Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your reasoned arguments are now null and void. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>I know what sampling mean and I read IBM press release. Thank you very much. But its just a press release, this release is for general public as well as other smaller computer customers. Apple is probably the most important one because SJ is talking about market share and who wouldn't like it. Semiconductor firms like volume. If importance is a key, anything is possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they probably get that figure from things like .Mac connection information and tech support calls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, 80% of their support calls are X related? Sure, I can believe that. :-)
I think if they had a "method" that was viable and established to measure such things then they'd say so. You know, if you're citing some statistic it's normal to say something like "Sample of 1,000, adjusted to profile of all users, interviewed over the weekend of 12/12/02 by telephone on behalf of Apple Computer. Research undertaken by the Gallup Group Inc".
But there's no such data, or at least nothing that's publically available. This statement wasn't even an "official" press release - it's not on the Apple site. If you have any confidence in it then you're probably the same people that were buying Apple stock at $130.00.
I'm an Apple fan, I wouldn't use anything else, but this G5 stuff, and 80% user base for X is just delusional.
Here's some stats: 100% of the Macs on Clive's desk aren't running X. But, 100% of the Macs on the next desk to the right are running X.
Wasn't it Oscar Wilde that said "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics"?
Clive has made some good points. I work at a large company that developes text books for publishers like Harcourt, Glencoe, and HRW. We have not moved to OS X yet, and probably wont for the next 12 months. This is partly due to production concerns with Quark, and partly due to the economy (a site license for 150+ Macs is a lot of green). The computers that we are currently buying have X installed, and out IT reformats the drive with a standard disk image using OS 9.2. I think that we have no more than 5 computers running OS X a the 3 sites where we have Macs installed. Now Apple is getting their figures from somewhere, but I doubt that those are acurate when you take into account their overall install base.
One of the big issues is Quark for companies like mine. We keep files active for at least 4 years through various revision cycles, so we have to have a stable and workable solution. As much as I would like OS X to be that, at this time it isnt. What Apple needs to do now is to get Classic to work seamlessly with OS X (ie fix printing problems and seamlesly integrate AppleScript between the two "systems"), and give their large customers a compelling reason to upgrade, becouse it will be a lot of work for the IT departments of these companies.
InDesign could help out Apple as well. I've used it a little, and it is an impressive program. However, it is not the best program for a heavy production invironment. It is memory intensive, slow, and potentially too "feature rich" for production. This means that even production computers need to be more powerfull, which is going to cost the publishing industry lots of money in upgrading (a note, at least at my company, production gets the "old" computers from the Design, Digital Media, Prepress and Imaging department, and right now there are still a few G3 towers bieng used for Production, and we still have a few PowerComputing models bieng used as Port of Entry computers).
What is even more compelling is the InDesign/InCopy workflow solutions. These have large publishing companies investigating InDesign right now, and may actually sell them on what will be an expensive "switch" for them and their service providers. The problem that I see with this right now is that InCopy is not a final product as it stands today, and is only (mostly) sold through "solution providers" who customize the software for the client (BIG $$$). This is a problem, both in the initial investment in time and $, but also can put limits on how you work with freelancers, and outside service providers. Quark is also building workflow solutions like InDesign/InCopy's, but at present I am not familiar with their product.
I guess the bottom line of what I am saying, is that for smaller graphic buisnesses the switch to OS X, and InDesign might be viable solution. Apples numbers might be representative of this, but the battle wont be won untill the large Graphic buisnesses feel that it is safe to move up, or are forced into moving up. Given todays economic conditions forcing them to spend that kind of money isnt the best solution, becouse they might find it less expensive to move up to Windows instead of OS X.
Well, again I want to start by saying I agree with Clive's points in general. Still, I have to take issue with:
"You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse."
Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse". I have seen, for example, many scientific papers (unfortunately) where the methodology is so poorly explained that one cannot determine where a certain number in the results section was derived. I would NOT, however, then decide that this means they made it up, or that my personal experience should have just as much weight ("why, all the people *I* know who had colon cancer lived, so those numbers are ridiculous").
And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?
