What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29To get a perspective:
-----------------------------
HP shipped 9.9 million PCs in the third quarter of 2006, from 8.4 million during the same period in 2005. This caused U.S.-based HP’s market share to rise to 16.5 percent, up from 13.6 percent in the second quarter.
Apple's share of PC sales stands at 2.8 percent currently.- replica, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Overall PC sales for the quarter were 59.1 Million units. So, Apples 1.6 Million units is 2.7%.
PC unit sales for the quarter
=================
Hewlett-Packard 9,852,000
Dell Inc. 9,541,000
Lenovo 4,444,000
Acer 3,468,000
Toshiba 2,551,000
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Don't confuse me with the facts, guys.
- skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9OOOh! A whole FOUR PERCENT!!!
- kendals, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Perspective would be to differentiate corporate and personal computering purchases ;)
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8If Apple stops making hardware (except accessories and stand-alone items like the iPod), and instead concentrates on making the Mac operating system run on any IBM-compatible PC (like Linux can today) with sufficiently powerful emulation allowing for any and all Windows software to run flawlessly on such a set-up (foundations for this have already been laid), there is a very strong possibility that Apple will surpass Microsoft as the biggest computer software marker in the world.
Unfortunately for us consumers, the management at Apple (and their biggest fans) is more concerned with idealism and "dreams" than making a product that a broad range of people actually want.
In my opinion, when Apple made a computer than could run both Windows and OSX (Intel-based), they approached their problem from the most ass-backwards way possible. They need to stop obsessing with hardware, period. - splinecl, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17@ilyag
Bad idea, the only thing that makes OS X stable, is because it is run on such a restricted platform. If it ever got released for the general market, it would suffer the same problems as Windows. - FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30"In my opinion, when Apple made a computer than could run both Windows and OSX (Intel-based), they approached their problem from the most ass-backwards way possible. They need to stop obsessing with hardware, period."
Apple delivers what nobody else does. A complete PC solution. Dell doesn't make the OS and MS doesn't make the box. This allows Apple to maintain much better quality control in delivering an OS that they know is going to work with the hardware. Their' obsession with hardware' is part of what makes Macs so attractive. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@ilyag
I farkin' love my Mac, and many of its differences stem from Apple's idealism. It was founded to make the best computer possible, not to make craploads of money, and I'm not eager to see that change.
@splinecl
If Apple has like a 2.7% market share, wouldn't you expect it to have at least a 2% malware share, not the complete lack thereof it actually has? - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@PathDaemon
Apple is in the business of making money by providing a "complete solution." It's carved out its niche and is making healthy profit. If it was possible to dominate the market, Apple would. The reason they won't abandon the hardware market is because that's part of the Apply mystique and selling point, the beautiful casing. They would be taking a massive risk by abandoning their computers/laptops and going head to head with Microsoft.
And for the malware question you've brought up, it's a question of attractiveness. Microsoft has such a large market, there's no point in attacking a Mac. Besides, most "hackers" now are script kiddies and people attempting to use hacking to gain a profit. No point in hacking a 2.7 market share when there's the other 90 percent of market there.
Don't glorify Apple. It's a company to make money. Its philosophy on doing so is just different. - FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12"Bad idea, the only thing that makes OS X stable, is because it is run on such a restricted platform. If it ever got released for the general market, it would suffer the same problems as Windows."
No. They have widley divergent security approaches. Not all security implementations are the same. That's like saying "A piggy bank is easier to break into than a safe because more people have piggy banks so they get attacked a lot, If safes were as popular as piggy banks, they would be just as vulnerable" - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@FearlessFreep
No, a better comparison would be Safe A has ~90 percent market share, while Safe B has 2.7 percent share. Which one do you think bank robbers will spend time to get to know better? - dBass, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The significant bit to me is that Apple continues to lead in two key areas important to business (not haters or so called "fanboys"):
1. Market share growth greater than the industry growth
2. More than double the margin on their sales (They actually make money selling goods and services)
More and more mid-market and high-end buyers are putting Apple at the top of their short list. The low-end, mass market has never interested Steve Jobs. - tfinniga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'd be interested to know how that percent of the quarterly sales translates into installed user base. I recently bought some used macs for my kids to use, some old quicksilvers from 2001 or so. They still chug along fine, fast enough for the kids to use. The shocking thing was that they cost upwards of $200 a piece. Looking online, I see similar machines for $600 and up.
Who in their right mind would pay that much for a 5 year old PC? In my experience, PCs last 3 years or so. Macs seem to have a lifespan of 5+ years. One big help is that each rev. of the OS actually increases the speed. I know someone who uses a first-gen iBook for day-to-day computing tasks. It's now 7 years old. Try getting a 7 year old PC laptop to run XP. - FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"No, a better comparison would be Safe A has ~90 percent market share, while Safe B has 2.7 percent share. Which one do you think bank robbers will spend time to get to know better?"
Not quite because that assumes both safes are exactly the same, at least in terms of how t hey keep people. There may be more money to be had if you can crack safe A since their are more opportunities, but that says nothing about whether either safe may simply have implemented a better security model so it's impossible to say that "if Safe B was as popular as Safe A it would be just as vulnerable.
That argument seems to be more about making someone feel good than about security - redhatcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Bad idea, the only thing that makes OS X stable, is because it is run on such a restricted platform."
Once again, the BSD code goes unrecognized. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apple getting out of the hardware business and selling OS X for generic PCs would be SUICIDE. It's not as if all Windows users would suddenly run out and buy a copy. We're talking a relatively low percentage, I'm sure (plus many of the copies would probably be pirated, like Windows). And at $129 a pop, they'd have to sell an awful lot of copies to make up for their instant loss in hardware sales. You do realize much of Microsoft's profit comes from selling Office and not the Windows OS, right? And since Apple has no $400 office suite to offer...
