a creative industries niche).  It makes good, reasonable profits out of these folks.  That's smart business.  

And remember, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Lowering prices to compete more directly with windows customers that want low priced machines would lower apple's profits on its existing customers - unfortunately you can't charge your new customers less money than your existing ones.

Now it's clear that apple has more room to choose other strategies in the PMP and smartphone spaces.  There it has been committed to preventing a "price umbrella" under its products for competitors to sneak in.  iPods, while sometimes slightly more money (like $50-75), have always been competitively priced.  Certainly nothing like a clear, significant premium as with the mac over windows.

"O0o0o0o I can do math! This shows that I am smart and my statements are meaningful! Yes, what I say is true everyone."

double dimwit  x10

"Yet it doesn't change the word on the street. Consumers with budgets and middle class sensibilities don't want to buy Apple."

Please link us to data to back that.  Please also link us to PC sales minus netbooks.

I dont know any corporation that has seriously deployed a netbook.  Like someone else said, a netbook competes with a iPhone/iTouch.  I personally think netbooks are a fad right now and that the will saturate in 2009.  Not go away, they will have their place as a larger form factor iTouch type device, a limited powered/functionality mobile device.

If what you say is true and the stage is set for growth then these numbers are even better for Apple because they cover the worst months and go a very long way to disprove you statement about people not choosing Apple, and it says the tax is really something people are willing to pay.  

I sometime feel for Paul.  Here he has a positive Apple post and he still get's crap about it.

I do wish people would just relax, all this fanboyism (be it Windows or Apple) is just so childish.  Any savey consumer should know to work out what they want a PC to do, what budget they have and buy the device that matches.  Be that Apple or otherwise.  Obviously there are factors within the statement "what they want a PC to do" which may dictate as to whether you purchase a Mac or not.  

For me and the things I do a Mac would just be over-kill (and over-kill costs).  That's why at the moment I'm considering a netbook.  My personal daily computer usage currently consists of surfing the web.

While this particular blog post is remarkably fair and balanced (aside from the inevitable smarmy comment regarding the iPod at the end), it's overshadowed by months of lies, distortions and outright bad reporting:

"While overall PC sales jumped a whopping 13 percent year-over-year in January, sales of Mac computers actually dropped 6 percent in the same time period."

Nice bit of "truthiness", that. Paul, for someone who consistently slams Wikipedia for their supposed lack of actual facts, it's ironic how often you lack precision and accuracy in your own "reporting".

A retraction would be nice. Here's an even better idea: Quit relying on worst-case scenarios from supposed "analysts" and start reporting the truth based on ACTUAL FACTS, not wishful thinking. At the very least, you should report when your sources are A) guessing and B) usually wrong. I'm sure there are some of us who would appreciate that.

Wow. That's a lot of celebration for a 3% drop in year over year sales and an annual market share increase of only 0.10%.

"Just to be clear, this is proof that Apple's pricing is smart."

Absolutely...just as DELL, Acer and others are smart to dumb down their product line to include XP-based netbooks.

In a down economy, there will always be demand for both bargain-basement and high-end products. People who appreciate the build quality, exceptional engineering and the usability & stability of Apple's OS will always be willing to pay a small premium to get it.

Those who want commodity products or disposable netbooks that serve a niche purpose and run an aging 7-year-old operating system will support the low end of the market. There's no reason one has to sacrifice for the other, as the numbers clearly prove.

"Wow. That's a lot of celebration for a 3% drop in year over year sales and an annual market share increase of only 0.10%. "

I'm dizzy from your spin. Apple had their best non-holiday quarter ever, they have reserves of 25 Billion in cash, and they just cracked the Fortune 100. All this from a company that you and your fellow WinJihadists have written off as irrelevant, doomed, or [insert favorite adjective resembling "beleaguered" here]. A company so irrelevant that Microsoft feels the need to spend a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to discredit them, despite their minute market share.

Yep. Lots to celebrate. Lift up your champagne glass, Mikey, as we toast Apple's success.

Many consumers are awaiting better economic times before they purchase non-essential items, such as a new computer. Heck, some may even be awaiting Windows 7 before buying. I did that with XP and the Intel Mac Pro Tower. I even waited a little after their release to ensure that there were no significant problems.

