Right and that why you basically get an orgasm every time it's share goes up 0.34% and constantly need to rank on MS inferior products!
Spare me the BS.
No BS here, teckstud, just your inability (you're not alone) to understand Apple.
A rise in marketshare means another person that had $1000+ chose Apple, or someone from a nion-targeted income bracket just woke up to the fact that it's alright to spend more than you need to because you're getting far greater value from a Mac.
You're not supposed to look at Apple's market share the same way you'd look at Microsoft's. Apple doesn't even occupy the same market segment a MS.
Do I want to see Mac share rise to 50%? It might seem like a good idea - a better computing experience for more people. But in the long run, it isn't a good idea. Can you guess why?
You couldn't be more wrong. The ATT "data" map is their GPRS/EDGE (2.5G) and UMTS (3G) coverage combined, they don't separate them, so you can't really see their real 3G only map (I don't think a company like Verizon would make false advertising without being sued big time, so I tend to believe that the blue map in their ad is close to the truth). Now, if you look at your link for the Verizon map, the national access map is their 1xRTT coverage (2.5G), and the broadband/vcast map is EVDO (3G), they actually separate them, and it's obvious that their 3G coverage is impressive.
I love Apple, don't get me wrong, but the ATT choice was not related to the quality of their network: they chose ATT because they wanted to sell the iPhone and iPhone 3G worldwide and maximize their profits, and because of that, they only had 2 choices in the US: ATT or T-Mobile (they use GSM/UMTS like 95% of the rest of the world, unlike Verizon and Sprint who use CDMA).
Same could be said for sales figures YOu were mentioning in terms of 3.5 to 10 Million units (complete rubbish and clueless).
Sorry... what's clueless and rubbish about those figures? You put up a 5 year time frame. Those figures are Mac sales... 5 years ago vs today.
Apple has managed to grow their Mac sales without compromising margins.
Your contention was (perhaps you have changed it now?) was that those kind of figures... tripling sales... and profits.. would not excite "Savvy" investors.
If you sell more stuff... and make more profit... that's a good thing for shareholders.
If you sell LESS stuff... and make less profit.... that's a bad thing.....
..... even if you GAIN markets share.
Quote:
Yes there will love the increase in sales, but if you say I gone from 7% marketshare to 15%, there will love you even more....
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier? I can understand in the beginning when the phone launched, but at this point it seems ridiculous to just be exclusive to one carrier. AT&T service in the NY area is very close to awful. Just to let everyone know I do not use an iPhone (I wish I did) I use a bacsic no frills LG 3g networked phone with AT&T and the service stinks. How does Apple deal with this horrible service of AT&T. Is Apple shooting themselves in the foot? I mean the iPhone is the biggest thing since sliced bread but why be exclusive with an inferior carrier to the point that other carriers and making fun of it. Anyone?
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier? I can understand in the beginning when the phone launched, but at this point it seems ridiculous to just be exclusive to one carrier. AT&T service in the NY area is very close to awful. Just to let everyone know I do not use an iPhone (I wish I did) I use a bacsic no frills LG 3g networked phone with AT&T and the service stinks. How does Apple deal with this horrible service of AT&T. Is Apple shooting themselves in the foot? I mean the iPhone is the biggest thing since sliced bread but why be exclusive with an inferior carrier to the point that other carriers and making fun of it. Anyone?
I think the rationale behind their choice is simple: either we go down the Verizon path and build a phone that supports EVDO, use a great network properly engineered, but can only address less than 5% of the global population (because of CDMA), or we use ATT (and at the same time build a phone that can address 95% of the global population), and hope for the best. At the end of the day, Apple sells the iPhone, not the network, so their decision was the right one in order to maximize profits/sales while lowering costs (through higher volumes thanks to the worldwide sales). The way I see it, it's like complaining your mac is slow, while in reality you are using dial-up and it has nothing to do with your computer
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier? I can understand in the beginning when the phone launched, but at this point it seems ridiculous to just be exclusive to one carrier. AT&T service in the NY area is very close to awful. Just to let everyone know I do not use an iPhone (I wish I did) I use a bacsic no frills LG 3g networked phone with AT&T and the service stinks. How does Apple deal with this horrible service of AT&T. Is Apple shooting themselves in the foot? I mean the iPhone is the biggest thing since sliced bread but why be exclusive with an inferior carrier to the point that other carriers and making fun of it. Anyone?