Factor in the huge jump in support costs to troubleshoot OS X problems on FrankenPCs of all stripes. Not worth it.
Not to mention the whole beauty of Apple's integrated hardware+software as mentioned by previous posters.
You want to see a repeat of OS/2? Apple going to a software-only model would do it. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I'm just curious, I wonder how much CLIFFosakaJAPAN gets paid for his many daily Apple advertisements. If not in money, does he get free iTunes downloads or his he just a crazed fanboy with too much time on his hands?
- lgc90, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ questionable,
"No, a better comparison would be Safe A has ~90 percent market share, while Safe B has 2.7 percent share. Which one do you think bank robbers will spend time to get to know better?"
Just make sure you understand that Safe A has, at least in my opinion, far too many gaping holes in it, regardless of the number of people who use it.... and it's damn fugly compared to Safe B. - node3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IQ70 et al.
Apple is doing much better in the US and Europe than it is doing worldwide (your numbers).
Apple is the #4 PC maker in the US, and is closing in on #3. That is the entire US market, including businesses (which is not Apple's strongest market).
In the US, home, non-budget, PC market, Apple is doing very well, in fact, it's a market Apple is leading wrt to growth. Of course, it may appear like I'm cherry-picking here, but seriously, that's the *EXACT* market I'm in, and clearly the one I personally care most about.
In fact, I would not be surprised at all to find Apple as the #1 PC maker in some of the markets most important to me (and I don't mean the Photoshop market). There is certainly no dearth of Mac in the circles I run in, and they make up *vastly* more than 2.8%. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I'm just curious, I wonder how much CLIFFosakaJAPAN gets paid for his many daily Apple advertisements" - rebrad
Well, rebrad. Some people, like Cliff, have a hobby of posting Apple Diggs. Some people, like you, have a hobby of trolling Apple Diggs. Different strokes for different folks, see?
I see little difference between crazed fanboys and crazed haters as far as free time is concerned. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2"I farkin' love my Mac, and many of its differences stem from Apple's idealism. It was founded to make the best computer possible, not to make craploads of money, and I'm not eager to see that change."
I didn't know that making the best computer possible and making money were mutually exclusive. - Fairly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Right. And Windows is an OS and Apple is a computer. And all the rest sell Windows which has something like 95% market share. Windows and Apple can't be compared.
Windows: it's abysmal. They need antivirus and anti-spyware and even that's not enough. They have to visit things like Black Viper and that list at MIT and inspect each and every file they have to see if they have trojans or not. And apps like AdAware and the rest of that lot can't do it all. Pick up maybe 70% of all trojans. The BBC said 80% of all Windows PCs are infected and Earthlink said of those infected the average was 30 trojans per PC. It's bloody ridiculous.
But getting Mac enthusiasts to stand outside an Apple store in a queue waiting for a new product doesn't change anything. Microsoft know this. They don't have stores. They're still dominant. And why? Because they have the you know what of the world of business in their pocket. And what could ever change that? To change that you have to convince those dull bastards in those gray pinstripe suits that buying Apple computers is a 'good investment'. And they're never going to even consider Apple as long as there is a hardware lock-in.
It's better to get one foot in the door first than to try to get both feet in at once. It's far better to license the OS to screw-up OEMs and then let people figure the rest out themselves. Look what OS X is: you get space age graphics. Quartz with PDF resolution. Microsoft can't touch it. You have 'shared pixels' on screen. Now Microsoft are trying to do the same thing, but to get that on Windows you have to pay $400 and buy hardware with twice the VRAM you need on OS X. Even if an Apple computer should be more expensive, getting a Windows PC to support Vista Ultimate will cost even more. It's ridiculous. $400 for an OS when Apple have a better one for only $129? It's ridiculous.
And using OS X is so much easier too. Count the ways. You're using OS X and you know. Now imagine what happens when some punter gets OS X on a Gateway. OK, Gateway is a ***** computer, but he's going to see OS X and he's going to go 'wow' and he's going to say to himself 'wow this is good - but this Gateway sucks and so next time I'm going to go all the way and get an Apple instead!'
Of course he is. You get one foot in the door first and then they open the door wide and you walk in.
And how about business? A lot of them would probably want OS X but they won't take a lock-in. That's a no-no in business. So they keep their present equipment and they switch over a period of months/years to OS X. And then they realise they like it and it works better. And now they do the math and figure out it's cheaper to upgrade to Apple hardware next time. That's fine - what's essential comfort for them is knowing they don't have to use Apple hardware - they could always use crappy hardware again.
For business it's stability. Knowing that the OS and hardware platforms you choose come from companies that are not going to go out of business tomorrow. And with a 2% market share they can never feel secure Apple will be around. Sure, Apple sell a lot of iPods, but that doesn't mean their computer division will be around.
Apple used to have at least 1/6 of the market in the US. 15%. Now they have just a bit more than 1/10 of that. It was difficult selling business on Apple before; it's even more difficult today.
You have to license the OS. That's the only way. You can't expect Apple alone to supply computers for the billion or more that use them. They can't take that scale. And you only have to think in those terms if the OS can only run on your own hardware. And if OS X only runs on Apple hardware then OS X will dent the universe.
- replica, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Overall PC sales for the quarter were 59.1 Million units. So, Apples 1.6 Million units is 2.7%.
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Rise again? When did it rise the first time? Apple Market Share has been between 2%-3% for as long as I can remember.
Also, how is this new information? Apple released their fourth quarter sales back in October.- zang74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15There was a time when Macs outsold PCs; prior to both Windows 3.1 and the allowance of IBM-PC clones.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8ummm, not as I remember it. Apple, other than early on with the Apple II, has never been the dominant market share leader.
- ItchyMcknobster, on 10/12/2007, -31/+20Can someone please clarify something for me? Why is the mac "more fun" than the pc (besides media telling us it is?"
