I'm in full agreement here. Apple specializes in the consumer experience and in catering to niche enterprise areas. I have absolutely no problem (nor should anyone) about Macs lagging in the corporate sector. In fact, I'd have my suspicions if Apple planned on making a big push in this area. Might not be a good idea long-term.
Good post.
The biggest problem I have with Macs lagging in the corporate sector is because the large majority of people who work in the corporate sector will turn around and purchase a Windows-based computer to use at home. It's all they know at work, thus they take that knowledge home with them. They look at the Mac like it's some sort of alien. Of course that doesn't stop them from talking shit on it; likewise, they are grossly uneducated about them. It's quite sad, actually. They have no desire to open their eyes outside the world of a 9-year-old operating system.
As shitty as Vista is and as great as 7 is "supposed" to be, people just flat-out refuse to move on from XP. They're comfortable. Funnily enough, it seems as though Microsoft has screwed itself in that sense. Apple can't interest a lot of people to move to the Mac, nor can Microsoft influence those same people to move on to their new OS.
Even my coworkers (two of whom both use XP at work and Vista at home) hate Vista and want to stay with XP because it "just works" then they turn around and complain about its problems. Helllllooooo......
I come from a background of Mac by choice, Linux for fun, and Windows because I'm forced into it. My life was so much happier before I was made to use Windows every damn day.
Even my coworkers (two of whom both use XP at work and Vista at home) hate Vista and want to stay with XP because it "just works" then they turn around and complain about its problems. Helllllooooo......
Look, if you are cohered into using a piece of shit OS day in and day out and you don't know any better, what do you do? You settle on the least bad option and you work with that, changing as little as possible, since making XP work is like hoping for the alignment of planets.
If that is what the computer experience is, you think, then jumping to a whole new system with a whole new OS and new software is like telling them to move from Earth to Mars. Is there oxygen there? Hell, they think, if XP is already a clusterfuck how come a small company like apple is going to surpass a giant like MS where the friendly IT guy is right next door ready to solve my problems the next time my screen goes blue (probably tomorrow it will happen again)?
Nobody things that:
1. smallish apple is 100x better than biggish MS
2. you don't need no frigging IT guy, like ever
3. you don't need to learn a whole new system because a) Windows is a bad imitation of Mac but b) it is less intuitive so you will have no trouble learning Mac OS.
Oh and the cost of a Mac is more than worth it if you consider that:
1. PC are attack prone
2. run at half advertised speeds compared to mac due to antivirus and crappy software
3. last half as long
4. even when it "works" it annoys the hell out of you with thinks like 100 driver updates each week
5. its shitty software makes you take longer and work harder than in a mac
Whoa. The reality is that AFTER having spent their advertising dollars, Apple is then costing them nothing. [using your words]
It should not be expected that MS's current position of Apple's being 'insignificant' was accomplished out of thin air. It has been accomplished via Ms's marketing and advertising.
I am not wanting to be sounding like I am on either side but you've got to recognize that the advertising is supposed to have accomplished something.
Do you think the Gates-Seinfeld Churro ad, accomplished something? It was "supposed to" right?
They only really spend in the US, where the share gains by Apple are less of a rounding error - they are making gains in the US, so it makes sense that they look to defend.
Ballmer is right globally though, Apple's share gains overall are insignificant. Whether we Apple fans like it or not, Mac sales are tiny when compared with the overall Personal Computer market.
I can't understand why so many people would chose Windows over Mac, but there we go.
...was worth $2B in Net Income to Apple last quarter. MS only made $3B last quarter, which makes MS only 50% larger than insignificant.
...was worth $2B in Net Income to Apple last quarter. MS only made $3B last quarter, which makes MS only 50% larger than insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
Do you think the Gates-Seinfeld Churro ad, accomplished something? It was "supposed to" right?
Ken are you playing dumb ?? really now ? SAying that apple is to be compared and quoted along side acer $300 machines makes you and the people who make these polls very stupid .
COMPANIES choose in which markets in which to compete . true or alse ?
so why do you quote numbers form space.
