They run 24/7 for about 5+ years and then certified recycled. They are completely depreciated from an accounting perspective and the company policy is that they must be destroyed. Never had one fail yet. They are mostly running LAMP configurations but I do build Windows Server boxes as well. In fact that is what I'm working on right now.
So how many have thunderbolt 2, seeing as how the discussion involves parity?
It's little things like this that makes the difference.
the reason why geeks hate Apple is really quite simple" Apple made computers easy to use. There was and still is an unwritten rule that you MUST NOT MAKE A COMPUTER DEVICE EASY TO USE. The whole MS/INTEL mindset is based on this assumption , the more complicated and buggy and useless the better- that way you can make billions of $ on upgrades/refreshes etc etc ad infinitum . Apple has bucked this trend and they are HATED for it. The tech industry MUST have all its lackies attacking Apple because their jobs depend on maintaining this lie. It will never end. The biggest lie of all is that Apple is more expensive , it isn't total cost of ownership is less for Apple products - this is the truth the tech indistry really wants to keep from us
What happens is that all of these people that spent time and money getting their MTA, MCSA, MCSE won't be as in demand, hence they have to learn how to do something else with their life instead of fixing Windows PCs. Many consulting companies that cater to small, medium and large corporations have lots of these people that they hire out to their clients with MCSEs, etc. and they won't be in demand. That's PART of the reason. Plus, if the company they work for starts buying more Macs and IDevices, then they have to go through Apple training to learn how to administrate them, which many are doing right now with the iDevices, but OS X is the next step. Then there are the programmers, they would have to learn how to write native apps for OS X, which is another skill set and learning curve. Some people get to a point where they are comfortable with what they know and do and don't want to learn anything else.
Then there is the DIY community that just wants to give ALL mfg the finger by doing it themselves, only Apple doesn't sell/support OS X for the DIY crowd. What Apple would have to do to cater to the DIYers is they would have to certify motherboards, which they would need engineers and tech support staff and they would HAVE to charge probably somewhere in the $200 to $300 yearly licensing fee to make it worth while. Red Hat Charges $300 a year for their full support version of Linux for the workstation, but they really only cater to a small group of professionals that install that OS on HP, Dell, or some high end DIY computer meant for the workstation market. But the DIY is mostly of hobbyists that are mostly playing video games and they don't have any money, so they wouldn't pay the money, they'd bitch and complain about paying anything more than $10. Companies like Ubuntu, etc. just exist, they don't really have much room for growth and they just hang around reminding everyone that they aren't going to be a mainstream enough option for the bigger picture. They just cater to the gamers, kids in school that need an OS they can hack up for project work. Linux for servers, that's a different story. That's eating Microsoft up in a lot of different markets.
It's a tough decision to not cater to certain markets, but if long term profitability is key, the only play at this time is continually do what they are doing and just add a midrange headless product for the prosumer market. I don't know if Apple will ever capture the desktop gaming market because these game developers have to natively write the game for OS X and Windows for them to be on par with each other, AND they would have to keep up to speed with GPU drivers and I don't see that happening. Apple wants to get away from desktop gaming market and get the iPad, iPhone the new gaming devices as they are getting just as powerful as a gaming console.
A good article, and it all rings true. I am a long time AAPL user because to me it represents value. I use my tech a lot, and want to to the stable, predictable, and functional. I'm forced to use a MS box at work, and there isn't a day that goes by that I don't swear at it.
I did a bit of chin pulling at the word "luxury" though. That word has some subjective quality to it. I'm typing tis on a MBA and it doesn't seem like a luxury device. It seems to me like value received. I too go through product cycles. Next replacement cycle on my iMac won't be an iMac - it will be a thunderbolt display to dock the MBA to. And then at some point in the future, the desktop will get a cycle upgrade to a mac mini. All this stuff works together, and I see the value in it.
Interestingly, AAPL is about the only brand loyalty I have.
Lol. Your posts are usually of a much higher quality than that, so I'll attribute it to your just not thinking very much before hitting 'submit.'