"I dont know any corporation that has seriously deployed a netbook"

That's because up until only very recently, there were no OEM's offering business-class netbooks.  They were all selling them with Windows XP Home Edition targetted towards younger consumers.  Dell started offering the Vostro business-class model netbook (based off the Mini 10) only just like a week ago AFAIK.

lotsa

Personal computer sales overall: down 3%

Apple personal computer sales: down 3%

Non-Apple personal computer sales: down 3%

So, Apple sales dropped the same as the rest of the industry.

Dell had a bad quarter but those lost sales didn't go to Apple, they went to HP who are the ones who should REALLY be celebrating right now. It'd be interesting to compare HP's sales growth to Macintosh total sales.

At least we're spared the quarterly math lessons of how 10% share growth on 3% of the market really doesn't mean the same thing as getting 10% of the market and how much easier or harder it is to get real growth from 3% compared with growth from 96%

"Wow. That's a lot of celebration for a 3% drop in year over year sales and an annual market share increase of only 0.10%."

That's a lot of bitterness for the same reason.

@mikegalos - Why do you even care? Your comment is meant as flame bait and you know it. Get over yourself and your blind Microsoft faith. Even you, in all of your Microsoft evangelism, should realize by now that there is room for both companies to succeed and that in all actuality, they sell different products in different markets.

--tayme

How many netbooks were sold, or what was the netbook percentage of PC sales?

I guess that almost everything of this nature is a fad, only to be replaced with something more functional in the future. But as I mentioned before, about half of the attendees at my meeting of IT people and doctors, had netbooks, and now 3 of my 26 partners have one. Of course, Mac sales are on the rise in my group too. Some for family an others as they can run Windows for our imaging needs. Both Apple and Microsoft wins a sale.

BTW:  I just tried Windows 7 build 7000 (I'm NOT going on to Bittorrent sites with gawd-knows-what for malware just to get the latest leaked build) on an ASUS EeePC 1000HE (the best netbook for $500CDN so far).  I liked it.  I would personally set up the Origami Experience 2.0 on it if I was using it fulltime, but because it's a beta, that won't happen.  If Microsoft comes out with an Origami 3.0 for Windows 7, you can bet that's going to be a good option for netbooks since it gives you a web, RSS, and multimedia overlay for Windows.  There's a lot of netbook-class convertible Atom-based UMPC/Tablet PC's coming too so the touch-based stuff in the Origami software would be awesome on those systems.

Mum,

Care to explain how not celebrating a 3% drop in sales and flat market share is bitter?

I mean you really have to set the bar low when losing sales at the same rate as your industry is cause for jubillation.

Seriously. I can hear the cheer now, "We did better than half our competitors (and worse than half). Yay?"

mikegalos@msn.com said:

"Personal computer sales overall: down 3%

Apple personal computer sales: down 3%

Non-Apple personal computer sales: down 3%

So, Apple sales dropped the same as the rest of the industry."

But Paul just reported last week:

"According to Gartner, worldwide PC sales fell year-over-year by 6.5 percent in the quarter; IDC says the decline was 7.1 percent."

Is this not correct?

Looks to me that their unit sales were down less than half that of the industry at large.  Or am I missing something?  

(Please note that I don't really give a crap one way or the other - I just like to encourage a modicum of intellectual honesty in these discussions.)

"Wow. That's a lot of celebration for a 3% drop in year over year sales and an annual market share increase of only 0.10%."

Yah, Mike, usual spin. How about a longer view, and we can get that from one of my favorite Paul quotes,

"Apple's market share is 1.88 percent today, and as your own math showed you, it will be 1.7 percent or lower in 2004. Why is this so hard for Mac advocates to understand? The Mac market is ending."

That's from March 5, 2004. Apple has nearly doubled their marketshare since then and now makes nearly as much money in a quarter as it did then in a YEAR.

In case you missed Apple is now not just in the Fortune 500, they're in the Fortune 100----for the first time ever.

While the rest of the industry is pursuing nearly profitless netbooks and crippled versions of Windows 7, Apple is following a different strategy, and it is working.

It was a great quarter for Apple, plain and simple, and longer term, a vindication for a strategy of innovation.

tayme,

No. It's meant as a bit of a reality check. Read the comments here and compare the response to numbers that are the same as the average of everyone else in the industry. This is a lot of gloating for quarterly performance that's exactly mediocre.

"Your comment is meant as flame bait and you know it."

