The release of Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system may be impacting Mac sales now, but Apple should rebound and show an increase in growth over the next three quarters, according to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster.
"Based on a second round of checks with 50 retail stores, we continue to expect Vista will cause Mac market share to decline from 2.5 percent in December to 2.3 percent in March," he said. "On a year over year basis, we expect Apple will gain share, up from 2.1 percent in March 2006."
Sales of Windows Vista, however, have fallen below expectations, and are continuing to slow.
Over the past two years, Apple shares have dropped 23 percent between January 15 and March 31, and then rebounded in following quarters. Given Apple's normal cycle, and the release of Windows Vista, the Mac and iPod maker's current lower stock price isn't a big concern for Mr. Munster. He expects that Apple will sell more than the predicted 1.45 million Macs for the quarter, and that the next three quarters will be strong for the company, allaying investor concerns.
Mr. Munster is rating Apple stock as "Outperform," with a target price at US$124. Apple is currently trading in the pre-market at $86.70, down 0.36 (0.41%).
If you are interested in Apple's stock, join our forum members in the Apple Finance Boards, a moderated forum for Apple Investors and people who are interested in Apple's financial dealings. For other stories regarding Apple's stock activity, visit our updated Apple Stock Watch Special Report.
From what I see most of the current Windows users would need to upgrade or replace their computers in order to use Vista. They probably will not do that until it is necessary. Furthermore, from the comments I hear are that they not all that impressed with Vista.
Funny, another Mac site said sales of Macs are up 100% compared to the same time last year. I really don't think Vista is having any inpact at all and many people that I talk to are not interested in moving to Vista until at least SP1 because of all the bugs that still have not been fixed after 5 years.
A few days ago that analysts shouldn't expect too much out of Vista sales for the coming year... If even Cue-Ball-mer is saying that, then you know it's got to be bad for them.
Vista is turning out to be a major disappointment for MS.
Hehe the only machine I have thats capable of fully running Vista is my C2D MacBook Pro.
I'm not sure why people would care so much about standalone sales of Vista. How many Windows users actually run out and buy their OS and install it? 99% of people will just get Vista when they get their next PC. So what?
horvatic, I love that SP1 comment. FUD is ok when it serves your own interests, right? Thats just an idealistic statement based on no facts. What bugs in particular? And if they haven't been fixed in 5 years, why would they suddenly be fixed in Vista SP1? Don't misinterpret this as an endorsement of Vista or an attempt to claim Vista has no issues. There's a reason my MBP boots Vista less than once a month. It's just the whole saying "I'll wait for SP1" to sound cool has gotten a bit cliche.
CloseViewName:TerrinPosts: 350Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:14 pmSubject:
Mac sales and market share are not the same thing. Apple could sell more Macs then it ever has before, but still lose market share if people bought enough PCs. Gene is merely saying there was some pend up demand from PC users waiting for Vista to buy a PC. This artificially raises Vista's market share numbers because of the pend up demand. It likely has no effect on Mac sales which seem to be growing.
Quote
horvatic wrote: Funny, another Mac site said sales of Macs are up 100% compared to the same time last year. I really don't think Vista is having any inpact at all and many people that I talk to are not interested in moving to Vista until at least SP1 because of all the bugs that still have not been fixed after 5 years.
What do you think the mood is like in the Microsoft board room these days? Two of their biggest recent launches -- Zune and Windows Vista -- may not necessarily be "flops," but they certainly aren't setting the world on fire.
On the other hand, Apple is getting oodles of lovin' from the media for the iPhone and such.
And... do you think Gates, Ballmer and the MS fanbois are at all concerned about what kind of features the next OSX will offer???
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:50 pmSubject:
Quote
horvatic wrote: Funny, another Mac site said sales of Macs are up 100% compared to the same time last year. I really don't think Vista is having any inpact at all and many people that I talk to are not interested in moving to Vista until at least SP1 because of all the bugs that still have not been fixed after 5 years.
Minor nit. Mac sales aren't up 100%. The "increase in sales" compared the same quarter last year appear to be up 100%.
Then again I could have misunderstood the analyst's comment.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:10 pmSubject:
Quote
Biff wrote: I'm not sure why people would care so much about standalone sales of Vista. How many Windows users actually run out and buy their OS and install it? 99% of people will just get Vista when they get their next PC. So what?
