I don't recognize that fact? Fact? I didn't see any facts above. Plus, I was not talking about users. I said I don't like using Macs because as a lifelong PC user, I find Macs annoying. Why are you talking about how annoying the users are? I don't think OS of choice has anything to do with how annoying a person is.
Sorry, I mistook your reference to Mac's as being annoying to you to mean that the users were annoying, which is what I'm so accustomed to hear from PC users that it overwhelmed the actual reference.
That's because you refuse to look at the links I provided you earlier. There are plenty of facts in those. If you want to ignore them, then you have no right to make the claims you do, which are just from your own personal experiences, at best.
Quote:
I'm sure the links you provided support what you are saying. All I'm saying is that there's no way that Apple will complete sales to the 40% of college users who said their next computer will be a Mac.
The reason I see no reason to read your links is because unless your links are made by oracles, they don't have the ability to contradict my point. And I'm glad you're convinced that you have a good feel on the pulse of the PC market with your experience, but it's meaningless to me because I know that my day to day experience tells me far more about what's actually happening than you can.
I don't come here hoping to talk to fans.
Again, you are very stubborn. You have no right to comment on the links wihthout reading them, as you have no idea where they are from, or what they say.
Most are from colleges, telling of the number of new Mac users they have, and some that are only allowing Mac. There are others as well. I can supply as many as you would want.
No, again, you,live in a very small universe, its hardly an example of what's happening in the larger one. And since you refuse to find out what is happening in that larger one, your statements don't count.
It's almost as though you're afraid to find out, because your argument will collapse.
No, actually, your point is useless. Your understanding of stats is poor. According to your read, a very few people bought computers for $10,000 to offset everyone else who spent $400 apiece.
Don't let facts get into the way of your beliefs.
Once again you are misinterpreting my read and distorting what I've said as usual.
I said stating an average is misleading. That can be for many reasons. I only stated one.
You definitely need a refresher course in statistics- you appear a bit rusty.
the iphone has a lot of people lusting (again) after apple stuff. Pretty much everyone i know wants an iphone and is just waiting for it to get cheaper. We've been wondering if they're going to cross an iphone with a macbook air and make a mini phone/computer/ipod/toaster.
Apple's marketshare has been growing very rapidly for the last few years and it's poised to keep doing so. Everyone I know who bought a computer in the last year got a mac (except 1).
Wrong again, my friend . Reread the post I responded to- he states MacBook Air which is $1,800.
Doesn't matter. Most college students aren't going to buy the Air, as pleasant as that sounds. They mostly will be buying MacBooks, or sometimes, but more rarely, a MBP.
Once again you are misinterpreting my read and distorting what I've said as usual.
I said stating an average is misleading. That can be for many reasons. I only stated one.
You definitely need a refresher course in statistics- you appear a bit rusty.
No, I'm not. An average doesn't mean that there is a great range between the most and the least. That's what you are assuming. But, it's not always true.
It's no more likely that many students are buying $3,000 machines than $400 machines. There will always be a few at the extremes of the normal curve, but most will be somewhere in the middle.
There is a BIG difference between showing off with a $100 pair of sneakers and a $1,800 laptop. Why not drive to school in a big ol' Lexus while your at it too!
Well first of all, it's $150.00 pair of Nike, M. Jordan, sneakers. And the big difference is not where you think it is.
When you spend over 3x the money (over the average sneakers), you got very little return of investment for your money. These expensive sneakers didn't make you run faster, jump higher or increased your foul shot percentage. They didn't last any longer, smell any better or increased your grade point average. So there's really no need to ever buy a pair of these. Unless you want to show off.
On the other hand a laptop that cost 3x (or more) than the cheapest available laptop has very real return of investment. It's faster, has more memory, bigger screen, dedicated graphic memory on a separate card, bigger HD, DVI out, HMDI out, Firewire, 801.11g or n, BlueTooth, longer battery life, comes with (and can run) full version of Vista (or OSX), the list goes on. There are real advantage to spending $1800 for a laptop instead of $500 for one. It's not showing off if you need some or all of these features. A $4000.00 Alienware laptop would be showing off.
