I use both generic PCs and laptops and Apple PCs and Apple laptops. I think either can be a good investment if you enjoy using them and find yourself productive. I, personally, do enjoy the Apple aesthetic and craftsmanship and feel (in most cases) you get excellent ROI. I use Apple for my personal machines but for my servers in the rack, Linux on hand-built machines are the way I go.

I don't have much use for the Windows OS myself right now but it seems to get people by and I would imagine is really the only choice at the moment if one is a serious PC gamer. I don't want to rock the boat, but it feels to me like Windows tries to be too many things to too many people and, as a result, can be overburdened by it. I suppose in some situations, this could be said to be a strength. Win7 and 2008/r2 do seem to be heading in the right direction but neither of the unlimited versions seem appropriately priced to me.

At the end of the day, as long as your satisfied is what matters I suppose ;)

Wow. Apple has 91% of the overpriced and over hyped market. Go figure.

Here are some everyday Mac users explaining why they use and love Macs. They don't seem snobby to me but rather everyday people that are well informed and tech savvy beyond just being able to turn a computer on: http://bit.ly/Qmo3T

If after watching that video you aren't running out to your nearest Apple store to purchase a Mac, you need your head examined... No seriously, you really do need your head examined.

Wow, that was a video full of rhetoric and anecdotal nonsense. Absolutely no persuasive value whatsoever.

Consindering the drop in PC Sales this year, the Apple Share increase in this category is expected and by no means suprising.

Worldwide pc shipments down just 6% in 2009. That more than explains Apple's 91% revenue dominance in the premium market for the month of June.
http://seekingalpha.com/...ales-seen-off-6-in-2009

__There sure is a lot of Apple-envy out there. Just get one so we won't have to listen to all that bitter, insecure Windefensive baloney. It gets tiring listening to bozos defend the bland generic Microsoft monopoly. Go have a slice of Wonderbread, think about how to make a few extra bucks, get a Mac/iPhone whatever, and buy some wholesome bread with nutrients for crying out loud. It's not so hard to free yourself from Winslavery.

"Oooh, 90% of the world use the same crappy OS as me - I'm safe now"
- your typical chickenpoop windope

It is pretty sad when people are buying Macs cause it's "high end".

I know people who compare Macs to the "BMW's" of computers and a regular PC's as a "Toyota".

I will need to get a Mac soon unfortunately, because more and more people are using Final Cut Pro instead of Avid Media Composer. But when getting a Mac Pro is $2,499.00 and the cost of adding to 8 gb is additional $250, that's a bit too much.

A PC with an AMD Phenom II Quad Core 3.0ghz, and 8gb of ram costs about $900 and can do exactly what the $2,499.00 Mac Pro can do. And it only only costs about $50 for 8gb of ram at your local computer store.

I have used iLife before and the suite, while good, is targeted more for beginners / newbies. Most of the "Pro" apps (Photoshop, Premiere, Reason, Maya) and common apps (Microsoft Office) are available on both Windows and Mac.

Cause in reality, it's more about who wants to buy and support overpriced computers.

Did you say the additional 8GB of RAM from Apple is $250? That's an absolute bargain!!! I looked at crucial.com - they usually have the best prices for RAM - and they are charging $759.99 for 8GB.

The 64-bit abilities for Windows 7 will be no match for Snow Leopard, which has a technology called Grand Central. Why is Grand Central important to you? Because developers will be able to utilize all the processors for their apps, and do so easily. Therefore, you'll get more out of the Mac Pro than you ever could with the pc running Windows with so much RAM.

Also, the apps that come with Final Cut Pro, some of them used to sell for up to $20,000. Apple bought out the software and bundled it with FCP. So, it looks like your Mac Pro is a great deal now.

"And it only only costs about $50 for 8gb of ram at your local computer store."

!!!??!??

Where the *hell* are you buying RAM at??

Until Snow Leopard is out you have no proof it will be better. The tech behind grand central sounds good on paper but how does it perform in day to day chores.

Oh, but at least in Snow Leopard if you send a file to the trash you will be able to restore it to its previous location, thats impressive!

/that's sarcasm in case you were wondering...

No, in reality, its about getting work done. There is a reason that you are being "forced" into buying a Mac to run Final Cut Pro - it's because it works better than Avid at this point.
I also find it laughable that you complain about the price point of a Mac when the cost is 1/10th the cost for Media Composer. While you pooh pooh the iLife suites, the "Pro" app that most 'pro' editors are making their living on now is Final Cut, which IS NOT available on the Windows platform.
A pro would quickly recognize that $2,000 extra that you would spend for the Mac pays for itself (with profit) on the first project - and that doesn't even include the increased efficiency. The PC is fine for weddings and birthday parties but most of the real work in the entertainment business, at least on the editing side, is being done on Macs.

Apple (as usual) is bit late to the game on this one... Windows developers have been able to utilize all processors in their applications for years. It's been controlled implictly by the operating system. However, for explict control of how an application utilizes all processors available, there is Parallels For .Net (http://msdn.microsoft.co.../magazine/cc163340.aspx) which has been around for a little over a year now. With the release of .Net 4.0, Windows developers will have even better control of processor utilization.

As usual,
iPod was a bit late to the mp3 player market.
iTunes was a bit late to the music management software market.
iPod touch and iPhone were a bit late to the intuitive touchscreen handheld market. (see htc)
iPhone was a bit late to the smartphone market.
MacBook and MacBook Pro were a bit late to the Intel processor laptop market.
iTunes Store was a bit late to the online music/movie/TV program download market.
App Store was a bit late to the handheld ebook/navigation/productivity/finance/sports/gaming/etc. applications download market.
Apple Store was a bit late to the upscale, brick-n-mortar computer/software/accessories/customer service retail market. (Microsoft not far behind on this one.)
As for bundled iLife suite (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb), no "similarly-integrated" pc equivalent for "average" pc shopper is readily available for same low (standalone) price - $79.
Apple's professional apps (Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, etc.) and Mac Pro are not targeted at the "average" consumer.

Yet all seem to be fairly profitable enterprises, although iPod is giving way to iPod touch and iPhone, and MacBook is giving way to MacBook Pro.
What's next? Netbook? Tablet? Apple TV? (Oops! Strike last comment.)

Regarding multiple processor utilization:

Multicore strategy (pro Apple)
http://lowendmac.com/ed/.../multicore-thunder.html

Multicore thunder (pro Microsoft)
http://www.infoworld.com...under-grand-central-594

"Similarly-integrated" - exhibiting same level of functional integration between iLife apps, iWork apps, Aperture, iPod touch, iPhone, iTunes, QuickTime, Mail (plus other Mac apps), and MobileMe via Mac OS X.

Inside Aperture
http://blogs.oreilly.com...ght-integration-wi.html

i'm glad that some people clarrified the actual marketshare and pointed out that. 91% of 7% is just 6%. i mean, i guess 91% makes for a much better headline than 6-7% and at that kind of share, a competitor that is selling 3x as much in volume at half the profit rate is still making 50% more money.

Apples and oranges. You're confusing REVENUE market share with UNIT market share -- two totally different markets. I'd rather have revenue over units any day. Recession or not, PC OEMs have performed miserably in premium pc market while Apple macs have shined in more ways than one -- an odd circumstance, given that both pcs and macs use the exact same components. Maybe, just maybe, good software does matter. Bottom line, how well are Apple, Microsoft, Dell, and HP stocks performing lately? Investors love apples!

