Apple sold over 60 million Macs between 1990 - 2006
I stand corrected. This is still a much faster rate than the sale of Macs. And the price is not the one of the main reasons for this (being cross-platform is).
Apple can't force studios to let them sell at lower prices than they do now. Why do you think Apple has so few stufios now? Because their prices for movies are too low, and the DRM allows them to play on too many devices. That's why other online sales sites have thousands of movies, and Apple has a few hundred, mostly older ones.
Their prices are too low?
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
DVD
Higher quality sound & video, extras, the ability to share the disc. Plays on a wider variety of equipment (not just devices baring an Apple logo or Apple software).
That might be why the studios shy away from iTunes. The entirely closed nature of it.
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
I think what is meant is that you can own 100 iPods and you can sync them such that they'll all play the one movie you bought, at the same time. Apple places no limit on the number of devices you can sync to a computer. The only limitation on number of devices is the number of computers authorized.
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
DVD
Higher quality sound & video, extras, the ability to share the disc. Plays on a wider variety of equipment (not just devices baring an Apple logo or Apple software).
That might be why the studios shy away from iTunes. The entirely closed nature of it.
You might think that prices are too high. I have no argument with that.
But, the studios think that the prices are too low. Disney went along because, well, they're Disney, and we know that some influence was proffered there. Paramount mostly has a small bit of their back catalog on itunes, as a test.
But, the studios have publically complained about Apple's demands. Apple is not in the position with movies that they are with music, and possibly, even Tv shows and videos. They can't demand, only compromise.
The studios want full prices online, or almost full prices. That means almost $19.95 for new offerings. WalMart and target have demanded that they get the same pricing as Apple, that's pretty simple, but they have more restricted viewing, which you will see if you go to their sites, as does Amazon etc. They also have more variable pricing.
If someone makes a joke, or a sarcastic remark, or says something cynical (all of which, it seems, goes down as being sarcastic for some reason), and it isn't be recognized on its own, then it is a failure...
Well, either that, or it's a witty on-the-mark comment that falls victim of a type of reader I like to call "the sarcasm and satire-impaired'.
Seriously, I've been on many forums, and there always seems to be one person in every crowd who cannot grasp the most obvious, over-the-top jokes. You could post A Modest Proposal (y'know, the famous piece that advocates poor people selling their babies as food), and some dolt would take it seriously.
There's just nothing you can do about 'Doesn't-Get-Ititis'. It's usually not a writing problem, its a comprehension prob.
I think what is meant is that you can own 100 iPods and you can sync them such that they'll all play the one movie you bought, at the same time. Apple places no limit on the number of devices you can sync to a computer. The only limitation on number of devices is the number of computers authorized.
That's right.
Oh, and I may as well provide the terms page from the Amazon service, as I can't get to the music page on WalMart because you need IE 6 or better to access the online download movie area.
I'll quote a short bit, for those who don't want to read the entire (long!) page.
Quote:
b. Purchased Digital Content. Upon your payment of the license fee, Amazon grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to retain a permanent copy of Purchased Digital Content and to view, use, and privately display the Purchased Digital Content for Non-Commercial, Private Use as specified on the detail pages of the Purchased Digital Content or other help or informational pages of the Service at the time of your payment. You may exercise these rights on up to 2 (two) non-portable Authorized Devices (e.g. laptop or desktop computers, TiVo® DVRs) and two (2) portable Authorized Devices as specifically designated by Amazon from time to time. There can only be 1 (one) account for the Service on an Authorized Device. You may make a back-up copy of Purchased Digital Content on removable media (e.g. recordable DVD) or on an external hard drive in the same format as the original downloaded file to play on your permitted Authorized Devices. Any back-up copy of the Purchased Digital Content on a DVD will not be playable on a traditional DVD player, but only on a permitted Authorized Device.
Well, either that, or it's a witty on-the-mark comment that falls victim of a type of reader I like to call "the sarcasm and satire-impaired'.
Seriously, I've been on many forums, and there always seems to be one person in every crowd who cannot grasp the most obvious, over-the-top jokes. You could post A Modest Proposal (y'know, the famous piece that advocates poor people selling their babies as food), and some dolt would take it seriously.
There's just nothing you can do about 'Doesn't-Get-Ititis'. It's usually not a writing problem, its a comprehension prob.
.
I do get what you're saying, though I think it's a bit of both.
