Dont Hurt Me
Mar 19, 03:49 PM
Apples commercials have sucked, very rarely do they show what it can do. I have to laugh i was watching the o'reiley factor the other night and all of a sudden they show the Apple ipod commercial with brothers(if you know what i mean) dancing and listening to hip hop. then i asked myself how many conservative Americans are going even pay attention to that geto commercial let alone buy a pod because of that. talk about waste of air time. Like O'reileys viewers play and listens to Rap. Apple is lost when it comes to marketing and building computers for the masses.
h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:58 PM
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
Sammio2
Nov 28, 11:39 AM
Received my brand new MacBook Air 11" today, YAY!
http://www.onemorething.nl/uploads/community/1c20ce8280ca07d2fd0a93e2450015ca5bfa3f34_0.jpg
(1,6 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD)
Nice purchase, but I think you're meant to take it out of the box. Not sure though, maybe someone else here could provide some clarification on this...
http://www.onemorething.nl/uploads/community/1c20ce8280ca07d2fd0a93e2450015ca5bfa3f34_0.jpg
(1,6 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD)
Nice purchase, but I think you're meant to take it out of the box. Not sure though, maybe someone else here could provide some clarification on this...
Lollypop
Aug 7, 01:46 AM
Maybe Xcode 3 or something will be heavily promoted.
I know I personally would love better SOAP integration with XCode. We use .NET at work all the time to write web services, and we end up using .NET clients running under parallels on our macs, because keeping the SOAP proxy stub code up-to-date is automatic with .NET....you have to go thru hell with Xcode. I think Apple will fill that gap with the new xcode (there were command line tools in the latest version).
I use to know my development talk, but not having done any coding in a few years my reaction to what you just said was: hu? :D
Obviously we will have the resolution independance in OS X 10.5. Probably some new security and new workgroup/networking enhancements. We probably can all agree one would be networked spotlight, if you are running 10.5 servers, the clients will ask the server to search its spotlight data for the same data the client is searching for, and give a combined response.....its the one thing of OS X Tiger I hated, the inability to search the network with the same ease.
I would love easier active directory integration, in windows is very easy, but doing it on a mac is a bit to much! Would like network spotlight without needing 10.5 server, in the home environment I can definately see the use for network search, but definately no 10.5 server!
We may also see a system wide Software Update now, which would really be nice. Letting 3rd party developers update their software with the same system.
Totally agreed, and with that rumored birrent support as well!
I'd also expect major updates to iChat.... probably MSN and Yahoo support, as well as VoIP.
iChat needs a upgrade, the only reason I ever use it is because Aduim doesnt do video!
edit: fixed spelling
I know I personally would love better SOAP integration with XCode. We use .NET at work all the time to write web services, and we end up using .NET clients running under parallels on our macs, because keeping the SOAP proxy stub code up-to-date is automatic with .NET....you have to go thru hell with Xcode. I think Apple will fill that gap with the new xcode (there were command line tools in the latest version).
I use to know my development talk, but not having done any coding in a few years my reaction to what you just said was: hu? :D
Obviously we will have the resolution independance in OS X 10.5. Probably some new security and new workgroup/networking enhancements. We probably can all agree one would be networked spotlight, if you are running 10.5 servers, the clients will ask the server to search its spotlight data for the same data the client is searching for, and give a combined response.....its the one thing of OS X Tiger I hated, the inability to search the network with the same ease.
I would love easier active directory integration, in windows is very easy, but doing it on a mac is a bit to much! Would like network spotlight without needing 10.5 server, in the home environment I can definately see the use for network search, but definately no 10.5 server!
We may also see a system wide Software Update now, which would really be nice. Letting 3rd party developers update their software with the same system.
Totally agreed, and with that rumored birrent support as well!
I'd also expect major updates to iChat.... probably MSN and Yahoo support, as well as VoIP.
iChat needs a upgrade, the only reason I ever use it is because Aduim doesnt do video!
edit: fixed spelling
sth
Oct 23, 08:13 AM
If it can't support 4gigs of ram, it ain't worth the wait for me.:mad:
I've read that even the current MBP supports 4gigs.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
I've read that even the current MBP supports 4gigs.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
ajkrause
Sep 1, 01:52 PM
While I write this there are 176 posts already.
