Piper: Q2 Mac sales on pace to decline
Mac sales could decline for the first time since 2003 without a boost, according to Piper Jaffray.
(Credit: Apple)Apple's Mac sales for the first month of the year could indicate that the economy is finally catching up with the company.
Piper Jaffray, known as one of the most Apple-positive analyst firms in the financial industry, released a report Tuesday indicating that based on a month's worth of data from NPD Group, Mac sales are on a pace to decline on a year-over-year basis for the first time in six years. Piper is projecting that Apple will sell between 2 million and 2.2 million Macs during the quarter, compared to 2.3 million Macs sold in Apple's second fiscal quarter of 2008.
Piper tried to paint the development as a good thing for Apple in that the projected numbers would match the consensus expectations of the financial community for Mac sales this quarter. And the firm also noted that one month of data isn't enough to make definitive conclusions, even though it concluded the data merited a report.
"We believe this data will be perceived as a neutral or a slight positive given the uncertainty surrounding the Mar-08 quarter," Gene Munster wrote in the report. He also noted that this quarter would make for a tough comparison given that Apple launched the MacBook Air in the first calendar quarter of 2008, but that assumes that Apple sold enough MacBook Airs to disproportionately boost its results that quarter.
Despite that analysis, the numbers indicate that Apple is finally running into the economic headwinds that it deftly avoided last quarter, especially when coupled with NPD's iPod data that projects a 6 percent to 15 percent decline in iPod sales year-over-year during the current quarter. Disappointing earnings and uncertainty over the federal stimulus plan pushed stocks to a seven-year-low Tuesday, which may have potential customers thinking more about their dwindling 401ks than new MacBooks.
One thing that could boost Apple's quarter would be new iMacs and/or Mac Minis, which have been expected for some time and which were not included in Piper's analysis of the quarter. Desktop Mac sales were down significantly during the holiday quarter, and new products could provide incentive for some potential customers who were otherwise planning to sit out the quarter.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
couple more bucks, an less problems
you get the cheaper hardware of the PC and your OS preference of Mac OS
Good point because we all know that Office is not available for the Mac
/snark
Anyway, why is this news? Every other OEM is getting it in the rear end at the moment too.
I did 3 years ago. I'll never go back.
does Apple seem to care much? uh......NO
Hope you campers have strapped in tight - it's gonna be an interesting ride.
You're right, it is going to be an interesting ride. Apple has been a strange duck to follow. What other company can have such a dedicated fanbase where the company can step on those same fans, insult them, overcharge them, then ignore their creis.... and yet they still buy more product? It's s very strange love affair indeed.
Also, if you buy a cheaper product, you end up having to replace it sooner anyway - either due to performance issues or due to a shorter MTBF.
Why don't you wait to see what the actual sales figures say before coming out with your usual trademark FUD, hmm?
As for the XPS vs Macbook comparison, a Dell Studio XPS is £729, a Macbook £929. It's not a fair comparison though a Dell don't offer anything as poor as a 2.0GHz CPU (minimum is 2.26GHZ) and 2MB DDR3 RAM (minimum is 3MB) in this model though.
Don't you ever get tired of this?
Apple is a luxury item, sometimes I think its worth it like with the iPod, but most of the time its not worth it, even you think Macs are luxury, you have a HackintoshPC
Okay folks - here's how ANYONE can verify this:
1) go to dell.com, and hit the home products page. Go to XPS and select a model.
2) for comparison, go to apple.com, then its store, and get up the specs for a similar MacBookPro.
Notice that the XPS is stuck with DDR2 @ 667MHz (the MBP has 1066MHz DDR3), the video cards are stuck at the 8800 series w/ 256MB (the MBP has NVIDIA 9400-series cards with 512MB)... so you can't (yet) compare the XPS models spec-for-spec, becuase the XPS models aren't currently capable to matching the specs. ;)
PS: Mark - you may want to check the Apple website - I can get MBP's in Core Duo @ 2.53 or @2.8Ghz. Maybe you can pimp your stories elsewhere? ;)
Did you read the article? How about the headline? The entire point of the article is that the sales would be dropping in response to the economy. Those 'overpriced products' aren't selling better than PC's. That is simply not true and you know it.
You kids realize that HP and Dell are taking losses this go 'round as well, yes?
We'll compare how much and how bad once the numbers arrive.
