If you are happy with Apple stay with them. But around 90% of computer users don't use Apple.
Cost of entry into the Apple ecosystem via a Mac: $1000 (not including the Mini)
The retail pyramid is narrow at the top. If consumers have $1000+ to spend on a computer, however, it's already been shown that a Mac will be on the top of their list:
Apple's strategy of selling premium computers is paying off.
Joe Wilcox of BetaNews reports that Apple now dominates the market of $1,000-plus PCs, commanding about 90 percent of the market for U.S. retail, as measured by NPD.
Simply put, not everyone will afford or care to have the best.
For your enjoyment and edification (Im being kind to trolls today):
Cost of entry into the Apple ecosystem via a Mac: $1000 (not including the Mini)
I've always wondered about the logic of this statement. Why ignore the Mini? It's a perfectly functional computer and will meet the needs of a very large percentage of people. Essentially, you're saying "the entry level price for {choose any company} is {$xxx} if you ignore {all of their products that are designed to be cost-effective}."
It just doesn't make any sense to do that - and it doesn't strengthen the argument. The entry level price for a new computer from Apple is $599. You can buy entry level computers from others for half that. Your argument applies without ignoring the Mini, so why bother?
1. Apple didn't make garbage - ever. Even in the worst times, they made high quality computers. I used my IIsi from that era for well over a decade without any difficulty and Apple consistently won praise for their product quality. While there were certainly a few problems, Apple was widely recognized as making great computers. Put an Apple laptop or desktop from the 90's next to a Dell computer if you want a good laugh. To a large degree, Apple was the ONLY one focusing on quality.
2. The claim that Apple fans would continue to buy Apple no matter what is easily disproven. Apple's market share peaked in the 20+% range. It then fell to the low single digits (as low as around 3%, depending on how you measure it). It is now back to close to 10%. If Apple fans buy Apple's products no matter what, why did their market share change? Shouldn't it have remained constant?
It is clear from all of your posts that you're unwilling or unable to discuss anything rationally.
1)Apple computers of this era where slower and had less features of the Dell computers of the day and you have to take into account Apple computers cost a lot more than Dell and for that matter most other PC's . To state Apple is the ONLY one to focus on quality is silly. What about Alienware or Tadpole. Computer's such as the Toughbook that is used by NATO. Apple cannot touch this market. Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy. Change the colour and they will be over the moon, Apple tend to stick to slower CPU's less memory and a older GPU. As a result it can spend more time developing as it does not refresh it systems. It is easy to keep it's target market happy. Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple. The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
2) Apple had 20% of the market for the begining of the industry the early 80's In real terms the market was tiny.. It dropped as did it range during the 80/90's and was reborn with a newly coloured Imac. All substance but is was a slug in real time. Since then it has been climbing and it has reached a point where i feel it will stay. Housewives and teachers etc will continue to stick with apple and this is where Apple power is. To them Apple is like a new handbag it is a fashion statment. But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave. Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last Iphone slower CPU smaller screen, and worked on a slower network, But apple did a great job of pasting over these issues and showing how cool it was.
My system is hand build and cost a lot more than $1,000 closer to $3,000. I build my system for speed and it would leave most if not all Apple PC's in it's wake. Most if not all my friends have systems of the similiar spec. Apple may control the +$1,000 system but how many of these are housewives who have not got a clue what they are buying. These are shoehorned into buying a system as a fashion statement.
My system is hand build and cost a lot more than $1,000 closer to $3,000. I build my system for speed and it would leave most if not all Apple PC's in it's wake. Most if not all my friends have systems of the similiar spec. Apple may control the +$1,000 system but how many of these are housewives who have not got a clue what they are buying. These are shoehorned into buying a system as a fashion statement.
Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy.
