Does Apple Have a “91 Percent” Share of the High-End?


A lot of stories like this one are circulating about how NPD is saying Apple has a 91 percent market share of all PCs sold over $1,000. They give that impression by claiming something like “a 91 percent share”, or “91 percent of the market”.

Truth be told, if NPD really stated this as market share, I’d say they were wrong. It’s hard to believe 9.1 out of 10 PCs over $1K are Apple’s (s aapl). Come on, people, there are many non-Mac users who spend money, too. Whether for quality, style, or higher-end components, not everyone who gets a PC is a Laptop Hunter. I’ve never bought a Windows machine for under $1K in my life, and I’ve had many.

It doesn’t take much to refute the market share angle. I don’t agree with the article using just Best Buy (s bby) as a point of comparison, but it’s still not hard to believe there’s no such ratio of Macs to PCs at the high-end.

But if not market share, what is NPD talking about? Let’s look at this as reported by Joe Wilcox (with a headline as misleading as the others):

According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple.

Nine out of 10 dollars went to Apple? That’s a different beast than market share. It’s revenue share, and a lot more believable.

Consider the example where two people go to a Best Buy. One buys a PC for $1,045, the other a Mac for $1,455. At this point the Mac and PC market share is equal (one each, 50 percent). But now let’s look at the “dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more”, which total $500. PC got $45 (9 percent), while Mac got $455 (91 percent).

Is it believable that Macs, with an Average Selling Price of $1,400 in June, could hold that kind of ratio against PCs with an ASP of $515 the same month? I believe so.

Honestly, though, this is one of those statistics that sounds cool, but doesn’t really tell us much. By picking an arbitrary cutoff ($1K) it’s statistical juggling. What if the Mac cost $1,200 to make, and the PC $800? Apple would have that flashy 91 percent number, but only net 10 more bucks than the PC from the deal.

Which brings me to what matters. Ultimately, it’s about profits. Units sold, share of this category or that, supposed web usage figures by tracking browsers, etc., all make for interesting headlines. But where is the money? Microsoft (s msft) and PC vendors have made plenty in the past despite their lower ASPs. They simply sell a lot more boxes (Apple is still under 4 percent globally). That’s why, to me, the real story this week is Apple’s stellar earnings report from Wednesday compared to Microsoft’s dismal results from Thursday. That’s more revealing than a 91 percent share of anything.


NUNZIO Bagliere

I enjoy being a C.E.O of my company world wide and my staff enjoy Apple and for security reasons that are protected on OSX . From Nunzio Bagliere Syracuse N.Y


You missed more than half of my argument. The data is just US. The data is just retail stores. So not the worldwide 60+m PCs, or 2.6m Macs.

The data is also just June, when as Apple said, the white MacBook was cannibalized by the new MacBook Pro. And there’s no way that white MacBooks and Mac minis total 23% of Macs sold; remember that Mac ASP is close to 1300 for the quarter.

Gartner estimated 1.4m Macs sold in the US in the quarter (not June). And 14.9m PCs (excluding Macs), For PCs, some large % are corporate and direct sales. Some % is online sales. Let’s say 4m are sold in retail stores in qtr. 14%, or very likely more, are netbooks (since netbooks sold via corporate and direct sales are probably negligible). Go from there…


Gah!! This argument is silly. Yes the 91% is meaningless, pretty much. All it tells you(in context) is that the purchasing habits of consumers at big retail stores are to buy cheap PCs and expensive macs.

The data does not include sales from sites like and corporate, or homebrews). This is guaranteed to skew things. It may be that consumers who buy expensive PCs use direct order, while those who purchase expensive macs run off to the store.

If you had a number that included all pcs sold, then that would be meaningful.

James Dempsey

The most important question to ask here, and the one I **believe** Tom was getting at with the article is:


Honestly, these cost debates are about as turd-filled as a Mac vs. PC argument between two die-hard users of each platform.

Tom Reestman


You’re so right. This article should have been just the last two paragraphs. They’re all that mattered.

Instead, we’re slicing the data six ways from Sunday to reach a 91% figure that’s meaningless anyway.

I opened this door, so it’s my bad.


Just want to add that if you include corporate sales and online sales, then the 91 percent would not be correct.