Don't you ever get tired of it?
especially a new mac mini the current one is as ancient as you can get !
wats taking them this long to get them out
I've been waiting 6 months and still no announcement ?
if they make me wait n e longer I'll probably end up with a Windows desktop !
It'll take Apple another few months before they can sell a new Mac Pro, by that time you will be tired of waiting and get a Hackintosh from your local bulder (hopefully me)
Another reason to get mac is if you love colorful hardware. Or if you want to brag about your computer. That is probably Mac/iPods are popular in schools. Peer presure is important for kids. For me, I am fine with Windows since it works. Going forward, what is important will be on the cloud, so it will make less sense to spend more money for a computer. I have enough things about my work and family to be proud of, so I don't really need to brag my computer.
...and yet the Macs out-last the PC's, often with a longevity of 2-1.
"ive seen pcs go 15 years just fine."
Yep - and I've seen (and owned) Macs that have done the same... in fact Macs are more likely to hold out that long than PCs, and are far less likely to require re-installs. Your point?
PS: relying on antivirus apps is like carrying a roll of duct-tape while skydiving just in case the chute breaks.
/P
"...and yet the Macs out-last the PC's, often with a longevity of 2-1."
Really? Where can I access that survey? Or are you just pulling figures out of thin air again?
Don't you get tired of being the court jester?
uh yeah... who are you trying to fool with your BS? Let me guess, the large retailer you speak of is the Apple store?
I've never had a desktop PC break down on me, or any major part malfunction. I've owned two HP laptops and those never have had any problems either. I wonder how much money I have saved over the years by not buying Apple. Oh yeah and if your desktop gets a little dated you can just go out and upgrade it yourself. Can you upgrade a Mac?
Oh and my current PC which is over 3 years old (Athlon 64 3200, 3GB of ram) is running Vista just fine. Never had any problems with that either. btw I'm still waiting for Mac fans to actually explain why they hate Vista so much when they have no experience with it, aside from what that hipster in the apple tv ads tells them.
I just love it when my PC just works.
They seriously need to update the mac mini. Put a dual core intel processor in it, 3gigs of RAM and a video card.
That goes to show you that something is not right with Windows !
and who cares if a hackers right codes for it or not !
the fact is they r safer using non-windows Pcs
and yes for office work Macs r not ideal, because they require too much MS software
{but I hear that snow leopard is going to be partly geared towards enterprise}
but for home users, college students, education etc. Macs r ideal !
The fact is you only realize how much more productive the non-Windows way is
after forgetting about windows and using a Mac or a Linux PC
but you need to be open minded and willing to make a few sacrifices !
after forgetting about windows and using a Mac or a Linux PC
but you need to be open minded and willing to make a few sacrifices !"
I see, I improve productivity by making sacrifices. OK.
Did you ever wonder why most businesses use Windows? It's not because we want to, it's just the alternatives really, really suck.
-----
Response:
Most businesses use Windows because you can get cheap PCs to do what most businesses do the most of, word processing and spread sheet creation. Although you can do these on a Mac as well, why pay for more if that's all you do (and you don't know what your missing because you've never used a Mac). You don't need a graphics work station to write a proposal or for bean counters to crunch numbers in Excel, so why pay for one. Most non designers doing their own presentations in PowerPoint don't have a clue about how terrible what their creating is or why they should hire someone who knows what their doing to do it for them so they're happy with clipart and whatever MS gives them to use. That's the way things started, even though Apple had a more user friendly OS at the beginning of the personal computer revolution (still does), and that's the way it has stayed. Also, most IT departments stick to windows because that's what they've learned and they want a homgeneous environment to make their job easier?not because it is, or is not better for users they are supposed to service. Also people who make purchasing decisions (once again, bean counters) use PCs so that's what they want to buy for everyone else in their company because they only use the left side of their brain and can't imagine that someone might want or need something other than what they use.
Ever wonder why when you see someone using a computer or a laptop in a movie, far more often than not it has an Apple on it? It's because they're way cooler. Did you ever wonder why so many ad agencies, multimedia developers, graphic designers, photographers, video editors, scientists, etc use Macs? It's because the alternatives really, really suck AND we want to.
Apart from your fanciful rantings about creative types you're right: Windows machines are better, cheaper and have better support than their competitors when it comes to office productivity.
Thanks for proving my point for me although anyone who values how 'cool' a computer makes them look is a bit of twit if you ask me.
