It's pretty much the most annoying mouse ever produced, second only to the hockey puck from the original iMac. Just use any Logitech of your choice, and discover a better world.
I can see you playing the roll of Steve Balmer on stage.
As opposed to Apple fan boi?
Acer's growth shouldn't be discounted. 'Next to nothing'? What does that mean? Sure, they don't have Apple's margins. Who does? Oh. Apple.
But clearly they, Acer, are profitable or they are going out of business soon selling that many at a loss. Clearly there's a demand for a netbook style product. And clearly Apple aren't immune from market forces.
Apple don't have to be cheap. But they could be cheap-'er'. How long they can resist the gravitational pull of 'netbooks' and ever falling PC prices...who knows.
But if PC companies are worried about 'what to do about netbooks', then perhaps Apple can show them? (Tablet pending...?)
For me, it would be very interesting to see what Apple's marketshare numbers would be like if they had a mid-tower and a netbook. We may never get to find out.
As for Acer, good that they have marketshare, but without profit what is the point?
Even more to the point, if you follow these numbers quarter after quarter, you will see that the Windows PC makers are constantly trading market share with each other, but that overall, the Windows PC market has been growing in only the low single digits for several years running now, which is very poor performance. Lest we forget, it's Apple against the Windows OEMs, not Apple against Acer, or Apple against Dell or HP or Toshiba. Compare meaningful things.
Actually, there are articles that say that the Win 7 release will trigger another round of upwards sales for Apple.
I hink that we're going to find a lot of XP users who are going to be very unhappy once they find out what it takes to upgrade to 7.
I don’t think it’ll help or hurt Apple’s sales when it launches but I do think that marketshare my suffer a little for the holiday season despite Apple having another record YoY quarter and there largest Mac quarter ever with about 2.85M Macs, which is about 7 to 8 months of non-Holiday Mac sales from just 3 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Even more to the point, if you follow these numbers quarter after quarter, you will see that the Windows PC makers are constantly trading market share with each other, but that overall, the Windows PC market has been growing in only the low single digits for several years running now, which is very poor performance. Lest we forget, it's Apple against the Windows OEMs, not Apple against Acer, or Apple against Dell or HP or Toshiba. Compare meaningful things.
I don’t think comparing all PC pamers using a specific OS to a lone PC maker using a different OS when looking at HW sales very meaningful. I see your point and understand that people that tend to buy Mac are less likely to jump to a different manufacturer when they make their next choice, while a Windows user has many options, but I still think OS comparisons are valid here.
We see it all the time with the TeckStuds and NoVendorFans/SeaHawkFans. They look at that Apple’s HW sales convert that to their OS sales and say Apple sucks because Windows is on x-many PCs. Yet they never look at the HW vendors themselves, their profits and their market segments.
If you are an Apple stockholder, you shouldn’t care if 1B netbooks are 17M more netbooks running Win7 are sold next quarter, essentially cutting Apple’s HW and OS marketshare in half, so long as they are selling more than the quarter before. I wonder what the adjusted numbers would be if netbooks were excluded from the PC HW sales?
My personal opinion of netbooks is that they are barely useable. The more portable you make a desktop system, the less useable they become. Desktop operating systems are designed for desktop systems with good sized screens. While netbooks might be nice in the portability department, it is very easy to become tired of trying to get things done on screens that small. I had a 12" iBook and that screen size was at my lower limits of being able to get any serious work done. This was especially true when multiple windows were needed.
Anyone who thinks they're getting a laptop when they buy a netbook will not be satisfied if they need it for more than just casual use and even then I'd wager that most of them would prefer doing most of that on their smartphones.
Acer's growth shouldn't be discounted. 'Next to nothing'? What does that mean? Sure, they don't have Apple's margins. Who does? Oh. Apple.
But clearly they, Acer, are profitable or they are going out of business soon selling that many at a loss. Clearly there's a demand for a netbook style product. And clearly Apple aren't immune from market forces.
Apple don't have to be cheap. But they could be cheap-'er'. How long they can resist the gravitational pull of 'netbooks' and ever falling PC prices...who knows.
But if PC companies are worried about 'what to do about netbooks', then perhaps Apple can show them? (Tablet pending...?)
For me, it would be very interesting to see what Apple's marketshare numbers would be like if they had a mid-tower and a netbook. We may never get to find out.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Realistically, profits matter highly. If you read that Bloomberg report, you'll see that Acer themselves aren't happy about the situation.
