Apple owns the premium PC market at U.S. retail

More good news for Apple this week: if consumers are going to buy an expensive computer, they're choosing the Mac maker.

That's according to the June tally of the PC market from The NPD Group. According to NPD, 91 percent of all computers sold at retail for more than $1,000 were Macs. That marked a slight increase from the 88 percent in May. But Apple officially owns that market, and it appears the price cuts across its MacBook Pro lineup introduced in early June helped. On Tuesday, Apple announced that it sold 13 percent more Macs during April, May, and June of this year than the same period a year ago, despite the recession and price-conscious consumers.

Is it sustainable for Apple to sell almost all their computers for more than $1,000?

(Credit: Apple)

Of course, all the computers Apple sells--with the exception of the $999 white plastic MacBook and the Mac Mini desktop--are more than $1,000, so they should own that market. NPD's numbers do not include specialty gaming PCs that enthusiasts usually customize and buy online, which can be well over $1,000. But, as NPD analyst Stephen Baker points out, two-thirds of all computers are sold at retail, so the numbers paint a comfortably accurate picture of what's going on in the PC market.

Windows PCs on average sell for much cheaper now because of the increased focus on price point aided by the Netbook phenomenon. The average selling price for a Windows PC at retail in the U.S. was $515, and for Macs it was $1,400.

That would seem to justify Apple COO Tim Cook's comments on his company's earnings call earlier this week, where he pretty much said Apple would never make a Netbook because the company doesn't think it can make a quality notebook for $400 or $500. ("We're going to focus on what we've always done. The Mac has outgrown market in 18 of the last 19 quarters. I think that says that we do have the right approach.")

Or do they?

While Apple's overall business is indeed humming along, NPD's Baker thinks that based on the data, it's not sustainable for the Mac business to refuse to go lower than $999.

"Regardless of the value proposition, the trend in consumers is they want to spend less money. But Apple is gaining more and more share in a segment ($1,000-plus) that is not likely to grow," he said.

Until the cheaper MacBook Pros came out in June, retail data in the U.S. showed Apple notebook sales growth was actually declining from February through May, which helps explain the price cuts.

But Baker believes that even if Apple doesn't do a Netbook, "sooner rather than later" Apple will need to come down to $799 for its lowest-end notebook if it wants to continue to grow its market share. And, he says, there's precedent at Apple in this area.

"They know how to do this...with the iPod, they continually cannibalized themselves, strategically bringing out new (iPod models) to cover all relevant price points," he said, referring to the expansion from the early iPod Classic to the inexpensive iPod Shuffle. "They're very, very good at this."

This post was updated at 12:20 p.m. PDT to include the Mac Mini as another computer from Apple under $1,000.

[slickuser]

if the consumers want to buy a crap, they will get it from Dell

[tektaktyks]

yea,and if they want to buy an overpriced crap they go to crapple

[tektaktyks]

ps:dell is overpriced crap too,dont get me wrong

[zxvcb]

mac offers flexibility for people that actually learn technology from using computers, giving users package that would keep TCO of houshold computers at the level that PC can't dream of. Is buying new pc every 2-3 years cheap? I don't think so.

[viper396]

@zxvcb, your blowing out B.S. just to sound intelligent. The rhetoric is stupid, narrow minded, and above all hypocritical.. Despite you assertions to the contrary there isn't a single thing that a Mac can do that a PC cannot, or vice versa.

Do you actually think all PC users go out and buy new systems every 2-3 years while Mac users don't? Even Apple would be in trouble if that were true. These companies make their money by selling new systems, not by people keeping old systems around for years.

[lazycat202]

@slicker:
did you know that Dell is #1 in Business servers business? if they buy crappy servers, yeah! buy from Apple.

[paulej]

slickuser, I disagree. I've used Dell computers for years, usually buying a new one every two or three years. I then take my old desktop and put it on my network to be a file server or some such (running Linux). Those things run forever! I had one I bought in 1996 and retired it in 2007. It ran 24x7, so it was no surprise the hard drive died after running for so long. I have another now that is just about 7 years old, also a Linux server. I had to replace the cooling fan, because it was making more noise than I could tolerate. By and large, their desktop machines seem to last. I can't speak for their laptops, though my wife has had one now for 9 months or so. It has performed far better than my daughter's HP laptop, which would overheat and the screen would go blank. (To HP's credit, they did agree to repair it for free -- and it has worked since -- after my daughter found enough evidence on the Internet from other users who complained about the same heating issue. But still, it is unreasonable that she had to go to that length.)

