The world doesnt mean US only! Worldwide marketshare for Mac barely reaches 4% so yeah compared to Windows it is a rounding error! I know you guys love that US figure but when it comes to worldwide marketshare Mac has no meaningful marketshare....
All the corporations in the world plus the 90% of the world choose Microsoft and Windows over Apple on a daily basis; Apple has been rejected by over 90% of the folks while Microsoft has only been rejected by 4%. It is clear who is the winner here. When it comes to computers, things are done the "Microsoft" way which means substance over style unlike Apple
The world doesnt mean US only! [?] when it comes to worldwide marketshare Mac has no meaningful marketshare?.
And marketshare doesn?t mean Unit Sales only. It can be expressed by revenue, gross profit or net profit for a market of market segment. If you look compare the profit from PC vendors you see that Apple is not only a player, but a threat. This metric is much important to a company than the unit sales alone.
Quote:
All the corporations in the world plus the 90% of the world choose Microsoft and Windows over Apple on a daily basis; Apple has been rejected by over 90% of the folks while Microsoft has only been rejected by 4%. It is clear who is the winner here. When it comes to computers, things are done the "Microsoft" way which means substance over style unlike Apple
Apple is the one that did the rejecting by not agreeing to license their OS to the other PC vendors that desperately want out from under MS? thumb. They?ve tried Linux and it failed.
Even with Win7 being a ?good? version of Windows they still have to pay $50, according to MS, for the starter version for their PCs that don?t cost much more to make. Apple has the profitable, high-end market segment wrapped up with tightly at this point so volume sales with little profit is what they have to suffer with.
MS has a solid business model, but it requires a lot of legacy HW and legacy code support. They are the robber barons at the hands of the PC vendors. Apple is immune to this in their kingdom because unlike the other PC vendors they stuck with the prime markets. If you can?t see that MS? Windows? business model and Apple?s Mac business model are very, very different and not easily compared then you need to take some business classes ASAP.
And marketshare doesn?t mean Unit Sales only. It can be expressed by revenue, gross profit or net profit for a market of market segment. If you look compare the profit from PC vendors you see that Apple is not only a player, but a threat. This metric is much important to a company than the unit sales alone.
Apple is the one that did the rejecting by not agreeing to license their OS to the other PC vendors that desperately want out from under MS? thumb. They?ve tried Linux and it failed.
Even with Win7 being a ?good? version of Windows they still have to pay $50, according to MS, for the starter version for their PCs that don?t cost much more to make. Apple has the profitable, high-end market segment wrapped up with tightly at this point so volume sales with little profit is what they have to suffer with.
MS has a solid business model, but it requires a lot of legacy HW and legacy code support. They are the robber barons at the hands of the PC vendors. Apple is immune to this in their kingdom because unlike the other PC vendors they stuck with the prime markets. If you can?t see that MS? Windows? business model and Apple?s Mac business model are very, very different and not easily compared then you need to take some business classes ASAP.
The most important share is unit sales though. If you're a software house trying to decide whether to make your software for Mac or PC, you aren't going to pick Apple because they make X amount of profit. You're going to pick the PC to make the most amount of sales. This in turn makes PCs the defacto standard, and relegates Apple to being a sideline player.
The most important share is unit sales though. If you're a software house trying to decide whether to make your software for Mac or PC, you aren't going to pick Apple because they make X amount of profit. You're going to pick the PC to make the most amount of sales. This in turn makes PCs the defacto standard, and relegates Apple to being a sideline player.
Not from a the HW vendor?s PoV. If that were the case then Apple could make profitless Macs and license their OS. There decision to not do so should not be construed as an inability to do so.
As for software, that argument was valid in the 1990s.. With the internet and web standards making rich OS agnostic website possible, Apple?s building in pretty much all software that a consumer could want, and with a high enough marketshare in the US and domination of the profitable market segments that actually have money, Apple?s business model is not in a position to be without software. On top of that, the foundation of a UNIX-like system have given Mac OS X a great many powerful tools that have been ported over with a nice Carbon or Cocoa interface, or simply run from the command line.