Oh, ho… step out from behind your proxy and say that like a man…
Change the color and they will be over the moon…
But… but all the Fandroids are making fun of Apple for "not changing anything" on the iPhone again this year. It's… it's as though THEY are the ones that can be swayed by color and case changes and… we cannot. Because we already buy the good products when we see them and… they have to keep buying new phones every three months if they want the newest software… Strange, isn't it?
Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple.
Does someone else want to aggregate all the recent links where everyone in these fields are absolutely moving to Apple?
The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
That argument was old and busted half a decade ago.
All substance but is was a slug in real time.
So you're ignoring the fact that 2012 isn't 1997, then.
But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave.
Just shut up.
Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last iPhone slower CPU…
Oh, you mean the fastest CPU ever put into any phone at the time?
Come off it.
EDIT: As to your report, we allow swearing here. Huddler happens to censor it, which we don't like.
1)Apple computers of this era where slower and had less features of the Dell computers of the day and you have to take into account Apple computers cost a lot more than Dell and for that matter most other PC's . To state Apple is the ONLY one to focus on quality is silly. What about Alienware or Tadpole. Computer's such as the Toughbook that is used by NATO. Apple cannot touch this market. Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy. Change the colour and they will be over the moon, Apple tend to stick to slower CPU's less memory and a older GPU. As a result it can spend more time developing as it does not refresh it systems. It is easy to keep it's target market happy. Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple. The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
2) Apple had 20% of the market for the begining of the industry the early 80's In real terms the market was tiny.. It dropped as did it range during the 80/90's and was reborn with a newly coloured Imac. All substance but is was a slug in real time. Since then it has been climbing and it has reached a point where i feel it will stay. Housewives and teachers etc will continue to stick with apple and this is where Apple power is. To them Apple is like a new handbag it is a fashion statment. But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave. Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last Iphone slower CPU smaller screen, and worked on a slower network, But apple did a great job of pasting over these issues and showing how cool it was.
1. the OS in today's apple products is much "cleaner" than others. So much bloatware and other crap on the phones. etc. How can a 1.5mhz processor be just barely faster than a 800hz iphone 4s? It should be almost double, but it isn't
2. those housewives landing the curiosity on mars must be crazy using such low tech slow computers...
But, then, you'd rather simply blather your nonsense without facts.
Besides, given the way you write, I doubt if you were even alive in the mid-90s.
I have been working in the Industry since 1993 first with Honeywell and since 1995 in the semiconductor in USA Europe and Asia. The fact you speak of are fine i don't know our baised they are with the reality is another story. If the systems where so good explain why nobody used them.
2. those housewives landing the curiosity on mars must be crazy using such low tech slow computers...
How much did Apple pay to get they there product placement. Also maybe they are just updating there iTunes. I do see a couple of PC's there also. Walk into 90% of companies Apple is no where to be seen.
I have been working in the Industry since 1993 first with Honeywell and since 1995 in the semiconductor in USA Europe and Asia. The fact you speak of are fine i don't know our baised they are with the reality is another story. If the systems where so good explain why nobody used them.
For someone who claims to have been working in the industry for decades, you sure write like a 4th grader.
Not to mention your inability to exercise critical thinking or logic. The fact that Apple's market share was low does not support your contention that they were slow. There were quite a few reasons:
1. Network effects (look it up)
2. Price. While Apple's computers were not that much more expensive than comparable computers from other vendors, Apple never sold the cheap, entry level computers that made Dell rich and this limited their market share.
3. Outright FUD and bigotry and lies from people like you convinced some people not to buy Macs.
The fact is that, as I showed, Apple's computer performance was easily competitive at the time, and significantly better by many tests. You haven't refuted that in any way.
1. the OS in today's apple products is much "cleaner" than others. So much bloatware and other crap on the phones. etc. How can a 1.5mhz processor be just barely faster than a 800hz iphone 4s? It should be almost double, but it isn't
What you call bloatware other call freedom. The reason it is barely faster is that is it running on a faster network supporting and a larger screen.
