Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good. 8)
.
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in my frame of reference. I think that he has a similar system - where 999 and 1000 are the same number, and he counts by 100s - 0, 99/100, 199/200, etc, so the first number that exists below 1000 is 899/900.
Nobody said that we had to use integers or real numbers as our main system. 8)
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in frame of reference.
Let's all count by millions then. Now there's no numbers relevant save 0. Yay!
I'm not annoyed, I just wish someone would give me some of what everyone else around here is smoking.
Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good. 8)
.
You are playing petty, silly games here. You know very well what we mean by "under $1,000".
If you don't understand that, then please leave us alone.
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in my frame of reference. I think that he has a similar system - where 999 and 1000 are the same number, and he counts by 100s - 0, 99/100, 199/200, etc, so the first number that exists below 1000 is 899/900.
Nobody said that we had to use integers or real numbers as our main system. 8)
Apple's hardware sales would also be history. Guess where they make most of their profits.
iPods, it's iPods.
If you include Macs + iPods they outgun Dell's 9.5m(ish) global figure with over 10m units & are making far more money (especially if Lenovo's $50m profit from $3.5bn revenues for, Q2 I think, are anything to go by).
IMO, this is key because I worked for Gateway in the late 90's/early 2000 and they did grow too quickly, as a result, the product fell far below quality standards and the company itself got too big and ended up having to restructure itself (ultimately costing me my job).
Sorry about the job but it's not quite the same thing.
Gateway's meteoric rise was attributed to it's capitalization on the shift in supply chain i.e. manufacturer-distributor-reatiler-consumer to manufacturer-consumer. The growth would have caught anyone by surprise, R&D & corporate structure were left well behind but the market likes steady & solid as opposed to overnight success.
Apple have been growing for a while, R&D/Innovation is well covered & their structure is mature. Manufacturing quality is their challenge.
As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.
Users have been asking for an upgradable mid range tower for years, Jobs will never allow one to go into production. Its pathetic.
No, it's the future. The 6.1% show a change in mindset which isn't the end for MS but pretty close. Consumers being empowered to make choices delivered by technicians is so last-century - people are finally realising Apple's design-driven approach is more useful & the March of the Macs is on.
(of course, I stand to eat quite a few of these words) - McD
If you were honest for a moment, you would say, "Okay, okay, yes, technically $999 IS sub-$1000, but the way I MYSELF have always used it is...".
Don't get snarly on me just because you can't come out and say it. Is it really that hard? Yeesh. \
.
That's not it though. We're not talking about first grade arithmetic here. We're talking marketing.
Of course 999 is not 1,000. That's not even worth saying.
But no one would think anything other than a $999 computer is in their mind, a $1,000 computer. They take off the dollar to try to stop you from thinking that, but it is thought nevertheless.
People will even think that a $949 computer as a $1,000 model. It's just too close.
Before people stop thinking $1,000 in their minds, it has to drop to $899. Then they think: "Oh, $900 bucks".
You are talking arithmetic, but people round up to the next highest whole number, which in the case of 999, is 1,000.
That's why it's semantics. It's also psychology. The price has to be low enough so that people can't pull it up to the next higher category.
So they will look at two different machines, one costing $949, and the other $1,000 as being the same, but not if the lower one is $899.
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Wait... you mean to say that it is not semantics to argue a single digit difference? Indeed, you are right, but the fact of the matter is that $999 vs. $1000 is not a real argument. Without a doubt, you are splitting hairs when you say that there are differences, since the differences only arise in the base-ten numeral system and because of language. That is the very definition of semantics, since the word (and George) is all that separates the two numbers. What's next, you'll be telling us that the idea of a table is more real than the table itself? For a consumer who is not wooed by the obvious marketing ploy of pricing computers at ever-so-slightly less than a big, scary number. No sensible consumer would be fooled by that, except on a subconscious level.