[McDaveH]

@viper396

"Despite you assertions to the contrary there isn't a single thing that a Mac can do that a PC cannot, or vice versa"

Sure but whether you do that thing again and again depends on HOW it works - and there the Mac & PC are worlds apart. That's the difference between Mac & PC and it's definitely worth paying for as most people find out only after they switch.

McD

[myles taylor]

"They're very, very good at this."

I agree. They are good at this and they know what they're doing.

I know all the fanboys will erupt (on both sides), but I just want to say that the bottom line is that customer satisfaction is higher for Macs than PCs and the people who spend more money for their Macs after being on PCs seem to be very happy with them.

[Renegade Knight]

Not quite accurate. Apple is one computer maker. They along with a few other makers of personal computers have a higer customer satisfaction rating. Quite a few other makers of personal computers don't. Apple isn't alone at the high end of satifaction.

As for my "Mac after PC experience" Yuck. I like the specs. I like that the OS crashes less than Vista, but at the same time there are too many design nits in the laptop for me to put them as my #1 future pick. I'd rather buy a Thinkpad and turn it into a hackinsosh than vice versa. I don't have the design nits wiht the Thinkpads.

[Random_Walk]

Agreed.

Couple it with longevity, and suddenly the Macs aren't as highly-priced as it would seem. When I can routinely get 5+ years out of a computer (as I did with a Mac Cube, a dual G5 PowerMac that I still have, and etc), as opposed to the typical 3 max out of a Dell or HP, then the amortization kicks in and I'm actually getting a bargain. Add to all of that the higher resale value? Well, I eBayed my customized Cube in 2004 for almost 1/3 of its original 1999 purchase price, and a quick peek at eBay shows that I can sell the dual G5 right now for roughly 35-40% of what I paid for it new. You simply cannot hope to get those percentages with a four- or five-year old Dell or HP computer.

--

Something else I noticed... though I fear that the fanboy crowds will erupt even further: If you make and sell whole computers (OS+hardware), the software cost is baked-in, and it never really have to reflect in the price, especially if you use high-quality parts.

OTOH, if you're a software-only seller, eventually you can't really hide your prices in somebody else's product without losing money at it. Microsoft for example had no problems charging (est. avg.) $100 per unit in 2001, and having Dell or HP hide that cost in a $800-$1000 desktop. But as time moves on, that same $100 or so per unit is going to stick out like a sore thumb in a $300 desktop or a $200 netbook. Therfore (as has happened already), the prices have to drop. While Microsoft can recoup the diff by charging higher prices for EA agreements and such (which has also been happening already), there's only so much you can jack up before it gets to the point where the EA subscribers decide to start looking for other vendors. It's a lose-lose proposition... so unless Microsoft short-circuits the OEMs (or buys one), or bolsters its services sector (which it has begun to do, with mixed results) long-term it's all fairly unsustainable.

Anyrate... :)

[Rolker]

Is this article talking about laptops or desktops? Because it seems NPDs number are for laptops...
I won't argue with NPD's numbers, but at least outside the US Apple is a niche provider. Most people that I know don't own an Apple PC. And it is strange, because I think that there are a lot of people that do buy PC that cost over 1000$ (like gamers).
As far as NPD's numbers, do they include retailers that are not from brand makers (Dell, HP, etc.)? Because there are quite a lot of PC costumers do not buy brand PCs.

I have a 6 years old PC and it is working just fine. I have a 3 year old Dell laptop and it is working just fine. I'm using Vista, and it never crashed on me. Neither any of my friends had any major problem either with Vista or XP.
As for the parts, Apple is using today the same parts as any other vendor, as far as I know.
And yes, Apple has an advantage over HP, Dell, etc. in that it provides both the hardware and the OS... so Apple should be cheaper than any other Windows PC (you need to pay for the hardware AND for the OS)...

[Random_Walk]

You have... not everyone else has. But, fair is fair - anecdotal evidence is always unreliable. OTOH, compare selling prices on eBay and the like for similarly-aged and similar-spec Dells or HPs vs. Apples... those numbers don't lie.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Random_Walk:

"But, fair is fair - anecdotal evidence is always unreliable"

I'm glad you realize this. It covers the majority of your comments.

$100 for Windows to the OEM in 2001? Where did you get that number from? What's the source? You put in the 'est avg' part. Does that mean you're just guessing?

[Random_Walk]

@Dan: Nice lie... where'd you get it? ;)

Meanwhile, as stated, the "$100" figure (hint: "est." is shorthand for "estimated", meaning it was a semi-educated guess) was used for illustrative purposes, and the basis was on the price difference between buying (in 2001) a Dell Inspiron laptop with XP Home and Windows 2000 Pro (Basically, Dell had said they would charge an extra $100 to ditch XP and load Win2k on it). It makes for a rough but usable estimate.

