

Apple’s market share of PCs over $1,000 hits 66% - nickb
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/19/report-apples-market-share-of-pcs-over-1000-hits-66/

======
Tichy
Even more amazing: Apple now holds a market share of 100% of Apple computers.
That other number pales in comparison to that. Clearly 100% are more than 66%.

------
Goronmon
_To some extent, Apple’s (AAPL) share of this market is growing by default.
Companies like HP (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Lenovo ship enormous quantities of
PCs at price points between $500 and $750, whereas the only Macintosh that
sells for less than $1,000 is the $599 Mini_

When I first saw the title, this is the first thing that crossed my mind.
Apple seems to be in the business of selling expensive computers. I'm not
saying this makes their growing market share less valuable, just that it's
less of a win then it might seem at face value.

Plus, like others have mentioned, this is only for B&M stores.

~~~
Goronmon
Hmm...is it just me or does is that comment fairly confusing?

My point was that the overall growing on their market is definitely valuable
to Apple, and the fact that they are in the market of selling expensive
computers doesn't influence that value. However, it does reduce the value of
using the a larger dollar value as a criteria for determining market share. If
the overall market for computers greater than $1000 is shrinking, then selling
more in that market is not as valuable as it was may have been.

My tendency to use "it" in bad places really gets on my nerves sometimes.

------
raghus
The sales channel representation is one thing - what about the over $1000
part? Maybe Mercedes/BMW also have a pretty nifty % of market share for cars
over $35K (say) - that doesn't mean much because there are a ton of choices
under that amount. You're still going to see more Fords and Hondas on the
road.

------
babul
Plus the PC market is fragmented by different vendors/brands, and in Apples
market ...there is only Apple.

------
vaksel
also PC market has plenty of options below 1000, and with Apple that is not
the case

------
LPTS
That's a little (edit: lot) misleading. Apple's market share of PC's sold
direct in stores over 1,000 is at 66%.

The 66% would not hold if internet or corporate sales are included. Therefore
your title exaggerates apples market share in computers over 1,000 by at least
2x, possibly more (I don't know the exact numbers.)

~~~
jimbokun
If you are a PC manufacturer, regardless of the fact that this figure does not
include all PCs sold, I think that it is still a very important trend that
bears attention.

The high end share for Apple is growing rapidly, especially in the consumer
market. Considering that the business market is arguably even more price
sensitive (no citations, but I believe I've read this various places,
citations to the contrary welcome), Apple is siphoning off the most profitable
segment of customers, leaving HP, Dell, and the other PC players to fight over
the segments with razor thin margins.

I'd rather be holding AAPL, which I am :). Just a few remaining shares, but
I'm not going to swap them for Dell or HP anytime soon.

~~~
LPTS
What these numbers mean is that apple is the only 21rst century computer
company. Dell, HP are 20th century computer companies.

It also means that most people who are desirable customers (spend over 1,000)
who buy for themselves and look at a product first pick apple. Thats huge.
Which means apple had won the hearts and minds battle and just has to wait for
these effects to trickle through the high end market.

------
GHFigs
You can argue with the numbers themselves all day but the point in the end is
that Apple is making a ton of money focusing on an end of the market that
everyone else is afraid of.

Another aspect of that is that most of those sales were through Apple's own
retail stores -- which other PC manufacturers have consistently failed to
succeed with. Again they're succeeding by not playing their own game.

(I find it strange that so many people devote energy to thinking about what
the numbers _don't_ mean rather than thinking about what they _do_ mean.)

~~~
Goronmon
_(I find it strange that so many people devote energy to thinking about what
the numbers don't mean rather than thinking about what they do mean.)_

I think it's just a general aversion to the practice of cherry-picking
criteria to post bigger numbers.

~~~
GHFigs
Well, yeah, but the point is that expression that aversion in lieu of any
other comment is a goddamn waste of time.

~~~
Goronmon
I guess that depends how much you can infer from such a comment. I would infer
that the aversion exists because it's confusing and many times not helpful to
cherry-pick criteria. Of course, I'm inferring that because it's my opinion on
the subject and it may not be what anyone else actually agrees with.

