PC Shipments Down 8.2%

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
PC shipments are down 8.2%! Oh no, the PC is dead! Everyone panic!

Global PC shipments fell a stunning 8.2 percent during Q4, when Windows 8 launched, for the steepest holiday quarter decline ever. Shipments fell 3.7 percent for the year, and IDC predicts 1.2 percent dip in 2013. Remember: this year's fall back comes from an already weak comparable.
Click to expand...
 
WorldExclusive said:
lol, this is true. Even the casual PC user, more of them are buying their PC in parts.
Click to expand...

With more and more people going the HTPC route, I don't see why the slightly above average end user can't drop in their own upgrades. Friends and family I've built PC's and HTPC's for get to order their own parts unless they want to pay me to do it. I give them a packing list and a keyword list they can plug in to NewEgg or Amazon which should steer them towards the right hardware. At least compatible hardware.
 
I'm thinking this is more because Intel isn't advancing any processor technology. There's no reason to buy a new machine because they aren't any faster, and not much different otherwise, from two year old machines. Even the next generation series isn't going to change that. The only thing that really changed a lot is that the current series chips, IB, are cheaper for Intel to produce.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I buy mine in parts.
Click to expand...

Ha! I wonder if PC sales should be tracked and monitored (not saying regulated) like guns. Make a motherboard count as a PC sale, or perhaps a case or motherboard backing. Kinda like a receiver for a gun.
 
I think these analysts need to redo their forecasts for PC sales. People are getting more use out of their computers that they bought 3-4 years ago. As parts are mostly replaceable on them, folks can keep computers running for a long time.
 
dgingeri said:
I'm thinking this is more because Intel isn't advancing any processor technology. There's no reason to buy a new machine because they aren't any faster, and not much different otherwise, from two year old machines. Even the next generation series isn't going to change that. The only thing that really changed a lot is that the current series chips, IB, are cheaper for Intel to produce.
Click to expand...

This is a large part of it.
After 2 years, I'm still running a i7 860, overclocked to 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo mode!)
Not worth spending the money for a new board & CPU to upgrade for at most a 30% boost. (i.e 4.5 Ghz overclocked i7)
When they start selling 8 core, 3.4Ghz CPU's for less than $200 I might see the need to upgrade :)

Even the laptops at work are not much of a boost. I'm replacing 3 year old laptops that have a 2.5 Ghz i5 CPU, and I'm replacing them with a 2.8 Ghz i5 CPU. Main reason they are being replace is the old laptops are limited to 8GB and we need 16GB for some new software.
 
soulman901 said:
I think these analysts need to redo their forecasts for PC sales. People are getting more use out of their computers that they bought 3-4 years ago. As parts are mostly replaceable on them, folks can keep computers running for a long time.
Click to expand...

That's what the statistics are showing. While that may seem like it's good news, as we've pretty surely hit the "good enough" proverbial wall, the OEMs, chip makers and other manufacturers aren't happy about that at all. Intel's profits have dropped substantially in comparison to last year's and AMD has practically fallen off the place of the earth. The average life cycle is surpassing 5 years now. The last 5 years of advancements on the CPU front have also been very lackluster, with incremental 5-15% bumps for nobody in particular.

The reality is that most people don't need new PCs; nor powerful ones at that. They're far more likely to buy a new tablet or incentivized (cheaper with contract) smartphone. When so much of what people used to do that once required an .exe can now be done via web browser, it's only a matter of time before those same people start catching on to that fact.
 
nutzo said:
This is a large part of it.
After 2 years, I'm still running a i7 860, overclocked to 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo mode!)
Not worth spending the money for a new board & CPU to upgrade for at most a 30% boost. (i.e 4.5 Ghz overclocked i7)
When they start selling 8 core, 3.4Ghz CPU's for less than $200 I might see the need to upgrade :)

Even the laptops at work are not much of a boost. I'm replacing 3 year old laptops that have a 2.5 Ghz i5 CPU, and I'm replacing them with a 2.8 Ghz i5 CPU. Main reason they are being replace is the old laptops are limited to 8GB and we need 16GB for some new software.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

hehe, just kidding.

