Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Dominates "Premium PC" Market

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the PC-hunters-shy-away dept.

The Almighty Buck 475

itwbennett writes "Macs made up a whopping 91 percent of the $1,000-and-up computer market in June. Not so long ago, $1,000 got you an entry-level machine. Today the average computer sells for $701, while the average Windows machine sells for only $515. Still, Macs only make up 8.7% of PC sales. But is that really such a bad position to be in? Consider an Apples to Apples, that is, Macs to iPhones comparison: the iPhone takes only a sliver of the phone market but a much larger share of the profits."

cancel ×

475 comments

Coming soon... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820361)

Windows 7 "Premium" Edition - $1000

Re:Coming soon... (4, Funny)

flowsnake (1051494) | about 5 years ago | (#28820807)

Maybe Microsoft will start selling the Windows 7 "I Am Rich" Edition for installation on Apple hardware?

Premium price, not premium PC (4, Insightful)

RonnyJ (651856) | about 5 years ago | (#28820367)

Apple dominates the premium priced market, not the premium PC market.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820479)

The linked article gets its Apple profit claims from here [appleinsider.com] . Where it says that Apple and RIM take 58% of total cell phone profits while Nokia takes 55%. Suggesting that the figures can't be trusted.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (4, Informative)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 5 years ago | (#28820515)

The study is a joke. Cherry picked statistics and blurring of the lines. Even The Apple Blog, who you'd expect to be cheering it on, disagrees [google.com] .

Truth be told, if NPD really stated this as market share, I'd say they were wrong. It's hard to believe 9.1 out of 10 PCs over $1K are Apple's. Come on, people, there are many non-Mac users who spend money, too. Whether for quality, style, or higher-end components, not everyone who gets a PC is a Laptop Hunter. I've never bought a Windows machine for under $1K in my life, and I've had many.

According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple.

So you can buy 50 Dell workstations for $1100, and along comes someone buying 12 high end Mac Pros for, say $5,000 (not a price comparison, don't go biting, fanboys) and voila, according to this study they have "more share" than Dell, as a result?!?

I think not.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28820753)

...12 high end Mac Pros for, say $5,000...

Last I checked, an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink Mac Pro was closer to $23,000.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820855)

What does that price climb to once the kitchen sink is added in?

Apple doesn't sell kitchen sinks (4, Funny)

Weedhopper (168515) | about 5 years ago | (#28820887)

But there's an app for that!

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (1)

sarahbau (692647) | about 5 years ago | (#28820951)

But at that point, it's no longer a "Premium PC." You'd have a server (with server OS) that for some reason had 4 dual head video cards, two 30" monitors, video editing software, and a wireless keyboard/mouse.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0, Redundant)

auntieNeo (1605623) | about 5 years ago | (#28820495)

Apple dominates the premium priced market, not the premium PC market.

Ever since Apple switched to Intel processors, they became part of the "PC" market. Of course, Apple made "personal computers" from the beginning, but...

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820833)

semantics + slashtards = asshole

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (1, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | about 5 years ago | (#28820919)

*slashhole

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0, Redundant)

Manip (656104) | about 5 years ago | (#28820509)

*Citation needed

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | about 5 years ago | (#28820933)

Yeah, see, that doesn't work when you're asking for something that's right on Apple's Website [apple.com] and fits into the readily-proven common knowledge category as the far side of the moon always facing away from the surface of the earth.

All you're really doing is saying "I don't have a shred of proof for my argument so I'm not even going to tell you what it is, or even which part of yours I disagree with, I'm just going to say 'i demand proof' generically and pretend that it makes me intelligent and trendy".

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820571)

and retail (physical store) figures only, where only the least knowledgeable people with cash to burn are likely to go. This is textbook statistics abuse.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (4, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | about 5 years ago | (#28820707)

"Hi, I'm a Mac, and I am a PC."

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (4, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 5 years ago | (#28820725)

I know slashdotters love this kind of sentiment, but this is a pretty inane thing to say and the poster and the people who modded this insightful have never actually looked at a mac laptop's features carefully. Just off the top of my head, here is a list of stuff that is included in mac laptops that you don't find in the "average" PC:

easy removal of power connector in case of tripping
accelerometers to shut the hard drive off if the laptop falls
backlit keyboards that have a sensor to automatically come on
automatic screen dimming at low light levels
single piece aluminum frame construction for less stress on the motherboard (the most common point of failure of a laptop, in my experience)
custom battery arrangement to maximize useful lifetime but leave a smaller dimensional footprint.

I'm sure there are others that I'm missing but the very idea that mac laptops aren't "premium" is ridiculous. You can argue that the set of features that you get are not worth the price, but one can make the same argument about "premium" cars as well and has nothing to do with if the object itself has a feature set above and beyond the average.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820795)

easy removal of power connector in case of tripping - cool
accelerometers to shut the hard drive off if the laptop falls - cool
backlit keyboards that have a sensor to automatically come on - my IBM laptop has a keyboard light that I can turn on or off. I think having this automatic would be annoying, as there are plenty of times when I want as little light as possible (e.g. when I'm working on a night flight or bus ride and the person next to me is trying to sleep)
automatic screen dimming at low light levels - also annoying to have this automatic. I'll choose the brightness level, thanks -- sometimes backlight is irrelevant (if you get the angle to the sunlight right, you don't need it) and you might as well turn it down to save battery.
single piece aluminum frame construction for less stress on the motherboard (the most common point of failure of a laptop, in my experience) - frakking annoying. number of screws to remove to swap hard drives/ram on my IBM laptop: 1 each. Number of screws to remove to change hard drives on a mac laptop: at least 30, and five major components of the machine have to come out first (iBook G4; I assume subsequent ones are just as bad).
custom battery arrangement to maximize useful lifetime but leave a smaller dimensional footprint. - versus a relatively standard battery arrangment and the possibility of putting a second battery into the removable drive bay?

