You'd really do yourself a great favour by reading more than half a sentance at a time, and reading the additional posts to which I refer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did!
Jesus!! I'm not trying to disagree with you here.
I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!
I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Adobe AppleScript has historically been very weak. The only application to support it in a major way has been Acrobat - but this has been diluted in the current version in favour of JavaScript.
Illustrator's AppleScript support was achieved by buying a plug-in from a third-party developer.
PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.
Adobe uses it's own buit-in font management and rendering engine (CoolType)
Adobe joined with Microsoft to develop the OpenType specification rather than use Apple's GX/AAT technology.
It's applications can use its own colour management solutions.
Can you tell me where Adobe is favouring Apple's tech over it's own cross-platform solutions?
PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.
Clive: ?That's what I wrote, didn't I?
Put it in context.?
Me: The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps ?does little for Apple?s Pro sales?. I guess I don?t see citing Apple?s statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase ?as much as forecasted? appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.
Originally posted by fishdoc:
Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession
Clive: ?I think you're being pedantic. ?
Me: Another point we can agree on.
Clive ?I'm writing my opinions, and at the same time pointing to other evidence that I think supports those opinions.
On the other hand you seem to be saying that I should accept Apple's PR on the basis of now further evidence at all??
Me: I say that Apple is in a far better position than you to assess how their sales are going, and you have offered no substantive evidence to the contrary (e.g., your argument about offering OS 9 machines is thin, as I pointed out). Again, you are one person with anecdotal evidence of how X is being adopted (in the UK, I presume?). One person?s experience is likely to be quite biased relative to the general population, as evidenced by the professionals here who have seen
Clive: ?It's in Apple insterests to overstate the uptake of X. It's not in my interests either way - I don't care.?
Me: all well and good, but having objective anecdotal experience doesn?t make it any less anecdotal.
<strong>PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's actually much better in v7, and I don't think there is a single element in InDesign that you can't reach through AppleScript.
I happen to know people on Adobe's AppleScript team, and they are certainly not trying to make bad implementations.
I originally promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread due to the specious logic and horrific grammar of the original post, but geek.com has <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html"; target="_blank">linked</a> to a new IBM page that features, among other things, a side by side photo of the 970 and Power 4.
Production is again confirmed for 2nd half 2003. This chip will NOT be at MWSF.
The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps ?does little for Apple?s Pro sales?. I guess I don?t see citing Apple?s statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase ?as much as forecasted? appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X. Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.
So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?
Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?
When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.
I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.
However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.
On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.
But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?
We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.
I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.
Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.
For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.
The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.
Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.
Clive: No, actually two. You're basing your argument on one unverifiable, unofficial statement by an unknown person who claims to represent Apple.
Me: well, there we have it then - we can accept the word of Apple about how many people are using X, or we can believe Clive's personal experience (and arguments using facts that don't support them).
I guess it is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the best source of info.
Clive: I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X.
Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.
Me: Yeah, I think I am through here as well after this, as we seem to not be able to convince each other of the folly of the other?s logic. For example ? I don?t think that the things you cite above mean that PS and Xpress are ?the most important applications in Apple?s universe?. In my mind, that is the problem in your posts ? you state facts, but they don?t necessarily support the arguments you try to make.
Clive: So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?
Me: Yes, it does. You have to examine WHY Apple refers to those two (given that is true, which actually I am not confident it is). PS DOES get a lot of play at expos, but that could also be because for a long time it was an app that Apple could actually compete with Pcs in, as far as speed. And it IS also used lots by a big segment of Apple Pro users. But how many Pro users use PS, and how many use Office?
Clive: Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?
Me: All this demonstrates is that a substantial portion of Pro users are not using X?..that in no way conflicts with Apple?s own statement (remember? They said 20% were not ? 20% is, by anyone?s estimation, a big number).
Clive: When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.
Me: I missed where you demonstrated that PS was the ?benchmark for the adoption of X?. You said that they cite it often as an example of the ability of users to go to X (without support, I might add, but let?s assume that is true), but I am not certain that means the same as being the benchmark (in fact, I am certain that is NOT necessarily the same).
Clive: I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.
However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.
On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.
