Wow with all the new models in 2003 they managed to actually sell fewer computers than in the extremely low growth year of 2002. With 8% GDP, you'd think they could have done better. I guess the G5 didn't end the sales slump after all. Personally, I think all of their machines except the DP G5s are overpriced and embarassingly slow compared to what can be had in the PC world.

The majority of PC's sold are probably right around 2 Ghz. It's pretty much known that the 1.4 Ghz G4 can keep pace with that, esp. considering the PC systems use vastly inferior parts (Dell, HP, etc. are among the slowest PC's there are)

...with all this focus on market share? Who cares?! Apple's market share of Mac systems is nearly 100%. How's that for spin?

"OK, lets see how many Apple fanboys can spin this in Apple's favor. Best one gets a gold star!@#"

Hey... I hear that tomorow Apple's going out of business... pass the word...

"OK, lets see how many Apple fanboys can spin this in Apple's favor. Best one gets a gold star!@#"

Hey... I hear that tomorow Apple's going out of business... pass the word...

For half of last year people were waiting for the G5. The pent up demand is now on full throttle. With a year of fast(er) machines, I expect Apple to ship significantly more machines than last year. Just look at the past quarter, it was up what, 15% over last year?

Hey there trollboy: You are the type of generic person out there in the world that thinks like everyone else, doesn't have an original thought of your own, and has to make himself feel better by thinking you are putting someone else down. You are very common, not unique, very plain, and ignorant.

I switched from PC/Windows to Mac because they work better, smoother, are fun to use, and don't crash anywhere near what I had to deal with for years. It was a life changing choice, that you have to try to actually understand. But, since you are such a coward and ordinary, you will never make a real choice. Enjoy your pain. I understand it, just don't take it out on us.

Market Share? Who the *F* cares? I don't. As long as Apple keeps innovating and MS keeps copying, we will be number ONE.

Oh, do you like Apples?
Well, how do you like them Apples?

:O)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but lopping the monitor of an eMac (or an iMac for that matter) won't get you down to $599. A 17" monitor just doesn't account for $250 anymore. Heck, 2 years ago I could get a 19" CRT for $200, and the consensus for consumer level 17" CRTs seems to be around $150, so Apple's probably paying $100 or less per tube in that eMac. So you might be able to get a headless eMac outta apple for $749, or *maybe* $699 if they can cut some more corners, but you won't be seeing a $599 headless Mac anytime soon.

Where are these IDC numbers posted on the web? Are they only counting desktop systems?

Apple shipped 3,175,000 Macs during the 2003 calendar year; 829,000 of those Macs were shipped during the last quarter alone.

What is IDC not counting? Are they not including the laptops?


URLs for data on Apple's previous quarterly reports :

2003 Q1 : http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jan/15results.html

2003 Q2 : http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/apr/16earnings.html

2003 Q3 : http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jul/16results.html

2003 Q4 : http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/oct/15results.html

2004 Q1 : http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/14results.html


To try to prevent inevitable confusion, I will point out that Apple's fiscal year is offset from the calendar year by one quarter. Therefore, the 2004 Q1 report covers sales and shipments carried out during October- December of 2003. Likewise for all the other reports. Thus if you want to look at Apple's shipments for January-December of 2003, then you need to look at the 2003 Q2, 2003 Q3, 2003 Q4, and 2004 Q4 reports.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but lopping the monitor of an eMac (or an iMac for that matter) won't get you down to $599. A 17" monitor just doesn't account for $250 anymore.

So true. I bought my father a Dell for Christmas. The 17" monitor it came with only added $50 to the price (yeah, I'm sure shipping pushed it up higher). He already had a nice 19" monitor, but I couldn't take the monitor off the purchase at that price, so I took it for use as a spare/second monitor for myself.

That's the price of an emac, you don't need to spend $1000 dollars for a mac. Now please shut up.

I do not know how IDC is coming up with only 1,675,000 units for Apple. Those numbers do not even come close to Apple's reported numbers. Before anyone claims that Apple is fudging the numbers, remember that it would be completely illegal for them to do so.