Why?  Because it's entirely true?  Get over yourself tayme.  Just because mike puts fact into the spotlight and it's not at all as rosey red as Apple's earnings suggest, doesn't make it wrong or somehow pro-Microsoft.  Nowhere in his comment did he even mention Microsoft - that's something that you brought up because the facts hurt and you only want to see what your own prejudices are willing to allow.

Webguy

The market share numbers went from 3.26 to 3.36%. That's essentially flat. And that means Macintosh did exactly the same as everybody else. No better, no worse. Now, I understand people were afraid there'd be a drop and perhaps are celebrating that didn't happen. Fine.

"facts hurt and you only want to see what your own prejudices are willing to allow."

That is funny coming from somebody as biased as you on this subject. Thanks for the chuckle. Here's a little fact for you to chew on - gartner.com/.../page.jsp

--tayme

tayme,

Thanks for the link. Chewing on it and plugging in the numbers for Apple (who are part of the "other" since they're not in the Top 5) gives the following (in order of change in share):

Acer got an additional 3.4% of the market to bring them to 13.0%

HP got an additional 1.7% of the market to bring them to 19.8%

Toshiba got an additional 1.2% of the market to bring them to 5.5%

Apple got an additional 0.1% of the market to bring them to 3.3%

Lenovo lost 0.1% of the market to bring them to 6.6%

Dell lost 1.6% of the market to bring them to 13.1%

All the other small players combined (after taking Apple out) lost 4.7% of the market to bring them to 38.7%

Summarizing:

Big winner (share growth over 2%) - Acer

Winners (share growth between 1 and 2%) - HP and Toshiba

Neutral (less than 1% share change either way) - Apple and Lenovo

Loser (share loss between 1 and 2%) - Dell

Big losers (share loss over 2%) - unnamed smaller vendors

"This is a lot of gloating for quarterly performance that's exactly mediocre."

Let me explain it to you again, Mikey.

Point One: Best non-holiday quarter EVER for Apple Inc. Hardly "mediocre".

Point Two: Market share up (if slightly). Apparently Microsoft's ads aren't having the desired effect.

Point Three: 29 BILLION in cash reserves (exceeding that of even your favorite company, Microsoft). Hardly "mediocre".

Point Four: 123% unit growth in iPhones. Hardly "mediocre".

Point Five: 3% unit growth in iPods (a so-called "luxury item" that by WinJihadist reckoning should be languishing in this economy).

Point Six: Gross margins UP. Hardly "mediocre" performance.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mikey. You're taking one small aspect of their business and pointing out that it was down approximately the same level as the rest of the industry. More rational minds are looking at the performance of the company as a whole, and celebrating its success in the face of critics who are constantly predicting its doom (I'm looking at you, "Waethorn") and pundits who report numbers (I'm looking at you, "Mac sales down 6% Thurrot") that don't exist.

I'm sure a self-professed brilliant mind like yours can understand, Mikey. If not, please pull your bearded head out of your a$$ and take a look at reality, not the strawman you've so inelegantly set up.

What's up with those 'nettops' with ATOM processors? How long have they been on the market?

"What's up with those 'nettops' with ATOM processors? How long have they been on the market?"

About 8 months now.

lotsa

The post is "Mac market share in Q1 2009" and while you may think the Macintosh is a "small aspect of their business", it IS what we are discussing.

Changing the subject to profit margins on consumer electronics and cash reserves may make you feel better but the on-topic data on personal computer sales is simple. Acer had a great quarter, HP and Toshiba had good quarters, Apple was flat. While they did no worse than the average personal computer vendor they also did no better.

"Best non-holiday quarter EVER for Apple Inc."

Does that include when they WEREN'T "Apple Inc."?

@losta:  iPod and iPhone sales don't figure into a discussion of PC marketshare, sorry to say.

"More rational minds are looking at the performance of the company as a whole, and celebrating its success in the face of critics who are constantly predicting its doom"

Show me where in this conversation where I said that Apple is failing.  They aren't, OBVIOUSLY.  You and tayme are celebrating good news that is nothing more than a PR campaign to make mediocre business success in a recession look like it's something exciting, when in fact there are bigger winners than Apple that deserve a more congratulatory response (I'm waiting).  When I look at the numbers here, the only real success for Apple is in it's CE line.  Mac sales are practically flat.  You can keep grasping at those straws though.

Apple:  "YAY!  We're not going under!  Let's have a party!"

:P

"There's a lot of netbook-class convertible Atom-based UMPC/Tablet PC's coming too so the touch-based stuff in the Origami software would be awesome on those systems."