I just want to echo something that @homenow wrote above: integration is a big deal in large studios with complex workflows. That integration relies of things like AppleScript and printing working seamlessly. When that doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen in X, yet, you don't want to know about potential benefits, you just want to know about actual problems and avoid them.
Another thing I've highlighted before is filesharing not working seamlessly between Classic and X - it's just not feasible to be running a production environment when you cannot rely 100% on the kit.
The list of these items goes on and on, and to many of you it's "so what" but to me it's "time out" and time is money.
Anyway, Merry Christmas, and Merry Christmas Apple too - and let's get some decent machines out soon so you get some money in and spend some $'s ironing out the creases in X.
<strong>Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the fact that this was not an "official" press release says volumes. No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users, it just says this: "Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS" and "To accommodate a minority of our pro customers still running Mac OS 9 applications such as QuarkXPress, Apple will continue to offer a 1.25GHz dual-processor Power Mac that will boot into Mac OS 9 until June."
Ok, you could read that a number of ways, but you know how I'm reading it.
I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites. The bottom line to me is that the figures have no context and no established terms of reference - we can't even guess at what they mean by "pro users" - they are therefore meaningless, you know: "eight out of ten cat owners say their cats prefer Whiskas" (talking cats!?).
Clive: ?No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.?
But you are missing the point ? that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the ?professional? Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography) and at the 2 universities I have worked at in the past year (just switched jobs), and it is dramatically different from yours. In my experience, the vast majority of the Mac users are using OS X. The difference is, I do not believe that my experience is a random subsample of professional users.
quote:
Originally posted by fishdoc:
Clive: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity."
me: No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?
Clive: ?Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users,?
Actually, it does ? remember? The 50% you cite as ?meaningless? in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ?ordering? with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.
Clive: ?I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites.?
Isn?t that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to ? appleinsider forum posters?
Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.
<strong>I am not certain why you think that is ? I just went and looked at Apple?s Press Releases, and I don?t see any of them talk about ?methodology?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er, crossed wires, I don't really care about the methodology - what I'm trying to point out is that Apple hasn't put this out as an official press release, ie it's something a spokespaerson has said to a journalist - this means that they don't have to defend it to their investors or the SEC or whatever - it's unofficial.
Whatever way you look at it the figures have a lot less veracity than if it had been an official statement.
If someone can find it on the Apple web site then I'll eat the above - otherwise I'm sticking with that line.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>But you are missing the point ? that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the ?professional? Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're kind of picking out the bits you want to argue with and not seeing the bigger point. My point is that, guess what, these figures are pretty meaningless (not utterly meaningless - we have a clue as to how to interpret them), because of underlying context issues like: what is a pro user anyway!?
Now, I'd say that my terms of reference on a "pro" user are probably more mainstream than yours - I'd say Apple means design and media people. But that doesn't make your terms of reference wrong - and maybe Apple is saying "bugger those design blokes, the whole business is down the toilet anyway, the oceanographers are our "pro" sample".
But again, I think this just points to how relatively meaningless these figures are. We can't even say whether Apple's sample is global, North American, or restricted to the San Francisco Bay area.
quote:
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Actually, it does ? remember? The 50% you cite as ?meaningless? in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ?ordering? with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so I'm at least half wrong again. :-)
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Isn?t that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to ? appleinsider forum posters?</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, get serious - the press just recycles what they're fed (that's an over-statement of the facts, but it applies well to the Mac press sector). When was the last time you saw any real analysis on any Mac related web site? Ok, MacNN just rolled through the K10 and pulled out some highlights - but that's like a once a month highlight. Look at the original story at cnet, where's the critical eye there? It's just a bunch of quotes strung together with some contextualisation to fill the page up.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>
Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's myopic to cast doubt on these figures. Look at Apple's k10 statement, even that is in part contradictory to this, is says something like "the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native X Photoshop failed to materialise".
You know what - the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native QuarkXPress will also fail to materialise. Do you know why? Because Quark is still struggling to get its userbase to upgrade from v3.x to v4.x - despite the fact that the current version is 5.0. Quark is still selling 4.1 upgrades a year after they released 5.0 - who else does that?
The "pro" graphics market will not rush to buy a new version of XPress, native or not, any more so than they are rushing to InDesign (Adobe reckons it has around a 10% market share).