But, it's interesting to see what those who don't recognize any of this have to say, don't you think? It shows how an off the cuff remark can be misplaced, and is a lesson to all of us.
Congratulations, you are now officially an analyst. Boom!
Actually I am sort of analyst. I manage money for a living and have been long Apple for my clients a couple of years. Don't hold it against me thoguht!
I stand corrected. This is still a much faster rate than the sale of Macs. And the price is not the one of the main reasons for this (being cross-platform is).
Let's see if the iPhone can follow this success.
Price is clearly a major factor in the faster rate of sales. It's a whole lot easier to sell a product line that starts at $79 (iPod Shuffle) than $599 (Mac Mini). How fast do you think iPod sales would drop if Apple discontinued the Shuffle and Nano tomorrow?
For about the price of the Mini, you could get a complete Dell (computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and probably a printer). I'm not saying they would be in the same league spec-wise (chances are the Dell would at least come standard with 1GB of memory though and a DVD burner would only cost you $30 more, not $200), but it's still a hard thing to compete against. Just adding the standard Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse jacks the Mini up close to $700.
At $499 and $599, the iPhone has a steep hill to climb. I'm tempted and it comes out close to my birthday which gives me an excuse. Plus my Verizon contract expires not too long after the iPhone arrives. But I'd like to see the reviews first, and find out what the real service plans are like before jumping in.
but the point is that they sold them real good, with out a problem
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. iPod's meteoric rise didn't start until about three years ago, before then, it was obscure. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name with better retail presence, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
If Apple sells a million iPhones through 2008, it will be considered a disaster.
The digital music market was still fairly new when Apple entered, and sales were low. Following the monthly digital music player market in the NYTimes back then, one could see that even though the market was weak overall, the iPod rose consistently . Almost from the beginning, it had the largest marketshare.
The phone market, including the smartphone market is far mature.
But, Apple must have a good reason for putting a figure out so far in advance of the iPhone even coming out. They must have done research giving them a good idea of its market. I doubt very much, esp. after the 3 GHz in a year speech he gave, that he wasn't pretty sure about this.
125,000 within the first two months; 700,000 within the first year.
The first quarter did show 125,000. I was a little off. The numbers I can find showed that the following quarters had 57,000, 54,000 and 140,000 in sales, making that total to 376,000 for the first year. I am not seeing 700,000.
They say on June 23, 2003 that iPod passed one million, and that was twenty months after introduction. Apple only sold 2 million iPods before the mini was introduced.
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. iPod's meteoric rise didn't start until about three years ago, before then, it was obscure. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name with better retail presence, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
As Chucker says, your numbers are way, way off.
However, that said, comparing iPod sales to iPhone sales is comparing apples to beef hearts.
The public had an absolutely terrible opinion of Apple back then. OS X was new, slow, and incomplete. Apple's computers were a little slower and more expensive than they should have been. There was every expectation for the iPod to fail—an expectation which is not held by any serious and competent analyst or journalist about the iPhone. Apple has a brand that's many times stronger now-a-days, which provides them substantial leverage for unleashing a new product.
Second, other PMP's were absolute crap when the iPod came out—they either were the size of a Discman, but heavier; or held maybe 100 songs. At $399, no one really saw the need for an iPod—most saw it as an expensive, useless trifle. Apple really struggled before the iPod hit a critical mass where enough people got to experience one hands on and talk to people about to realize that it was, in fact, incredibly useful all along.
The iPhone doesn't have any of that—it's a a cell phone. And an iPod. People know these things, need them, and already buy them. Apple doesn't have to both tell you what the iPhone does [and why it's useful]* like they did with the iPod.
It also has the backing of a much better brand—people now know what to expect from an Apple product.
It also has significantly more value than the first iPods—it's impossibly well-polished and designed.
iPhone sales won't be like iPod sales. The iPhone will have a spectacular launch—in the first month Apple will probably sell 1-2 million units as they quell pent up demand. Then sales will drop precipitously and they'll sell maybe another 1-2 million units in all of 2007, mostly around Christmas. Then it'll slowly take off from there as it gets more features, lowers its price, and more people come across them.
If someone makes a joke, or a sarcastic remark, or says something cynical (all of which, it seems, goes down as being sarcastic for some reason), and it isn't be recognized on its own, then it is a failure, why should it need a special mark?...
It's too complex. People can indicate the thrust of what they are saying, by writing better
I thought the writing was just fine, but no matter how obvious the sarcasm is, some folks just aren't going to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by direwolf
10.5 million for the March quarter...21 million units in the December quarter.
