Macs have issues FAR less frequently than PCs do (for the layman). It's not an Apple to Apple comparison. And Macs do have warranty coverage. PCs commonly have issues, like malware, that warranties don't cover. Someone has to pay for that.
PCs have warranties.
I haven't had a single malware issue, I don't know anyone that has. I recommend people install two simple pieces of free piece software on Windows (Google Chrome, and MS Security Essentials), and if they use some simple common sense then you won't get malware either. Also, if you have data issues on a Mac, the warranty doesn't cover that at all either, ie if you don't know what to do, you have to pay someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Not to mention you've totally ignored the AV software point.
What AV software point? Install some free software and there is no AV issue at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Yes, you can get free AV software for the PC. But does the layman know that, and can they install, configure it, and keep it up to date themselves? The fact is that the majority of the non-geeks pay for whatever anti-virus program comes pre-installed.
Let's see, you download MS security essentials, you install it, job done. It is a simple task, not difficult, no need to pay someone
I haven't had a single malware issue, I don't know anyone that has. I recommend people install two simple pieces of free piece software on Windows (Google Chrome, and MS Security Essentials), and if they use some simple common sense then you won't get malware either. Also, if you have data issues on a Mac, the warranty doesn't cover that at all either, ie if you don't know what to do, you have to pay someone.
What AV software point? Install some free software and there is no AV issue at all.
Let's see, you download MS security essentials, you install it, job done. It is a simple task, not difficult, no need to pay someone
Yes, and all the grandmothers and housewives and technophobes can do all that. That's my point. YOU can do all that. I can do all that. But the average user can NOT. And the rich user just doesn't want to futz with it. So those are the people who should get a Mac.
Now I COULD do all that stuff myself and use a PC. But I like not having to worry about AV updates. I'm annoyed enough with Avast! on my wife's laptop (and after using my MacBook Pro, she's ready to switch). And I find the Windows UI unbelievably unintuitive.
But we're talking about TCO (in a mobile phone thread). TCO should consider the user. For you, TCO of a PC can be as little as for a Mac. For my Mom, without me there to help her, it cannot.
Yes, and all the grandmothers and housewives and technophobes can do all that. That's my point. YOU can do all that. I can do all that. But the average user can NOT. And the rich user just doesn't want to futz with it. So those are the people who should get a Mac.
You may wish to re-read what you wrote, and try saying it again, you just said that everyone can do it fine, but the average user can't, that doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Now I COULD do all that stuff myself and use a PC. But I like not having to worry about AV updates. I'm annoyed enough with Avast! on my wife's laptop (and after using my MacBook Pro, she's ready to switch). And I find the Windows UI unbelievably unintuitive.
Then don't use Avast!, there are better options available, especially MS Security Essentials, it runs fine and you don't have to worry about it once it is installed, after installing it on my PC a year ago, I haven't touched it since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
But we're talking about TCO (in a mobile phone thread). TCO should consider the user. For you, TCO of a PC can be as little as for a Mac. For my Mom, without me there to help her, it cannot.
I didn't start the conversion regarding this topic, I was just replying to, what I considered, errors stated by the person who did.
I know for a fact, the questions I get asked regarding Windows, I would get asked regarding a Mac as well, and I know for a fact that too many people are put off by the price of a Mac, regardless of any TCO, real, or imaginary, that large difference in purchase price is a deal breaker for too many people.
i should modify my main point, to make more clear:
the main difference is in the profit margin where the apple iphone beats all the competition. thus, it is possible that the total unit sales of apple may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers combined. however, the profit margin difference of the iphone will still provite a net profit (net income) that still eclipse or may not be much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers.
What you raised is sometimes referred to by those who do not like Apple as "Apple tax".
I had a detailed response to your question, based from personal experience but it got so long. To summarize, if other Mac users were like myself, many decided to use Mac and other Apple products -- in spite of the higher cost -- for a numbers of reasons:
Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours. They provided support, even if it was third party accessories caused the problems. Usually, it was a third accesory that caused the problem. Now, when I am close to an Apple Store, I just visit the store to ask support questions. The staff were always very helpful. In fact, even if it is a third party accessory or sometimes not even directly related to Apple products, the Apple Store staff would try their best to help. The Apple Store also allow you to try their products before you buy.
One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
Other resources and services: Apart from the many offerings of the Apple Store (if you are near one), how many companies offer resources and services, like the Apple Apps, iTunes, iBooks, Mobile Me, etc.? The tens of thousands of free Apps, eBooks, not provided by other manufacturers may have intangible values that exceed the cost of the Apple product.