Given that Apple is forever going on about Photoshop or XPress in one way or another we have to accept that they believe that user sector is a core and important market - and I tell you that market's going nowhere, whatever Apple's unattributed statements say.
HA-hahahahahaha..... I can't believe that such a worthless thread has grown to 3 pages... only on AI... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You just can't accept that people are using Mac OS X can you?
<strong>As far as "when you switch, you switch" goes - what's that mean? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean that if you have decided to do the switch, you just don't install Mac OS X ojn your Mac and try to play with it once a month.
If you want to switch you try to work full time in your new environment. That's what I meant.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I've no idea what you do, but I work in graphics, prepress and new media - I've got around 16 years commercial experience, and I've been using Macs since 1988. As well as being a "production" animal my company supports three other commercial studios, totalling around 120 Macs (and perhaps 15-20 Windows boxes, plus a couple of Suns). I have friends working in large studios in many countries within the EU, US and Australia - so I think I have a pretty good grasp on what "graphic pros" are doing: trying to spend as much time as possible in a productive environment, with as few hitches as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can I touch you?
The two largest producers of phone books here in Denmark have switched to Mac OS X without problems, and that was 800+ Macs.
The word from several ad agencies is also a Mac OS X switch without any problems worth mentioning.
<strong>HA-hahahahahaha..... I can't believe that such a worthless thread has grown to 3 pages... only on AI... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Worthless? I won't be the judge of that. But I would venture a guess that it is slightly off topic.
Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(Just to echo what you're saying...) There are graphics pros making the switch right now in the US. Companies that are switching have the mentality that "if Quark doesn't have an osx version in 6 months we're switching to indesign."
There is one large national company moving all their workstations nationwide to osx and their timeframe for completion is the next 3 months. There are approx 500 workstations nationwide. BTW, indesign is being tested right now and the time it takes to move templates over to indesign from xpress is minimal.
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.
Comments
<strong>
Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your reasoned arguments are now null and void. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>I know what sampling mean and I read IBM press release. Thank you very much. But its just a press release, this release is for general public as well as other smaller computer customers. Apple is probably the most important one because SJ is talking about market share and who wouldn't like it. Semiconductor firms like volume. If importance is a key, anything is possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm still waiting for you to make sense.
<strong>
Actually they probably get that figure from things like .Mac connection information and tech support calls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, 80% of their support calls are X related? Sure, I can believe that. :-)
I think if they had a "method" that was viable and established to measure such things then they'd say so. You know, if you're citing some statistic it's normal to say something like "Sample of 1,000, adjusted to profile of all users, interviewed over the weekend of 12/12/02 by telephone on behalf of Apple Computer. Research undertaken by the Gallup Group Inc".
But there's no such data, or at least nothing that's publically available. This statement wasn't even an "official" press release - it's not on the Apple site. If you have any confidence in it then you're probably the same people that were buying Apple stock at $130.00.
I'm an Apple fan, I wouldn't use anything else, but this G5 stuff, and 80% user base for X is just delusional.
Here's some stats: 100% of the Macs on Clive's desk aren't running X. But, 100% of the Macs on the next desk to the right are running X.
Wasn't it Oscar Wilde that said "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics"?
[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
One of the big issues is Quark for companies like mine. We keep files active for at least 4 years through various revision cycles, so we have to have a stable and workable solution. As much as I would like OS X to be that, at this time it isnt. What Apple needs to do now is to get Classic to work seamlessly with OS X (ie fix printing problems and seamlesly integrate AppleScript between the two "systems"), and give their large customers a compelling reason to upgrade, becouse it will be a lot of work for the IT departments of these companies.
InDesign could help out Apple as well. I've used it a little, and it is an impressive program. However, it is not the best program for a heavy production invironment. It is memory intensive, slow, and potentially too "feature rich" for production. This means that even production computers need to be more powerfull, which is going to cost the publishing industry lots of money in upgrading (a note, at least at my company, production gets the "old" computers from the Design, Digital Media, Prepress and Imaging department, and right now there are still a few G3 towers bieng used for Production, and we still have a few PowerComputing models bieng used as Port of Entry computers).