Apple owns 91 percent of the $1000 dollar plus market .
Apple in the playing field's where it competes wipes out every other company that also dares .
to compete .
Look at the ipod alone . 78 percent share of the market
MS is a MONSTER company .they do almost 20bn a yr in sales .And they make a very large profit. When you have a monopoly its easy to hit these highs .
KEN i am sleepy but if you want i can teach you exactly why MS DOES what it does and why .
Ken are you playing dumb ?? really now ? SAying that apple is to be compared and quoted along side acer $300 machines makes you and the people who make these polls very stupid .
COMPANIES choose in which markets in which to compete . true or alse ?
so why do you quote numbers form space.
Apple owns 91 percent of the $1000 dollar plus market .
Apple in the playing field's where it competes wipes out every other company that also dares .
to compete .
Look at the ipod alone . 78 percent share of the market
MS is a MONSTER company .they do almost 20bn a yr in sales .And they make a very large profit. When you have a monopoly its easy to hit these highs .
KEN i am sleepy but if you want i can teach you exactly why MS DOES what it does and why .
I have never seen any information indicating when Microsoft sold their AAPL, only assumptions that they sold it immediately after the five year holding window ended. Have you found something else?
From Apple's 2003 SEC filing:
"In August 1997, the Company and Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) entered into patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of Apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by Microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock."
I've seen several sources referencing this 2003 SEC filing by Apple. I'm not sure whether it's the 10K, 8k or a special filing. This is the first time I've actually seen this. I always assumed they bought common AAPL from the start. (except for the non-voting clause). I am sure they sold in 2002 after the 5 year deal was up when AAPL was around $14 (from Aug. to Oct.) But that would be about $28 split adjusted. That's if they bought the common stock and got the split in the first place. But now it seems their shares were converted to 18 million shares of common AAPL after the split. Either way it turned out to be a very good investment for Microsoft.
Thanks -- but that's just the conversion to common stock, which would allow them to sell (after the five years were up), but doesn't necessarily mean that they did sell.
Ballmer was focusing on the hardware but to be honest my Mac Book Pro and even my iPhone don't stand out on quality. Let's face it iPhone is a thin brick and the MBP a fold open box.
Face what? I have an iPod touch rather than an iPhone but they are close to being identical. I've never had a gadget that came even close to being such a high quality piece of technology. I'm astonished they can sell something of this quality for $200. The earbuds that come with it are a piece of junk but I've corrected that.
Also the Macbook Pro is also easily the best quality computer I've owned or used. I've used plenty of Macs (and others) going back to the original 128K Mac. My G4 tower Mac had some high quality characteristics but even it is completely eclipsed by the MBP.
I'm not talking about perfection but in comparison to competitors the MBP an iPhone stand out by virtue of quality. I don't remember the PC publication but the MBP with Windows installed was recommended as the best quality PC laptop available.
Mac sales were up during the quarter with those ads, did you miss that memo? Most people know that mac will never have 90% market share, but unlike you they actually know why. Apple gaining 90% market share would not just hurt Microsofts bottom line, but drive the companies that Apple directly competes with out of business as well.
Apple doesn't have 90% market share because they aren't trying to get it. if they wanted it they could open up the number of configs, add blue-ray, bring back the matte finish screen, drop the prices a good 20% etc.
It is in Apple's best interest to stay low on the market share. Why? Because being low is part of what makes the tying of the OS and hardware non abusive. if they gain too much market share they lose that pass. and they would be forced to open up the clone game again. which they don't want
That was my f**king point! If there were more users they would keep up the effort.
Um... no. It's been so easy to construct malicious code on Windows that people do it and do it often. It's been so hard to do it for OS X (not saying it's categorically impossible) that many have given up trying or simply just know better not to even try. This has nothing to do with market share.
Question for you: How many OS X machine must exist for you to think the carrot is big enough? Or if you prefer, what market share is big enough? Lastly, can you support your answer with anything resembling a real study?
