Mac mini and studio comprise 1% of Mac sales

[curnalpanic]

Mac Pro: 3%, in the first post.
Presumably by value not units sold.

Maybe it's by weight?

 

[splifingate]

I have a sneaking suspicion that any personal computer bought after ~2010 is potentially "good enough" for the majority of consumer, "personal productivity" and casual content creation

yes; Yes; and YES.

I can most-certainly do-what-I-do on my c.2005-2012 Macs/2000-2015 PC's (heck, I did it back-then when they were Current).

It's the OS-Support that always ties-me-up.

 

[throAU]

yes; Yes; and YES.

I can most-certainly do-what-I-do on my c.2005-2012 Macs/2000-2015 PC's (heck, I did it back-then when they were Current).

It's the OS-Support that always ties-me-up.

I'd agree for the most part save for a couple of things:

Video codecs have moved on and a newer CPU with h.265 support or vp9 support in hardware for example is a massive difference in ability to play back 4k content or higher or video conference without massive cpu use and heat/fan noise.

Its the difference between a machine that is awesome to use and one that can only get by.

If you aren't running a high res display (4k, or higher) then no CPU hardware support for the above is fine - but if you are, old hardware just chokes on it.

I believe the cutoff for h.265 / vp9 support in hardware on the CPU is something like 2016-2017 or there-abouts. Earlier hardware has it pretty rough.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Video codecs have moved on and a newer CPU with h.265 support of vp9 support in hardware for example is a massive difference in ability to play back 4k content or higher or video conference without massive cpu use and heat/fan noise.

A very fair point on a truly practical benefit of newer hardware.

 

[theluggage]

Mac Pro: 3%, in the first post.
Presumably by value not units sold.

Well, that would make the results less surprising (1 Mac Pro generates the same turnover as 10 base Mac Minis or 5 base iMacs - likewise MacBook Air sales could be out valued by a smaller number of MBP sales)...

But: the fact that the source doesn't specify "unit sales" or "value" - along with "CIRP does not detail its research methodology" - are just two reasons for not trying to draw any conclusions from this data. Data is pretty much useless for making comparisons without information as to likely biasses or sources of error... doubly useless if you don't even know what is actually being measured...

For one thing, since Apple don't release sales data they presumably don't hand Apple Store online and offline sales data to the likes of CIRP. So the data is presumably missing out what is likely to be one of the largest sales channels for Mac. So you have to assume that the distribution of sales between models is the same for direct purchases from Apple as from third party resellers. I.e. the chances of someone finding what they want on offer at their local Walmart is the same whether they're looking for a back-to-school base MacBook Air or a custom $12k BTO Mac Pro...

 

[splifingate]

Earlier hardware has it pretty rough.

Yes.

Love your apropos understatement

I predominately work with illustration for print&web.

My "1%" 2023 Studio was a totally-fantastic purchase, and really adds perspective.

Still amazing to remember what I was able to do with CorelDRAW 3.0 on a 486-DX cpu....