Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [/.]66% Apple Market Share of High-End PCs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[/.]66% Apple Market Share of High-End PCs - Page 4

post #31 of 68
Since even their horrible PC cost so much.... of course they have this much market share in computers costing over $1,000.
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJS View Post
Not sure I'd agree with that...macbook and macbook pro's have core 2 duo with a gig or more of RAM.
Well for performance, I was referring mostly to stuff like benchmarking, folding, gaming. Folding you can do, although I wouldn't (I don't like putting my laptop through the heat.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by binormalkilla View Post
Yea but how much are they? My little brother just got a Toshiba for $1099 and it has 4Gb of RAM, discrete graphics, and a dual core celeron......it also have Vista x64 on it.
That's great, but:

On a Mac, you don't NEED 4GB of RAM. Ask Unknownm. He has a G4 with 1GB RAM and it runs fine (in Activity Monitor, he gets 0 Page Outs, meaning that by statistics, he doesn't need RAM.)

MacBooks at the same price have Core 2 Duos (not celerons or "pentium dual-cores" or the lower end). Graphics are integrated, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueg50 View Post
I agree with Hundred. There really isn't much under $1,000 for Macs. Given store markups I think the regular Macbook would break the $1,000 mark. Compare that to even cheapo Gateway PC's with 8800GT's that go for $900, and there really isn't much above $1,000 for PC's.
That is the cause of the illusion of "uberly expensive computers" for apple. Apple just doesn't offer anything for the lower-end market.

Likewise, now in this comparison, they're using it to say, "Look! Macs get lots of sales above $1000!" Yeah, moron, no !@#$! Especially when MOST of your computers are above $100 anyway!

With a PC, you do get more options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
So in the study, they talk about entire market share, but then they only include in-store purchases? What an odd way to possibly skew things in their favor.
Possibly. But I tend to think that more people buy their computers in a store rather than online. I have no numbers to back that up.

But are you thinking that more people buy Macs in-store, and more people buy PCs online?

[quote=guyladouche;3894381]I don't know about anyone else, but at my university, by far PC's are the dominant notebook of choice (likely due to the price point).[/quote

I'd say here that it's 40/60, Mac/PC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I know the point of the argument was "apple sells a greater percentage of notebooks that are above the $1000 price point," but wouldn't that just mean that their notebooks are just more expensive if they only have a 14% market share? Hmm...I'm failing to see the point of this story at all...
I don't get how you're fitting those two together, but:

1. ALL of Apple's notebooks are over $1000.
2. Considering software and hardware, Macs are no more expensive than similarly speced (both software and hardware) PCs.
3. Apple used to have a 5% market share about 3 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
Good luck modding
If you're serious about that, you missed the WHOLE point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
it or playing Crysis
1. Name a notebook that's meant to play crysis
2. Name a Mac that's meant to game
3. If you're serious about that, you missed the WHOLE point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
My take on the whole thing, as objective as I can:
Alright, scanning for objectiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
(calm down, this is MY opinion), which I think many will agree are grossly overpriced.
???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
Now I can only wait for the first person to say I am wrong, but keep in mind, once, again, this is my opinion,


Objectiveness not detected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
and as such cannot be 'wrong'.
Opinions damn well can be wrong; I don't give a flip what they taught you in school! Opinions are nothing.

How's this: fat people are idiots.

It's my oh-holy "opiiiiiinion!" "And as such cannot be 'wrong'."

Yeah, doesn't work, huh?

Opinions are not bulletproof. They are to be tested, challenged, and tried.
post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargate125645 View Post
Another problem with this is that they are overpriced! A $1500 Mac is by no means a high-end PC, but for $1500 you could build yourself a pretty decent PC.

Except the overpriced comment is not irrelevant in this case because the article bases their definition of a high-end PC upon cost and not upon the components within them.
High-end is not only based on components, there's a connotation of prestige associated with it. Just because something is overpriced doesn't disqualify it from high-end, in fact, true high-end products are all overpriced. Take a Porsche Cayman S, certainly a "high-end" car, is it overpriced? Yes, considering that you can come close to the same performance for over $20K less. Does that make it any less "high-end", I don't think so. Even in the high-end category there can be overpriced products. Take the Rolls-Royce Phantom, it certainly would be overpriced compared to a similarly outfitted BMW 760Li, by about $200K, but people still buy it. In the high-end category less people start buying things based on price-to-performance.

