Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58812 > unrolled thread

Mac sales in mild decline

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:20 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:33 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 19:27 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 01:01 +0000
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 21:57 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:30 +1200
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:54 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:27 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:20 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:41 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 12:39 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:21 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:35 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-27 02:28 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:54 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-28 09:03 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-04-28 11:29 +0100
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:14 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:10 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-24 16:16 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:13 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 15:05 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 00:28 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 18:11 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:00 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Rob Noland <not@this.com> - 2014-04-25 20:16 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 20:54 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:59 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-23 16:33 -0700
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 20:00 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-23 21:25 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:25 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 12:15 -0700
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:04 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 15:09 -0700
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:32 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 17:33 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 21:01 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-24 21:31 -0700
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 21:48 -0700
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 04:42 -0400
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:23 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:35 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:07 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 00:59 +0000
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:55 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:53 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:03 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-24 02:13 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:58 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:26 +1200
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-26 13:56 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-27 10:13 +1200
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-27 10:09 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 10:31 -0400
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:55 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:21 +0000
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:42 -0400
                          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:46 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:19 +0000
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:45 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:38 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:12 -0500
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 11:09 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 18:38 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:10 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:34 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:48 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:30 +1200
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 00:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 18:22 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 09:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:41 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-04-26 11:43 -0500
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 13:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:36 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 20:41 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:44 +0000
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 16:40 -0400

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#58953

In article <mysiozt930.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at
invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
> >
> > Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for
> > that matter right.
> > 
> > Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were
> > no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I
> > don't recall.
> 
> Wow, you must have had the first computer to run for over 1900 years.
> In fact, you must have had the first computer period, in the 1st
> century.  Run into any Y1K (or Y.1K) problems?

I can't remember what date it was thought to be from, but there was a
"computer" found in a Mediterranean ancient shipwreck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58983

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:03:39 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <mysiozt930.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at
>invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>> >
>> > Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for
>> > that matter right.
>> > 
>> > Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were
>> > no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I
>> > don't recall.
>> 
>> Wow, you must have had the first computer to run for over 1900 years.
>> In fact, you must have had the first computer period, in the 1st
>> century.  Run into any Y1K (or Y.1K) problems?
>
>I can't remember what date it was thought to be from, but there was a
>"computer" found in a Mediterranean ancient shipwreck.

 Antikythera device. From around about the time that jewish fella did
his thing. 
 It should not exist. Yet it does. Someone was a fiddler of
extraordinary skill and patience. That is craftsmanship of an
extremely high order. 
 There's WickedPeeing on it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism and some quite good
linkies therefrom. 
 It's an intriguing mechanism. The guy that made them, and there must
have been a "them" as a singular machine would have been headline news
worldwide at the time, must have been a patient OCD genius.
 I love the name. It's so SF.
                                 J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58993

In article <lqasl91md621nb1d7h0vb0gtonn9v2f1k4@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:03:39 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <mysiozt930.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at
> >invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
> >> >
> >> > Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for
> >> > that matter right.
> >> > 
> >> > Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were
> >> > no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I
> >> > don't recall.
> >> 
> >> Wow, you must have had the first computer to run for over 1900 years.
> >> In fact, you must have had the first computer period, in the 1st
> >> century.  Run into any Y1K (or Y.1K) problems?
> >
> >I can't remember what date it was thought to be from, but there was a
> >"computer" found in a Mediterranean ancient shipwreck.
> 
>  Antikythera device. From around about the time that jewish fella did
> his thing. 
>  It should not exist. Yet it does. Someone was a fiddler of
> extraordinary skill and patience. That is craftsmanship of an
> extremely high order. 
>  There's WickedPeeing on it at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism and some quite good
> linkies therefrom. 
>  It's an intriguing mechanism. The guy that made them, and there must
> have been a "them" as a singular machine would have been headline news
> worldwide at the time, must have been a patient OCD genius.
>  I love the name. It's so SF.