Microsoft must move there very fast.  

If the rumors of Apple coming out with a new device this year, that uses a 10inch screen are true the MS should get there now.  The Apple device, if true, will probably be a iTouch like device with a bigger screen and more powerful hardware, basically a big touch pad.  Which IMHO is a way better way to work with a device that has a 10inch or less size screen.  My #1 complaint about netbooks are the small keyboards.  They are just not usable for any kind of real work, and so the device is relegated to something like a big iTouch (usage/app wise), why not just use touch as your main input method and ditch the keyboard.

@Tayme, @Lotsa - I agree with you completely. Sorry, my bad.

"This is a lot of gloating for quarterly performance that's exactly mediocre"

Hmm. Stocks up 42% this quarter. I don't think your opinion is shared by many.

chuck

And trying to change the subject to stock price doesn't change the market share numbers. They're still flat.

slimshady

"Microsoft must move there very fast." is fairly confusing. If Apple does decide to make a UMPC Origami clone (an Applegami?) then they're playing catch up to a product niche Microsoft created three years ago.

You might also note that Windows 7 runs well on low power devices like netbooks and has great touch support right out of the box.

@slimbo:

A 10" screen with nothing but touch capabilities is a dead weight IMO, especially if it isn't a full-featured computer.  Maximum size for a touch-only device (that's meant to be carried) should be 7".  I like the 7" Viliv S5 that was recently introduced.  I'd rather see a slide-out hardware keyboard for it, but whatever.

The keyboard on the EeePC 1000HE is a fair size too.  It has one of the new "chicklet"-style keyboards but it doesn't feel like Jell-O like the Macbook ones (the keys have almost no side-to-side wiggle).  I've typed several paragraphs on it and it doesn't feel any more cramped than a keyboard on a 15" notebook.  I'd rather have a convertible UMPC with touch/stylus capabilities like the Gigabyte T1028 myself (OneNote is awesome!), but the EeePC 1000HE has an oh-so-tempting 9.5 hour battery that's hard to give up too.  The 1000HE also has a multi-touch trackpad which will be more important when Windows 7 ships (7 has native support of multi-touch).  I don't think I'd miss the multi-touch trackpad if I had a touch-capable screen though.

@mikegalos - No problem for the link. Like I said in my first post - "Both companies [Apple and Microsoft] will still be in existence for a long time to come." Both are successful and for one to succeed does not mean the other must fail. Both Windows and OS X have a place in the market. Windows kicks everybody's butt in the enterprise market and OS X is preferred by video production houses. Lets move on now, shall we. These arguments are stale and those that are too blind to see value in both OSes and companies are simple minded.

--tayme

Whoops, forgot links:

Gigabyte T1028:

www.giga-byte.com/.../Products_Spec.aspx

Asus EeePC 1000HE:

www.asus.com/product.aspx

Oh and here's something that's very interesting too.  I'd like to see the specs bumped up to a 1GHz CPU and maybe 1GB of RAM for this.  I think THIS would be the target hardware for Windows 7 Starter Edition (and it'd be an amazing little piece of gear to have too):

www.giga-byte.com/.../Products_Spec.aspx

MikeGalos,

The subject of the post is

"Mac market share in Q1 2009 = 3.36 percent, Apple earnings strong"

It is also very relevant to mention iPod / iPhone and any other Apple products if it is directly related to the "earnings strong" part of the subject.

Plus, marketshare alone has nothing to do with health a business or product.  If I was running a company and I was earning 2B in profit with 10% market share vs a competitor making 1.5B with 90%, I'd rather have the 10%...  just hypothetical numbers to prove a point that a lot of people here don't seem to take into consideration.

tayme

" Lets move on now, shall we. "

Actually, I was enjoying the fact that, for once, the discussion was at least relatively close to being on topic and not full of people's vanity fiction.

Mikegalos: You are the one exclusively focusing on market share. I'm responding (and, yes, celebrating) the totality of Paul's actual blog post, which leads with:

"Apple has announced its earnings for the first calendar quarter of 2009, and while no company is likely recession proof, Apple is certainly recession-resilient."

Huh. No mention of a sales drop there.

You, OTOH, focused on a sales drop of one segment of Apple's product line (one that is in line with industry averages) and a minute market share increase, completely ignoring the rest of the news, which was overwhelmingly positive. How clever.