6-month range
http://finance.yahoo.com...APL&c=MSFT,DELL,HPQ

5-year range
http://finance.yahoo.com...APL&c=MSFT,DELL,HPQ

Revenue Market Share:
total revenue from all pcs and macs (desktops, laptops, netbooks) sold during any given period
versus
total revenue from all pcs (desktops, laptops, netbooks) sold during any given period
versus
total revenue from all macs (desktops, laptops) sold during any given period
versus
total revenue from premium ($1000+) pcs (desktops, laptops) sold during any given period
versus
total revenue from premium ($1000+) macs (desktops, laptops) sold during any given period

Unit Market Share:
total number of pc and mac units (desktops, laptops, netbooks) shipped during any given period
versus
total number of pc units (desktops, laptops, netbooks) shipped during any given period
versus
total number of mac units (desktops, laptops) shipped during any given period
versus
total number of premium ($1000+) pc units (desktops, laptops) shipped during any given period
versus
total number of premium ($1000+) mac units (desktops, laptops) shipped during any given period

Thats monopoly. Lets get EU on the phone!!

Actually their market share went down .3% online -which is the only number that really matters to me. And lo and behold, Windows gained momentum with Windows 7 adding to the list and now Playstation 3 becoming an active web player. Mac had better watch out because the race is getting good. And I have no idea what the "unspecified" OS is on my site. Oh and here's a link to numbers too ::) Cheers.

http://blog.zeusdidit.co...s-ux-report-june-1-2009
http://blog.zeusdidit.co...ystems-report-july-2009

You're comparing number of online visitors on July 23 to number of online visitors on June 1. What is your data source? Are you comparing number of online visitors to your Web site? Are you comparing number of online visitors to some other Web site? What prevents you from revealing your data source? Revealing source and methodology would go a long ways towards establishing a modicum of credibility.
http://blog.zeusdidit.co...eporting-date-july-2009

Correction: Apple has 91% of $1,000+ PCs bought only in US brick-and-mortar retail stores!

This is a complete useless market share, because it dicards dozens of huge online sellers, like DELL, HP, Alienware, CircuitCity, Newegg and many others.

This fanboy article should explain why Apple still has less than 3% PC global market share since the nineties.

Apple sells a lot, but other PC vendors sells MUCH MORE than Apple - and they don´t need help from this kind of technically-wrong-statistics article to attract attention.

You're mistaken. NPD does count online sales from Apple and major resellers like Amazon, CDW, PC Connection, etc. A story about only brick-and-mortar sales would be pointless.

Dude...

Apple has had over 3% market share for quite a while now. Arguing against someone else's bad numbers by providing your own?

Priceless....

I completely agree with you on this one PC_Tool.

Yeah but Apple don't care about selling the most computers...they care about making the best computer experience possible, both software/hardware.

I'm a little fed up of hearing people saying Windows is better based on the fact that Microsoft has about 93% market share. There are so many factors contributing to that market share, such as government and corporate volume licenses, cheap no-name PC makers, etc.

Microsoft don't dominate because they have a better computer experience; They dominate because they have a better business model: It's called LICENSING.

Wrong. They care about margin of profit. Hence the *lack* of licensing to other vendors...it would destroy their margins.

Morsel, c'mon don't you know that McDonalds is best food provider? Look at it's market share! :-)

Now compare that to the market share of "bread"...and "hamburger"...and other things you might buy at your local grocery store...

McDonald's share is compared to other fast-food restaurants, not to all food in general.

Nice try though.

"There are so many factors contributing to that market share, such as government and corporate volume licenses, cheap no-name PC makers, etc."

Exactly why Apple can't seem to grab more of the market share. Any company out there can build both low and high end PC's targeting the Windows and Linux markets and sell them at virtually any price point they want (obviously with tons of factors playing into the price). As soon as any company tries to clone a Mac (PyStar being one of the few), Apple tries to shut them down. Were Apple to allow other companies to make Mac clones and adopt any kind of OEM licensing, their market share might actually climb into the double digits.

Apple has 91% of market for $1,000+ PCs, says NPD. Maybe true, though I have my doubts about these numbers, but take in mind that $1000 means every sale Apple has ever made. There aren't any Macs selling for less that $1000 that can actually do something that I now of.

Perhaps you might try to educate yourself before posting inaccurate information? Apple has several Macs under $1 K. There are 2 models of Mac Mini and the entry level MacBook.

Strange article. Workstations/servers? You can't even get decent CAD apps for a mac.

Stop by my office and I'll show you award winning architectural projects created entirely on macs. BIM CAD started on macs with Archicad and continues as an industry leader on both platforms.

Regarding AutoCAD, I hear sub-$300 netbooks are flying off the shelves lately. Sub-$300 netbook market share is growing at a harrowing pace and quickly overcoming all other pc market segments. Buy one. And while you're at it, run some AutoCAD or BIM CAD, or if you're not into 2D or 3D design, run some high-end games. After all, it's all about market share and netbooks will rule the pc world (domestic and global). Sorry, no macs allowed. Since smart and thrifty pc shoppers are loathe to jump into the over-$1000 pc market, and assuming that NDP's market share figures are approximately correct, high-end gaming pc market share must be miniscule indeed. Cold, hard and credible statistical data for home-built high-end gaming machines (monthly, quarterly, yearly, or otherwise) is non-existent or scant at best.

I'm totally confused. If Apple has a total market share of ~7%, then is this article saying that Macs then have 91% of that ~7 percent, the rest being their sub 1000 product OR of the entire PC sales market?

I find it extremely hard to believe that it's of the entire $1000+ PC sales market, because that would be saying that 9% of the PC sales market of computers over $1000 actually sells $1000+ PCs, in which case you'd have to wonder what hardcore gamers especially are buying, and also WHY PC makers would make so many $1000+ PCs if no big numbers were selling.

The number crunching going on seems quite suspect. Lot's of averaging but no real comparison. It can't be that difficult to find out how many PCs from any vendor has sold for $1000+ and then pin that against Apple's numbers.

Forgive me if all my numbers are off, I'm admittedly terrible at math.

no i think you're right on the money (somewhat) *runs around with his torch

i don't think his numbers add up at all lol i'm not good at math either, maybe he should of explained things a little more... that and the 1000+ means, 1000 and above... its just messed up lol

holy s*** my $2600 cdn dell laptop from over a year ago just turned into a Mac, omg wtf is happening :S

note, my dell at the time of buy, better speced than the macbook pros, figured i'd throw that in there, oh and that incluced a 4 year warranty that covers me throwing the thing at a wall...

also, since buying it, i've recently upgraded the hdd from original 250GB 7200 hdd, set me back a couple bucks (stupid canada) and added 8gb ram for cheap *shrugs.... the upgrade? took me all of 3 minutes lol, i'm serious... dare to take apart a Macbook Pro? might scratch it, along with take away hours of your life

Actually, I swapped out the HD on my MBP. And as you could guess, as a Mac user, I only have 2 or 3 neurons and lack opposable thumbs.

Who knows, maybe you could do it too?

I think a lot of the "Mac laptops can't be modified" comes from the ibook era... I remember trying to replace a bad drive in one of those a few years back...

Talk about a nightmare... *shudders*

Hated those things. Thankfully, I haven't had to work on any Macs other than desktops for a while. We have 3 MBPs here, but they have not yet required anything other than the usual software BS. The desktops on the other hand... Well, this last one seems to be doing allright. ;)

the new unibody ones are still a nightmare for your avg joe, which is what i was talkin about... i guess thats why them Apple folks bring their PC's to a store to get them fixed, i prefer fixing myself if possible

and the memory is even worse :P

Or even worse, the days of the "warrenty is void if you break this seal" sticker that basically said if you didn't take your mac to an authorized Apple repair center, it was rendered null and void. So glad those days are over!