Btw, let me ask you: do you love posting regularly on AI only because of all the love you're feeling in return?
I was speaking in general terms. Most companies do not do what's best for its customers, but what's best for their bottom line. I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any customer loyalty, but only to companies that are just as loyal to its customers, and that is a very short list.
Thanks for the compliment. The exchanges between you and I are always entertaining and informative.
I was speaking in general terms. Most companies do not do what's best for its customers, but what's best for their bottom line. I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any customer loyalty, but only to companies that are just as loyal to its customers, and that is a very short list.
Thanks for the compliment. The exchanges between you and I are always entertaining and informative.
I am not a fan of that word it comes to a company or product. On the surface the definition doesn't sound too bad…
loyalty |?loi?lt?| noun (pl. loyalties)
the quality of being loyal to someone or something:
loyal |?loi?l| adjective
giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution:
…but the synonyms for that word paint a picture that isn't someone who is being objective or freely choosing the best option.
i think the odds are that I'll choose Apple the next time around and can give countless reasons why but I would never call myself loyal to Apple or any other company. I will purchase the products that suit my needs the best. I suppose I do like that it's an American company since I'm an American but I don't think Apple's taxes make a huge difference to the bottom of my country.
When it comes down to it all I really want is for technology to progress as fast and efficiently as possible so I can have products that enrich my life, which includes enriching everything else around me. If that's mostly by Apple's hand then great. if that's other companies then that's great, too. In the end I just want my life to be better for it.
I am not a fan of that word it comes to a company or product. On the surface the definition doesn't sound too bad…
IMO the word is too strong. It would suggest a unwavering commitment to a brand regardless of what they produce. How many BB, and Palm 'loyalists' now have a iPhone, or Android device? It's used because of the lack of a better word.
IMO the word is too strong. It would suggest a unwavering commitment to a brand regardless of what they produce. How many BB, and Palm 'loyalists' now have a iPhone, or Android device? It's used because of the lack of a better word.
Let's find a better word: How about brand likalists?
Very few brands are loyal to customers, so why should they receive loyalty in return?
How can a company be loyal to their customers?
My thoughts are if they continually make great products and services, then they get loyalty. If the company doesn't provide great products and services, then a customer may eventually leave that brand and buy another. Yeah, Apple users have to buy Apple hardware in order to use the software, but if they do their job and are loyal to customers by making better products, provide great support and fix problems quickly, then the continually get more loyalty from the customers, so how a company can be loyal is always providing continually great products, services, and fixing problems quickly.
Microsoft doesn't have a good track record for continually coming out with better products, hence why many of their major OS releases have flopped and didn't get very good adoption. As far as the PC mfg., they don't have the same level of loyalty from their customers because they don't have a good track record. Companies like IBM, Microsoft typically use FUD sales techniques with their Enterprise customers. Apple doesn't use FUD tactics, they never have. Microsoft does that ALL of the time. They took that idea from IBM. Some get loyally more by means of forceful tactics, and some are loyal out of their own free choice and that scares the pants off of companies and users of Microsoft. They are afraid of losing market share., so they'll put out FUD, and their loyal customers seem to take on the same tactics when Apple releases a new product.
Great article. Yet the stock price has been languishing in the low 500's. Why is it that Carl Icahn, Bill Miller, and many other people feel it is a "no brainer", but the stock can't move. With all the cash, they could buy themselves back in a few years, but the stock is so out of favor. Now we have to worry about earnings, and guidance for the June quarter.
Daniel, can you comment about the stock price?
They can foolishly listen to their customers instead of doing what is good for them. I mean actually doing what their customers say, not just saying that they do that; kind of like the Homer Car.
My thoughts are if they continually make great products and services, then they get loyalty.
How many companies have started out with a great product only for its quality to degrade over time? Yes companies earn their customers loyalty first, but continually offering a great product and service is IMO loyalty in return.