3. Outright FUD and bigotry and lies from people like you convinced some people not to buy Macs.
The fact is that, as I showed, Apple's computer performance was easily competitive at the time, and significantly better by many tests. You haven't refuted that in any way.
Apple PC's ran a bespoke OS that not many people supported. Infact still window's is still enjoys more supported. It is easy to make a PC fast if you have a small software footprint. As the data you showed proves nothing Apple fans have been known to BS in the past.
How much did Apple pay to get they there product placement. Also maybe they are just updating there iTunes. I do see a couple of PC's there also. Walk into 90% of companies Apple is no where to be seen.
Stop talking now.
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
What you call bloatware other call freedom. The reason it is barely faster is that is it running on a faster network supporting and a larger screen.
You don't even know what words you're saying now. You don't have a clue what bloatware is, and I'd be surprised if you knew what a network was.
Please, PLEASE, I'm actually trying to help you, as hard as it might be for you to believe. Stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Intelligent people stopped the blind "Microsoft is better" nonsense in 1999.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
Because apple control the kangaroo court....
Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
If you are happy with Apple stay with them. But around 90% of computer users don't use Apple.
Cost of entry into the Apple ecosystem via a Mac: $1000 (not including the Mini)
The retail pyramid is narrow at the top. If consumers have $1000+ to spend on a computer, however, it's already been shown that a Mac will be on the top of their list:
Quote:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2350737,00.asp
Apple Dominates the $1,000+ PC Market
Apple's strategy of selling premium computers is paying off.
Joe Wilcox of BetaNews reports that Apple now dominates the market of $1,000-plus PCs, commanding about 90 percent of the market for U.S. retail, as measured by NPD.
Simply put, not everyone will afford or care to have the best.
For your enjoyment and edification (Im being kind to trolls today):
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/apple-tops-u-s-pc-customer-satisfaction-survey-for-eighth-consecutive-time/
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/12/07/apple-sweeps-pcworld-satisfaction-survey/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20108336-17/apple-tops-in-customer-satisfaction-for-8th-year/
That's 8 years in a row.
Oh, and by the way . . .
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/01/ipad_gives_apple_market_leading_19_share_of_pc_shipments.html
I've always wondered about the logic of this statement. Why ignore the Mini? It's a perfectly functional computer and will meet the needs of a very large percentage of people. Essentially, you're saying "the entry level price for {choose any company} is {$xxx} if you ignore {all of their products that are designed to be cost-effective}."
It just doesn't make any sense to do that - and it doesn't strengthen the argument. The entry level price for a new computer from Apple is $599. You can buy entry level computers from others for half that. Your argument applies without ignoring the Mini, so why bother?
I love you quadra
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I've always wondered about the logic of this statement. Why ignore the Mini?
It's not a notebook (that's already a major strike against it), and further, it is their *only* computer for under $1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That is, of course, nonsense.
1. Apple didn't make garbage - ever. Even in the worst times, they made high quality computers. I used my IIsi from that era for well over a decade without any difficulty and Apple consistently won praise for their product quality. While there were certainly a few problems, Apple was widely recognized as making great computers. Put an Apple laptop or desktop from the 90's next to a Dell computer if you want a good laugh. To a large degree, Apple was the ONLY one focusing on quality.
2. The claim that Apple fans would continue to buy Apple no matter what is easily disproven. Apple's market share peaked in the 20+% range. It then fell to the low single digits (as low as around 3%, depending on how you measure it). It is now back to close to 10%. If Apple fans buy Apple's products no matter what, why did their market share change? Shouldn't it have remained constant?
It is clear from all of your posts that you're unwilling or unable to discuss anything rationally.