Um... no. It's been so easy to construct malicious code on Windows that people do it and do it often. It's been so hard to do it for OS X (not saying it's categorically impossible) that many have given up trying or simply just know better not to even try. This has nothing to do with market share.
Another proof of this is to look at OS X's cousins, Linux. While their market share is very low, their share of the web server market is enormous. Linux-based hosted sites are a dime a dozen (almost literally). And yet, they are extremely difficult to hack.
This is because *nix OSes are default-secure, while Windows is default-insecure. The Windows mentality is to simply patch over holes, which is an ever-losing game. If you wait until you're hacked and then respond, it means the hackers always have the advantage. By comparison, the *nix mentality is to make the OS secure from the get-go and to just keep improving that security as times change. (The open source nature of *nix, including the OS X core and many of its other technologies, also helps tremendously, because it means there is a huge community of people there to fix problems, as opposed to the relatively few people on MS's payroll.)
Regardless of what this bumbling fool says, It only took Apple one Cell phone OS to create something that literally sh*ts on anything MS has put out since Windows Mobile was created. I gave up my Tilt for an iPhone and 100% happy with my purchase. I can't tell you how non-responsive, slow, and unreliable that garbage was. HTC makes great phones, and have very appealing designs, but the software running on them is pitiful. I tried for the last month I had the phone to find a way to run Android on the thing. That lead me to Android for HTC.
Now for the computer OS's. Apple again, dominates in ease of use and reliability. I have yet to find a problem I couldn't fix on my Mac with the toggle of a switch. And when I do, I know Apple Support, whether it be on the phone, or in the local Apple store talking with their Geniuses, will give me fast and courteous service. With a PC, I'd have to send the thing away to God knows where... or talk to one of the 800 million Patels in India for phone support.
As far as those misleading PC hunter ads, they're full of lies and people with such little funds, they should be spending their money elsewhere, or saving for something that will actually benefit them.
One that really shocked me was the one girl looking to spend under 2000 for a computer she could do movie editing on. That one was a no-brainer that she should have gone for the Mac. iMovie! Far superior than Movie Maker. She ended up leaving with a bulky, bloatware loaded, HP. She looked down upon the Macbook Pro's 2Gb Ram. Little did she know Apples (aside from the white macbook), have DDR3 Ram, which is about double the speed and power as it predecessor, DDR2, which at the time is what HP uses. I'm not sure what they're currently using, but I doubt it's DDR3 yet...
Plus, you could run Leopard off 512mb of ram. For Vista to crawl, you need at least 2. That alone makes the ram difference negligible.
Give that woman 2 months before she gets a virus and her project in Movie Maker gets fried. She'll come crawling to Apple.
I will give Microsoft props on one skill, copying. Redmond, Start your photocopiers, Snow Leopard is upon us.
...express my wholehearted agreement with the original poster.
Regardless of whether I'm a Mac fan, or the individuals and other small businesses that I have helped to move to Mac OS X are enlightened now, I definitely do not see in the near future, or even the next 10-15 years, every Police/Fire Dept., Community and Govt. Service, major biz with million $ specialized apps, etc. etc... moving to the Mac. That is where MS should, and will continue to dominate for a long time.
That is until someone like Google decides to put a backbone, support and services behind Linux and/or a UNIX based system. It appears they may be testing the waters with Chrome and their cloud apps.
I think that Google for MS... and for Apple, will be the big competitor in the future, if not already (Android/Chrome OS). It's also why I think Mr. Schmidt should be relieved of his place on Apple's board. No reason to make it easy for them.
PS: I'm a HUGE Ball-mur fan! The absolute BEST marketer of Apple products before, and since Steve has decided (forced) to take his "life" more seriously then tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
I'm in full agreement here. Apple specializes in the consumer experience and in catering to niche enterprise areas. I have absolutely no problem (nor should anyone) about Macs lagging in the corporate sector. In fact, I'd have my suspicions if Apple planned on making a big push in this area. Might not be a good idea long-term.
Thanks -- but that's just the conversion to common stock, which would allow them to sell (after the five years were up), but doesn't necessarily mean that they did sell.