Macs are great, if you never want to do maintenance or make your own decisions (I realize the irony of that statement).

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (1)

Winckle (870180) | about 5 years ago | (#28820929)

Erm...all the automatic features have a manual override obviously.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0, Offtopic)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 5 years ago | (#28820935)

Yet another post by an anti-apple person who has obviously never even used a mac on a regular basis. The function keys have an extra meta control that allows you to manually control the screen and keyboard light levels. Speaking as someone who has rebuilt three laptops, I can tell you the single piece aluminum frame has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the number of screws. Maybe it's just me, but I don't expand laptops often enough to worry about the number of screws. On a desktop I could see this being the case, because that could get regularly expanded or upgraded. Strangely enough, to get the cover off on mac desktops you don't have to remove ANY screws, there's a lever that you pull up and you pull the case door off. I have two batteries for my current laptop, and I find it annoying except for maybe two or three times a year. For the amount of time I spend lugging the extra battery around and remembering to swap them out to keep them balanced, it's not worth the trouble.

Macs are great, if you never want to do maintenance or make your own decisions (I realize the irony of that statement).

All three laptops I've rebuilt are macs. Also, all were over five years old when I did it, which should show you another reason why everybody except slashdotters think a mac is a "premium" laptop -- they often do last for five years. Lastly, I even run linux on one of my older mac laptops (still running, built in 1999), from the amount of "my own decisions" that I regularly make running, it's not an advantage, it's a detriment.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0, Troll)

j-stroy (640921) | about 5 years ago | (#28820841)

windoze variants just don't feel like a modern OS.

if XP wasn't so crufty for ones whole computer life to be sitting on top of... the experience and the stress is like taking a cross country road trip in a 1986 Ford Fiesta. And Vista.. was a poor launch, not to mention the uber-triple nagware affiliate bundles that all the laptop players crammed in, making for a maze of questions, cluttered desktop and auto install/update go away!!! AAARARARARARGAGGGGG! *feh*

i'm still a windows user, but mostly from a stable image inside a Parallel's virtual machine inside of OS X. now that feels modern to me.

not to say I'm a fan boi, cuz i miss some windows deets, like windows explorer always being active, even in a modal dialog. just saying that the few hundred extra up front is well worth the flexibility and reduced servicing downtime i've experienced.

My prediction is mac market share will go up steadily over the next few years while microsoft gets itself sorted out and all those college boys they hired get some real world experience. i'm sorry, in good conscience i can't recommend windows to anyone in the market for a new computer, unless its a cheap tower for straight ahead production work.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | about 5 years ago | (#28820985)

The article says that Apple dominates over a certain price point. That's exactly what I said.

I didn't say that some Mac's shouldn't be considered premium, I was merely correcting the article title.

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820743)

Please. They are not really premium priced considering what you get for your money.

I consider my Mac Mini an extremely premium product. While it is not uncommon for a PC to be either small, silent, efficient, and cheap, Mac Mini is them all simultaenously. Closest actually similar offerings are 30-50% more expensive, and typically slighly inferior (they ship with Windows).

I challenge you to find a similar PC that is cheaper:
* 2 times 6.5 times 6.5 inches
* Proper core2duo with nvidia graphics adapter (not extremely powerful, but not Via Epia or Atom either which usually come with i950)
* tomb silent (20 dB always) - after buying Mac Mini I have been irritated about my TFT panel's noise level (!)
* comes with a certified Unix operating system

Likewise I believe iMacs are very good deals. I just happened to have a huge TFT panel already. Try comparing iMac with an actual competitor that offers the same end user experience instead of just labeling it "premium priced".

Re:Premium price, not premium PC (1)

flowsnake (1051494) | about 5 years ago | (#28820825)

Apple dominates the premium priced market, not the premium PC market.

Indeed. I suspect most of the premium PC market is taken up by self-build gaming PCs, which of course don't show up under any PC manufacturer's sales figures. A sub-$1000 PC covers everything that most home and office users want; people who need something more tend to know exactly what they want, and don't mind fitting it together themselves.

Little off topic.. (2, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 years ago | (#28820371)

but Mac has no real "economy" option. Part for part, as many mac fanboys will tell you, mac hardware is around the same price as PC. The difference is that you can buy stuff that is a few months old (still very good hardware, but not the latest and greatest) and save a lot of money.

I guess you could call that the "premium pc" market.

I equate it to designer sunglasses. People will spend $300 for this years sunglasses, passing over last years (now priced at $20). I think mac appeals to this market.. people who want the absolute latest and greatest regardless of how much actual added value they are getting.

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#28820431)

As far as I can see, development of new faster hardware has pretty much stalled. There is the Core i7, but I see very little of them around despite the fact they were relased 9 months ago. Most of the new development seems to be based around reducing costs at the expense of pretty much everything else, which I guess is what you expect to see in a recession.

Re:Little off topic.. (2, Insightful)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 5 years ago | (#28820531)

Also, people no longer need very fast computers. Some years ago, PCs were slower, couldn't work with many applications running and so on. Now even a cheap computer wil be able to run Office, Firefox and some other applications for work, so there is no need for faster PCs for those people.

People who buy expensive computers do so because
1) They have money and buy it to have the latest and greatest. They can buy PCs or Macs.
2) They want to play latest games on highest settings. These will buy PCs and usually more expensive than $1000.
3) They use an application for work that needs a fast PC (3D rendering, video editing, Photoshop etc). They can buy a PC or a Mac, depending on the application.
4) They want a computer made by Apple.
5) They want the computer to last a long time before another upgrade.

Everybody else just buys an inexpensive PC (since there are no inexpensive Macs) and uses it to work/play/watch movies/etc. My father uses a ~6 year old laptop for work. He does today the same things that he did when he bought the laptop (mainly work with MSWord, MSExcel and browsing internet) and, surprise, the laptop is still good for the things that he does, probably will still be good after 5 years, assuming it still works then.