If you need an ultralite notebook and already have a descent desktop, then $1800 is about what you would have to spend for one. Ultralites from Sony, Toshiba, Panasonics and Apple will run you from $1500.00 to $3000.00. An ultralite makes sense for many students whose backpack are already loaded with textbooks between classes. Who don't want a clunky laptop on their desk while take notes or enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Who wants to carry a laptop that will last all day without having to carry extra batteries or AC brick.
$1800 is also the average you would spend for a laptop that is going to replace your desktop. Many students live in small dorm rooms. So rather than have a desktop taking up space they opt for a laptop. They may have a 24" LCD (that they also use as a TV). Small stereo system. Along with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse in the dorm. So their laptop must be able to drive the 24" LCD. Have Bluetooth. Be able to play DVD movies on the 24" LCD while doing something else on the laptop screen. Stream music to the stereo system and still be able to use it for homework. Handle hi res photos from digital cameras and manage 10s of gigbites of MP3 music. Be able to do your homework while it's rendering and burning a DVD home movie. Not to mention games. Lots of games.
If you think that a $500.00 laptop with a single 1.6 mhz Celeron (or equivalent) processor, sharing 512mb of ram with an intergrated graphic card, 60 gig HD, loaded with Vista Home Edition will do the job, then you never really seen or used a $500.00 laptop. $500.00 laptops are for people that don't really need a laptop. But would like to own one just in case. People (like students) that rely on laptops for their everyday affairs will pay what they have to to get a reliable laptop that meets their needs. No one wants to lose their term paper (or other imporant info) because a cheap laptop crashed while trying to do two things at once (mulitasking). No one wants their laptop freezing up after just spending an hour working on something. No one wants to carry two extra batteries around just to make it through a day of classes. No one wants a laptop whose specs would consider "Solitaire" as graphic intensive.
There are real valid reasons for paying $1800 and up for a laptop. No one should be recommending a $500.00 laptop to anyone that must rely on that laptop as their main computer. A $500.00 desktop barely makes it 2 years. So how is a $500.00 laptop, that will be used everyday, going to make it through 4 years of college? It's better and wiser to invest in a $1000.00 (and up) laptop to begin with. Rather than 2 $500.00 laptop over the course of your schooling. And if a grad student is paying you for advise and you tell them that a $500.00 laptop is all they need, you aught to be ashame of yourself for stealing their money. They can get bad advise for free.
I see quite a few Macbooks, a few MBP, Dells, HPs, and a handful of Toshiba's, Sony's, and Lenovo's.
But of the new(er) laptops I see, they do seem to be more on the MB variety.
I personally like the new Dells, the XPS and Inspiron line, and the upcoming Latitude line is going to be very nice for business/enterprise.
I probably spent about $800 for my Toshiba last summer before college started up again; I wanted a MB, but partially got sick of waiting on Apple to dump the GMA 950, and then I also went and bought a Bowflex, which cut my computer budget down. I can't complain though, the Toshiba has been solid.
I wound up buying a Mini in December, with the crummy GMA 950, but then again, I do have 2 computers for basically what it would've cost for the MB at the time.
No, I'm not. An average doesn't mean that there is a great range between the most and the least. That's what you are assuming. But, it's not always true.
It's no more likely that many students are buying $3,000 machines than $400 machines. There will always be a few at the extremes of the normal curve, but most will be somewhere in the middle.
Teckstud has a point. The median is very likely lower than the mean. How much lower? beats me.
Sorry, I mistook your reference to Mac's as being annoying to you to mean that the users were annoying, which is what I'm so accustomed to hear from PC users that it overwhelmed the actual reference.
That's because you refuse to look at the links I provided you earlier. There are plenty of facts in those. If you want to ignore them, then you have no right to make the claims you do, which are just from your own personal experiences, at best.
Again, you are very stubborn. You have no right to comment on the links wihthout reading them, as you have no idea where they are from, or what they say.
Most are from colleges, telling of the number of new Mac users they have, and some that are only allowing Mac. There are others as well. I can supply as many as you would want.