Are the opinions of home stereo salesmen what's distinguished to *your* ear?
Stereophile is not a reputable source for audio. They review stereo equipment based on who buys their ad spaces. It's also chiefly responsible for pushing most of the superstition and mumbo-jumbo in this biz. Their purpose is to try and convince people that a $3000 Marantz CD player will read digital information off a disc differently than a $300 Sony. Playboy is far better for that kind of fantasy stimulation. That segment of the market is created almost entirely on bad info and meaningless or misapplied "tech sounding" buzzwords. [My favorite dipthong term is "soundstage" and the resulting frenzy goofballs will work themselves into over simple 'panning'.]
As for the Examiner article... (LA Examiner... really?)
The type of fabric your shirt matters more to fidelity than the difference between 44.1 and 96k. Not a very helpful fact for reviews and articles, but hey... people were upset the Earth was round too. Are you over 45? If so... you probably won't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test. Get less than a full night's sleep? Again, your ears won't perceive those subtleties accurately. Have a glass of wine or a cup of coffee? That throws off you ears too. All very important details that are much more valid than superstitious applications of Nyquist.
My advice, you are missing the point entirely... people with the 128kbps MP3s and Apple earbuds are having a way better time and hearing music much more effectively than anyone with a nose stuck in Stereo'pile'.
Wow, color me surprised but I never imagined you, of all people, would shell out hundreds of $'s for decades old music that you can get from isohunt.com for free.
Comments
Over 8% of the US computer market is a "rounding error?" Don't believe everything that Ballmer says.
http://www.cultofmac.com/report-mac-...-quarter/18733
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...ers/1248218543
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...rket-share.ars
The world doesnt mean US only! Worldwide marketshare for Mac barely reaches 4% so yeah compared to Windows it is a rounding error! I know you guys love that US figure but when it comes to worldwide marketshare Mac has no meaningful marketshare....
All the corporations in the world plus the 90% of the world choose Microsoft and Windows over Apple on a daily basis; Apple has been rejected by over 90% of the folks while Microsoft has only been rejected by 4%. It is clear who is the winner here. When it comes to computers, things are done the "Microsoft" way which means substance over style unlike Apple
The world doesnt mean US only! [?] when it comes to worldwide marketshare Mac has no meaningful marketshare?.
And marketshare doesn?t mean Unit Sales only. It can be expressed by revenue, gross profit or net profit for a market of market segment. If you look compare the profit from PC vendors you see that Apple is not only a player, but a threat. This metric is much important to a company than the unit sales alone.
All the corporations in the world plus the 90% of the world choose Microsoft and Windows over Apple on a daily basis; Apple has been rejected by over 90% of the folks while Microsoft has only been rejected by 4%. It is clear who is the winner here. When it comes to computers, things are done the "Microsoft" way which means substance over style unlike Apple
Apple is the one that did the rejecting by not agreeing to license their OS to the other PC vendors that desperately want out from under MS? thumb. They?ve tried Linux and it failed.
Even with Win7 being a ?good? version of Windows they still have to pay $50, according to MS, for the starter version for their PCs that don?t cost much more to make. Apple has the profitable, high-end market segment wrapped up with tightly at this point so volume sales with little profit is what they have to suffer with.
MS has a solid business model, but it requires a lot of legacy HW and legacy code support. They are the robber barons at the hands of the PC vendors. Apple is immune to this in their kingdom because unlike the other PC vendors they stuck with the prime markets. If you can?t see that MS? Windows? business model and Apple?s Mac business model are very, very different and not easily compared then you need to take some business classes ASAP.
And marketshare doesn?t mean Unit Sales only. It can be expressed by revenue, gross profit or net profit for a market of market segment. If you look compare the profit from PC vendors you see that Apple is not only a player, but a threat. This metric is much important to a company than the unit sales alone.