Of course, if you have any actual numbers, please... let's see them.

(@ myles... I told ye the fanboy crowds would erupt... :) )..

[Rolker]

Random_Walk

First off all, I know other people that are enjoying their PCs without any problems. I also know people that had problems with their PCs.
I guess that Apple's products also have problems from time to time.
My point is that there is this myth that PCs break all the time, crash, and don't work, while Apple is perfect. And this is just not true. The same with Windows - some people have problems, while other not. I guess you can say the same thing about OS X, Linux, etc.
And of course you can find more expensive deals for you Macs on eBay because they cost more when you buy a new machine. Also, most PC user don't bother to buy old machines, they just buy new ones, which are cheap and cost less than 1000$ (not so environmentally friendly, though). They don't need to bother too much about their old machines, because they are quite cheap (usually).

[harlanvt]

"NPD's Baker thinks that based on the data, it's not sustainable for the Mac business to refuse to go lower than $999." How long will morons keep writing that Apple's business plan of only selling coordinated hardware and software, both the hardware and software attractive, stylish and effective at premium prices is not sustainable. I suppose, at the end of the world, they will be patting themselves on the back and saying, "See, we told you so!"

[pithenumber]

Apple already cut prices recently, if Obama's injection of cash doesn't work [it won't] they will be forced to go lower

[montex66]

@pithenumber
What does Obama have to do with Apple? Nothing. People who try to inject their bitter political opinions in to everything disgust me. Apple is a not only an American corporation, but a shinning example of how to succeed in a capitalist society. I would expect right-wingers to celebrate that, but for unknown reasons you people think Apple equals socialism. Logic and reason are not so much your friends, are they?

[mjw149]

I think they will get into the netbook space eventually. They always denied ipod video and the iphone before they did it. With the pricing of compenents, it will make too much sense to sell a smaller, cheaper laptop at some point. At the very least, these devices will land in the laps of schoolchildren sooner or later. Which is where the category started a couple years ago.

[Lorben]

A lot of people who spend more then $1K on a PC tend to be enthusiasts and enthusiasts like to build instead of buy.

[Random_Walk]

The last part is (mostly) true, but the first part is probably not.

10 years ago, I would have agreed completely (even if the price-point was jacked up to, say, $1500 or even $2000). But times have changed - a lot. Back then, the folks with the ducats to build such boxes did it because that was the only way to get the high-end performance. Nowadays, I can just buy it, and save myself the endless hours of tinkering and such (OTOH, my Hackintosh was a home-build, though it certainly didn't cost me anywhere near $1k to do it).

[Maclover1]

I agree with random walk. Years ago yes. The major vendors used proprietary parts, motherboards that would only fit in their custom cases. Getting CPU and RAM upgrades from them was costly.

Now build high PC's are for super hard core gamers and people that like to eF with their PC more than really use it. Sort of like a muscle car enthusiast, that works on the car more than drives it. Hobby I guess for those PC people, but man what a lame hobby.

Today PC games are fading fast, with HD game consoles and cheap HD TV's. Even then you can buy a super cheap Dell desktop (2-4gigs of RAM, dual/quad core CPU) and put a $200 video card in it and max out your PC gaming experience with 98% of PC games on a typical 22inch LCD at 1680x1050.

[eadeguzman]

Random_Walk -- you keep defending the Mac, but you actually own a "hackintosh". Put your money where you mouth is -- buy a real Mac. Respect the OSX's license.

since 10 years ago... you know what's changed? You! The older you get the less you spend time tinkering with the hardware.

[paulej]

I like this comment: "Respect the OSX's license".

While I would never encourage software piracy, it is my opinion that telling a consumer what he can and cannot do with anything he buys is about as silly as it can be. The OSX license has clauses that are similar to selling toilet paper with a license that says that toilet paper may not be used as facial tissue.

Anybody who buys a copy of OSX (or any other software product) ought to have the right to do whatever they want with it, including creating decorative artwork, throwing it across the backyard to see how well it soars, or installing it on a machine that does not sport the apple logo. What law is broken exactly, if one does install a copy of OSX he/she bought on a non-Apple machine? I am not aware of such a law.

[Random_Walk]

"buy a real Mac"

I have one - a dual G5 PowerMac, which still runs like a champ. I built the Hackintosh on a lark, and I'm quite cozy with it (and yes, I accept all responsibility for what happens if it breaks).

"Respect the OSX's license."

I bought the OS at the local Apple store - everything else that I have done with it is covered very nicely under Fair Use Doctrine. QED, I have respected Apple's actual rights in full as concerns the product.