But PC companies have gotten themselves stuck in this low price spiral, which is what it is.
The companies are concerned about netbooks, not because they don't know what to do with them, but because they see their customers abandoning more highly priced, and profitable machines.
Competition is good, but it has its bad side as well.
Consumers want lower prices, but they don't always understand the downside to lower pricing.
Netbooks have problems running any but the simplest programs. I can attest to that. The industry got themselves into a bind here. Netbooks were at first thought to be a solution for people who couldn't afford even the cheap $500 laptops that were already draining the companies profits.
But people who could afford the more expensive machines, and who would have bought them, are now buying netbooks. A lot of people aren't that happy with them, and have returned them, but most find them to be enough.
What I do find interesting is that the first netbooks almost all came with some version of linux. Netbooks were thought to be understood by those buying them to be mostly for running net related apps. But no. People wanted to run their regular apps.
So the Linux books went back in droves.
This was the best chance EVER for desktop (or laptop) Linux to gain a stronghold, and it failed big time.
Manufacturers REALLY wanted to sell Linux machines so that they wouldn't have to pay MS the $15 for the OS. Now, the 7 Starter equivalent will cost them almost $50, from what MS is saying.
How are they going to sell $200 to $400 machines when the OS is almost $50?
Apple will be coming out with somewhat less expensive machines soon. They don't have to match netbook pricing, or even come close. They just have to move down somewhat, and they will snare more people.
I don?t think comparing all PC pamers using a specific OS to a lone PC maker using a different OS when looking at HW sales very meaningful. I see your point and understand that people that tend to buy Mac are less likely to jump to a different manufacturer when they make their next choice, while a Windows user has many options, but I still think OS comparisons are valid here.
We see it all the time with the TeckStuds and NoVendorFans/SeaHawkFans. They look at that Apple?s HW sales convert that to their OS sales and say Apple sucks because Windows is on x-many PCs. Yet they never look at the HW vendors themselves, their profits and their market segments.
I think it's not terribly meaningful to compare Apple to any one OEM because over time I see the OEMs constantly trading market share with each other, but in the aggregate not expanding the market for Windows PCs significantly. I think Apple is doing something each and every one of the OEMs would dearly love to replicate: consistently expanding their sales at double-digit rates. If you simply compare any given OEM to Apple in any given quarter, you won't see the big picture.
He doesn't say much, does he? It's the same thing chairmen and CEOs say.
I did think it was interesting where he said that they didn't EXPECT revenues to decline this year. not that they will grow. Not that they would remain steady, but that he didn't EXPECT that they would decline.
Not exactly very certain, is he? Sort of a wishy washy comment.
He didn't even say that performance was good. He didn't say that he was happy with it.
ACER is selling cheap machines. They own Gateway, E-Machines, Packard Bell, and their own brand.
Operating margins are 2.2%. Yes, that's not a typo.
I think it's not terribly meaningful to compare Apple to any one OEM because over time I see the OEMs constantly trading market share with each other, but in the aggregate not expanding the market for Windows PCs significantly. I think Apple is doing something each and every one of the OEMs would dearly love to replicate: consistently expanding their sales at double-digit rates. If you simply compare any given OEM to Apple in any given quarter, you won't see the big picture.
I’m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn’t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
Comments
...and white mouse...
It's pretty much the most annoying mouse ever produced, second only to the hockey puck from the original iMac. Just use any Logitech of your choice, and discover a better world.
OK- so I don't have insight into Acer's home office but you do?
Yes, I do. I also read that Bloomberg report. You should as well.
Good on Apple, but a little of that marketshare growth is likely a measurable number of PC users waiting for Windows 7 to land before buying a new PC.
Actually, there are articles that say that the Win 7 release will trigger another round of upwards sales for Apple.
I hink that we're going to find a lot of XP users who are going to be very unhappy once they find out what it takes to upgrade to 7.
I can see you playing the roll of Steve Balmer on stage.
As opposed to Apple fan boi?
Acer's growth shouldn't be discounted. 'Next to nothing'? What does that mean? Sure, they don't have Apple's margins. Who does? Oh. Apple.
But clearly they, Acer, are profitable or they are going out of business soon selling that many at a loss. Clearly there's a demand for a netbook style product. And clearly Apple aren't immune from market forces.