Only today, it was announced that iPhone is going to more carriers in Canada.
Last week the same thing happened in the UK.
This is fast becoming a US problem only.
If you use a "basic" LG phone and AT&T is "awful", why don't you just switch to a basic phone with a different carrier?
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier?
Unrequited demand. It's a brilliant way of doing things. The creation of buildup, anticipation, to a *possible* move to more carriers.
Exclusivity creates desirability, and in the iPhone's case, creates two years' worth of carriers jockeying for position in order to get their hands on the elusive Holy Grail of smartphones. It keeps consumers who can't have it with the hint, the faintest hope of it coming to other carriers. Keeps them interested. It's the same way with women. Give the man just enough to keep him asking for more - never give too much, too fast. Keep him wanting.
So the iPhone never really becomes "old news." It remains something in demand and special. Its rarity feeds into it mystique. It's as big and new and fresh now as it was on release day.
Further, limiting it to just one carrier for the time being allows Apple to test its powers over the typical carrier - how far it can push, and to what degree Apple is beholden to their policies. It also shows Apple just how desirable the iPhone is. How many people can they get to switch carriers just for the iPhone? It's a great way of guaging the pulse of the market with respect to your product's desirabilty. It also creates the impression that other carriers can "make a name" for themselves with the iPhone. Exclusivity = desirability.
It also demonstrates that Apple doesn't "need" other carriers . . . the carriers need Apple. It's Apple saying "we don't need you - we're already shaking up the industry and setting records with only AT&T. But we might *let* you have the iPhone, because it is a privilege."
Masterful.
One thing to keep in mind: Apple always has a powerful, well-thought out strategy behind everything they do. They are fully aware of the consequences of limiting it to just one carrier. But they are also aware of the benefits.
Unrequited demand. It's a brilliant way of doing things. The creation of buildup, anticipation, to a *possible* move to more carriers.
Exclusivity creates desirability, and in the iPhone's case, creates two years' worth of carriers jockeying for position in order to get their hands on the elusive Holy Grail of smartphones. It keeps consumers who can't have it with the hint, the faintest hope of it coming to other carriers. Keeps them interested. It's the same way with women. Give the man just enough to keep him asking for more - never give too much, too fast. Keep him wanting.
So the iPhone never really becomes "old news." It remains something in demand and special. Its rarity feeds into it mystique. It's as big and new and fresh now as it was on release day.
Further, limiting it to just one carrier for the time being allows Apple to test its powers over the typical carrier - how far it can push, and to what degree Apple is beholden to their policies. It also shows Apple just how desirable the iPhone is. How many people can they get to switch carriers just for the iPhone? It's a great way of guaging the pulse of the market with respect to your product's desirabilty. It also creates the impression that other carriers can "make a name" for themselves with the iPhone. Exclusivity = desirability.
It also demonstrates that Apple doesn't "need" other carriers . . . the carriers need Apple. It's Apple saying "we don't need you - we're already shaking up the industry and setting records with only AT&T. But we might *let* you have the iPhone, because it is a privilege."
Masterful.
One thing to keep in mind: Apple always has a powerful, well-thought out strategy behind everything they do. They are fully aware of the consequences of limiting it to just one carrier. But they are also aware of the benefits.
Great points and thanks for the thought behind this strategy. I especially understand the women luring men analogy.
But with that said at&t needs to improve the NY metro area service sometime soon.
Only today, it was announced that iPhone is going to more carriers in Canada.
Last week the same thing happened in the UK.
This is fast becoming a US problem only.
If you use a "basic" LG phone and AT&T is "awful", why don't you just switch to a basic phone with a different carrier?
Well I signed a 2 year contract with the at&t. I had heard about the "dropped calls" issue, but did so anyway. This was my mistake. I am not a big cell phone user, I don't use it a whole lot so its a minor inconvenience and I pay a very minimal contract fee. But the reception problem still bothers me at times. If I payed for a $200 phone and have an expensive contract to fulfill I would be upset.