(I even humored the unenforceable portion of the EULA by putting a big fat Apple logo sticker on the side of the case, but that is not germane to the discussion).

"The older you get the less you spend time tinkering with the hardware."

Agreed, but remember - the demographic most able to spend $$$$ on toys to tinker with is also the demographic that apparently no longer feels the urge to do so.

[philosfool]

"Random_Walk -- you keep defending the Mac, but you actually own a "hackintosh". Put your money where you mouth is -- buy a real Mac. Respect the OSX's license."

Well, if this is a copy of OSX that the user bought and he's not using it on any other computer, I think Apple can cram their license up their butt. It's the equivalent of GE selling light bulbs that have a license that says you can't screw one in to a non-GE lamp, or Nike selling you shoes and saying you can only run in them weekends. These licenses are a dubious bit of legal wrangling to create protections that have never come into law by the normal processes. We're not under any obligation to obey them.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Random_Walk:

"I bought the OS at the local Apple store - everything else that I have done with it is covered very nicely under Fair Use Doctrine. QED, I have respected Apple's actual rights in full as concerns the product. "

Perhaps you may want to read the EULA for the product completely. What you purchased was an UPGRADE. The full OS is not available to purchase from anywhere online as it is only included with the purchase of a new Macintosh.

What you did was buy an upgrade that will, yes, allow you to do a full install, but is a clear and complete violation of Apple's EULA.

I find it very ironic that you would try to hide behidn the fair use doctrine when you yourself were adamantly opposed to Psystar doing the very same thing, calling them criminals and stealing from Apple.

How is it that they are criminals and you are not? What sort of double standard are you trying to pull here? You can't have it both ways.

Until such time as you either pay Apple for the amount of money you owe them for a new Macintosh (any one, doesn't matter as long as it has a full version of OS X), or you terminate your Hackintosh, then you will be labeled a criminal and a thief by your own admission.

[Random_Walk]

"What you purchased was an UPGRADE"

you're right - it was an upgrade - from whatever I had on the hard drive before. ;)

As for Psystar? Yep - Psystar was distributing the results for a profit - something that places them well outside of any Fair Use protections.

"How is it that they are criminals and you are not?"

Psystar's activities are a civil, not criminal matter (note how the two words are even spelled differently? Ask your mom if you need help with that).

Anyrate, if you want to continue showing your ignorance, well okay, but at least try to get the terms right - it would help your case a little (your bad premises and blind fanboyism on the other hand, well... that's up to you to fix).

"you will be labeled a criminal and a thief by..."

...some troll who can't help himself but commit libel repeatedly if he does so? I'm thinking that you're not going to help your credibility much by doing so.

[baconstang]

That "only on an Apple device" is obviously there to limit their liability if it doesn't work on different hardware. Selling machines like Psystar is a whole different thing. They just don't want to be bothered by any problems you might have with you 'Hackintosh'.

[dredlew]

@paulej - not quite right... for most software you are buying a LICENSE, not the product/code. A license grants you certain usage rights and forbids you others. Again, you DO NOT OWN the software, you just license it. Apple or any other software developer that licenses their product has every right to tell you how their product is intended to be used. They could even make you return it when you sell your PC, because you didn't buy the code, just the license to use it. Suffice to say that it'd be impractical at best to enforce this but they could.

Fact is, you are breaking the law if you don't follow the license agreements you accepted.

[epross]

Well if you want to buy an Apple, do they sell anything less than a grand? I don't think they do so the argument is irrelevant. I think the decision is not "I have a lot of money so let's buy an Apple" rather Apples are expensive while PCs range from super cheap to expensive. So when you compare just the expensive ones you are only looking at a small portion of the PC price range, where you are looking at 100% of Apple's. It's a nonsensical way to look at it. Personally I wouldn't pay the premium for an apple when a PC does most of what I need for half the price.

[Mr. Dogers2U]

They have both the Mini and the MacBook at under $1k.

[Renegade Knight]

It's a fair comparison. You can buy an expensive computer from about everone who makes them. However in that market, Apple dominates because folks are not buying the expensive computers from the Windows PC makers.

When you look at units sold therefore overall market domination, Mac's not nearly as prominant.

[zxvcb]

well... in this case why would someone buy mercedes, if they have kia for fraction of the price?

[Random_Walk]

"why would someone buy mercedes, if they have kia for fraction of the price?"

That depends on a few factors: Which one is most likely to be perfectly serviceable after 10-15 years? Which one will hold up better in a crash (assuming like body styles and etc), or be better at avoiding one? Which will have better performance on the road (handling, acceleration, etc)? Which will have a resale value of a better percentage of its original retail price?

...and what makes car analogies so damned ubiquitous!?

