Indeed you did, but the first report I gave a link was exclusively for laptops, and the figures were determined by price-factored shipments. It did point out that "[a]n updated version of the MacBook Pro in the second quarter of 2017 led to a sales spike compared to other notebook brands" so their high end laptops obviously do well. However, Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc all sell high end laptops too, and their products cover a wider range of markets - for example, Macbooks aren't used in CAD/CAM. Unless there is evidence to confirm or deny matters, one cannot outright assume that Apple has a large market share in the $1000+ global sector.
the opposite is true also: unless there is evidence to confirm Dell, HP and others are selling profitable products above $1000 one cannot assume they sell better than Apple in that segment.
even because you showed 16% of products in Amazon only, and Apple are selling ONLY $1000+ laptops.
Do you really think HP best sellers are the high end laptops ?
Yes, really. Amazon is the
second largest global retailer and
largest non-supermarket retailer in the UK - that alone makes it a perfectly reasonable source of sales information. The
US listing shows an identical pattern - 16% - and this is Apple's prime territory. I agree that Apple Store is likely to be their majority channel, especially in the US, but with no information about sales figures from that outlet, we'd best let's just stick with actual revenue.
In the US there is an Apple Store in every block basically. And they have stores worldwide and an excellent online store with next day delivery with free shipping. Apple primary channel is Apple Store, not Amazon.
BTW even if we want to ignore this and consider Amazon only, 16% for a single brand is a BIG number and you are basically confirming my point: Apple IS relevant, much more than the 7% market share that means nothing in commercial terms (because is mostly based on old cheap PCs).
I never said Apple is THE BEST seller.
I just said they are relevant.
The Mac group
generated $7 billion in sales during Q1 2020 financial year, which is $4 billion less that
Lenovo's revenue for their PC & Smart Devices group. Neither company provide any further breakdown than that, but regardless as to whether or not laptops formed the bulk of both sets of revenue, Lenovo still sold more than Apple did.
So what ? Again, I never wrote Apple is the best selling. It is quite known they are the fourth. That still means they are relevant.
And even then, Lenovo is selling a lot of almost non-profitable cheap computers, while Apple is selling just $1000+ computers (and I’ve been generous, since many Apple Macs are priced above $1500).
As you rightly pointed out, net income is more important than just revenue. Unfortunately, Apple don't state such figures for the Mac range, only across the entire portfolio ($22b out of $91b, 24%, for that quarter); Lenovo do, though, and their PCSD group generated $684m out of $11.1b, just 6%. Does Apple have a 24% margin in their Mac group? Quite possibly. Does that imply it is a 'market leader'? To a certain degree, yes. However, this discussion was based on the initial comment you made about market share.
Apple margins under Tim Cook are around 32%.
No one else literally can do that. Just Apple.
And don’t get me wrong: I’m not happy about that, and I really hope someone else will eventually take the place of Tim Cook because those margins are obtained with soldered RAM (8 GB on high end models !), small SSD (128 GB on a $1300 laptop !!!) and so on...
But my initial comment NEVER was about market share.
Market share is a fanboy/hater argument.
My initial comment was about MacBook Air ARM based and big developers following Apple with their subscription based applications.
I just said that in high end laptops Apple has a big market share, which still is correct even if you want to consider the 16% in Amazon’s numbers.
However, you were suggesting that, as larger developers will follow the profits (any developer will, to be honest), Apple's switch from x86 to Arm and/or their huge revenues and margins, will encourage them to make the software transition quicker than candle_86 was suggesting. But if Apple isn't selling as many physical platforms as the other vendors combined, Microsoft et al aren't going to generate as revenue from the Apple market as they would from the others.
Candle_86 clearly is an hater. The web is full of haters when Apple is involved, and I’m accustomed to that.
Mine was just an hypothesis, we will see what will happen, but your words above “Apple isn’t selling ad many physical platforms as the others” still make no sense.
It is the same in the smartphone industry, where Apple isn’t dominant BUT has the vast majority of profits. You know why ? Because people buying dirty cheap android phones aren’t so eager to spend money in apps and services, while people spending $999 for an iPhone are.
The same apply for Macs, to an extent. People buying $200 PC on Amazon to browse the web are less prone to spend money on applications than people buying a $2000 iMac, for instance.
Hence my remark about x86. As things currently stand, Apple's Mac portfolio doesn't have the same size userbase as Windows-based systems, so no matter how much money Apple makes from them, software developers are going to, as you rightly pointed out, follow where the profit is for them (which isn't Macs).
The user base it is not the same, as I said above.
By the way, I read discussion like this many times in the past. I read it about phones, tablets, wearables... and every time Apple influenced the market in a great way.
I’m not sure about this ARM shift. I don’t know if I will buy another Mac in the future because of what Apple became under Tim Cook guidance. They basically are not selling, for any price, a computer that fits my needs. And I’m not so positive about how they will make the transition to ARM.
I’m just telling: do not underestimate Apple.
They don’t care about market share...