Again, you're absolutely correct in your logic, but you are missing the point altogether, by not "thinking different" and considering the pragmatic reality of missing one dollar. If I lose .1% ofa price it is not really a difference. However, if I get $1 off a $5 bagel with lox, that is a big difference (20%), since the scale is so much smaller. It really saves me money, whereas one dollar off a $1000 computer really achieves nothing but a name change. I might buy 200 bagels in a year, but not 200 computers.
And how dare you accuse anyone of not understanding facts, when you are so tied to the belief that a rational understanding of language is a clear view of reality. Try not to be so condescending next time and read some of William James's philosophy.
Comments
$999 < $1000, so yes, actually it is.
One can say, "What about sales tax?", but some states don't have it, and Amazon doesn't charge it. That's where I got my iBook.
In any case, its kind of a dishonest end run. When people talk about price points, they usually mean sans tax.
.
It's only sub by one dollar. That's semantics.
By sub, one means $899, $799, etc.
It's only sub by one dollar. That's semantics.
By sub, one means $899, $799, etc.
No, semantics would be saying $999 isn't really sub-$1000. Obviously, it is.
.
No, semantics would be saying $999 isn't really sub-$1000. Obviously, it is.
.
Again, you miss the point.
Again, you miss the point.
Tsk. One of us certainly is.
Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good. 8)
.
Tsk. One of us certainly is.
Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good. 8)
.
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in my frame of reference. I think that he has a similar system - where 999 and 1000 are the same number, and he counts by 100s - 0, 99/100, 199/200, etc, so the first number that exists below 1000 is 899/900.
Nobody said that we had to use integers or real numbers as our main system. 8)
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in frame of reference.
Let's all count by millions then. Now there's no numbers relevant save 0. Yay!
I'm not annoyed, I just wish someone would give me some of what everyone else around here is smoking.
Not trying to be mean, I just feel left out.
.
Tsk. One of us certainly is.
Answer me this: Is or is not 999 < 1000. I'll give you a hint: Yes, it is.
Next, look up the definition of the prefix 'sub-'. It is the following:
Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
1 : under : beneath : below
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good. 8)
.
You are playing petty, silly games here. You know very well what we mean by "under $1,000".
If you don't understand that, then please leave us alone.
This is funny. But I count by 500s, so there are only two numbers lower than 1000 (500 and 0) - 999 is not sub-1000 because it does not exist in my frame of reference. I think that he has a similar system - where 999 and 1000 are the same number, and he counts by 100s - 0, 99/100, 199/200, etc, so the first number that exists below 1000 is 899/900.
Nobody said that we had to use integers or real numbers as our main system. 8)
I'm assuming that was a joke.
Do keep up.
Apple's hardware sales would also be history. Guess where they make most of their profits.
iPods, it's iPods.
If you include Macs + iPods they outgun Dell's 9.5m(ish) global figure with over 10m units & are making far more money (especially if Lenovo's $50m profit from $3.5bn revenues for, Q2 I think, are anything to go by).
McD
You are playing petty, silly games here. You know very well what we mean by "under $1,000".
If you don't understand that, then please leave us alone.
No, I'm simply stating what the facts are.
If you were honest for a moment, you would say, "Okay, okay, yes, technically $999 IS sub-$1000, but the way I MYSELF have always used it is...".
Don't get snarly on me just because you can't come out and say it. Is it really that hard? Yeesh.
.
IMO, this is key because I worked for Gateway in the late 90's/early 2000 and they did grow too quickly, as a result, the product fell far below quality standards and the company itself got too big and ended up having to restructure itself (ultimately costing me my job).
Sorry about the job but it's not quite the same thing.
Gateway's meteoric rise was attributed to it's capitalization on the shift in supply chain i.e. manufacturer-distributor-reatiler-consumer to manufacturer-consumer. The growth would have caught anyone by surprise, R&D & corporate structure were left well behind but the market likes steady & solid as opposed to overnight success.
Apple have been growing for a while, R&D/Innovation is well covered & their structure is mature. Manufacturing quality is their challenge.
No, I'm simply stating what the facts are.