I think the point is that people aren't waiting to buy a Mac, instead they are waiting to buy a computer running Vista. If Vista hadn't been on the horizon, people who were debating between a Windows machine (which is cheaper than the overpriced Apple hardware) and Mac, they would have been more inclined to get a Mac when its competition was just XP. Vista is currently impacting Mac sales, but the hopes and expectations of Apple are that they will rebound over the next 3 quarters.
that maybe Vista might improve Mac sales. If people want a computer to run both Vista and MacOS X, then they may have waited for the release and then get a Mac. I upgraded 2 of my computers last year because of parallels and because I needed to run XP for a couple of web based applications. I wanted XP because I just didn't want to deal with Vista and all the potential problems that were being projected for it. To me, it sounds like Vista may have less issues than expected but it sounds like the biggest issue it has is backwards compatibility with many programs. People were talking about Apple and iTunes not being ready but it sounds like there are many others that weren't ready as well.So I guess everybody will have to play the guessing game until earnings are released to see if Vista's release has a positive or negative effect on Mac sales. I can see it going both ways.
...I think the point is that people aren't waiting to buy a Mac, instead they are waiting to buy a computer running Vista. If Vista hadn't been on the horizon, people who were debating between a Windows machine (which is cheaper than the overpriced Apple hardware)...
"Cheap" being the keyword. A quality Windows machine costs just as much as a Macintosh, not to mention the value of the bundled iLife software if you go Mac.
When your life is on the line you want a good doctor. When your freedom is on the line you want a good lawyer or military as the case may be. When you are mountain climbing you want a good rope, but when you need a computer for work and livelihood you go cheap.
CloseViewName:BrutnoPosts: 194Joined: 28 Aug 2002 Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:29 pmSubject: Wow
I'm surprised you didn't pull out all the stops and throw in a "beleaguered" while you were busy pontificating.
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Biff wrote: I'm not sure why people would care so much about standalone sales of Vista. How many Windows users actually run out and buy their OS and install it? 99% of people will just get Vista when they get their next PC. So what?
I think the point is that people aren't waiting to buy a Mac, instead they are waiting to buy a computer running Vista. If Vista hadn't been on the horizon, people who were debating between a Windows machine (which is cheaper than the overpriced Apple hardware) and Mac, they would have been more inclined to get a Mac when its competition was just XP. Vista is currently impacting Mac sales, but the hopes and expectations of Apple are that they will rebound over the next 3 quarters.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:23 pmSubject:
If someone wanted to do that, there is no need to wait. Vista launch wouldn't boost Mac sales all of a sudden. Only the people who decided not to use Vista AND wanted a Mac will now buy a Mac. But if they wanted both, there is no need to wait, unless there are concerns that Apple's hardware can't keep up with Vista's demands.
Quote
nealg wrote: that maybe Vista might improve Mac sales. If people want a computer to run both Vista and MacOS X, then they may have waited for the release and then get a Mac. I upgraded 2 of my computers last year because of parallels and because I needed to run XP for a couple of web based applications. I wanted XP because I just didn't want to deal with Vista and all the potential problems that were being projected for it. To me, it sounds like Vista may have less issues than expected but it sounds like the biggest issue it has is backwards compatibility with many programs. People were talking about Apple and iTunes not being ready but it sounds like there are many others that weren't ready as well.So I guess everybody will have to play the guessing game until earnings are released to see if Vista's release has a positive or negative effect on Mac sales. I can see it going both ways.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:33 pmSubject:
Quote
Sir Harry Flashman wrote: A quality Windows machine costs just as much as a Macintosh,
No, it doesn't. That's simply not true. I've done a lot of pricing of hardware, both for my personal machines and for company purchasing. There is definitely a significant premium one pays in order to buy Apple hardware, and it is more than the cost of Windows. The value of "iLife" is variable, and iLife is not as useful for some people or some purposes as others. Most often, at least for the purchasing I do, it does not equal the cost. Apple hardware, simply put, is overpriced, but it is okay for those who never want to look inside their computer, or custom choose every component. For someone who wants to maximize the power of their system while minimizing the price, the best option is to buy the components individually (unless a partnership or corporate account is established with a reseller), and put the machine together. Of course, since Apple's OS X does not compete on the OS market, if you choose to do this, you cannot run OS X. The cheapest option is obviously Linux, but even when including the price of Windows, it will still be cheaper than a Macintosh.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:35 pmSubject:
Was the vocabulary too much for you? I'm sorry, I thought people who posted here were educated.
Quote
Brutno wrote: I'm surprised you didn't pull out all the stops and throw in a "beleaguered" while you were busy pontificating. Which words tripped you? Inclined? Expectations? Horizon?
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Biff wrote: I'm not sure why people would care so much about standalone sales of Vista. How many Windows users actually run out and buy their OS and install it? 99% of people will just get Vista when they get their next PC. So what?