What is even more compelling is the InDesign/InCopy workflow solutions. These have large publishing companies investigating InDesign right now, and may actually sell them on what will be an expensive "switch" for them and their service providers. The problem that I see with this right now is that InCopy is not a final product as it stands today, and is only (mostly) sold through "solution providers" who customize the software for the client (BIG $$$). This is a problem, both in the initial investment in time and $, but also can put limits on how you work with freelancers, and outside service providers. Quark is also building workflow solutions like InDesign/InCopy's, but at present I am not familiar with their product.
I guess the bottom line of what I am saying, is that for smaller graphic buisnesses the switch to OS X, and InDesign might be viable solution. Apples numbers might be representative of this, but the battle wont be won untill the large Graphic buisnesses feel that it is safe to move up, or are forced into moving up. Given todays economic conditions forcing them to spend that kind of money isnt the best solution, becouse they might find it less expensive to move up to Windows instead of OS X.
"You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse."
Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse". I have seen, for example, many scientific papers (unfortunately) where the methodology is so poorly explained that one cannot determine where a certain number in the results section was derived. I would NOT, however, then decide that this means they made it up, or that my personal experience should have just as much weight ("why, all the people *I* know who had colon cancer lived, so those numbers are ridiculous").
And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?
Fish
Another thing I've highlighted before is filesharing not working seamlessly between Classic and X - it's just not feasible to be running a production environment when you cannot rely 100% on the kit.
The list of these items goes on and on, and to many of you it's "so what" but to me it's "time out" and time is money.
Anyway, Merry Christmas, and Merry Christmas Apple too - and let's get some decent machines out soon so you get some money in and spend some $'s ironing out the creases in X.
<strong>Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the fact that this was not an "official" press release says volumes. No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users, it just says this: "Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS" and "To accommodate a minority of our pro customers still running Mac OS 9 applications such as QuarkXPress, Apple will continue to offer a 1.25GHz dual-processor Power Mac that will boot into Mac OS 9 until June."
From: <a href="http://news.com.com/2102-1040-977881.html"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2102-1040-977881.html</a>;
Ok, you could read that a number of ways, but you know how I'm reading it.
I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites. The bottom line to me is that the figures have no context and no established terms of reference - we can't even guess at what they mean by "pro users" - they are therefore meaningless, you know: "eight out of ten cat owners say their cats prefer Whiskas" (talking cats!?).
Take your choice.
[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
I am not certain why you think that is ? I just went and looked at Apple?s Press Releases, and I don?t see any of them talk about ?methodology?. E.g., <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/feb/18japan_buyers.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/feb/18japan_buyers.html</a>; lists percentages of Japanese iMac purchases who are Wintel converts, but ? nope, no methodology.
Clive: ?No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.?
But you are missing the point ? that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the ?professional? Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography) and at the 2 universities I have worked at in the past year (just switched jobs), and it is dramatically different from yours. In my experience, the vast majority of the Mac users are using OS X. The difference is, I do not believe that my experience is a random subsample of professional users.
quote:
Originally posted by fishdoc:
Clive: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity."
me: No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?
Clive: ?Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users,?
Actually, it does ? remember? The 50% you cite as ?meaningless? in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ?ordering? with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.
Clive: ?I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites.?
Isn?t that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to ? appleinsider forum posters?
Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.
Fish
<strong>I am not certain why you think that is ? I just went and looked at Apple?s Press Releases, and I don?t see any of them talk about ?methodology?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er, crossed wires, I don't really care about the methodology - what I'm trying to point out is that Apple hasn't put this out as an official press release, ie it's something a spokespaerson has said to a journalist - this means that they don't have to defend it to their investors or the SEC or whatever - it's unofficial.
Whatever way you look at it the figures have a lot less veracity than if it had been an official statement.
If someone can find it on the Apple web site then I'll eat the above - otherwise I'm sticking with that line.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>But you are missing the point ? that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the ?professional? Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're kind of picking out the bits you want to argue with and not seeing the bigger point. My point is that, guess what, these figures are pretty meaningless (not utterly meaningless - we have a clue as to how to interpret them), because of underlying context issues like: what is a pro user anyway!?
Now, I'd say that my terms of reference on a "pro" user are probably more mainstream than yours - I'd say Apple means design and media people. But that doesn't make your terms of reference wrong - and maybe Apple is saying "bugger those design blokes, the whole business is down the toilet anyway, the oceanographers are our "pro" sample".