Most seems to think that Microsoft sold all their shares back in 2003. Some are saying that Microsoft could have sold them as soon as they were converted to common shares. Which may be the reason why they were converted in two 9 million share batch. By converting and selling them in two 9 million shares transaction, Apple wouldn't have to be report it to the SEC if the transaction involve less than the 5% of the outstanding shares. But even 18 million shares at the time would have been less than 5% (not by much though) but a 18 million share transaction would be harder to hide.
I've been an investor in AAPL since 1997 and remember reading in financial news that Microsoft sold all their shares in 2003. Though no confirmation from Apple, Microsoft or SEC. Just rumors from stock analyst that follows AAPL.
It's almost certain that Microsoft no longer own those shares now. A list of the largest shareholders has Fidelity as number 1 with 40 million shares. Barclay second with 24 million shares. And Growth fund of American comes in with 24 million shares. If Microsoft didn't sell any of their 18 million shares of common AAPL stocks, they would have over 36 million shares today. (After the split in Feb. 2005.) Which would just barely be under the 5% requirement before Apple has to reveal to the SEC that Microsoft owns 5% or more of AAPL. However, Microsoft could be still consider a private investor and Apple don't have to reveal them as a shareholder if they don't own more than 5% of outstanding shares. So it's possible, but doubtful, that Microsoft still owns 36 million shares of AAPL. For all we know, AAPL stocks have been financing their Xbox and Zune division all these year.
Comments
This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.
Effective in what way?
Effective because Apple fanboys get irate?
Effective because Microsoft executives turn cartwheels .... after making a mistake.
Effective in getting PC buyers to buy even cheaper PC laptops than they might have? And in the process bring down the ASP of HP and Dell machines.
I thought the desired effect was to dissuade people from buying Mac notebooks.
Apple just posted a 25% increase in notebook sales for the quarter that Microsoft has been running that campaign.
a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant
Shark and jumped comes to mind!
http://www.dailytech.com/Another+Maj...ticle15832.htm
add one more security issue
That glaring Security Issue is present on Linux and Windows. Apple has addressed it on their iPhone.
Let me know when Android and Windows Mobile gets off their ass, not to mention any SMS based Messaging Framework outside of the mobile world.
I'm in full agreement here. Apple specializes in the consumer experience and in catering to niche enterprise areas. I have absolutely no problem (nor should anyone) about Macs lagging in the corporate sector. In fact, I'd have my suspicions if Apple planned on making a big push in this area. Might not be a good idea long-term.
Good post.
The biggest problem I have with Macs lagging in the corporate sector is because the large majority of people who work in the corporate sector will turn around and purchase a Windows-based computer to use at home. It's all they know at work, thus they take that knowledge home with them. They look at the Mac like it's some sort of alien. Of course that doesn't stop them from talking shit on it; likewise, they are grossly uneducated about them. It's quite sad, actually. They have no desire to open their eyes outside the world of a 9-year-old operating system.
As shitty as Vista is and as great as 7 is "supposed" to be, people just flat-out refuse to move on from XP. They're comfortable. Funnily enough, it seems as though Microsoft has screwed itself in that sense. Apple can't interest a lot of people to move to the Mac, nor can Microsoft influence those same people to move on to their new OS.
Even my coworkers (two of whom both use XP at work and Vista at home) hate Vista and want to stay with XP because it "just works" then they turn around and complain about its problems. Helllllooooo......
I come from a background of Mac by choice, Linux for fun, and Windows because I'm forced into it. My life was so much happier before I was made to use Windows every damn day.
Apparently not. The horse got a virus.
The virus made him a pony. You know, just a little horse.
Even my coworkers (two of whom both use XP at work and Vista at home) hate Vista and want to stay with XP because it "just works" then they turn around and complain about its problems. Helllllooooo......
Look, if you are cohered into using a piece of shit OS day in and day out and you don't know any better, what do you do? You settle on the least bad option and you work with that, changing as little as possible, since making XP work is like hoping for the alignment of planets.