I think the point is that people aren't waiting to buy a Mac, instead they are waiting to buy a computer running Vista. If Vista hadn't been on the horizon, people who were debating between a Windows machine (which is cheaper than the overpriced Apple hardware) and Mac, they would have been more inclined to get a Mac when its competition was just XP. Vista is currently impacting Mac sales, but the hopes and expectations of Apple are that they will rebound over the next 3 quarters.
Guest wrote: Was the vocabulary too much for you? I'm sorry, I thought people who posted here were educated.
Quote
Brutno wrote: I'm surprised you didn't pull out all the stops and throw in a "beleaguered" while you were busy pontificating. Which words tripped you? Inclined? Expectations? Horizon?
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Biff wrote: I'm not sure why people would care so much about standalone sales of Vista. How many Windows users actually run out and buy their OS and install it? 99% of people will just get Vista when they get their next PC. So what?
I think the point is that people aren't waiting to buy a Mac, instead they are waiting to buy a computer running Vista. If Vista hadn't been on the horizon, people who were debating between a Windows machine (which is cheaper than the overpriced Apple hardware) and Mac, they would have been more inclined to get a Mac when its competition was just XP. Vista is currently impacting Mac sales, but the hopes and expectations of Apple are that they will rebound over the next 3 quarters.
I understand your vocabulary, thanks. (However, consider registering with TMO so you can edit your posts. Misquoting is not good form.) Seeing your retort makes me wonder about your comprehension, though. FWIW - Your subtle use of the phrase "hopes and expectations" is what initiated my comment. I don't think anyone other than Apple's upper management is cognizant of Apple's "hopes and dreams".
As for your assertion that Vista is a more serious competitor for OS X than XP, well, you may have a minor, but moot, point. Now, if Microsoft could just get someone to actually buy Vista...
Sir Harry Flashman wrote: A quality Windows machine costs just as much as a Macintosh,
No, it doesn't. That's simply not true. I've done a lot of pricing of hardware, both for my personal machines and for company purchasing. There is definitely a significant premium one pays in order to buy Apple hardware, and it is more than the cost of Windows. The value of "iLife" is variable, and iLife is not as useful for some people or some purposes as others. Most often, at least for the purchasing I do, it does not equal the cost. Apple hardware, simply put, is overpriced, but it is okay for those who never want to look inside their computer, or custom choose every component. For someone who wants to maximize the power of their system while minimizing the price, the best option is to buy the components individually (unless a partnership or corporate account is established with a reseller), and put the machine together. Of course, since Apple's OS X does not compete on the OS market, if you choose to do this, you cannot run OS X. The cheapest option is obviously Linux, but even when including the price of Windows, it will still be cheaper than a Macintosh.
That's great guest. Unfortunately, 99% (I seem to use that number alot) of computer users don't build their own PC. So, that leaves us with oranges to oranges. So please, show me some examples of equal hardware configurations where Apple is significantly more expensive than other PC vendors.
Biff wrote: So please, show me some examples of equal hardware configurations where Apple is significantly more expensive than other PC vendors.
Make that "hardware configurations available at retail stores," where most people buy PCs. I recall an incident at a "big box" electronics store a while back where a couple with several kids was trying to buy a computer. The salesperson kept talking about video cards, sound cards, RAM, CPU speeds, etc. Finally, the mother asked, "Do you have a computer without all that fancy stuff?" The salesperson didn't register this and kept talking about wireless networks and the like. Finally, an older (maybe supervisor?) salesperson came over, sent the kid packing, and sold the couple an inexpensive PC package. I expect that he could tell from a distance that the couple was about to walk out.
So if Windows machines cost the same as Macs machines, there must be some reason why the Mac only garners 2.5% worldwide market share. My theory is that 97.5% of the people are stupid and are potentially diluting the gene pool every time they go to bed with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone else got a better explanation?
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 pmSubject:
Quote
Bosco wrote: My theory is that 97.5% of the people are stupid and are potentially diluting the gene pool every time they go to bed with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone else got a better explanation?
Here's one: Most people don't care about computers.
Remember that most people didn't buy a computer for their house before, say, the late-90s. But most people had a computer in their office before they had one at home. So when they go to buy, they're going to buy the same kind of computer they had in the office because that's what they know.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:15 pmSubject:
Quote
Bosco wrote: So if Windows machines cost the same as Macs machines, there must be some reason why the Mac only garners 2.5% worldwide market share. My theory is that 97.5% of the people are stupid and are potentially diluting the gene pool every time they go to bed with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone else got a better explanation?
