[Biallystock]

Yes I understand the total figure includes Apple's and that their growth rate is much higher than the general PC market but their market share is so small that it has little effect on it.

25% of the 70 odd million PCs sold is indeed the HP 13 Million that I directly quoted from the first report. These are all quarterly figures although the article is badly written it is obvious from the totals of 310 million for all of 2008 in accompanying article.

Here is the full report:

Quote

PC Shipments Increase Despite Slow U.S. Economy
By Scott Ferguson
2008-07-16

Gartner and IDC both show that worldwide PC shipments increased by double digits in the second quarter of 2008 despite the downturn in the U.S. economy. Hewlett-Packard and Dell remained the top-selling PC vendors with notebooks sales helping to increase their overall PC shipments.

Worldwide PC shipments increased more than 15 percent in the second quarter of 2008 despite the downturn in the U.S. economy, with Hewlett-Packard and Dell still dominating the market.

IDC and Gartner each released separate reports on second-quarter PC shipments July 16. The IDC survey found that PC shipments increased 15.3 percent over the second quarter of 2007 for a total of 70.6 million PCs. The Gartner report showed an increase of 16 percent compared with last year for a total of 71.9 million PCs.

In the United States, PC shipments only increased about 4 percent during the quarter.

Once again, HP was the world's No. 1 supplier of PCs with the company shipping more than 13 million desktops and notebooks during the quarter. In the United States, Dell finished ahead of HP with PC shipments topping more than 5 million during the quarter.

Apple also had a solid quarter in the United States. The company shipped about 1.3 million Macs during the quarter, an increase of more than 30 percent, according to the two research reports.

While the U.S. economy continues to slow, consumers and their desire for laptops helped boost the entire worldwide PC industry, said Mika Kitagawa, an analyst with Gartner. Although PC shipments have slowed in the United States, regions such as Latin America have helped drive PC shipments throughout the rest of the world. In its second-quarter financial report released July 15, Intel reported that overseas sales, especially notebook processors, helped boost its bottom line.

Consumers and their increasing taste for mobility helped push the ASP (average selling price) of notebooks down even further during the quarter. Normally, notebook prices decline 2 to 3 percent from quarter to quarter, but fierce competition for retail space may have helped drive prices down even further during the second quarter.

"It was a surprise that, despite the economic downturn, PC shipments were not bad at all and, actually, PC shipments were better than expected," Kitagawa said. "I think the reason behind it was a sharp decline in ASPs. So you have the system price going down and demand goes up. The ASP decline is really increasing volume both in the United States and in Western European markets."

While consumers helped drive notebook sales and drive down prices, Kitagawa said enterprises have slowed their purchases of new PCs and IT departments probably will not refresh corporate fleets until 2009. If an IT department does need to replace PCs, Kitagawa said businesses seemed to prefer desktops to notebooks since desktops remain less expensive than corporate laptops.

"The professional space is slow right now and the replacement cycle will take off next year," Kitagawa said. "It [the replacement cycle] should have been this year, but because of economic uncertainties many companies have postponed the replacement of their existing PCs."

While HP continues to dominate the worldwide market, Dell increased its shipments more than 20 percent year-over-year for a total of more than 11 million worldwide PC shipments. Acer placed third with more than 6.7 million PC shipments. Lenovo finished fourth with about 5.6 million shipments and Toshiba placed fifth with 3.1 million PC shipments.

In the United States, Dell was followed by HP with about 4.1 million shipments, an increase of only about 5.5 percent from the second quarter of 2007. Kitagawa believes that HP is facing increased competition for retail space against Dell, Acer and other vendors and that is why its shipments slowed during the second quarter.

After Dell and HP, Apple and Acer shipped about the same number of PCs?1.3 million?in the United States during the quarter. Toshiba was fifth with more than 880,000 PC shipments in the United States.

[Biallystock]

Gatesbasher, now you are descending into hysteria.

Take a deep breath, think, and start again.

[vulpine]

If you expect me to quote that long thing in this rebuttal, you're insane as you seem to be. However....

"25% of the 70 odd million PCs sold is indeed the HP 13 Million that I directly quoted from the first report. These are all quarterly figures although the article is badly written it is obvious from the totals of 310 million for all of 2008 in accompanying article."
Of course, you choose to compare Worldwide sales to US sales, which is an entirely different number of only about 5.5million by HP and 16 million overall by all sellers. I accept that Apple's overseas sales are lower, but not that HP's US sales are higher than I quoted. This alone refutes a major portion of the article you quoted as being US sales.