Yep, that sounds like the one. I bet it doesn't suffer from
laregly-mythical Y2K problems.   ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58835

In article <53583fca$0$1283$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
> > 
> > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline 
> > that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly 
> > peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a 
> > continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> 
> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
> what you can do with them.
> 
> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
> 
> My Mac Pro is 5 years old, upgraded to 4 TB of storage and 24 gigs of
> memory. Sure it could do with a boost in CPU speed for when I do some
> Premiere/AfterEffects (which I often send off to my server anyways), but
> for daya to day use, it still does the job quite well.
> 
> The problem with the media is that they make it look like people use
> their computers less instead of stating that computers last longer these
> days.

My beige PowerMac G3 has lasted 16 years so far and still working
perfectly well (at least as "perfectly" as buggy 10.2 will allow).  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58864

On 2014-04-23 22:33:45 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>> 
>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> 
> 
> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
> what you can do with them.
> 
> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
> 
> My Mac Pro is 5 years old, upgraded to 4 TB of storage and 24 gigs of
> memory. Sure it could do with a boost in CPU speed for when I do some
> Premiere/AfterEffects (which I often send off to my server anyways), but
> for daya to day use, it still does the job quite well.
> 
> The problem with the media is that they make it look like people use
> their computers less instead of stating that computers last longer these
> days.

The analysts have to contort the news in order to justify a 
pre-determined mindset.  Take the HDTV sales spike that happened a few 
years back in the USA, which has now tapered down dramatically.  TV 
companies are trying all kinds of crap in order to attract the customer 
- "smart" TVs which spy on you for extra revenue, 3D which wasn't even 
cool in the 50s, you name it, and they are ultimately blaming the 
economic downturn for the lack of sales.  They just can't admit to 
themselves that most everybody who bought a TV has one that will suit 
their needs until it breaks down.

Unless you are a gamer, or a specialized user, any computer made in the 
last decade is more than good enough.  People will buy a new one to 
replace the old one, and even the doom and gloom scare stories about 
the "death" of XP hasn't really spurred any replacement purchasing as 
far as I can tell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58898

On 2014.04.24, 19:16 , Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2014-04-23 22:33:45 +0000, JF Mezei said:
>
>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average showsa
>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>
>>
>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>> what you can do with them.
>>
>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
>>
>> My Mac Pro is 5 years old, upgraded to 4 TB of storage and 24 gigs of
>> memory. Sure it could do with a boost in CPU speed for when I do some
>> Premiere/AfterEffects (which I often send off to my server anyways), but
>> for daya to day use, it still does the job quite well.
>>
>> The problem with the media is that they make it look like people use
>> their computers less instead of stating that computers last longer these
>> days.
>
> The analysts have to contort the news in order to justify a
> pre-determined mindset.  Take the HDTV sales spike that happened a few
> years back in the USA, which has now tapered down dramatically.  TV
> companies are trying all kinds of crap in order to attract the customer
> - "smart" TVs which spy on you for extra revenue, 3D which wasn't even
> cool in the 50s, you name it, and they are ultimately blaming the
> economic downturn for the lack of sales.  They just can't admit to
> themselves that most everybody who bought a TV has one that will suit
> their needs until it breaks down.

A lot of people consider a television to be at least a 10 year 
"investment" (I think 20 years myself).  I don't know where they get the 
notion that they can keep rolling out gee whiz improvements and that 
people will immediately buy them.

Computers have turned into near 10 year cycle ability - this iMac could 
last me through late 2023...  here's hoping.  I have little doubt that 
my prior iMac (2007) will last that buyer past 2017 (barring failures).

> Unless you are a gamer, or a specialized user, any computer made in the
> last decade is more than good enough.  People will buy a new one to
> replace the old one, and even the doom and gloom scare stories about the
> "death" of XP hasn't really spurred any replacement purchasing as far as
> I can tell.

It has some per a fellow who owns a local PC repair shop as a lot of 
people want to upgrade now that the MS support scare campaign is in full 
bloom.  While he does a lot of upgrades for people from XP to Win7, 
there are machine updates too when the computer is on the pale end of 
performance ... he sends them off to Best Buy with a recommendation for 
a particular model and spec - and to avoid Win 8.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58871

In article <53583fca$0$1283$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
> > 
> > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline 
> > that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly 
> > peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a 
> > continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> 
> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
> what you can do with them.