I didn't say better, you did?cheaper doesn't mean better, it just means cheaper. Office works on the Mac?as do most general office productivity tools for that matter (either as the same ap or a reasonable equivalent) and they're just as supported as on the PC, but that doesn't stop IT (not all, just the hacks) from claiming otherwise to strong arm departments into getting all PCs in some companies. Any IT person worth their salt can work with whatever best suits their users needs because they know their job is to facilitate productivity among users, not the other way around.
Calling something "fanciful" doesn't make it less true, it just serves as a rather poor intellectual argument as a substitute for not having anything reasonable to offer in counter.
As far as 'cool' if you don't like that adjective, pick another synonym more to your liking if you want, either way anyone who doesn't recognize the value of aesthetics in industrial design is a pretty limited thinker. Besides, it's hard to take seriously anything said by someone who actually uses the word "twit".
Actually, in the context of TCO cheaper does mean better especially if you don't have to compromise on the quality of the hardware which, at least in our case, we didn't. As for your rant about IT 'strong arming' companies, we don't - it's just that the alternatives really are absolutely awful unless you have some pretty specialised circumstances. You make the point yourself - any IT person can facilitate the best solution and time after time it's Windows and Office. I wish we had more choice but we don't at the moment.
As for arguments being 'poor', you may want to consider that before trotting out the usual stereotypical nonsense about creative people because the truth of the matter is that people use the most appropriate tools for the job whether this is Windows, OS X or Linux. I also maintain that if you pick what is essentially a tool on the primary ground that it's aesthetically pleasing then you're a twit. If it's pretty its a bonus, that's all.
Having an opinion doesn't make it a universal fact. Your statements (and mine for that matter) are mostly personally held beliefs, not imperial facts. I just happen to know the difference. I also know that twisting someone's words and/or tacking "you make my point for me" onto a blatant misinterpretation of another's statements is a weak form of debate to say the least. It's the message board equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I" or "I'm rubber, you're glue . . . "
Stereotype? If you're claiming Macs aren't a major part of the design field than you're just plain wrong. You either have no firsthand knowledge of the design industry (which I suspect is the case) or you're delusional on the matter. I'm not saying Macs are the ONLY machine used in the design field. I'm not even saying that Macs are the MOST used machine in the design field, although at one point they were. They are still, however, preferred by MANY in the professions I originally listed for the reasons I gave. As a percentage of Macs used professionally, as opposed to home use (note I said Macs, not all computers) Macs are used most predominately in design. The fact that most Macs used professionally are used in the creative fields is not a stereotype.
I've worked in graphics departments for companies where the IT department periodically tried to insist the graphics department switch to windows (at one job around 8 graphic designers, at another around 30 graphic designers). IT people at both places argued it would be easier for them. Since designers there were the ones engaged in graphic design, THEIR choice of tool for design was the best tool for THIER job, not the ITs choice. I changed jobs (for more money) before I learned the outcome of the smaller department. Fortunately, the designers won out at the larger company (barely, some threatened to quit). I know other designers at other companies who prefer Macs, but whose graphics departments were forced to switch to PCs against their will because their IT department decided everyone should be on Windows. It's not a rare occurrence for Mac oriented design departments to be forced to switch to PCs by people in their companies who have nothing to do with design. I can tell you from personal experience that is a fact. I'm not saying that ALL designers who use PCs are doing so against their will. I'm saying that your assertion that windows is preferred by IT departments is not always because windows is the better tool for the job. The better tool for the job should be defined by the preference of those who actually have to use it.
I never said anything about picking the Mac based PRIMARILY on aesthetics, those were your words, not mine. I later discussed the aesthetic value of the Mac in relation to industrial design. To be clear, I was referencing form and function as well as looks. If you can't admit Macs are well designed machines than you probably have little to no experience with them, or you're letting you're emotional bias show through. Have you ever opened the case of a Mac Pro? Even Windows fans who have popped open a Mac Pro can admit it's about as well laid out a design as they come.