Re:Little off topic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820673)

So what you're saying is 2GHz ought to be enough for anybody?

Can I quote you on that, mister/miss Pentium100?

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 5 years ago | (#28820817)

Just like 640KB was enough for anybody at the time. Yes, I believe that programmers will come up with more bloated applications that do exactly the same their previous versions did, but consume more memory and are slower, but for now, for most people inexpensive PCs are enough (if Apple makes up for 91% of >$1000 market and only 8.7% of the whole market, it means that >$1000 computers are about 9.5% of the whole market. This should mean that for 90.5% of people $1000 PCs are enough.

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

daybot (911557) | about 5 years ago | (#28820913)

As far as I can see, development of new faster hardware has pretty much stalled.

Are you kidding?! That was the case during the Pentium 4 / Athlon XP/64 years, but since 2006, mid-high range Intel systems have gone from strength to strength - Core Duo, C2 Duo, C2 Quad and now i7 all had pretty decent speed bumps. We're beginning to see quad-core laptops, for God's sake!

In my own video encoding (Handbrake) benchmarks, a Core i7 at 2.6GHz (May 2009) beat a Core 2 Quad at 3.3GHz (March 2009) by 70%...

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#28820995)

Yes I know there is a Core i7 and it is much faster than the Core 2, but there are hardly any of them in the shops and very few people are buying them.

I bought a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook two years ago as an ex-display model - so certainly not the latest and greatest available at the time. The currently shipping latest MacBook has a slightly slower 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, but more RAM and a better graphics card.

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 5 years ago | (#28820437)

The Mac Mini isn't an economy option, especially refurbs as low as $419 on the Apple Store? Granted, you could build a cheap PC for less, but I'd hardly call $419 expensive, or even $599 expensive, putting aside arguments of what you get for the money.

Re:Little off topic.. (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | about 5 years ago | (#28820901)

The Mac Mini isn't an economy option, especially refurbs as low as $419 on the Apple Store? Granted, you could build a cheap PC for less, but I'd hardly call $419 expensive, or even $599 expensive, putting aside arguments of what you get for the money.

The difference is that the $599 PC comes with everything you need to use it (keyboard, screen, etc), while the Mac Mini still needs a couple of hundred spend on it before it can be more than a paperweight.

The PC will also have roughly twice the specs.

Re:Little off topic.. (2, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 5 years ago | (#28820463)

but Mac has no real "economy" option.

They have tried, through various schemes, to compete in this market and have come up bubkis.

I equate it to designer sunglasses. [..] people who want the absolute latest and greatest regardless of how much actual added value they are getting.

This mac is over three years old. You might do better if you at least assumed all of those people with all of that money aren't stupid, but for many slashdotters this seems to be the only possible explanation.

Re:Little off topic.. (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 5 years ago | (#28820755)

They have tried, through various schemes, to compete in this market and have come up bubkis.

I believe the reason for this is it's hard to compete in the low AND high end markets at the same time, at least under the same brand.

Dell tries to do this, but the world knows dell for cheap PCs.

Cisco/Linksys is my favorite example. They keep those two brand names very separate for a good reason. What IT dept would shop Linksys for their company firewall, and who would imagine they could afford/use a Cisco at home?

Apple is known for quality, longevity, and higher price. There's nothing to gain from them trying to get any sizable portion of the low-end market. The only reason they sell the mac mini is to get PC converts, not because they want a foot in the low end market.

Re:Little off topic.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820857)

Apple is known for quality

Only by those trapped inside the reality distortion field.

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

Engine (86689) | about 5 years ago | (#28820603)

You are probably right for a part of the Mac buyers, but I'm quite tired of the old cliche of Mac buyers as "oh, shiny!" people. Some of us got just tired of crappy software on crappy hardware, even if people tell me that win XP is a quite decent operating system after service pack 2 or something. Writing this on my heavily used and badly worn, three year old Macbook, I definitely don't spend much money on computers, but I have a machine and an operating system that feels very current. (I do run the latest version of Mac OS X though).

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

v1 (525388) | about 5 years ago | (#28820715)

but Mac has no real "economy" option.

You sure about that? [apple.com]

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 5 years ago | (#28820905)

Nope, because while the Mac Mini may be an economy model for Apple guys, who see nothing at dropping a couple of thou on a laptop, the simple fact is you can get a more powerful Dell or HP AND a keyboard AND a mouse AND a 17 inch flat panel monitor AND sometimes when their is a sale on a multifunction printer, MP3 player, whatever they decide to throw in to sweeten the deal.

So while a mini might be economy to a Mac guy, to someone from the Windows world the Mini is anything BUT economy, because by the time you pay for all the extras you get with a Dell or HP you are looking at $800+.

Re:Little off topic.. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 5 years ago | (#28820737)

I think it compares more with the luxury car market. You pay more for a car that will last longer, look nicer, and run better. It's the same thing with computers. Apple only sells premium models so I know any Apple product I buy will be high quality. Last year's Mac hasn't devalued the way last year's PC has because people know the Mac isn't going to need replaced every other year.

More accurate headline... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820385)

"Apple most popular among those who like to overspend and don't know the value of the dollar."

Same guts marked up and built for aesthetics instead of being engineered to be solid. Never underestimate the "Oooh! Shiny!" demographic.

Re:More accurate headline... (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 5 years ago | (#28820453)

"Apple most popular among those who like to overspend and don't know the value of the dollar."

Same guts marked up and built for aesthetics instead of being engineered to be solid. Never underestimate the "Oooh! Shiny!" demographic.

Yeah, I guess that's why Apple consistently ranks highest in customer support surveys among major PC manufacturers. Yep, not solid at all. Overpriced? Quite possibly, depending on what you're looking for, but not engineered to be solid? Get outta town.

Re:More accurate headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820711)

Yeah, I guess that's why Apple consistently ranks highest in customer support surveys among major PC manufacturers. Yep, not solid at all. Overpriced? Quite possibly, depending on what you're looking for, but not engineered to be solid? Get outta town.