But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?
Me: True. Now, how does that prove anything? If Apple thought that PS 7 would increase sales, and it did not, (as much as forecast), how does that speak to the issue of X adoption? It only reflects the purchase (or lack) of new machines.
Clive: We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.
Me: I am not sure what you are suggesting ? Apple should wait until next year to tell you what academic customers are currently buying?
Clive: I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.
Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.
For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.
Me: Or, for example, when they claimed in a press release that X% of their iMac purchasers were switchers?oh wait, they didn?t cite methodology there either. In fact, I would argue that very few press releases say ANYTHING about methodology.
Clive: The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.
Me: None of this is ?evidence?, this is your conjecture.
Clive: Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
Me: That is the problem ? one cannot make specious claims and then say ?well, you have to prove me wrong?.
I will reiterate my last post ? we have Clive, who is one person with his knowledge about OS X adoption (in the UK?I am not certain how much of Apple?s business is based there, but clearly some folks in Denmark disagree), and we have Apple?s statement (as well as our own anecdotal info). Does that ?prove? Apple is correct? No, but barring any real evidence, I would argue that Apple?s estimate is the best info we have.
Since we are getting nowhere here, feel free to email ([email protected]) if you feel compelled to continue.
<strong>Another point makes it even clearer, Apple has been busy rebuilding its base and find new ways to increase market share. Their digital hub, coupled with IPOD, Firewire and now even iSync, Iphoto and iCal , all designed to tap into both everyday business and entertaining needs. With Apple, new software strategy and their new vision to capitalize into newer industry such as Hollywood (Final Cut Pro) and consumer video revolution (iMovie). They really need to stay ahead of time. And as you see, Apple retail store and overall sales outperform the PC market. However, their massive effort still only capitalizes 5% market share. Market share should be at least 10% by now. Doesn't that give you a signal, that something else is missing. There are two main reasons why PC users will not switch to Macs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
There are no indications that Apple is trying to increase market share. Increased market share does not guarantee profitability. Market share in itself presents ups and downs within a business strategy, and I'm not convinced Apple's game plan at this point is to increase market share.
As far as there being "two" main reasons that PC users buy Macintosh, there is, actually only ONE reason, which I may reveal later but is beyond the scope of this post. You may want to search for the topic "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" under any number of fora to see the multitude of answers being given.
Please keep in mind that Apple is a "public" company. Meaning that they have to watch what they say. Apple is NOT going to come out and say that slow Power Mac sales are because the processors are slow, they are way behind as far as memory and MB archtitecture are concerened and are a bit pricey especially when an ad agency who is running Dual 533's see's no reason to jump to Dual 867's. What they DO say is that people are "waiting for Photoshop to come to X..." "waiting for Quark to come to X..." that is marketing and publcitiy. They have to say SOMETHING...so that is what they say. Apple is run by some brilliant people...very brilliant and educated people. Do not think for a minute they are sitting around thinking that no one is buying Power Macs because Quark or Photoshop for X was/isn't out. They are completely aware of why no one is buying them and they for the most part are stuck because of Mot.
Also notice that the Power Mac has not made an appearance at a Macworld in a long while. That's because even with AltiVec current P4's are soundly kicking it's ass and you know Jobs loves the bake off. Do not expect any mention of a Power Mac at a Macworld until the 970 comes out. They probably will continue with the web upgrades.
I would bet that the G5 or whatever it ends up being called (the 970) will be an Apple special event,like the iBook, Xserve and iPod were.
Comments
<strong>
Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd really do yourself a great favour by reading more than half a sentance at a time, and reading the additional posts to which I refer.
<strong>
The slow uptake of X blamed on Quark is a myth - if you believe it then that's your problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying anything about blaming Quark for the slow uptake of Mac OS X!!
Actually I'm not seeing a slow uptake of Mac OS X.
<strong>
You'd really do yourself a great favour by reading more than half a sentance at a time, and reading the additional posts to which I refer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did!
Jesus!! I'm not trying to disagree with you here.
I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!
<strong> PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I wrote, didn't I?
Put it in context.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession
I think you're being pedantic. I'm writing my opinions, and at the same time pointing to other evidence that I think supports those opinions.