If that is what the computer experience is, you think, then jumping to a whole new system with a whole new OS and new software is like telling them to move from Earth to Mars. Is there oxygen there? Hell, they think, if XP is already a clusterfuck how come a small company like apple is going to surpass a giant like MS where the friendly IT guy is right next door ready to solve my problems the next time my screen goes blue (probably tomorrow it will happen again)?
Nobody things that:
1. smallish apple is 100x better than biggish MS
2. you don't need no frigging IT guy, like ever
3. you don't need to learn a whole new system because a) Windows is a bad imitation of Mac but b) it is less intuitive so you will have no trouble learning Mac OS.
Oh and the cost of a Mac is more than worth it if you consider that:
1. PC are attack prone
2. run at half advertised speeds compared to mac due to antivirus and crappy software
3. last half as long
4. even when it "works" it annoys the hell out of you with thinks like 100 driver updates each week
5. its shitty software makes you take longer and work harder than in a mac
and so on.
Whoa. The reality is that AFTER having spent their advertising dollars, Apple is then costing them nothing. [using your words]
It should not be expected that MS's current position of Apple's being 'insignificant' was accomplished out of thin air. It has been accomplished via Ms's marketing and advertising.
I am not wanting to be sounding like I am on either side but you've got to recognize that the advertising is supposed to have accomplished something.
Do you think the Gates-Seinfeld Churro ad, accomplished something? It was "supposed to" right?
They only really spend in the US, where the share gains by Apple are less of a rounding error - they are making gains in the US, so it makes sense that they look to defend.
Ballmer is right globally though, Apple's share gains overall are insignificant. Whether we Apple fans like it or not, Mac sales are tiny when compared with the overall Personal Computer market.
I can't understand why so many people would chose Windows over Mac, but there we go.
...was worth $2B in Net Income to Apple last quarter. MS only made $3B last quarter, which makes MS only 50% larger than insignificant.
...was worth $2B in Net Income to Apple last quarter. MS only made $3B last quarter, which makes MS only 50% larger than insignificant.
Do you think the Gates-Seinfeld Churro ad, accomplished something? It was "supposed to" right?
Ken are you playing dumb ?? really now ? SAying that apple is to be compared and quoted along side acer $300 machines makes you and the people who make these polls very stupid .
COMPANIES choose in which markets in which to compete . true or alse ?
so why do you quote numbers form space.
Apple owns 91 percent of the $1000 dollar plus market .
Apple in the playing field's where it competes wipes out every other company that also dares .
to compete .
Look at the ipod alone . 78 percent share of the market
MS is a MONSTER company .they do almost 20bn a yr in sales .And they make a very large profit. When you have a monopoly its easy to hit these highs .
KEN i am sleepy but if you want i can teach you exactly why MS DOES what it does and why .
peace
remember apple owns 91% of its market
Ken are you playing dumb ?? really now ? SAying that apple is to be compared and quoted along side acer $300 machines makes you and the people who make these polls very stupid .
COMPANIES choose in which markets in which to compete . true or alse ?
so why do you quote numbers form space.
Apple owns 91 percent of the $1000 dollar plus market .
Apple in the playing field's where it competes wipes out every other company that also dares .
to compete .
Look at the ipod alone . 78 percent share of the market
MS is a MONSTER company .they do almost 20bn a yr in sales .And they make a very large profit. When you have a monopoly its easy to hit these highs .
KEN i am sleepy but if you want i can teach you exactly why MS DOES what it does and why .
peace
remember apple owns 91% of its market
Much more than that:
https://investor.shareholder.com/msf...9386&SID=09-00
I have never seen any information indicating when Microsoft sold their AAPL, only assumptions that they sold it immediately after the five year holding window ended. Have you found something else?