I have both, and I can't figure out why. Everything I can do on a mac, I can do on my PC. When I'm sitting on the computer (doesn't matter which one) I surf the internet. It is the content that makes the experience fun, not the machine. Is that what fan boys cry about the Wii? Its not the graphics, its the content? Thats what I thought.
In fact, the only time the machine brings me joy is when I'm gaming and the last time I checked, you can't do serious gaming on a mac.
Oh wait, I hear that tired argument of video editing on the mac. Please, someone tell me how video looks better on a mac than my pc with SLI'ed 880GTX's. It doesn't, end of story.
Why are people so rabid about certain products so much? Why can't everyone just admit that they are different and people like them for different reasons.
They both, pretty much, do the same thing.- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26@ItchyMcknobster
"Can someone please clarigy something for me? Why is the mac "more fun" than the pc (besides media telling us it is?"
I have both, and I can't figure out why. Everything I can do on a mac, I can do on my PC. When I'm sitting on the computer (doesn't matter which one) I surf the internet. It is the content that makes the experience fun, not the machine. Is that what fan boys cry about the Wii? Its not the graphics, its the content? Thats what I thought."
For me personally, it's how easy it is to do everything, and the very user-friendly, well thought out interface designs on applications. i.e. Having the most important 20% of functionality (i.e. the most used functionality) available readily at hand, rather than have 70% of the functionality available with complex menus and multiple dropdowns and hardly any of it readily available.
"In fact, the only time the machine brings me joy is when I'm gaming and the last time I checked, you can't do serious gaming on a mac."
Fun/enjoyment is about more than just playing games. But I agree with you on the gaming side.
"Oh wait, I hear that tired argument of video editing on the mac. Please, someone tell me how video look better on a mac than my pc with SLI'ed 880GTX's. It doesn't, end of story."
Again, it's all about the USER'S EXPERIENCE of video editing. The Apple software is very intuitive, compared to the likes of Adobe's offerings, and also Apple leverages the superb frameworks (Quartz/Core Image and Core Video) that are available on the Mac, that make things work a lot faster. Apple also uses floating point values (windows uses Integers) for the color spaces meaning once a large number of layered effects have been applied, a more accurate final color value is produced.
"Why are people so rabid about certain products so much? Why can't everyone just admit that they are different and people like them for different reasons."
Mac people are rabid about Macs because MS people are rabid about PCs and PC people can be quite venomous and vocal about their hatred of Macs, causing the Mac people to be even more rabid. It's a vicious circle.
"They both, pretty much, do the same thing."
Yes, but the Mac does, pretty much, the same thing BETTER! - zang74, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Video editing has a lot more to do with it than the video card in a machine.
There are things like colour matching/representation, availability/interfaceability of hardware and editing software available that can affect things greatly. - xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -23/+10I HIGHLY doubt you have both...
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Well I can only tell from my own experience, having both a Mac and a PC: maybe funnier wouldn't be the word I'd choose, but it is certainly less frustrating for me. No need to worry about the latest malware, the latest virus. Less software available alright, but those which are available are usually (not always of course) more polished, more consistent UI-wise and less buggy. I also find it a "smarter" OS: for example, if there's some text in a web page that I wanna save, guess what, I can just select it and drag it to the desktop, and a text file is created. Small stuff like that, all over the place. That's why I find it funnier.
In the past I would find Linux (actually, KDE) to be even funnier, I used to love doing all the tweaking, but now I got a bit tired of it, maybe I am getting older after all...I prefer a system that "just works" and gets out of my way. - ItchyMcknobster, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@rz3
sorry, you OPINION about the mac being better is just that. Obviously, the Vast majority of people feel differently.
Sorry, as much as you hate MS for whatever reason, and as much as I'll agree they've done some ***** things, people use Windows/pc's for a reason: They are better.
Just my 2 cents, and yes, I have both. I have a pc, wife uses an ibook.
I like both, what is wrong with that? Its just, for me, the mac can't do all that I want. - ItchyMcknobster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@rodrigo
True, the malware and viruses are an issue that I didn't really take into the equation. If I got them more often maybe I would.
I just don't come across those issues much, unless its my ignorant family members lol. Mac is definitely better in that department. - wild, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"for example, if there's some text in a web page that I wanna save, guess what, I can just select it and drag it to the desktop, and a text file is created."
That is why I love Mac. I learn something new and simple it does almost everyday. And I have been using them for two decades. Crazy!
As for why most people have PCs, I have a strong feeling its cost. Macs are pricier, and ofr most people, a computer is a computer. Apple is making great strides to change that though. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Itchy: yeah I don't get viruses and malware in my PC either (not for the last 5 years at least, when that SQL Server worm spread around), but then again, to be able to say that it means I always have to be a bit paranoid and practising "safe surfing", which is not the case when I am using my Mac. I would make an analogy here about using condoms but I guess that's borderline gross :P
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Your paragraph sums up the uninformed:
You said: "I have both, and I can't figure out why. Everything I can do on a mac, I can do on my PC. When I'm sitting on the computer (doesn't matter which one) I surf the internet. It is the content that makes the experience fun, not the machine. Is that what fan boys cry about the Wii? Its not the graphics, its the content? Thats what I thought."
The content is OS X and iLife. These 2 are better than XP and media center, you can add others and make it equal but it's not out of the box equal. Also with XP there are other add-ons such as virus protection that aren't necessary on the mac. Vista looks and feels nice but the verdict is still out. All other apps, yes you can usually get the same on either box. Some better, some worse.
You said: "In fact, the only time the machine brings me joy is when I'm gaming and the last time I checked, you can't do serious gaming on a mac."
Ahh the age old gaming problem. If you don't use your machine productively and don't have a gaming console than it comes down to computers. I do pretty well with my Mac Pro and ATI 1900xt running the same games you do, but I do have to run Windows to do it.