Apple don't have to be cheap. But they could be cheap-'er'. How long they can resist the gravitational pull of 'netbooks' and ever falling PC prices...who knows.
But if PC companies are worried about 'what to do about netbooks', then perhaps Apple can show them? (Tablet pending...?)
For me, it would be very interesting to see what Apple's marketshare numbers would be like if they had a mid-tower and a netbook. We may never get to find out.
Lemon Bon Bon.
As for Acer, good that they have marketshare, but without profit what is the point?
Even more to the point, if you follow these numbers quarter after quarter, you will see that the Windows PC makers are constantly trading market share with each other, but that overall, the Windows PC market has been growing in only the low single digits for several years running now, which is very poor performance. Lest we forget, it's Apple against the Windows OEMs, not Apple against Acer, or Apple against Dell or HP or Toshiba. Compare meaningful things.
Yes, I do. I also read that Bloomberg report. You should as well.
I was just listening to what Acer President Gianfranco Lanci said today:
http://earthlink.com.com/8301-31021_...part=earthlink
Actually, there are articles that say that the Win 7 release will trigger another round of upwards sales for Apple.
I hink that we're going to find a lot of XP users who are going to be very unhappy once they find out what it takes to upgrade to 7.
Not if they all buy new PCs.
Actually, there are articles that say that the Win 7 release will trigger another round of upwards sales for Apple.
I hink that we're going to find a lot of XP users who are going to be very unhappy once they find out what it takes to upgrade to 7.
I don’t think it’ll help or hurt Apple’s sales when it launches but I do think that marketshare my suffer a little for the holiday season despite Apple having another record YoY quarter and there largest Mac quarter ever with about 2.85M Macs, which is about 7 to 8 months of non-Holiday Mac sales from just 3 years ago.
Even more to the point, if you follow these numbers quarter after quarter, you will see that the Windows PC makers are constantly trading market share with each other, but that overall, the Windows PC market has been growing in only the low single digits for several years running now, which is very poor performance. Lest we forget, it's Apple against the Windows OEMs, not Apple against Acer, or Apple against Dell or HP or Toshiba. Compare meaningful things.
I don’t think comparing all PC pamers using a specific OS to a lone PC maker using a different OS when looking at HW sales very meaningful. I see your point and understand that people that tend to buy Mac are less likely to jump to a different manufacturer when they make their next choice, while a Windows user has many options, but I still think OS comparisons are valid here.
We see it all the time with the TeckStuds and NoVendorFans/SeaHawkFans. They look at that Apple’s HW sales convert that to their OS sales and say Apple sucks because Windows is on x-many PCs. Yet they never look at the HW vendors themselves, their profits and their market segments.
If you are an Apple stockholder, you shouldn’t care if 1B netbooks are 17M more netbooks running Win7 are sold next quarter, essentially cutting Apple’s HW and OS marketshare in half, so long as they are selling more than the quarter before. I wonder what the adjusted numbers would be if netbooks were excluded from the PC HW sales?
Anyone who thinks they're getting a laptop when they buy a netbook will not be satisfied if they need it for more than just casual use and even then I'd wager that most of them would prefer doing most of that on their smartphones.
As opposed to Apple fan boi?
Acer's growth shouldn't be discounted. 'Next to nothing'? What does that mean? Sure, they don't have Apple's margins. Who does? Oh. Apple.
But clearly they, Acer, are profitable or they are going out of business soon selling that many at a loss. Clearly there's a demand for a netbook style product. And clearly Apple aren't immune from market forces.
Apple don't have to be cheap. But they could be cheap-'er'. How long they can resist the gravitational pull of 'netbooks' and ever falling PC prices...who knows.
But if PC companies are worried about 'what to do about netbooks', then perhaps Apple can show them? (Tablet pending...?)
For me, it would be very interesting to see what Apple's marketshare numbers would be like if they had a mid-tower and a netbook. We may never get to find out.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Realistically, profits matter highly. If you read that Bloomberg report, you'll see that Acer themselves aren't happy about the situation.
But PC companies have gotten themselves stuck in this low price spiral, which is what it is.
The companies are concerned about netbooks, not because they don't know what to do with them, but because they see their customers abandoning more highly priced, and profitable machines.
Competition is good, but it has its bad side as well.