From Apple's 2003 SEC filing:
"In August 1997, the Company and Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) entered into patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of Apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by Microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock."
http://ask.metafilter.com/30833/How-...-Microsoft-own
I've seen several sources referencing this 2003 SEC filing by Apple. I'm not sure whether it's the 10K, 8k or a special filing. This is the first time I've actually seen this. I always assumed they bought common AAPL from the start. (except for the non-voting clause). I am sure they sold in 2002 after the 5 year deal was up when AAPL was around $14 (from Aug. to Oct.) But that would be about $28 split adjusted. That's if they bought the common stock and got the split in the first place. But now it seems their shares were converted to 18 million shares of common AAPL after the split. Either way it turned out to be a very good investment for Microsoft.
Lets go back to that line,
What? Not to expensive? WTF Windows is the most expensive OS!
At $299 for a basic retail version and $399 for a premium, thats not expensive?
FYI: Apple has sold 10 million "PC's" and how many did Microsoft sell? Um, 0! All they do is sell software for PC, not hardware!
And how many of those 10 million did MS sell copies of Windows to? Likely not a lot but the cash it brings in is nothing to laugh at, either.
From Apple's 2003 SEC filing:
Thanks -- but that's just the conversion to common stock, which would allow them to sell (after the five years were up), but doesn't necessarily mean that they did sell.
Ballmer was focusing on the hardware but to be honest my Mac Book Pro and even my iPhone don't stand out on quality. Let's face it iPhone is a thin brick and the MBP a fold open box.
Face what? I have an iPod touch rather than an iPhone but they are close to being identical. I've never had a gadget that came even close to being such a high quality piece of technology. I'm astonished they can sell something of this quality for $200. The earbuds that come with it are a piece of junk but I've corrected that.
Also the Macbook Pro is also easily the best quality computer I've owned or used. I've used plenty of Macs (and others) going back to the original 128K Mac. My G4 tower Mac had some high quality characteristics but even it is completely eclipsed by the MBP.
I'm not talking about perfection but in comparison to competitors the MBP an iPhone stand out by virtue of quality. I don't remember the PC publication but the MBP with Windows installed was recommended as the best quality PC laptop available.
Mac sales were up during the quarter with those ads, did you miss that memo? Most people know that mac will never have 90% market share, but unlike you they actually know why. Apple gaining 90% market share would not just hurt Microsofts bottom line, but drive the companies that Apple directly competes with out of business as well.
Apple doesn't have 90% market share because they aren't trying to get it. if they wanted it they could open up the number of configs, add blue-ray, bring back the matte finish screen, drop the prices a good 20% etc.
It is in Apple's best interest to stay low on the market share. Why? Because being low is part of what makes the tying of the OS and hardware non abusive. if they gain too much market share they lose that pass. and they would be forced to open up the clone game again. which they don't want
That was my f**king point! If there were more users they would keep up the effort.
Um... no. It's been so easy to construct malicious code on Windows that people do it and do it often. It's been so hard to do it for OS X (not saying it's categorically impossible) that many have given up trying or simply just know better not to even try. This has nothing to do with market share.
Question for you: How many OS X machine must exist for you to think the carrot is big enough? Or if you prefer, what market share is big enough? Lastly, can you support your answer with anything resembling a real study?
Um... no. It's been so easy to construct malicious code on Windows that people do it and do it often. It's been so hard to do it for OS X (not saying it's categorically impossible) that many have given up trying or simply just know better not to even try. This has nothing to do with market share.
Another proof of this is to look at OS X's cousins, Linux. While their market share is very low, their share of the web server market is enormous. Linux-based hosted sites are a dime a dozen (almost literally). And yet, they are extremely difficult to hack.
This is because *nix OSes are default-secure, while Windows is default-insecure. The Windows mentality is to simply patch over holes, which is an ever-losing game. If you wait until you're hacked and then respond, it means the hackers always have the advantage. By comparison, the *nix mentality is to make the OS secure from the get-go and to just keep improving that security as times change. (The open source nature of *nix, including the OS X core and many of its other technologies, also helps tremendously, because it means there is a huge community of people there to fix problems, as opposed to the relatively few people on MS's payroll.)
Now for the computer OS's. Apple again, dominates in ease of use and reliability. I have yet to find a problem I couldn't fix on my Mac with the toggle of a switch. And when I do, I know Apple Support, whether it be on the phone, or in the local Apple store talking with their Geniuses, will give me fast and courteous service. With a PC, I'd have to send the thing away to God knows where... or talk to one of the 800 million Patels in India for phone support.