On the other hand you seem to be saying that I should accept Apple's PR on the basis of now further evidence at all?
It's in Apple insterests to overstate the uptake of X. It's not in my interests either way - I don't care.
<strong>That's what I wrote, didn't I?
Put it in context.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's was his point: The fact that Photoshop for Mac OS X didn't make people buy as many new Macs as expected made you write:
"that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption"
You're generalizing.
<strong>
I did!
Jesus!! I'm not trying to disagree with you here.
I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Adobe AppleScript has historically been very weak. The only application to support it in a major way has been Acrobat - but this has been diluted in the current version in favour of JavaScript.
Illustrator's AppleScript support was achieved by buying a plug-in from a third-party developer.
PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.
Adobe uses it's own buit-in font management and rendering engine (CoolType)
Adobe joined with Microsoft to develop the OpenType specification rather than use Apple's GX/AAT technology.
It's applications can use its own colour management solutions.
Can you tell me where Adobe is favouring Apple's tech over it's own cross-platform solutions?
<strong>You're generalizing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm citing the evidence!
Am I generalising any moreso than Apple's self-interested, unaccountable PR blather!?
If you want to believe that statement - then do so. I don't because there's nothing whatsoever to back it up.
PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.
Clive: ?That's what I wrote, didn't I?
Put it in context.?
Me: The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps ?does little for Apple?s Pro sales?. I guess I don?t see citing Apple?s statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase ?as much as forecasted? appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.
Originally posted by fishdoc:
Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession
Clive: ?I think you're being pedantic. ?
Me: Another point we can agree on.
Clive ?I'm writing my opinions, and at the same time pointing to other evidence that I think supports those opinions.
On the other hand you seem to be saying that I should accept Apple's PR on the basis of now further evidence at all??
Me: I say that Apple is in a far better position than you to assess how their sales are going, and you have offered no substantive evidence to the contrary (e.g., your argument about offering OS 9 machines is thin, as I pointed out). Again, you are one person with anecdotal evidence of how X is being adopted (in the UK, I presume?). One person?s experience is likely to be quite biased relative to the general population, as evidenced by the professionals here who have seen
Clive: ?It's in Apple insterests to overstate the uptake of X. It's not in my interests either way - I don't care.?
Me: all well and good, but having objective anecdotal experience doesn?t make it any less anecdotal.
All the best,
Fish
<strong>PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's actually much better in v7, and I don't think there is a single element in InDesign that you can't reach through AppleScript.
I happen to know people on Adobe's AppleScript team, and they are certainly not trying to make bad implementations.
<strong>
I'm citing the evidence!</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.
Production is again confirmed for 2nd half 2003. This chip will NOT be at MWSF.
<strong>Originally posted by fishdoc:
The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps ?does little for Apple?s Pro sales?. I guess I don?t see citing Apple?s statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase ?as much as forecasted? appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X. Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.
So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?
Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?
When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.
I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.
However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.
On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.
But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?
We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.
I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.
Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.
For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.
The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.
Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
<strong>
No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, actually two. You're basing your argument on one unverifiable, unofficial statement by an unknown person who claims to represent Apple.
<strong>Production is again confirmed for 2nd half 2003. This chip will NOT be at MWSF.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But maybe MWSF2004. :-)
No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.
Clive: No, actually two. You're basing your argument on one unverifiable, unofficial statement by an unknown person who claims to represent Apple.
Me: well, there we have it then - we can accept the word of Apple about how many people are using X, or we can believe Clive's personal experience (and arguments using facts that don't support them).
I guess it is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the best source of info.
Fish
Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.
Me: Yeah, I think I am through here as well after this, as we seem to not be able to convince each other of the folly of the other?s logic. For example ? I don?t think that the things you cite above mean that PS and Xpress are ?the most important applications in Apple?s universe?. In my mind, that is the problem in your posts ? you state facts, but they don?t necessarily support the arguments you try to make.
Clive: So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?
Me: Yes, it does. You have to examine WHY Apple refers to those two (given that is true, which actually I am not confident it is). PS DOES get a lot of play at expos, but that could also be because for a long time it was an app that Apple could actually compete with Pcs in, as far as speed. And it IS also used lots by a big segment of Apple Pro users. But how many Pro users use PS, and how many use Office?