They can foolishly listen to their customers instead of doing what is good for them. I mean actually doing what their customers say, not just saying that they do that; kind of like the Homer Car.
Apple has to make some strides in pumping out more products and increasing their Gross Sales with the same profit margins they been experiencing. The problem Apple has had is they didn't pump out large screen iPhones sooner and ramped up production, they were late in getting the MacPro out, and they haven't released their much anticipated wearables and SmartTV.
Part of the problem is more based on getting production levels up to speed, and pumping out new products to meet the demands of other markets they haven't gone after.
Many analysts THOUGHT Apple was going to come out with their own Smart TVs, which hasn't happened. If they did and Apple saw success in that market, Apple Gross Sales, Profits and stock price would have gone through the roof. If Apple came out with a AppleTV box that allowed cable provider access and would be a viable alternative to a cable box, they would probably increase sales enough to push the stock price up.
Wall Street looks at spreadsheets and they look at the growth rate of Gross Sales and Profits and then they look at HOW they are going to increase it at the same rate as before. When a company doesn't increase Gross Sales and Profits at the same rate, then the stock price won't increase. Apple needs to go after new markets to achieve this. these are just some of the markets Apple COULD go after and some they are and will see some benefits.
1. SmartTVs. It's a tough play, but if they did it right, they could definitely get a decent part of the market that would equal increased sales and profits, but since that market is a tough business, they are afraid to enter it. People don't replace TVs every 2 to 5 years like they do with iDevices, laptops and desktops.
2. Systems in cars. They are doing that now, but we don't know what the amount of revenue/profits from that market segment, but once it gets monetized where Wall Street can add that revenue/profits to their spreadsheets, then the stock might reflect that.
3. Larger screen iPhones.
4. Wearables.
5. A more enhanced AppleTV box that might allow things like recording shows like Tivo, playing high quality games, more channels, faster access to more content, etc.
6. 24 bit tunes on iTunes as well as adding 24 Bit DACs to their entire product line. It's a growing market, believe it or not, and if done properly, Apple could kick start some more life into increased sales of iPods, iTunes content, etc.
7. Obviously refreshing aging products. The MacMini needs to get refreshed (even though it's a small portion of revenue/profits), maybe a new beardless midrange computer that lies in between the MacMini and the MacPro. I think there is untapped revenue as the iMac is the only thing they offer and I think they need to have a headless unit that might increase desktop sales.
8. Does Apple need a larger iPad? I'm sure there is a market for that.
9. I think Wall Street is waiting for that next iPod, iPhone, IPad device category that will jump start another new revenue stream. What that is, if it even exists remains to be seen. Wearables is an interesting category, but it remains to be seen how much that category will actually bring in.
10. It's too bad Apple wasn't successful in the server market. I think Apple is going to have to buy into that market if and when they want that business. Unforauntley, it would take a LOT of money, they would have to buy the right company and that takes an obscene amount of money to make a dent and Cook doesn't have the experience to do that. I think Apple stock price would benefit greatly if they were able to go after the server market in a serious way where they could garner a solid 10 to 25% of that market in hardware, but it's a crowded space right now. They would have to merge with Oracle would be probably the best play, but I don't know if the SEC will allow that or if they could even figure out how to do it since Apple doesn't have $200 Billion in cash to blow on buying Oracle. It would have to be a mutual merger and they would have to get REAL creative to pull that one off.
Great article. Yet the stock price has been languishing in the low 500's. Why is it that Carl Icahn, Bill Miller, and many other people feel it is a "no brainer", but the stock can't move. With all the cash, they could buy themselves back in a few years, but the stock is so out of favor. Now we have to worry about earnings, and guidance for the June quarter.
Daniel, can you comment about the stock price?
The mark of a good writer is to never stray outside his/her sphere of competence.
I hope DED will stay far away from stock price prognostications.
How many companies have started out with a great product only for its quality to degrade over time? Yes companies earn their customers loyalty first, but continually offering a great product and service is IMO loyalty in return.
