stats 2011 iOS sales surpass every Mac ever sold

[Muhammad Farrukh]

No matter what you think of iOS devices, this is a very impressive statistic. Apple sold more iOS devices last year alone that it has ever sold in the Mac line during the 28-year history of the product. The chart you see here illustrating this statistic comes from Asymco, with some of the data apparently coming from Apple?s Tim Cook. Apple sold 140 million Macs with some form of OS X so far since the Mac brand was launched.

The number of iPads sold since the tablet launched is 55 million. The number of iPods listed as sold since they came on the market is 22 million. Since the iPhone launched Apple has sold 175 million of them with 37 million of that number coming the last quarter alone. All totaled, those numbers add up to 316 million iOS devices sold by the end of 2011 with 122 million collective Mac computers sold through 2011.

Asymco claims that so far since the iOS platform launched 316 million total units were sold as of the end of last year. The company also claims that in 2011 156 million iOS devices were sold, putting iOS at 34 million more units sold in 2011 than Macs sold in history. Asymco is presumably taking its numbers from Apple?s quarterly financial reports. The only caveat we see is that sales of the iPod touch are not broken out from sales of iPods that don?t run iOS.

SlashGear

[alexalex]

Total iPod sales through 2011

- 321 million.

[MightyJordan]

Hint hint, Apple. If you significantly dropped the prices of your Macs, imagine how much money you'd make from all the increased sales! I'd sure as hell buy a 13" MacBook Pro if it was at least ?300 cheaper!

[Ci7]

Hint hint, Apple. If you significantly dropped the prices of your Macs, imagine how much money you'd make from all the increased sales! I'd sure as hell buy a 13" MacBook Pro if it was at least ?300 cheaper!

they fixed that by forcing obsolescence of old macs

[alexalex]

Hint hint, Apple. If you significantly dropped the prices of your Macs, imagine how much money you'd make from all the increased sales! I'd sure as hell buy a 13" MacBook Pro if it was at least ?300 cheaper!

Apple, if you let OEMs to build Mac imagine how much money you'd make... Apple tried once to let some OEMs to build Apple Computers, and failed.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/apple-if-you-dont-do-cheap-let-someone-else-do-it-instead/9511

[jakem1]

Not a great achievement considering that Macs have always been a market failure.

[shifts]

It's odd to think that my macbook pro 2009 is pretty much facing obsolescence, i thought it was still a fairly competent bit of kit. When I had Pc's i did find myself spending more on them more often almost just to keep up with gaming requirements.

[Southern Patriot]

It's odd to think that my macbook pro 2009 is pretty much facing obsolescence, i thought it was still a fairly competent bit of kit. When I had Pc's i did find myself spending more on them more often almost just to keep up with gaming requirements.

It still does everything it did the day you bought it (and likely more, since it is compatible with Lion, which isn't what it came with).

News flash: any computer you buy is "obsolete" the day after you buy it. There is always something newer/faster/better coming out. Its been this way since the beginning of the personal computer era, and not likely to change anytime soon.

As to the article, no pun intended, but they are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm sure you would probably also find that smartphone sales in general have probably outpaced all personal computer sales.

[Southern Patriot]

Hint hint, Apple. If you significantly dropped the prices of your Macs, imagine how much money you'd make from all the increased sales!

Despite many claims of that, it isn't necessarily true. Many people don't buy Macs not because of the price but because they simply don't care for the platform. Read a lot of the comments here from the typical Mac haters. Many, if not most, of them have nothing to do with the price but with features, compatibility, etc.

[benthebear]

Apple, if you let OEMs to build Mac imagine how much money you'd make... Apple tried once to let some OEMs to build Apple Computers, and failed.

http://www.zdnet.com...it-instead/9511

I like how that article links to, "Why Apple and Google need to get into the netbook business." I'm sure the brass at Apple are kicking their selves over it.

Despite many claims of that, it isn't necessarily true. Many people don't buy Macs not because of the price but because they simply don't care for the platform. Read a lot of the comments here from the typical Mac haters. Many, if not most, of them have nothing to do with the price but with features, compatibility, etc.

I think I see the price of Apple's wares brought up more than anything else. Some people seem to think that whatever Apple offers for $1,000 is the same thing that is being offered by Dell for $400. Which I personally don't think is the case.

[Order_66]

Despite many claims of that, it isn't necessarily true. Many people don't buy Macs not because of the price but because they simply don't care for the platform. Read a lot of the comments here from the typical Mac haters. Many, if not most, of them have nothing to do with the price but with features, compatibility, etc.

While I agree it's not always price that keeps people from mac but I do think that it is the main reason, why pay double and sometimes triple for a machine that can do the same thing a windows machine can do?

[MightyJordan]

While I agree it's not always price that keeps people from mac but I do think that it is the main reason, why pay double and sometimes triple for a machine that can do the same thing a windows machine can do?

Bingo. (Y) The only thing I want a Mac for that I can't do on Windows is use Logic Pro, because Apple bought out Emagic nearly ten years ago and made it Mac-only. :(

[Rippleman]

i like the iphone and the ipad, but never liked Macs for lack of knowelgde about them. The price has always kept me from buying one. I would probably own one if it was priced at 1/2 what they charge.