No, again, you,live in a very small universe, its hardly an example of what's happening in the larger one. And since you refuse to find out what is happening in that larger one, your statements don't count.
It's almost as though you're afraid to find out, because your argument will collapse.
It's all still just evidence from the little bubble world of colleges, where people spend crazy amounts of money on things that they never would if they had to justify the return. Which is why you can point to all the evidence in the world about how Macs will have 40% of some large market very soon but it will not be true. The 40% number is a WISH number, and that's great for Mac fans and fanatics. But it's not going to turn into 40% of any actual sales total. You can argue all you want, and you can convince yourself that you've proven yourself right, but reality will never match what you think you've proven.
And try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum OK? It doesn't help your argument.
It's all still just evidence from the little bubble world of colleges, where people spend crazy amounts of money on things that they never would if they had to justify the return. Which is why you can point to all the evidence in the world about how Macs will have 40% of some large market very soon but it will not be true. The 40% number is a WISH number, and that's great for Mac fans and fanatics. But it's not going to turn into 40% of any actual sales total. You can argue all you want, and you can convince yourself that you've proven yourself right, but reality will never match what you think you've proven.
And try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum OK? It doesn't help your argument.
Those weren't attacks they were observations.
I don't understand your reaction to the information. Now you say colleges are a bubble world. What does that mean? We are talking about college. So what happens there is all that is relevant.
The colleges that I gave reference to have reported these high numbers already. In a number of cases they aren't estimates. They are the current entering classes. Perhaps you haven't read the links after all? Why are you avoiding it?
And I can supply as much college data you would like. It will all be similar, except for accounting colleges, I suppose.
Show some evidence that disputes the evidence that's been coming out. At least I've provided some, you've provided none.
They can also be the same. It depends on the data.
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more apropriateview of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more appropriate view of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
I am a recent college grad. I just switched to apple from PCs. I bought a Macbook Pro. I'll tell you guys exactly why I switched:
1: The IPod. I love it. It made me reconsider apple as a computer alternative. Before the IPod, I would never have considered apple when buying a computer.
2: The IPhone. Awesome! I don't have one yet, but I have played with other people's and it is amazing. These two products sealed the deal.
3: You can run Windows on the newer Macs. Makes switching to apple less of an inconvenience. I don't need to replace all of my software.
I recently got a good paying job and I needed a laptop. At this point I started researching apple computers. I was comparing two similar alternatives. A dell 15'' for $1450 and a Macbook Pro for $1999. I called apple and ended up getting a great deal. I got the previous generation Macbook Pro with the education discount for $1500. I love my Macbook Pro. It is an awesome laptop. I love the programs it comes with. Now that I have switched, I don't think I will ever go back.
That being said, if I did not get that deal from apple, I would have ended up with a Dell. I could not justify spending $500 more for the apple. (although I was also considering a refurbished Macbook Pro for $1700)
Here is another important point. My parents will never switch. They both have IPods and IPhones and they love them. But they are too invested in PC software. My mom would never consider being able to boot into Windows or Leopard as a benefit. She needs things to be simple and just work (hence the IPod and IPhone).
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more appropriate view of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
What would be nice is if we knew the standard deviation. This would reveal how accurae the mean is. A small standard deviation, say about $250, would tell us that 68% of the data points was withn + and - $250 of the mean. And that the mean is truly reflective of the real average amount college students paid for a laptop. At this point the mean and median (and maybe also the midpoint) should be very close to each other.
A large standard deviation, say about $600, tells us that the mean is not so accurate as %68 of the data fell + and - $600 from the mean. That's a large range and most likely caused by a peak in the data at one or both end. It is at this point (like you stated) that the median may be a more revealing value (providing the peak is only at one end) of the true average amount paid for a laptop by college students.
I (we) can only assume that the data taker knew enough about statistic to take enough data so that a normal distribution curve (a Gaussian Bell) forms in the data. Otherwise the mean, median and midpoint may end up being a value where the data points are the least dense and thus are not very accurrate indicators of what college students are paying for laptops.
