Slashdot Mirror
PC Sales Slump Over Economic Crisis
nandemoari writes "The damage isn't just limited to the United States. Shipments of PCs in Europe, the Mid-East, and Africa dipped to records posted around the turn of the century. It was even worse in Asia, which according to Gartner, posted its worst growth rate ever — just 1.8 per cent.
Within the industry, desktops took the hardest hit, as was expected. Sales of non-portable computers were down about 16 per cent as consumers opted instead for the rising 'netbook' and similar hybrids. That fact alone is troubling for PC makers, given that $300-$500 netbooks offer a far lower profit margin than more expensive and more powerful laptops and desktops."
* Sales Slump Over Economic Crisis
* = Insert nearly anything here
Well, let's face it, it's not like it was 10 years ago where every 8 months you could buy a PC that was practically double the speed of your current PC. I mean how long have we been sitting at the same speeds?
No people are buying netbooks. The cheapest netbook on the market is more powerfull than the computer I had only a few years ago. Do most people need more for what they use a computer for.
My company only buys refurb PCs off lease. $200 for a 2.8GHz P4 with 1GB of RAM. It is the only way I can keep up a 25% turn-over rate and stay under budget.
Bearded Dragon
"posted its worst growth rate ever"
BFD. Contact me when it is in decline. A positive growth rate means that sales are still growing. That's just something that bugs me about economic news reporting. We're not in a !!CRISIS!!!..Oh, Nooo!...We're ALL gonna' DIE!! situation, and if we're headed in that direction, reporting how dire the situation is because the economy grew (but not as much as last quarter) doesn't help anybody...except maybe the newscaster.
So, reading the summary, the worst growth rate was 1.8%. That means, on average, the company that sold 100 PCs last quarter, sold 102 PCs this quarter. Boo-friggin'-hoo.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Given the lack of perceiveable performance improvements over the past several years, there really isn't a need to upgrade your home PC. Back before the XBox (BX?) the PC was still a considerable factor in gaming. Today, the cost of a single video card almost justifies the cost of an XBox by itself. The internet connectivity on the gaming consoles, the video and audio streaming and the game selection/quality means that the 'need' for a gaming PC ($$$) is reduced, because the XBox or PS3 can do the same or better for less money.
To the best of my knowledge, aside from the MS Flight Simulator X program - is there a 'killer app' that will drive PC sales? The only reason I caveat MS Flight Simulator X as a PC game "Killer App" is because hours spent playing this game can be applied toward actual Flight School (under specific guidelines, planes and conditions).
People are probably just buying laptops...
Possibly. But my desktop is 5 yo and Mrs Smidge's desktop is going on 10...! The reason? We don't game, just appliance the heck out of it. No need to upgrade. Same thing with our vehicles, we just fix 'em and take xtra care with preventive maintenance.
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
These days, you can get a powerful PC with a decent GPU (if you're a gamer) for less than $1k, and a $400 netbook for when you're on the road. Why have anything in between?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I mentioned this before but people scoffed. When VISTA is only running on 15% of computers and Windows 7 claims to be compliant with computers that can run VISTA, this mean that most consumers will need to purchase new systems to run Windows 7. What does this mean for the new Windows 7 launch?
Well if they do it within the next 8-10 months, the economy will most likely not yet be recovered and most consumers and businesses will still be wary of making the large purchases. This means a rough launch for Windows 7. Perhaps in 2 years they will have picked up but they will not get the initial response they wish for because it will still require a large number of consumers/businesses to upgrade from older systems.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Support? Hah! I think I speak for nearly everyone on Slashdot when I say: if we don't know the answer to a technical question, the script-reading third-worlder on the other end of the phone sure as hell won't know, either.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Notebooks are getting smaller, and have longer battery life, and tend to break more often and often cost more than they are worth to fix, and WiFi is becoming pretty standard everywhere. Desktops are easy to fix (e.g. no need to buy a new one when I can just swap out the defective part), have been more powerful than the casual user has needed for a while now, and consumer confidence is very shaken with Windows Vista (which most users won't upgrade their 4-5 year old computer to use, or specifically is holding on to the old one to not "have" to upgrade), and linux tends to run very well on older hardware (sometimes even better than the latest and greatest if the driver support from the vendor sucks). I'm sure the economy has something to do with it, but has been slumping for quite a while now. The only one appearing to kick ass is Apple, and that is only because they are taking customers away from Dell/HP by having compelling features, Not Vista, more PC compatible, trendy, and if they have to upgrade anyway, might as well get what they want.
I read an article by Michael Dell (lost the URL) saying that the market is saturated in the US; as in there are no "first time buyers" except maybe for the kid going off to college and a lot are going Apple. Everyone who wants a PC already has one, and the manufacturers have done nothing to convince buyers they need a new box. Instead, they've made the machines suck more though inferior integrated parts, made them more difficult to upgrade, and loaded them with crapware to try to make a profit on a product that is already razor thin.
