Mac sales fall by 40%

[leman]

Recapping:

• Apple Fiscal Year End (FYE or FY) is end of September of a given year. FY23 is the fiscal year that ends at the end of September 2023.
• IDC is reporting units on a CY quarterly basis
• Apple is reporting revenue on a FY quarterly basis (and their policy seems to be "report as little financial information as legally possible"). We can re-label time periods to make comparisons easier.
• Apple reported mac revenue dropped from 10.9B to 7.7B for 2021CY4Q vs 2022CY4Q
• IDC reported mac units sold dropped 7.7M to 7.5M for 2021CY4Q vs 2022CY4Q
• That implies average selling price also dropped from $1,415 to $1,026 for those same periods.
  • Maybe Apple went from selling higher priced Pros and Studios at the end of 2021, compared to more Minis at the end of 2022?
• Apple reported mac revenue changed from 10.4B to <TBD> for 2022CY1Q vs 2023CY1Q (need to wait for Apple's earnings call on 5/4)
• IDC reported mac units sold dropped 6.9M to 4.1M for 2022CY1Q vs 2023CY1Q
• That implies that the average selling price was $1,500 for 2022CY1Q
  • Still selling M1Pro/Max laptops and studios?
• Since Apple started selling M2Pro/Max laptops in 2023CY1Q, I'd bet that product mix will lean towards the pricey side - say ~1,400 - for a guestimated mac revenue of $5.8B... We'll find out in a few weeks. Probably one reason why Apple signaled the market by saying they're cutting M2 chip orders.

SixColors did a nice write up of Apple numbers with easy to digest charts:

Apple results and charts: $117.2B quarter is still a step back

Apple on Thursday announced its fiscal first-quarter results, and it was a step backward. The company’s year-over-year revenue fell $6.7 billion, though with total revenue of $117.2 billion i…

sixcolors.com

Interestingly, profit % was at a near-record high for 2021CY4Q while revenue was down. Apple is choosing higher profits vs increasing Mac market share. This revenue variation has to be giving Tim some major heartburn.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown! You illustrate clearly why the IDC story makes me uneasy. They essentially claim that during a quarter where Apple introduced no new product and experienced a large decline in revenue, they were still selling record-breaking amounts of Macs (albeit overwhelmingly the cheapest ones). Already this is hard to swallow for me when one considers the price of Macs — there have to be an ungodly amounts of $999 M1 MBAs and M1 Minis to drop the average to $1000.

And then during a quarter when they released new MacBook Pros and M2/M2 Pro Mac Minis (the product a lot of people were waiting for!) — according to IDC at least — they are supposed to made 40% fewer sales compared to a quarter with no new product release at all? This just doesn't add up for me...

 

[v0lume4]

I think the most shocking thing here is anyone who complains about how slow the M2 pro and M2 max are. “They didn’t knock it out of the park”. There is no laptop on this planet when not plugged in that can outperform the M2 PRO/MAX, or touch their battery life. Same goes for real world usage. Apple is way ahead, IMO. Everyone else is 1-2 years behind. Even intel’s latest offerings, can barely touch Apple, especially unplugged. Sorry I come from a mindset that a laptop is a mobile device, not a gimmick that lasts 45 minutes then dies just so it can win cinabench and geekbench.

Where is Apple outperforming Intel in performance? I ask in earnest. I saw some recent benchmarks where Intel’s highest end mobile CPU’s are more than double the M2 Max scores. More than double! I know synthetic benchmarks are not the end-all, but still. I can find the benchmark if interested.

You’re right about the power usage and battery life though.

 

[leman]

Where is Apple outperforming Intel in performance? I ask in earnest. I saw some recent benchmarks where Intel’s highest end mobile CPU’s are more than double the M2 Max scores. More than double! I know synthetic benchmarks are not the end-all, but still. I can find the benchmark if interested.

You’re right about the power usage and battery life though.