One other point: Just look at the Amazon computer sales ranking. You have to go pretty far down the list to find a PC over $1000.


I think the 9 out of 10 computers (costing over $1000) are Macs is believable. Here’s why:
1. NPD data is based on retail store sales only (60 retailers, 17000 stores across US). Most over-$1000 PCs are bought by corporations, and not at retail stores. How many over $1000 PCs do you see carried and advertised at retail stores? Retail stores generally carry stock of only the highest volume PC models, which generally cost less than $800.
2. Almost all Macs are over $1000, even for those at retail stores. As you wrote, the ASP at retail stores was $1400.
3. MS said almost 14% of PCs sold (in the qtr) were netbooks, which mostly sell for less than $400, and many of which are sold at retail stores. Corporations generally don’t buy netbooks.
4. The ASP for all PCs (at retail stores) was $515.

If you make some assumptions about the division of the 16M PCs sold (Gartner est) in the qtr into corporate sales, online sales, and retail store sales, and if you assume the retailers include Apple Store, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, MicroCenter, Frys, Staples, etc., then doing the math, one can come to the conclusion that of those PCs sold costing more than $1000, 9 out of 10 are Macs.

Tom Reestman


Thanks for the analysis, here is why I disagree:

– According to IDC, worldwide PC shipments for the last quarter were 68.15M. (This figure is not definitive, but close enough for our purpose.)
– We know from Apple’s earnings call they sold 2.6M Macs during the same quarter.

How may of the Macs were over $1K? Apple doesn’t say, but the white MacBook (very popular) and Mac minis are under that. Let’s say they accounted for 600,000 units, so 2M Macs were over $1K.

If that 2M represents 91% of the “over $1K” market, the total must be around 2.2M units. So, out of over 68M PCs sold only 200,000 were over $1K? No way I believe that.

This is why I think it’s about counting revenue over the $1K threshold, not the PCs themselves. Sure, of the 68M PC sold most were under (heck, well under) $1K, but I think a lot more than 200,000 crossed that threshold.


Many corps buy $2000+ computers thinking they’re getting something better. And most of those computers aren’t Macs. I’d be surprised if either the revenue share or market share for Apple are 90%. But I’d also be surprised if Apple doesn’t make more money per computer than anybody else.



I apologize for the tone of my criticism. I am used to quality articles coming from the Apple Blog, and I was puzzled to see the breakdown. I am sure that 99% of your pieces are brilliant but this is not one of them.

As a previous commenter added, “your math does not add up.” That’s my main objection. It’s not really subject to interpretation, either. As I’ve said, if someone buys a PC for $1,045, then the dollars spent on a PC costing $1,000 or more are $1,045, not $45. Tell me how that can be interpreted differently.

Tomorrow is another day. I look forward to many posts to come, each better than the other.

Matt Rix

“So are Macs expensive or not?”

Yes, well, kind-of. The average Mac definitely costs more than the average PC, but their prices compare favourably to PCs with similar specs. So… expensive, yes, overpriced, no.

Keep in mind that the term expensive is relative to the person using it, it’s not an absolute way to compare things.


So are Macs expensive or not? The narrative keeps changing.

BTW, any jump in digit places is a pretty significant consumer price point. The four-figure $1k mark seems very reasonable to me.

Tom Reestman

I don’t think it was meant to really answer that question. Honestly, I think it’s more of a “good headline” stat that doesn’t really prove anything in terms of how a company (or its competition) is doing.

For example, what was Apple’s percentage in the mid- to late-90s? Macs have never been “cheap”, so while not 91 it’s safe to say the percentage was very high. Yet Apple was in a death spiral while the Microsoft/PC ecosystem was kicking ass.

One stat does not a business plan make.


First of all, you are quoting a blog that is quoting another blog which itself references an entity called NPD. Not very reliable, generally speaking. It shows you have not put in a lot of effort to track down first-hand information.

Secondly, who is Joe Wilcox and why does the link not work?

Thirdly, if Joe Wilcox, whoever he is, really said that “in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple…,” and if this is true, then your example of how this works is dead wrong.

