Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Share of Computer Sales Surpasses 10% in U.S.

samcraig said:
Yeah - but I know plenty of people who are "forced" (nice choice of words there by the way - not too too biased) to use Macs but have PCs in their house. It goes both ways...
Click to expand...

Forced I said, and forced I meant. Of course I'm biased. Have you forgotten what site this is?

As for your false equivalence example, you know very well that this happens far less frequently. How very dishonest of you to pretend this equivalence exists when you know it does not.
 
NebulaClash said:
Forced I said, and forced I meant. Of course I'm biased. Have you forgotten what site this is?

As for your false equivalence example, you know very well that this happens far less frequently. How very dishonest of you to pretend this equivalence exists when you know it does not.
Click to expand...

You can just use the word you meant. You're calling me a liar. And that's laughable. If you think that there aren't people who use macs at work but have PCs at home - then you're walking around the earth with rose colored glasses or blinders. Either way - you're wrong. I didn't make any statement of equality and 1:1 comparison. I said I know plenty (which I do) who follow this example.
 
Mal said:
Just to chip in, that quote originally came from Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchiker's Guide books), who was an avid Mac fan. The actual quote was slightly different:



Another funny one (not longer applicable, but still would've been humorous at the time):



And last but not least, a good one to apply here:


:D


jW
Click to expand...

That last one is brilliant and so true!
 
samcraig said:
You can just use the word you meant. You're calling me a liar. And that's laughable. If you think that there aren't people who use macs at work but have PCs at home - then you're walking around the earth with rose colored glasses or blinders. Either way - you're wrong. I didn't make any statement of equality and 1:1 comparison. I said I know plenty (which I do) who follow this example.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there aren't people who use Macs at work but have PCs at home, I said this occurs less frequently than the reverse. The market share of PCs at work should tell anyone that this is a very obvious point, no matter what anecdotal data you bring up. What's true for you is not true for the whole world, another logical fallacy.

So when I said you are being dishonest, I meant it. You know very well this is not an equivalent situation in the world at large. So for you to resort to this tired media he-does-it-too equivalence is dishonest. The only other possibility is you really think what is true for you is true for the whole world. That would make you narcissistic and delusional. You choice as to which describes you best when you make this false equivalence.

You might be a very nice guy and a very honest person, I don't know. But when you post false equivalences, it will get called out.
 
NebulaClash said:
I didn't say there aren't people who use Macs at work but have PCs at home, I said this occurs less frequently than the reverse. The market share of PCs at work should tell anyone that this is a very obvious point, no matter what anecdotal data you bring up. What's true for you is not true for the whole world, another logical fallacy.

So when I said you are being dishonest, I meant it. You know very well this is not an equivalent situation in the world at large. So for you to resort to this tired media he-does-it-too equivalence is dishonest. The only other possibility is you really think what is true for you is true for the whole world. That would make you narcissistic and delusional. You choice as to which describes you best when you make this false equivalence.

You might be a very nice guy and a very honest person, I don't know. But when you post false equivalences, it will get called out.
Click to expand...

POTD
 
OllyW said:
Apple's Q4 covers the months of July, August and September.

Sales for the Xmas holiday period are in Q1.
Click to expand...

Not on this chart, which is calendar quarters, as different companies use different fiscal calendars.

So, to be clear, the holiday quarter is Q4 on this graph.
 
NebulaClash said:
You might be a very nice guy and a very honest person, I don't know. But when you post false equivalences, it will get called out.
Click to expand...

What's being called out? Please indicate where I said anything about the situation being EQUIVALENT. I said nothing of the sort. You might be a very nice guy and a very honest person, I don't know. But when you fail to illustrate reading comprehension (twice), it will get called out. :)

ETA: My objection is similar to your objection when you said " So for you to resort to this tired media he-does-it-too equivalence is dishonest. " Why? Because people on this forum intimate things like Apple Products "just work" and other marketing messages STRAIGHT from keynotes and advertising. People like to spew misnomers to prove their points or just make facts out of the air or bash the "competition" illogically and incorrectly. I didn't do anything of the sort. I stated simply that conditions exist that are contrary to the BLANKET statement made by others. Call it semantics - but when I see someone semantically make an error - I too, will call them out.
 