(emphasis added)

Which just means that all the other PC manufacturers make apparently worse hardware, not that Apple's is good. And by apparently, I mean apparently... Apple stuff feels and looks really solid, especially compared to say, Dell, hence people give it good reviews. Also, people willing to spend the extra premium for an Apple product also tend to buy the latest version even if their current one is only a year or two old (not always true, but definitely a tendency), unlike say cheap Dells, which people generally keep for at least 5 years, and hence tend to notice if they actually wear out.

Re:More accurate headline... (2, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 years ago | (#28820719)

"Apple most popular among those who like to overspend and don't know the value of the dollar."

Same guts marked up and built for aesthetics instead of being engineered to be solid. Never underestimate the "Oooh! Shiny!" demographic.

I take it that MSCE isn't getting the chicks the way you thought it would?

Ob. Car Analogy (5, Interesting)

bheer (633842) | about 5 years ago | (#28820395)

BMW has about 5-8%* of the auto market, but they make a lot of money in that little niche. You don't have to dominate the world to be profitable.

And yes, this does go to show that Microsoft is right in the laptop hunters ad -- Macs *are* pricier. But to those that buy them, they get something of value for that extra $$$.

*I just made that up.

Re:Ob. Car Analogy (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#28820757)

Lol. I wonder why those "laptop hunters" ads are mentioned so much. I mean do those who mention it, really believe, that there is any single human out there, stupid enough, to take those cheesy, completely stupid, and all around ridiculously horrible ads seriously? What are you smokin'?

De-spinning. Again. (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28820403)

Wow, what a clever manipulation of statistics. Somehow people who spend less than $1,000 don't have "premium" computers? How does that even work? I mean, I blow $1,500 on hardware but no software and it's "premium", but if I'm a poor graphic designer and buy a PC for $700 instead and spend the rest on Adobe's atrocious licensing fees, that makes me "not premium"? This doesn't say anything about "premium" or "not premium" -- this DOES however say a lot about how much people are willing to blow on Apple products. Answering why they're doing this is left as an excercise for the reader.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (3, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 5 years ago | (#28820475)

"Premium" is sorta "more expensive" by definition. It does not necessarily mean higher quality. It just means it can summon a higher price on the market, for whatever reason.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (4, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 5 years ago | (#28820503)

That's right. When comparing the price/value of computer hardware, the cost of software does not matter. Your $700 mid-range (or upper middle or however you want to measure it) hardware is $700 worth of hardware regardless of how much you spend on software.

For the obligatory car analogy, if you buy a cheap second hand car and then put a $50,000 sound system in it, you still have a cheap second hand car. It just has a nice sound system.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28820741)

That's right. When comparing the price/value of computer hardware, the cost of software does not matter. Your $700 mid-range (or upper middle or however you want to measure it) hardware is $700 worth of hardware regardless of how much you spend on software.

Hey, captain obvious called -- something about the "total cost of ownership"? I'm saying "premium" is a weasel-word. It's meaningless.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (0)

yoshi_mon (172895) | about 5 years ago | (#28820751)

That's right. When comparing the price/value of computer hardware, the cost of software does not matter. Your $700 mid-range (or upper middle or however you want to measure it) hardware is $700 worth of hardware regardless of how much you spend on software.

Oookkk, that sound fair.

But when you consider Apples markup on what amounts to standard PC parts these days your whole example falls apart. That is, unless you consider their copyrighted BIOS chip to be worth the difference in what the true 'parts value' of an Apple vs PC.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (1)

jfruhlinger (470035) | about 5 years ago | (#28820849)

I think he's actually referring to OS X, which (theoretically, anyway) only runs on Apple hardware? You might not agree that OS X is worth the premium, but most Apple purchasers apparently do.

Re:De-spinning. Again. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 5 years ago | (#28820823)

If you buy a cheap PC most of the time it's components aren't as high quality as a Mac. It may be cheaper but it probably isn't going to last as long. My experience is that cheap PCs last me about a year where a Mac lasts me about five years under the same level of (ab)use. I count my hassle of switching systems (moving files, etc) as a cost. I count loss of data when a system dies as a large cost. Add that the Mac is cooler (not as hot) so I can use it on my lap, bed, etc without worry and easier to use (multitouch pad, nice power adapter) and yes an Apple is a premium system and a cheap PC isn't.

Are there $1,000+ PCs? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#28820405)

It's easy to make up 91% of a segment when all your products fit in that segment and none of your competitors do. Of the 67 PCs sold on Walmart.com, only 10 are over $1,000 [walmart.com]

Apple Dominates "Premium PC" Market (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#28820565)

I'm glad they put Premium PC in quotes because that's exactly what it is.

This article only proves that Apple's are expensive. That's it.

I could have written a article stating "Lamborghini made up a whopping 91 percent of the $200,000-and-up automobile market in June". Duh, because how many cars are over $200,000? But who'd you rather be, Lamborghini or Toyota? In 2007 Lamborghini sold 2,406 cars and made a ~70 million dollar profit [telegraph.co.uk] . Toyota sold 2.6 million vehicles [jalopnik.com] and made 14.9 billion dollars in profit [detnews.com] .

Thanks Apple but you can keep your Lamborghini, I'll stick with my PC and my Toyota.

Re:Are there $1,000+ PCs? (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 5 years ago | (#28820583)

Easy, when I built my main PC 2 years ago, I quickly reached this:

Let's see:
2x AMD Opteron 270 (server class CPUs)
Tyan Thunder K8WE
4x512MB DDR1 ECC REG RAM
ATI Radeon HD2900XT (I had to preorder it)
Rackmountable E-ATX case.

Yes, it was more than $1000, and no games that I tried (at the time) supported 4 processors, at least now my PC is still good (I can play new games at 1600x1200 resolution).

Re:Are there $1,000+ PCs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820781)

Walmart.com? Seriously?