1)Apple computers of this era where slower and had less features of the Dell computers of the day and you have to take into account Apple computers cost a lot more than Dell and for that matter most other PC's . To state Apple is the ONLY one to focus on quality is silly. What about Alienware or Tadpole. Computer's such as the Toughbook that is used by NATO. Apple cannot touch this market. Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy. Change the colour and they will be over the moon, Apple tend to stick to slower CPU's less memory and a older GPU. As a result it can spend more time developing as it does not refresh it systems. It is easy to keep it's target market happy. Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple. The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
2) Apple had 20% of the market for the begining of the industry the early 80's In real terms the market was tiny.. It dropped as did it range during the 80/90's and was reborn with a newly coloured Imac. All substance but is was a slug in real time. Since then it has been climbing and it has reached a point where i feel it will stay. Housewives and teachers etc will continue to stick with apple and this is where Apple power is. To them Apple is like a new handbag it is a fashion statment. But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave. Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last Iphone slower CPU smaller screen, and worked on a slower network, But apple did a great job of pasting over these issues and showing how cool it was.
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
Because apple control the kangaroo court....
Really? They haven't done so hot in Australia as of late.
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Prove it.
But yeah, prove it.
My system is hand build and cost a lot more than $1,000 closer to $3,000. I build my system for speed and it would leave most if not all Apple PC's in it's wake. Most if not all my friends have systems of the similiar spec. Apple may control the +$1,000 system but how many of these are housewives who have not got a clue what they are buying. These are shoehorned into buying a system as a fashion statement.
Housewives? Fashion statement? Fucking pathetic!
Like all the rest of the nonsense you spew, this is wrong.
In the mid-90's, Apple had some very significant performance advantages. Have a look at this site for some examples:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990427031655/http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/Perform.htm
But, then, you'd rather simply blather your nonsense without facts.
Besides, given the way you write, I doubt if you were even alive in the mid-90s.
It's not a pickup truck, air conditioner, or frisbee, either. So?
You're arguing in circles. You should ignore Apple's under-$1000 computer because it's their only sub-$1000 computer? You're not making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Housewives? Fashion statement? F********* pathetic!
I am sorry if the truth hurts.
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy.
Change the color and they will be over the moon…
But… but all the Fandroids are making fun of Apple for "not changing anything" on the iPhone again this year. It's… it's as though THEY are the ones that can be swayed by color and case changes and… we cannot. Because we already buy the good products when we see them and… they have to keep buying new phones every three months if they want the newest software… Strange, isn't it?
Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple.
Does someone else want to aggregate all the recent links where everyone in these fields are absolutely moving to Apple?
The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
That argument was old and busted half a decade ago.
All substance but is was a slug in real time.
So you're ignoring the fact that 2012 isn't 1997, then.
But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave.
Just shut up.
Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last iPhone slower CPU…
Oh, you mean the fastest CPU ever put into any phone at the time?
Come off it.
EDIT: As to your report, we allow swearing here. Huddler happens to censor it, which we don't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
1)Apple computers of this era where slower and had less features of the Dell computers of the day and you have to take into account Apple computers cost a lot more than Dell and for that matter most other PC's . To state Apple is the ONLY one to focus on quality is silly. What about Alienware or Tadpole. Computer's such as the Toughbook that is used by NATO. Apple cannot touch this market. Apple PC's by and large are not used by industry but by housewives and schoolteachers. It is easy to keep them happy. Change the colour and they will be over the moon, Apple tend to stick to slower CPU's less memory and a older GPU. As a result it can spend more time developing as it does not refresh it systems. It is easy to keep it's target market happy. Industry, busines and Govenments by and large don't use Apple. The reason is Apple computers would not cut it. Apple may nice shiny computers unpowered and tightly controlled so the user cannot or does not have as many options as the rest of the industry.