[Maclover1]

Do you know how dumb that statement is? The article is not about trying to find a Mac for under $1000. Its about buying computers over $1000 and what choice people make at that price range.

There are **** loads of PC over $1000.

[nutzareus]

So what? What if for example I said 90% of all cars over $100,000 are from Porshe and Ferrari. Does that mean everyone go get one? No, it means if you want to buy expensive, those brands own that niche. Apple has expensive products, face it.

[Maclover1]

Lame comparison. How about cars under 20k and cars over 20k. Sure there are lots of PC's from say $299 to $999 (cars under 20k), but there are lots of PC's that are $1001 to $2000 (cars over 20k). Dell Adamo starts at $1999

[Get_a_life_Leo]

That would a good analogy except for the fact that PC makers do market a lot of computers that cost more than $1000. The fact is that people don't tend to buy them, hence the ASP for Dell, HP, etc is at the low end of their price range. It's remarkable that Apple owns the >$1000 segment for several reasons. Firstly, that's where the profits are. Secondly, they rank 5th or 6th in total PC sales so the other companies are selling tiny amounts of >$1000 machines. If you were a company, which business would you want? A commoditized, minimal profit, cut throat line of products where your high end barely breaks 5% of sales or to be able to sell essentially all of your machines at double the average price with double the profits? It's like working 10X as hard for 1/10th the return.

[lifelesspoet]

Actually, there are 2 other models of macs for less then 1000. PC's != laptops. The mac mini has 2 base models for 599 and 799. While they come headless, standard monitors, mice and keyboards will work and can be had for less then 200 dollars.

[Renegade Knight]

This doesn't suprise me for a few reasons. First if you want a Mac, you are going to pay. Second Apple does do a good job of spec'ing a computer. My gripes with Apple are not feature or qualtity related. Third you take your chances with Quality with some of the other makers. Often they skimp on something even in the expensive computers. It makes reading the spec sheet difficult. All my "expensive computers" have had some kind of design related issue. Normally with something they didn't have, or which didn't work well in spite of having it. I don't have that problem with Mac (I have other problems with Mac that frustrate me) computers. Since a lot of folks don't have the design nits as a personal issue that drives them nuts, they are perfectly served by a Mac.

[lakorai2]

Apple skimps on allot of crap.

Take for example that they solder the mobile Intel CPUS in their laptops. Or that they don't offer Blu-Ray. Or that you have to spend $1699 to get the Mobile 9600m, when you can get a BETTER spec'ed ASUS laptop from Newegg for $899 or $999.

Wow. Apple has magsafe and an aluminum case. Most people see that it's not worth spending $700 more to get those two skimpy features.

Apple doesn't even include Express card or a user replaceable battery anymore. They still don't make it easy to replace/upgrade the hard drive or the optical drive (even on their desktops, with the exception of the very overpriced Mac Pro).

The whole entire purpose behind these moves is to get users into Apple stores to pay sky-high prices on repairs, batteries and other parts. It's the same song and dance with the iPhone and iPods. Non user replaceable batteries (sometimes soldered). Redicilous omissions to save a few mm's on depth of the product. DESIGN OVER PRACTICALITY, DESIGN OVER SPECS, DESIGN OVER VALUE. That's the Apple way.

That's why I don't buy their ****.

[baconstang]

Actually I can replace the hard drive or the RAM in my MacBook by removing 3 screws.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@baconstang:

"Actually I can replace the hard drive or the RAM in my MacBook by removing 3 screws. "

However doing so voids your warranty. :P

[baconstang]

In seven years of Mac I've never needed the warranty. Plus I believe you are mistaken.

[monkeyfun14]

@baconstang

Go tell that to Joe Sixpack.

[Maclover1]

@Vegaman_Dan you TOTALLY wrong about voiding your warranty.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1651

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1270



You are a total and complete moron. You define "ignorant troll".

[baconstang]

Monkey(not so)fun.. Tell Joe S. what?
That Veggy doesn't know what he's talking about?
That you can change/upgrade the RAM or HDD in a MacBook with a #0 Phillips (and about 5 minutes)?
Or that i never needed to use the warranty on any of my three macs.

[myles taylor]

@lakorai2

Normally I don't respond to trollish comments like yours, but yours was so riddled with falsehoods that I couldn't resist.

"Wow. Apple has magsafe and an aluminum case. Most people see that it's not worth spending $700 more to get those two skimpy features."

First of all, where are you getting the $700 number? Are you comparing the $1000 Macbook with a $300 Netbook?

