Slashdot Mirror
66% Apple Market Share For Sales of High-End PCs
An anonymous reader lets us know about a recent analysis of retail computer sales numbers that shines a spotlight on Apple's sales growth as the PC market has flattened. In the lucrative >$1,000 PC segment, in the first quarter of 2008, Apple's retail market share was 66%. This includes a 64% market share for laptops and a market share for desktops of 70%. The article attributes the bulk of this success to Apple's stores. Fortune picked up this report and pointed out the somewhat obvious fact that the >$1,000 PC segment is Apple's by default, since Dell, HP, and Lenovo sell the bulk of their machines in the $500-$750 range, and Apple has only one model selling for less than $1,000. As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
From the current moderation of my post:
50% Insightful
30% Troll
20% Overrated
I can pull certain statistics from the Slashdot user base:
50% Metrosexual Apple fanboys
50% Rest
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
So True. Apple can't sell computers to save its life. No one wants to buy them. They can't play crysis so they are garbage. Serious artists always refuse to use Apples because they know this in their hearts.
Can I throw a reality check into these assertions? There is NO laptop you can buy for under $2000 that will play crysis. A few months ago there were no laptops that could play Crysis realistically at all. As to why a "Serious Artist" would need more than a Mac can provide I am confused.
The professional photographers and editors I work with tend to prefer the MacBook Pros. And when they really need the horsepower they tend to prefer the Mac Pro. Sure, other computers are used and preferred by some, but the Mac Pro has plenty of horsepower for anything a single workstation would be used for.
Oh yeah? You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
Seriously, who doesn't see this as an attempt at framing all criticism of Apple as flamebait? People who call consumer products an "experience" to dismiss real deficiencies deserve to be ridiculed with popular cliches.
12.1" screen (closest I could get to 13", but smaller will only make it smaller/lighter)
AMD Turion x2 2.4Ghz (Turion x2 is slower mhz to mhz compared to a Core2 Duo, but they're comparable)
2GB RAM
250GB Hard Drive (compared to 160GB on the MacBook)
DVD+/-RW with Lightscribe
The HP model also has a touchscreen, tablet mode, and a fingerprint reader (which if I was a Mac fanatic I would hold out as absolutely critical requirements on the Mac to make a fair comparison, but I'll just discount them as extras).
It's price is $1075. The Macbook with these specs is $1299. Not twice as much, but a decent difference. As you said, comparing the MacbookPro with a 15.4" HP model comes out much differently. An HP Pavilion dv6700t compared to the base model Macbook Pro with the closest specs you can get them to (identical except the HP has 50GB more hard drive space, and the Macbook has Nvidia 8600M graphics while the HP has Nvidia 8400M graphics), comes out with the HP at $993, and the Macbook Pro at $1999. That's MORE than twice as much. And while I wouldn't say the HP is quite as durable as the Apple, it's not as bad as it's made out to be.
As to Lenovo, most aren't available with the specs the Macbook has - when I checked their sitte the most expensive 15" laptop they current sell is about $1200. That in itself represents a very nice advantage of PC laptops: their ability to dial BACK the hardware when wanted. Even comparing feature to feature Mac's usually loose, but it gets REALLY bad when I can choose a little bit slower processor. A little smaller of a hard drive, etc. As has been said by others, Apple's main strength is their OS, not their hardware. That OS would work fine on budget machines, which is what most people buy. And when it is stated that way, the truth is I can get a functional Windows laptop for $399. I can't get an Apple one unless I lay down a minimum of $1099. Regardless of specs, the Windows laptop has a far lower entry point, because the people who make those computers aren't forcing you to buy faster hardware that you don't need.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Even so, there's sort of an advantage of having relatively the same hardware across a few machines. Macs would probably be really nice to run games on if any more than 15 or 16 existed for 'em. I mean, hardware issues would pretty much go out the door.
(Mac Fanboys, this is your cue to start your "Marathon" and "Wine" posts.)
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)