You said: "Oh wait, I hear that tired argument of video editing on the mac. Please, someone tell me how video looks better on a mac than my pc with SLI'ed 880GTX's. It doesn't, end of story."
3d frame rates do not equate to "better video". Video editing is generally done by the processors and until the Intel chip the Mac was much better equipped for such a thing. The software for video editing on mac is probably the difference.
You said: "They both, pretty much, do the same thing."
Yes... yes they do. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@rodrigo74:"In the past I would find Linux (actually, KDE) to be even funnier, I used to love doing all the tweaking, but now I got a bit tired of it, maybe I am getting older after all...I prefer a system that "just works" and gets out of my way."
There's another advantage. The Mac OS is designed to adapt to the user level. It'll work awesomely well if you want it out of your way, but with its *NIX core is still open to whatever tweaking you can throw at it. - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@r3zonance
"Mac people are rabid about Macs because MS people are rabid about PCs and PC people can be quite venomous and vocal about their hatred of Macs, causing the Mac people to be even more rabid. It's a vicious circle."
Really. I have never heard a PC user say:"A Mac sucks hardcore. Use Dell/HP/Gateway,etc etc." But I have heard a Mac user say: "PC sucks. Mac is easier and more beautifuler.. Think different." Admit it. Mac hatred tends to be more ... condescending then PC hatred, which usually stems from the price point. - bbardlbradd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ItchyMcknobster
Yes, all computers do the same thing. They are COMPUTERS after all. Just b/c it's a different brand doesn't mean one calculates and the other should calculate and shoot magic powder into your cereal.
The difference is in the OS, and the pairing of the OS and the hardware. Windows doesn't know what hardware's coming out next, so the hardware companies often have to build drivers for windows to recognize the and use the new hardware. Well, when that happens in the Mac world, if there's hardware worth getting, they will throw it into the next model (later than the PC, but by then far more stable and reliable) and they custom taylor the os to utilize the hardware correctly, or in the most efficient manor.
OSX has a far more in depth, and at the same time intuitive, gui than windows as well. That's where the "fun" factor comes into play. When you can easily communicate your wants and needs into a machine and get positive results with the smallest amount of effort. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5" I have never heard a PC user say:"A Mac sucks hardcore. Use Dell/HP/Gateway,etc etc."
Welcome to the internet, i assume you've only been here five minutes. But you are sort of right;
In my experience, when arguing about computers, mac and linux users will complain about windows *software* being crap. On the other hand PC users attack the mac and linux *users* and not the software they use.
So bloody childish
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26@ItchyMcknobster
- mehan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1"Apple will hold about 3% of the worldwide PC market in the fourth quarter of 2006, and that number could rise to 4% by the end of 2007"
...awww - jhub908, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12oh god, not this ***** again....
- BenDuffy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4*** Barfs all over the fanboys **
- ItchyMcknobster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1LOL
- teeljuice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I am not an apple fanboy. I own a dell laptop. That said, I own stock in AAPL. Because their profit margins a so much better, this small increase in market share is huge for the AAPL bottom line.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"People seem to still think Apple is competing with MS when its not true. Apple is in a world of its own and thats how it should be."
Technically, Apple competes with the combination of MS/Dell and MS/HP and MS/Whomever. Apple produces and sells the complete package, which the other companies don't do. So the Apple 'product' competes with the combined product results of several other companies - Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apples Net Profit Margin is +10.32%. Microsofts Net Profit Margin +28.52%.
- adpowers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lynn, that's because Microsoft's main money makers are Windows and Office. Software has a huge profit margin. Apple makes hardware and software. If you compare them to other hardware companies, you get a better idea:
Dell: 6.39%
Acer: 2.66%
Lenovo: 0.21%
Gateway: 0.16%
HP has really good profit margins, but they make a lot of consumer products (like printers) that I'm sure help their bottom line. - firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They are hugely profitable because of their iPod sales not because of their computer sales. Man, if you invest, learn to read the 10k. JESUS H. CHRIST.
- teeljuice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Calm down firemillen2. Just because I said the uptick was "huge" for their bottom line doesn't mean I've never read their 10k. I do realize AAPL sells a lot of iPods, and I do realize those impact AAPL's profitability more than computers.
Chill. When you use all caps it gives the impression that your are screaming.
- teeljuice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Calm down firemillen2. Just because I said the uptick was "huge" for their bottom line doesn't mean I've never read their 10k. I do realize AAPL sells a lot of iPods, and I do realize those impact AAPL's profitability more than computers.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"People seem to still think Apple is competing with MS when its not true. Apple is in a world of its own and thats how it should be."
- gerrylazlo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Wake me when they reach 10%.
- Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The total US Mac OS X market share number comes in at 5.39 percent.
Note that the 4% is WORLD Share - Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apples world share is 2.7%.
- Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The total US Mac OS X market share number comes in at 5.39 percent.
- Danathar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Quite honestly. I think it's amazing that apple has figured out how to be quite successful WITHOUT having a monopoly. It looks like they are quite happy with 3-5% of the market.
Let Windows take all the arrows from hackers and the mob.- Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5they are a monopoly on their platform.
People seem to still think Apple is competing with MS when its not true. Apple is in a world of its own and thats how it should be. - spudicus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm glad the market share is going up but what really matters to me is that Apple as a company stays healthy. As long as Apple remains profitable they can continue to make products that I like to use. I'm actually glad their market share is so small. With Bootcamp and Parallels, software availability isn't really an issue anymore. Small market share and good security design means Macs are a significantly smaller target for crackers and other slimeballs.
Having a smaller customer base also allows Apple to be more nimble when making major changes, like classic to OSX. It was painful but it would have been much harder if Apple had even 20% of the market.