It doesn't say above where Alan Browne got that know-nothing garbage
report from (probably the usual "Apple is doomed" moronic blogger
"journalists"), but this is pretty much the complete opposite from
MacWorld UK ...

    Apple defies PC downturn again, boosts Mac sales
    ------------------------------------------------
    Apple on Wednesday said it sold 4.1 million Macs in the
    March quarter, growing sales during a period when the
    personal computer industry overall continued to contract.

    The Cupertino, Calif. company sold 5% more Macs in the
    quarter than the same stretch the year before, with
    revenue from its oldest line accounting for 12% of the
    company's total sales of $45.6 billion.

    "Macs continue to be very consistent, with a very 
    consistent market," said Carolina Milanesi, chief of
    research at Kantar Worldpanel ComTech, in an interview
    after Apple's earnings call concluded.

    The consistency Milanesi spoke of was Apple's ability 
    to regularly beat the industry average for personal 
    computer sales growth. In the March quarter, global
    shipments of PCs decreased by 4%, according to
    researcher IDC. Rival Gartner pegged the contraction 
    at about 2%.

    "It's a good business for them," said Van Baker, an
    analyst with Gartner. "But remember, Apple chooses to
    compete only at the high end of the market, so it's 
    kind of self-regulating."

    By that he meant that the Mac, unlike the bulk of 
    personal computers, is not as susceptible to the whims
    of price wars, or the waning and waxing of economies.
    And because it was not really forced to compete on 
    price, Apple did not have to pare margins to the bone
    to sell systems, as have most other OEMs (original 
    equipment manufacturers).

    "Plus, the Mac helps them sell other products and 
    sustains their image in the market because they can 
    put the latest technology in their machines," Baker
    added.

    The ASP, or average selling price, of the Mac line
    actually increased 2% quarter-over-quarter, climbing
    from $1,322 to $1,344. Even so, the March 2014
    quarter's ASP was down nearly 3% year-over-year.

    When graphed over a long period -- from 2008 on -- the
    Mac's ASP looks quite stable, showing that Apple has 
    been able both to sustain modest growth while not
    retreating from its premium brand philosophy.

    The 4.1 million Macs sold last quarter were a March
    quarter record for the company. If Gartner and IDC 
    were accurate in their estimates of personal 
    computers shipped worldwide, Macs accounted for 
    between 5.3% and 5.6% of the total.

    The two research firms have predicted that the 
    long-term contraction of the PC industry -- eight 
    quarters, or two years, so far -- will continue into
    the foreseeable future. For instance, IDC forecast 
    last month that total shipments will shrink by 6% 
    this year, and volumes will remain under the 
    300-million mark through 2018.

    The Mac's sales contraction, on the other hand, ran 
    for only four quarters. The March quarter was the 
    second consecutive on the plus side of the growth 
    ledger.

    Microsoft, whose Windows operating system powers 
    most non-Mac personal computers, will report its 
    March quarter earnings Thursday after the market 
    closes. Microsoft's numbers, and the commentary by 
    its executives, including new CEO Satya Nadella, 
    should provide additional insight on the health of 
    the overall PC business.

    The Mac's ASP  has remained remarkably stable over
    the last 6+ years, a tribute to Apple's focus on 
    the high-end of the PC market.
   
<http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-defies-pc-downturn-again-boo
sts-mac-sales-3513292/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58876

On 14-04-24 23:05, Your Name wrote:

>     The Cupertino, Calif. company sold 5% more Macs in the
>     quarter than the same stretch the year before, with
>     revenue from its oldest line accounting for 12% of the
>     company's total sales of $45.6 billion.


As a point of comparison:

> http://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY14/Q3/default.aspx
##
Windows OEM revenue grew 4%, driven by strong 19% growth in Windows OEM
Pro revenue.
##

So this would mean that the basic windows shrunk in sales, but Windows
Pro grew enough to compensate and result on 4% growth. During conference
call, MS enphasises how business is still with Windows. Seems to be
there may have been loss of market share in personal computing.

The new guy Satya Nadella: Mobile and clould based future.

But the overall tone of the conference call, once you remove the "cloud"
buzzword, is that Microsoft is doing like Adobe, moving from software
licence sales to software rental.

While they brag about growth of Office 365 (easy to grow when you start
from 0), they didm't provide percentage of customers who choose to buy
licence instead of rent software.

