Apple is the 20th most recognized global brand in the world, BEST GLOBAL BRANDS That is mindshare.
Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
If the Mac was to reach 7+% market share then Apple would probably be making more money from computers than today's market leader (on 19%) HP.
And if the Mac were to grab double digits (even low double digits.. 12... 13) Apple would potentially be making even more money than Microsoft.
iGuess that's not what you meant though.
No, that's not what I mean. It is very good that Apple users send more money to wall street than mainstream users. That is what allows Apple to give us such great additions to our lives!
What I really mean is that Apple is poised to get to double-digit worldwide market penetration, and it is likely to happen in the next few decades, at the rate they are going.
Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it.
Is there an Apple laptop that outperforms a Dell Studio 15 with an i7 chip, a 1080p screen and a BluRay drive? At any price?
PS: I never thought the iPod would be a flop but I admit having absolutely no interest in it until the iPod Mini came out. That is when, for me, it became a ?must have? product.
Hope you didn't think I was including you in my rant?
My point was (is) that after thousands of stories written by the tech press explaining how the iPod would fail (eg. "history repeating itself", WMA better than "Apple's AAC, iPod killer 1, 2 3 400 etc, Subscription rulz, Origami, Portable Media Center etc etc etc etc).... it didn't fail. Instead it became a cultural phenomenon.
So left with very little to criticise regarding the iPod strategy, the usual suspect pundits turned to explaining how there was "no iPod Halo Effect".
It's old news! We've just had a couple of years of rehashed and re-titled (iPhone) iPod stories. Expect another couple years of iTablet nay-sayers .
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
Yes I was nitpicking. But all your figures were wrong. ALL of them. You want relevance? Then use the correct data.
Quote:
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
You really are one confused troll aren't you? Apple's mind share is massive compared to it's actual position in the computer market. And their financial strength has come from expressly avoiding the low end of the market.
Quote:
Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Yep. You just mentioned the high profits Apple makes on it's computers... and now you suggest they should shut the business down. Make up your mind!
If you're going to carry on with these kind of posts, I suggest just sticking with pithy one liners, like "Apple sux" etc. It will be much less taxing for you
Is there an Apple laptop that outperforms a Dell Studio 15 with an i7 chip, a 1080p screen and a BluRay drive? At any price?
The Dell is around $1200 or less.
There are faster machines that are cheaper, but that is only comparing certain HW features. Making a good machine isn’t just about making it as fast as possible with the higher resolution display with little to no consideration for other things. You have to take into consideration other factors that cost money for a machine that many Mac users appreciate. Like thickness, weight, durability, display and backlight type not just display resolution, battery life, etc.
For instance, consider the 15” HP Envy. It’s not much thicker than the MBPs, it has a QUAD Core-i7 and huge multi-touch trackpad with integrated button like the MB/MBPs. That sounds great, eh? But then consider that despite not having any internal optical drive it still can only be used for a couple hours before the battery dies because the 45nm quad-core Intel Core i7 has a TDP of 45W which besides using a lot of power also requires additional cooling. Also consider that the drivers for the trackpad are so bad that reviewers have stated that an external mouse is necessary.
The next MBPs are likely going to use DUAL-core Core-3 and Core-5, with the next MBA using the DUAL-core Core-i7s. People will be complaining that it’s not quad-core and that other vendors had quad-core last year blah blah blah, but that is a myopic view that isn’t considering anything but a couple superficial specs, not the entire product… and I didn’t even scratch the surface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Hope you didn't think I was including you in my rant?
Google's new Chrome browser has passed Apple's Safari in December with a 4.63 percent market share compared to Safari's 4.46. This places Chrome in third-place behind number-two Firefox with around 25 percent and first-place Internet Explorer at more than 60 percent.
Don't just throw out specs, lets have some performance benchmarks. Real life performance and battery life.
"Thanks to a new quad-core 1.6-GHz Intel Core i7 processor, part of a high-performance series designed with gamers and power users in mind, as well as 4GB of RAM and a 7,200-rpm hard drive, the Studio 17 notched 5,207 on PCMark Vantage. That’s more than 1,100 points above the desktop replacement category average (4,074), although another new quad-core Intel Core i7 machine, the $1,349 Acer Aspire 8940G, scored 5,962." --Laptopmag.com
"Our configuration included a 2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and a robust 4GB of DDR3 RAM (expandable to 8GB for $1,000 extra), which enabled the MacBook Pro to achieve a score of 3,525 on our PCMark Vantage benchmark" --Laptopmag.com
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
You may be right as far as most people are concerned, but I use Safari because overall I find it to be the most Mac like browser. Further, it integrates with OSX better then all the other browsers that run on a Mac. Safari has enough minor quirks that I have wanted to see if anything else performs better, but I always switch back. The big thing Chrome has going for it is that it seems a bit quicker then Safari, but it also has less features. For instance, it doesn't utilize gestures on the trackpad.