I'm confused, this article merely reports on numbers published by NDP and puts them into context of recent events, ad campaigns, etc...
If that's not Joe's job here then for pitty's sake what exactly is? Joe, please keep up the good work airing the clean *and* dirty laundry of both Microsoft and Apple!

Maybe betanews should split content by category - for your Microsoft pandering needs click here, for your Apple worshipping go here - is that how low the betanews readership really is?

Work those numbers..

Apple propaganda.

meaningless.

Obviously not at all cognizant of the gaming market which is the vast majority of $1000+ rigs (it's a multi-billion dollar industry).

That was just one logical example.

One.

How about some hard numbers here. Compare $1000+ gaming pc market share versus $999 (& under) pc market share or non-gaming pc market share. Source and methodology would be appreciated.

You want the info, look it up yourself.

Google is your Friend.

Let me guess. You didn't find any and you expect me to find it for you. I'll give it shot. ;)

macs are for trendy teens and 20-somethings that want to look cool, and for high end graphics and video editing

windows is for anyone else that wants a productive, customizable computing experience

that being said, it is a matter of preference. macs are quality machines, but most people don't need that high quality of a machine to surf the net and use facebook (mac users that i have observed)

OSX is Unix.
Mac essentially turned there OS into a GUI for Unix/Linux.
The hardware they use is the same (high end) PC products (PC does not mean Microsoft).
User experience is defined by mac people as simply how comfortable they are on a computer. IMO, this is like a bald short guy getting a Jaguar, Hummer, Ferrari because he has a short mans complex. I have seen many noobs to Mac using windows xp in emulation. If it is so good, why would anyone do that???

With that said: If I were filming a movie, I would get a mac for Shake or Final Cut Pro. I have heard that it is better for Adobe/Macromedia suites, but I have used Flash on a PC without problems.
91% of 8.7% still isn't much, but I am glad they are in business.

the reason people run windows in emulation are numerous: some companies have intranets that require IE. there are still programs that are not available on the mac any more, like simply accounting, a full version of microsoft outlook, microsoft access (which is probably no accident - i vaguely recall the software that microsoft turned into access starting out on the mac - not sure), and others that people have to use for their job. most people i see running windows on the mac are webdesigners having to check that their sites run properly on browsers that are not standard compliant. my point is - it's not usually noobs and it's usually not by choice. however - after the switch to the intel architecture, you now CAN do it. on the powerpc architecture you could only run windows in emulation which was - although possible - dreadfully sloooow and that option got killed by microsoft when they bought virtualpc from connectix - probably no accident either.

as for flash - you're probably better off using a pc, because adobe turned the (once mac only) version of flash into buggy bloatware and i hear from flash developers that it has none of the problems in the pc side. all the programs that adobe acquired from macromedia (with the exception of final cut, which was bought by apple, have suffered on the mac side since that acquisition. it seems that adobe has abandoned the people that made them important in the first place. without apple's licensing of postscript for the laserwriter, adobe would be a footnote in software history.

as for your car analogy (why does it always come down to that :-)
it seems that you picked quality cars to use as examples. wouldn't you be rather driving a ferrari than a k-car? what if you could afford one for only a couple hundred dollars more? would you still belittle ferrari drivers?

valid reason to buy a Mac, wish they would port Final Cut over to PC... but if you think iTunes is bloated on a PC (because of poor coding) look out

min req, 8GB RAM :P would put Vista to shame 7 fold

Drag n drop between illustrator and photoshop is another big winner that the Windows version lacks.

...or was the last time I checked.

They need to fix that if they haven't already....

These analysts are idiots.

Apple's average margin in in the 35% range. If they cut the prices as much as the analysts recommend, their margins would drop to the 15-20% range overall - a sure formula for failure.

Why should Apple start chasing market share now? They're making more money than they ever have, market share is growing on a long-term trend basis, and they have better press and credibility than they've had for decades. Throwing that all away to go after consumers who are driven only by price would be downright foolish.

How do they measure this? Do they include custom built and independant PCs (which for expensive gamer type setups are pretty popular)?

This sounds a lot like how NPD measures PC game sales, which is so massively flawed that the numbers can't be taken even remotely seriously.

You "gamer" kiddies who love to piece together pre-packed components and add neon lights to your PCs vastly overestimate your market importance. Yea, there are fair number of you, but not as many as you think. Also, you don't like spending money...so you wouldn't contribute much to revenue share anyway.

lol gamers don't like spending money... alright! well, real gamers love to stay current/up to date, games and hardware wise

@ bayoubengal000

The CAL gaming league had over 500,000 registered users. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MMORPGs and add up the "Number of players" column... Gaming is a *huge* industry...utterly colossal.

Did I miss Quad-core CPU's and SLI GPU combo price drops? Because last I checked these were by *far* the most expensive parts of a PC...and who buys them? That's right.....Gamers.

Hell, GTA IV took in over $500 Million during it's first week. That's a large number of gamers...spending money.

Well, there's your clue for the day...don't waste it.

Minimal gaming pc system requirements are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...mal_system_requirements

Pentium II 500 MHz? 300MHz? 200 MHz?

High-end (quad-core) pcs are what percent of total worldwide pcs currently in use?

Here's a clue:
http://www.forrester.com...ase/0,1769,1151,00.html

A million quad-cores equals 0.1 percent of 1 billion computers.

"Pentium II 500 MHz? 300MHz? 200 MHz?"

...I'm sure GT IV runs just fine on those specs, eh?

Hey, you're catching on. ;)

Riiiight....

Because only the guys running GTA IV buy quad-cores.

yer so cute...

Not all gamers buy high-end products, hardware or software. I would guess it's no different than the population at large. Only a very small percentage of any group, even gamers, would even consider buying high-end, especially in this economy. People have better things to do with their money, like buying Apple, stock that is.
http://finance.yahoo.com...y&s=AAPL&c=MSFT

You brought up quad-cores. Are there that many quad-core pc owners? I seriously doubt it.

Out of the 1-billion+ worldwide pc user base, what minute percentage would quad-core pcs encompass (not counting corporate/government/institutional workstations and servers)?

Out of the 1-billion+ worldwide pc user base, what minute percentage would GTA IV gamers encompass?

Thanks.

You went exactly where I was hoping you would.

"Out of the 1-billion+ worldwide pc user base, what minute percentage would quad-core pcs encompass"

Just like Apple's margins are higher than most, the margins on these high-end parts are, likewise, quite high. So even at Apple's ~7% share, they get a larger share of the revenue. The *same* logic applies to the high-end parts market.

Note: in 2007, Quad-core CPU's amounted to 6-8% of it's total production. Now add two years and AMD's quad-core line.

Point being, you cannot claim Apple's numbers are relevant and ignore the home-built gaming market.

Source? Current year's shipment and sales figures would be appreciated.

Hint: Market share (revenue, units shipped) (global or domestic) for any given period (monthly, quarterly, yearly) does not equal current worldwide pc user base.

Source? Fudzilla. http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14564/1/ and http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/410/35/ (not the same as the article I read with the total production numbers, but I cannot find that atm...these are actually claiming 10-12%.)

Think about it this way:

6-8% of their CPU production (or 10-12% of market, depending) is quad. Their Core 2 Duo line takes approx. 61% (if they stuck to their production roadmap) of their production. Apple has around 7% share....7% of 61% is less than 6-8% of 100%.

Even accounting for the few MBP's out there that are now shipping with quad-core, we're still not accounting for AMD quads.