Good for you and your "couple of families". My response was to the obnoxious reply that the other 60% who did not buy Apple are nuts. The reality is far more grim than that in economic terms in this country, my friend. I also should have included poor families as well.
I would think that a family who is truly poor can't afford a computer at all. And how many people who can afford to go to college (even with financial aid) are "poor"?
I'd argue that the vast majority of people who can afford to attend college could afford to spend a few hundred dollars more to get a mac laptop. And I'd bet that VERY many college students with PC notebooks have ones that cost at least as much as the base model macbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
$1,100 laptop.
Actually, $999 laptop with the EDU discount...
And I notice that apple closed today over $143...what happened to those predictions of going below $100? I guess if students buy as this poll suggests, maybe the company isn't in such bad shape after all?
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
I like to work from the data we have. And we have no data, only the average.
Now, we all know that almost everything follows a gaussian distribution, or "normal" curve. That means that the majority of anything will be in the mid portion of the curve. The drop on both sides is about the same, diminishing to zero at some point.
We have no reason to believe this works in any other way. Until we do, we can't make the assumption that it does.
If, one wants to believe that it does, without any data to prove so, then one must figure out a way to get data points on a curve that makes sense, and is likely to be true.
We would need some numbers posted to give us that conclusion, even if those numbers were made up for the sake of the argument.
We could have a very interesting discussion as to what numbers could fit the curve.
Otherwise, you know that the statistically most likely curve is the gaussian distribution, and that curve sits in the middle of the universe of possible curves determined by a gaussian distribution.
Comments
I don't recognize that fact? Fact? I didn't see any facts above. Plus, I was not talking about users. I said I don't like using Macs because as a lifelong PC user, I find Macs annoying. Why are you talking about how annoying the users are? I don't think OS of choice has anything to do with how annoying a person is.
Sorry, I mistook your reference to Mac's as being annoying to you to mean that the users were annoying, which is what I'm so accustomed to hear from PC users that it overwhelmed the actual reference.
That's because you refuse to look at the links I provided you earlier. There are plenty of facts in those. If you want to ignore them, then you have no right to make the claims you do, which are just from your own personal experiences, at best.
I'm sure the links you provided support what you are saying. All I'm saying is that there's no way that Apple will complete sales to the 40% of college users who said their next computer will be a Mac.
The reason I see no reason to read your links is because unless your links are made by oracles, they don't have the ability to contradict my point. And I'm glad you're convinced that you have a good feel on the pulse of the PC market with your experience, but it's meaningless to me because I know that my day to day experience tells me far more about what's actually happening than you can.
I don't come here hoping to talk to fans.
Again, you are very stubborn. You have no right to comment on the links wihthout reading them, as you have no idea where they are from, or what they say.
Most are from colleges, telling of the number of new Mac users they have, and some that are only allowing Mac. There are others as well. I can supply as many as you would want.
No, again, you,live in a very small universe, its hardly an example of what's happening in the larger one. And since you refuse to find out what is happening in that larger one, your statements don't count.
It's almost as though you're afraid to find out, because your argument will collapse.
$1,100 laptop.
Wrong again, my friend . Reread the post I responded to- he states MacBook Air which is $1,800.
No, actually, your point is useless. Your understanding of stats is poor. According to your read, a very few people bought computers for $10,000 to offset everyone else who spent $400 apiece.
Don't let facts get into the way of your beliefs.
Once again you are misinterpreting my read and distorting what I've said as usual.
I said stating an average is misleading. That can be for many reasons. I only stated one.
You definitely need a refresher course in statistics- you appear a bit rusty.
Apple's marketshare has been growing very rapidly for the last few years and it's poised to keep doing so. Everyone I know who bought a computer in the last year got a mac (except 1).
Wrong again, my friend . Reread the post I responded to- he states MacBook Air which is $1,800.
Doesn't matter. Most college students aren't going to buy the Air, as pleasant as that sounds. They mostly will be buying MacBooks, or sometimes, but more rarely, a MBP.
Once again you are misinterpreting my read and distorting what I've said as usual.