Uninteresting (1)

blirp (147278) | about 5 years ago | (#28820409)

So, if I sell laptops for $10 000, I can get 100% of the Exclusive PC-marked? Woohoo!
We've done this before, it's not very interesting. It could be interesting to look at the profits they make, but the percentage of some arbitrary set point?
Bah!
 
M.

In technology... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | about 5 years ago | (#28820411)

This trend can only last for so long. While Macs have a certain appeal to them that is aesthetic, their usability has not gone up in the enterprise, nor in the home market. They dominate the audio video editing because of their software, but beyond that... they don't (to me) offer a hell of a lot. And their architecture needs only a few targetted viruses (see Pwn2Own) competition before they lose that propoganda campaign that assumes Macs are more secure than Windows.

Either way, time will tell.

Re:In technology... (4, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | about 5 years ago | (#28820467)

Apple's appeal is that OSX is a generally better OS than Windows, particularly in the area of usability. That, not "marketing" or "aesthetics" is why people will pay more for the same hardware.

I find it amusing that people don't understand that the software itself has value.

Re:In technology... (3, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | about 5 years ago | (#28820635)

Usability for who? I have been a Mac user (unfortunately) since MacOS5 days and up to this day I find the Apple way of thinking wayyyyy overrated. They are great creating an aura of "best usability" for themselves, but there are a lot of moments that still irritate me in that philosophy. They do a good work fixing those things and making you believe that they were right, though, and are still right even today. I remember years ago how Mac fanboys could call you imbecile just because you insinuated the advantage of a 2 buttons mouse. Or the advantage of making Macs Intel compatible instead of powerpc. The same people now scream the greatness of those 2 things without even remembering the past.

The people defending today the "one menu to rule them all" philosophy with all the "mouse on the edge, easier, blah blah" will be overjoyed and forget about their advocacy if Steve some day decides to think with his head and change this irritating "feature"...

Overall I like Windows this days a lot more and only use my Mac when needed (testing, etc).

Re:In technology... (0)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about 5 years ago | (#28820893)

Usability for who? I have been a Mac user (unfortunately) since MacOS5 days and up to this day I find the Apple way of thinking wayyyyy overrated.

Do you ever notice how comments such as the above appear become more common across web discussion boards in near synchrony, especially when a new Micro$oft release appears immenent. I think that this is a sign that they are part of a Micro$oft marketing push.

And say what you will about WIndows 7, but it still has the registry. And it still uses the ugly dll system. You can put all the user facing lipstick you want on the operating system, but it still can't change the fact that this iteration of windows is fundamentally ugly underneath the hood.

Re:In technology... (5, Insightful)

ahankinson (1249646) | about 5 years ago | (#28820937)

Don't forget: For a while, PPC *was* better than Intel. And for new users (i.e. anyone who hadn't grown up with using mice), 1 button was less confusing than two. But you know what? Things changed. Intel got off their ass and made great chips (while Moto/IBM sat on their ass with PPC) and the number of people who knew how to use a mouse became a majority of their market.

Re:In technology... (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | about 5 years ago | (#28820867)

Apple's OS is very nice, and some people seem to think that it is worth the premium. I happen to strongly disagree, as the pricing structure for the OS is out of control - by comparing PCs the OSX license fee is apparently $300-$1000, which in my book, is highway robbery. If you really like OSX that much, go for it. I happen to think that it is an epic rip-off, but that is certainly a matter of opinion on my part.

Re:In technology... (1)

ahankinson (1249646) | about 5 years ago | (#28820979)

Whose ass did you pull those numbers out of?

Upgrades are generally $129. The new OS, Snow Leopard is $29. They generally offer significant enhancements over their previous versions.

Just because Microsoft didn't release an OS in over 6 years, while Apple was busy offering their users better, faster and more secure OS updates in the same time span, doesn't mean you can compare the two and say "see! Apple is more expensive! XP to Vista was $XXX, while 10.1 to 10.5 was $XXX!"

Re:In technology... (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 5 years ago | (#28820527)

Either way, time will tell.

We've been hearing this line for almost a decade now, and time has told to a tune of nearly 6-fold gain in shareholder value since 2000, giving Apple today a larger market cap than Google, HP, and Dell. I keep waiting for this grand charade to end, but Apple keeps raking in $8 billion dollars a quarter.

They've succeeded by every rational metric of business.

Re:In technology... (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#28820661)

It is probably more reasonable to talk about the $1.2 billion that they earn each quarter, rather than their revenues:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL [yahoo.com]

For instance, when Google has a good quarter, they make more than that, on 70% of the revenues:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=goog [yahoo.com]

And HP manages to only make a little more than Apple, on 340% of the revenues:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=hpq [yahoo.com]

Re:In technology... (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | about 5 years ago | (#28820623)

While Macs have a certain appeal to them that is aesthetic, their usability has not gone up in the enterprise, nor in the home market.

Where do you get that idea from? My whole company switched to Macs and productivity is up as we spend so much less time on desktop maintenance. In the last few years most of my friends have switched to Macs and they all say they're easier to use. I know one high level executive who's arguing with his IT department to let him use his Mac and iPhone on the corporate network because he prefers their usability and productivity.

Re:In technology... (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 5 years ago | (#28820837)

Where do you get that idea from? My whole company switched to Macs and productivity is up as we spend so much less time on desktop maintenance.

What desktop maintenance were you spending so much time on? Because if you were spending THAT much time on desktop maintenance you were doing it wrong.

In the last few years most of my friends have switched to Macs and they all say they're easier to use.

Yeah, a new PC out of the box from apple is setup better than same from an OEM. That's not Apple vs Microsoft. That's Apple vs HP and Sony. HP and Sony etc really need to pick up the ball to deliver a much better out of box experience.

They need to dump the shovelware, trialware, and utter crap, and invest in good quality productivity options.

I know one high level executive who's arguing with his IT department to let him use his Mac and iPhone on the corporate network because he prefers their usability and productivity.