Microsoft is locked into a hardware platform and backward compatibility. It's been a blessing and a curse for them. Windows is ubiquitous and they do a stellar job at hardware and software support but it is much harder for them to make major changes because of their overwhelming market share. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@Shivetya;
You are an ignorant *****. There is no such thing as a platform monopoly. There are products that compete with Apples on all levels, and with the exception of the iPod, Apple enjoys less that 10% of that market. - Kugo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Happy with that share of the market? They have no bloody choice!
- Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5they are a monopoly on their platform.
- AloofDufus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why can't we all just get along?
- Kamorra2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Speaking from the female perspective. I recently purchased my 1st Mac and I can tell you there's definately something about them that appeals to women. The PC market seems to be very gender neutral but Macs are damn cute. You can't deny that. I think girls are starting to decide they'd rather have one than a boring looking PC.
Also, their new advertising campaign is really effective.- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Speaking from a male perspective, I buy computers and software because of their feature set and how efficiently they allow me to work. Not that your position isn't valid, but I would never buy a computer because of how it looked, unless it was at the top of the game in other areas.
Also, their advertising campaign is only effective if you don't know the truth. - TheJas, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Mac... computers for girls.
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9armbar:
would you buy a car because of how it looked? (assuming you could afford those that look the best) - b05q, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5i hope you realize you've been programmed by a marketing campaign.
just sayin' - Kamorra2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7No a marketing campaign got me to investigate my options. Then I made a logical decision. Isn't that the point of marketing campaigns?
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@threemagic:
Actually, no. I wouldn't. I buy cars because of the gas mileage or utility they provide to me. I drive a flipping '92 Nissan Pathfinder. I have a big dog that we haul around :)
I could afford a more expensive car, I suppose, but I try not to be too materialistic about stuff. - Cory70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You know you can buy cases for your PC to make it look gurly or even have it hold a cold beer for you if ya want....all depends on how lazy you are and if u want to work
- sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7As a former car salesman, most people are most interested in how a car looks. The sales materials said it, and the customers showed it. How much of a brain is dedicated to processing visual info?
Caring about looks is human nature and it does matter to normal people.
I like having a cute girlfriend, and I like having a nice looking machine - which is why my PC is in a Lian Li case. It was also a major selling point of my iMac - which has lots of advantages over my PC, but the single hard drive keeps it from being my main machine.
The reality is Apple shows other companies how "nice" computers can look and feel - hardware and software. No SINGLE company has contributed as much as Apple to the improvement of personal computers in these areas.
BTW, when I bought the iMac (Summer 2001) I hadn't been exposed to much marketing. I saw it, played with it a few minutes, and asked the CompUSA sales guy "Will this thing do ___, ___, and ___?" He said yes (I could tell he genuinely liked the machine), and I bought it. Marketing didn't convince me Macs are "nicer", but using it did. - firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1let's be honest. people who buy macs want to be part of the "cool in crowd". it's so ***** highschool. people who know anything about computers are insulted by the apple ads.
No Steve, PCs can do more things than spreadsheets and accounting. That was 20 years ago, *****.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Speaking from a male perspective, I buy computers and software because of their feature set and how efficiently they allow me to work. Not that your position isn't valid, but I would never buy a computer because of how it looked, unless it was at the top of the game in other areas.
- Kamorra2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No I would not buy a computer because of how it looks. What I'm saying is, all things being equal, I'm going to pick the one that looks better. If the Mac sucked, it wouldn't matter how cute it was.
The advertising campaign is effective in that it made me consider a Mac. After putting in a ton of research and talking to people that owned one, THAT's when I decided to buy one. The cuteness factor was secondary.- OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7reply button
- RunnerOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow...another flamebait Mac vs. PCs waah-a-thon on Digg. Fun.
- peternatural, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i just got a new macbook pro, so i must be part of the 4th quarter throngs. the OS is a lot nicer and less annoying compared to windows (which i also use, and believe me, it gets annoying!!)
as for games it's true if all i wanted to do was play games and web surf a PC would probably be better... but for me a laptop is 10x more useful and i prefer mac. (doesn't apple have much higher market share in laptops, like over 10%?).
compared to my old G4 powerbook this is a lot peppier and compiling in particular is WAY faster!!! as for graphics, i hardly play any games but do write my own 3D apps and the graphics is good, except it can't do complex GLSL shaders so sort of sux after all. i don't know which windows or linux laptops would do better, or how much they'd cost.- Kugo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Games maybe but surf on a PC? Are you on drugs?
- MysticMaven, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I for one hope people stop switching to macs. Why must Apple try and get more market share (well besides the board wants more money in their pockets) ? They've been making nice profits for a while and don't need any more markets share. The more market share Apple gets, the larger Apple becomes and we'll end up with lower quality hardware and software.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On the flip side, if Apple hadn't received a surge in popularity over the last few years would we have seen updates to the iPod? The Nano? The Shuffle? The iTunes music store? iPhone? iTV? Even the Intel switch?
I'm not sure i would like to take a bet on that! - viriiman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you forget the tag at the end.
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The more market share Apple gets, the larger Apple becomes and we'll end up with lower quality hardware and software."
Why does bigger market share necessarily means lower quality?
I believe that Apple's market share is increasing not because they're lowering their standards (their current lineup is as good as any previous), but because some people is raising their standards and learning that it is better to pay 30% more to get a computer that will last longer and work better. - Kugo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh what a moron.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On the flip side, if Apple hadn't received a surge in popularity over the last few years would we have seen updates to the iPod? The Nano? The Shuffle? The iTunes music store? iPhone? iTV? Even the Intel switch?