The Apple Ecosystem: A number of developers and quite a number of individuals are not too enthusiastic with the vertically integrated ecosystem that supports Apple products. To many of the average, non-techie Apple consumers find this "walled garden" of the Apple ecosystem to be a welcome feature
.
In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Exosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
CGC
All understood. You pay X, you get Y, and you consider it a good value. I cannot argue with that.
But consider that even with the value provided, Apple nevertheless charges more than if they had margins in line with the rest of the industry. This is good for Apple. It is bad for consumers.
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers.
Look again.
Most of the non-E/N series Symbian phones are variants of the 5800. The 5800 has a 3.2" touchscreen. Check out Canalys's touchscreen figures or the latest Nokia financials if you don't believe me.
In fact, it's the E-series phones that generally have the smallest screens.
I agree that the term Smartphone should either be abandoned or fragmented into Premium Smartphones, and wannabe Premium Smartphones. The classification between the two can be OS based. Anything running on Palm's new OS, Apple, Droid or BB is premium and everything else is wannabe premium.
As to profit margin I would say that high Apple profits are bad for casual purchasers of Apple products. If I am an iPod owner I don't get a great deal extra out of Apple's extra profits and I have paid more than I might otherwise have for the same experience.
But it is different for Apple fans. One reason I purchase Apple products is because they make better profits than others. I know that my investment in using Apple to organise my personal life will pay off over time: Apple will continue to invest at a greater rate than other companies and my overall Apple experience will get deeper and richer.
This applies in other areas as well. I buy my clothes from two companies that have not changed their service delivery model for decades. I don't want them to change it, but know that in order that they can justify not changing their model to there shareholders they need to make higher profits from my suit than other companies. Their higher profits ensure that I get what I want from them.
Blackberry is still the preferred smartphone for the enterprise. Usability aside, BBs still rule this market because of the enterprise software ecosystem, including custom apps, and the superior encryption features.
Usability doesn't count for much, because the people who buy corporate smartphones (CFOs and purchasing managers) are different from the people who use them (employees). As long as BB meets the feature list requirements for keeping corporate data secure and implementing communications features and custom apps (written mostly in Java), it doesn't matter if the GUI sucks.
My company sure won't switch anytime soon. iPhoneOS 4 is a step in the right direction, but I don't see how it offers superior value to the CFO with the laundry list of corporate features.
A large part of their profit margin being higher than others is not because it's excessive, as other companies charge about the same (if not more) for a similarly categorized item, but because they choose not to compete in the areas with little to no profit margin.
As a consumer, I focus more on the "value" I get when I purchase a product, as I tried to expound in my other post here. As a long time user of Apple products and other computers (mostly from work and other public places, e.g., libraries, businesses, etc.) I prefer to use Apple products, not solely based on the initial price cost but also the other services and amenities that I derive as part of the "Apple ecosystem".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
My sentiments exactly. You and "solipsism" clarified the issues raised further in your responses to "jfanning", "WilliamG", and others, so I shall leave the discussion at that.
My prior response relevant to this is based from personal experience working with different types of computers, over several decades. It is, as you stated, a perspective of a layperson and also based on my observations of others who have almost zero tech background in the same work settings where Wintel computers prevail.
There are far far greater costs, apart from the evident costs of salaries of secretaries, other staff and IT personnel to cope with malfunctioning computers, especially those that are infected with viruses and all sorts of malwares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
All understood. You pay X, you get Y, and you consider it a good value. I cannot argue with that.
But consider that even with the value provided, Apple nevertheless charges more than if they had margins in line with the rest of the industry. This is good for Apple. It is bad for consumers.
Beyond that, it doesn't matter.
As a consumer, my purchases are not in any way affected by how much profit margin the company makes, which I cannot control. Please read my response to "solipsism" and "tonton" for further clarification. In this sense, as a consumer of Apple products, I don't have any second thoughts buying what are considered by others as "high-priced" Apple products.
What I can control as a consumer is to choose the companies I patronize with respect to my purchases. Others should adopt a similar policy.
Let us not forget that there are many alternative choices to existing Apple products. With respect to mobile phones, I have read many bloggers, techs, journalists, and posters who have been very passionate about their desire or experience to own or buy -- Palm phones, the various iterations of the Android phones, the RIMM phones, the "coming" Windows Mobile 7 phones, the Nokia phones, etc.
There is no error whatever choice we make provided we took the time to understand why we chose one over the other. And live we the consequences of our choice.
