Gartner: Apple Mac grabbed 6.1% of U.S. market share in Q3 06

For the first time since the fourth quarter of 2003, Hewlett-Packard moved into the No. 1 position for worldwide PC shipments in the third quarter of 2006, according to preliminary results by Gartner, Inc. The preliminary statistics show that HP’s lead over Dell is 110,000 units.

Worldwide PC shipments totaled 59.1 million units in the third quarter of 2006, a 6.7 percent increase from the same period last year. The U.S. PC market experienced a year-over-year shipment decline of 2 percent. The last time the U.S. PC market suffered a decline in PC shipments was the second quarter of 2002.

HP performed well across all regions, as its worldwide PC shipments in the third quarter of 2006 increased 15.4 percent year-over-year, and its market share reached 16.3 percent. Dell experienced its lowest year-over-year growth in the company’s history, as worldwide PC shipments increased 3.6 percent in the third quarter, and its worldwide PC market share slipped to 16.1 percent. Dell’s shipment growth rates were below the industry averages in the U.S. and Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) regions.

“HP continues to take better advantage of the faster growth segments such as the consumer market. The company’s share trajectory reflects its improvements in operational execution and changes in marketing,” said Mikako Kitagawa, principal analyst for Gartner Dataquest’s Client Computing Markets Group, in the press release. “Dell felt the effects of the weak sales in the U.S. market, and it gave up some ground.”

“Two factors that contributed to the poor performance in the U.S. market were continued weakness in the professional deskbased market, and the carry-over effect from strong sales in the second quarter,” said Ms. Kitagawa. “Strong sales to the home market, fueled by solid back to school sales and mobile PCs could not offset the decline in other areas.”

Dell held onto the No. 1 position in the U.S. PC market in the third quarter of 2006 despite a 7.1 percent decline in shipments year-over-year (see Table 2). The company suffered from weak deskbased PC growth, which offset solid mobile PC growth across all segments. HP capitalized on strong demand in the home market. Offerings of AMD-based systems aimed at consumers helped HP’s performance in the home market.

The EMEA market increased third quarter 2006 PC shipments 9.1 percent from the same period last year, as shipments totaled 18.5 million units. This region was driven by a strong consumer segment that had low price points on entry level models, and above average sales in Central Eastern Europe and Middle East and Africa markets. HP extended its lead as the No. 1 vendor in the region, while Acer closely edged out Dell to reach the No. 2 position. Aggressive pricing the consumer entry-level market and strong mobile PC sales to the small and midsize business (SMB) segment boosted Acer’s performance.

Third quarter PC shipments in Asia/Pacific increased 13.7 percent from the third quarter of 2005, as shipments reached 15.1 million units. Most countries exhibited positive growth rates, with the exception of New Zealand and Taiwan where growth declined. Mobile PC shipments grew 31 percent, while deskbased PCs are estimated to have grown 9.6 percent.

The Latin America PC market experienced year-over-year growth of 20 percent with shipments totaling 4.6 million units in the third quarter of 2006. Mobile PCs increased 65 percent, while deskbased PCs grew 15 percent. Brazil’s performance in notebooks was exceptional with 100 percent growth. Brazil is getting closer to Mexico’s overall mobile PC shipment levels.

In Japan, third quarter PC shipments declined 3 percent compared to the same period last year with shipments of 3.5 million units. Deskbased and mobile PC shipments were in line with Gartner’s expectations of almost flat shipment growth in the professional market, and high single to double-digit percentage declines in the consumer market.

These results are preliminary. Final statistics will be available soon to clients of Gartner’s PC Quarterly Statistics Worldwide by Region program. This program offers a comprehensive and timely picture of the worldwide PC market, allowing product planning, distribution, marketing and sales organizations to keep abreast of key issues and their future implications around the globe.

Additional research can be found on Gartner’s Computing Hardware section on Gartner’s Web site at http://www.gartner.com/it/products/research/asset_129157_2395.jsp

MacDailyNews Note: Apple holds 2.7% worldwide market share using Apple’s stated 1.61 million Macs (Apple’s fiscal Q4, calendar Q3) and Gartner’s 59.143 million total worldwide PC shipment 3Q numbers. IDC and Gartner’s numbers vary slightly due to differing methodologies.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
IDC: Apple Mac attained 5.8% U.S. market share in Q3 06 – October 18, 2006
Apple Q4 earnings results: $546M net profit on $4.84B revenue, sold 1.61M Macs, 8.729M iPods – October 18, 2006
Gartner: Apple should quit hardware business and license Mac OS X to Dell – October 18, 2006
Gartner: Apple Mac grabbed 4.6% U.S. market share in Q2 06 – July 19, 2006
IDC: Apple Mac attained 4.8% U.S. market share in Q2 06 – July 19, 2006

23 Comments

  1. So, this is the same Gartner that says Apple should get quit the hardware business. I wonder if they told Sony the same thing? I don’t see Sony on either list.