What's another form of loyalty are the people that buy Ferrai clothing and anything wth a Ferrari logo, but they have never owned one, or most likely never will, but they buy the clothing and promote Ferrari whenever they get into a discussion on sports cars, of the people that collect Coca Cola memorabilia, they'll pay large sums of money for an old sign, empty bottles, etc. etc. and even decorate rooms in their house with Coca Cola items. It to MOST people is just another soft drink! But to some loyal customers, it's an institution. Same goes with other companies. Some just get that loyalty and keep it by continuing their quality of products/services that people always need.
i think the odds are that I'll choose Apple the next time around and can give countless reasons why but I would never call myself loyal to Apple or any other company. I will purchase the products that suit my needs the best. I suppose I do like that it's an American company since I'm an American but I don't think Apple's taxes make a huge difference to the bottom of my country.
When it comes down to it all I really want is for technology to progress as fast and efficiently as possible so I can have products that enrich my life, which includes enriching everything else around me. If that's mostly by Apple's hand then great. if that's other companies then that's great, too. In the end I just want my life to be better for it.
Having been involved with the personal computer industry as long as I have, I see a great benefit in sticking with a quality brand/platform because every company does business differently and I don't want to go through that learning curve of having to learn another platform that I already know ahead of time doesn't have the same level of customer service and tech support which we do need from time to time when it comes to technology based products. Apple's learning curve is a lot shorter and easier between the different platforms, which is why I stick with it. I just don't find myself irritated as much as I have with other platforms. That, to me, is worth the entry price and that gets my loyalty, I just wish more people would understand this concept.
What's another form of loyalty are the people that buy Ferrai clothing and anything wth a Ferrari logo, but they have never owned one, or most likely never will, but they buy the clothing and promote Ferrari whenever they get into a discussion on sports cars, of the people that collect Coca Cola memorabilia, they'll pay large sums of money for an old sign, empty bottles, etc. etc. and even decorate rooms in their house with Coca Cola items. It to MOST people is just another soft drink! But to some loyal customers, it's an institution. Same goes with other companies. Some just get that loyalty and keep it by continuing their quality of products/services that people always need.
I hadn't considered that side of it but I think that's a good analogy. Buying a band T-shirt at $30 always seemed ridiculous. They want you pay an inflated price to advertise for them but their loyal members are happy to do it because they identify with them in some way. I don't go so far as to obfuscate the Apple logo on my MBP like on a TV show but I am not going to put one of their stickers on my car.
Having been involved with the personal computer industry as long as I have, I see a great benefit in sticking with a quality brand/platform because every company does business differently and I don't want to go through that learning curve of having to learn another platform that I already know ahead of time doesn't have the same level of customer service and tech support which we do need from time to time when it comes to technology based products. Apple's learning curve is a lot shorter and easier between the different platforms, which is why I stick with it. I just don't find myself irritated as much as I have with other platforms. That, to me, is worth the entry price and that gets my loyalty, I just wish more people would understand this concept.
Is that loyalty — which I see as at least a semi-bond commitment — or simply a longterm relationship that has worked out well for both you and Apple. As previously stated, I'm likely going to buy another Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV because Apple has a history of producing the products that fit my needs, but I will jump to another company without looking back if they produce something that fits my needs better. I have zero allegiance or devotion to any company. They get their dues when I agree to purchase one of their products. That's it for me.
Comments
They run 24/7 for about 5+ years and then certified recycled. They are completely depreciated from an accounting perspective and the company policy is that they must be destroyed. Never had one fail yet. They are mostly running LAMP configurations but I do build Windows Server boxes as well. In fact that is what I'm working on right now.
So how many have thunderbolt 2, seeing as how the discussion involves parity?
