Depends on how much work they put into that Apple Bluetooth mouse firmware upgradebathysphere said:how about small marketshare and low profits? which is what will probably happen. i mean, they've done less work than me this semester.
Depends on how much work they put into that Apple Bluetooth mouse firmware upgradebathysphere said:how about small marketshare and low profits? which is what will probably happen. i mean, they've done less work than me this semester.
aftk2 said:if a business or a professional needs a G5 right now, they'll buy a G5.
I went to the Apple Store this weekend, and it was full of people - and not just on the iPods. (And you know what...? Some of them were even looking at the "glacially slow" iBook.)
gekko513 said:Depends on how much work they put into that Apple Bluetooth mouse firmware upgrade![]()
Some_Big_Spoon said:But that's kinda my point.
aftk2 said:But if that's the case, then that means Linux won't eat into Mac market share. It'll eat into Windows. Why would someone seriously considering a Mac want to go with something with sketchy support and a lousy UI? (I'm being a bit melodramatic...I tried knoppix on my laptop and was actually impressed.) By "seriously considering" I mean "someone who has the money."
The problem, here, then, is that people are using marketshare in a huge, stupefying computer market to gauge the health of the Macintosh. This market includes not only personal and business desktop and laptop computers, but also cheap knockoffs going to China, pre-loaded with Linux to make way for pirated copies of XP. It includes the "adding machines" of the 21st century (apologies to Jon Gruber). The problem is that people are pitting Apple against the entire x86 industry, rather than against individual computer makers. The problem, then, comes down to whether you think Apple is a hardware company, or a software company.
I realize that, if Apple didn't care about marketshare, they'd become an insular and ultimately dead company (after all, if your marketshare gets too low, outside software vendors will stop making products for you.) But that hasn't happened yet.
aftk2 said:I realize that, if Apple didn't care about marketshare, they'd become an insular and ultimately dead company (after all, if your marketshare gets too low, outside software vendors will stop making products for you.) But that hasn't happened yet.
Yes, I know...but it's the first thing that comes up in debates like these. For example:Some_Big_Spoon said:Oh, I'm fully aware, as I think we all are, that "marketshare" isn't the end all be all in the least..
Here's a tip, DHM. When you predict something in a previous post, and then you say it, like its fact, in a later post, that doesn't make you into Kreskin.Dont Hurt Me said:How are you going to spin we have now reached the 1% market share that all the bmw lovers say is Great for Apple.
Some_Big_Spoon said:Many, many software vndors have stopped making software for the Mac, precisely because Apple's userbase is small and getting smaller..
Some_Big_Spoon said:Again, I'm not picking a fight, I'm just looking for realism so that maybe a singular voice can be made to wake them up, if that's possible.
Did the Windows user buy both Windows ME and Windows 2000 or did you mean 67%??thatwendigo said:One buys a mac, the other a PC. Two years later, the PC user updates to a new version of Windows. From the standpoint of market share, Windows now has a 75% lock, but in installed base, they're still 50%.
javabear90 said:I might want to sell my stock tuesday... then buy thursday.... what da ya think?
GorillaPaws said:I'd sell it short if I had stock in Apple... but don't blame me if you loose your bankroll.
Namacste said:By "economic" I'm sure you mean Apple's own fiscal and operational effectiveness? There's a big difference.
Dont Hurt Me said:Well look at it this wayafter this qtrs numbers it will be hard to go lower.
How can you guys spin these new machines sold numbers? 1 out of 100? and you guys can spin this with a straight face?
![]()
Some_Big_Spoon said:There was an argument a while back, and it was a porr and incorrect one, that Apple would always be around in some form otherwise M$ would be a true 100% monopoly.. So, popular thought was that Gates, or some such entity, would keep Apple afloat to keep the justice department at bay.
Well, now 2 things have happened:
1. We've seen that the justice department doesn't care that M$ has a monopoly (only the EU seems to), so M$ can so whatever they please.
2. Linux. Linux has overtaken Apple for OS markethare, and will probably soon do so on install base. So, it can be said that Linux is the new Apple of sorts. Accept, that Linux is widely accepted, cheap, stable, open, and actually worries M$, unlike Apple who no one, save us here on these boards, thinks is viable anymore.
With Linux, Apple isn't needed from the market's perspective, and Steve hasn't woken up to that yet. So, he'll charge double, not supply, and it's spiraling. Unless he's planning on spinning off the music section of Apple and letting the computer harware biz die, then he's got to do something.
Nicky G said:What is this, The No Spin Zone with Bill O'Reilly? Who here really knows how many machines were sold this past quarter? Do you? Really? Have any idea at all? Or just a hunch? What is it?
What a bunch of armchair experts, sheesh! My bet -- 90% of the armchair analysts who could do it better than Apple are in their early 20's or less, and actually have no business experience at all.![]()
Dont Hurt Me said:Well look at it this wayafter this qtrs numbers it will be hard to go lower.
How can you guys spin these new machines sold numbers? 1 out of 100? and you guys can spin this with a straight face?
![]()