<strong>Snoopy, are you a betting man? ?Cause if you are, I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is there any smiley available that can reflect me laughing my ass off? Let's try this one...
<-- this really doesn't convey the amount of laughter your statement generated.
Of course it is both, but which one does most to determine what the owner's experience is, especially with regard to it being proprietary in some way? What most seem to mean by proprietary is that it is owned and controlled by another individual or corporation, which goes along with the dictionary fairly well. So, is any part of the computer system owned and controlled by someone beside the individual who bought it? And if this is so, how many rights does that other owner claim, and how many rights does this leave the one who purchased the system for use? This is an issue that few in the buying public seem to think about, and it seems to be clouding some of the discussion here.
It should be obvious that it is the maker of the OS that often claims proprietary rights, which are not assigned to the actual purchaser of the computer system. I know of no such proprietary rights being claimed by the hardware vendor. (I could see where a CD burner vendor might forbid its use in burning copyrighted material, to limit their liability.) So, to the computer purchaser, it is the OS that determines how proprietary their system is, not the hardware.
Actually, the only one up against proprietary rights in hardware is the would be manufacturer. No one but Apple is permitted to build Macs for 'resale' to customers. This restriction on who can build a Mac does 'affect' customers, but only by limiting selection and price.
. . . I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end. . .
Also, another name many have forgotten to mention when speaking of Apple?s fortunes. A visionary man just much as Steve Jobs is. And he hates Micro$oft just as much as Steve Jobs does. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possible? Yes. Likely? No, but I would never bet against it. What would it take? It helps if PowerMacs and Xserves with the IBM 970 processors are shipping at the beginning of a quarter with low sales, so fewer Windows PCs are sold. Next, IBM and Apple would need to be geared up for high volume production to meet such a demand. The cost of the 970 would have to be low enough, and Apple would need to keep the price of these Macs down, to stimulate even more demand. The question then is how much pent up demand is there for this kind of high performance Mac from current Mac users, and how many more orders can Apple generate? Ahead of the shipping date, Apple would likely need to demonstrate these Macs to customers with large order potential. If you are correct about a $699 consumer tower, that would help too. So while I can't hope for your predictions, I would be very happy if you really are on target.
Regarding the other person you mention, I cannot guess who could be instrumental in a big market share move by Apple, unless it is someone at IBM, and the two have a bigger agreement than we know about. The leaders of Sun, Oracle and AOL don't seem to fit, though they do dislike MS.
Comments
<strong>Snoopy, are you a betting man? ?Cause if you are, I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is there any smiley available that can reflect me laughing my ass off? Let's try this one...
Okay, sorry, it's l8.
Wait...
hold on...
...
...
okay, okay, seriously...
...
Oh man. Too funny.
Of course it is both, but which one does most to determine what the owner's experience is, especially with regard to it being proprietary in some way? What most seem to mean by proprietary is that it is owned and controlled by another individual or corporation, which goes along with the dictionary fairly well. So, is any part of the computer system owned and controlled by someone beside the individual who bought it? And if this is so, how many rights does that other owner claim, and how many rights does this leave the one who purchased the system for use? This is an issue that few in the buying public seem to think about, and it seems to be clouding some of the discussion here.
It should be obvious that it is the maker of the OS that often claims proprietary rights, which are not assigned to the actual purchaser of the computer system. I know of no such proprietary rights being claimed by the hardware vendor. (I could see where a CD burner vendor might forbid its use in burning copyrighted material, to limit their liability.) So, to the computer purchaser, it is the OS that determines how proprietary their system is, not the hardware.
Actually, the only one up against proprietary rights in hardware is the would be manufacturer. No one but Apple is permitted to build Macs for 'resale' to customers. This restriction on who can build a Mac does 'affect' customers, but only by limiting selection and price.
<strong>
Oh man. Too funny.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Same to you.
PS.
I don't do stand up. So we'll have to wait til year's end to find out who's to have the last laugh.
Yes.
<strong>
. . . I wouldn?t be surprised if 2003 will be a very good year for you (and I) indeed. Expect Apple market share to be around 15% and stock price at $80/share at the year?s end. . .
Also, another name many have forgotten to mention when speaking of Apple?s fortunes. A visionary man just much as Steve Jobs is. And he hates Micro$oft just as much as Steve Jobs does. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possible? Yes. Likely? No, but I would never bet against it. What would it take? It helps if PowerMacs and Xserves with the IBM 970 processors are shipping at the beginning of a quarter with low sales, so fewer Windows PCs are sold. Next, IBM and Apple would need to be geared up for high volume production to meet such a demand. The cost of the 970 would have to be low enough, and Apple would need to keep the price of these Macs down, to stimulate even more demand. The question then is how much pent up demand is there for this kind of high performance Mac from current Mac users, and how many more orders can Apple generate? Ahead of the shipping date, Apple would likely need to demonstrate these Macs to customers with large order potential. If you are correct about a $699 consumer tower, that would help too. So while I can't hope for your predictions, I would be very happy if you really are on target.
Regarding the other person you mention, I cannot guess who could be instrumental in a big market share move by Apple, unless it is someone at IBM, and the two have a bigger agreement than we know about. The leaders of Sun, Oracle and AOL don't seem to fit, though they do dislike MS.