It's little things like this that makes the difference.
the reason why geeks hate Apple is really quite simple" Apple made computers easy to use. There was and still is an unwritten rule that you MUST NOT MAKE A COMPUTER DEVICE EASY TO USE. The whole MS/INTEL mindset is based on this assumption , the more complicated and buggy and useless the better- that way you can make billions of $ on upgrades/refreshes etc etc ad infinitum . Apple has bucked this trend and they are HATED for it. The tech industry MUST have all its lackies attacking Apple because their jobs depend on maintaining this lie. It will never end. The biggest lie of all is that Apple is more expensive , it isn't total cost of ownership is less for Apple products - this is the truth the tech indistry really wants to keep from us
What happens is that all of these people that spent time and money getting their MTA, MCSA, MCSE won't be as in demand, hence they have to learn how to do something else with their life instead of fixing Windows PCs. Many consulting companies that cater to small, medium and large corporations have lots of these people that they hire out to their clients with MCSEs, etc. and they won't be in demand. That's PART of the reason. Plus, if the company they work for starts buying more Macs and IDevices, then they have to go through Apple training to learn how to administrate them, which many are doing right now with the iDevices, but OS X is the next step. Then there are the programmers, they would have to learn how to write native apps for OS X, which is another skill set and learning curve. Some people get to a point where they are comfortable with what they know and do and don't want to learn anything else.
Then there is the DIY community that just wants to give ALL mfg the finger by doing it themselves, only Apple doesn't sell/support OS X for the DIY crowd. What Apple would have to do to cater to the DIYers is they would have to certify motherboards, which they would need engineers and tech support staff and they would HAVE to charge probably somewhere in the $200 to $300 yearly licensing fee to make it worth while. Red Hat Charges $300 a year for their full support version of Linux for the workstation, but they really only cater to a small group of professionals that install that OS on HP, Dell, or some high end DIY computer meant for the workstation market. But the DIY is mostly of hobbyists that are mostly playing video games and they don't have any money, so they wouldn't pay the money, they'd bitch and complain about paying anything more than $10. Companies like Ubuntu, etc. just exist, they don't really have much room for growth and they just hang around reminding everyone that they aren't going to be a mainstream enough option for the bigger picture. They just cater to the gamers, kids in school that need an OS they can hack up for project work. Linux for servers, that's a different story. That's eating Microsoft up in a lot of different markets.
It's a tough decision to not cater to certain markets, but if long term profitability is key, the only play at this time is continually do what they are doing and just add a midrange headless product for the prosumer market. I don't know if Apple will ever capture the desktop gaming market because these game developers have to natively write the game for OS X and Windows for them to be on par with each other, AND they would have to keep up to speed with GPU drivers and I don't see that happening. Apple wants to get away from desktop gaming market and get the iPad, iPhone the new gaming devices as they are getting just as powerful as a gaming console.
Lol. Your posts are usually of a much higher quality than that, so I'll attribute it to your just not thinking very much before hitting 'submit.'
Btw, let me ask you: do you love posting regularly on AI only because of all the love you're feeling in return?
A good article, and it all rings true. I am a long time AAPL user because to me it represents value. I use my tech a lot, and want to to the stable, predictable, and functional. I'm forced to use a MS box at work, and there isn't a day that goes by that I don't swear at it.
I did a bit of chin pulling at the word "luxury" though. That word has some subjective quality to it. I'm typing tis on a MBA and it doesn't seem like a luxury device. It seems to me like value received. I too go through product cycles. Next replacement cycle on my iMac won't be an iMac - it will be a thunderbolt display to dock the MBA to. And then at some point in the future, the desktop will get a cycle upgrade to a mac mini. All this stuff works together, and I see the value in it.
Interestingly, AAPL is about the only brand loyalty I have.
The same number as all of Google's, Microsoft's and Apple's data center servers combined. Zero!
I was speaking in general terms. Most companies do not do what's best for its customers, but what's best for their bottom line. I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any customer loyalty, but only to companies that are just as loyal to its customers, and that is a very short list.
Thanks for the compliment. The exchanges between you and I are always entertaining and informative.