"Apple doesn't even include Express card or a user replaceable battery anymore. They still don't make it easy to replace/upgrade the hard drive or the optical drive (even on their desktops, with the exception of the very overpriced Mac Pro). "

I know some people are going to miss the Express Card, but I've never used it on my Macbook Pro that I've had for 3 years. The majority of people won't use it. As for the battery, whine, whine whine. The battery now lasts 3-4 times as long and should last longer than the computer. Why would you need to replace it? It's a ridiculous complaint. It's easy as pie to replace both the memory and the harddrive on all laptop models. I don't know what you're complaining about. It used to be hard and now it's easy but obviously them improving that means nothing to you. They come with superdrives; why would you need to replace them. The Blu-Ray complaint is legit, in a way, but they have their reasons and I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it.

Their emissions are great and the people who switch are happy. Customer satisfaction is higher among Macs than any other computers and those numbers don't lie. We can argue about which machines are better until the end of time but the bottom line is that on average people are happier with their Macs than people are with their PCs.

Oh and maybe you should learn to spell. Mac users tend to be more particular and obviously you aren't.

[steve4lee]

I use my iPod Touch much the same way that people use netbooks, to check email and surf the web and do little odds and ends, without having to lug around a full-sized laptop. I suspect that a lot of people with a Touch or an iPhone, like me, don't really feel the need for a netbook. Apple could do an oversized Touch and add a crappy little keyboard easily enough I think. They must not anticipate selling enough of them to bother.

[baconstang]

iMac, MacBook, Touch and a simple cell phone works great for me.... and is cheap.

Very good illustration. Everybody may not go get a Porsche, but most everybody wants one! And you can bet Ferrari management isn't wringing its hands over their lack of presence against Kia.

[Stormspace]

Like the cell phone carriers, Apple has designed a product that is difficult to compare to similar but different items. I don't think that makes them premium though. A better headline would be. "Apple leads in high priced PC's". Premium in the case of Apple is very subjective when compared to like products. Having a high priced machine doesn't make it a premium machine, especially when similar products are priced hundreds of dollars less.

[bvdon]

Let the poor people have PCs, and the rest of us will buy Macs ;) To the victor goes the spoils.

[viper396]

You just validated one of the reasons why many people will never buy Apple. Do you really think this blatant arrogance helps Apple whatsoever?

[baconstang]

I'm soooo sure 'bvdon's attitude just cost Apple tons of sales. It only bothers fanboys like you, who secretly lust for a Mac.

[pithenumber]

@bacon
actually, most people hate apple fanboys, even users of Macs hate apple fanboys

[baconstang]

Yeah, I know. Just putting a little perspective on 'vipers' comment.

[monkeyfun14]

@baconstang

Trolls like you and Viper are the reason people don't buy them. You can't insult potential customers to get them to make a purchase.

[baconstang]

I could seriously care less if you or 'viper' or 'Dee' or 'Leo Sux Apple' or even 'Webster geeky' ever buy a Mac. In fact I'd rather you didn't, since you might give us a bad name. Cheers!

[pithenumber]

@baconstang
Apple fanboys give Apple a bad name

[noibs]

The Porche & Ferrari analogy doesn't hold up. There are many, many, many choices available to the Windoze person who wishes to buy a $1,000+ PC. Go to Dell Web pages and check out all the Dell models that can be purchased for more than $1,000. The real question is why PC makers even compete in the $1,000+ market.

A better car analogy is the following: Given a choice between a $40,000 BMW and a $40,000 Mazda, how many people choose the Mazda? Also, the same facts explain why Apple doesn't make a $500 crap PC. Why doesn't BMW make a sub-$15,000 econobox?

Markets don't lie. For those who spend more than $1,000 on a PC, they want a Mac. And it's not like $1,000 is a lot of money. In inflation adjusted dollars, a $1,000 PC is dirt cheap compared to the 1990's.

There is no PC maker whose profits have held up better than Apple's in the recession. Why? (rhetorical question)

[pithenumber]

$1000 is a lot of money, saying it isn't is coming off very elitist

[i_made_this]

I agree with pithenumber who is being too polite.

In addition, noibs states, "Why? (rhetorical question)" It is not a rhetorical question.

Tear apart their quarterly financials and you'll discover that Apple's computer line's profits have actually held up worse than their competitors in this recession. Apple spent a king's ransom on that ad series and will continue writing it off for the next six to eight quarters against their computer sales. Management describes such things as an investment in the future etc.

During this recession, the net profits thrown off by Apple's other products and services such as the iPod and its content distribution services have carried the firm's net profitability.

Apple very much appreciates Windows users. We are the leading buyers of their iPod's and content distribution services by far.