Apple is the one that did the rejecting by not agreeing to license their OS to the other PC vendors that desperately want out from under MS? thumb. They?ve tried Linux and it failed.
Even with Win7 being a ?good? version of Windows they still have to pay $50, according to MS, for the starter version for their PCs that don?t cost much more to make. Apple has the profitable, high-end market segment wrapped up with tightly at this point so volume sales with little profit is what they have to suffer with.
MS has a solid business model, but it requires a lot of legacy HW and legacy code support. They are the robber barons at the hands of the PC vendors. Apple is immune to this in their kingdom because unlike the other PC vendors they stuck with the prime markets. If you can?t see that MS? Windows? business model and Apple?s Mac business model are very, very different and not easily compared then you need to take some business classes ASAP.
The most important share is unit sales though. If you're a software house trying to decide whether to make your software for Mac or PC, you aren't going to pick Apple because they make X amount of profit. You're going to pick the PC to make the most amount of sales. This in turn makes PCs the defacto standard, and relegates Apple to being a sideline player.
The most important share is unit sales though. If you're a software house trying to decide whether to make your software for Mac or PC, you aren't going to pick Apple because they make X amount of profit. You're going to pick the PC to make the most amount of sales. This in turn makes PCs the defacto standard, and relegates Apple to being a sideline player.
Not from a the HW vendor?s PoV. If that were the case then Apple could make profitless Macs and license their OS. There decision to not do so should not be construed as an inability to do so.
As for software, that argument was valid in the 1990s.. With the internet and web standards making rich OS agnostic website possible, Apple?s building in pretty much all software that a consumer could want, and with a high enough marketshare in the US and domination of the profitable market segments that actually have money, Apple?s business model is not in a position to be without software. On top of that, the foundation of a UNIX-like system have given Mac OS X a great many powerful tools that have been ported over with a nice Carbon or Cocoa interface, or simply run from the command line.
Fact check back atcha: Maybe a CD and a 256kbps AAC rip are indistinguishable to *your* ear, but certainly not to everyone's ears. E.g.:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html
Fact check #2: "Lossless" at what bit depth and sampling frequency? 22.05kHz 8-bit? 96kHz 24-bit? E.g.:
http://www.examiner.com/x-373-SF-Cla...wnloaded-audio
Are the opinions of home stereo salesmen what's distinguished to *your* ear?
Stereophile is not a reputable source for audio. They review stereo equipment based on who buys their ad spaces. It's also chiefly responsible for pushing most of the superstition and mumbo-jumbo in this biz. Their purpose is to try and convince people that a $3000 Marantz CD player will read digital information off a disc differently than a $300 Sony. Playboy is far better for that kind of fantasy stimulation. That segment of the market is created almost entirely on bad info and meaningless or misapplied "tech sounding" buzzwords. [My favorite dipthong term is "soundstage" and the resulting frenzy goofballs will work themselves into over simple 'panning'.]
As for the Examiner article... (LA Examiner... really?)
The type of fabric your shirt matters more to fidelity than the difference between 44.1 and 96k. Not a very helpful fact for reviews and articles, but hey... people were upset the Earth was round too. Are you over 45? If so... you probably won't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test. Get less than a full night's sleep? Again, your ears won't perceive those subtleties accurately. Have a glass of wine or a cup of coffee? That throws off you ears too. All very important details that are much more valid than superstitious applications of Nyquist.
My advice, you are missing the point entirely... people with the 128kbps MP3s and Apple earbuds are having a way better time and hearing music much more effectively than anyone with a nose stuck in Stereo'pile'.
Wow, color me surprised but I never imagined you, of all people, would shell out hundreds of $'s for decades old music that you can get from isohunt.com for free.
real sweet
sadly your gone now
the beetles had a magic
9
Paul McCartney and John Lennon were in the same band at onetime?
No way....Next you will try to tell me, 'horses sleep standing up!'
and they even had a george and a pete and a ringo in there too