The numbers ain't exact and were based on forecasts, but it's largely irrelevant to the main point. There's plenty of evidence that home-built gamers not only match Apple for share, but possibly (factoring in AMD), beat it.

bayoubengal000 wants to completely dismiss this market as irrelevant when their impact on it is arguably more than that of Apple. Gamers push the tech. GPU/CPU/RAM...OCZ, NVIDA, ATI..all market and *heavily* to these folks (not to mention developing new, faster, better parts). ...and you don't think there's a market there?

Let me know the next time you see a GPU on the shelf advertising it's performance in Mac OS X instead of Crysis. ;)

You're still not showing how many of theses quad-cores are actually targeted at the gaming pc market whose minimum system requirements list Pentium IIs and Pentium IIIs? Certainly not anywhere near the 10%-12% of CPUs shipped. Many of these quad-cores are likely headed for workstations and servers (domestic and international corporate/government/education/research facilities who are generally best able to afford them).

With the latest-generation Core i7 CPUs (2% of all Intel CPUs shipped) selling for $250 and the top one selling for $999 (according to your quoted fudzilla article), I would guess that average consumers (by far the vast majority of pc shoppers), would not be the intended target market. Granted, high-end pc gamers (a very small subset of the entire gaming population worldwide), are the ones most likely to push the envelope when it comes to building high-end machines, incorporating the latest in state-of-art (overclockable) CPUs, GPUs, chipsets, motherboards, graphics cards, memory (DDR3), power supplies, cooling systems, cases, and high-performance, wide-screen LED monitors, etc., none of which comes cheap, not to mention the added cost of acquiring high-performance, multi-core-optimized gaming software.

Would any "true" hard-core, home-built gaming pc enthusiast even consider buying off-the-shelf "premium-priced" "high-end" gaming machines from any of the established pc OEMs like Dell (http://www.alienware.com/), HP (http://www.voodoopc.com/), Falcon Northwest (http://www.falcon-nw.com/), Velocity Micro (http://www.velocitymicro.com/), etc. Probably not. (It's certainly not reflected in the latest pc "revenue" market share figures.) Would your average consumer? Again, probably not, especially in a down economy.

Reliable statistical data for home-built, high-end gaming pcs built over any given period (monthly, quarter, yearly) is still non-existant. I'm not, by any stretch, dismissing the importance of the high-end gaming pc market in pushing computer technology forward. On the other hand, you can't dismiss the importance of multi-core CPU usage in private and public research facilities the world over. See list: http://www.top500.org/lists/2009/06.

Apple, in terms of hardware and software, is mainly consumer-oriented with added appeal in graphics design work, and its marketing strategy has proven to be successful even in a down economy. How well did Microsoft do in its latest quarterly report? (http://online.wsj.com/ar...CO-20090724-710067.html)

Intel and AMD cater to consumers, corporations (like Dell, HP and Apple in Intel's case), private institutions, and governments. Big difference.

Obviously, home-built, gaming pc enthusiasts save lots by building their own systems, but no one can deny that these (mostly) customizable production systems are indeed nice for those who can afford them!

Velocity Micro Raptor Signature Edition (starting @ $4,299)
http://www.velocitymicro.com/wizard.php?iid=75

Dell's Alienware ALX X58 (starting @ $3,699)
http://www.alienware.com...ts/alx-x58-desktop.aspx

Falcon Northwest Mach V (starting @ $1,756 w/AMD CPU)
http://www.falcon-nw.com/ConfiguratorFX/

VoodooPC HP Firebird (starting @ $1,649)
http://www.shopping.hp.c.../firebird/1/storefronts

"You're still not showing how many of theses quad-cores are actually targeted at the gaming pc market whose minimum system requirements list Pentium IIs and Pentium IIIs?"

You're citing a Wikipedia article... Seriously?

Read post above.

It's about profitability not market share. Microsoft and the PC industry are cannibalizing each other at the low end. Microsoft doesn't care because they still get their windows license fee paid. Look at Dells current financials. They did not meet expectations. They are hurting at the price points where they make a profit. Sure netbooks are selling but the margins are absolutely razor thin. Apple is playing this one very smartly. Consumers will get hurt at the low end of the price spectrum. If you want a decent PC today you need to be spending 1000+ dollars to get it. Cheaping out doesn't help anyone but microsoft. Go Apple.

I couldn't agree more.

[Moved]

Let's see....

91% of 7% of the market is what...?

*laughing*

I agree with you artfuldodga, there should be a way to mod articles...perhaps we could -4 these things right off the bat.

So you agree with artfuldodga that the article is flamebait, but you make multiple responses. He made a couple himself.

Then you complete distort the numbers to come up with your 91% of 7% analysis.

I'm not *laughing*, I'm just shaking my head.

They are also not taking into account the fact that many people build their own PC when they get one for over $1000. Face it--office PCs and basic home use PCs cost less than $1,000. The only time one would need to buy $1,000 PCs is the high end--and many of us build them. Exceptions are when you need high-end graphics workstations in a business environment.

@infodave:

Calling the article flamebait does not preclude me from responding to idiots. (Hence this response...)

Show me the distortion. Apple has around a 7% total market share right now. They have 91% of the over-$1000 off-the shelf market.

...do the math?

By your own admission Apple has 7% market share. NPD says the have 91% of the PC's that cost over $1000. Two different stats that don't mix. They have 100% of the 7% market share you say they have, not 91% of 7%.

And as long as you started the name calling, you're obtuse (I was a math major).

Here's what I'm trying to wrap my head around: I'm reading what are supposed to be defenses of the major premise of this article, making the point that "It's not about market share" or "Apple was never about market share" in defense of an article...that's about market share. That says Apple has some kind of market share lead!

Assuming there are some accurate and viable points here, though, I'm willing to concede the point that Apple's strategy is to make high margins, and justify those margins by marketing its machines as premium products. But:

1) Duh. That's what Apple's always done, and if Apple's fine with a big slice of a smaller pie rather than a small slice of a bigger pie, then so am I (it's just not my flavor of pie, thank you very much);

2) 6.37%, or thereabouts, for those who don't have a calculator;

3) I think Betanews readers are rational and justified, and not necessarily anyone's "fanboi" or "fangyrl," when they raise red flags over an argument that seems to be saying that if you close one eye, stick a red filter over the other eye, and squint really tightly, then the picture looks bright and shiny;

4) This threatens Microsoft...how, again?

-SF "If You Squint Really Tightly, You Can Almost Make Out the Ghost of Adam Osborne" 3

The stats don't mix?

Funny.

Apple has 7% total market, and 91% of the premium. So...how *big* is the premium market?

Well, Apple actually does sell one computer product under $1000, so it's not their entire 7%, now is it?

Right....under 7%.

It's all about perspective. 91% sounds great, infodave, but it's meaningless considering that the 91% makes up less than 7% of the total PC market.

Perhaps your teachers took pity on you?

Wow, this just mean people are paying waaay too much for a computer. The only reason people would spend that amount on a PC is because they think it is a status symbol. There is nothing that a Mac can do that my PC cannot do. I challenge anyone who has a Mac to tell me otherwise. I have had my Vista PC since Vista came out and I have NEVER had a problem with it. My PC does everything I want, play games, edit videos, create MP3s, create DVDs, manage my business. And it did not cost me much at all. Plus since I built it myself, I can upgrade it for cheap when I want to go faster and/or have more memory, etc. I don't have to sell it or throw it out to get another $1,000+ PC.