2) Apple had 20% of the market for the begining of the industry the early 80's In real terms the market was tiny.. It dropped as did it range during the 80/90's and was reborn with a newly coloured Imac. All substance but is was a slug in real time. Since then it has been climbing and it has reached a point where i feel it will stay. Housewives and teachers etc will continue to stick with apple and this is where Apple power is. To them Apple is like a new handbag it is a fashion statment. But people in most industries, business and govenment's will judge apple as the toys that they are. The core 3% or so will stay with Apple but it Apple forgets to change the colour or make it as glossy the housewives will leave. Don't forget most of the people in the industry was unimpressed with the last Iphone slower CPU smaller screen, and worked on a slower network, But apple did a great job of pasting over these issues and showing how cool it was.
1. the OS in today's apple products is much "cleaner" than others. So much bloatware and other crap on the phones. etc. How can a 1.5mhz processor be just barely faster than a 800hz iphone 4s? It should be almost double, but it isn't
2. those housewives landing the curiosity on mars must be crazy using such low tech slow computers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Like all the rest of the nonsense you spew, this is wrong.
In the mid-90's, Apple had some very significant performance advantages. Have a look at this site for some examples:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990427031655/http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/Perform.htm
But, then, you'd rather simply blather your nonsense without facts.
Besides, given the way you write, I doubt if you were even alive in the mid-90s.
I have been working in the Industry since 1993 first with Honeywell and since 1995 in the semiconductor in USA Europe and Asia. The fact you speak of are fine i don't know our baised they are with the reality is another story. If the systems where so good explain why nobody used them.
Quote:
2. those housewives landing the curiosity on mars must be crazy using such low tech slow computers...
How much did Apple pay to get they there product placement. Also maybe they are just updating there iTunes. I do see a couple of PC's there also. Walk into 90% of companies Apple is no where to be seen.
For someone who claims to have been working in the industry for decades, you sure write like a 4th grader.
Not to mention your inability to exercise critical thinking or logic. The fact that Apple's market share was low does not support your contention that they were slow. There were quite a few reasons:
1. Network effects (look it up)
2. Price. While Apple's computers were not that much more expensive than comparable computers from other vendors, Apple never sold the cheap, entry level computers that made Dell rich and this limited their market share.
3. Outright FUD and bigotry and lies from people like you convinced some people not to buy Macs.
The fact is that, as I showed, Apple's computer performance was easily competitive at the time, and significantly better by many tests. You haven't refuted that in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4bones
1. the OS in today's apple products is much "cleaner" than others. So much bloatware and other crap on the phones. etc. How can a 1.5mhz processor be just barely faster than a 800hz iphone 4s? It should be almost double, but it isn't
What you call bloatware other call freedom. The reason it is barely faster is that is it running on a faster network supporting and a larger screen.
Quote:
3. Outright FUD and bigotry and lies from people like you convinced some people not to buy Macs.
The fact is that, as I showed, Apple's computer performance was easily competitive at the time, and significantly better by many tests. You haven't refuted that in any way.
Apple PC's ran a bespoke OS that not many people supported. Infact still window's is still enjoys more supported. It is easy to make a PC fast if you have a small software footprint. As the data you showed proves nothing Apple fans have been known to BS in the past.
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
How much did Apple pay to get they there product placement. Also maybe they are just updating there iTunes. I do see a couple of PC's there also. Walk into 90% of companies Apple is no where to be seen.
Stop talking now.
Originally Posted by Pgkavana
What you call bloatware other call freedom. The reason it is barely faster is that is it running on a faster network supporting and a larger screen.
You don't even know what words you're saying now. You don't have a clue what bloatware is, and I'd be surprised if you knew what a network was.
Please, PLEASE, I'm actually trying to help you, as hard as it might be for you to believe. Stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Intelligent people stopped the blind "Microsoft is better" nonsense in 1999.
Also, here's how you quote properly:
Quote:
Content of quoted post
________________________________________________________________________________
^^^^ blank line automatically put in your reply below quoted post ^^^^
Type your reply on that line, not in the quote box itself. Otherwise when people quote you, nothing will show up.
the ITC just shot down Motorola's(Google) patent case. And Samsung just got a reality check.