- TheJas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Mac OS is great and aesthetic nonsense aside, it is the only reason to buy a Mac. I tell all non-computer people who ask my advice to buy a Mac and definitely get the protection plan since the hardware will most certainly break within a year or two. But hey, every computer manufacturer cuts corners like that so whatever. The bottom line is that for the techno-challenged majority, Mac is it. Of course the Mac is capable of very complex, wonderful, and advanced things blah blah blah. However, they want to increase market share so that means they want to sell to the average, help line calling, doesnt know a bit from a byte, using a disc tray as a cupholder, moron. These people should all get Macs and stop bothering dorks like me. For those of us who know enough to build our own rigs so we get quality stuff in the case, we don't really have issues with the small annoyances of windows. These days it's not very hard to get a machine working well and keep it working well if you know what you are doing.
- AloofDufus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Great generalizations. Do you really think of yourself as a dork?
- Kugo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When you need antivirus and anti-spyware and still can't be confident you're clean and when you have a wide open architecture so that even a preschool trojan can parade in unannounced and not be stopped at the door - I'd hardly call that a 'small annoyance'.
- canyonblue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5First off Apple doesn't need to win the marketshare war to win the battle. They are making money, and a lot of it right now... off the both iPods AND Macs. Their stock is the envy of the tech world and developers who left are seemingly coming back to the Mac.
The majority will still buy Dells and HPs but those among us who desire a computer that is physically beautiful with a state of the art operating system that is way ahead of Windows will continue to buy Macs. The fact that they now run Windows too, and natively, is simply icing on the cake. Macs literally do it all... looks, power, and flexibility.
Let it be my dirty secret, my buddies in the 2.8% know how lucky we are! - jstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You guys do realize that Apple gaining majority market share would actually be a bad thing right? People complain about Microsoft having a software monopoly, but an Apple monopoly would be on both hardware and software.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yep I bet Steve Jobs is up all night worrying that any day they'll reach monopoly status...
- jstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not saying its going to happen anytime soon, that was directed at all the people who were saying "Macs are so much better than PC's. Everyone should buy a mac." If everyone bought a Mac, and nobody bought a PC, that would make Mac a monopoly now, wouldn't it.
- ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It'd be worth it to get rid of Windows. But instead of "everyone should get a Mac," what I would say is try Linux if you are savvy enough, otherwise get a Mac. In an ideal software world, Linux would get to the point where its a more friendly desktop OS, and we would have this sort of breakdown of OS usage:
40% Linux
40% Mac OS
20% Windows
And Windows only having that much due to people/organizations stuck on legacy Windows software.
Wishful thinking, but it could happen if Microsoft keeps putting out crap like Vista. - codyfrisch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't believe Microsoft is a monopoly either. The whole "bundling" issue was a load of crap. It should be up to consumers to know what is available. MS just gave them added features, they had and always had the choice to do something different.
So what if consumers were too dumb to know they could go download alternatives to the bundled applications. They still are. Why because the consumers don't care about that stuff. They just want to do what they want to do with their computer, microsoft let them do that.
It would be like forcing car manufacturers to not include any accessories, so that the after market accessory industry had a fair shot at putting those in the new car. The only difference is that there are multiple car companies that succeeded in producing a compelling product for consumers.
When you come back to the computer industry, Microsoft is one of the few companies that succeeded in producing a product consumers wanted. Now consumers want Macs, thats good. It means someone else is producing a product. Whats funny is that competitor is including all the same accessories that Microsoft has been banned from including. Why do you think Mac OS comes with all this stuff and Windows doesn't?
That all said, I'm typing this on my PowerMac which in the background is network rendering some After Effects work, as is my MacBook Pro running Windows. My PC desktop is also doing the same. The server they are accessing is running Slackware. I don't think I could be more platform agnostic.
- riquito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33% to 4% is 33% more !
- phugger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6>3% LOLZ
Do ya think this is the year?
When Apple switched to Intel I thought it was a big mistake. No one would buy any more Apple hardware. Why would they? They would simply run OSX on any old beige box.
I was so wrong. Nobody wants OSX. The Mac is finally a useful machine now that it can easily run Windows. MS is selling large numbers of XP to all of the 'switchers'. Didn't Gartner just say that over the next few years the Windows market share would increase?
What I'd really love from DIGG for Christmas is an Apple Fanboy filter - some way to filter out all of the Apple Hype that fills this forum - Market share 3%, Diggshare 60%. Maybe they can have their own special forum!- jstone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I second the apple fanboy filter.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One interesting thought is that if Apple is selling more Macs in order to run Windows (a strange supposition in itself), does Apple care? They're still making the sale.
and I bought my MacPro for OS/X and in particular how well it ran on the hardware. - Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am a pc user of 10 years, I have a 4 years old Emachines M6805 that I use for everything at home and work. People said Emachines build some of the worst computers known to man lol. Well this is my 4th year owning this bad boy and other than upgrading the ram and reformatted twice (once for installing xp pro), my Emachines is faster now than it did 4 years ago when i bought it :). I have AVG antivirus and Spybot/Adaware on my computer (all free Windows apps). My point is this, a computer is only as good and productive as the person who uses it. Just because there are alot of ignorant people using PCs doesn't mean that PCs are virus infected pos. I get my porn from the net just like anybody else, but i've never get a virus or spyware ever, you just have to be responsible in your surfing thats all. Same thing can be said about a Mac, Windows users need to understand, just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that it's bad. I have no idea how to use a mac, if you put me on one right now i wouldn't even know how to copy n paste a link. But i appreciates Apple for their clean simplicity design, their beautiful interface and their impressive multimedia capability out of the box. I just wish PCs and Macs users would just chill for a bit and have a normal conversation without being so subjective and offensive, at least have some respect for each other.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I just wish PCs and Macs users would just chill for a bit and have a normal conversation without being so subjective and offensive, at least have some respect for each other. "
That's because we're too geeky to fight over "Yankees Vs Red Sox" so we've got to do something....
- ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think the switch to Intel is a big part of the increase demand. I'm mostly a Linux user. But I bought a G4 Mac Mini when they came out to see what OS X was all about. It's replaced Windows as my OS for doing music recordings, but hasn't taken over all my computing.
With the switch to Intel, I can get all three OS's I want to run on one machine (I currently run Windows in VMWare under Linux for that one app I need it for). I am contemplating getting an Intel Mac so that I can do that and use it as my main machine. (Yes, I could've run Linux on a PowerPC Mac, but some things were not supported like Java and other non-OSS software that only have Intel binaries).
This is what is going on in other techies heads. I have already seen a bunch of other techies buy Intel Macs after never having owned or really used a Mac. It's because of the low risk of trying OS X. Worse case, they go back to Windows or Linux and have nice hardware to run it on. Parallels runs very fast on the Intel Macs, so even spending a lot of time in a VM is not so bad.
For a computer enthusiast, if you can afford it, a Mac is THE machine to own. The affording it part is hard for some of us. For many of us, the Mac Pro is the only machine that fits our needs. Though the current configuration is great value, its still overkill for some of us, and I wished they'd come out with a low-end Mac Pro. Maybe a single dual-core processor one. They did have a a low-end single-processor G5 Power Mac ($1600 if my memory serves me). - bbxboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Remember, this is 4% of *sales of new PCs*, not installed user base... Apple's installed base in the home is speculated to be anywhere between 10-20% and rising. When overall PC sales are calculated, the percentages also includes bulk purchases of mid/low-end PCs for businesses and point of sale installations. It would be nice to see some sort of in-home/in-use rating system implemented.
It's also amusing to see the anti-Mac coalition gloating over these single-digit percentages - we all know that the fact that there are more Windows machines floating around says nothing about comparative quality, usefulness, or overall value.- NewChar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't think most Windows users are gloating about the numbers, we're just sick of all articles about how Apple might maybe sort of increase marketshare by half a percent in Guatemala.
- phugger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're right of course Fanboy, err whatever boy. From my collection of silly Mac quotes....
#14 Macs age more slowly than PCs
I bet that if even a small percentage of the Digg population started to bury these stories the problem would simply go away. Anyone with me?
Use your power - bury any story you don't like! - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"#14 Macs age more slowly than PCs"
OS X 10.5 runs faster than 10.4 on the same hardware. 10.4 runs faster than 10.3 on the same hardware. 10.3 runs faster than 10.2 on the same hardware,
Seeing a pattern?
Vista runs slower than XP on the same hardware. XP runs slower than 2000 on the same hardware.
Seeing a very, very different pattern?
- Thataboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But what will the US marketshare be? Their world share has always been much lower.
While ultimately, a higher world marketshare is the goal, I think the best way to get there is via critical mass in the US. If Macs hit 10% in the US (which I think is very possible in the coming years), then it will further legitimize the platform in the eyes of the world. People won't have to worry about Apple going out of business. Software companies will pay more attention to a US 10% marketshare-holder, so the value of having a Mac will increase for people everywhere.
I bet you that current Mac owners are even starting to hold off on upgrading their machines, opting to wait for Leopard. Look for even bigger numbers once that is released.- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"While ultimately, a higher world marketshare is the goal, "
The ultimate goal is to have revenue higher than cost.
Hell, why does nobody care about 'marketshare' between Porshce and Ford? I wager that Ford has a much larger marketshare, but I wager than Porsche keeps high enough profit margins and earnings to keep their board happy
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"While ultimately, a higher world marketshare is the goal, "
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My level of frustration with Microsoft has gone up several notches in the past few months. First there's the IE7 thing. It sucks, plain and simple. They tried to copy what Firefox already had and failed miserably at it.
Second of all is this whole Zero Day thing. They screwed the pooch and I think it was deliberate on their part to stimulate sales of Office 2007, and Vista etc.
So come the new year I'm buying a new computer. My Dell XPS M140 is only a year old but the new MacBooks are sweet, so that's probably where I'm going. I'll probably donate the Dell to some undeserving sucker.- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am as undeserving as the next guy...
- mykel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Some simple math....
Cars sold in the US in 2001 = about 12,500,000
BMWs sold in the US in 2001 = about 189,000
Percentage of cars sold in the US in 2001 that are BMWs = 1.5%
(I used 2001 because the stats were easier to find then 2006)
So...
1 -- By some people here's logic BMW should stop making cars because Toyota pwnz.
2 -- Apple is doing better then BMW.- ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and you forgot...
BMW sold in the US 2006 (projected) 200,000 (I figured they have to sell at least 11,000 more now than they did in '01, and it is a nice round number :0) )
All BMW's sold have iPod adaptors built in. Potential iPod's to new customers... 150,000.
(I figure 50,000 either have or do not care about the digital music player)
----
As far as the article I say way to go Apple. Increased competition means a better Windows which means a better Linux... which means a better Apple.... which means........
- ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and you forgot...
- producer2k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4 **** Advertisement ****
Brought to you by Apple, Inc.
**** Advertisement **** - flaminio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Bring on the Mac haters...
Marketshare is only of interest to investors/wallstreet. Mac OS is way past the critical mass needed to make it a successful platform. - hockey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I've seen all those "get a mac" commercials and I've come to the conclusion that as a simple unix systems programmer I'm simply not cool enough to own a mac. . .
- Cory70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050608http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050608
nuff said,
EAT ME FANBOYS- sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The comics are funny, the "EAT ME FANBOYS" is sad.
How did you manage to get so emotional on this subject?
- sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The comics are funny, the "EAT ME FANBOYS" is sad.
- DucksofAnaheim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7PC`s sell that many in an hour ;)
- neimadsito, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2A few reasons why apple isnt the best choice for a home/business computer:
1. Apple has terrible customer service judging from the 3 or so horror stories i've heard from my friends. So do some PC manufacturers (GATEWAY SUCKS), but at least there are choices for PC manufacturers. Since you can only get macintosh computer hardware from ONE COMPANY, your eggs are really all in the same basket.