You have obviously never used a Mac. Once you go Mac, you never go back.

vincentw56, I don't think anyone is saying a Mac can do something that PC can't. A lot of us who buy Macs buy it because of the following qualities that are not usually evident in PCs
• for the user experience
• for the ease of use
• for the integration and interoperability between software (which while exists in Windows PC machines, is usually clunky)
• for the ease of the OS system which often doesn't require tinkering (on a PC you usually do have to tinker)
• for the design and quality of Mac products
• for the way that Mac hardware products interoperate with each other and mesh together for an ecosystem which usually in the PC world because you're buying bits and pieces from different manufacturers doesn't operate as well together.

If you don't care for any of these, then go for the PC.

I am a long time PC user who switched to a MacBook Pro ~ two years ago. People buy computers and software because they want to do useful/fun stuff. Windows has far more native applications than MAC has. I could not make the move before the rise of virtual machine technology because I need the Windows applications for my engineering consulting business. VMware Fusion (and Parallels etc.) make the switch feasible. The MAC operating system is Unix and rock stable with far fewer virus/malware etc problems. I did have to immediately get antivirus software for the Windows virtual machine but have never needed it on the MAC side.

I would prefer native MAC applications for everything but that is not realistic in the short term. At least now, when I get a blue screen of death, I can shut down and restart the Windows virtual machine rather than rebooting the computer. I regard the MAC as superior technology (hardware and software) and more reliable. I have never regretted the switch. You are certainly correct that you can do anything with your PC that can be done with a MAC. I am looking forward to Windows 7 so I can upgrade my virtual machine to it. I am currently running XP x64 and have avoided Vista based on a variety of issues experienced by others who are running it on regular PCs. I have the Windows 7 x64 release candidate running in a second virtual machine and it is working well.

It seems that you are one of those people who live by low standards. Others live by high standards. That's why there are PC's and Macs. Just like there's a difference between the poor and the rich. The rich can buy the same stuff as the poor and keep more money in the bank, but they just won't do that. It makes them look "poor". So the rich just buy Macs, so they can do everything the poor people can run (like Windows and Linux) and run Mac programs which the poor can't! So you have done a lot of work into building a PC (cost per hour?) and all that work is in vain because you cannot even run a single Mac program. And there are thousands of them available!

>There is nothing that a Mac can do that my PC cannot do.
>I challenge anyone who has a Mac to tell me otherwise.

ok. How about get my work done with annoying me constantly with little balloons in the bottom right corner? How about not requiring antivirus software? How about allowing me to browse the web with worrying about the ActiveX security hole du-jour? How about not bugging me with "your content has been disabled by the security manager...click here to enable it" dialogs. How about routinely going for months between restarts? How about not having to worry about the system sneaking in software updates behind my back?

I use both systems professionally. I often am amused by the nonsense Windows users have to put up with that Mac users don't have to suffer through.

They are worth the little extra money.

i don't think any reasonable person would state that there are things only a mac can do. maybe 20 years ago, but certainly not now. the funny thing is - that argument usually went the other way round...

i also don't think that you fall into the mass-majority of computer buyers. you built your own pc - kudos! - but most people don't. i certainly couldn't built one, but also have no interest in it. i'm curious how much time you spent on it and what your time is worth. would the savings still be there? if the perfect computer is the end result of a 'hobby' (probably not the right word, i mean something that you're into doing) then you're one of the lucky ones that combine their interest with something that they can actually use professionally.

i suppose you could build the perfect hackintosh too, but for people that need a mac as a tool to do a job, paying a little more for something they doesn't require in-depth knowledge of its inner workings is probably a no-brainer trade off.

there is also the issue of resale value. macs have historically kept their value longer than comparable pc offerings, so it's not impossible to recover at least some of the initial cost when you upgrade to a newer machine. most mac users also use their computers longer than the average pc users, so the cost overall can actually be lower. your mileage my vary...

"Once you go Mac, you never go back" You MUST go back to your Apple dealer and replace your Nubus, SCSI, pre-Intel ... Etc- just to have a computer that you can update. And Apple sells a gazillion more computers than Microsoft(who sells none). Let's count OS sales and those profit margins when comparing Microsoft to any one else.

"There is nothing that a Mac can do that my PC cannot do. I challenge anyone who has a Mac to tell me otherwise."

@vincentw56:
1) as of now there are no known viruses for the mac, so one thing my mac can do that your pc can't is NOT get infected by a virus.
2) your windows pc cannot run both native mac and windows applications, my mac can.

that's just two things a mac can do that your pc can't.... you fail.

Yes, there are known viruses, PC can run both native if you *HACK* OSX. How is apple locking their software Microsoft's fault?

Again, You can't do anything on a Mac that I can't do on a PC. Better do some research before you "fail" an educated user.

"2) your windows pc cannot run both native mac and windows applications, my mac can."

....and there goes #1 (which was BS anyway, but...nice way to contradict your own points)

Nachh, We are being forced to learn Mac while in Uni. and you know what, I still go back to PC. So this statement definitely not true :P.

"There is nothing that a Mac can do that my PC cannot do."

One very significant thing a Mac can do that your PC can't do, is connect to the net, go anywhere the user wants, read & open all emails, etc., WITHOUT needing a resource-robbing anti-virus program running 24/7 to keep it from getting owned.

And before you go quoting some anti-virus vendor's own numbers about the number of "vulnerabilities" they say are present on a Mac, you need to tell us the number of actual "exploits" that are out there in the wild (hint: zero).

Not having to worry about getting your Mac owned by someone in Bulgaria is, to most people, worth at least a couple hundred (what most people pay for anti-virus stuff on a PC over its lifetime anyway).

"My PC does everything I want, play games, edit videos, create MP3s, create DVDs, manage my business."

I'm sure it does and I'm sure you're happy with it. But if you could only spend a month on a Mac you'll discover that doing all these things on a Mac is so much easier and enjoyable, and with far fewer hiccups and frustrating snags. You probably don't even realize you experience these kinds of things on your PC until you drive something that doesn't have them.

I have a Mac and a PC. They're both one and the same machine. If I need to run something that is only available on the PC (one program, Codewarrior), poof, there it is on my 2nd monitor. While the Mac software runs on the primary screen. Best of both worlds. Two computers for the price of one. I don't see how a person can not justify a $1200 Mac (24" iMac).

@wingsy:

iLife. Remember that little warez download that infected all those Macs? Dismiss it because it's "warez"...but where do you think most PC viruses come from?

Resource robbing? MSE: 4% CPU usage, 24MB RAM...whens canning. Just over 2MB and 0CPU when idle.

I've been playing games (Crysis, Grid), editing videos(Windows Movie Maker), ripping MP3's(WinAMP), and DVD's(ShrinkDVD) for years without problems in Windows. Quite easile and enjoyably, too.

The Mac *IS* a PC. Only you have to run 2 OSes on yours instead of one.

I can run Final Cut Pro and Shake on my Mac. Enough said.... however Windows can run things my Mac can't, and that's viruses.

Not to mention the fact, that many Mac users purchase Windows too... I think this article reflects computers sold with the operating system, regardless of manufacturer. That would mean the high-end "built it myself" gaming market cant be included since they purchase their machines (parts) separately from the operating system.

You can run just windows on Mactel hardware, for what reason I dunno. OSX is such a joy to use and much less frustrating than Windows.
Oh and BTW, I run just one OS on mine... OSX

"Only you have to run 2 OSes on yours instead of one."

"You can run just windows on Mactel hardware"

You're still paying for 2 OSes...

"Oh and BTW, I run just one OS on mine... OSX"

Good for you?

That's not true at all... I know plenty of people who either started out on Macs, or started using them recently and then switched back to PCs (I being one of the ones who went Mac for about 6 months).

How about all the users that "went Mac" but could not find or run the software that was required to do their job or hobby?

Bottom line is that if you are going to make a blanket statement, at least have *something* to back up your statement.