The more money I spend on "quality" items the better quality experience I will expect.
Great points and thanks for the thought behind this strategy. I especially understand the women luring men analogy.
But with that said at&t needs to improve the NY metro area service sometime soon.
I'm tempted to say that NY metro is only one area, but I won't . . . because it's a BIG area. Really, it's like an airline saying their routes are worldwide . . . except to the US.
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
VZW doesn't just paint the map red, at the company I used to work for, we had all verizon phones, and teh guys in the field could tether with evdo in the middle of the hick sticks of Georgia at a customer site, or in the middle of the McCormick Place main east hall in Chicago...2 places my iphone couldn't get signal, let alone 3g...
the office I used to work in had an area that was practically a bunker, 10 FT of steel and concreat on any side of this centeral room, and a ton of RF as it was an electronics test lab, with working PCBs laying out on a bench with no casing, the ZW phone always worked, the ATT iphone 3g, never...and the hacked tmobile iphone3g...about 80% of the time in there.
Sorry... what's clueless and rubbish about those figures? You put up a 5 year time frame. Those figures are Mac sales... 5 years ago vs today.
Apple has managed to grow their Mac sales without compromising margins.
Your contention was (perhaps you have changed it now?) was that those kind of figures... tripling sales... and profits.. would not excite "Savvy" investors.
If you sell more stuff... and make more profit... that's a good thing for shareholders.
If you sell LESS stuff... and make less profit.... that's a bad thing.....
..... even if you GAIN markets share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
or... in the real world...
-just look how Apple has been attacking Microsoft relentlessly for the last five years and have moved from selling 3.5 million Macs a year to over 10 million a year.
that was your original post and that what I was replying to. I was just saying that sales with market share would make a savvy shareholder even more happy. You may want to read my post again. I did not say your figures were incorrect and to be honest I was not sure were you got them until your last post, did not really care, since I was not focused on numbers just principle of your comments.
I understand the financial aspects of running a company very well and its just a case of miscommunication.
but it?s an extension of GSM, so in another it?s part of the 2G network, oft referred at 2.5G.
No, no. Being an enhancement of 2/2.5G technologies does not necessarily mean qualifying as a an element of 2G set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Personally, I hate the ambigous nomenclature as it says nothing about the technology and can used in marketing in shady ways; WiMAX(4G), for example.
Oh, if only you could imagine how ad producers love it! They owe their whole life and success to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
So is Verizon lying or just being slippery with their terminology?
VZW is lying about AT&T 3G coverage. But ambiguous terminology allows them to defend themselves as just delivering their message in popular informal language.
-just look how Apple has been attacking Microsoft relentlessly for the last five years and have moved from selling 3.5 million Macs a year to over 10 million a year.
That's more to do with MS screwing themselves over by releasing Vista than any Apple advertising.
First off, VZW does not cripple their equipment anymore. That ended back in 2007. The only smartphones that don't have wifi are the Blackberries and that will end when the Curve 8530 and the essex come out. Bluetooth and GPS work perfectly on my Blackberry Tour 9630, and I do not get charged for it. As far as I know, Apple never seriously considered Verizon for the IPhone. They more likely just used them to get a better deal from ATT. I think VZW should just stop talking to Apple and just push Android hard. Also, I think Apple should just add T-Mobile's American 3G bands, unlock it and call it a day.
No, no. Being an enhancement of 2/2.5G technologies does not necessarily mean qualifying as a an element of 2G set.
Oh, if only you could imagine how ad producers love it! They owe their whole life and success to it.
VZW is lying about AT&T 3G coverage. But ambiguous terminology allows them to defend themselves as just delivering their message in popular informal language.
That's more to do with MS screwing themselves over by releasing Vista than any Apple advertising.
Vista was launched just over two and a half years ago.
Apple's Get a Mac campaign started before that.
Mac sales were growing, and gaining share before Vista
Apple incorporated Vista's perceived faults, quite heavily into the campaign.
I have already mentioned other factors involved in the recent success of the Mac. Advertising does not work in a vacuum.