Bengt77 said:
If you want to show Apple breaking 10% market share in a graph, then at least format said graph so that it actually shows a 10% value. Sure, the precise value can be read from the table, but is it really that hard to edit the graph to show what you wanted to show in the first place?
Click to expand...

Fair point...I updated the graph.
 
WildCowboy said:
Not on this chart, which is calendar quarters, as different companies use different fiscal calendars.

So, to be clear, the holiday quarter is Q4 on this graph.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing it up.

It's surprising their market share drops over Xmas. I would have thought it would have shot up over this period with most of Apple's sales going to the consumer market. :confused:
 
OllyW said:
Thanks for clearing it up.

It's surprising their market share drops over Xmas. I would have thought it would have shot up over this period with most of Apple's sales going to the consumer market. :confused:
Click to expand...

Apple typically gets such strong back-to-school sales in the previous quarter that it can't help but drop in the following one. At least that's my guess.
 
WildCowboy said:
Apple typically gets such strong back-to-school sales in the previous quarter that it can't help but drop in the following one. At least that's my guess.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if other "premium price" brands drop during the holidays?
 
samcraig said:
What's being called out? Please indicate where I said anything about the situation being EQUIVALENT. I said nothing of the sort. You might be a very nice guy and a very honest person, I don't know. But when you fail to illustrate reading comprehension (twice), it will get called out. :)
Click to expand...

Very well, here is what you said in response to my post about there being lots of people who are forced to use PCs at work even though at home they have Macs:

samcraig said:
Yeah - but I know plenty of people who are "forced" (nice choice of words there by the way - not too too biased) to use Macs but have PCs in their house. It goes both ways...
Click to expand...

I've bolded the false equivalence. While what you say is literally true, it is deceptively false in implying that by going both ways it's about the same. When by the numbers it goes far more often my way than yours, and is hardly close to being the same.

That's what I've called out. Repeatedly.
 
NebulaClash said:
Very well, here is what you said in response to my post about there being lots of people who are forced to use PCs at work even though at home they have Macs:



I've bolded the false equivalence. While what you say is literally true, it is deceptively false in implying that by going both ways it's about the same. When by the numbers it goes far more often my way than yours, and is hardly close to being the same.

That's what I've called out. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Ah I see now. The fallacy is in your interpretation of my general (not equivalent) statement. Thanks for clarifying.
 
samcraig said:
Ah I see now. The fallacy is in your interpretation of my general (not equivalent) statement. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

By phrasing it the way you did, you intended it to be equivalent. That's precisely the way equivalencies are set up. My interpretation is the general usage interpretation.
 
NebulaClash said:
By phrasing it the way you did, you intended it to be equivalent. That's precisely the way equivalencies are set up. My interpretation is the general usage interpretation.
Click to expand...

Again - your (incorrect) interpretation. I'll make you a deal. Don't put words in my "mouth" and I won't put words in yours... :)
 
CP123 said:
How in the world could Apple increase its market share in the U.S.? :eek: With such lame specs, no blue ray player, no HDMI, no etc.

I guess it just goes to show you that most people don't care about the latest specs. What they look for is a quality computer that affords an enjoyable computer experience. Is Apple perfect? Nah. But all you naysayers who pontificate the demise of Apple should feel foolish right about now.
Click to expand...

Blue Ray is dead. Or soon will be.
 
Ingot said:
Blue Ray is dead. Or soon will be.
Click to expand...

This is not only false - but a discussion that is best kept off this thread and kept to the thread already on MR. Let's not turn this thread into a blu-ray discussion. I hope we can all agree on THAT at least.
 
samcraig said:
Again - your (incorrect) interpretation. I'll make you a deal. Don't put words in my "mouth" and I won't put words in yours... :)
Click to expand...

The words are yours, the interpretation is the general way those words are interpreted. You don't agree, but you cannot control society at large.

So let's drop it since you have now clarified you didn't mean to express that idea. That means you did not disagree with what I said. Which means you did not need to comment on what I said in the first place.
 
NebulaClash said:
I've bolded the false equivalence. While what you say is literally true, it is deceptively false in implying that by going both ways it's about the same. When by the numbers it goes far more often my way than yours, and is hardly close to being the same.

That's what I've called out. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It's just saying the relationship goes both ways. There is no hint of numbers being the same. There are no bones in the egg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back