I believe what @Miltz was referring to is performance on battery. In single-core performance, best mobile CPUs from Apple, AMD, and Intel are essentially tied. With the difference that Intel needs to use more then twice as much power than AMD to achieve the same performance level and roughly 4x-5x times as much as Apple. In multi-core thoughtput on trivially parallelizable massive workloads, Intel can achieve some impressive performance, but the way they do it is by essentially putting a slightly underclocked desktop CPU into a laptop enclosure. Power consumption during these tasks exceeds 150 watts. That's not something that can be maintained on battery only (it simply can't release the amperage needed), so performance will be severely diminished when you are not plugged in. In fact when one looks at power requirenments, these enthusiast-class "mobile" processors are yesterdays mainstream desktop processors. What we see here is an effect of ridiculous energy usage inflation. These chips are impressive when you plug them in and run some benchmarks on them, but try actually using that kind of laptop for work and the annoyance factor will be real. There is no good reason why a laptop should draw 50 watts just to open some spreadsheets.

Instead when you look at the "regular" mobile processors, Intel doesn't look that hot. The i9-13900H/K fail to outperform the M2 Pro despite a large gap in power consumption. In fact, the new HX series (using downclocked desktop dies) were introduced because the traditional mobile die couldn't compete with AMD and Apple anymore.

And where Apple has a truly commanding lead are baseline devices. Their passively cooled laptop processor outperforms Intel's 30W premium performance ultrabook chip (P-series), not to mention Intel's energy efficient ultrabook U-series.

 

[pshufd]

I believe what @Miltz was referring to is performance on battery. In single-core performance, best mobile CPUs from Apple, AMD, and Intel are essentially tied. With the difference that Intel needs to use more then twice as much power than AMD to achieve the same performance level and roughly 4x-5x times as much as Apple. In multi-core thoughtput on trivially parallelizable massive workloads, Intel can achieve some impressive performance, but the way they do it is by essentially putting a slightly underclocked desktop CPU into a laptop enclosure. Power consumption during these tasks exceeds 150 watts. That's not something that can be maintained on battery only (it simply can't release the amperage needed), so performance will be severely diminished when you are not plugged in. In fact when one looks at power requirenments, these enthusiast-class "mobile" processors are yesterdays mainstream desktop processors. What we see here is an effect of ridiculous energy usage inflation. These chips are impressive when you plug them in and run some benchmarks on them, but try actually using that kind of laptop for work and the annoyance factor will be real. There is no good reason why a laptop should draw 50 watts just to open some spreadsheets.

Instead when you look at the "regular" mobile processors, Intel doesn't look that hot. The i9-13900H/K fail to outperform the M2 Pro despite a large gap in power consumption. In fact, the new HX series (using downclocked desktop dies) were introduced because the traditional mobile die couldn't compete with AMD and Apple anymore.

And where Apple has a truly commanding lead are baseline devices. Their passively cooled laptop processor outperforms Intel's 30W premium performance ultrabook chip (P-series), not to mention Intel's energy efficient ultrabook U-series.

A friend yesterday asked me about his Dell laptop which just shut off in the middle of the day. He tried to turn it on again and that didn't work so he just left it for a few hours and then tried to turn it on again and it booted up. We suspect a thermal issue so I sent him the name of a program so that he can monitor sensor temps.

That's a problem that I never think about on my Apple Silicon Mac.

 

[Lihp8270]

Its just crazy how expensive these computers, (both laptops and desktops). I don't mean just apple, though HP/Lenovo are not known for luxury pricing.

The general consumer is putting off purchases that are not needed, and dropping almost 3k for a laptop certainly can fall into that category.

I spent £1700 for my Alienware laptop that i use for personal dev work and gaming.

The updated model now with a 1 Gen step up in cpu and to a 40 series instead of 30 series GPU. Is now around £2100. Computing has gone crazy.

 

[Lihp8270]

A friend yesterday asked me about his Dell laptop which just shut off in the middle of the day. He tried to turn it on again and that didn't work so he just left it for a few hours and then tried to turn it on again and it booted up. We suspect a thermal issue so I sent him the name of a program so that he can monitor sensor temps.