Anyway, according to this MacNN report, Apple sold 3.2% of the PCs shipped in the US during 2003 which ranks Apple as the #5 top PC seller. HP was the leading PC manufacturer with 16.9% of the units shipped. Dell was right behind with 16.3%. MacNN does not say what percentages were held by the #3 and #4 positions, but obviously it would have to be between 16.3% and 3.2%.

There is no way that those numbers are right. That would mean that the top 5 PC manufacturers put together account for less than 50% of all computers sold in 2003. That would be HUGE news to the industry. These numbers have to be wrong.

"So true. I bought my father a Dell for Christmas. The 17" monitor it came with only added $50 to the price (yeah, I'm sure shipping pushed it up higher). He already had a nice 19" monitor, but I couldn't take the monitor off the purchase at that price, so I took it for use as a spare/second monitor for myself."

Ummm, the 17" monitor did not only cost you $50. That was $50 more than whatever Dell was charging for the 15" monitor. A 17" monitor from Dell, or anywhere else, will cost around $100 minimum.

I read somewhere that IBM and Gateway were the other 2 PC sellers in the top 5 US manufacturers. IIRC, IBM had less than 6% marketshare and Gateway just barely squeezed past Apple. Seems like HP and Dell had higher percentages than what MacNN is reporting here though. Perhaps they are mixing up US and world numbers.

Another reason why Apple gets screwed by IDC's numbers is because IDC's numbers include x86 servers, but they do not count Apple's Xserve.

Positive spin : Apple just with partnered with the #1 PC manufacturer to sell more iPods and spread the usage of the iTunes Music Store.

I so agree that Apple needs a 'better' consumer low-end.

I can't afford an iMac so was looking at the eMac ... but it doesn't have USB 2 that my digital camera I got for christmas needs so either I buy a Windows system, or just keep printing straight to photo printer that I have.

With other discussions, it does sound that the iMac is slightly overpriced, but have said MANY times that a headless iMac (BRING BACK THE CUBE) is needed and is sold for $499 U.S. with specs like:

1.x Ghz G4
replaceable graphics card
USB 2
Firewire

Doesn't look like a lot of specs, don't care that much about how much L2 cache, type of memory, etc., etc.

Bottom line, if Apple builds it, 'droves will come!'

Apple is probably number 3, if you include laptops, Xserve.
Is that really that bad? Most PCs sold (45%) are generic brands anyway. Hey! Generic just like the people that use them. Very, very expendable.

Apple is only #5 in the world! Forget it, I'm not buying one of them until they are number 1!. Waaaaaaah! Waaaaaah!

What are you smoking? or are you taking it vaginally you p****.
I bet you don't like to play cards either, and when you do, you need to know for a fact you have the best hand. I bet you are probably the most boring person in the world. Hey, at least you are number one. Well, after Bill Gates, you are number 2, on other levels too.

It would not be that hard for Apple to shave $200 off of the base price for a Mac by introducing a headless eMac model.

Take the $799 eMac.
Remove the 17" monitor.
Remove the swivel stand base.
Remove the modem.
Reduce it to one FireWire port instead of two.
Continue to use the 1Ghz G4.
Put everything in a simple enclosure like the old pizza box LC Macs.

Besides the direct hardware cost reduction of removing the 17" monitor, modem, etc, Apple would also have other cost savings from the simpler design. Manufacturing a simple pizza box kind of case would be cheaper than producing all of the special molded plastic pieces for the current eMacs. The 17" eMac also requires more cooling than a headless one would; so there could be savings there too. Assembly would also be cheaper since there would be fewer parts to put together and none nearly so heavy or awkward as the CRT component. Once assembled, packaging and shipping would cost less per unit since the headless eMac would probably be less than 1/4 the size and weight of the current 17" iMacs.