The only 'evidence' I have seen that Apple's campaign didn't work is the opinion of Windows enthusiasts that found the ads to be offensive, based on lies, preaching to the converted etc...
Do I want to see Mac share rise to 50%? It might seem like a good idea - a better computing experience for more people. But in the long run, it isn't a good idea. Can you guess why?
Comments
Right and that why you basically get an orgasm every time it's share goes up 0.34% and constantly need to rank on MS inferior products!
Spare me the BS.
No BS here, teckstud, just your inability (you're not alone) to understand Apple.
A rise in marketshare means another person that had $1000+ chose Apple, or someone from a nion-targeted income bracket just woke up to the fact that it's alright to spend more than you need to because you're getting far greater value from a Mac.
You're not supposed to look at Apple's market share the same way you'd look at Microsoft's. Apple doesn't even occupy the same market segment a MS.
Do I want to see Mac share rise to 50%? It might seem like a good idea - a better computing experience for more people. But in the long run, it isn't a good idea. Can you guess why?
Oh, yeah... VZW Voice coverage is compared to AT&T's true 3G data coverage.
You couldn't be more wrong. The ATT "data" map is their GPRS/EDGE (2.5G) and UMTS (3G) coverage combined, they don't separate them, so you can't really see their real 3G only map (I don't think a company like Verizon would make false advertising without being sued big time, so I tend to believe that the blue map in their ad is close to the truth). Now, if you look at your link for the Verizon map, the national access map is their 1xRTT coverage (2.5G), and the broadband/vcast map is EVDO (3G), they actually separate them, and it's obvious that their 3G coverage is impressive.
I love Apple, don't get me wrong, but the ATT choice was not related to the quality of their network: they chose ATT because they wanted to sell the iPhone and iPhone 3G worldwide and maximize their profits, and because of that, they only had 2 choices in the US: ATT or T-Mobile (they use GSM/UMTS like 95% of the rest of the world, unlike Verizon and Sprint who use CDMA).
Same could be said for sales figures YOu were mentioning in terms of 3.5 to 10 Million units (complete rubbish and clueless).
Sorry... what's clueless and rubbish about those figures? You put up a 5 year time frame. Those figures are Mac sales... 5 years ago vs today.
Apple has managed to grow their Mac sales without compromising margins.
Your contention was (perhaps you have changed it now?) was that those kind of figures... tripling sales... and profits.. would not excite "Savvy" investors.
If you sell more stuff... and make more profit... that's a good thing for shareholders.
If you sell LESS stuff... and make less profit.... that's a bad thing.....
..... even if you GAIN markets share.
Yes there will love the increase in sales, but if you say I gone from 7% marketshare to 15%, there will love you even more....
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier? I can understand in the beginning when the phone launched, but at this point it seems ridiculous to just be exclusive to one carrier. AT&T service in the NY area is very close to awful. Just to let everyone know I do not use an iPhone (I wish I did) I use a bacsic no frills LG 3g networked phone with AT&T and the service stinks. How does Apple deal with this horrible service of AT&T. Is Apple shooting themselves in the foot? I mean the iPhone is the biggest thing since sliced bread but why be exclusive with an inferior carrier to the point that other carriers and making fun of it. Anyone?
I think the rationale behind their choice is simple: either we go down the Verizon path and build a phone that supports EVDO, use a great network properly engineered, but can only address less than 5% of the global population (because of CDMA), or we use ATT (and at the same time build a phone that can address 95% of the global population), and hope for the best. At the end of the day, Apple sells the iPhone, not the network, so their decision was the right one in order to maximize profits/sales while lowering costs (through higher volumes thanks to the worldwide sales). The way I see it, it's like complaining your mac is slow, while in reality you are using dial-up and it has nothing to do with your computer
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier? I can understand in the beginning when the phone launched, but at this point it seems ridiculous to just be exclusive to one carrier. AT&T service in the NY area is very close to awful. Just to let everyone know I do not use an iPhone (I wish I did) I use a bacsic no frills LG 3g networked phone with AT&T and the service stinks. How does Apple deal with this horrible service of AT&T. Is Apple shooting themselves in the foot? I mean the iPhone is the biggest thing since sliced bread but why be exclusive with an inferior carrier to the point that other carriers and making fun of it. Anyone?