But again, I think this just points to how relatively meaningless these figures are. We can't even say whether Apple's sample is global, North American, or restricted to the San Francisco Bay area.
quote:
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Actually, it does ? remember? The 50% you cite as ?meaningless? in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ?ordering? with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so I'm at least half wrong again. :-)
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Isn?t that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to ? appleinsider forum posters?</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, get serious - the press just recycles what they're fed (that's an over-statement of the facts, but it applies well to the Mac press sector). When was the last time you saw any real analysis on any Mac related web site? Ok, MacNN just rolled through the K10 and pulled out some highlights - but that's like a once a month highlight. Look at the original story at cnet, where's the critical eye there? It's just a bunch of quotes strung together with some contextualisation to fill the page up.
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>
Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's myopic to cast doubt on these figures. Look at Apple's k10 statement, even that is in part contradictory to this, is says something like "the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native X Photoshop failed to materialise".
You know what - the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native QuarkXPress will also fail to materialise. Do you know why? Because Quark is still struggling to get its userbase to upgrade from v3.x to v4.x - despite the fact that the current version is 5.0. Quark is still selling 4.1 upgrades a year after they released 5.0 - who else does that?
The "pro" graphics market will not rush to buy a new version of XPress, native or not, any more so than they are rushing to InDesign (Adobe reckons it has around a 10% market share).
Given that Apple is forever going on about Photoshop or XPress in one way or another we have to accept that they believe that user sector is a core and important market - and I tell you that market's going nowhere, whatever Apple's unattributed statements say.
<strong>
Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You just can't accept that people are using Mac OS X can you?
Don't you think that Apple does market research?
<strong>As far as "when you switch, you switch" goes - what's that mean? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean that if you have decided to do the switch, you just don't install Mac OS X ojn your Mac and try to play with it once a month.
If you want to switch you try to work full time in your new environment. That's what I meant.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I've no idea what you do, but I work in graphics, prepress and new media - I've got around 16 years commercial experience, and I've been using Macs since 1988. As well as being a "production" animal my company supports three other commercial studios, totalling around 120 Macs (and perhaps 15-20 Windows boxes, plus a couple of Suns). I have friends working in large studios in many countries within the EU, US and Australia - so I think I have a pretty good grasp on what "graphic pros" are doing: trying to spend as much time as possible in a productive environment, with as few hitches as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can I touch you?
The two largest producers of phone books here in Denmark have switched to Mac OS X without problems, and that was 800+ Macs.
The word from several ad agencies is also a Mac OS X switch without any problems worth mentioning.
<strong>HA-hahahahahaha..... I can't believe that such a worthless thread has grown to 3 pages... only on AI... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Worthless? I won't be the judge of that. But I would venture a guess that it is slightly off topic.
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(Just to echo what you're saying...) There are graphics pros making the switch right now in the US. Companies that are switching have the mentality that "if Quark doesn't have an osx version in 6 months we're switching to indesign."
There is one large national company moving all their workstations nationwide to osx and their timeframe for completion is the next 3 months. There are approx 500 workstations nationwide. BTW, indesign is being tested right now and the time it takes to move templates over to indesign from xpress is minimal.
Quark better wake up!
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.
<strong>
Can I touch you?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
you people just dont get it do you?
if apple releases a G5 at MWSF2003 it wont be from ibm!
this is what i think apple stratagy will be.
the 970(IF APPLE IS GOING TO USE IT)will be for the VERY high end.
mark my words.
XSERVE will get these as will high end "workstations".
dont even think for a minute that you will get these babys in a computer for less than 2 coins.
capiche?
<strong>enough of this 970 talk already!
you people just dont get it do you?
if apple releases a G5 at MWSF2003 it wont be from ibm!
this is what i think apple stratagy will be.
the 970(IF APPLE IS GOING TO USE IT)will be for the VERY high end.
mark my words.
XSERVE will get these as will high end "workstations".
dont even think for a minute that you will get these babys in a computer for less than 2 coins.
capiche?
I sure hope you are wrong...Apple needs to dump Moto, and the sooner the better!