My point is that albeit $1000 isn't a very good bar to set for high-end PC (for us here at OCN at least), something being overpriced is not very relevant because price-to-performance play a much lesser role in the buying decision in the high-end category.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 68
Macs are just for people who go for looks, not performance IMHO.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L eVGA 9800GT Stock Speeds GSkill 4GB (2x2GB) PC6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 500GB Samsung 22X DVD Drive Windows 7 64-bit 22" Acer x223w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
IBM Model M Model 1391401 Antec EarthWatts 500W Troglodytic Tech Terminal Razer Deathadder 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L eVGA 9800GT Stock Speeds GSkill 4GB (2x2GB) PC6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 500GB Samsung 22X DVD Drive Windows 7 64-bit 22" Acer x223w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
IBM Model M Model 1391401 Antec EarthWatts 500W Troglodytic Tech Terminal Razer Deathadder 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by xHassassin View Post
Macs are just for people who go for looks, not performance IMHO.
Nothing wrong with that, I hope.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 68
The thing I hate is reference to only percentages with most Apple statistics. They say 66% of the >$1000 market, but that could be 1 million computers, where PC's have 99% of the low-end market which could be 50 million computers. With nothing but percentages, the numbers mean nothing. That was like the articles about a month back which heralded Apple for something like a 30% growth over X time, but in total market terms it was only going from like 5% of the market to 6.5%.

As many have mentioned, the vast majority of people want trouble free computing, they don't care about games, and they want to be part of the "in crowd". Apple offers all three, and at an increasing market share, it'd just be nice to have some relative AND absolute terms to go by.
RAID0R
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 4.0GHz MSI P55-GD80 GTX 470 | 8800GT PhysX 2x2GB G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
60GB Agility 2|1TB RAID0|1.5TB Pioneer DVR-217D XSPC Raystorm | XSPC RX240 Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Dell 2709W | 17" Samsung Logitech G15 Corsair HX850 Corsair 650D 
Mouse
Microsoft IntelliMouse 
  hide details  
Reply
RAID0R
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 4.0GHz MSI P55-GD80 GTX 470 | 8800GT PhysX 2x2GB G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
60GB Agility 2|1TB RAID0|1.5TB Pioneer DVR-217D XSPC Raystorm | XSPC RX240 Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Dell 2709W | 17" Samsung Logitech G15 Corsair HX850 Corsair 650D 
Mouse
Microsoft IntelliMouse 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 68
Thats because Apple has more innovations in a year than Microsoft does in 7 years.
Blood
(13 items)
 
  
Reply
Blood
(13 items)
 
  
Reply
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hundred Gunner View Post
I don't get how you're fitting those two together, but:

1. ALL of Apple's notebooks are over $1000.
2. Considering software and hardware, Macs are no more expensive than similarly speced (both software and hardware) PCs.
3. Apple used to have a 5% market share about 3 years ago.
I mean that they have a 14% market share, and 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market share--I don't understand the significance of the fact that 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market is mac--to me (and I may be wrong), it just means that their notebooks are simply just more expensive. It doesn't mean that their notebooks are more popular, which, I felt, is what the article was hoping to convey. Now, I'm not getting into the whole mac vs. PC debate about which is better--I simply got lost in what the significance of the article truly was...or what the writers were hoping to imply. Is it to state that people are cheap, and most would rather buy a sub-$1000 laptop, and those who want to spend the money are more likely to buy a Mac? This leads me to believe that if Mac's were cheaper in general, then they'd have a much higher market share, because I think most people don't have a specific aversion to using a Mac. (and likewise, don't have an aversion to using a PC)--they just use what's cheapest for the most part.