I am an old-time Apple user (1979 Apple ][+with a 4-digit serial number) who has used, sold and serviced computers since 1979. I've worked in three Apple dealerships, a couple schools and a school district and serviced Apple and Windows machines (and built PC's) on my own as well. I stopped, other than my own and a few family and friends about 5 or 6 years ago. Too much hassle and bother to me these days. My preference is Apple rather than Windows, but I can and do work and play with both. My Linux experience is minimal but will grow when I have some time to explore it further in some specific software applications I want to use.
When you know nothing about computers, you go to an expert. Since you don't know if the person you are talking to is an expert or not, you talk to more people and see if they agree or if there is some consensus. You then choose what seems more logical, more agreeable to your experts. This is a management principle from long ago.
In computers, not everyone sells Apple product, a lot more sell Windows. It doesn't matter to a Windows person whether you buy from them or someone else, because dissatisfaction with Windows means that they might come back to you to buy a replacement Windows machine, service or software. But if you buy an Apple product, you will NOT really be able to go back to the Windows guy because they don't sell Apple stuff.
So if one out of ten dealers you go to sells Apple, there is a 90 percent chance your experts will sway you to buy a PC. The Apple guy has to be very very good or it has to strike you that the Mac is better than what you see in Windows or you have other influences/experience/needs that draw you to a Mac. Since they are very similar, one would usually go for the lower price, which most basic-stripped down PCs are.
Since the white boxes can be built without all the bells and whistles that Apple puts in all their machines, a PC can be built and sold for less, but it is not necessarily the equal of the Mac in those cases. Quality brand PC's cost more than the white box (no name) machines, but again, built without stuff, they can be cheaper than a Mac.
PC sales people will argue that you can put the bells and whistles in later when you can afford them, which is true. All you are doing is spreading the cost over a longer period of time if you actually do add to the PC though, it doesn't necessarily make it cheaper.
So for those agruing about it, stop and realize what you are arguing about. VALUE is way different from PRICE. Unless you define what it is, you are BOTH right and you BOTH look foolish in your arguements to those who've been there, done that, got the ragged T-shirt and couldn't care less any more. I'll use my tools that I prefer, let you use the tools you prefer and get on with life.
BTW, I am still a fan of the old Apple // machines, even if I haven't used one in years. Appleworks (for Apple //'s rocked and could do a number of things that the current (now dead) Appleworks can't do. Perhaps I'm just getting old and remembering things differently. Oh well.
And I haven't registered because I have too many places where I have an account and another password and such is not something I need or want at the present time. I post very seldom so....
CloseViewName:LaurieF- TMO Forum ModPosts: 3465Joined: 15 Jun 2001 Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:25 amSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote: And I haven't registered because I have too many places where I have an account and another password and such is not something I need or want at the present time. I post very seldom so....
Reginald W
That's a shame, because that's one of the better arguments I've seen here about PC/Mac advocacy. Well done.
The 100% increase of Mac sales reported elsewhere was only with regard to Jan 2006 numbers vs. Jan 2007 numbers. That is what it means when analysts say year over year. So its a comparison of sale of just one month Jan in two consequtive years.
Where as this article is say Mac sales appear to have declined by 0.2% between December 2006 and March of 2007 (projected).
Biff, please don't write "alot". It is not a word. When you imply that it is it makes you look stupid and it makes me angry to see how my edcation tax dollars have been spent.
concerned wrote: Biff, please don't write "alot". It is not a word. When you imply that it is it makes you look stupid and it makes me angry to see how my edcation tax dollars have been spent.
Enterprise for cost or laziness are still locked in step with MS - that's part of they price they paid for cozing up to MS those many years ago but consumers who control their own pocketbooks are pretty unimpressed with MS.
Yes, the Ms-Apple is a heated debate but if you looked at it onbjectively, you'll see that only MS really represents "cheap" because they have fallen down on all other aspects:
6 years for an upgrade with virtually every review that is at best a lukewarm endorsement but in most cases pointing out how it's borrowed from its competitors and not as nicely. Not good whether you're selling food but especially technology.
these people lived through the 114,000 intrusion problems.
these previous versions were not exactly bastions of stability.
their ads promise your kids will grow up to be astronauts and business leaders ... in a world where squiggly lines are the norm - just buy the software that's old and unstable.
consumers have already rejected countless other products with their name on it - from an online service to search to webtv to talking barney's.
Their name represents an older generation of technology or rock bottom pricing like Packard Bell. That does appeal to the consumer who is interested in saving a few dollars and realize if you buy generic corn, you'll get broken up bits but they don't care.