    Great day for AAPL share holders. Let’s see how the next couple of quarters plays out.

  2. So Apple, with their measley 6.1%, is making money hand over fist, while Dell, selling nearly 1 out of every 3 computers sold in the US, can barely keep its head above water.

    Looks like Apple got the GOOD 6.1% of the market, huh?

  3. “Yeah, look at M$ profits and compare that to Apple.

    You’ll see that software is far better to sell than hardware, profit per unit wise.”

    That’s a rather disingenous argument you got there Jerry T.

    You can’t just pick out two completely different companies at random and turn it into a truism. By the style of your argument, the sun has far more gravity than the earth because its brighter.

    How about: Microsoft as a near monopoly on the desktop market for its software. It uses this monopoly to block out the competition (Lotus 123 and Netscape spring to mind) and it locks vendors in (such as Dell, HP, Lenovo) to pre-installing their software.

    This business environment is very friendly for Microsoft products, but absolutely hostile to to any competing OS. That’s why there is no commercially viable Linux desktop (certainly not because they can’t).

    So you see Microsoft are in a very unique category, and not just a random sample as you kinda impled.

  4. McGherkinstein Jones,

    I disagree with you.

    M$ has a monopoly on the desktop because there are no alternatives. I bet you Dell, HP and Lenovo would sell OSX machines in a heart beat starting tomorrow if Apple would do it, they all said so. So where’s the lock in?

    And there is no commercially viable Linux because when I add a new video card to my computer I don’t want to have to program my own god damn drivers to make it work. But nice try on that.

    And doesn’t the sun have more gravity because it’s brighter?

  5. I just don’t get it. How can Gartner know all this since they have their collective head completely up their collective ass. It’s dark in there. The air is bad and they can’t see. So how can they come off like they know anything?

  6. Jerry T

    1. The lock-in is in the contracts, you can bet that if Dell actually decided to offer OSX as well as windows, then all of a sudden windows would go up in price for them. There have been blogs and complaints from various OEMs over the restictive terms that Microsoft demands.

    2. You missed my point on the Linux problem. When I said commercially viable, I meant a situation where a company actually pays a core of developers to actually commercialise a release of Linux so that the average user can use it. The reason I mentioned it was that the MS situation makes it unattractive for any potential Red Hat – like company to try this. Driver installation in Linux is not actually hard, but its fiddly (especially on Fedora), it really just needs some developer TLC to make it easier for the end user.

    3. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

  7. McGherkinstein Jones,

    Okay, so now I kind of agree with you.

    I agree the price will go up…but that isn’t a true lock in. Your first post sounded like M$ had these guys locked in so they couldn’t put any other OS on their equipment. And that’s what I disagreed with.

    Of course if they could put OSX on their gear, would they even care what M$ charged for Windows? They wouldn’t be buying it no matter what M$ charged…” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

    I think Linux has a very long way to go as a desktop for the average person with or without M$ help. The average person being the ones that think the internet “is” that little blue “e” on their desktop.

    M$’s detrimental impact on Linux I believe is the same as OSX. In that it just works for the end user. I’m going to get roasted for that one.

    I mean by that, that the end user just buys software and hardware and use them. And most of the time everything works, you don’t need to be a programmer or hardware engineer etc. and nothing needs to be compiled because you are using one of the 50 possible distros.

    And that last point is another self made draw back for Linux. It grew out of the software should be free mindset. The trouble is, if you charge nothing for your product you don’t keep the lights on for very long.

    And the open source model is also why there are 50 distros that require hardware vendors to make 50 drivers. Which of course they won’t because they don’t believe everything should be free and like to make a profit. It might be a different climate if all of the Linux distros could get together and agree on a unified driver base and interface model. These issues and more are Linux’s own fault and have nothing to do with M$.

    Having said all of that, I wish M$ would move their HQ to the sun.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.