Only today, it was announced that iPhone is going to more carriers in Canada.
Last week the same thing happened in the UK.
This is fast becoming a US problem only.
If you use a "basic" LG phone and AT&T is "awful", why don't you just switch to a basic phone with a different carrier?
So when is Apple going to wake up? Its not just this advertisement that has made me think this. Why does Apple continue to insist to be exclusive to one carrier?
Unrequited demand. It's a brilliant way of doing things. The creation of buildup, anticipation, to a *possible* move to more carriers.
Exclusivity creates desirability, and in the iPhone's case, creates two years' worth of carriers jockeying for position in order to get their hands on the elusive Holy Grail of smartphones. It keeps consumers who can't have it with the hint, the faintest hope of it coming to other carriers. Keeps them interested. It's the same way with women. Give the man just enough to keep him asking for more - never give too much, too fast. Keep him wanting.
So the iPhone never really becomes "old news." It remains something in demand and special. Its rarity feeds into it mystique. It's as big and new and fresh now as it was on release day.
Further, limiting it to just one carrier for the time being allows Apple to test its powers over the typical carrier - how far it can push, and to what degree Apple is beholden to their policies. It also shows Apple just how desirable the iPhone is. How many people can they get to switch carriers just for the iPhone? It's a great way of guaging the pulse of the market with respect to your product's desirabilty. It also creates the impression that other carriers can "make a name" for themselves with the iPhone. Exclusivity = desirability.
It also demonstrates that Apple doesn't "need" other carriers . . . the carriers need Apple. It's Apple saying "we don't need you - we're already shaking up the industry and setting records with only AT&T. But we might *let* you have the iPhone, because it is a privilege."
Masterful.
One thing to keep in mind: Apple always has a powerful, well-thought out strategy behind everything they do. They are fully aware of the consequences of limiting it to just one carrier. But they are also aware of the benefits.
What vaporware nonsense. Talk is cheap. Let them actually implement something that compares, and then let's see where things stand.
Unrequited demand. It's a brilliant way of doing things. The creation of buildup, anticipation, to a *possible* move to more carriers.
Exclusivity creates desirability, and in the iPhone's case, creates two years' worth of carriers jockeying for position in order to get their hands on the elusive Holy Grail of smartphones. It keeps consumers who can't have it with the hint, the faintest hope of it coming to other carriers. Keeps them interested. It's the same way with women. Give the man just enough to keep him asking for more - never give too much, too fast. Keep him wanting.
So the iPhone never really becomes "old news." It remains something in demand and special. Its rarity feeds into it mystique. It's as big and new and fresh now as it was on release day.
Further, limiting it to just one carrier for the time being allows Apple to test its powers over the typical carrier - how far it can push, and to what degree Apple is beholden to their policies. It also shows Apple just how desirable the iPhone is. How many people can they get to switch carriers just for the iPhone? It's a great way of guaging the pulse of the market with respect to your product's desirabilty. It also creates the impression that other carriers can "make a name" for themselves with the iPhone. Exclusivity = desirability.
It also demonstrates that Apple doesn't "need" other carriers . . . the carriers need Apple. It's Apple saying "we don't need you - we're already shaking up the industry and setting records with only AT&T. But we might *let* you have the iPhone, because it is a privilege."
Masterful.
One thing to keep in mind: Apple always has a powerful, well-thought out strategy behind everything they do. They are fully aware of the consequences of limiting it to just one carrier. But they are also aware of the benefits.
Great points and thanks for the thought behind this strategy. I especially understand the women luring men analogy.
But with that said at&t needs to improve the NY metro area service sometime soon.
Only today, it was announced that iPhone is going to more carriers in Canada.
Last week the same thing happened in the UK.
This is fast becoming a US problem only.
If you use a "basic" LG phone and AT&T is "awful", why don't you just switch to a basic phone with a different carrier?