Sadly enough for Window users, IE is definitely not the the best browser out there and most people probably do use it because it is the default. On Windows, Safari is still a good browser (better then IE), but it doesn't have the advantage of as tight an integration with Windows as it does OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon
I think you're correct, but for the wrong reasons. Safari and IE are "default browsers" and people who use them generally use them because it's "just what their computer does". Not to say that Safari isn't a vastly superior browser to IE, but very few people decide to use safari in a positive sense. They just use it because that is the macs default web browser.
Sadly enough for Window users, IE is definitely not the the best browser out there and most people probably do use it because it is the default. On Windows, Safari is still a good browser (better then IE), but it doesn't have the advantage of as tight an integration with Windows as it does OSX.
I like IE's integration the way I like Safari's integration on Mac OS X. The major downfall for IE is browser engine but Google has resolved that with Google Frame.
PS: If you are using a web browser on battery power the default browsers are beat for getting the most time out of your notebook. On Windows, Safari was found to be considerably worse in this area than any of the other 3rd-party browsers.
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
Perhaps you should do some research after getting your myopia resolved. You've completely missed the point.
I dont believe this for a second. I can't believe how naive people are if they believe all these surveys. The internet must have 100's of survey results everyday. Show me how you got these numbers, how big was your pool, did the same address use both Sarfari and Chome? Show me the proof.
Why don't you click on the links in the story that take you to the data?
Chrome is wonderful browser, mostly because it's so fast and the seamless way it integrates with other Google services. Color me impressed. That said, I have yet to try it on a Mac, but I am antsy to do so.
Chrome is infinitely faster than IE and Firefox on the Windows platform. I am curious to see how it performs on a Mac, and how it compares to Safari. From what I've seen of the screenshots though, it seems Google missed the boat on a more Mac-like integration.
The so-called ad blockers for Chrome are misnomers as they don't block ads at all but just hide them after the ad has been downloaded. Chrome does not have a content policy API like Firefox which allows to filter requests before they are actually executed. The real Adblock Plus therefore saves HTTP requests, DNS resolving and unmarshaling and decoding of data. Plus, badly written sites will block the engine from loading the rest of the page when waiting for a slow ad server to respond. *No* optimization to JavaScript or other parts of the engine can make up for the time lost waiting for some ad/tracking servers to respond.
Plus, ABP has filter subscriptions with a much more in-depth syntax (type specification, exceptions, whitelists, etc.).
HP, among others are shipping their new windows 7 laptops in europe google-i-fied with both google desktop enabled and also chrome as the default browser. This will certainly add to the usage of chrome as the users picking up these machines don't seem to know the difference and just accept this as the norm. Many even think that this is just how the new windows is.
Comments
Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
Ironic that you should pick those two figures.
If the Mac was to reach 7+% market share then Apple would probably be making more money from computers than today's market leader (on 19%) HP.
And if the Mac were to grab double digits (even low double digits.. 12... 13) Apple would potentially be making even more money than Microsoft.
iGuess that's not what you meant though.
No, that's not what I mean. It is very good that Apple users send more money to wall street than mainstream users. That is what allows Apple to give us such great additions to our lives!
What I really mean is that Apple is poised to get to double-digit worldwide market penetration, and it is likely to happen in the next few decades, at the rate they are going.
Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it.
Is there an Apple laptop that outperforms a Dell Studio 15 with an i7 chip, a 1080p screen and a BluRay drive? At any price?
The Dell is around $1200 or less.
PS: I never thought the iPod would be a flop but I admit having absolutely no interest in it until the iPod Mini came out. That is when, for me, it became a ?must have? product.
Hope you didn't think I was including you in my rant?
My point was (is) that after thousands of stories written by the tech press explaining how the iPod would fail (eg. "history repeating itself", WMA better than "Apple's AAC, iPod killer 1, 2 3 400 etc, Subscription rulz, Origami, Portable Media Center etc etc etc etc).... it didn't fail. Instead it became a cultural phenomenon.
So left with very little to criticise regarding the iPod strategy, the usual suspect pundits turned to explaining how there was "no iPod Halo Effect".
It's old news! We've just had a couple of years of rehashed and re-titled (iPhone) iPod stories. Expect another couple years of iTablet nay-sayers .
.... it didn't fail. Instead it became a cultural phenomenon.
The same is true of every product that Apple has ever released. Steve bless us.
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
Yes I was nitpicking. But all your figures were wrong. ALL of them. You want relevance? Then use the correct data.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
You really are one confused troll aren't you? Apple's mind share is massive compared to it's actual position in the computer market. And their financial strength has come from expressly avoiding the low end of the market.
Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Yep. You just mentioned the high profits Apple makes on it's computers... and now you suggest they should shut the business down. Make up your mind!
If you're going to carry on with these kind of posts, I suggest just sticking with pithy one liners, like "Apple sux" etc. It will be much less taxing for you
Is there an Apple laptop that outperforms a Dell Studio 15 with an i7 chip, a 1080p screen and a BluRay drive? At any price?
The Dell is around $1200 or less.
There are faster machines that are cheaper, but that is only comparing certain HW features. Making a good machine isn’t just about making it as fast as possible with the higher resolution display with little to no consideration for other things. You have to take into consideration other factors that cost money for a machine that many Mac users appreciate. Like thickness, weight, durability, display and backlight type not just display resolution, battery life, etc.