Clive: Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?
Me: All this demonstrates is that a substantial portion of Pro users are not using X?..that in no way conflicts with Apple?s own statement (remember? They said 20% were not ? 20% is, by anyone?s estimation, a big number).
Clive: When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.
Me: I missed where you demonstrated that PS was the ?benchmark for the adoption of X?. You said that they cite it often as an example of the ability of users to go to X (without support, I might add, but let?s assume that is true), but I am not certain that means the same as being the benchmark (in fact, I am certain that is NOT necessarily the same).
Clive: I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.
However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.
On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.
But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?
Me: True. Now, how does that prove anything? If Apple thought that PS 7 would increase sales, and it did not, (as much as forecast), how does that speak to the issue of X adoption? It only reflects the purchase (or lack) of new machines.
Clive: We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.
Me: I am not sure what you are suggesting ? Apple should wait until next year to tell you what academic customers are currently buying?
Clive: I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.
Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.
For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.
Me: Or, for example, when they claimed in a press release that X% of their iMac purchasers were switchers?oh wait, they didn?t cite methodology there either. In fact, I would argue that very few press releases say ANYTHING about methodology.
Clive: The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.
Me: None of this is ?evidence?, this is your conjecture.
Clive: Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
Me: That is the problem ? one cannot make specious claims and then say ?well, you have to prove me wrong?.
I will reiterate my last post ? we have Clive, who is one person with his knowledge about OS X adoption (in the UK?I am not certain how much of Apple?s business is based there, but clearly some folks in Denmark disagree), and we have Apple?s statement (as well as our own anecdotal info). Does that ?prove? Apple is correct? No, but barring any real evidence, I would argue that Apple?s estimate is the best info we have.
Since we are getting nowhere here, feel free to email ([email protected]) if you feel compelled to continue.
Fish
<strong>Another point makes it even clearer, Apple has been busy rebuilding its base and find new ways to increase market share. Their digital hub, coupled with IPOD, Firewire and now even iSync, Iphoto and iCal , all designed to tap into both everyday business and entertaining needs. With Apple, new software strategy and their new vision to capitalize into newer industry such as Hollywood (Final Cut Pro) and consumer video revolution (iMovie). They really need to stay ahead of time. And as you see, Apple retail store and overall sales outperform the PC market. However, their massive effort still only capitalizes 5% market share. Market share should be at least 10% by now. Doesn't that give you a signal, that something else is missing. There are two main reasons why PC users will not switch to Macs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
There are no indications that Apple is trying to increase market share. Increased market share does not guarantee profitability. Market share in itself presents ups and downs within a business strategy, and I'm not convinced Apple's game plan at this point is to increase market share.
As far as there being "two" main reasons that PC users buy Macintosh, there is, actually only ONE reason, which I may reveal later but is beyond the scope of this post. You may want to search for the topic "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" under any number of fora to see the multitude of answers being given.
Please keep in mind that Apple is a "public" company. Meaning that they have to watch what they say. Apple is NOT going to come out and say that slow Power Mac sales are because the processors are slow, they are way behind as far as memory and MB archtitecture are concerened and are a bit pricey especially when an ad agency who is running Dual 533's see's no reason to jump to Dual 867's. What they DO say is that people are "waiting for Photoshop to come to X..." "waiting for Quark to come to X..." that is marketing and publcitiy. They have to say SOMETHING...so that is what they say. Apple is run by some brilliant people...very brilliant and educated people. Do not think for a minute they are sitting around thinking that no one is buying Power Macs because Quark or Photoshop for X was/isn't out. They are completely aware of why no one is buying them and they for the most part are stuck because of Mot.
Also notice that the Power Mac has not made an appearance at a Macworld in a long while. That's because even with AltiVec current P4's are soundly kicking it's ass and you know Jobs loves the bake off. Do not expect any mention of a Power Mac at a Macworld until the 970 comes out. They probably will continue with the web upgrades.
I would bet that the G5 or whatever it ends up being called (the 970) will be an Apple special event,like the iBook, Xserve and iPod were.