See, "mikegalos", I don't buy your premise, so I don't buy the bit. I'll give you your due, though...your argumentative techniques are impressive, if somewhat predictable. Nice try.

@mike:

One bad thing about 7 Starter Edition is that it doesn't include Mobility Center.  I think that's a mistake considering that MID's would be a good target hardware market for Starter.  Origami 2.0 has a hard link for Mobility Center (the battery icon in Origami), so not having that feature available seems awkward.

Does Starter have the touch/tablet support too, or is that something that's only going to be in "Premium" versions of 7?  I know it's not in Vista Starter.

"I was running a company and I was earning 2B in profit with 10% market share vs a competitor making 1.5B with 90%, I'd rather have the 10%"

That's only relevent in a market that isn't saturated.  The PC industry is saturated, so growth for a company is hard.  For instance, Acer is growing, but they're also taking a hit on margins in the process, due to the popularity of their netbooks and cheap notebooks.  I get partner price lists from them, and the prices go something like this:  SRP: $829, Street Price:  $799, Dealer cost: $789.  How can a reseller really deal with a pricing system like that?  I mean, making $10 profit for a reseller is ludicrous.  That's what their partner price lists are like though.  And then you have to figure in distributor costs too.  Some sell higher than what Acer suggest the cost should be.  By the time you buy their systems, your profit margin is gone.  Offering over-inflated add-ons like mice, software, and extended warranties is the only way most resellers can make money on Acer systems.  That, and refurb'ed models, which Acer is in abundance of.  Acer only sells in "the channel", but they're only good for VAR's, not straight off-the-shelf resellers.  

In an industry that isn't that competitive, you could argue that growth would be easy.  That isn't so here though.

"You might also note that Windows 7 runs well on low power devices like netbooks and has great touch support right out of the box."

Windows 7 Starter Edition that's the version most likely to be included on netbooks only runs 3 applications at once.

So it's useless.

"Windows 7 Starter Edition that's the version most likely to be included on netbooks only runs 3 applications at once."

Sorry but that's wrong.  Starter Edition will be allowed on limited hardware.  Microsoft is pushing manufacturers to offer Home Premium on standard netbooks, which be all the more powerful by the time Windows 7 RTM's.  The 3 app limit only affects you if you actually plan on doing heavy multitasking on a system, and the underpowered netbooks that Starter is designed for don't even have the power to do that anyway, so Microsoft is effectively saving you the headache.

blogs.zdnet.com/Bott

Waethorn,

You are missing my point.  As a business man, is your concern increasing your MARKETSHARE, or your PROFIT?

That's my point and it's something that gets missed here often talking about MS marketshare vs Apple marketshare.

If a day ever comes that Apple makes the same revenue and / or profit as MS, do you really think it would matter on what marketshare it was done?  Would the Apple shareholders say, "well, we don't have the same marketshare as MS so we're not happy even though the company is doing well and making record profits"?  I doubt it.

I'm sure now someone will continue to miss the point.

After Apple's good quarter, I'm hoping for some good numbers from Microsoft today. They seem to have been on a monopoly defense strategy so far this decade, rather than a growth strategy.

"As a business man, is your concern increasing your MARKETSHARE, or your PROFIT?"

As a business man, you have to be adaptable to market conditions, which your argument doesn't appear to be.

Apple's marketshare is flat, showing that they have no inertia.  That's not exactly good in a recession.  What they should be doing is scrambling to get more marketshare so that when the recession improves, they'll have a growing customer base.  If they leveraged their brand loyalty, they would see that those customers would then be more likely to spend more money when salaries improve.  They just aren't trying though.  Instead they're employing their elitist persona towards market share, just as they impose it on their customer (and non-customer) base.

Well Wae, I was thinking the same thing. Apple can always raise their prices after the recession is over, and they have locked in more market share. This seems to be the strategy of several consumer device makers, however, I don't know if it's working.

Those trying to spin this to be something bad for Apple are like those hotair.com/.../obama-at-50-50    dancirucci.blogspot.com/.../obama-poll-numbers-tumbling.html   trying to spin the presidents numbers from "high" to "tumbling".

I would follow with that I understand the point that if it ain't broken, then don't fix it, but then there's an ounce of prevention thingy too, not to mention some compassion for those that can't afford good quality. Apple has been using the same business plan, while just adding more devices. It's working, but perhaps there is room for improvement. I guess we will see next quarter.