While I'm sure everyone on this board recognizes this as typical seasonal trends, how much you want to make a bet that within two weeks some "analyst" will come out with a report pointing out the 50% drop in iPod sales as another indicator that digital musical sales as been a complete failure and that the iPod fad is over and Apple is doomed because their bread-n-butter iPod is no longer a "must have item". They might even point to the iPhone as a desperate, last-ditch attempt by Apple to regain the glory days, predicting iPhone failure as Apple has lost its stride and is no longer able to compete in the fast-paced consumer electronics market.
While I'm sure everyone on this board recognizes this as typical seasonal trends, how much you want to make a bet that within two weeks some "analyst" will come out with a report pointing out the 50% drop in iPod sales as another indicator that digital musical sales as been a complete failure and that the iPod fad is over and Apple is doomed because their bread-n-butter iPod is no longer a "must have item".
While many analysts don't seem to know what they are talking about half the time, I have never seen an analyst say anything like this. The ones I've read seem to understand what a seasonal product is like, that's why they don't make a big deal over sequential differences, they read year-over-year. Maybe you'll find a hack publication like The Register (or was it the Inquirer?) say something like that. It was one of those two that took a Forrester Research report way out of context and it made Forrester look bad, but they didn't say what most people assumed they said.
I doubt very much, esp. after the 3 GHz in a year speech he gave, that he wasn't pretty sure about this.
Why do people always bring that up. What is the big deal with not meeting that self imposed measurement? I mean the Powermacs weren't the fastest--but they certainly weren't slow.
Comments
Apple sold over 60 million Macs between 1990 - 2006
I stand corrected. This is still a much faster rate than the sale of Macs. And the price is not the one of the main reasons for this (being cross-platform is).
Let's see if the iPhone can follow this success.
Apple can't force studios to let them sell at lower prices than they do now. Why do you think Apple has so few stufios now? Because their prices for movies are too low, and the DRM allows them to play on too many devices. That's why other online sales sites have thousands of movies, and Apple has a few hundred, mostly older ones.
Their prices are too low?
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
DVD
Higher quality sound & video, extras, the ability to share the disc. Plays on a wider variety of equipment (not just devices baring an Apple logo or Apple software).
That might be why the studios shy away from iTunes. The entirely closed nature of it.
Their prices are too low?
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
I think what is meant is that you can own 100 iPods and you can sync them such that they'll all play the one movie you bought, at the same time. Apple places no limit on the number of devices you can sync to a computer. The only limitation on number of devices is the number of computers authorized.
Their prices are too low?
For many of the movies being offered at $9.99 by the iTunes Store, you can get the DVD at Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Target, etc. for about the same price if not less.
The DRM allows them to play on too many devices?
As far I recall, iTunes Store movies only play on 3 devices: the 5/5.5 iPod, computers via iTunes, or AppleTV.
DVD
Higher quality sound & video, extras, the ability to share the disc. Plays on a wider variety of equipment (not just devices baring an Apple logo or Apple software).
That might be why the studios shy away from iTunes. The entirely closed nature of it.
You might think that prices are too high. I have no argument with that.
But, the studios think that the prices are too low. Disney went along because, well, they're Disney, and we know that some influence was proffered there. Paramount mostly has a small bit of their back catalog on itunes, as a test.
But, the studios have publically complained about Apple's demands. Apple is not in the position with movies that they are with music, and possibly, even Tv shows and videos. They can't demand, only compromise.
The studios want full prices online, or almost full prices. That means almost $19.95 for new offerings. WalMart and target have demanded that they get the same pricing as Apple, that's pretty simple, but they have more restricted viewing, which you will see if you go to their sites, as does Amazon etc. They also have more variable pricing.
If someone makes a joke, or a sarcastic remark, or says something cynical (all of which, it seems, goes down as being sarcastic for some reason), and it isn't be recognized on its own, then it is a failure...
Well, either that, or it's a witty on-the-mark comment that falls victim of a type of reader I like to call "the sarcasm and satire-impaired'.
Seriously, I've been on many forums, and there always seems to be one person in every crowd who cannot grasp the most obvious, over-the-top jokes. You could post A Modest Proposal (y'know, the famous piece that advocates poor people selling their babies as food), and some dolt would take it seriously.
There's just nothing you can do about 'Doesn't-Get-Ititis'. It's usually not a writing problem, its a comprehension prob.
.