That's a problem that I never think about on my Apple Silicon Mac.

In fairness it’s a problem I’ve never thought about on my laptops either. Regardless of manufacturer.

 

[Lihp8270]

The drops could simply be down to the fact that a lot of people bought laptops between 2020-2022 with covid demands and shortages driving hype.

We hit 2023 and the people that wanted a laptop now have a laptop.

 

[iPadified]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown! You illustrate clearly why the IDC story makes me uneasy. They essentially claim that during a quarter where Apple introduced no new product and experienced a large decline in revenue, they were still selling record-breaking amounts of Macs (albeit overwhelmingly the cheapest ones). Already this is hard to swallow for me when one considers the price of Macs — there have to be an ungodly amounts of $999 M1 MBAs and M1 Minis to drop the average to $1000.

And then during a quarter when they released new MacBook Pros and M2/M2 Pro Mac Minis (the product a lot of people were waiting for!) — according to IDC at least — they are supposed to made 40% fewer sales compared to a quarter with no new product release at all? This just doesn't add up for me...

Not saying that the IDC report is correct but it can be another dominating factor coinciding with the M2 release such as inflation making people buying a cheaper windows machine. There is a risk that we at MR are overestimating the impact of a new SoC on the buying decision of most people.

 

[pshufd]

In fairness it’s a problem I’ve never thought about on my laptops either. Regardless of manufacturer.

I've monitored the thermals on my Intel systems for quite some time and generally try to keep systems running at 70 degrees or less. My last Windows desktop uses a non-K CPU and has a lot of cooling fans in a huge case. My Intel MacBook Pros did have thermal issues and I used external cooling to try to keep them below 70 degrees.

I prefer quiet systems and I'm rather amazed at Apple Silicon laptops where the fans don't spin at all.

 

[Lihp8270]

I've monitored the thermals on my Intel systems for quite some time and generally try to keep systems running at 70 degrees or less. My last Windows desktop uses a non-K CPU and has a lot of cooling fans in a huge case. My Intel MacBook Pros did have thermal issues and I used external cooling to try to keep them below 70 degrees.

I prefer quiet systems and I'm rather amazed at Apple Silicon laptops where the fans don't spin at all.

Other than for comfort if using on a lap. There’s no real benefit to keeping the temps that low.

Intel MBPs had thermal issues due to Apples atrocious cooling solutions (admittedly Intel may have some blame if reports are true regarding their info for thermal performance details supplied to Apple) But that isn’t necessarily something that applies to all Intel laptops.

The above however isn’t an argument against Apple Silicon. For temps, and performance on battery. Apple Silicon is unrivalled.

I am simply suggesting that a laptop with a thermal problem isn’t indicative of all Wintel laptops and following sensible maintenance thermal issues shouldn’t really happen.

 

[Lihp8270]

L

Not saying that the IDC report is correct but it can be another dominating factor coinciding with the M2 release such as inflation making people buying a cheaper windows machine. There is a risk that we at MR are overestimating the impact of a new SoC on the buying decision of most people.

I’d say most people either don’t care or don’t know (or both) what processor is in their mac.

It’s discussed here by enthusiasts. Which in reality is a tiny market share of buyers.

 

[GuruZac]

Indeed. Bought my first laptop in 1997 and had one ever since until my ipad Pro in 2020. At that point I intended to get a new Macbook in 2022 but I didn’t. The ipad is enough for me and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Yeah I a kind of in the same camp. I don’t hardly use my laptop at all, and there are only a few scenarios where it is still necessary due to macOS vs iPadOS. I will continue to use an iPad Pro 12.9 or whatever the big one is, but I am intrigued by the 15” MacBook Air if I’m honest. I begin my residency in 1 year and although clinic and hospital provides both desktop and laptops, we are also free to use our own. An iPad Pro will not work for this purpose, so I am really considering the 15” MacBook Air, or even the 14” MacBook Pro.