Replacing Core i5s already? At work, I'm still running a Core2 Duo at 2.4GHz (Dell Latitude E4300) with only 4GB of memory. I replaced the HD with a SSD myself, out of my own pocket, (IT isn't very happy with me about it) to make it tolerable. At least I got to upgrade to Win7. Seriously, though, I don't think it would make much performance difference to upgrade to a current laptop.
 
nutzo said:
This is a large part of it.
After 2 years, I'm still running a i7 860, overclocked to 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo mode!)
Not worth spending the money for a new board & CPU to upgrade for at most a 30% boost. (i.e 4.5 Ghz overclocked i7)
When they start selling 8 core, 3.4Ghz CPU's for less than $200 I might see the need to upgrade :)

Even the laptops at work are not much of a boost. I'm replacing 3 year old laptops that have a 2.5 Ghz i5 CPU, and I'm replacing them with a 2.8 Ghz i5 CPU. Main reason they are being replace is the old laptops are limited to 8GB and we need 16GB for some new software.
Click to expand...

Intel and AMD have devoted far more resources and die space to the GPU portion of the dies than they ever have. It's not that neither of them are advancing CPU performance by a substantial amount that's the problem, but rather the market doesn't need anymore CPU throughput in the first place. The GPU side of the die is a much more important goal for them as it's the one place where we could still use more throughput -- and discrete GPU sales are also down sequentially as the CPUs have started chewing that up as well.
 
pelo said:
Intel and AMD have devoted far more resources and die space to the GPU portion of the dies than they ever have. It's not that neither of them are advancing CPU performance by a substantial amount that's the problem, but rather the market doesn't need anymore CPU throughput in the first place. The GPU side of the die is a much more important goal for them as it's the one place where we could still use more throughput -- and discrete GPU sales are also down sequentially as the CPUs have started chewing that up as well.
Click to expand...

Now if Intel would just put out a decent GPU and actually support it with decent drivers and driver updates.
 
I guess consumer "tower" PCs are dead, yes. But there is definitely a big hardcore gamer and enthusiast market to keep the high-end parts market going on forever - in all forms and factors hopefully.

In my own home the touch-based stuff is quickly replacing the old TFT-based systems, but I still have a major need for aftermarket parts at all times.
 
Hard to track parts that make a complete system, although my system is just fine for everything I have thrown it for over four years, might get a new graphics card, or I might just wait to buy new parts, but I'm not in a rush.
 
okashira said:
Ha! I wonder if PC sales should be tracked and monitored (not saying regulated) like guns. Make a motherboard count as a PC sale, or perhaps a case or motherboard backing. Kinda like a receiver for a gun.
Click to expand...

Problem is that people who build their machines tend to do rolling upgrades. I recently replaced my motherboard because the old one was failing and causing stability problems. Yet, every other component is the same. Should that be counted as a different computer or merely an upgrade? I would've purchased the same model had it still been available (P67 Sabertooth) but ended up with its successor (Z77 Sabertooth).

Honestly, I think we're at a point of divergence in computing. For general consumers they're opting for tablets, laptops and a handful of all-in-one systems over traditional desktops. But, for people who want desktops I'm seeing a growth in custom and home-built systems in favor of the traditional Dell/HP/whatever units. People have found out that it is so easy building a PC at this point, and getting such a good PC, that the unified tech support isn't nearly as valuable as it once was. But, I mean, given the power that one can get in a laptop today many are eschewing desktops simply because they can buy one machine that is still quite powerful for less than the cost of a decent laptop and desktop. So, yeah, a combination of factors.
 
Both 8.2% for the quarter and 3.2% for the year are significant drops. As mentioned in the article, this comes on top of the already significant drops from the prior year, making these figures even worse.

While it's not going to please the ostriches with heads buried in the sand, there are a lot of negatives on the horizon as the market continues to shrink.

It wasn't wholly unpredictable. The short CPU development cycles have given quite a bit of power to years old systems (one reason not to buy new systems), the bad economy (another reason) and failing to capture emerging markets where phones and decent broadband infrastructure make a sufficient "computer experience" for many casual users. The PC industry isn't exactly dying yet, but it's not in a good position to recover and expand to new markets.