I think what is meant is that you can own 100 iPods and you can sync them such that they'll all play the one movie you bought, at the same time. Apple places no limit on the number of devices you can sync to a computer. The only limitation on number of devices is the number of computers authorized.
That's right.
Oh, and I may as well provide the terms page from the Amazon service, as I can't get to the music page on WalMart because you need IE 6 or better to access the online download movie area.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200026970
I'll quote a short bit, for those who don't want to read the entire (long!) page.
b. Purchased Digital Content. Upon your payment of the license fee, Amazon grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to retain a permanent copy of Purchased Digital Content and to view, use, and privately display the Purchased Digital Content for Non-Commercial, Private Use as specified on the detail pages of the Purchased Digital Content or other help or informational pages of the Service at the time of your payment. You may exercise these rights on up to 2 (two) non-portable Authorized Devices (e.g. laptop or desktop computers, TiVo® DVRs) and two (2) portable Authorized Devices as specifically designated by Amazon from time to time. There can only be 1 (one) account for the Service on an Authorized Device. You may make a back-up copy of Purchased Digital Content on removable media (e.g. recordable DVD) or on an external hard drive in the same format as the original downloaded file to play on your permitted Authorized Devices. Any back-up copy of the Purchased Digital Content on a DVD will not be playable on a traditional DVD player, but only on a permitted Authorized Device.
Well, either that, or it's a witty on-the-mark comment that falls victim of a type of reader I like to call "the sarcasm and satire-impaired'.
Seriously, I've been on many forums, and there always seems to be one person in every crowd who cannot grasp the most obvious, over-the-top jokes. You could post A Modest Proposal (y'know, the famous piece that advocates poor people selling their babies as food), and some dolt would take it seriously.
There's just nothing you can do about 'Doesn't-Get-Ititis'. It's usually not a writing problem, its a comprehension prob.
.
I do get what you're saying, though I think it's a bit of both.
But, it's interesting to see what those who don't recognize any of this have to say, don't you think? It shows how an off the cuff remark can be misplaced, and is a lesson to all of us.
Congratulations, you are now officially an analyst. Boom!
Actually I am sort of analyst. I manage money for a living and have been long Apple for my clients a couple of years. Don't hold it against me thoguht!
It will be in a museum in a couple of weeks as an object that revolutionised music and our relation to it.
Ok Steve, you can pull out the 6G iPod now, we're ready
I was just holding my first iPod which I got as soon as they were announced back in 2001.
It will be in a museum in a couple of weeks as an object that revolutionised music and our relation to it.
Ok Steve, you can pull out the 6G iPod now, we're ready
Past ready. I'm into post-modern ready.
I stand corrected. This is still a much faster rate than the sale of Macs. And the price is not the one of the main reasons for this (being cross-platform is).
Let's see if the iPhone can follow this success.
Price is clearly a major factor in the faster rate of sales. It's a whole lot easier to sell a product line that starts at $79 (iPod Shuffle) than $599 (Mac Mini). How fast do you think iPod sales would drop if Apple discontinued the Shuffle and Nano tomorrow?
For about the price of the Mini, you could get a complete Dell (computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and probably a printer). I'm not saying they would be in the same league spec-wise (chances are the Dell would at least come standard with 1GB of memory though and a DVD burner would only cost you $30 more, not $200), but it's still a hard thing to compete against. Just adding the standard Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse jacks the Mini up close to $700.
At $499 and $599, the iPhone has a steep hill to climb. I'm tempted and it comes out close to my birthday which gives me an excuse. Plus my Verizon contract expires not too long after the iPhone arrives. But I'd like to see the reviews first, and find out what the real service plans are like before jumping in.
but the point is that they sold them real good, with out a problem
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. iPod's meteoric rise didn't start until about three years ago, before then, it was obscure. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name with better retail presence, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
125,000 within the first two months; 700,000 within the first year.
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
If Apple sells a million iPhones through 2008, it will be considered a disaster.
The digital music market was still fairly new when Apple entered, and sales were low. Following the monthly digital music player market in the NYTimes back then, one could see that even though the market was weak overall, the iPod rose consistently . Almost from the beginning, it had the largest marketshare.
The phone market, including the smartphone market is far mature.
But, Apple must have a good reason for putting a figure out so far in advance of the iPhone even coming out. They must have done research giving them a good idea of its market. I doubt very much, esp. after the 3 GHz in a year speech he gave, that he wasn't pretty sure about this.