As a matter of policy, I do not "invade" internet sites to demonize/disparage the products espoused by or insult/ridicule the patrons of focused sites. I consider it in "bad form" and a great waste of time. Similarly, in real life, unless my opinion is requested, I do not go around persuading friends and associates to use Apple products.
Please help a dummy here. Many thanks for posting the data (raw data). However, from the same data I can see, the conclusion would be the consolidation of market share to the "name brand" occur in the industry at the expense of the "non name brands = others". Look like the 20% to 16% drop accounts to the market share rebalance captured by the name brand as consolidation. Just like all the PC clones in the early days consolidated to fewer players in the field. Rather than expense of any big players. To draw that conclusion at the expense of BB, what else is the evidence? (I can easily see the Sanzai ji being displaced by the name brand, due to either price downward pressure of the handsets - Nokia"s story, or the availability of i-phone in Asia as status symbol). Am I missing something?
By the way, that growth number analysis was a complete donkey --- It really blow me away... Too silly to understand that. If I sold one phone at Dec. 31, and sold additional 10 in Jan. 1, I would be an overnight eBay guru according to the growth %. How could I missed that....My head hurt... better stop thinking.
Please help a dummy here. Many thanks for posting the data (raw data). However, from the same data I can see, the conclusion would be the consolidation of market share to the "name brand" occur in the industry at the expense of the "non name brands = others".
Precisely correct. Many other sites have reported it as such.
Everyone I knew with a BB has switched to an iPhone and many who were very vocal in support of their BBs now say the 'love their iPhone and would never go back'. A familiar phrase from PC switchers.
That's weird, everyone I know with a Blackberry still has it and is waiting for their IT departments to accept iPhones. I guess I'd have to say RIM has a lot more downside coming.
I guess it makes for a nice headline to paint BlackBerry as the sole loser, with Apple's growth coming at their expense. But I fear that AppleInsider's editors can't read charts?
BlackBerry's market share went down 1.5%, it's true, but "Others" lost 4.6%. Therefore, if you're going to draw conclusions based on this market data (which is probably pretty silly to do in the first place), I'd say more of Apple's market share growth came at the expense of "Others", not BlackBerry.
But, you know, that's just math, and stuff. Don't let it get in the way of a good headline.
Complaining aside, the real growth here must be coming at the expense of so-called "feature phones", which I will call "dumb phones", for the sake of comparison.
You'll note that everyone on this list, from Nokia down to "Others" is experiencing gains in sales.
Comments
Macs have issues FAR less frequently than PCs do (for the layman). It's not an Apple to Apple comparison. And Macs do have warranty coverage. PCs commonly have issues, like malware, that warranties don't cover. Someone has to pay for that.
PCs have warranties.
I haven't had a single malware issue, I don't know anyone that has. I recommend people install two simple pieces of free piece software on Windows (Google Chrome, and MS Security Essentials), and if they use some simple common sense then you won't get malware either. Also, if you have data issues on a Mac, the warranty doesn't cover that at all either, ie if you don't know what to do, you have to pay someone.
Not to mention you've totally ignored the AV software point.
What AV software point? Install some free software and there is no AV issue at all.
Yes, you can get free AV software for the PC. But does the layman know that, and can they install, configure it, and keep it up to date themselves? The fact is that the majority of the non-geeks pay for whatever anti-virus program comes pre-installed.
Let's see, you download MS security essentials, you install it, job done. It is a simple task, not difficult, no need to pay someone
PCs have warranties.
I haven't had a single malware issue, I don't know anyone that has. I recommend people install two simple pieces of free piece software on Windows (Google Chrome, and MS Security Essentials), and if they use some simple common sense then you won't get malware either. Also, if you have data issues on a Mac, the warranty doesn't cover that at all either, ie if you don't know what to do, you have to pay someone.
What AV software point? Install some free software and there is no AV issue at all.
Let's see, you download MS security essentials, you install it, job done. It is a simple task, not difficult, no need to pay someone
Yes, and all the grandmothers and housewives and technophobes can do all that. That's my point. YOU can do all that. I can do all that. But the average user can NOT. And the rich user just doesn't want to futz with it. So those are the people who should get a Mac.
Now I COULD do all that stuff myself and use a PC. But I like not having to worry about AV updates. I'm annoyed enough with Avast! on my wife's laptop (and after using my MacBook Pro, she's ready to switch). And I find the Windows UI unbelievably unintuitive.
But we're talking about TCO (in a mobile phone thread). TCO should consider the user. For you, TCO of a PC can be as little as for a Mac. For my Mom, without me there to help her, it cannot.