"ok. How about get my work done with annoying me constantly with little balloons in the bottom right corner?"

I can move my taskbar to the top of the screen.. ;-) (I can also disable 90% of all notifications).

"How about not requiring antivirus software?"
That is just stupidity... OSX is Unix based, even Unix is susceptible to viruses and spyware. Your lack of running antivirius just shows how much of a sheep you really are...

"How about allowing me to browse the web with worrying about the ActiveX security hole du-jour?"

Wow, Let's see, Firefox, Opera, Chrome... Oh yeah, at least 2 out of those 3 are being used on OSX... If OSX is so superior, why do those browsers still continue to dominate over Safari?

"How about not bugging me with "your content has been disabled by the security manager...click here to enable it" dialogs."

Huh?

"How about routinely going for months between restarts?"
Interesting, both my Win7 machine and my XP machine can go months without a restart. The only time I HAVE to restart is for a critical software update. What's interesting, is that while OSX has fewer critical updates, it does require a reboot about 80% of the time.

"How about not having to worry about the system sneaking in software updates behind my back?"

Have you ever heard of turning off Automatic Updates?

I truly find it amazing how many people believe that OSX is invulnerable to viruses and malware.

"All successful, and most plausible, malware attacks on Mac OS X have occurred in the last 2 years with the last quarter of 2007 being particularly prolific. Market penetration and overall sales of the Mac OS X system have directly mirrored development of malware, a phenomenon also demonstrated with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows. Based on this data there is no reason to believe the trend will not continue as Apple continues to increase their market share." (http://www.macforensicsl...=11&products_id=174)

"Most Mac users take security too lightly. In fact, most are quite proud of the fact that they don't run any security at all," Christiansen said. "That's an open door; at some point it will be exploited." (http://www.macnn.com/art...c.os.x.a.growing.target/)

Seriously... if you have experience with computers in general, you should KNOW that no system, no matter the hardware, software, or operating system is impervious to both malware and virus attacks.

Now, so far in this article alone, I count more than 4 posts where OSX users are proudly announcing that they are not running any type of anti-virus/anti-malware. Sheep... I swear... And people wonder why attacks continue to be on the rise for all operating systems across the board.

The comments so far are missing an important point. Apple is taking a great deal of the hardware profits. Apple has traditionally made 30-35% margin on Mac. It's probably a bit less now, with the recent price cuts in laptops. HP, Dell, Acer, et. al. are making much less per machine. They all make low end machines with a low margin, sometimes a loss leader, with the hopes of enticing people to buy a more expensive machine. They're selling the cheap machines, but anybody with money is buying a Mac.

Anybody who has followed Joe knows that he has been on both sides of the Mac vs. PC argument. Since coming to betanews he has been called an Apple fanboi and anti Microsoft in response to most all of his writings. In this article he is presenting third-party market research, and suggesting that perhaps some meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Don't shoot the messenger.

And if all you Microsoft fanbois really want to get you panties in a twist, consider this. Apple is making a 55% profit on the iPhone. Apple and RIM together have 5% of the cell phone market, but garner 30-35% of the profits. They have a much a much bigger portion of the smartphone market. Windows Mobile is hardly mentioned in the smartphone wars. And it is the only OS Microsoft has that will run on an ARM chip. And Microsoft is neglecting Mobile. You can take the shades off for a while, the future ain't all that bright.

So you are saying, Apple is over-charging for their PCs and devices. Big surprise there.

No, what I'm saying is that the rest of the industry is doing a crash and burn. Netbooks are the new price point to compete with.

I agree with you.

Apple generally would not put out a product in the extreme low end because it probably doesn't want to tarnish the Apple design and Apple experience (or Mac design and Mac experience). You know what I mean? It doesn't want to put out a shoddy product just because to gain market share.

APPLE IS NOT ABOUT GAINING THE LARGEST MARKET SHARE POSSIBLE.

If the above is your principle for running a company, then Apple certainly has failed. But that's not Apple's goals. It never really was, as far as I could tell. Gaining the largest market share possible is generally how a lot of other companies, especially Microsoft, runs.

It means they have an effective business model.

The Netbooks are a 'disruptive technology'. People like Asus looked for a way into an established market and were able to do something different and at a much lower price-point. The results we're seeing in Dell's financial results, and attempts to compete with netbooks, are typical of what happens with disruptive technologies; and the established players almost never manage to survive, at least in that business (PCs, in this case).

Apple have managed to avoid the race to the bottom, so far. They have a niche product, aimed at people for whom price isn't that big a deal, and all the advantages mentioned in the article. Their prices are only dropping in line with historical PC averages. Their margins may sound big, but those are actually around what most businesses aim for (28% is fairly standard) with any venture they take on.

Apple's problem could come when the quality and style of netbooks improves, and they start to move up the chain (another standard progression for disruptive technologies). I can't imagine very many parents paying 2-3x more for their grade schooler's laptop if they know the cheaper one will be durable enough. There is also the style factor; with low costs and nimble supply chains (sorry Dell), the netbook makers are already coming up with some cool ideas, and that will appeal to a lot of Apple's market.

Every apple owner knows Apple charges more for the hardware, but it's not all about hardware. Since Apple makes the hardware and the software, Apple owners need only run software update to keep everything up to date... no visiting manufacturer sites searching to the right drivers, etc. Also Applecare is the best support in the business.

Two words: Unit shipments.

Okay, more than two words:

According to IDC's Quarterly PC tracker, unit shipments of Macs for Q2 2009 fell by just under 13% over the prior year, from 1.39 million to 1.21 million units. All right, these aren't NPD's numbers, and they're certainly not Apple's (2.6)?

Now, the average volume shipment decline among manufacturers everyplace in the IT sector for Q2 is about 13%, so Apple's drop is right in there with the rest. But in a bad economy, ASP is declining everywhere, so it only stands to reason that the manufacturer with the highest ASP gets the biggest share of the premium market. It's not Apple conquering anything; it's just the rest of the world abandoning Apple to its own premium molehill.

You can stick a flag atop that molehill if you want, but I doubt it looks all that good. It'd be like Microsoft claiming 100% market share of monolithic PC operating systems over $100 MSRP.

-SF "Knows Something About Sticking Flags Atop Molehills" 3

FINALLY! Someone brings up VOLUME.

If only 10 units are sold, then capturing 90% of the market isn't that big a deal. I mean, congratulations, Apple, but seriously. If all you sell (computer-wise) are +$1000 computers, then you'd BETTER have the majority of that market. Otherwise, why bother? Keep a hold on that market segment with all your strength ... as you morph into a cell phone/toy manufacturer, you're going to need those profit margins.

Actually, Apple makes more of the iPhone than it does off the Macs (55% vs. 30-35%).

And probably 99% for computers in the price range of the Mac Pro.

Not so. Mac Pros are tower servers and workstations more than PCs. There is much greater competition here.

What a stupid article. It's like saying Lockheed Martin has 90% of fighter aircraft sales for aircraft over $30B each or Ferrari has 90% of car sales over $900,000 each - who cares if the product you are selling puts you in the highest price category

Because the high price category is where most profit is made. That is what the article is saying. Got it? ;-)

In other words, where you find the most profitable business (not according to me, but according to the article) is at the high price category and not the low-end price category.

That's why, according to the article, it matters.

Macs may actually be cheaper computers if you're not into pirating software... The stuff that's built-in on Macs is "good enough" for most users. However, since I'm heavily into piracy, I'll probably NEVER buy a Mac, since my fully-loaded-with-warez PC is 100x better than 90% of the Macs out there... There are numerous pieces of very cool software that's only available for Windows...hence fully-warez'ed Mac vs. fully-warez'ed PC will always yield a PC winner...