If you were honest for a moment, you would say, "Okay, okay, yes, technically $999 IS sub-$1000, but the way I MYSELF have always used it is...".
Don't get snarly on me just because you can't come out and say it. Is it really that hard? Yeesh.
.
Did you just out-Mel Mel?
Did you just out-Mel Mel?
You mean he's ALWAYS like this? Wow.
I don't know whether to hate him or give him a high-five. 8)
.
As long as Apple continues to keep their hardware intergrated along with the software they will never see real market share.
Users have been asking for an upgradable mid range tower for years, Jobs will never allow one to go into production. Its pathetic.
No, it's the future. The 6.1% show a change in mindset which isn't the end for MS but pretty close. Consumers being empowered to make choices delivered by technicians is so last-century - people are finally realising Apple's design-driven approach is more useful & the March of the Macs is on.
(of course, I stand to eat quite a few of these words) - McD
You mean he's ALWAYS like this? Wow.
I don't know whether to hate him or give him a high-five. 8)
.
Possibly both
No, I'm simply stating what the facts are.
If you were honest for a moment, you would say, "Okay, okay, yes, technically $999 IS sub-$1000, but the way I MYSELF have always used it is...".
Don't get snarly on me just because you can't come out and say it. Is it really that hard? Yeesh.
.
That's not it though. We're not talking about first grade arithmetic here. We're talking marketing.
Of course 999 is not 1,000. That's not even worth saying.
But no one would think anything other than a $999 computer is in their mind, a $1,000 computer. They take off the dollar to try to stop you from thinking that, but it is thought nevertheless.
People will even think that a $949 computer as a $1,000 model. It's just too close.
Before people stop thinking $1,000 in their minds, it has to drop to $899. Then they think: "Oh, $900 bucks".
You are talking arithmetic, but people round up to the next highest whole number, which in the case of 999, is 1,000.
That's why it's semantics. It's also psychology. The price has to be low enough so that people can't pull it up to the next higher category.
So they will look at two different machines, one costing $949, and the other $1,000 as being the same, but not if the lower one is $899.
Did you just out-Mel Mel?
Sigh!
You mean he's ALWAYS like this? Wow.
I don't know whether to hate him or give him a high-five. 8)
.
Well, I don't hate anyone here, even if they feel that way.
I just don't like getting caught up in issues that are irrelevent.
Mostly, people move to the meat, and leave the skin behind.
$999 is BELOW $1000. It is also UNDER $1000. Hence, yes, a $999 computer is SUB-$1000. It's not even arguable, its that inconvenient thing known as a fact.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Wait... you mean to say that it is not semantics to argue a single digit difference? Indeed, you are right, but the fact of the matter is that $999 vs. $1000 is not a real argument. Without a doubt, you are splitting hairs when you say that there are differences, since the differences only arise in the base-ten numeral system and because of language. That is the very definition of semantics, since the word (and George) is all that separates the two numbers. What's next, you'll be telling us that the idea of a table is more real than the table itself? For a consumer who is not wooed by the obvious marketing ploy of pricing computers at ever-so-slightly less than a big, scary number. No sensible consumer would be fooled by that, except on a subconscious level.
Again, you're absolutely correct in your logic, but you are missing the point altogether, by not "thinking different" and considering the pragmatic reality of missing one dollar. If I lose .1% ofa price it is not really a difference. However, if I get $1 off a $5 bagel with lox, that is a big difference (20%), since the scale is so much smaller. It really saves me money, whereas one dollar off a $1000 computer really achieves nothing but a name change. I might buy 200 bagels in a year, but not 200 computers.
And how dare you accuse anyone of not understanding facts, when you are so tied to the belief that a rational understanding of language is a clear view of reality. Try not to be so condescending next time and read some of William James's philosophy.
...if I get $1 off a $5 bagel with lox...
That argument is nonsense.
There is no $5 bagel, it's $4.99.
You can call it a sub-$5 bagel.
All pricing is done that way because it works.