Shrinking, shrinking, shrinking...

jpm100 said:
Windows 8.
Click to expand...
lol
 
I doubt that more components are being sold,given the present economy. It is true that more people are building computers,because of motherboard simplification and SATA,but I think that fewer computers are being assembled by enthusiasts.The capability of computers, even five years old, exceeds the offerings of internet bandwidth and speed,in most places.The Cpu, even at the low end,has little software to challenge it,including OSes.Very little software is being written to take advantage of multi core and multi processor computers.As long as multi core processors have been out one would think there would be more advancement.The cutting edge will always be building new computers,but lately it has not been necessary to update as often.
 
I agree completely with what a few have posted so far. There is very little need to buy a new computer today. I've been building my own systems for probably as long as some people reading this have been alive. Long gone are the days where an upgrade to your computer got you a real world boost in performance; enthusiasts aside. Today a new computer will save you a few seconds on start up, maybe shave a few minutes of that YouTube video you are encoding, or get you 10 more fps on a game you already are getting 100+ on anyway over your last PC. (puts on old man hat) In my day a new PC shaved 5 minutes off your boot time alone. You can place the blame on a few tried and true reasons such as crappy Windows version, consoles dumbing down games, or no competition on Intel for why PCs are stagnating. All valid points, but in the end, it comes down to people having no reason to buy a new computer because there is no motivation driving that purchase. Simply stated, unlike a decade ago, there is no need to. Last year's PC does the exact same thing this year's PC does... only 2 seconds slower.
 
CyborgTMT said:
Last year's PC does the exact same thing this year's PC does... only 2 seconds slower.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. PCs have for the longest been sold merely on specs, CPU/GPU speed, hard drive space, etc. and those days have simply come to an end, at least for now. There's just not the local client software out there besides games that fuel the need for ever increasing specs.

The general direction that the PC industry is trying to take I think is the right now, more quality, better battery life, lighter devices, better screens and touch. But it's a big industry with a lot of big companies that aren't particularly nimble and that have been in decline for years like HP and Dell. Intel has really just started to get serious about power consumption and of course we've only have a truly touch capable version of Windows for less than 6 months. As much as people may not like Windows 8, touch does seem to offer hope for PCs, IDC even pointed to one problem in PC sales at the end of last year was the lack of touchscreen devices in part due to a lack of touchscreen components.

It looks like we're in for another two or three quarters of PC sales sluggishness and declines until things start to shape up with more power efficient CPUs from Intel and even AMD, better devices and what looks to be a major update to Windows. And also as the IDC report mentions XP support dies officially in a little over a year which should drive some sales. If things come into place sales should begin to pick up, there still a lot that the PC can offer and it looks like there's going to more reasons to buy new ones as PC hybrids and tablets get better and hopefully a little cheaper.
 
dgingeri said:
I'm thinking this is more because Intel isn't advancing any processor technology. There's no reason to buy a new machine because they aren't any faster, and not much different otherwise, from two year old machines. Even the next generation series isn't going to change that. The only thing that really changed a lot is that the current series chips, IB, are cheaper for Intel to produce.
Click to expand...

for the average person, perhaps some RAM, and an SSD, makes for a nice boost to a system a couple years old :)
 
people realized that all they need is a shitty underpowered tablet, as long as it's light.
 
jpm100 said:
Windows 8.
Click to expand...
QFT
nYMrNE9.png

http://www.zdnet.com/five-reasons-why-windows-8-has-failed-7000012104/

Microsoft is dragging down the entire PC industry with Windows 8. The sooner they realize this, the better.
 
Gotta love the blame it on Windows 8 people, PC sales were going down before it even came out guys. While Windows 8 hasn't helped bring it back up it sure as hell didn't drag it down like some would like people to think.
Personally I don't think any version of Windows would have helped much at this point. Times have changed and the PC is changing with it. Not many people want a big ass desktop taking up space and they are replacing laptops with tablets. Times have changed.
 
03grandam said:
Not many people want a big ass desktop taking up space and they are replacing laptops with tablets. Times have changed.
Click to expand...

From where I am looking, as IT Manager of a unit that does 25 million in business per year and which has just about 200 direct employees, the above couldn't be further from the truth.