I wonder if Bill Gates took a s***, if all you winboys would worship it? I already know you eat it.

you are brainless

Hey Harley zealot man. Sure there are cheaper Japanese bikes but there are also pricier ones. There are also cheaper European bikes and there are your Ducatis as well. Just b/c you own a Harley does not mean you get to look down on other bikers. Other bikers probably think you are riding s***.

Along with the stupid car analogy, all Mac users should be riding in BMW and Mercedes if that car analogy is true.

The fact is that Mac users ride different bikes or cars or neither just goes to show people use different computer/OSes for the same eaxct reasons.

So calm the f*** down zealots boys. There are only a few MS zealots (Thurotte, for one) but there are waaay too many Mac zealots who ignore reality. (I am a Mac user but I don't worship Job's every p*** like some of you do.)

Apple is going out of business. Any second now. They've been going out of business for 20 years now, it's really gonna happen...real soon. And now that Apple is about to become a debt-free company following a very profitable year, it's even more likely to happen!

I'm sure all the Windows zombies here agree with me, right fellas? Any second now. Apple is toast. Yeah.

*waits*

These numbers are completely wrong, and this is not the first time these numbers have been wrong. IDC is inaccurate as heck.

Nick

Hey, his name is Thurrott, dumbfuck, and he is only a general in the MS n*** camp, but like yourself, there are all sorts of turncoats, and little n*** sympathizers.

"The fact that Mac users ride different bikes, or cars, or neither just goes to show people use different computer operating systems for the same exact reasons." ???

No. People use what they love to use if they have a mind of their own. This excludes most windows users. There are so many holes in your logic, it makes one gag.

The *reality* of it is this:

The Mac is the superior operating system, and if knowing that makes one a zealot, then ok there labelboy.

Fight the good fight, doin't worship Bill Gate's s*** you ignorant twit.

Most analogies to high-end cars suck (maybe this one does too?)

Yes, it's got a better OS
Yes, it's got better form factors
Yes, more inovative free software.

BUT,

If I buy a highend car, Repairs are more expensive, but I can buy different types of tires, oil, gas, wiper blades, etc. for it and it still does everything I need.

If I buy a macintosh with lower market share, I can still buy the tires, oil and gas, but might not be able to get the wiper blades for it.


bottom line, a marketshare of 10% would make it quite a different world out there when it comes to compatbilites with different peripherals, software availability, even someone like Adobe optimizing photoshop more aggressively for the G5, etc., etc.

You are still going to be called a Mac zealot, if Apple gains a 10 percent marketshare. How many Microshit employees do you think frequent Mac sites, just to insight stupid arguments for fun? It is probably a job requirement when you work for the king of MS n****.

This idiotic "market share" percentage only counts *shipped* units?

What about the installed base?

Since Windows folk have to replace their computers much more often than Mac users, of course the numbers of Windows machines will outpace the Macs. Mac users don't have to dump their computer ever 2 years for a new model.

The only market share I care about is the installed base. Analysts can take their "units shipped" numbers and shove them up their a**.

Installed base my a**. PC users upgrade because they can and they want too. So tired of "I am still running my Apple IIc because I can" argument. If you can upgrade to PB17 or to dualie G5 today because they are affordable, would you not have done it? In addition, you think Jobs would like for you to hang on to your old G3 400 instead of buying a new unit? And what, you are going to impress your PC (or Mac) friends with the fact you can *still* run your G3 so you are not buying a new G5?

Shipped is what counts.

more Macs put into the right hands. That's a lot of computers. Good ones, too.

"bottom line, a marketshare of 10% would make it quite a different world"

10% of units shipped is more units than IBM and Gateway combined

Installed base vs shipped units has always been the most signifigant flaw in the media's attempt to determine marketshare.

The Windows PC people do not want to talk about the install base. They want to used shipped units because it makes them look better and makes Apple look worse.

The current Mac install base consists of approximately 25,000,000 units. Obviously this accounts for more than 5% of the computers in use.

Likewise the Linux/BSD/etc marketshare numbers get screwed over when ANALysts calculate marketshare based on shipped systems. Like Macs, unix workstations and servers get replaced far less frequently than Windows PCs.