They do admit that software rental will increase cost of using the
software (aka: increase revenues for MS).

End of Windows XP said to have helped growth in this quarter.

MS offers "Windows for free" for sub 9" devices. Realises they need to
get some market share to attract developpers.


Overall though, I see MS still very focused on Office, with no bragging
on how MS is working on great new innovative products.  No mention of
new products, no mention of new Windows version. They did mention launch
of Office for iPad (which apparently includes automatic subscription to
Office 365).


Overall, listening to the MS teleconference, despite having a new CEO,
it makes me appreciate the energy that Apple has and the drive to give
us the impression Apple has got plenty up its sleeve being developped.

MS appears more like a service company with little innovative energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58881

In article <5359e47a$0$7235$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-04-24 23:05, Your Name wrote:
> 
> >     The Cupertino, Calif. company sold 5% more Macs in the
> >     quarter than the same stretch the year before, with
> >     revenue from its oldest line accounting for 12% of the
> >     company's total sales of $45.6 billion.
> 
> As a point of comparison:
> 
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleas
> > eAndWebcast/FY14/Q3/default.aspx
> ##
> Windows OEM revenue grew 4%, driven by strong 19% growth in Windows OEM
> Pro revenue.
> ##
> 
> So this would mean that the basic windows shrunk in sales, but Windows
> Pro grew enough to compensate and result on 4% growth. During conference
> call, MS enphasises how business is still with Windows. Seems to be
> there may have been loss of market share in personal computing.
> 
> The new guy Satya Nadella: Mobile and clould based future.
> 
> But the overall tone of the conference call, once you remove the "cloud"
> buzzword, is that Microsoft is doing like Adobe, moving from software
> licence sales to software rental.
> 
> While they brag about growth of Office 365 (easy to grow when you start
> from 0), they didm't provide percentage of customers who choose to buy
> licence instead of rent software.
> 
> They do admit that software rental will increase cost of using the
> software (aka: increase revenues for MS).
<snip>

That's the ONLY reason for the silly rental / cloud systems. They can't
actually think of any even vaguely useful new features that people
really want to buy the new version for, so instead they force you to
pay monthly / annually. Nothing but pure selfish greed. :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58895

On 2014.04.24, 23:05 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <53583fca$0$1283$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average showsa
>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>
>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>> what you can do with them.
>
> It doesn't say above where Alan Browne got that know-nothing garbage
> report from

I took the data from the Apple earnings report.  I think Apple 'know' 
what they're saying.

It's their numbers.  The only thing I did to the data was use a simple 
filter (4 quarter average) to smooth out the peeks and valleys.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg

The data in the "Quarterly" column is from Apple.  The blue curve is 
from "Average prev 4 Q".

Very telling is that the peaks are lower and the valleys are deeper as 
time goes on.  It's not a crash - just a mild decline.  It may reverse.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58902

On 2014.04.24, 23:05 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <53583fca$0$1283$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>
>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>> what you can do with them.
>
> It doesn't say above where Alan Browne got that know-nothing garbage
> report from (probably the usual "Apple is doomed" moronic blogger
> "journalists"), but this is pretty much the complete opposite from
> MacWorld UK ...

The numbers on the chart come straight out of Apple's quarterly reports. 
  Is that garbage?  He plotted it as a continuous series with averaging 
to smooth it out.  When you ignore fiscal year begin/end you get a clear 
picture of sales compared to the past.

As to MacWorld it looks like they just take the positive spin from the 
helpful people at Apple and add more positive spin to it.

Does MacWorld have some interest in Macs looking good?  :-)

At least Mac sales are sort of steady.  PC sales are down everywhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58903

On 14-04-25 20:16, Rob Noland wrote:

> At least Mac sales are sort of steady.  PC sales are down everywhere.

My impression is that the PC market is down, and that within it, Mac's
are down less than the rest. (so once can factually argue they are doing
better than the rest).

Computers are no longer a growth industry, it is a mature industry.  And
it takes a while for analysts and companies to get used to an ever
growing curve changing to a cyclical curve.

Note that Microsoft has been able to spin a 4% increase in Windows sales
(19% increase for Windows Pro), so even they can find ways to pretend
the market is still growing.