And I know one high level executive who switched back to PC after he got tired of having to remote access or virtualize 4/5ths of the stuff he wanted to do because there was no mac equivalent, and it drove him nuts. He'd have his mail running on his Mac, then launch VMware to run the accounting software, pull up a report, and then have to jump through hoops to paste it into his email... because outlook supports OLE and when he pastes the spreadsheet bit in, he can edit it... but not on his mac, where it comes through as an image... so now he gets to copy it from the vm accounting to excel on the mac, tweak it some more, and paste it again to mail...

And now he gets to run Mac OS software update, AND windows update. Productivity dropped into the toilet. Not to mention the burden on IT as they have to handle everything they do with him as separate case.

He curses at it all day, but its what he wanted.

Windows is the wisest choice (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 5 years ago | (#28820761)

Say you're about to write a virus or worm, which OS do you use? Windows has an extensive installed base, offering a richly interconnected malware network, with more nodes.

Malware doesn't follow the economic rules that normal software does, and the usual market forces that normally make people write software for Macs aren't present. The only marketplace decision is made by you as you write it- not like normal software which has to appeal to actual users. Your customer base is some gang in Suffixistan. Competition is virtually nonexistent in malware. Nobody thinks "my machine is already infected, so I'm all set for viruses". Provided other malware on the machine doesn't target your code or starve it for machine resources, you don't really care. Competing operating systems aren't as compelling. Normal software authors have an untapped market for Mac software to consider, with wealthy fanboys itching to spend money, but that untapped market aspect makes little difference for malware. Even if you want to augment your existing network with Mac nodes, porting the worm offers less than a 2X increase in network size. And the exploit code will be different; plus fewer people are looking into Mac exploits. As long as Windows has more than a 51% market share, it will be the dominant OS for malware.

Get what you pay for (1)

smallshot (1202439) | about 5 years ago | (#28820441)

Anyone notice the "average" windows machine selling for $515 sucks? If you compare equally powerful machines, you will get _similar_ costs. I would say a mac would still be slightly more expensive, but that's just a guess.

Re:Get what you pay for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820889)

"slightly more expensive"? I have essentially the Mac Pro (quad core). Actually, it's slightly beefier. How much is the Mac Pro? 2500. How much did I pay (I built from parts)? 1500. That, my friend, is rape. Especially if you don't even like the Mac GUI experience.

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 5 years ago | (#28820969)

Anyone notice the "average" windows machine selling for $515 sucks? If you compare equally powerful machines, you will get _similar_ costs. I would say a mac would still be slightly more expensive, but that's just a guess.

For the $599 a Mac Mini costs, you can get a PC roughly twice as powerful.

For the $1199 a base iMac costs, you can get a PC roughly three times as powerful.

A minimum buy-in point for a usable PC with decent performance (dual-core, 2G RAM, 20" LCD, discrete video card) is about US$600. For a Mac, it's more like $900 (assuming you can live with an integrated video card) or $1800 (assuming you can't).

It's a wakeup call to PC Developers, what is... (1)

tjstork (137384) | about 5 years ago | (#28820455)

People that are willing to spend more than a $1000 on a PC are probably your key software buyers... I would think at this point that developers who point to Windows masses might be redirected towards those Mac users, that actually have money.

Apple doesn't suck. (3, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | about 5 years ago | (#28820461)

I don't buy branded PCs. If I need one, usually for a Linux server, I build it. If I want a desktop computer I buy Apple. The hardware is better quality than most branded PCs and is highly similar between units so it can easily be tested and relied on. It also happens to look nicer and come with an OS that works a whole lot better. We use VMWare Fusion for those who need Windows or Linux desktops.

My Dell, which has a bigger screen and faster CPU than my MacBook, is mostly used by my wife and she is wanting to switch to a MacBook because it is so much easier to use and doesn't get to hot when used on your lap. My sister recently switched from PC to MacBook too.

A couple hundred dollars of cost upfront is a lot cheaper than TCO on a PC and in almost every way a Mac is better,

Re:Apple doesn't suck. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28820697)

A couple hundred dollars of cost upfront is a lot cheaper than TCO on a PC...

Only if you stick to OEM computers. My $350 whitebox is a little better spec'd than a Mac Mini, for just over half the cost and shows no signs of dying just yet. If I decide to upgrade it, the relative savings goes up almost exponentially. If my computer completely dies ~2/3 of the way through the Mini's life cycle and I build a new one for the same price, not only will my TCO be lower but the new one will also be much better than it's predecessor.

Re:Apple doesn't suck. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 5 years ago | (#28820891)

I don't think you're understanding the concept of TCO. How much time are you spending building, maintaining, and upgrading? How much data loss and time down do you suffer when your PC dies?

You may not use your computers near as hard as I do either so maybe for you computers don't wear out near as often. If so then a cheaper computer may work fine for you.

And I do still build my own servers although in that case I usually go with really high-end hardware so the Mac might actually be cheaper. (I have an AIX server too and that is pretty high dollar.)

9/10 Dollars, not 91% of computers (2, Informative)

SportyGeek (694769) | about 5 years ago | (#28820469)

NOT 91% of the market. 9 out of every 10 dollars spent on computers over $1000 are spent on Apple computers. Plus, is this really big news? In the first paragraph of the article it says that this is up from 88% in May.

Brick and mortar only (5, Informative)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about 5 years ago | (#28820473)

These numbers only reference brick and mortar retail sales. 3 out of the last 4 machines I bought were purchased from the manufacturer's website, customized to my specs, and only one of those was under $1000. They wouldn't have been included in these sorts of 'selective statistics'

As for $1000+ machines, it doesn't cover servers/workstations either (which you wouldn't buy over the counter anyway).

What this says to me:

1) Apple has a decent retail store presence
2) Macs are frakkin' expensive :)
3) By selectively applying filters to your stats, you can say whatever you want. Ladies, I have the biggest dick you'll ever see (in this room/of all males within a five foot radius/for the next five minutes).