I said stating an average is misleading. That can be for many reasons. I only stated one.
You definitely need a refresher course in statistics- you appear a bit rusty.
No, I'm not. An average doesn't mean that there is a great range between the most and the least. That's what you are assuming. But, it's not always true.
It's no more likely that many students are buying $3,000 machines than $400 machines. There will always be a few at the extremes of the normal curve, but most will be somewhere in the middle.
There is a BIG difference between showing off with a $100 pair of sneakers and a $1,800 laptop. Why not drive to school in a big ol' Lexus while your at it too!
Well first of all, it's $150.00 pair of Nike, M. Jordan, sneakers. And the big difference is not where you think it is.
When you spend over 3x the money (over the average sneakers), you got very little return of investment for your money. These expensive sneakers didn't make you run faster, jump higher or increased your foul shot percentage. They didn't last any longer, smell any better or increased your grade point average. So there's really no need to ever buy a pair of these. Unless you want to show off.
On the other hand a laptop that cost 3x (or more) than the cheapest available laptop has very real return of investment. It's faster, has more memory, bigger screen, dedicated graphic memory on a separate card, bigger HD, DVI out, HMDI out, Firewire, 801.11g or n, BlueTooth, longer battery life, comes with (and can run) full version of Vista (or OSX), the list goes on. There are real advantage to spending $1800 for a laptop instead of $500 for one. It's not showing off if you need some or all of these features. A $4000.00 Alienware laptop would be showing off.
If you need an ultralite notebook and already have a descent desktop, then $1800 is about what you would have to spend for one. Ultralites from Sony, Toshiba, Panasonics and Apple will run you from $1500.00 to $3000.00. An ultralite makes sense for many students whose backpack are already loaded with textbooks between classes. Who don't want a clunky laptop on their desk while take notes or enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Who wants to carry a laptop that will last all day without having to carry extra batteries or AC brick.
$1800 is also the average you would spend for a laptop that is going to replace your desktop. Many students live in small dorm rooms. So rather than have a desktop taking up space they opt for a laptop. They may have a 24" LCD (that they also use as a TV). Small stereo system. Along with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse in the dorm. So their laptop must be able to drive the 24" LCD. Have Bluetooth. Be able to play DVD movies on the 24" LCD while doing something else on the laptop screen. Stream music to the stereo system and still be able to use it for homework. Handle hi res photos from digital cameras and manage 10s of gigbites of MP3 music. Be able to do your homework while it's rendering and burning a DVD home movie. Not to mention games. Lots of games.
If you think that a $500.00 laptop with a single 1.6 mhz Celeron (or equivalent) processor, sharing 512mb of ram with an intergrated graphic card, 60 gig HD, loaded with Vista Home Edition will do the job, then you never really seen or used a $500.00 laptop. $500.00 laptops are for people that don't really need a laptop. But would like to own one just in case. People (like students) that rely on laptops for their everyday affairs will pay what they have to to get a reliable laptop that meets their needs. No one wants to lose their term paper (or other imporant info) because a cheap laptop crashed while trying to do two things at once (mulitasking). No one wants their laptop freezing up after just spending an hour working on something. No one wants to carry two extra batteries around just to make it through a day of classes. No one wants a laptop whose specs would consider "Solitaire" as graphic intensive.
There are real valid reasons for paying $1800 and up for a laptop. No one should be recommending a $500.00 laptop to anyone that must rely on that laptop as their main computer. A $500.00 desktop barely makes it 2 years. So how is a $500.00 laptop, that will be used everyday, going to make it through 4 years of college? It's better and wiser to invest in a $1000.00 (and up) laptop to begin with. Rather than 2 $500.00 laptop over the course of your schooling. And if a grad student is paying you for advise and you tell them that a $500.00 laptop is all they need, you aught to be ashame of yourself for stealing their money. They can get bad advise for free.
But of the new(er) laptops I see, they do seem to be more on the MB variety.
I personally like the new Dells, the XPS and Inspiron line, and the upcoming Latitude line is going to be very nice for business/enterprise.