I am not a fan of that word it comes to a company or product. On the surface the definition doesn't sound too bad…
noun (pl. loyalties)
the quality of being loyal to someone or something:
loyal |?loi?l|
adjective
giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution:
…but the synonyms for that word paint a picture that isn't someone who is being objective or freely choosing the best option.
noun
allegiance, faithfulness, obedience, adherence, homage, devotion; steadfastness, staunchness, trueheartedness, dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, duty, dedication, commitment; patriotism; historical fealty.
loyal
adjective
faithful, true, devoted; constant, steadfast, staunch, dependable, reliable, trusted, trustworthy, trusty, dutiful, dedicated, unchanging, unwavering, unswerving; patriotic.
i think the odds are that I'll choose Apple the next time around and can give countless reasons why but I would never call myself loyal to Apple or any other company. I will purchase the products that suit my needs the best. I suppose I do like that it's an American company since I'm an American but I don't think Apple's taxes make a huge difference to the bottom of my country.
When it comes down to it all I really want is for technology to progress as fast and efficiently as possible so I can have products that enrich my life, which includes enriching everything else around me. If that's mostly by Apple's hand then great. if that's other companies then that's great, too. In the end I just want my life to be better for it.
IMO the word is too strong. It would suggest a unwavering commitment to a brand regardless of what they produce. How many BB, and Palm 'loyalists' now have a iPhone, or Android device? It's used because of the lack of a better word.
Let's find a better word: How about brand likalists?
Very few brands are loyal to customers, so why should they receive loyalty in return?
How can a company be loyal to their customers?
My thoughts are if they continually make great products and services, then they get loyalty. If the company doesn't provide great products and services, then a customer may eventually leave that brand and buy another. Yeah, Apple users have to buy Apple hardware in order to use the software, but if they do their job and are loyal to customers by making better products, provide great support and fix problems quickly, then the continually get more loyalty from the customers, so how a company can be loyal is always providing continually great products, services, and fixing problems quickly.
Microsoft doesn't have a good track record for continually coming out with better products, hence why many of their major OS releases have flopped and didn't get very good adoption. As far as the PC mfg., they don't have the same level of loyalty from their customers because they don't have a good track record. Companies like IBM, Microsoft typically use FUD sales techniques with their Enterprise customers. Apple doesn't use FUD tactics, they never have. Microsoft does that ALL of the time. They took that idea from IBM. Some get loyally more by means of forceful tactics, and some are loyal out of their own free choice and that scares the pants off of companies and users of Microsoft. They are afraid of losing market share., so they'll put out FUD, and their loyal customers seem to take on the same tactics when Apple releases a new product.
They can foolishly listen to their customers instead of doing what is good for them. I mean actually doing what their customers say, not just saying that they do that; kind of like the Homer Car.
How many companies have started out with a great product only for its quality to degrade over time? Yes companies earn their customers loyalty first, but continually offering a great product and service is IMO loyalty in return.
Somebody actually built one.
Wall Street isn't rational.
Apple has to make some strides in pumping out more products and increasing their Gross Sales with the same profit margins they been experiencing. The problem Apple has had is they didn't pump out large screen iPhones sooner and ramped up production, they were late in getting the MacPro out, and they haven't released their much anticipated wearables and SmartTV.
Part of the problem is more based on getting production levels up to speed, and pumping out new products to meet the demands of other markets they haven't gone after.
Many analysts THOUGHT Apple was going to come out with their own Smart TVs, which hasn't happened. If they did and Apple saw success in that market, Apple Gross Sales, Profits and stock price would have gone through the roof. If Apple came out with a AppleTV box that allowed cable provider access and would be a viable alternative to a cable box, they would probably increase sales enough to push the stock price up.
Wall Street looks at spreadsheets and they look at the growth rate of Gross Sales and Profits and then they look at HOW they are going to increase it at the same rate as before. When a company doesn't increase Gross Sales and Profits at the same rate, then the stock price won't increase. Apple needs to go after new markets to achieve this. these are just some of the markets Apple COULD go after and some they are and will see some benefits.