Well I signed a 2 year contract with the at&t. I had heard about the "dropped calls" issue, but did so anyway. This was my mistake. I am not a big cell phone user, I don't use it a whole lot so its a minor inconvenience and I pay a very minimal contract fee. But the reception problem still bothers me at times. If I payed for a $200 phone and have an expensive contract to fulfill I would be upset.
The more money I spend on "quality" items the better quality experience I will expect.
Great points and thanks for the thought behind this strategy. I especially understand the women luring men analogy.
But with that said at&t needs to improve the NY metro area service sometime soon.
I'm tempted to say that NY metro is only one area, but I won't . . . because it's a BIG area. Really, it's like an airline saying their routes are worldwide . . . except to the US.
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
VZW doesn't just paint the map red, at the company I used to work for, we had all verizon phones, and teh guys in the field could tether with evdo in the middle of the hick sticks of Georgia at a customer site, or in the middle of the McCormick Place main east hall in Chicago...2 places my iphone couldn't get signal, let alone 3g...
the office I used to work in had an area that was practically a bunker, 10 FT of steel and concreat on any side of this centeral room, and a ton of RF as it was an electronics test lab, with working PCBs laying out on a bench with no casing, the ZW phone always worked, the ATT iphone 3g, never...and the hacked tmobile iphone3g...about 80% of the time in there.
Sorry... what's clueless and rubbish about those figures? You put up a 5 year time frame. Those figures are Mac sales... 5 years ago vs today.
Apple has managed to grow their Mac sales without compromising margins.
Your contention was (perhaps you have changed it now?) was that those kind of figures... tripling sales... and profits.. would not excite "Savvy" investors.
If you sell more stuff... and make more profit... that's a good thing for shareholders.
If you sell LESS stuff... and make less profit.... that's a bad thing.....
..... even if you GAIN markets share.
or... in the real world...
-just look how Apple has been attacking Microsoft relentlessly for the last five years and have moved from selling 3.5 million Macs a year to over 10 million a year.
that was your original post and that what I was replying to. I was just saying that sales with market share would make a savvy shareholder even more happy. You may want to read my post again. I did not say your figures were incorrect and to be honest I was not sure were you got them until your last post, did not really care, since I was not focused on numbers just principle of your comments.
I understand the financial aspects of running a company very well and its just a case of miscommunication.
anyway time to move on.
but it?s an extension of GSM, so in another it?s part of the 2G network, oft referred at 2.5G.
No, no. Being an enhancement of 2/2.5G technologies does not necessarily mean qualifying as a an element of 2G set.
Personally, I hate the ambigous nomenclature as it says nothing about the technology and can used in marketing in shady ways; WiMAX(4G), for example.
Oh, if only you could imagine how ad producers love it!
So is Verizon lying or just being slippery with their terminology?
VZW is lying about AT&T 3G coverage. But ambiguous terminology allows them to defend themselves as just delivering their message in popular informal language.
or... in the real world...
-just look how Apple has been attacking Microsoft relentlessly for the last five years and have moved from selling 3.5 million Macs a year to over 10 million a year.
That's more to do with MS screwing themselves over by releasing Vista than any Apple advertising.
No, no. Being an enhancement of 2/2.5G technologies does not necessarily mean qualifying as a an element of 2G set.
Oh, if only you could imagine how ad producers love it!
VZW is lying about AT&T 3G coverage. But ambiguous terminology allows them to defend themselves as just delivering their message in popular informal language.
For once I think I agree with you.
That's more to do with MS screwing themselves over by releasing Vista than any Apple advertising.
Vista was launched just over two and a half years ago.
Apple's Get a Mac campaign started before that.
Mac sales were growing, and gaining share before Vista
Apple incorporated Vista's perceived faults, quite heavily into the campaign.
I have already mentioned other factors involved in the recent success of the Mac. Advertising does not work in a vacuum.
The only 'evidence' I have seen that Apple's campaign didn't work is the opinion of Windows enthusiasts that found the ads to be offensive, based on lies, preaching to the converted etc...
Do I want to see Mac share rise to 50%? It might seem like a good idea - a better computing experience for more people. But in the long run, it isn't a good idea. Can you guess why?
For you? NO- I can't read your mind .
Wonder why solipism isn't defending AT&T much these days?