 

[maflynn]

Other than for comfort if using on a lap. There’s no real benefit to keeping the temps that low.

Noise. I have my Razer configured in such a way, that its a very quiet laptop. I gave up some performance for the fans not spinning up as much (for non-gaming activities).

Gaming of course, equals heat and the fans do spin up, but for other stuff the razer is quite quiet and that's all due to to keeping the temps low.

 

[pshufd]

Other than for comfort if using on a lap. There’s no real benefit to keeping the temps that low.

Intel MBPs had thermal issues due to Apples atrocious cooling solutions (admittedly Intel may have some blame if reports are true regarding their info for thermal performance details supplied to Apple) But that isn’t necessarily something that applies to all Intel laptops.

The above however isn’t an argument against Apple Silicon. For temps, and performance on battery. Apple Silicon is unrivalled.

I am simply suggesting that a laptop with a thermal problem isn’t indicative of all Wintel laptops and following sensible maintenance thermal issues shouldn’t really happen.

The additional benefits are less noise from fans, and better battery life as power consumption increases exponential with CPU frequency.

I have 3 Intel MacBook Pros and several Windows systems and I always preferred if they didn't run hot and loud. Especially given electricity prices this past winter. I've never had $400 electricity bills before. Not that that's so bad as I've heard from others with four-digit bills this winter.

I'm not saying that this is a Wintel problem. I've had this problem with AMD laptops as well though I ran some pretty heavy workloads.

I've never had a system shut down from thermal problems before but I usually monitor thermals. A computer shutting down from thermal problems seems to be more of a design problem on the particular system. But with Apple Silicon, most workloads won't ever come close to that problem.

 

[Basic75]

I saw some recent benchmarks where Intel’s highest end mobile CPU’s are more than double the M2 Max scores.

It's not surprising that an Intel HX-series processor, which is essentially a desktop chip sold for laptops, with 8 performance and 16 (area)-efficiency cores beats Apple's 8 performance and 4 (energy)-efficient cores by a large margin.

So yes, if you do need that kind of multi-threaded performance there are Intel and AMD processors that can easily beat Apple's best offerings.

But you need some serious stuff to fully load up the 24 cores and 32 threads of such an Intel beast. Now if Intel had double the single core performance I'd be worried for Apple, but they don't.

 

[leman]

Other than for comfort if using on a lap. There’s no real benefit to keeping the temps that low.

Temps don't matter. Heat output does. There are some people who have healthy obsession about sensor readouts, but let's don't dwell on psychological issues. Most users care about performance, battery, quiet operation, and comfortable experience. A system that has to consume ridiculous amounts of power to perform everyday computing tasks (like opening a spreadsheet) is compromised in all these areas.

Intel MBPs had thermal issues due to Apples atrocious cooling solutions (admittedly Intel may have some blame if reports are true regarding their info for thermal performance details supplied to Apple) But that isn’t necessarily something that applies to all Intel laptops.

Apple's cooling solutions were generally very good and had no problems handling generations of Intel processors. The problems only started appearing around 2017 with Coffee Lake, where Intel had to operate the processors beyond their advertised thermal bracket to achieve noteworthy improvements over the predecessor. And yes, this applied to al Intel processors. Notebookcheck famously wasn't coy throwing jabs at Intel over i9 CPUs routinely ending up slower than the i7 models even in large gaming laptops. Eventually high-end gaming laptops compensated for the increased power consumption by using larger heatsinks with larger fans and huge air vents, but that's not a design you want in an ultraportable business workstation. That era created a new category of "60 watt" mobile processor (like current HX series from Intel or AMD), which to me is very funny, since that was the power bracket of high end desktop CPUs just a few years ago (like the very popular 65W Skylake 6700 from 2015).

I am simply suggesting that a laptop with a thermal problem isn’t indicative of all Wintel laptops and following sensible maintenance thermal issues shouldn’t really happen.

I would say that using a CPU that draws well over 100 watts in a laptop is already a thermal issue. Mind, that is just the CPU. A midrange GPU adds another 100-150 watts.

