Clive: I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X.
Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.
Me: Yeah, I think I am through here as well after this, as we seem to not be able to convince each other of the folly of the others logic. For example I dont think that the things you cite above mean that PS and Xpress are the most important applications in Apples universe. In my mind, that is the problem in your posts you state facts, but they dont necessarily support the arguments you try to make.
Clive: So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?
Me: Yes, it does. You have to examine WHY Apple refers to those two (given that is true, which actually I am not confident it is). PS DOES get a lot of play at expos, but that could also be because for a long time it was an app that Apple could actually compete with Pcs in, as far as speed. And it IS also used lots by a big segment of Apple Pro users. But how many Pro users use PS, and how many use Office?
Clive: Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?
Me: All this demonstrates is that a substantial portion of Pro users are not using X..that in no way conflicts with Apples own statement (remember? They said 20% were not 20% is, by anyones estimation, a big number).
Clive: When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.
Me: I missed where you demonstrated that PS was the benchmark for the adoption of X. You said that they cite it often as an example of the ability of users to go to X (without support, I might add, but lets assume that is true), but I am not certain that means the same as being the benchmark (in fact, I am certain that is NOT necessarily the same).
Clive: I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.
However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.
On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.
But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?
Me: True. Now, how does that prove anything? If Apple thought that PS 7 would increase sales, and it did not, (as much as forecast), how does that speak to the issue of X adoption? It only reflects the purchase (or lack) of new machines.
Clive: We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.
Me: I am not sure what you are suggesting Apple should wait until next year to tell you what academic customers are currently buying?
Clive: I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.
Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.
For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.
Me: Or, for example, when they claimed in a press release that X% of their iMac purchasers were switchersoh wait, they didnt cite methodology there either. In fact, I would argue that very few press releases say ANYTHING about methodology.
Clive: The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.
Me: None of this is evidence, this is your conjecture.
Clive: Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
Me: That is the problem one cannot make specious claims and then say well, you have to prove me wrong.
I will reiterate my last post we have Clive, who is one person with his knowledge about OS X adoption (in the UKI am not certain how much of Apples business is based there, but clearly some folks in Denmark disagree), and we have Apples statement (as well as our own anecdotal info). Does that prove Apple is correct? No, but barring any real evidence, I would argue that Apples estimate is the best info we have.
Since we are getting nowhere here, feel free to email (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you feel compelled to continue.