MS was not able to answer questiohs on whether this growth was due to a
one time blimkp caused by retirement of Windows XP (although earlier
they acknoledged it contributed to that number).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58912

On 2014.04.25, 20:16 , Rob Noland wrote:
> On 2014.04.24, 23:05 , Your Name wrote:
>> In article <53583fca$0$1283$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF
>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild
>>>> decline
>>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>>
>>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>>> what you can do with them.
>>
>> It doesn't say above where Alan Browne got that know-nothing garbage
>> report from (probably the usual "Apple is doomed" moronic blogger
>> "journalists"), but this is pretty much the complete opposite from
>> MacWorld UK ...
>
> The numbers on the chart come straight out of Apple's quarterly reports.
>   Is that garbage?  He plotted it as a continuous series with averaging
> to smooth it out.  When you ignore fiscal year begin/end you get a clear
> picture of sales compared to the past.

Thanks for that clarification.  That's exactly the point.  "Fiscal Year 
End", "The same quarter last year" and such pablum in reports mask real 
trends.

>
> As to MacWorld it looks like they just take the positive spin from the
> helpful people at Apple and add more positive spin to it.
>
> Does MacWorld have some interest in Macs looking good?  :-)

Nah?  How could it be?

>
> At least Mac sales are sort of steady.  PC sales are down everywhere.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58815

On 2014-04-23 22:20:21 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> 
> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
> decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
> quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
> average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> 
> See link below.
> 
> Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M 
> unit quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an 
> average of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the 
> last 8 quarters.
> 
> Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.
> 
> Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac" 
> rumours in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to 
> attract newcomers to the Mac.

Your analysis is interesting...

...but wrong.

Mac sales were UP year over year...

...and that was with constrained supply of a much anticipated new machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58817

On 2014.04.23, 19:33 , Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2014-04-23 22:20:21 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>>
>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild
>> decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are
>> quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter
>> average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>
>> See link below.
>>
>> Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M
>> unit quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an
>> average of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the
>> last 8 quarters.
>>
>> Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.
>>
>> Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg
>>
>> - - - - -
>>
>> Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac"
>> rumours in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to
>> attract newcomers to the Mac.
>
> Your analysis is interesting...
>
> ...but wrong.
>
> Mac sales were UP year over year...

Year ends?
11: 16,735,000
12: 18,158,000
13: 16,341,000  a 1.8M decline is not "UP year over year" where
                 I come from.

The best 4 quarters put together are 11Q4 thru 12Q4 at 18,158,000

Last 4?  17,301,000.  Not much "UP" there either.

> ...and that was with constrained supply of a much anticipated new machine.

The numbers, quarter by quarter are what they are.  You have to look at 
the trend over many quarters.  (The constrained supply issue is long 
over and washed out).

That's why the graph is useful - you see what's really happening:

The last two quarterly peaks are lower in succession from the all time 
high.

Peak 12Q1: 5,198,000
Peak 12Q4: 4,923,000
Peak 14Q1: 4,827,000

It's declining.

The troughs keep getting deeper.  The moving average is down as well.

Moving average (4 and 8 quarters)

         4                 8
12Q2:  4,514,000        4,163,375
13Q2:  4,239,000        4,376,500
14Q2:  4,325,250        4,282,125.

Taking Q2 as a "year end"
11: 15,251,000
12: 18,056,000
13: 16,956,000
14: 17,301,000 decline v 2012.Q2 "year end" and not much above 2013.Q2 
"year end".

No matter how you look at it, the Mac has been in a gentle decline since 
its peak in 12Q1.

Not to say that won't reverse.  But it is what it is.

OTOH, it's still a $20B+ business in its own right which is nothing to 
sneeze at.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58837

In article <lj9ijr$l9m$5@news.datemas.de>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> On 2014-04-23 22:20:21 +0000, Alan Browne said:
> 
> > 
> > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
> > decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
> > quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
> > average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> > 
> > See link below.
> > 
> > Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M 
> > unit quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an 
> > average of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the 
> > last 8 quarters.
> > 
> > Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.
> > 
> > Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.
> > 
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg
> > 
> > - - - - -
> > 
> > Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac" 
> > rumours in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to 
> > attract newcomers to the Mac.
> 
> Your analysis is interesting...
> 
> ...but wrong.
> 
> Mac sales were UP year over year...
> 
> ...and that was with constrained supply of a much anticipated new machine.