1. SmartTVs. It's a tough play, but if they did it right, they could definitely get a decent part of the market that would equal increased sales and profits, but since that market is a tough business, they are afraid to enter it. People don't replace TVs every 2 to 5 years like they do with iDevices, laptops and desktops.
2. Systems in cars. They are doing that now, but we don't know what the amount of revenue/profits from that market segment, but once it gets monetized where Wall Street can add that revenue/profits to their spreadsheets, then the stock might reflect that.
3. Larger screen iPhones.
4. Wearables.
5. A more enhanced AppleTV box that might allow things like recording shows like Tivo, playing high quality games, more channels, faster access to more content, etc.
6. 24 bit tunes on iTunes as well as adding 24 Bit DACs to their entire product line. It's a growing market, believe it or not, and if done properly, Apple could kick start some more life into increased sales of iPods, iTunes content, etc.
7. Obviously refreshing aging products. The MacMini needs to get refreshed (even though it's a small portion of revenue/profits), maybe a new beardless midrange computer that lies in between the MacMini and the MacPro. I think there is untapped revenue as the iMac is the only thing they offer and I think they need to have a headless unit that might increase desktop sales.
8. Does Apple need a larger iPad? I'm sure there is a market for that.
9. I think Wall Street is waiting for that next iPod, iPhone, IPad device category that will jump start another new revenue stream. What that is, if it even exists remains to be seen. Wearables is an interesting category, but it remains to be seen how much that category will actually bring in.
10. It's too bad Apple wasn't successful in the server market. I think Apple is going to have to buy into that market if and when they want that business. Unforauntley, it would take a LOT of money, they would have to buy the right company and that takes an obscene amount of money to make a dent and Cook doesn't have the experience to do that. I think Apple stock price would benefit greatly if they were able to go after the server market in a serious way where they could garner a solid 10 to 25% of that market in hardware, but it's a crowded space right now. They would have to merge with Oracle would be probably the best play, but I don't know if the SEC will allow that or if they could even figure out how to do it since Apple doesn't have $200 Billion in cash to blow on buying Oracle. It would have to be a mutual merger and they would have to get REAL creative to pull that one off.
The mark of a good writer is to never stray outside his/her sphere of competence.
I hope DED will stay far away from stock price prognostications.
Like this guy?
[VIDEO]
What's another form of loyalty are the people that buy Ferrai clothing and anything wth a Ferrari logo, but they have never owned one, or most likely never will, but they buy the clothing and promote Ferrari whenever they get into a discussion on sports cars, of the people that collect Coca Cola memorabilia, they'll pay large sums of money for an old sign, empty bottles, etc. etc. and even decorate rooms in their house with Coca Cola items. It to MOST people is just another soft drink! But to some loyal customers, it's an institution. Same goes with other companies. Some just get that loyalty and keep it by continuing their quality of products/services that people always need.
Having been involved with the personal computer industry as long as I have, I see a great benefit in sticking with a quality brand/platform because every company does business differently and I don't want to go through that learning curve of having to learn another platform that I already know ahead of time doesn't have the same level of customer service and tech support which we do need from time to time when it comes to technology based products. Apple's learning curve is a lot shorter and easier between the different platforms, which is why I stick with it. I just don't find myself irritated as much as I have with other platforms. That, to me, is worth the entry price and that gets my loyalty, I just wish more people would understand this concept.
I hadn't considered that side of it but I think that's a good analogy. Buying a band T-shirt at $30 always seemed ridiculous. They want you pay an inflated price to advertise for them but their loyal members are happy to do it because they identify with them in some way. I don't go so far as to obfuscate the Apple logo on my MBP like on a TV show but I am not going to put one of their stickers on my car.
Is that loyalty — which I see as at least a semi-bond commitment — or simply a longterm relationship that has worked out well for both you and Apple. As previously stated, I'm likely going to buy another Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV because Apple has a history of producing the products that fit my needs, but I will jump to another company without looking back if they produce something that fits my needs better. I have zero allegiance or devotion to any company. They get their dues when I agree to purchase one of their products. That's it for me.