"Macs may actually be cheaper computers if you're not into pirating software... The stuff that's built-in on Macs is "good enough" for most users."

...or you could use the free suites out there to get the functionality... ;)

Thing is, a Mac can also run all the software that your PC can ;-) You forgot that Macs also use Intel chips?

....with a windows license. ;)

(which brings you back to the 35% margins of Apple vs. the lower margins pretty much everywhere else)

Mmm ... only if it is platform-independent, which, AFAIK is near 0% in the Windows arena. Have you tried running, oh, any number of "Windows-only" applications/games on your Mac, teab? You would immediately realize that your statement is far from correct. There are literally hundreds of thousands of "Windows-only" applications out there ... many are even version-specific. The processor matters very little, compared to the installed codebase. (i.e. Win32 != Posix)

that's a good point actually. Most Mac users even own legitimate licenses to non-Apple software for the Mac, such as Adobe Creative suite. I spend more for CS3 than I did for my computer.

I think Teab was referring to Boot Camp, which allows windows to be installed on a mac, this isn't emulation at all, it only allows a windows partition and handles a bootstrap for it. So essentially, a mac -can- run anything a PC can + OSX and all it's applications.

OK...last time.

They are *both* PC's. One runs windows, and one runs OSX *and* Windows. Now, if you need OSX, this is great. If oyu don't, what's the point of the extra $$$ for the hardware and 2nd OS?

Lol at you. 'PC's are for people on wellfare and third world countries'. F**k off.
Check out the Apple store. The cheapest thing you can get is a mac mini at £699 before tax. Haha... hahahahaha.
If you want a mac that can actually do something other than count peas, you're talking £2000+. So realisitically, if you actually buy a mac, there's very little chance you WON'T spend £1000. So those stats are great!
Looking at the spec of said 'mac pro'; it's worse than the PC I built a year ago for around £600 (I'm English), so around $900. Today, I could build a better PC for less, and still have change to buy a secondhand e-mac to piss on.
If you're such a retard to think macs are that much better because the OS is well written, continue to think that and live your life in the clouds.
All the hardware is now bas****ised PC hardware that you can't really customise.
Get a mac; get an overpriced PC with what they want you to have inside.
Get a PC; get what you want, and get what you pay for.

Window 7 will change the way of everything, cuz it's actually really, really great!

Hardware is only one aspect of the computing world. For the people who don't have a handy computer-geek available FOR FREE, a Mac may be a cheaper overall solution just because of less viruses (nobody bothering to write malware there) and less overall maintenance...

However Macs are not perfect..and the same dumb people who have deserted the PC world cuz they installed some free game that piggybacked some malware which cost them hundreds of $ to repair and dozens of hours lost, well those people will have Macs disappoint them sooner or later, with vast numbers coming back home -- to the PC world... Whether or not they'll be willing to accept it first, reality will keep hitting them in the face that Windows 7 (or 8..or whatever) is a much better value and no longer a pain like XP/Vista was for them (I personally think those were awesome OSs..but I'm very knowledgable).

"If you want a mac that can actually do something other than count peas, you're talking £2000+"

Huh? That is like 2900 USD mate. unlike the cheapo cloner Windows machines, the low end Macs actually are fully capable machines which is why those Laptop Hunters are so hilariously horrible now aren't they?

"unlike the cheapo cloner Windows machines, the low end Macs actually are fully capable machines which is why those Laptop Hunters are so hilariously horrible now aren't they?"

Funny how my HP laptop from 2003 is running Windows 7 just fine right now....seems pretty capable to me. How's that iBook from 2003 doing? Bet mine was cheaper. :)

I don't have an iBook from 2003 so i can not tell you. Sure, i bet your $4000 HP laptop from 2003 is running the bloated Windows 7 just fine.

Heh..

I paid $75 for it a year ago. It's original cost was around $650-$850 (depending on rebates). It was also apparently a 2005 model...but again, compare that with a 2005 iBook. :) (oh, that's right, the iBook was PPC only...guess you're out of luck!)

Funny as hell how you have to rationalize anything that even comes close to contradicting your BS with....you guessed it...more BS.

my son's 2005 ibook runs leopard just fine. and i'm sure he'd get a lot more than $75 bucks for it even now.

i'm sure he would get a fair buck for it, but why? because of the Apple branding lol ... Mac's somehow have better resale value, yeah... to other Mac fans, try selling to anyone else with half a brain and they'll look at your son like hes some kind of moron...

but hey as the saying goes there's a sucker born every minute by your comment must of been your case

just saying... its hard to believe you aren't a little mind numbingly thick skulled

i admit, today (past couple years) they may have a little resale value because of exterior... even thats debatable , comes down to your own tastes at that point...

and folks that buy PC's because of looks, well, you know which camp they can go play in lol

@Tofino

Mine runs Win7. Good luck getting Snow Leopard on the iBook. :)

I think PC is talking about Snow Leopard since that is the next version of OSX--- likewise Windows 7 is the new version of Windows. Your son's ibook will not be running snow leopard - which is dropping ppc support - http://itnerd.wordpress....port-some-fanbois-freak/

I want to see photos of the better machines you built with 8-core xeons. I've priced it out and I cannot build a better machine than a Mac Pro without spending at least $1000 more.

I sold my iBook from 2003 for $600 recently, he didn't even haggle.... What would you get for your 2003 PC Laptop?

Why would I sell it? It still runs great, even the latest OS.

You can't say that about the iBook, can ya?

So much ignorant people out there paying that Apple tax for crap

Ugh, a PC is a Mac the difference is what OS it runs. The same parts work on a Apple PC (see what I did there) as a Wintel Box. The other difference is Apple uses TPM to prevent hardware not approved by Apple from working and EFi instead of bios.

Here's a reason the author apparently didn't think of:

Let's say I want to buy a PC:
Sure, I'll buy one. But there's no way in hell I'd ever spend > $1000 for one in the year 2009!

Now let's say I need to buy a Mac for some reason:
I'm going to pay as little as possible, which unfortunately is $999 before tax (> $1000 after tax).
I curse, cry, throw a fit, and ultimately die a little inside. I wonder why I'm so unlucky to need such and expensive computer.

Now, if everyone is like me, 100% of computers > $1000 (after tax) are Macs! 100%! Holy crap! Apple must be onto something, right? Right?

No, of course not. In this example, Apple acted retarded, but had high marketshare nonetheless.

Heh..

You guys are such a cute couple!

I think internetworld7 + fatty are the same person ;-)

Every time I start to compare laptop computers, I start with display resolution and graphics hardware and then, I have to stop because the equivalent machines have prices in line with Apple's machines and for that price, I'm not going to be using Windows.

If you want a poor display and poor graphics performance, you can find any number of machines in the Windows world and most people wouldn't care because they have no clue. My 2005 Apple PowerBook has a higher resolution than those 15.4 inch Windows laptop computers of 2009.

Apple Tax Rebate

It's good to know that consumers are smarter than to be had by the upfront cost alone which is one of the least important factors. Joe is dead on. You guys below really are a jealous sorry senseless lot.