Sales are not up and anticipation of that new machine evaporated once it 
was released.  Tim is trying to hard make it look scarce and exclusive 
like Steve did, but people are waiting for the next model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58843

In article
<mcmurtrie-7359AE.21251423042014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
> In article <lj9ijr$l9m$5@news.datemas.de>,
>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > On 2014-04-23 22:20:21 +0000, Alan Browne said:
> > > 
> > > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
> > > decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
> > > quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
> > > average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> > > 
> > > See link below.
> > > 
> > > Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M 
> > > unit quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an 
> > > average of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the 
> > > last 8 quarters.
> > > 
> > > Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.
> > > 
> > > Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.
> > > 
> > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg
> > > 
> > > - - - - -
> > > 
> > > Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac" 
> > > rumours in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to 
> > > attract newcomers to the Mac.
> > 
> > Your analysis is interesting...
> > 
> > ...but wrong.
> > 
> > Mac sales were UP year over year...
> > 
> > ...and that was with constrained supply of a much anticipated new machine.
> 
> Sales are not up and anticipation of that new machine evaporated once it 
> was released.  Tim is trying to hard make it look scarce and exclusive 
> like Steve did, but people are waiting for the next model.

Anyone waiting for the next Mac Pro is an idiot and will be waiting
quite a while. Barring a speed bump, anyone waiting for the next iMac
is also in for a long wait.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58855

On 2014-04-24 04:25:14 +0000, Kevin McMurtrie said:

> In article <lj9ijr$l9m$5@news.datemas.de>,
>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-04-23 22:20:21 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild
>>> decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are
>>> quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter
>>> average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>> 
>>> See link below.
>>> 
>>> Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M
>>> unit quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an
>>> average of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the
>>> last 8 quarters.
>>> 
>>> Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.
>>> 
>>> Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.
>>> 
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg
>>> 
>>> - - - - -
>>> 
>>> Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac"
>>> rumours in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to
>>> attract newcomers to the Mac.
>> 
>> Your analysis is interesting...
>> 
>> ...but wrong.
>> 
>> Mac sales were UP year over year...
>> 
>> ...and that was with constrained supply of a much anticipated new machine.
> 
> Sales are not up and anticipation of that new machine evaporated once it
> was released.  Tim is trying to hard make it look scarce and exclusive
> like Steve did, but people are waiting for the next model.

Ummm...

Shipping on the Mac Pros is showing 3-5 weeks.

Does that sound like interest in it has "evaporated"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58861

On 14-04-24 15:15, Alan Baker wrote:

> Shipping on the Mac Pros is showing 3-5 weeks.
> 
> Does that sound like interest in it has "evaporated"?

You can't draw conclusions are they are all built to order.  It can
range form them being very busy, to them being so un-busy that they got
2 weeks off and the few orders will start to get built when they come back.

It could also mean that one large customer placed a big order recently,
this is this displacing the "normal" orders with greater delays, but
once that large order has been fulfilled, the assembly plant will be
below capacity and delivery times much shorter.

This is the type of info that Apple will not release and all there can
be is idle speculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58862

On 2014-04-24 22:04:46 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 14-04-24 15:15, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>> Shipping on the Mac Pros is showing 3-5 weeks.
>> 
>> Does that sound like interest in it has "evaporated"?
> 
> You can't draw conclusions are they are all built to order.  It can
> range form them being very busy, to them being so un-busy that they got
> 2 weeks off and the few orders will start to get built when they come back.

You can make some reasonable assumptions.

If interest had "evaporated", then you would expect supply to catch up 
with demand.

Which it hasn't.

> 
> It could also mean that one large customer placed a big order recently,
> this is this displacing the "normal" orders with greater delays, but
> once that large order has been fulfilled, the assembly plant will be
> below capacity and delivery times much shorter.

That is speculation.

Apply Occam's Razor.

> 
> This is the type of info that Apple will not release and all there can
> be is idle speculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web