@mikegalos - My saying, "Lets move on now, shall we." is meant to say, "Move on from petty arguments about sales, marketshare, etc. and discuss technology, like this and Paul's other blogs used to focus on. But if you wish to continue being petty, that is fine with me.

--tayme

Waethorn:

Apple doesn't impose anything on anyone. You walk into an Apple store, you walk out. You buy something, you don't. Consumer choice. You buy a MacBook or you walk to Best Buy and grab an HP. Whatever.

Employing their "elitist" persona? What the hell does that mean?

Consumers aren't stupid. Why do you think they are?

Does Lexus have an "elitist" persona? Does Range Rover? Or is it only Apple?

I own a MacBook because I damn well want to. What the hell do you care?

"MikeGalos,

The subject of the post is

"Mac market share in Q1 2009 = 3.36 percent, Apple earnings strong"

It is also very relevant to mention iPod / iPhone and any other Apple products if it is directly related to the "earnings strong" part of the subject.

Plus, marketshare alone has nothing to do with health a business or product.  If I was running a company and I was earning 2B in profit with 10% market share vs a competitor making 1.5B with 90%, I'd rather have the 10%...  just hypothetical numbers to prove a point that a lot of people here don't seem to take into consideration."

Right. And Mike's own post mentions "quarterly performance" which is a broader topic than marketshare. And, of course, Apple has doubled their marketshare since 2004, when Paul pronounced them doomed.

"Actually, I was enjoying the fact that, for once, the discussion was at least relatively close to being on topic and not full of people's vanity fiction."

So  am I. Now, on that topic, you are, per the usual, cherry-picking the numbers you like and ignoring the ones you don't, just as Paul does. Apple marketshare has doubled in 5 years and declined a couple of % in one quarter, and that's a quarter in which most "growth" has come from very low margin netbooks.

Which is more important, doubling in 5 years, or a 3% change in the worst market since the depression? I'm happy to discuss BOTH, but you don't get to pick just the one that supports your position, while ignoring the data that contradicts it.

That's intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

On this marketshare uber alles mania:

Go check the latest number for Nokia and Sony Eriksson smartphones and ask them how much they're enjoying their "marketshare" as they lose billions.

Focussing on that one number is stupid. In the end, businesses make money or die, so profitability is important.

Waethorn,

Again you miss the point....even in your own example, gaining marketshare was nothing more than a way to increase profits.  The end goal of running a business is making money.  If marketshare is the way to do it, then that is what you do.  If you can make the same, or money than a competitor that has more marketshare, then you are ahead of the game.

Money (profits and earnings), not marketshare, determines the health of a company.

news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10224929-56.html

Its about profit.

"The end goal of running a business is making money."

Margins aren't the only way to get there though.

Do you run a business?

"Do you run a business?"

Nope, not yet.  But that has nothing to do with the fact that profits are what a business is (supposed to be) about.

You are for some reason trying to make a point on HOW to get those profits...and it seems like you're trying to tie that in to the marketshare POV.

But that bottom line is that the bottom line is what ultimately matters, not the marketshare.

Yep, you can sell low volume and high margin as well as low margin and high volume. MS seems to sell high margin and high volume on Windows and Office. Whatever works keeps going, but sometimes the game changes. Apple has yet to see it change lately. i hope it's sustainable.

"Apple has yet to see it change lately. i hope it's sustainable."

That's my argument actually.

Apple can't assume that their current method of maximizing profits will be sustainable while continuing to ignore other players that are gaining marketshare, especially considering that we've seen flat growth from them in the last year.

Businesses succeed by growing.  Let me put it another way:  the population is growing with or without Apple.  Apple isn't adapting to that.  That's a lost customer count that they aren't tapping.  If I were a shareholder, I'd be angry that they aren't innovating enough to grow their business (looking at the computer side of the business).

What made Apple lose it's large market share that it had in the 80's? Was it MS and cheaper PC's, while it stayed with it's high margins?

Waethorn,

You have finally made your point.  However, what you are failing to realize, mostly because it seems like you are in denial, is that Apple does not seem to worry or care (at least as of yet) about the low priced, low margin market that the PC dominates.

I hate to use the same analogy to cars, but you are saying something similar to Porsche or Ferrari having lost customer counts because the population is growing with or without them.  The Ferrari and the Scion, for example, don't exactly compete in the same market.  Mac and ASUS netbooks don't really compete in the same market.