If someone buys a PC for $1,045, then the dollars spent on a PC costing $1,000 or more are $1,045, not $45. If someone buys a Mac for $1,455, the dollars spent on a computer costing $1,000 or more are $1,455, not $455! I trust that you have graduated from high school. Or that otherwise, the Apple Blog, which I love by the way, required you to submit an unfabricated writing sample before you started writing for them. Seriously, it is not my intention to be a jerk, but this post sucks. I love the Apple Blog, I read it daily, and I hope that in the future it will steer clear of posts like this to the best of their ability.

Tom Reestman


I have no issue with criticism, and certainly get plenty of it here, but your post has me confused.

Not every post can absolve the reader of perhaps Googling something themselves, especially when it’s written on the good faith assumption that the interested reader will know what it is. I did write in good faith, so I’m sorry you didn’t know the particulars:

** NPD is a market research firm. They crop up a lot on tech blogs every quarter as they release their data. They’re no stranger to the Apple Blog, having been mentioned in two other posts of ours just this month.
** Joe Wilcox wrote eWeek’s “Microsoft Watch” and “Apple Watch” blogs until just a few months ago, and he posts elsewhere as well.
** As for me, I’ve been writing on TAB for 10 months.

Point being that a writer has to assume a certain knowledge. Not necessarily for the entire blog, but certainly by post. When discussing share and retail sales numbers NPD is commonplace, and I considered Wilcox to be as familiar as Paul Thurrott or Mary Jo Foley around here.

By all means, hammer me for my interpretation of the quote and the whole “91 percent” thing. It’s worth debating because, whether I interpret it right or wrong, I believe the statistic sounds cool but means little.

However, I disagree with the specific criticisms you brought to bear here.


@Jason Burns there is a very big difference between “9 out of 10 computers” sold and “$9 out of $10 spent on computers.”

It may not seem like much but it ends up meaning that there could be a lot more PCs sold for over $1000 then the 1 out of 10 that the recent reports makes you think.

Dan Hallock

Um, no. This is “dollars spent on PCs costing over $1,000,” not “the portion of each sale over $1,000.” $1,045 vs $1,455 is 42/58%.

It’s still a skewed number, but I think that has more to do with purchase patterns. Apple rules prosumers, who are the only segment consistently buying expensive computers at retail. To generalize, low-end consumers buy cheap machines, businesses buy online, and gamers buy components instead of assembled systems.

Tom Reestman

Dan (and Matt),

I read the quote as drawing the line at $1K and looking at all the dollars above it. That’s still how I see it, though it is a bit ambiguous.

If I read it the way you two want to, then it’s right back to nine out of every 10 $1K+ PCs are Apple’s, which I think is refuted almost via empirical evidence.

I think what we DO agree on, however, is that the statistic either way is pretty meaningless. As I said, Microsoft and PC vendors have made tons of money with lower-cost machines than Apple. In the end it’s all about the bottom line.

Matt Rix

Your math is still wrong though… If that quote is correct, it’s not about each dollar spent OVER $1000, it’s about ALL dollars spent on computers that cost over $1000. In your example you said “PC got $45 (9 percent), while Mac got $455 (91 percent)” but in fact, PC got $1045(41 percent) and Mac got $1455(59 percent). Still a big difference, but not as huge as you make it seem.

The really big problem with these stats is that they only count “big box” RETAIL sales. Tons of people who buy computers over $1000 either build them by hand, order them custom online, or go to local “mom and pop” computer shops and get specialized builds.

Jason Burns

“Consider the example where two people go to a Best Buy. One buys a PC for $1,045, the other a Mac for $1,455. At this point the Mac and PC market share is equal (one each, 50 percent). But now let’s look at the “dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more”, which total $500. PC got $45 (9 percent), while Mac got $455 (91 percent).”

Talk about statistical juggling…you could have just told a knock knock joke, this isn’t math, statistics, profit analysis, or any type of scientific measure at all.

I am not even sure what I am supposed to get out of this other than if you find a PC for one price, and an Apple for another, it gets you to that 91% number in a meaningless way.

Tom Reestman


Ultimately, that was my point. It isn’t 9 out of 10 PCs, but 9 out of 10 dollars over $1K, but even then it’s a statistic of little value.

Comments are closed.