Yes, and all the grandmothers and housewives and technophobes can do all that. That's my point. YOU can do all that. I can do all that. But the average user can NOT. And the rich user just doesn't want to futz with it. So those are the people who should get a Mac.
You may wish to re-read what you wrote, and try saying it again, you just said that everyone can do it fine, but the average user can't, that doesn't make any sense.
Now I COULD do all that stuff myself and use a PC. But I like not having to worry about AV updates. I'm annoyed enough with Avast! on my wife's laptop (and after using my MacBook Pro, she's ready to switch). And I find the Windows UI unbelievably unintuitive.
Then don't use Avast!, there are better options available, especially MS Security Essentials, it runs fine and you don't have to worry about it once it is installed, after installing it on my PC a year ago, I haven't touched it since.
But we're talking about TCO (in a mobile phone thread). TCO should consider the user. For you, TCO of a PC can be as little as for a Mac. For my Mom, without me there to help her, it cannot.
I didn't start the conversion regarding this topic, I was just replying to, what I considered, errors stated by the person who did.
I know for a fact, the questions I get asked regarding Windows, I would get asked regarding a Mac as well, and I know for a fact that too many people are put off by the price of a Mac, regardless of any TCO, real, or imaginary, that large difference in purchase price is a deal breaker for too many people.
I'll take the added functionality over BB any day though.
i should modify my main point, to make more clear:
the main difference is in the profit margin where the apple iphone beats all the competition. thus, it is possible that the total unit sales of apple may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers combined. however, the profit margin difference of the iphone will still provite a net profit (net income) that still eclipse or may not be much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers.
What you raised is sometimes referred to by those who do not like Apple as "Apple tax".
I had a detailed response to your question, based from personal experience but it got so long. To summarize, if other Mac users were like myself, many decided to use Mac and other Apple products -- in spite of the higher cost -- for a numbers of reasons:
- Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
- Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
- It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
- Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours. They provided support, even if it was third party accessories caused the problems. Usually, it was a third accesory that caused the problem. Now, when I am close to an Apple Store, I just visit the store to ask support questions. The staff were always very helpful. In fact, even if it is a third party accessory or sometimes not even directly related to Apple products, the Apple Store staff would try their best to help. The Apple Store also allow you to try their products before you buy.
- One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
- Other resources and services: Apart from the many offerings of the Apple Store (if you are near one), how many companies offer resources and services, like the Apple Apps, iTunes, iBooks, Mobile Me, etc.? The tens of thousands of free Apps, eBooks, not provided by other manufacturers may have intangible values that exceed the cost of the Apple product.
- The Apple Ecosystem: A number of developers and quite a number of individuals are not too enthusiastic with the vertically integrated ecosystem that supports Apple products. To many of the average, non-techie Apple consumers find this "walled garden" of the Apple ecosystem to be a welcome feature
.In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Exosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
CGC
All understood. You pay X, you get Y, and you consider it a good value. I cannot argue with that.
But consider that even with the value provided, Apple nevertheless charges more than if they had margins in line with the rest of the industry. This is good for Apple. It is bad for consumers.
Beyond that, it doesn't matter.
I'd take this one step further.
What on Earth makes the distinction that a phone is a "Smartphone"?
Let's compare a typical "dumbphone" to a "smartphone".
A smartphone can run third-party apps.
A dumbphone can too (J2ME, Symbian, etc.)
A smartphone can browse the internet.
A dumbphone can too (Opera Mini, etc.).
A smartphone has organizer funtions.
So does a dumbphone.
Please, someone tell me, what the hell is the difference?
Isn't it time we retire the "smartphone" name and just call a phone a phone?
We can't do that, or else the iPhone market share would go to 3% or so.
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers.
Look again.
Most of the non-E/N series Symbian phones are variants of the 5800. The 5800 has a 3.2" touchscreen. Check out Canalys's touchscreen figures or the latest Nokia financials if you don't believe me.
In fact, it's the E-series phones that generally have the smallest screens.
As to profit margin I would say that high Apple profits are bad for casual purchasers of Apple products. If I am an iPod owner I don't get a great deal extra out of Apple's extra profits and I have paid more than I might otherwise have for the same experience.
But it is different for Apple fans. One reason I purchase Apple products is because they make better profits than others. I know that my investment in using Apple to organise my personal life will pay off over time: Apple will continue to invest at a greater rate than other companies and my overall Apple experience will get deeper and richer.