Join Windoze Anonymous and cure yourself of Windoze Hypnotardia.

i was expecting more meat in the article, such as:

what percentage of the overall market "over $1000" is.
what percentage of the overall market apple has.
what percentage of the overall market other manufacturers have.

i mean, with the sales in a vacuum, anyone can say any kind of crap.

sony has 90% of the market for $400 videogame consoles.
what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

Heh - you guys reckon they're overpriced in the US? Not only do they have the usual premium over Windows PCs in Australia, they also have an extra 30-50% import tax added, for no obvious reason. The cheapest Macbook is $1600 (the 999USD one). Exchange rate is 0.80USD.... so where does the extra $350 tax come in? :p

I'd love a Mac, because I like how they just work. I loved putting OS X on my eeePC. But I'd never buy one, because I could buy 2 PCs for the same price.

pretty interesting how the article doesnt mention that, with the exception of a few 13" macbook models, every apple laptop costs at least $1600 - before tax.

makes you wonder why the article isnt titled something like "Apple has 85% of market share for $1600+ PCs".........

or over here in canada, Apple captures 91% market share for $3300 laptops lol, they can keep that market

Is this guy an idiot... Or is he living in a bubble? Windows xp was a great operating system... Vista was even better.... and now Windows 7 is looking to continue the tradition of sweeping Apple under the carpet. The only people who are willing to pay all that extra money for the "apple tax" are kids with rich, lawyer daddys who get them off the hook everytime they date rape some girl and dump her body in the ocean ;)

just... nobody respond to this rubbish flame bait, agree? respond below me ... maybe we can boycott Joe off the internet, or at least betanews

I was hoping that BetaNews wouldn't be infested with a Apple Juice addict/fanboy and unfortunately it has happened. It's sad that such a great website is going downhill. I mean as much as i want to reason with your argument i can't cause i see the fanboism all over! geezus please get rid of this guy.

If you were to compare specs wise and performance, any computer that you compare in the 700 dollar range with a 1000 dollar mac comes with more memory, better performance and more diskspace. So yeah you could say they have the premium market because their laptops don't cost less thank 1,000 bucks so pretty much all they sell is overpriced laptops.

No, it doesn't come down to that I'm afraid. You're neglecting factors like graphics performance, battery life, weight, quality of the screen, and - of course - the operating system.

When you compared Apple's to, well, oranges, the oranges win. When you compare them to Windows machines with equivalent weight, battery life, and so on it's much closer. There's still a "Mac tax" - and if you prefer Windows, it's fine not to pay it! Windows is fine, particular 7 which I like a lot. But for a lot of people, the tax is worth paying.

The point that Joe is making is simply that for shoppers who aren't price sensitive, Macs are the most popular choice. He backs that up with facts - I don't see any fanboyisms here.

The aspect of Mac's (specifically Mac OSX) that I can't stand, and thus refuse to use - no matter how grand it is : The Steve Jobs way or the highway. The underlying core of OSX is BSD which is basically *nix - one of the most open-ended systems to be found. Yet OSX is one of the most closed systems to be found. And the proprietary lock-in with Apple is worse than even Microsoft or Adobe or the like. With windows or linux theres usually at least a handful of ways to go about getting a certain task done, and with OSX - generally 1.

If you actually follow the OSX releases and the detailed reviews on ArsTechnica - OSX releases include lots of interesting updates and features... but it also tends to change the inherent behaviour of previously existing features. Now since theres really only _1_ way to go about doing a given task in OSX, then when the behaviour of something like the Dock is significantly changed between Tiger and Leopard - and if you prefer the old behaviour then your only option is don't upgrade. Which isn't much of an option.

This kind of treatment of its users in Windows or Linux land would not be tolerated. I'm a geek, and I want to use my hardware and software how _I_ want to use it. Windows and Linux gives me that freedom and Mac does not. Further, Apple will generally charge me more money to "allow" me to do things the Apple/Steve Jobs way.

Have you actually used a Mac for longer than say several minutes? Your comments imply to me that you haven't. There isn't only one way to execute something, there are many ways.

Instead of relying on old myths like "It's either Job's way or the highway", you might consider using a Mac for say a week or even two weeks and see if you are butting heads with your own adopted myths about the Mac or if what you think actually has substance to it.

I was hoping that BetaNews wouldn't be infested with a Apple Juice addict/fanboy and unfortunately it has happened. It's sad that such a great website is going downhill. I mean as much as i want to reason with your argument i can't cause i see the fanboism all over! geezus please get rid of this guy.

If you were to compare specs wise and performance, any computer that you compare in the 700 dollar range with a 1000 dollar mac comes with more memory, better performance and more diskspace. So yeah you could say they have the premium market because their laptops don't cost less thank 1,000 bucks so pretty much all they sell is overpriced laptops.

Funny, most discussion I've read about the Laptop Hunter ads from non-mac-fanboys indicate they are generally successful/good. Personally I prefer the "I'm a PC" ads with the really young kids making movies or mailing pictures. Only time will tell, and as the recession diminishes the numbers for next year will be a bit more relevant. Microsoft obviously had to do something, and the Laptop Hunter ads are a good start, as is Windows 7 - which should mostly abolish the bad Vista press.

i heard the same thing, weird...

If you look at the graphics cards, motherboards, memory speed, screen type, etc, you will usually end up closer to a 15% price difference, and sometimes none. You also have to move up into the high end Windows systems to get the durability of Mac laptops, so it gets closer. Panasonic, Lenovo and Sony all make some really great laptops, but they will cost you about the same as a similar spec Mac.

As Joe mentioned in the post, there are a variety of reasons why some people are very happy to pay that extra 5-30%. For other people, either will do everything they need, and price is very important, so Window's are right for them. And for others, the advantages of Windows systems are important.

The point in this commentary, however, is that being in that premium segment is where the most profit is, and Apple is doing very well there. It is a good business position to be in. Microsoft's current position is a bit less secure, since they are in most of the low-margin machines and less of the high-margin ones. IT IS BUSINESS - not a popularity contest.

There is very little details about this so-called report from NPD.

Apple sold 2.6M computers in Q3. 2.6M x 1400$ (ASP) = 3.64B$.

Using NPD numbers, this 3.64B$ is 90% of the total gross revenu of the sales of 1000$+ computers. So total gross revenu of 1000$+ computer would be 4.044B$.

Now assuming the ASP of non-Mac PCs costing more than 999$ is 1000$, that would mean *all* PC manufacturers have only sold ~4.04M PCs costing 1000$+, per quarter. (If we have used an higher ASP for non-Mac PCs costing more than 999$, we would have an even lower number of units sold per quarter.)

Now, according to this article:

http://www.electronista....7/15/idc.prelim.q2.2009/

the total computers shipment worldwide in the Q2 was 66M units. Minus, say, 3M Macs and you have 63M PCs sold worldwide. Out of total 63M units, only 4M units were priced at 1000$+? Worldwide???

That doesn't make sense at all.

Again, that there are lots of unknowns about this "report". But Apple fanboys and the tech media (Apple stories make money) are feeding on it no questions asked.

CORRECTION: I made a huge mistake in my calculations. Actually, only 10% (according to NPD) of the 4.044B$ were from sales of non-Mac PCs costing 1000$+. So, you get an even more ridiculous number of units of non-Mac PCs costing 1000$+ sold worldwide -> 400K units. LOL.

What I really don't understand is why windows users even care you have 80 or 90 percent(not sure of the exact number) of the market share why do you care what Apple does? I don't even know why the laptop Hunters commercials are even necessary. If apple can carve out a niche for themselves why does it matter or does microsoft have to be the OS? So people have other options, we could argue Windows vs Mac os all day it's different preferences Douchetards.

Let's say Apple sold 3M of laptop in the quarter, ASP of $1600 and profit of 35%. Thus Apple's profit would be $1.68B. Total PC sale for the quarter can be 63M (using Intosh number), let's say Microsoft earns $50 for each PC sale (which should be much higher), that would be a profit of $3.15B! And that's a profit of OS sale alone. Yeah, it is business alright.