As an aside, although I didn't say you should pick a Mac PRIMARILY on the grounds that it's aesthetically pleasing, I'm also not ignoring it is as being irrelevant as you seem to think. If you are implying that appearance isn't a meaningful factor in picking the right tool for the individual then you are showing your ignorance about the aesthetics of tools in regard to ergonomics. Every tool, even a power drill, is designed. Part of that design is it's appearance for appearance sake, yes even power drills. If the the look of a tool were not important to how humans relate to it, than companies (even those involved purely in industrial design) wouldn't spend millions of dollars related to ergonomics, which despite your ignorance in the matter, does include visual appeal. The visual impact of a work environment, especially an office place, helps determine how comfortable a worker is in that environment. This includes the tools they use, the surroundings of the work area, and their tools as part of those surroundings. Those things impact the length of time people can work contiguously, their emotional response to their job, and their ability to focus without distraction from the elements that surround them. All of these things (separately or combined) have a huge effect on productivity and how long an employee remains with a company, even if the cognizant perception of them by the worker is subtle. A well designed tool is designed with those things taken into consideration. A tool that only incorporates part of the user experience in it's design, or it's design comes at the expense of aesthetic value, is a poorly designed tool. Anyone who discounts that as being unimportant to how useful a tool is overall is simply ignorant.
Having implementation studies for desktop solutions which clearly show Windows to be a better option do.
"If you're claiming Macs aren't a major part of the design field than you're just plain wrong."
It's just as well I'm not claiming that then.
"Fortunately, the designers won out"
Good. They know the best tools for the job. Their IT department were right to listen.
"I never said anything about picking the Mac based PRIMARILY on aesthetics, those were your words, not mine."
You're right. You appear to have taken exception to them though.
"If you can't admit Macs are well designed machines than you probably have little to no experience with them"
They are. Who exactly is arguing they're not?
maybe people will stop caring about not being able to get viruses in exchange for having complete control of their own computer and being able to use any hardware. Macs need to let people have more hardware choices (or at a bare minimum stop overcharging for hardware) and be more compatible with the rest of the world, even if it costs them their immunity to viruses.
But is apple a computer company any more? They seem to be moving into the content, content delivery, and gadget market.
MacOSX might be great for what it is, but the reality is that it's a windows world.
One thing that might kill windows is the DRM crap going into 7. if apple can stay DRM free, have some mid range computers that are expandable, and get some gaming developers on board, things could change.
http://www.systemshootouts.org/
And besides, if everyone only cared about price, then we'd all be using Commodore 64s and Amigas today since both of those platforms literally killed PCs and Macs on price (back in their heyday)!
"There OS X is the least secure operating system on the market and they are already feeling the pain with countless patches to help secure the beast."
What on earth are you on about? Countless patches? Just part of their security maintenance?updates, they're free, and they're secure and negate the need for anti-virus software that's one more thing to take up resources like on Windoze.
Oh dear. Anyone who uses the term 'Windoze' instantly loses all credibility. It's just one of the basic tenets of internet debate and applies to those who use 'M$', 'LinSux' and 'CrApple' too.
phess's arguments are laughable.
OS 9 had a small market share and had hundreds of exploits in the wild. OSX is at 10% with exactly 0. Let's discuss the merits of market share vs exploits in the server area. Why is it a smallish player has the lions share of the exploits.
You also need to learn about the difference between a potential exploitable flaw and an exploited flaw. Even if OSX had more security patches, that does that make less secure. They patch faster and 99.9% of those flaws would never be able to be exploited either.
Windows gets patched very slowly(for example it took MS over 6 months to patch the flaw blaster took advantage of even though it was one line of code and that line was know the entire time), has a poor architecture(for example the memory protections built into Vista are flawed at an architectural level, meaning a patch can't fix it), MS provides lots of functions that assist malware writers( examples: SetWindowsHookEx and I forget the name of it, it allows hot plugging of patches and loading of rootkits).
Windows gets attacked more because it has the most exploitable flaws and is the simplest. Lets see those script kiddies that own windows machines daily break into Linux or OSX inside 5 years.
Put a default install of Windows(any version), OSX and Linux with absolutely no third party security tools. Leave it exactly as it is when it is initially installed. Now, connect it to the internet and leave it alone. Guess which one is always full of malware 24 hours later? It starts with a 'W'. Now consider the technical ignorance of computer users. Which one is the most dangerous again?
- by mark308 February 18, 2009 1:16 PM PST
- No Office for Mark? Are you sure? Let me check out, what's this thing I use every day on my Macbook Pro? Oh, you're right, this must be something different... it's called Microsoft Office 2008, and it has Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and euh Entourage. Probably a copy from China... Thos people are incredible!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (95 Comments)