Let's quote the actual pertinent portions of the article you copied.

>In the United States, PC shipments only increased about 4 percent during the quarter.
>In the United States, Dell finished ahead of HP with PC shipments topping more than 5 million during the quarter.
>Apple also had a solid quarter in the United States. The company shipped about 1.3 million Macs during the quarter, an increase of more than 30 percent, according to the two research reports.
> In the United States, Dell was followed by HP with about 4.1 million shipments, an increase of only about 5.5 percent from the second quarter of 2007.

See a pattern here?

[Biallystock]

Did I say US sales? I don't think I did.

I prefer working on global sales simply because the world is the world and the USA is not.

The percentages still don't pan out and I am working from the gross totals of all the vendors on the same base (total quarterly shipments) which the other figures do not seem to.

btw First Mac I "owned" (the office's actually) was a fat Mac. I did get to use the Lisa but not for work. Currently own 7 Macs. Not to brag, but to refute the Macarthist accusations of "troll".

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

Did I say US sales? I don't think I did.

I prefer working on global sales simply because the world is the world and the USA is not.

The percentages still don't pan out and I am working from the gross totals of all the vendors on the same base (total quarterly shipments) which the other figures do not seem to.

btw First Mac I "owned" (the office's actually) was a fat Mac. I did get to use the Lisa but not for work. Currently own 7 Macs. Not to brag, but to refute the Macarthist accusations of "troll".

You just invalidated your own argument because I specifically stated many times US Sales at Apple, HP and Dell. Your own copied (and copyrighted) article emphasized US sales for Apple and I did not argue your overseas figures.

Secondly, the numbers that same article quoted confirmed my estimate of 5% growth for each of its Windows competitors in the United States.

Finally, just for comparison, the first Mac I owned was a Mac Plus, the third model ever sold by Apple. I never got to lay my hands on a Lisa, I'll admit; but I've owned Apple computers since 1979 and spent a fair amount of time inside most of them one way or another.
Yes, it is possible to upgrade and modify some portions of the Mac, even the iMac... but it's not easy.

[Biallystock]

Yes I see the problem.

We don't have a figure for Apple worldwide, nor one for Dell in the USA other than it was more than HP's 4.3 million.

Makes it hard to compare.

Q. Why don't they just use a simple table?

A. Because journalists are paid by the word.

PS I did have our Fat Mac upgraded to a Mac Plus. Cost $2,400 and I still remember the arrogant Apple sod who took it away kept it for weeks and returned it well past when he said he would.

btw You should be able to remember Apple's market share from back then and it makes all the above look like total and utter crap. If they ever get back to the original share it will be a miracle.

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

Yes I see the problem.

We don't have a figure for Apple worldwide, nor one for Dell in the USA other than it was more than HP's 4.3 million.

Makes it hard to compare.

Q. Why don't they just use a simple table?

A. Because journalists are paid by the word.

PS I did have our Fat Mac upgraded to a Mac Plus. Cost $2,400 and I still remember the arrogant Apple sod who took it away kept it for weeks and returned it well past when he said he would.

I acknowledge your complaint and can agree, though I believe the article I linked to, or one of them anyway, stated that Dell sold about 5 to 5.5 million in the US, putting them on top with about 30% total US PC sales, but still at only about 5% growth compared to Apple's 30%.

Hmm... Can I assume that you are calling the Mac 512 a "Fat Mac"?
I also note that you said the office owned yours... every Mac I've possessed-- Every Apple I've possessed -- has been bought and paid for by me.


Me, I'm paid by the photo... other people's photos. But that's another story.

[Biallystock]

Macs were damn expensive back then, I let other people lose their money on them until I got the 3rd Mac IIci that came into the country.

The machines I truly enjoyed of the many I owned were the original Mac II, the Mac IIci, the indigo iMac (not a work machine), some rough moments with my AGP Mac G4 tower, my iMac G5 2.0Ghz and the two white iMac 24" intels. Most of the others were pains in the butt.