2. the difference between Mac gamma and PC gamma - you can argue all you want about which one uses the correct gamma, but when it comes down to it, graphics designed on the Mac are typically washed out on a PC, even though PCs are overwhelmingly the target audience. The majority of designers I've worked with over the last 10 years knows nothing or care nothing about this difference and they go on blindly creating graphics that look WAY too dark on PCs.
3. Designers who demand $5000 macs while everyone else at the company is on PCs. They isolate themselves with only partially compatible file formats and make life difficult for the rest of the team when photoshop really runs exactly the same (and probably better) on PCs. I have a $2500 Dell under my desk that will kick the crap out of that $5000 mac in any contest you want to give them. AND it can run OSX in a window if I really wanted it to.
4. Boot camp, BIG DEAL. As long as there is OSX for Intel, there will be people cracking it to run on windows boxes. Apple has no gains here, even though they are claiming superiority because only macs can run both OSs. This is false, the only thing hidnering windows PCs from legally running OSX is apple itself.
5. Any filesystem that needs to be 'blessed' isn't one that i would trust my files to. I still have bad feelings about OS9 and previous apple filesystem crashes, I hope OSX has evolved and things are better now. I've had problems with PC filesystems but I have typically been able to recover fully from any snafu where as this has not been the case with Macs every time
6. The really negative and untruthful apple computer ads spewing forth upon the world like so much brainwashing. Some of the things apple claims are completely false, some of it has varying quantities of truth to it but overall they will say pretty much anything to sell you a computer. I am not talking about iPods, just computers. They try to prey upon the average person's perceived computer illiteracy, but I think a lot of people can see that - which is the main reason they remain at below 3% market share.
7. Games for mac aren't a serious venture because of Market Share. This is also true of viruses. This is also true for the developer population, which seems to be booming on PCs. Microsoft makes it very easy to develop software, and their documentation and the presentation of the documentation is so far ahead of apple it really makes me sad for apple developers sometimes.- MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's kind of shocking how uninformed this comment is.
1. Apple has been rated #1 for customer service for, like, the past five years.
2. PCs aren't the target audience. Printing shops are. And they're predominantly Mac and have their gamma tuned the same way.
3. Sure you do. Do the flame decals make it go faster? This isn't a pissing contest.
4. Yeah, simple booting into the three major operating systems isn't convinient and awesome.
5. Uh, everyone uses journaled file systems these days.
6. Way to overreact. Next up, Burger King for burgers that aren't as big as they are on the commercials.
7. OS X has plenty of games. Not nearly as much as Windows, but certain types (RTSs in particular) are very popular. As for viruses, you can come up with any explanation you want. I've never had to deal with an in-the-wild security risk. Meanwhile, Windows is getting pounded by security issues weekly. I don't care what the excuse you PC folks make for it is, but it's your problem and not ours. Neener, neener.
Please, never post in an Apple related comment section again. You have nothing of value to add. - jkoke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31998 called and wants its anti-Mac propaganda back.
- Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ MagnetoWasRight :) not like your comments are any better, you're just as subjective as he is. Most of what you said are opinions and not facts. Heck some of them are straight up false like saying that apple is rated #1 for 5 years even though its more like 3. Ohh and burgers not looking as big isn't the same as Apple claiming the G5 is "the fastest personal computer in the world" :) Like I said, alot of the things you said are pure opinions, I'm not an Apple guy and don't know much about Apple, and your opinions sure didnt help me learn anything about Apple.
- MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's kind of shocking how uninformed this comment is.
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Holy cow! 4% maybe! Sounds like it's the final nail in the Microsoft coffin!
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I wonder how much CLIFFosakaJAPAN gets paid for his many daily Apple advertisements. If not in money, does he get free iTunes downloads or his he just a crazed fanboy with too much time on his hands?
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Thanks rebrad for the "comment so nice, you posted it twice." Wanna go for 3?
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"And since Apple has no $400 office suite to offer..."
No, but it has iLife, iWork, Shake, Final Cut Pro, Logic, etc. - flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of people that rail about Apple's 'hardware monopoly' are really missing the point.
Having end to end control of the user's experience is a dirty, nasty, evil advantage over the rest of the world, which Apple leverages well.
Take your photo editing for example. Say something breaks, or doesn't look right, and the glitch might be in some underpinning of the system. Joe App Engineer can basically walk over to where the 'underpinning' guys work, they can study the problem together, and they can figure out a fix. They might also end up clubbing each other with ADB keyboards, but that's beside the point. :-)
This situation simply does not exist in the Windows world. It is a key Apple advantage.
Taking it further, hardware and software groups could work together to make sure things are not only compatible, but that they *enhance* each other. On Windows, all those different companies are separate, and communicating that well would be hard. Not impossible, just hard.
On Windows, guys who build systems are having to act as their own system integrator. Out of millions of possible combinations of hardware parts, will all your apps work on yours? Who has to work that out? You! There's a business opportunity there for someone...
What's that? You want a screaming, clocked to an inch of its life, multiprocessor box in a trick aluminum case? Apple's hardware geeks like those too, and they ship them that way from the factory. :-) Go on, stick a cold cathode in there, and have the door laser etched, you know you want to. - firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For those touting that Apple has stronger sales growth percentage. Learn some math. If you start a fruitstand and sold 1 watemelon the first month and 2 the second month, you can start promoting that your sales growth jumped 100%. But if you sold 1000 watermelons the first month and 1200 the second month, then you didn't reach 100% sales growth.
Look at the bottom line... 2.7% of the market? The Zune has a bigger percentage of the mp3 player market and it just came out.
Sorry fanboys, but I have my anti-reality distortion suit on..
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is