[baconstang]

$1000 being a 'lot of money' is totally relative. It depends on your income, age and how you perceive spending money on a computer in relative terms. Many of the people I work with in video and music would not dream of wasting their time with a PC. Their time is valuable and it makes total sense to get a machine that works out of the box and requires a minimum of maintenance. They are not elitist, they are professionals.

[Random_Walk]

"$1000 is a lot of money"

Depends on perspective.

Five years ago, I paid $2k for a dual G5. I can sell it right now on eBay for ~$800. Amortized over five years, the Mac cost me about $240/year if I sold it this year. A typical Dell of the same specs bought in 2004 would have gone for $900, and its replacement when Vista came out would have cost an additional $600). Count in the cost of bumping the OS to match featuresets ($300 for Ultimate).

Bonuses? I spent 0:00 and $0.00 to repair the Mac, or to clean up any malware from it. I spent $0.00 for A/V and the like. I spent 0:00 cleaning up a bloated registry, running defrag, or any of that jazz.

Suddenly, it starts making a lot more sense to spend that little bit of extra money up front... so far, it has saved me quite a bit of money in the long run, and if you use customer satisfaction as a metric instead of my own experiences, you would discover that the user saves themselves a ton of headaches and frustration as well.

[Maclover1]

@pithenumber you must be under 20. I remember buying a 386 clone PC for $2000. Or a 200meg IDE drive for $800. $1000 is dirt cheap for what you get now, especially considering how much a person uses a computer today vs my 386 clone.

[baconstang]

@Maclover.... I think you just figured a key fact of most of the MS fanboys that comment here. A big clue is their fallback to "You can't game on a Mac".

[pithenumber]

@Maclover
1k is dirt cheap compared to what you had to spend long ago, but that doesn't matter
computers can be had for $300 and even less, compared to that, $1000 is a lot of cash

[sgirard]

This should not surprise anyone.

Microsoft has worked hard to push PC makers to keep their prices down. That's what the Laptop Hunter ads are all about. What I don't get is why the PC makers aren't begging Microsoft to stop running those ads-- they are training buyers to look for bargains.

You don't see Apple selling on price. Why would they. That's just dumb business. Building a business based on volume is hard work when each unit you sell comes with associated support costs. And who bears the brunt of the support calls? Microsoft, or the PC maker?

I just don't get why the PC makers choose to beat each other up over price to the benefit of Microsoft.

[Stormspace]

Apple doesn't sell on price because they have a monopoly. PC manufacturers don't have a monopoly thus they have to compete on price. If all PC's ran the same OS, even Apple computers would be priced lower than they are now, but as long as Apple doesn't allow third party hardware to run OSX Apple computers will always be more expensive.

[sgirard]

Stormspace: Why don't some of the major PC makers ship Ubuntu on their hardware instead of Windows? Seems that would be one way to differentiate their hardware. Why not focus on making great hardware? (They are hardware makers, after all). Instead they choose standardize on Windows and to beat each up over price.

I understand your point about Apple not licensing their OS to other manufacturers, but that shouldn't stop the PC makers from shipping Ubuntu and working hard to differentiate themselves by shipping awesome hardware with a great OS. That's what Apple did. Why does Apple stand alone with this approach?

[monkeyfun14]

@sgirard

Because people don't want Linux.

Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better some people are willing to pay for ease of use.

[baconstang]

Ironically well put.

[Stormspace]

Sorry,

I've used both OSX and Ubuntu and find both to be equally difficult to use coming from windows. Of course if all I was doing was clicking on an icon to start a program I'd be good on either, but I'm actually doing things other than using canned apps in a standalone environment. OSX and Ubuntu both have a ways to go before networking on a LAN become easy, right now it takes someone with more knowledge than the typical user unless you just want to use dhcp to connect to the internet via a LAN.

[Phatose_Alpha]

Unsurprising, really. Retail channels mean it's only going to be typical buyers - PC enthusiasts build, and workstations don't go through retail. The kind of people who spend $1000 on a pc don't do so through retail, and average joe who does buy retail doesn't need a $1000 PC.

All this really tells you is that Macs are expensive and sold through retail. Wow, what a news flash there.

[Get_a_life_Leo]

I guess the on-line AppleStore doesn't sell anything either.

There clearly are not enough PC enthusiasts to support the PC makers - otherwise they'd be enjoying similar profits to Apple. In some ways, it is worse because Dell doesn't profit from an enthusiast buying an after-market $700 graphics card or a CPU upgrade. Of course, there is not much of an aftermarket for Mac components so, proportionately, Apple captures more of the buyers dollars than the PC makers.

[monkeyfun14]

Apple only enjoys good profit margins because they put a premium on every product they sell.