The current alum iMac 24" 2.8Ghz in front of me now is fast but has networking issues and the glossy screen means it is pretty hopeless at PhotoShop, despite being kept mostly in the dark. If I hadn't got it cheap I'd be really pissed off by this one.

[vulpine]

Hmmm... Nice collection, all told. While I don't remember all the Macs I've owned, I remember my Apple II (upgraded to II+ and nearly to IIe with over 5 meg ramdisk on board), a IIe, the Mac Plus, a Quadra, Performa, Power, Sage iMac (video model), G4 mini and two Aluminum 24" iMac Extreme models (labeled Extreme because they were 2.8Ghz while standard models were 2.4Ghz at launch.) I also have possession of an early G3 Sawtooth that still grinds away, but has a small power suppy problem.

In my own case, I'm using Photoshop CS3, Aperture2 and Final Cut Express on the iMacs and have no issue whatsoever in a bright room and glossy screens. Honestly, at first the display was too bright compared to what I was used to, but now I absolutely love the display.

But that's me.

I know I didn't, and wouldn't, buy a Psystar and highly expected them to fold before Apple ever laid a hand on them. I was wrong.

[felix26591]

True i was waiting since the day that i found out about psystar for this to happen, i didn't think it would take this long but as mentioned before by the apple spokesman they were waiting for them to ship a version Of OS X10.5.4 which they tampered with so it makes sense. Also they never opened the versions of OS X they bought they installed a patched version they had and just sent you the closed box with OS X inside, and just by doing that by modifying the the OS to apply the OS X86 hack infringes the copyright and that right their could take them down.

[Biallystock]

As long as you don't have to go to pre-press and can ignore the reflections, the alum iMac passes muster. Mine has problems with its wireless reception since I got it and may force me to a complete wipe and restart after a lot of Apple support only made it worse.

I played with building a Hackintosh just for myself as a hobby, but don't think I would pay someone else to sell me one.

Psystar's business model may be to push Apple to eventually buying them out and shutting them down.

A pity. I am hoping they or someone else persists and pushes Apple into filling in their model line up and listening to their customers. There are gaps in Apple's Mac lineup you could drive a truck through. Someone, if not Apple, should fill them.

[IVIIVIi4ck3y27]

Decondo wrote:
It sounds like what you're saying is that Apple can't handle the competition and the public is too stupid to know what is a Mac. I could agree with you on the second point, but I don't feel the need to protect the public from itself.
I think Apple can handle the competition. Competition is good for motivating better product at better prices. What this is all about is Apple wanting to make the rules to the game - that's a monopolistic or very large corporation endeavor. I think they can take care of themselves without our (legal) help in this case. If Psystar is doing something fundamentally wrong, make them stop. At least don't kill them until they absolutely refuse to behave.

You don't grasp, at all, the concurrent costs in supporting multiple hardware platforms and the TARNISH that can come from a non-Apple Mac. I was there during the previous "authorized" clone times and during the times of watching Apple have to chase their tail in supporting other vendors' computers. Many of those computers, without Apple's help and dedicated resources... would have been absolute hunks of junk without Apple support. Microsoft faces the wrath of Khan and gladly does because they are a software company. APPLE IS NOT. Therefore Apple does not want to take the heat of trying to make one platform support everyone. Be Inc., after being pushed off of the Mac, tried to do just that... you see Be Inc. still in operation? No? There's your sign...

You question whether that would tarnish Apple's cred? You would absolutely be living under a rock. The accusations would come flying in, long and fast, that Apple was somehow rigging the OS releases to run better on their own hardware than theirs even if it was a matter that Apple was being pushed by others to support their hardware which they gain nothing from. Apple would be competing with someone who is there, nothing more... nothing less... than to eat their marketshare. We've already been down this road before. If Apple didn't kill the clones off the first time, there'd be no Apple to speak of today.

Decondo wrote:
I wish Apple would rather concentrate on making good product rather than releasing disasters like Leopard and MobileMe. Remember the good ole days when you didn't have to wait 4 or 5 updates for a stable product. Granted, some of the features of these products are ambitious, but I feel more like a beta tester than an excited customer lately. I don't like the Vista-like feeling of dread. Now that I use my Mac more for work than play, disasters are very costly.