As far as those misleading PC hunter ads, they're full of lies and people with such little funds, they should be spending their money elsewhere, or saving for something that will actually benefit them.
One that really shocked me was the one girl looking to spend under 2000 for a computer she could do movie editing on. That one was a no-brainer that she should have gone for the Mac. iMovie! Far superior than Movie Maker. She ended up leaving with a bulky, bloatware loaded, HP. She looked down upon the Macbook Pro's 2Gb Ram. Little did she know Apples (aside from the white macbook), have DDR3 Ram, which is about double the speed and power as it predecessor, DDR2, which at the time is what HP uses. I'm not sure what they're currently using, but I doubt it's DDR3 yet...
Plus, you could run Leopard off 512mb of ram. For Vista to crawl, you need at least 2. That alone makes the ram difference negligible.
Give that woman 2 months before she gets a virus and her project in Movie Maker gets fried. She'll come crawling to Apple.
I will give Microsoft props on one skill, copying. Redmond, Start your photocopiers, Snow Leopard is upon us.
http://www.manastungare.com/blog/wp-...otocopiers.jpg < Picture from Tiger's release.
Regardless of whether I'm a Mac fan, or the individuals and other small businesses that I have helped to move to Mac OS X are enlightened now, I definitely do not see in the near future, or even the next 10-15 years, every Police/Fire Dept., Community and Govt. Service, major biz with million $ specialized apps, etc. etc... moving to the Mac. That is where MS should, and will continue to dominate for a long time.
That is until someone like Google decides to put a backbone, support and services behind Linux and/or a UNIX based system. It appears they may be testing the waters with Chrome and their cloud apps.
I think that Google for MS... and for Apple, will be the big competitor in the future, if not already (Android/Chrome OS). It's also why I think Mr. Schmidt should be relieved of his place on Apple's board. No reason to make it easy for them.
PS: I'm a HUGE Ball-mur fan! The absolute BEST marketer of Apple products before, and since Steve has decided (forced) to take his "life" more seriously then tech.
I'm in full agreement here. Apple specializes in the consumer experience and in catering to niche enterprise areas. I have absolutely no problem (nor should anyone) about Macs lagging in the corporate sector. In fact, I'd have my suspicions if Apple planned on making a big push in this area. Might not be a good idea long-term.
Good post.
Thanks -- but that's just the conversion to common stock, which would allow them to sell (after the five years were up), but doesn't necessarily mean that they did sell.
Most seems to think that Microsoft sold all their shares back in 2003. Some are saying that Microsoft could have sold them as soon as they were converted to common shares. Which may be the reason why they were converted in two 9 million share batch. By converting and selling them in two 9 million shares transaction, Apple wouldn't have to be report it to the SEC if the transaction involve less than the 5% of the outstanding shares. But even 18 million shares at the time would have been less than 5% (not by much though) but a 18 million share transaction would be harder to hide.
I've been an investor in AAPL since 1997 and remember reading in financial news that Microsoft sold all their shares in 2003. Though no confirmation from Apple, Microsoft or SEC. Just rumors from stock analyst that follows AAPL.
It's almost certain that Microsoft no longer own those shares now. A list of the largest shareholders has Fidelity as number 1 with 40 million shares. Barclay second with 24 million shares. And Growth fund of American comes in with 24 million shares. If Microsoft didn't sell any of their 18 million shares of common AAPL stocks, they would have over 36 million shares today. (After the split in Feb. 2005.) Which would just barely be under the 5% requirement before Apple has to reveal to the SEC that Microsoft owns 5% or more of AAPL. However, Microsoft could be still consider a private investor and Apple don't have to reveal them as a shareholder if they don't own more than 5% of outstanding shares. So it's possible, but doubtful, that Microsoft still owns 36 million shares of AAPL. For all we know, AAPL stocks have been financing their Xbox and Zune division all these year.