The second problem is that the "Windows" bundled applications like Windows Movie Maker are crappy compared to the iMovie/iDVD bundles on Macs, and the manufactuer ones like Dell-Movie Maker (or Dell DVD Player) are even worse than the Windows default ones. Users get "box shock" when they attempt to buy Off-the-Shelf software so they are really looking for a box that "does stuff" and is "known" for "doing stuff" not just being faster. On Apple, the bundled apps are either very simple to remove, or are fully-functional "free as in beer" includes; here PC manufactures to often include crippled, hard to remove, ugly, slow applications.
Saavy PC buyers remove all that crap and put a clean Windows install or Linux on there. The base consumer has no idea how to do that, and get a piece of crap for their hard earned money. The OEMs should really work to either make Linux ready for desktop primetime, or invest in OSS projects to produce, very good, very simple, portable to Windows if need be, very user friendly, very attractive, free desktop software rather than put together a crappy version, and get rid of all the crap running in the system tray for a clean, snappy system and stop blaming the economy for no one buying there stuff.
Netbooks are doing exactly this; running very efficent OS installs where if feels like the system was designed like a velvet glove over the hardware. Lowering the price and giving the buyer the features they want "size, power usage, WiFi, price." Not more GHz and more ram simply to feed a more hungry, more restrictive, more lackluster OS.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
I don't think that applied to the /. crowd in college. Computer -> tuition -> cheetos -> alcohol -> textbooks was the order for me. I had a much better chance of passing almost all of my classes with a computer, but no textbook, then vice versa.
Hint: The textbook could usually be 'found' online in PDF form, shared, copied in the library, checked out from the library, used in various lab or just ignored wholesale, depends on the class.
So true. I have a Sun Sparc Station 5 running an vital role on my lan and it does its job day in and day out with no complaints. I also have a 2 dual p3 1.4 systems with 4GB a piece that same as the sparc run day in and day out. I got each machine for between 50 and 80 used. Why should I buy new when they work perfectly fine for use?
Unless I was unable to find a laptop that does what I need to do with a computer I don't see why I would go with a desktop. The price/performance difference is not what it used to be.
I could almost get away with using just my phone and a bigger screen and full size keyboard since most of what I do is ssh,email and web.
That doesn't really make much sense. Laptops and notebooks are probably replacing desktops, but why would a desktop user go from a powerful machine with a big screen and keyboard to an underpowered netbook with a tiny screen and keyboard? It would be a whole different experience. The slow sales growth much more likely comes from the economic crash and a move to notebooks/laptops that finally compete with desktops on the price/power front. The article writer seems to be trying to latch onto the current buzz to make the piece more "edgy". If netbooks were the alternative of choice, we should be seeing the biggest bite coming out of notebook/laptop sales, not desktops. And what kind of hybrids are "similar" to netbooks?
I heard Dells aren't selling very well in Ireland at all these days.
It could also just be that people have their computers already and are being content with them. You would expect the numbers to dwindle as people buy less. If I already have a desktop, why do I need another?
I think this is a big part of it. I haven't noticed the laptop craze as much myself. Most people I know still use desktops (heck I have a laptop but don't use it unless I absolutely have to).
The lifespan of a computer has changed though. Back in the early days you basically got 2 years out of a computer and then it needed replacing (heck I remember almost busting out laughing when I was a teenager and a guy had me work on his daughter's school computer. He mentioned that "I don't know why it's acting up. I just had a guy completely redo it not more than 2 years ago!").
Today though, even a really, really old computer still gets onto the internet just fine. My parents are using a 1200Mhz system with 512MB of RAM. My sister uses a 700mhz system with 256MB of RAM. Both still work just fine for what they need. I know of countless other people who just use the computer as a web browser (and even most email is web based now so you can't really mention it as a separate app) and are dealing with computers 5 to 10 years old just fine.
I think we've basically hit that plateau where computers have become like cars. Most people have one. They don't really become completely obsolete for basic tasks anymore. I think new sales will gradually slip to hobbyists, rich people, and replacements for broken systems. With the increasingly harsh economic times it's only hastening the arrival of an event that was going to happen anyways.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It wasn't modded down. He's just a habitual troll with such bad karma that he starts at -1.
While I'm sure the recession has something to do with it, the fact of the matter is, unless you're a hard core gamer, or trying to run Vista, any computer bought in the last few years is "good enough."
Heck, I game quite a bit AND have the money, but why spend it replacing a perfectly good machine (which I got over three years ago)?
PCs now are far more powerful than Joe Sixpack needs to read his email and surf the web, so most people are probably fine with the ones they have. I doubt there are many households left that don't have a computer, so they have to justify replacing a functioning one now.
why sir, oh why do you hate America?