I was about to disagree with you on point 2--I do think that Mac's are expensive/overpriced. But to be honest, if you tried to build a comparable system at, say, dell.com in comparison to the macbook, it would cost the same. Huh, when'd that happen? LOL. That one's a thinker...
Edited by guyladouche - 5/20/08 at 4:54pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I mean that they have a 14% market share, and 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market share--I don't understand the significance of the fact that 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market is mac--to me (and I may be wrong), it just means that their notebooks are simply just more expensive. It doesn't mean that their notebooks are more popular, which, I felt, is what the article was hoping to convey. Now, I'm not getting into the whole mac vs. PC debate about which is better--I simply got lost in what the significance of the article truly was...or what the writers were hoping to imply. Is it to state that people are cheap, and most would rather buy a sub-$1000 laptop, and those who want to spend the money are more likely to buy a Mac? This leads me to believe that if Mac's were cheaper in general, then they'd have a much higher market share, because I think most people don't have a specific aversion to using a Mac. (and likewise, don't have an aversion to using a PC)--they just use what's cheapest for the most part.

I was about to disagree with you on point 2--I do think that Mac's are expensive/overpriced. But to be honest, if you tried to build a comparable system at, say, dell.com in comparison to the macbook, it would cost the same. Huh, when'd that happen? LOL. That one's a thinker...
Considering the only sub-$1000 mac that exists is the Mac Mini, it is pretty much saying that Macs have a 66% market share in the segments they compete in. That's a pretty astounding number considering the amount of manufacturers that produce >$1000 PCs.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 Bloodrage GTX 285 3x2 GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB X25-M + 2x1TB Spinpoint DVD-RAM/DL + DVD-Multi Windows 7 x64 Dell 2007WFP + Westinghouse TX-42F430S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Tarantula Corsair HX620 Antec P182 Razer Mamba, VX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by xHassassin View Post
Macs are just for people who go for looks, not performance IMHO.
I think my software performs well for work. I'd have to have you here by my side to demonstrate what I mean, though. They're good for "work-related performance," if you know what I mean.

If you're talking about games and benchmarks, then that's not the kind of performance Macs are made for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I mean that they have a 14% market share, and 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market share--I don't understand the significance of the fact that 66% of the $1000-and-up price range market is mac--to me (and I may be wrong), it just means that their notebooks are simply just more expensive.
You're wrong about that. It doesn't mean that their notebooks are more expensive. It just means that they start at higher prices.

Like I said - Apple simply doesn't provide options for the lower-end market. There are no apple computers with celerons or pentium dual-cores or ECS motherboards or anything like that. Also consider the fact that Macs don't come with adware like PC computers do (which subsidizes the prices on PCs).

The fact that they don't have anything for people looking for an absolute cheapie PC creates the illusion that apple products are somehow more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
It doesn't mean that their notebooks are more popular, which, I felt, is what the article was hoping to convey.
*Getting* more popular - maybe that's what they were trying to say. The numbers kinda say that, no? Like I said, 3 years ago, apple had 5% of the market share. Now they have what, 14%? That's a pretty significant leap, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
Is it to state that people are cheap, and most would rather buy a sub-$1000 laptop, and those who want to spend the money are more likely to buy a Mac? This leads me to believe that if Mac's were cheaper in general, then they'd have a much higher market share, because I think most people don't have a specific aversion to using a Mac.
That's exactly what I'm saying. People think Macs are expensive because they start high. There's nothing there for the lower-end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
But to be honest, if you tried to build a comparable system at, say, dell.com in comparison to the macbook, it would cost the same. Huh, when'd that happen? LOL. That one's a thinker...
I know. I've done the comparisons. I've compared particularly dell, lenovo, and HP laptops. The Dell ended up a few bucks more expensive than a comparible MacBook (the mid-model), the Lenovo ended up $300 cheaper (this was quite significant), and the HP was about a hundred bucks cheaper. Save for the Lenovo, Macs seem to be priced competitively compared to PCs, contrary to popular belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by triggerc View Post
Considering the only sub-$1000 mac that exists is the Mac Mini, it is pretty much saying that Macs have a 66% market share in the segments they compete in. That's a pretty astounding number considering the amount of manufacturers that produce >$1000 PCs.
Very good point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [/.]66% Apple Market Share of High-End PCs