For instance, consider the 15” HP Envy. It’s not much thicker than the MBPs, it has a QUAD Core-i7 and huge multi-touch trackpad with integrated button like the MB/MBPs. That sounds great, eh? But then consider that despite not having any internal optical drive it still can only be used for a couple hours before the battery dies because the 45nm quad-core Intel Core i7 has a TDP of 45W which besides using a lot of power also requires additional cooling. Also consider that the drivers for the trackpad are so bad that reviewers have stated that an external mouse is necessary.
The next MBPs are likely going to use DUAL-core Core-3 and Core-5, with the next MBA using the DUAL-core Core-i7s. People will be complaining that it’s not quad-core and that other vendors had quad-core last year blah blah blah, but that is a myopic view that isn’t considering anything but a couple superficial specs, not the entire product… and I didn’t even scratch the surface.
Hope you didn't think I was including you in my rant?
Nah, I was just adding my 2¢.
No, that's not what I mean.
Don't worry. I think we all know where you are coming from.
Is there an Apple laptop that outperforms a Dell Studio 15 with an i7 chip, a 1080p screen and a BluRay drive? At any price?
The Dell is around $1200 or less.
.
Google's new Chrome browser has passed Apple's Safari in December with a 4.63 percent market share compared to Safari's 4.46. This places Chrome in third-place behind number-two Firefox with around 25 percent and first-place Internet Explorer at more than 60 percent.
But, IE has only 37%, FireFox has 57% and chrome has 8%. Take a look: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
But, IE has only 37%, FireFox has 57% and chrome has 8%. Take a look: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
That is measuring w3schools.com stats. They are not indicative of the internet as a whole.
PS: I wonder what AI?s usage stats are?
Don't just throw out specs, lets have some performance benchmarks. Real life performance and battery life.
"Thanks to a new quad-core 1.6-GHz Intel Core i7 processor, part of a high-performance series designed with gamers and power users in mind, as well as 4GB of RAM and a 7,200-rpm hard drive, the Studio 17 notched 5,207 on PCMark Vantage. That’s more than 1,100 points above the desktop replacement category average (4,074), although another new quad-core Intel Core i7 machine, the $1,349 Acer Aspire 8940G, scored 5,962." --Laptopmag.com
"Our configuration included a 2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and a robust 4GB of DDR3 RAM (expandable to 8GB for $1,000 extra), which enabled the MacBook Pro to achieve a score of 3,525 on our PCMark Vantage benchmark" --Laptopmag.com
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
Sadly enough for Window users, IE is definitely not the the best browser out there and most people probably do use it because it is the default. On Windows, Safari is still a good browser (better then IE), but it doesn't have the advantage of as tight an integration with Windows as it does OSX.
I think you're correct, but for the wrong reasons. Safari and IE are "default browsers" and people who use them generally use them because it's "just what their computer does". Not to say that Safari isn't a vastly superior browser to IE, but very few people decide to use safari in a positive sense. They just use it because that is the macs default web browser.
Sadly enough for Window users, IE is definitely not the the best browser out there and most people probably do use it because it is the default. On Windows, Safari is still a good browser (better then IE), but it doesn't have the advantage of as tight an integration with Windows as it does OSX.
I like IE's integration the way I like Safari's integration on Mac OS X. The major downfall for IE is browser engine but Google has resolved that with Google Frame.
PS: If you are using a web browser on battery power the default browsers are beat for getting the most time out of your notebook. On Windows, Safari was found to be considerably worse in this area than any of the other 3rd-party browsers.
Facts are facts. And mark my words, the Mac will be a viable platform by mid-century. Those are the facts. Read them and weep.
How is it not viable currently? I know you're only trolling, but I'd be interested in your answer all the same.
The Dell is around $1200 or less.
Who cares? It doesn't run OS X. No OS X, no sale.
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
Perhaps you should do some research after getting your myopia resolved. You've completely missed the point.
I dont believe this for a second. I can't believe how naive people are if they believe all these surveys. The internet must have 100's of survey results everyday. Show me how you got these numbers, how big was your pool, did the same address use both Sarfari and Chome? Show me the proof.
Why don't you click on the links in the story that take you to the data?
Chrome is infinitely faster than IE and Firefox on the Windows platform. I am curious to see how it performs on a Mac, and how it compares to Safari. From what I've seen of the screenshots though, it seems Google missed the boat on a more Mac-like integration.
Really?
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=AdBlock
The so-called ad blockers for Chrome are misnomers as they don't block ads at all but just hide them after the ad has been downloaded. Chrome does not have a content policy API like Firefox which allows to filter requests before they are actually executed. The real Adblock Plus therefore saves HTTP requests, DNS resolving and unmarshaling and decoding of data. Plus, badly written sites will block the engine from loading the rest of the page when waiting for a slow ad server to respond. *No* optimization to JavaScript or other parts of the engine can make up for the time lost waiting for some ad/tracking servers to respond.
Plus, ABP has filter subscriptions with a much more in-depth syntax (type specification, exceptions, whitelists, etc.).