[Get_a_life_Leo]

And as a for profit company don't you think every company wants to do that? Why can Apple claim a premium? Must be because the people who buy Apple products are really stupid. That's it! Nothing to do with the fact that the cost of a product is not just the initial price but its overall value to the purchaser. Nothing to do with the fact that some people actually like OS X and the ability to run Windows if they need to.

Dell tried to add a premium to the Adamo and that turned out really great.... Name a PC company that wouldn't love to enjoy the profitability and customer satisfaction achieved by Apple. They won't even get close if they choose to believe Apple buyers are suckers.

[wzzzrd]

Be real people, when Steve Jobs dies so will Apple and it's over priced, over glorified Mac. Apple is destined to become a cell phone company. How many times have I listened to the Mac users tote the wonders of Mac hardware, well if it was so good why does it run on Intel based (PC based) hardware now. Ever work on Mac hardware? I haven't seen hardware put together that bad since the early 1990's.
I purchased 30 Macs amd 150 Dell's last year, I have had 1 Mac failure in the first 30 days and another in 60. No Dell failures yet. And when there is, I will have a Tech or part shipped over night and replaced with in 15 minutes. Apple, sorry send the unit back and they'll ship me another one. Out of warranty repair average 45 minutes to replace a single Mac component. People who can afford $1400 for a Mac do so because they look cool and think that the more I spend the better I get, they have no clue about functionality and the value of a dollar.

[Get_a_life_Leo]

If Apple does become a cell phone company, why will it die?

Have never had a Mac die - most were in full use for more than 5 years (I run a lab). Have had plenty of PCs die - so much so that we typically replace them after 3 years. In research, there are as many Macs as PCs. The people using them do not do so because they look cool and they are hardly deep-pocketed either.

[tmarlow]

The reason Apple's run on Intel chips now is so that Apple could get people to buy their computers and still run Windows. My daughter bought a 22" iMac and runs both OSX and XP. Not only did they set it up so Windows users could migrate, they gave away Boot Camp, which allows a user to dual boot into whichever OS they need to use, without a whole lot of hassle to do it.

[bahead]

I'm not entering into the Mac vs PC debate, I hate the fan boy stuff on both sides. I've a long-time PC user and I've been ready to buy a new system for some time. I want a Mac for music/video, but still need Windows for business and programming. I'd go the dual-boot/emulation route, but the problem is price. For the cost of a MacPro, I can get much better PC hardware, hands down. I've done about 20 comparisons. If Apple dropped the price of their desktops by $1000 (or even $500), I'd try one without question. I might buy a PC and go the hackintosh route instead though. I don't care about the shiny and stylish Mac hardware, I just want the O/S and the Apples software like GarageBand. Even if I end up buying a Mac, I definitely would not buy an Apple monitor -- hugely overpriced.

[Maclover1]

You are dead wrong about the Mac Pro. Price out a dual quad core Dell or HP. Dual Quad core, not single quad core. Once you mount dual quads the price of PC "Workstation" is very high. Examples...

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&m_11=VB31E&oc=bwdwjap&s=bsd

http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro

[wolivere]

This is the same group that

"According to The NPD Group, a leader in wireless industry market research, an aggressive ?buy-one-get-one? promotion by Verizon Wireless helped RIM?s BlackBerry Curve move past Apple?s iPhone to become the best-selling consumer smartphone in the U.S. in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009. RIM?s consumer smartphone market share increased 15 percent to nearly 50 percent of the smartphone market in Q1 2009 versus the prior quarter, as Apple?s and Palm?s share both declined 10 percent each."

And

"that Linux is hurting Microsoft because of its big market share in netbook sales. Recent figures from the research firm NPD Group show that it's a myth. Windows now has more than 90% of all netbook sales. The game is over. "

But that said it was said here 3/4 buy from retail? Yet PC non corporate still has Dell and HP way in the lead.

IDC shows apple lost market share?

But yet if I go to Best Buy and look up there top sellers .. even in the $1000 + range Apple is the #10 on there list?

I don't know ... something just don't seam right.

[byl01]

"NPD's numbers do not include specialty gaming PCs that enthusiasts usually customize and buy online" - aren't these just about the only PCs worth paying more than $1000 for? And this excuse takes the cake - "two-thirds of all computers are sold at retail, so the numbers paint a comfortably accurate picture". Sure they do - in the retail pricing range (i.e. well below $1000). A more accurate statistics for non-retail $1000-plus PCs would be based on the sale of good CPUs - obviously, an i7 will not be used in an economy PC. Video cards are not a good indicator, as they can be swapped easily (a new CPU means Windows reactivation, so not many people do it). Oh, and by the way - is a $1400 Mac really better than a $1400 PC, or is it a status symbol, like a "gold trim" package on a Chevy clunker?