At work there has been a decisive shift from desktop to laptop + docking station as opposed to switching to a tablet. This is true for the home setups of our employees as well, I'd say about 10% own tablets, and about 5% actually use them.

Tablets may be great for consumers who only occasionally use email and mostly just browse the web, but tablets are entirely unsuited for business where a physical full size keyboard and a large or dual monitor setup is what is necessary to get the work done.

What is true is that PCs simply last longer now which is why fewer are sold. There have been few technological improvements to PCs in recent years that make people just toss their old one and buy a new one.

Windows 7 runs beautifully on older hardware and a lot of businesses simply don't care whether their memory is DDR2-667 or DDR3-2000, or whether their desktop CPU is a Dual Core running at 2.4 Ghz or a Quad Core running at 3 GHz. Those things make overwhelmingly no difference at all for the common business applications.

Furthermore, we save a ton of money at work by NOT buying new PCs but instead upgrading the existing ones by tossing out old HDDs and inserting new SSDs into 3-4 year old machines. While we are at that we upgrade the memory, usually from 2 GB to 4-8 GB. That costs us a total of less than $200 per PC and we will get another couple of years out of them, again contributing to the lack of PC sales as we are now only truly buying a new PC every 6 years.

To sum this up; the sky is not falling and tablets suck.
 
Thuleman said:
From where I am looking, as IT Manager of a unit that does 25 million in business per year and which has just about 200 direct employees, the above couldn't be further from the truth.

At work there has been a decisive shift from desktop to laptop + docking station as opposed to switching to a tablet. This is true for the home setups of our employees as well, I'd say about 10% own tablets, and about 5% actually use them.

Tablets may be great for consumers who only occasionally use email and mostly just browse the web, but tablets are entirely unsuited for business where a physical full size keyboard and a large or dual monitor setup is what is necessary to get the work done.

What is true is that PCs simply last longer now which is why fewer are sold. There have been few technological improvements to PCs in recent years that make people just toss their old one and buy a new one.

Windows 7 runs beautifully on older hardware and a lot of businesses simply don't care whether their memory is DDR2-667 or DDR3-2000, or whether their desktop CPU is a Dual Core running at 2.4 Ghz or a Quad Core running at 3 GHz. Those things make overwhelmingly no difference at all for the common business applications.

Furthermore, we save a ton of money at work by NOT buying new PCs but instead upgrading the existing ones by tossing out old HDDs and inserting new SSDs into 3-4 year old machines. While we are at that we upgrade the memory, usually from 2 GB to 4-8 GB. That costs us a total of less than $200 per PC and we will get another couple of years out of them, again contributing to the lack of PC sales as we are now only truly buying a new PC every 6 years.

To sum this up; the sky is not falling and tablets suck.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about in the workforce, lol. I was referring to the average consumer for at home use. Most consumers don't need anything more than a tablet of phone for their Internet usage. Hell lets face it all they do is check FB and email. It don't take a desktop or even a laptop to do that when you can just use your phone or buy a tablet that takes up less space and most people have smart-phone now so they find no need for much more than that.
 
03grandam said:
I never said anything about in the workforce, lol. I was referring to the average consumer for at home use. Most consumers don't need anything more than a tablet of phone for their Internet usage. Hell lets face it all they do is check FB and email. It don't take a desktop or even a laptop to do that when you can just use your phone or buy a tablet that takes up less space and most people have smart-phone now so they find no need for much more than that.
Click to expand...

This.

Untill around 6 months ago my laptop was a AMD AthelonX2 (Dual Core) with, I think 2gb of ram, and it was running fine (and was a minium of 4 years old, probably 5 or 6). My desktop was an AMD Phenom Black (quad-core) and outside of a few games it was running fine after I think 3 years, possibly 4 (my mother is still running an identical system bought at the same time). my current laptop, while an i7, is running on jsut 4gb of ram and can handle anything I throw at it, even relatively modern gaming (Skyrim)

Lets also not forget that today when you buy a complete upgrade, a lot of us sell our old systems on eBay or similar sites, so that's one less "PC Sale" registered because the system still works great and somone else buys it instead of buying a new system.