125,000 within the first two months; 700,000 within the first year.
The first quarter did show 125,000. I was a little off. The numbers I can find showed that the following quarters had 57,000, 54,000 and 140,000 in sales, making that total to 376,000 for the first year. I am not seeing 700,000.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/art...story-of-ipod/
They say on June 23, 2003 that iPod passed one million, and that was twenty months after introduction. Apple only sold 2 million iPods before the mini was introduced.
For the first four quarters, they sold about 50,000 iPods each quarter.
My point is that if iPhone sales follow iPod sales, they won't sell much more than 1M by the end of 2008, forget 10M. iPod's meteoric rise didn't start until about three years ago, before then, it was obscure. I will say that iPhone sales will likely do better than iPods did back then, now that Apple is a much more well known name with better retail presence, but I don't think the iPhone will become a phenomenon like iPod until they can get a model that's a lot closer to the $200-$250 range like what had happened with the mini and nano.
As Chucker says, your numbers are way, way off.
However, that said, comparing iPod sales to iPhone sales is comparing apples to beef hearts.
The public had an absolutely terrible opinion of Apple back then. OS X was new, slow, and incomplete. Apple's computers were a little slower and more expensive than they should have been. There was every expectation for the iPod to fail—an expectation which is not held by any serious and competent analyst or journalist about the iPhone. Apple has a brand that's many times stronger now-a-days, which provides them substantial leverage for unleashing a new product.
Second, other PMP's were absolute crap when the iPod came out—they either were the size of a Discman, but heavier; or held maybe 100 songs. At $399, no one really saw the need for an iPod—most saw it as an expensive, useless trifle. Apple really struggled before the iPod hit a critical mass where enough people got to experience one hands on and talk to people about to realize that it was, in fact, incredibly useful all along.
The iPhone doesn't have any of that—it's a a cell phone. And an iPod. People know these things, need them, and already buy them. Apple doesn't have to both tell you what the iPhone does [and why it's useful]* like they did with the iPod.
It also has the backing of a much better brand—people now know what to expect from an Apple product.
It also has significantly more value than the first iPods—it's impossibly well-polished and designed.
iPhone sales won't be like iPod sales. The iPhone will have a spectacular launch—in the first month Apple will probably sell 1-2 million units as they quell pent up demand. Then sales will drop precipitously and they'll sell maybe another 1-2 million units in all of 2007, mostly around Christmas. Then it'll slowly take off from there as it gets more features, lowers its price, and more people come across them.
If someone makes a joke, or a sarcastic remark, or says something cynical (all of which, it seems, goes down as being sarcastic for some reason), and it isn't be recognized on its own, then it is a failure, why should it need a special mark?...
It's too complex. People can indicate the thrust of what they are saying, by writing better
I thought the writing was just fine, but no matter how obvious the sarcasm is, some folks just aren't going to get it.
10.5 million for the March quarter...21 million units in the December quarter.
While I'm sure everyone on this board recognizes this as typical seasonal trends, how much you want to make a bet that within two weeks some "analyst" will come out with a report pointing out the 50% drop in iPod sales as another indicator that digital musical sales as been a complete failure and that the iPod fad is over and Apple is doomed because their bread-n-butter iPod is no longer a "must have item". They might even point to the iPhone as a desperate, last-ditch attempt by Apple to regain the glory days, predicting iPhone failure as Apple has lost its stride and is no longer able to compete in the fast-paced consumer electronics market.
I
While I'm sure everyone on this board recognizes this as typical seasonal trends, how much you want to make a bet that within two weeks some "analyst" will come out with a report pointing out the 50% drop in iPod sales as another indicator that digital musical sales as been a complete failure and that the iPod fad is over and Apple is doomed because their bread-n-butter iPod is no longer a "must have item".
While many analysts don't seem to know what they are talking about half the time, I have never seen an analyst say anything like this. The ones I've read seem to understand what a seasonal product is like, that's why they don't make a big deal over sequential differences, they read year-over-year. Maybe you'll find a hack publication like The Register (or was it the Inquirer?) say something like that. It was one of those two that took a Forrester Research report way out of context and it made Forrester look bad, but they didn't say what most people assumed they said.
I doubt very much, esp. after the 3 GHz in a year speech he gave, that he wasn't pretty sure about this.
Why do people always bring that up. What is the big deal with not meeting that self imposed measurement? I mean the Powermacs weren't the fastest--but they certainly weren't slow.