Uhhh... this is the best of the best as it has been for a # of years. I was there during the OS 7-9.x days of the Finder bombing and taking out everything I worked on. The few "minor glitches" Apple has with their OS get fixed promptly today, the OS is a much more stable foundation, and it's the absolute best time to be a Mac owner than ever. EVER. I'm running Leopard on 3 of my Macs at the moment, and all 3 run FINE. They're all 3 stable, 1 is faster than with Tiger (two came with Leopard on them), and all 3 are as reliable and snappy as ever.

The arguments about Apple not killing off Psystar are just moronic. Psystar, pure and simple, went into this breaking the EULA and violating it's rules. They didn't secure a licensing scheme from Apple to know whether or not it's even legal to do this. They went in and did it anyway. Why? Because they were brave and ignorant souls. When Apple and their lawyers grab them by the back of their underwear and hike it up over their head giving them the biggest wedgie, they'll firmly grasp the error in their ways and I guarantee the public flogging will not go unnoticed by the rest of the ignorantly benign souls who were considering following in Psystar's foolish footsteps. Those that are willing to jump into the ring and undermine Apple, their intellectual properties, and run the risk of tarnishing the Mac user experience... will pay the price.

You want a cheap tower... contact Apple, lobby your concerns. That, would be THE CORRECT way to go about this. You want to run a Hackintosh... build it at your own risk, fully understanding it might cease to work. Otherwise, if you don't want a Mac... don't buy one. Apple's competition is NOT going to be those running the Mac OS and that's the crux of it all. It is one of the Mac's greatest assets, one Apple has spent considerable money on, one it gives away at a far cheaper price than Windows with as many features or more than Vista Ultimate. Nothing is holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to buy a Mac, go buy a Windows PC or Linux box and revel in hardware tweaks, then come back and tell me how bad we have it with OS X Leopard and MobileMe. I'm no fanboy but even half the Mac fanboys aren't this foolish. LoL

[IVIIVIi4ck3y27]

Biallystock said:

Macs were damn expensive back then, I let other people lose their money on them until I got the 3rd Mac IIci that came into the country.

The machines I truly enjoyed of the many I owned were the original Mac II, the Mac IIci, the indigo iMac (not a work machine), some rough moments with my AGP Mac G4 tower, my iMac G5 2.0Ghz and the two white iMac 24" intels. Most of the others were pains in the butt.

The current alum iMac 24" 2.8Ghz in front of me now is fast but has networking issues and the glossy screen means it is pretty hopeless at PhotoShop, despite being kept mostly in the dark. If I hadn't got it cheap I'd be really pissed off by this one.

I have a 24" 2.4 Ghz. model and have NO problems with mine. Network connectivity is fine, and in fact... after purchasing a Linksys WRT310N, it's even faster for me. I did have problems with the old BEFSR41 I had, but rest assured... that was the perils of an aging 10/100 wired router, a router that held my machine back on performance anyway. My gigabyte router sped up every machine on the network and the wireless has awesome range.

Far as the glossy screen... I went from a 19" Xerox XG91D on a G4 Mac mini to the 24" iMac. The Xerox uses a glass cover over the screen with noticeable color shift at various angles but the legibility improvements over a "satin" screen LCD were a major selling point vs. many of the non-glass/shiny LCD's. Personally, the color is far more correct on the iMac's 24" screen than it was on the Xerox. It's also a lot brighter with even greater clarity and honestly, my old Xerox wasn't that bad.

Would it be nice to give people the option? Yeah... but even there, I'd take the glossy screen over the matte any day so it doesn't bother me one bit. I prefer it.

[Biallystock]

IVIIVIi4ck3y27 said:

> Would it be nice to give people the option? Yeah... but even there, I'd take the glossy screen over the matte any day so it doesn't bother me one bit. I prefer it.

Well you've got your choice, it would be too much to expect we should get ours. Apple has shown how that is impossible having produced how many iMac models with matte screens and for some odd unfathomable reason all their Pro Displays are matte. I guess they just haven't a clue!

Again it is hard to argue against people who just see shiny and go "Ooooo, shiny!".

I have an Airport Extreme which worked flawlessly with the 3 white iMacs. The alum iMac 2.8Ghz has always only got part of the signal or dropped it completely, I suspect the aluminium may be partly shielding the antennae. Curiously I have no trouble picking up my neighbors' wireless networks, but then I am not trying to log on or stay logged on to those.