 

[Tozovac]

I'm going to speculate why:

Speaking for myself, I held onto my 2014 MBA far too long, but had zero interest in the pre-M1 Butterly-keyboard generation laptops with thermal issues. And had zero interest in a Microsoft Windows PC. Once the M1's appeared, the dam burst and I bought both a base Mini to "get by," then an Apple certified refurb MBA loaded up (2TB, 16gb) a year or so later.

I can't have been the only one who held out from ~2015-2021 then finally "filled the void" shortly after the M1 intro. All that pent up demand deflated after buying an M-series replacement for their prior machine, and now there will be a lull in purchases for a few years?

 

[Tozovac]

Other than for comfort if using on a lap. There’s no real benefit to keeping the temps that low.

My work laptop (Surface) constantly heats up under the most basic tasks (Office & Teams seem to be resource hogs) and things slow down unbearably until I pull a gel ice pack from the freezer and place the laptop on it, regaining some useful function for about 30 minutes until it slows down unbearably again.

 

[pshufd]

Speaking for myself, I held onto my 2014 MBA far too long, but had zero interest in the pre-M1 Butterly-keyboard generation laptops with thermal issues. And had zero interest in a Microsoft Windows PC. Once the M1's appeared, the dam burst and I bought both a base Mini to "get by," then an Apple certified refurb MBA loaded up (2TB, 16gb) a year or so later.

I can't have been the only one who held out from ~2015-2021 then finally "filled the void" shortly after the M1 intro. All that pent up demand deflated after buying an M-series replacement for their prior machine, and now there will be a lull in purchases for a few years?

I was using a 2015 and still have it. I did not touch the 2016 and later Intel stuff.

 

[Tozovac]

Its just crazy how expensive these computers, (both laptops and desktops). I don't mean just apple, though HP/Lenovo are not known for luxury pricing.

I keep seeing pretty amazing prices (IMHO) for Mac minis. I think any sub-$700 apple computer with M-series processors are steals of a deal, so Apple does have a pretty amazingly good offering that can't be called a completely entry-level thing, even if yes Apple is ridiculous as far as memory/storage prices.

Memory/storage is to Apple like floor mats are to automakers.

 

[Ethosik]

And my statement still stands.

What your statement about gamers? I just said it’s not only built for gamers. A lot of productivity uses CUDA cores. And like I just said, people buy up Quadro cards. So macs being professional systems, I don’t think prices are an issue.

I mean if rumors are true that the Mac Pro is now dead. We will see the biggest drop in max pricing from a pro use case since there is no Mac Studio at $50,000.

 

[leman]

Not saying that the IDC report is correct but it can be another dominating factor coinciding with the M2 release such as inflation making people buying a cheaper windows machine. There is a risk that we at MR are overestimating the impact of a new SoC on the buying decision of most people.

That is very much possible. What confuses me the most though is that IDC report claims essentially no change in Mac volume for the last quarter of 2022 — the quarter where we know for sure Apple did poorly.

 

[cheesygrin]

PC Pain Persists in Q1 2023 Due to Excess Inventory and Poor Demand, According to IDC Tracker

IDC examines consumer markets by devices, applications, networks, and services to provide complete solutions for succeeding in these expanding markets.

www.idc.com

View attachment 2186762

What is most surprising here is that Apple's share growth is worse than other PC makers. It seemed like Apple was going to continue to gain market share in PCs with Apple Silicon effortlessly. But this didn't happen in Q1.