I probably spent about $800 for my Toshiba last summer before college started up again; I wanted a MB, but partially got sick of waiting on Apple to dump the GMA 950, and then I also went and bought a Bowflex, which cut my computer budget down. I can't complain though, the Toshiba has been solid.
I wound up buying a Mini in December, with the crummy GMA 950, but then again, I do have 2 computers for basically what it would've cost for the MB at the time.
No, I'm not. An average doesn't mean that there is a great range between the most and the least. That's what you are assuming. But, it's not always true.
It's no more likely that many students are buying $3,000 machines than $400 machines. There will always be a few at the extremes of the normal curve, but most will be somewhere in the middle.
Teckstud has a point. The median is very likely lower than the mean. How much lower? beats me.
Sorry, I mistook your reference to Mac's as being annoying to you to mean that the users were annoying, which is what I'm so accustomed to hear from PC users that it overwhelmed the actual reference.
That's because you refuse to look at the links I provided you earlier. There are plenty of facts in those. If you want to ignore them, then you have no right to make the claims you do, which are just from your own personal experiences, at best.
Again, you are very stubborn. You have no right to comment on the links wihthout reading them, as you have no idea where they are from, or what they say.
Most are from colleges, telling of the number of new Mac users they have, and some that are only allowing Mac. There are others as well. I can supply as many as you would want.
No, again, you,live in a very small universe, its hardly an example of what's happening in the larger one. And since you refuse to find out what is happening in that larger one, your statements don't count.
It's almost as though you're afraid to find out, because your argument will collapse.
It's all still just evidence from the little bubble world of colleges, where people spend crazy amounts of money on things that they never would if they had to justify the return. Which is why you can point to all the evidence in the world about how Macs will have 40% of some large market very soon but it will not be true. The 40% number is a WISH number, and that's great for Mac fans and fanatics. But it's not going to turn into 40% of any actual sales total. You can argue all you want, and you can convince yourself that you've proven yourself right, but reality will never match what you think you've proven.
And try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum OK? It doesn't help your argument.
Teckstud has a point. The median is very likely lower than the mean. How much lower? beats me.
They can also be the same. It depends on the data.
It's all still just evidence from the little bubble world of colleges, where people spend crazy amounts of money on things that they never would if they had to justify the return. Which is why you can point to all the evidence in the world about how Macs will have 40% of some large market very soon but it will not be true. The 40% number is a WISH number, and that's great for Mac fans and fanatics. But it's not going to turn into 40% of any actual sales total. You can argue all you want, and you can convince yourself that you've proven yourself right, but reality will never match what you think you've proven.
And try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum OK? It doesn't help your argument.
Those weren't attacks they were observations.
I don't understand your reaction to the information. Now you say colleges are a bubble world. What does that mean? We are talking about college. So what happens there is all that is relevant.
The colleges that I gave reference to have reported these high numbers already. In a number of cases they aren't estimates. They are the current entering classes. Perhaps you haven't read the links after all? Why are you avoiding it?
And I can supply as much college data you would like. It will all be similar, except for accounting colleges, I suppose.
Show some evidence that disputes the evidence that's been coming out. At least I've provided some, you've provided none.
They can also be the same. It depends on the data.
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more apropriateview of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
The median is nothing but that value on the data line at which half the data points are below it and half above it. It tells you nothing about how the values of the data points are distrubuted in each half.
E.G.- If I had 1001 data points and the median came in at $1000.00. This means that there are 500 data points that are $1000 and below. But it would make no difference if those 500 data points consisted of 490 $500 data points plus 10 $1000 data points. Or 490 $1000 data point and 10 $500 data points.
The median, along with the midpoint are way less meaningful than the mean (average). At least with the mean (average) it will take into account (weight in) the 490 $500 data points (from above example) and skew the value lower.
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more appropriate view of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
1: The IPod. I love it. It made me reconsider apple as a computer alternative. Before the IPod, I would never have considered apple when buying a computer.
2: The IPhone. Awesome! I don't have one yet, but I have played with other people's and it is amazing. These two products sealed the deal.