Honestly, as a consumer, I use my iPad more than my laptop, would be doing it even more if I had opted for a larger iPad (read: more storage) or if I had faster internet (my combination of slow DSL and slow cellular means I cant stream from home --- but untill recently I had been)

I should also point out quite a few companies are offering "virtual desktops" over broadband for tablet users. Just pair a bluetooth keyboard and your iPad is now "running" windows 7, or for the slightly mroe tech-savey you can set up the same thing at home and remote-access your desktop over broadband from your tablet, so no need to buy a high-end PC, or a PC for multiple rooms (I would own a HTPC but instead I have an AppleTV and stream from my desktop)

Also, I hate to sound like a simple anti-fanboy, but I agree, windows 8 is certainly not helping things... I actually have seen stores where Win8 costs ~$50 while Windows7 is still ~$100-$150

As said, the market is changing and will continue to change. With more and more high-powered laptops/tablets that can dock to create a capable desktop (and even some Smartphones like the SAmsung Galaxy Note 2) fewer people are buying the traditional towers, as well as just running on older machines. I dont see Newegg or TigerDirect going out of business, so it's obvious the *PARTS* industry is doing just fine.
 
BladeVenom said:
I agree, that's probably the biggest reason. Maybe now's the time for one the big PC manufacturers to start trying to sell Linux PCs.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
When are some of you guys going to realize that no one (other than you) gives a fuck about Linux.
 
face2palm said:
:rolleyes:
When are some of you guys going to realize that no one (other than you) gives a fuck about Linux.
Click to expand...

Linux runs on both of the most popular smartphones (Android Linux, and iOS (Darwin/debian)) and MacOS is another Linux rewrite.

Of course this doesn't mean **** since it's still far too complicated for the average consumer to use (untill *EVERY* program available requires zero time in console or gedit and all major windows apps run without lag (i.e. WiNE) I say it's too complex for the public)

But linux is certainly NOT insignificant...
 
CyborgTMT said:
I agree completely with what a few have posted so far. There is very little need to buy a new computer today. I've been building my own systems for probably as long as some people reading this have been alive. Long gone are the days where an upgrade to your computer got you a real world boost in performance; enthusiasts aside. Today a new computer will save you a few seconds on start up, maybe shave a few minutes of that YouTube video you are encoding, or get you 10 more fps on a game you already are getting 100+ on anyway over your last PC. (puts on old man hat) In my day a new PC shaved 5 minutes off your boot time alone. You can place the blame on a few tried and true reasons such as crappy Windows version, consoles dumbing down games, or no competition on Intel for why PCs are stagnating. All valid points, but in the end, it comes down to people having no reason to buy a new computer because there is no motivation driving that purchase. Simply stated, unlike a decade ago, there is no need to. Last year's PC does the exact same thing this year's PC does... only 2 seconds slower.
Click to expand...

agreed. I've been running my machine (q6600) since 2007 and have yet to see any reason to upgrade. It's starting to show it's age a little bit, but for most uses, it can more than handle it's fair share of work/gaming. When it can't, I just bump down the eyecandy a bit. With exception to upgrading the mobo (for overclock stability), heatsync and GPU, it's the exact same system I built in late 07.

I don't really blame hardware manufacturers though. The i7's are a really nice upgrade from the C2Q's on paper, but what software is going to really take advantage of that? And is it worth building a completely new system for?

Back in the 90's and early 2000's you saw a dramatic improvment when building machines with the latest and greatest tech... but lately those improvments have been less and less it seems. My Q6600 and GTX295 wont be able to run the latest games completely maxxed out, but it can come pretty close. Not worth it, to me, to spend 800+ on a new setup for a slight bump in eyecandy or some extra FPS
 
Windows 8 and the impending Haswell are the reasons.

Personally I see Windows 8 as a scapegoat. If you are complaining about Metro UI then your argument is moot as I havent touched Metro since the day I loaded Win8. It can be worked around. Should MS have offered a choice of UI, sure, that was a goof, but seriously, I have worked around all of the Metro UI issues in 5 min or less.
2.png
 
You can buy computers made whole now? And here I am like a sucker putting together my own PC with quality parts and specifications to meet my exact needs like an idiot.

Time to buy a Dell yo'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top