This applies in other areas as well. I buy my clothes from two companies that have not changed their service delivery model for decades. I don't want them to change it, but know that in order that they can justify not changing their model to there shareholders they need to make higher profits from my suit than other companies. Their higher profits ensure that I get what I want from them.
Usability doesn't count for much, because the people who buy corporate smartphones (CFOs and purchasing managers) are different from the people who use them (employees). As long as BB meets the feature list requirements for keeping corporate data secure and implementing communications features and custom apps (written mostly in Java), it doesn't matter if the GUI sucks.
My company sure won't switch anytime soon. iPhoneOS 4 is a step in the right direction, but I don't see how it offers superior value to the CFO with the laundry list of corporate features.
A large part of their profit margin being higher than others is not because it's excessive, as other companies charge about the same (if not more) for a similarly categorized item, but because they choose not to compete in the areas with little to no profit margin.
As a consumer, I focus more on the "value" I get when I purchase a product, as I tried to expound in my other post here. As a long time user of Apple products and other computers (mostly from work and other public places, e.g., libraries, businesses, etc.) I prefer to use Apple products, not solely based on the initial price cost but also the other services and amenities that I derive as part of the "Apple ecosystem".
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
My sentiments exactly. You and "solipsism" clarified the issues raised further in your responses to "jfanning", "WilliamG", and others, so I shall leave the discussion at that.
My prior response relevant to this is based from personal experience working with different types of computers, over several decades. It is, as you stated, a perspective of a layperson and also based on my observations of others who have almost zero tech background in the same work settings where Wintel computers prevail.
There are far far greater costs, apart from the evident costs of salaries of secretaries, other staff and IT personnel to cope with malfunctioning computers, especially those that are infected with viruses and all sorts of malwares.
All understood. You pay X, you get Y, and you consider it a good value. I cannot argue with that.
But consider that even with the value provided, Apple nevertheless charges more than if they had margins in line with the rest of the industry. This is good for Apple. It is bad for consumers.
Beyond that, it doesn't matter.
As a consumer, my purchases are not in any way affected by how much profit margin the company makes, which I cannot control. Please read my response to "solipsism" and "tonton" for further clarification. In this sense, as a consumer of Apple products, I don't have any second thoughts buying what are considered by others as "high-priced" Apple products.
What I can control as a consumer is to choose the companies I patronize with respect to my purchases. Others should adopt a similar policy.
Let us not forget that there are many alternative choices to existing Apple products. With respect to mobile phones, I have read many bloggers, techs, journalists, and posters who have been very passionate about their desire or experience to own or buy -- Palm phones, the various iterations of the Android phones, the RIMM phones, the "coming" Windows Mobile 7 phones, the Nokia phones, etc.
There is no error whatever choice we make provided we took the time to understand why we chose one over the other. And live we the consequences of our choice.
As a matter of policy, I do not "invade" internet sites to demonize/disparage the products espoused by or insult/ridicule the patrons of focused sites. I consider it in "bad form" and a great waste of time. Similarly, in real life, unless my opinion is requested, I do not go around persuading friends and associates to use Apple products.
CGC
By the way, that growth number analysis was a complete donkey --- It really blow me away... Too silly to understand that. If I sold one phone at Dec. 31, and sold additional 10 in Jan. 1, I would be an overnight eBay guru according to the growth %. How could I missed that....My head hurt... better stop thinking.
st
Please help a dummy here. Many thanks for posting the data (raw data). However, from the same data I can see, the conclusion would be the consolidation of market share to the "name brand" occur in the industry at the expense of the "non name brands = others".
Precisely correct. Many other sites have reported it as such.
Everyone I knew with a BB has switched to an iPhone and many who were very vocal in support of their BBs now say the 'love their iPhone and would never go back'. A familiar phrase from PC switchers.
That's weird, everyone I know with a Blackberry still has it and is waiting for their IT departments to accept iPhones. I guess I'd have to say RIM has a lot more downside coming.
BlackBerry's market share went down 1.5%, it's true, but "Others" lost 4.6%. Therefore, if you're going to draw conclusions based on this market data (which is probably pretty silly to do in the first place), I'd say more of Apple's market share growth came at the expense of "Others", not BlackBerry.
But, you know, that's just math, and stuff. Don't let it get in the way of a good headline.
Complaining aside, the real growth here must be coming at the expense of so-called "feature phones", which I will call "dumb phones", for the sake of comparison.
You'll note that everyone on this list, from Nokia down to "Others" is experiencing gains in sales.
Precisely correct. Many other sites have reported it as such.
Got any links?