They cannot market at all because they think they are BMW - anyone WOWed by their recent ads? When you see a giant pumpkin in a field or 1958 lingerie, do you say WOW and think of their product?
CloseViewName:deasysPosts: 243Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:33 pmSubject:
Quote
Bosco wrote: So if Windows machines cost the same as Macs machines, there must be some reason why the Mac only garners 2.5% worldwide market share. My theory is that 97.5% of the people are stupid and are potentially diluting the gene pool every time they go to bed with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone else got a better explanation?
Omigod. That's the [second time I've ever agreed with something Bosco said.
Bosco wrote: So if Windows machines cost the same as Macs machines, there must be some reason why the Mac only garners 2.5% worldwide market share. My theory is that 97.5% of the people are stupid and are potentially diluting the gene pool every time they go to bed with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone else got a better explanation?
You may be onto something, Bosco.
People don't make rational choices in the marketplace. If they did, you wouldn't see ads appealing to vanity, sex, prestige, and the like, as they would not work. (On the other hand, people in the advertising business also make irrational choices. There are enough of them, though, that the really stupid choices get weeded out.) The idea that people maximize utility was debunked in economics some time ago.
Why do some people insist upon buying an "American-made" car (including American brand cars made in Canada and Mexico!), when many of the Japanese (and, now, Korean) makes are demostrably more reliable and have lower total cost of ownership? Why do some women buy antiaging cremes and lotions that have never been demonstrated to do anything? Why do some men invest a lot of money in growing or transplanting hair? Why do people buy non-essentials on credit and end up paying 2-3 times the price over time? Why do people think that money they found or won in a lottery is different from money they earned? Why does anyone watch "American Idol," especially recently? (They may have a sadistic streak and enjoy the way many of the aspirants are insulted and demeaned.) Why did a lot of people (and the news media) spend time following the bizarre events surrounding the death of a woman noted mostly for being famous, rather than the tragic and untimely deaths of hundreds of ordinary people in Iraq, Darfur, and other areas?
If you answer any of the above, you'll know why more people use Windows computers than Macs.
CloseViewName:Guest Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:23 pmSubject:
Read the whole post. Building your PC by components is the way to MAXIMIZE the power for price, not the way to beat an Apple system on price. To do that without building your own computer just go to Dell, or Sony, or Toshiba, or if it is for business, go establish a relationship with IBM. Yes, even IBM provides cheaper hardware than Apple, that's why you see so many start up companies using IBM laptops.
Quote
Biff wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Sir Harry Flashman wrote: A quality Windows machine costs just as much as a Macintosh,
No, it doesn't. That's simply not true. I've done a lot of pricing of hardware, both for my personal machines and for company purchasing. There is definitely a significant premium one pays in order to buy Apple hardware, and it is more than the cost of Windows. The value of "iLife" is variable, and iLife is not as useful for some people or some purposes as others. Most often, at least for the purchasing I do, it does not equal the cost. Apple hardware, simply put, is overpriced, but it is okay for those who never want to look inside their computer, or custom choose every component. For someone who wants to maximize the power of their system while minimizing the price, the best option is to buy the components individually (unless a partnership or corporate account is established with a reseller), and put the machine together. Of course, since Apple's OS X does not compete on the OS market, if you choose to do this, you cannot run OS X. The cheapest option is obviously Linux, but even when including the price of Windows, it will still be cheaper than a Macintosh.
That's great guest. Unfortunately, 99% (I seem to use that number alot) of computer users don't build their own PC. So, that leaves us with oranges to oranges. So please, show me some examples of equal hardware configurations where Apple is significantly more expensive than other PC vendors.
CloseViewName:Guest Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:29 pmSubject:
Isn't really just market forces? Apple's platform doesn't have as much success as Microsoft's platform. The market prefers buying PCs because it offers them greater flexibility. Apple's Mac OS X isn't in direct competition with Windows because you cannot buy it. In order to run Mac OS X, you must buy Apple's hardware, and that's simply not something the majority of people want to do. They don't want to have their software provider tied to their hardware provider. There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways, but if there is anything the past two decades have taught us, it's economically more viable for consumers to have those two functions separated.
CloseViewName:Intruder- TMO Mac SpecialistPosts: 2837Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:12 pmSubject:
IBM offers neither desktops (they sell workstations), nor laptops (they sold that division to Lenovo well over a year ago). Establishing a relationship with IBM would help on server hardware only.
CloseViewName:macinnerdPosts: 1614Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:29 pmSubject:
Hey, I have a Packard Bell PC and it works great (Of course Windows is still Windows, but compared to Dell, it's wonderful. At least the hardware is OK).