Re:Brick and mortar only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820953)

LMAO at the penis analogy. Well played sir, well played. You earned this mod point :)

How many run Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820489)

I'd be interested to know how many of those macs sold primarily run vista/win7. It many be unique to seattle/redmond, but I've noticed a fair number of designers and devs sporting the hardware but not the software.

A $1,000 PC is not OEM (5, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28820499)

People that are willing to put $1,000 into their PC probably don't want the limited choices offered by OEMs. They are going to build it from parts.

Re:A $1,000 PC is not OEM (1)

cylcyl (144755) | about 5 years ago | (#28820769)

I agree! OEM's put very high premiums on any changes to standard config. So, if you want a better vid card or a mem upgrade (two easy ways to bring a PC over 1000$) It's cheaper to buy the components than to get it from the Dells or HPs pre-installed

Re:A $1,000 PC is not OEM (1)

gjmcfarland (1418837) | about 5 years ago | (#28820847)

as an owner of a $2000+ PC - exactly. if you're building a computer from parts, what are you going to be using it for? if it's graphic design, then yeah, you'll probably want a mac, but you also probably won't be building your own computer. in all likelihood, you're a gamer. and if you like games besides just world of goo, you're probably installing windows out of necessity.

My Time is worth something (4, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 5 years ago | (#28820521)

Both at work and at home. I don't have to reinstall my OS at least once a year, run defrag on a monthly basis, worry about anti-virus updates every week, or spend hours trying to find and compile drivers for some piece of hardware as I always seem to with Linux even today. It just works. That's what I want, and I'll pay the price difference upfront. I got a good 4 years out of my old PowerBook. It needs a new power adaptor (fell on a ceramic tile floor and busted). but should still work and my QuadCore PowerMac G5 is still going strong and it's 4.5 years old. Most I've done to it is add an extra 500GB internal to store video files for video editing. (before external drives came down in price).

I now have a MacBook Pro provided by work. Does everything I want and can even boot into XP if I need too for testing (or to play an occasional old game from my PC collection).

Re:My Time is worth something (5, Insightful)

Cyberllama (113628) | about 5 years ago | (#28820949)

And windows users don't have to do any of those things either. Every piece of anti-virus software under the sun updates itself, completely without any human intervention, at some god awful time of night so as to avoid doing it while you may be using your computer. Similarly, right out of the box windows runs a scheduled weekly disk degrag at something like 3 am every wednesday or some other silly time. These things happen and I do nothing to cause them, I didn't even set them up originally -- they were just pre-configured that way and if I don't like them I can change them.

Nor do I have to reinstall windows yearly -- Vista on this machine has been installed for 18 months and everything is as snappy as the day I brought it home.

Try to understand, when you buy a mac you're not choosing between OS 10.5 and Windows 95. There's really major selling point of Mac over Windows at this point other than simple preference.

If you PREFER MacOS, by all means by a Mac -- but don't kid yourself into thinking you're getting something the rest of us aren't getting. We're all getting the OS of our choice and more or less the same feature set. Your preference costs more, but if you prefer it, and are willing to pay the money, then go for it.

Hang on to your old XP machines. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 years ago | (#28820563)

Apple seems to have the a premium (or premium priced) PCs. Though it has held Linux threat on the netbook side at bay, it did so by extending the life of XP, thus slowing down Vista adaptation. Now with hardware improvements, XP will run on a VirtualMachine as fast as it used to run on older machines. So one could imagine a Linux box running XP on a VM transferring the license from your old PC that you are replacing. That would let you have the security of a Linux machine with all your old programs and data backward compatible. Typically Microsoft would play its old card, making newer versions would be incompatible enough to force an upgrade while maintaining some small file level compatibility to ease the upgrade. But with ChromeOS on the horizon, and with people getting tired of vendor lock and mobile devices making the web standard compliant, its old card does not have as much "trumping" power.

Is it possible to use the license of an old XP-Home machine to run XP run under VM on a linux box?

There is no premium... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820575)

...on waiting on ports of games and apps. That is priceless.

well duh (1)

mayberry42 (1604077) | about 5 years ago | (#28820595)

That's not particularly surprising considering Macs are (or at least were) about twice as expensive as their comparable PC counterparts. You can already get a damn good laptop (or desktop) PC for less than a grand, but a Mac? Forget it. Just goes to show that they are overpriced.

Re:well duh (1)

argent (18001) | about 5 years ago | (#28820659)

That's not particularly surprising considering Macs are (or at least were) about twice as expensive as their comparable PC counterparts.

Nah, the "Mac Tax" is typically closer to 40% than 100%.

... and statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820597)

Macs made up a whopping 91 percent of the $1,000-and-up computer market in June... Still, Macs only make up 8.7% of PC sales. This type of statistics has Apple's signature all over it. I'm not aware of $1000 being any official threshold where "commodity" ends and "premium" begins. Still, we can make the following conclusions:

1. Only 1 in 10 people believe they need a "premium" PC, and buy such.
2. Only 1 in 10 of those who believe they need a premium PC, go to non-Apple products.
3. From personal observations, only 1 in 10 people truly need a Mac, the rest are led to the purchase by Apple's PR machine (including Apple fans who just need to convert everyone around them).

So in short, 90% of the customers of Apple are suckers, and the comprise about 73% of suckers in the world who bought a computer. That is indeed amazing news for Apple's shareholders, but also very poor news for Apple's customers. Enjoy.

Selective statistics... (0, Redundant)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about 5 years ago | (#28820601)

These numbers only reference brick and mortar retail sales. 3 out of the last 4 machines I've purchased were purchased from the manufacturer's website, and customized to my specs by upgrading components - with only one being under $1000 - but they wouldn't be incorporated in these sorts of specs. This also rules out servers/workstations. By selectively filtering statistics, you can put a positive spin on a statement like 'Macs make up only 8.7% of PC sales' (which is a number that probably has some filters of its own applied, for instance, being personal computers sales ONLY and not business/server/etc).