[benthebear]

I don't mean to start a flame war of any sorts, so I very respectfully ask, and genuinely want to know, what is Apple charging double or triple for?

[Rippleman]

I don't mean to start a flame war of any sorts, so I very respectfully ask, and genuinely want to know, what is Apple charging double or triple for?

your best source of info would be apple.com, tigerdirect.com, newegg.com and your local PC stores etc.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I don't mean to start a flame war of any sorts, so I very respectfully ask, and genuinely want to know, what is Apple charging double or triple for?

Because they typically use higher quality components, all the Macs have IPS displays which compared to regular TN panels usually found in cheap monitors they cost sometimes double just for the screen, then all the R&D that goes into the design and build of the chassis like the uni body aluminium stuff.

Apple cant compete with the cheap, knock em out using off the shelf component volume stuff like Dell, HP, etc.. so they aim their products as premium lifestyle products.

[benthebear]

your best source of info would be apple.com, tigerdirect.com, newegg.com and your local PC stores etc.

Well, you know, I always see comments about how Apple charges double or triple what a competitor does for the same thing, but no one provides any examples how. I mean, Apple's iCloud prices aren't double/triple those provided by Dropbox.

And, the sources you listed, I have looked at those, and when you spec the competitors wares to match that of Apple's, you're not going to get something for half the price. For instance, if you spec HP's 27q series 27" 2.7GHz i5 all in one to match (or as close as you can) the 27" 2.7GHz i5 iMac for $1,699, the 27q comes out to $1,688.99. $11 cheaper. But then it comes down to what you, personally, consider the deal breaker to be. The 27q has 2 more gigs of RAM, and the video card maybe a little better (I haven't looked for benchmarks), but the screen on the iMac has a better, higher resolution. Me, personally, I would take the iMac because the screen is what matters the most. RAM is something you can upgrade later, and to me, Apple's customer service is way better.

You may take the 27q, I don't know. You could sacrifice screen size and put that cash else where to make it a number crunching beast, or you could buy something that's enough to get on Facebook, but if you want to compare apples to apples the best you can, it doesn't come out to the mystical double/triple price. (sans Mac Pros)

And if I wanted to order parts off of newegg, the computer would still be high because 27" IPS screens @ 2560 x 1440 (pick a brand, any brand) alone retail from $800 to $1,100. Bummer.

Also, I stay away from local PC stores. The one near me wanted $230 for an i5-2400. I bought the i5-2500 for $190 from newegg instead.

Because they typically use higher quality components, all the Macs have IPS displays which compared to regular TN panels usually found in cheap monitors they cost sometimes double just for the screen, then all the R&D that goes into the design and build of the chassis like the uni body aluminium stuff.

Apple cant compete with the cheap, knock em out using off the shelf component volume stuff like Dell, HP, etc.. so they aim their products as premium lifestyle products.

Exactly, but it's not like Apple's throwing TN panels into their Macs and using piano glossed, multiple piece, plastic enclosures and charging double/triple for it. I understand Apple's stuff starts out higher than their competitions, but once you start to spec the competitors high end stuff to match that of Apple's the prices come pretty close. Until recently, the Macbook Air came out $300 +/- cheaper than a Samsung Series 9 configured the same way.

[Xerxes]

EDIT: Nevermind, need to stop posting without thinking first :laugh: ...

[Rippleman]

I don't mean to start a flame war of any sorts, so I very respectfully ask, and genuinely want to know, what is Apple charging double or triple for?

just built EXACT same spec machine from Dell: Turns out... less then half price for this example of Mac Pro VS Dell T3500 ($2500 Mac Pro vs $1179 Dell Workstation)

people may say build quality blah blah blah, but in the end, each system will last for a decade. Thats good enough for me.

Dell Precision T3500 Workstation

Starting Price $1,554.00 Instant Savings $375.00

price $1179

[Muhammad Farrukh]

Apple has always had quality in their products. And quality comes at a price.

Not saying that they are too expensive. Not saying that they are too cheap. Just about in the middle.

[Sikh]

just built EXACT same spec machine from Dell: Turns out... less then half price for this example of Mac Pro VS Dell T3500 ($2500 Mac Pro vs $1179 Dell Workstation)

people may say build quality blah blah blah, but in the end, each system will last for a decade. Thats good enough for me.

Dell Precision T3500 Workstation

Starting Price $1,554.00 Instant Savings $375.00

price $1179

Besides Mac pro's like someone said.

But to get specific, does that workstation have 2 xeon CPU's? I dont see on dell's website a such thing for that price...

[alexalex]

Besides Mac pro's like someone said.

But to get specific, does that workstation have 2 xeon CPU's? I dont see on dell's website a such thing for that price...

+1

[Rippleman]

remember, i LIKE apple products, so this is not me trying to say anything bad... just every example i have looked at for the same gear (or as close as you can get) Apple is just pricier when it comes to PC's.

i view apple like this: Form> function >price where other pc makers Price> function >form