Consumers want lower prices, but they don't always understand the downside to lower pricing.
Netbooks have problems running any but the simplest programs. I can attest to that. The industry got themselves into a bind here. Netbooks were at first thought to be a solution for people who couldn't afford even the cheap $500 laptops that were already draining the companies profits.
But people who could afford the more expensive machines, and who would have bought them, are now buying netbooks. A lot of people aren't that happy with them, and have returned them, but most find them to be enough.
What I do find interesting is that the first netbooks almost all came with some version of linux. Netbooks were thought to be understood by those buying them to be mostly for running net related apps. But no. People wanted to run their regular apps.
So the Linux books went back in droves.
This was the best chance EVER for desktop (or laptop) Linux to gain a stronghold, and it failed big time.
Manufacturers REALLY wanted to sell Linux machines so that they wouldn't have to pay MS the $15 for the OS. Now, the 7 Starter equivalent will cost them almost $50, from what MS is saying.
How are they going to sell $200 to $400 machines when the OS is almost $50?
Apple will be coming out with somewhat less expensive machines soon. They don't have to match netbook pricing, or even come close. They just have to move down somewhat, and they will snare more people.
I was just listening to what Acer President Gianfranco Lanci said today:
http://earthlink.com.com/8301-31021_...part=earthlink
If you compare this interview to the Bloomberg article, you will find that one of them does not contain the word "profit"... guess why?
I don?t think comparing all PC pamers using a specific OS to a lone PC maker using a different OS when looking at HW sales very meaningful. I see your point and understand that people that tend to buy Mac are less likely to jump to a different manufacturer when they make their next choice, while a Windows user has many options, but I still think OS comparisons are valid here.
We see it all the time with the TeckStuds and NoVendorFans/SeaHawkFans. They look at that Apple?s HW sales convert that to their OS sales and say Apple sucks because Windows is on x-many PCs. Yet they never look at the HW vendors themselves, their profits and their market segments.
I think it's not terribly meaningful to compare Apple to any one OEM because over time I see the OEMs constantly trading market share with each other, but in the aggregate not expanding the market for Windows PCs significantly. I think Apple is doing something each and every one of the OEMs would dearly love to replicate: consistently expanding their sales at double-digit rates. If you simply compare any given OEM to Apple in any given quarter, you won't see the big picture.
Apple would have even more market share if they produced a matte screen iMac - I would have bought one.
Boy, that didn't take too long. What? 2-3 posts in and you win the award for the first whiner!
So, what are you using instead, for a computer?
My 5-year-old iMac G5.
Your loss, the new iMacs are brilliant in all possible ways.
Once again, someone assuming that what is perfect for them is perfect for everyone.
I was just listening to what Acer President Gianfranco Lanci said today:
http://earthlink.com.com/8301-31021_...part=earthlink
You were listening to it?
He doesn't say much, does he? It's the same thing chairmen and CEOs say.
I did think it was interesting where he said that they didn't EXPECT revenues to decline this year. not that they will grow. Not that they would remain steady, but that he didn't EXPECT that they would decline.
Not exactly very certain, is he? Sort of a wishy washy comment.
He didn't even say that performance was good. He didn't say that he was happy with it.
ACER is selling cheap machines. They own Gateway, E-Machines, Packard Bell, and their own brand.
Operating margins are 2.2%. Yes, that's not a typo.
Once again, someone assuming that what is perfect for them is perfect for everyone.
Nothing is perfect. It's all a mater of tradeoffs.
I think it's not terribly meaningful to compare Apple to any one OEM because over time I see the OEMs constantly trading market share with each other, but in the aggregate not expanding the market for Windows PCs significantly. I think Apple is doing something each and every one of the OEMs would dearly love to replicate: consistently expanding their sales at double-digit rates. If you simply compare any given OEM to Apple in any given quarter, you won't see the big picture.
I’m sure they do trade around since they are using the same OS, but to separate all non-Mac PCs from Mac PCs doesn’t make much sense to me. Now we have 91% non-Mac PCs compared to 9% Mac PCs in the US for both the OEM and the OS. The OS shouldn't make us divide one OEM from all the others, otherwise why not add all Mac to the non-Mac PCs since Macs can also load Windows?
Further proof tht Apple knows exactly what they're doing, especially when it comes to understanding the market.
This I agree with.