I'm going to speculate why:

• People are going back to buying cheaper laptops due to the economy, inflation, and exchange rates. Apple suffers in this environment because they're generally less flexible when it comes to dropping prices.
• M2 was late by ~8 months (assuming they want to release a new gen every year).
• M2 Pro/Max, consequentially, was also late by 4 months.
• M2's performance increases did not knock it out of the park. No Ray Tracing support. No drastic increase in ST. Still using a node in 5nm family.
• Ideally, we should be on M3 right now.
• M1, Pro, Max were so good that people will wait for M3 or M4 to upgrade again. I'm in this camp.
• Still no MacBook SE to capture the value Walmart/Costco Windows laptop buyers
• Still no 15" Macbook Air, which will very likely become the #1 selling Mac when it's released
• RAM and SSD are expensive upgrades and 8/256 base is finally not enough

The most frustrating thing about following Apple Silicon over the last 2 years is just how passive Apple's strategy is. Hopefully, Apple is learning a lesson here and will be more aggressive going forward. No more delays. No more holding back. Less stingy on RAM and SSD.

I think this is a great summary. I feel like I’m not alone in holding out before buying a new Mac, as pricing and specs just don’t seem competitive at the moment, especially here in the UK.

The one thing I’d add is global manufacturer-level component shortages: this has likely hampered Apple’s ability to push on with new releases, as they know they won’t be able to meet demand and so don’t want to waste the early new product “hype” when they can’t fill the orders.

 

[cyberdocwi2]

My first Apple was a //e then with the PM 7100, Bronze Keyboard PowerBook, a few MacBook Pros, and currently on a MacMini i9, MacBook Pro 2013 for work, and an iMac 27" from 2011. Been an Apple user for many many years, and usually managed the money factor by purchasing machines on markdown while newer ones were available.

Since the company got me a MacBook Pro in 2013, which I still use daily, others in the company are on their 2nd or 3rd Dell / HP unit. They cannot believe that I am still on the 2013, although my external HDMI is starting to hiccup on occasion. Yes, I did perform a battery replacement in 2020, and changed the HD out in 2019.

Apple has *discouraged* my upgrade process, by releasing portable hardware that disturbed me:

- Butterfly keyboard mess
- Soldered RAM and Hard Drive. Especially the soldered hard drive.
- Reduction of ports -> I really miss my ethernet one!
- New OS every year does not work well with stability, and creates work to upgrade and test compatibility.

Apple builds a quality machine, but they charge too much for it. When you hear of how many Billion$ are in the bank, and look at current pricing, they are marketing to the elite, and perfectly understandable why others are looking away from them.

I would like to see:

+ Slow down OS movements to major updates every 2 years
+ Removable hard drives - I should be able to remove the drive and insert into another computer if I loose my screen or spill soda on the keyboard.
+ Reduced and responsible pricing. I don't want cheap, but desire reasonable quality.

 

[pshufd]

My first Apple was a //e then with the PM 7100, Bronze Keyboard PowerBook, a few MacBook Pros, and currently on a MacMini i9, MacBook Pro 2013 for work, and an iMac 27" from 2011. Been an Apple user for many many years, and usually managed the money factor by purchasing machines on markdown while newer ones were available.

Since the company got me a MacBook Pro in 2013, which I still use daily, others in the company are on their 2nd or 3rd Dell / HP unit. They cannot believe that I am still on the 2013, although my external HDMI is starting to hiccup on occasion. Yes, I did perform a battery replacement in 2020, and changed the HD out in 2019.

Apple has *discouraged* my upgrade process, by releasing portable hardware that disturbed me:

- Butterfly keyboard mess
- Soldered RAM and Hard Drive. Especially the soldered hard drive.
- Reduction of ports -> I really miss my ethernet one!
- New OS every year does not work well with stability, and creates work to upgrade and test compatibility.

Apple builds a quality machine, but they charge too much for it. When you hear of how many Billion$ are in the bank, and look at current pricing, they are marketing to the elite, and perfectly understandable why others are looking away from them.

I would like to see:

+ Slow down OS movements to major updates every 2 years
+ Removable hard drives - I should be able to remove the drive and insert into another computer if I loose my screen or spill soda on the keyboard.
+ Reduced and responsible pricing. I don't want cheap, but desire reasonable quality.

Intel and AMD need to step up their game in efficiency to provide competition for Apple in portables. They certainly demonstrated that they have stepped up when efficiency isn't the primary consideration.