3: You can run Windows on the newer Macs. Makes switching to apple less of an inconvenience. I don't need to replace all of my software.
I recently got a good paying job and I needed a laptop. At this point I started researching apple computers. I was comparing two similar alternatives. A dell 15'' for $1450 and a Macbook Pro for $1999. I called apple and ended up getting a great deal. I got the previous generation Macbook Pro with the education discount for $1500. I love my Macbook Pro. It is an awesome laptop. I love the programs it comes with. Now that I have switched, I don't think I will ever go back.
That being said, if I did not get that deal from apple, I would have ended up with a Dell. I could not justify spending $500 more for the apple. (although I was also considering a refurbished Macbook Pro for $1700)
Here is another important point. My parents will never switch. They both have IPods and IPhones and they love them. But they are too invested in PC software. My mom would never consider being able to boot into Windows or Leopard as a benefit. She needs things to be simple and just work (hence the IPod and IPhone).
Yeah, I have an epi degree, so I'm perfectly aware of what the median is. Median and mean both have their advantages and disadvantages, and give you different information.
If you have a distribution that's skewed, the median gives you a more appropriate view of what the typical (i.e. 50th percentile) person is spending. Of course, if there's a peak at both ends and a valley in the middle, the median may not be to helpful.
Obviously, a lovely graph of the actual distribution is what will tell you the most.
I maintain that, in the context of the discussion that's been going on, the median is likely more informative. Having both would be best.
What would be nice is if we knew the standard deviation. This would reveal how accurae the mean is. A small standard deviation, say about $250, would tell us that 68% of the data points was withn + and - $250 of the mean. And that the mean is truly reflective of the real average amount college students paid for a laptop. At this point the mean and median (and maybe also the midpoint) should be very close to each other.
A large standard deviation, say about $600, tells us that the mean is not so accurate as %68 of the data fell + and - $600 from the mean. That's a large range and most likely caused by a peak in the data at one or both end. It is at this point (like you stated) that the median may be a more revealing value (providing the peak is only at one end) of the true average amount paid for a laptop by college students.
I (we) can only assume that the data taker knew enough about statistic to take enough data so that a normal distribution curve (a Gaussian Bell) forms in the data. Otherwise the mean, median and midpoint may end up being a value where the data points are the least dense and thus are not very accurrate indicators of what college students are paying for laptops.
Good for you and your "couple of families". My response was to the obnoxious reply that the other 60% who did not buy Apple are nuts. The reality is far more grim than that in economic terms in this country, my friend. I also should have included poor families as well.
I would think that a family who is truly poor can't afford a computer at all. And how many people who can afford to go to college (even with financial aid) are "poor"?
I'd argue that the vast majority of people who can afford to attend college could afford to spend a few hundred dollars more to get a mac laptop. And I'd bet that VERY many college students with PC notebooks have ones that cost at least as much as the base model macbook.
$1,100 laptop.
Actually, $999 laptop with the EDU discount...
And I notice that apple closed today over $143...what happened to those predictions of going below $100? I guess if students buy as this poll suggests, maybe the company isn't in such bad shape after all?
Well, obviously it depends on the data. But do you honestly think the median isn't going to be lower than the mean in the college-student computer market? I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
I think teckstuds only point is that using the median - rather than the mean - selling price is a superior data point to look at. I think that's absolutely true.
I like to work from the data we have. And we have no data, only the average.
Now, we all know that almost everything follows a gaussian distribution, or "normal" curve. That means that the majority of anything will be in the mid portion of the curve. The drop on both sides is about the same, diminishing to zero at some point.
We have no reason to believe this works in any other way. Until we do, we can't make the assumption that it does.
If, one wants to believe that it does, without any data to prove so, then one must figure out a way to get data points on a curve that makes sense, and is likely to be true.
We would need some numbers posted to give us that conclusion, even if those numbers were made up for the sake of the argument.
We could have a very interesting discussion as to what numbers could fit the curve.
Otherwise, you know that the statistically most likely curve is the gaussian distribution, and that curve sits in the middle of the universe of possible curves determined by a gaussian distribution.