In related news:

-Solid-state hard drives are common (in netbooks).

-Motorcycles dominate the market of two-wheel vehicle sales with 99.999% marketshare, while Segway sales lag far behind at .001%.

-Barack Obama represents 100% of current U.S. Presidents.

-Ladies, I have the biggest dick you'll ever see (of all males in a ten foot radius/in the next five minutes).

Almost everything Apple sells is laptops (0)

alen (225700) | about 5 years ago | (#28820631)

if you check the specs of iMac's, you'll see that the internals are laptop parts. they use so-dimm RAM and have laptop graphics adapters. Dell sells the Studio Hybrid desktop which is about the same price but a lot less included software. If you compare the performance of iMacs compared to the same price PC then the PC will leave the iMac in the dust. Anandtech even had a nice article on Mac Pro graphics in the last few months and it seems Apple engineered the iMacs just powerful enough to handle the expected load.

if you want performance you get a PC. if you want a pretty computer to save desk space and electricity you get a Mac. But Mac's are far from premium.

And worth every penny (5, Interesting)

Tony (765) | about 5 years ago | (#28820653)

The Macs I've owned over the past few years (starting with a Powerbook for my wife) have been excellent. The hardware and construction are top-notch. The design (worth a little bit, anyway) is superior to pretty much everything produced in the Wintel arena.

Most important, though, the OS kicks ass.

Using a Mac is not just a neutral experience. It is pleasurable. Combine the excellent hardware engineering, and the superior UI design of OS X, and you have a machine that is worth the extra money. (Which really isn't extra. As others have pointed out, a comparable Wintel machine is in the same price range.)

Me, I still gravitate to Linux. When my wife ran MS-Windows, though, I had to either lock her machine down and manage it myself, or let her manage it, but re-install the OS every six months. With OS X, she can manage the machine herself, and I don't have to lock it down or re-install all the time.

My sig still holds. MS-Windows (and the machines it typically runs on) is like Budweiser. Cheap, but not worth the price. Once you get used to the good stuff, it's hard to go back to the shit peddled as "The King of Computers."

A US-only thing (4, Interesting)

loufoque (1400831) | about 5 years ago | (#28820669)

As usual, this is a US-only thing.

In Europe, 1,000 EUR (1,422 USD) and more computers are commonplace, and Apple is not any more expensive than the other computer manufacturers (on the contrary, for laptops, they probably offer the best deals at the moment).
Yes, we are being exploited.

Car comparison (4, Insightful)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about 5 years ago | (#28820693)

No, I won't compare Apple's market share to Mercedes' . But just think in absolute terms : even if Macs cost double more than an average PC, the difference is only a few hundredths of dollars, which is the extra price you pay to have a "luxury" item. Now think of cars : how many people spend thousands of dollars (or your favourite currency) to have a flashier car ?

I spend much more time in front of my computer than driving my car. Hence, I am ready to spend a little more to have a luxury computer...

Linux laptop is probably next for me (5, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | about 5 years ago | (#28820721)

I've been using different GUI front ends for programming and work for over 10 years now - and Apple laptops for the last 5 years of so.

Open office is now a fully acceptable spreadsheet and word processor. Gimp is fully functional for photos. Most other services are web based. VLC, media playing, etc are all working on Linux too. Issues that used to be common are now well supported in the open-source community with networking, video acceleration, disks, USB, drivers, etc.

Apple with it's BSD-based kernel and more open culture than Microsoft, could openly embrace the open source community, however, it seems to be working actively to prevent open access to a large number of their software-hardware combinations, and refuses to embrace and support the console-using, computer-hacking crowd (like me). It is understandable from a short-term financial standpoint, but long term, I think this is a mistake for Apple. I think taking the position at the genius bar of "if you open Terminal, we won't help you" alienates the most dedicated and supportive users in the marketplace. It is that community that could rocket Apple forward with more contributions and functionality - but now they continue to be pushed to support Linux instead.

It is disappointing to me that we live in a world where large companies like Apple still grow primarily based on marketing, selling and distributing physical things over digital products, or from monetizing the support and services (and maintaining a community) around increased productivity.

The difference in price between all these products is small compared to the value of ones times spent dealing with issue that arise. Regardless of how one values their own time - after any major screw ups taking many, many hours to fix - you have already surpassed any difference in price between the systems. Reliability, functionality, and real security (and how much time you have to spend later to get those) are the real value of owning a laptop for several years, not just the initial price.

But all in all, lack of Apple support for hacking means I'll be looking seriously at a Linux-based laptop (at 1/2 the price and more open standards) for my next laptop.

Re:Linux laptop is probably next for me (1, Insightful)

Budenny (888916) | about 5 years ago | (#28820981)

"Apple with it's BSD-based kernel and more open culture than Microsoft..."

This is the image it has among some, but the reality is that it is far more closed and restrictive and controlling in its culture than Microsoft ever was. Its really mysterious where it gets this impression of openness from. The only analogy I can think of is that among the liberal establishment, Soviet Russia and Communism generally was somehow seen as more humane and decent than Fascism, while indulging in repeated genoicides several times as large. The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for example, made some remark in his last year in office about the deaths caused by capitalism, as if the Ukraine and Chinese famines had never happened. One does not know whether the blindness is due to willful ignorance, or lack of thought. But its wrong.

Apple is not the company you and others think it is, or would like it to be, painful as it is to accept that.

Why are we argue the definition of "Premium" (2, Insightful)

mofag (709856) | about 5 years ago | (#28820869)

when surely the bigger question here is who was dumb enough to believe that fucking stupid and clearly made up statistic in the first place? I will eat my PCs if anyone can prove that Apple get anywhere even close to 91% of all PC sales over $1000. Remember folks, approximately 87.93% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Nick

And this is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28820917)

I am a PC. :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...