This is a given.
I don't know why anyone would question it.
What happens is people begin to get their computers fixed rather than getting a new computer, which is something they should have done all along. Most computers of yesterday are more than capable running today's software (with the exception maybe of Vista--which should have been a no-go to begin with).
Always fix rather than replace unless the computer is far too old. Any honest technician worth anything will be able to tell you that.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Instead, toss a bunch of blade racks together, virtualize your userbase, simplify your desktop management, address many of your network security issues, keep all your data "safe" in the data center, allow better user experience for remote users... lots and lots of benefits (if you can get it to work).
In my company (a large bank), we are due to refresh 10's of thousands of PCs, yet instead, we may refresh NONE of them, go with virtualization (and the saved costs of keeping older PCs will fund the new infrastructure). With PCs bought in the last 3-4 years, acting as thin-clients, we can keep them until they break, and replace them with some cheap thintops.
If many companies are going down this route, then it would be no surprise, coupled with the economy, that PC sales in the corporate world would be dropping!
Lokatana
Alcohol IS food.
4. There are computing-jobs that are inherently not parallel.
5. Parallel programming is hard not because of bad programming languages but because of the logical problems that come with shared state and parallelism.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-23.html#%25_idx_3598
Therefore multicores do not bring a substantial performance benefit. Futhermore because the problems are fundamental logical ones, there is no big hope.
They also have VGA-out ports, so problem solved.
In fact, even with my "full size" 15.4 inch laptop, I had a USB keyboard/mouse and 17inch monitor for when it was sitting on my desk, which was 95% of the time.
I think the issue here is that the industry is up against the wall in compelling reasons to upgrade... when you hit a certain mark, most sales are from people who already have computers. Perhaps those people are finally realizing that MSWord is not going to be any faster on a quad core than it is on a single core, and they've stopped wasting their money.
The only people buying $500.00 video cards for $3000 quad-core powerhouse desktops are professionals or kids playing video games with more time and money than brains.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Alcohol IS food.
Let's talk again when you reach 35, if you reach 35 that is.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
WoW? Or more broadly, any social computer game that requires a keyboard to interface with.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
I know a LOT of people deciding not to buy new computers because they only have Vista. Most people come and ask me if I can put XP on it after they buy it. And frankly, doing that is getting increasingly more difficult because OEMs are changing their part numbers and PCI IDs so their XP drivers don't want to install on the same devices. If I were better at hacking the installers, I would just run a PCI scan and add those numbers to whatever files are needed, but getting them to install without modification is becoming increasingly difficult.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This year MS did pretty much nothing and there was very little motivation to buy anything new. Apple had not announced anything amazing for at least a year now.
Therefore sales drop off. Wow: who'd have thought that?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Most of us have PCs already, and with reliability getting tolerable, thank goodness, most PC sales are upgrades, no? It is a luxury purchase; a good investment of some extra money. No extra money or a frugal conscience will lead to postponement of such purchases - especially for corporations.
I still disagree with the interpretation that sales are falling. Sales are not growing isn't sales decline... Maybe less than expected, but still, it is not a decline. 1.8% growth is not a decline. My height not growing doesn't mean I am shrinking.
Maybe people just don't want a 100lb system when they can get something that fits in their pocket. I just got an iPod Touch to use as a pocket computer (it works nicely and I'll really like it when I figure out how to write programs for it), and now my wife wants one too. She'll probably get one of those cute Acer netbooks for $400 too as they look handy to throw in the diaper bag for times you need to run a Windows program on the go.
The vast majority of the time we just want web and email access or to make some notes and keep track of our check book, shopping list, etc. For those even a laptop is to much. The iPod is really optimal. To bad they made it such a pain to write apps for - I have to upgrade my OS and pay $100 to become a developer and use Apple's own pet language it seems (or jailbreak it which is also a pain).
The iPhone would be good but $80+ a month seems a lot and we don't like AT&T. If they could give it some competition then I'd be really interested. They need a 32GB model of the iPhone too though. 16GB just isn't enough.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
This is basically Linux's only chance. As we move on to 64-bitters, Vista, osX, and Linux will compete on a different landscape. The problem, and opportunity, is that THERE ARE NO 64-bit KILLER apps out there. No OS has a single killer app that needs 64-bit computing. SO I think Eric Raymond is wrong about the hard deadline being in 2008. As long as there is no killer app, all architectures are fair play.
Obviously, if the killer app is open source and is born in Linuxland, it will be ported...
I'm not American, Why do you hate Western Samoa.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Sure processes are better isolated, but the problem of time and concurrency stays.
This will always be a problem because it is a fundamental logical one, comming from mother nature.
SICP has an good examples of that problem: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-23.html#%25_sec_3.4
Functional programming may be an answer, but this answer is limited by mother nature.