Since initially posted (3 hours ago), there have been an average .9 posts per minute with no signs of slowing. This rumor is really keeping everyone here quite entertained. Cheers to slacking off at work on a Friday!
edit: corrected "off"
Work? What's that? lol*:D
Since initially posted (3 hours ago), there have been an average .9 posts per minute with no signs of slowing. This rumor is really keeping everyone here quite entertained. Cheers to slacking off at work on a Friday!
edit: corrected "off"
Work? What's that? lol*:D
gnasher729
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
Who says Intel will keep selling Yonahs for long time once Merom comes out?
Who says Intel will keep selling Yonahs for long time once Merom comes out?
way2l84sanity
Jul 18, 02:01 AM
Does this mean a new Video Ipod will be releaed also at the WWDC??
and if the rumors are true about the mac pro being announced also, that's alot of new goodies from Steve.
I don't like the rental model, it could find it's way into the music downloads. A $9.99 movie download at good quailty would be realy attractive. (too own)
and if the rumors are true about the mac pro being announced also, that's alot of new goodies from Steve.
I don't like the rental model, it could find it's way into the music downloads. A $9.99 movie download at good quailty would be realy attractive. (too own)
ThunderSkunk
Apr 3, 12:52 AM
Yeah great, it's very wonderful.
Now try to take some video on your mac and get it onto your magical thousand dollar iPad2 for use in iMovie. Try to work on a song you created in Garageband on your mac in Garageband on the iPad2.
What's that? A BIG OL CLUSTERBANG OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE WAY!!!
Now try to take some video on your mac and get it onto your magical thousand dollar iPad2 for use in iMovie. Try to work on a song you created in Garageband on your mac in Garageband on the iPad2.
What's that? A BIG OL CLUSTERBANG OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE WAY!!!
OldSkoolNJ
Sep 7, 08:28 AM
The prices in CompUSa will be dropped on Friday for what they may actually have in stock. They have been constraining them for the past couple weeks. All I have is the display core duo and one box stock core solo. Alot of the apple employees who work in the CompUSAs had extra days off this week due to the holiday (much needed) so they may not have been back into CUSA to let the staff know.
Kevin
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
Kevin
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
AaronMT
Nov 23, 02:52 PM
A month renew of World of Warcraft. Haven't played in three years, and just installed the mac client.
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 15, 04:20 PM
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable.
You're right. Making the consumer deal with their flawed product and not even apologizing for selling a fuxored product is VERY reasonable. :rolleyes:
dollar bill template for kids.
500 dollar bill template.
fake 100 dollar bill template.
dollar bill template.
100 dollar bill template.
Dollar Bill Template Dollar
You're right. Making the consumer deal with their flawed product and not even apologizing for selling a fuxored product is VERY reasonable. :rolleyes:
dogzipp
Apr 1, 08:19 AM
Somehow I am unable to grab any screen shots. They all end up "blank" (or black in this case). Has anybody had any problems? I suppose not, since I see everyone posting screen shots everywhere...
I tried changing the format from PNG to JPG with no effect. Tried other screen grab utilities also with no luck (Guess they use the system calls).
Any ideas? (and please don't say post a screen shots of my problem, hehe)
Thanks
I tried changing the format from PNG to JPG with no effect. Tried other screen grab utilities also with no luck (Guess they use the system calls).
Any ideas? (and please don't say post a screen shots of my problem, hehe)
Thanks
alexpaul
Mar 23, 05:11 AM
Of course! No need to do this. Apple can try something innovative on the existing iPod classic like adding bluetooth etc. That would be pretty handy :)
Brianstorm91
Jan 11, 04:54 PM
But the current MacBook is 13.3" and not a Pro model :confused:
I call fake.
I call fake.
MacSA
Nov 27, 02:52 PM
meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.
I'm still using a 15" monitor. :p
I'm still using a 15" monitor. :p
DualShock
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
kalsta
May 2, 11:26 PM
Well, considering the dialog box says "Are you sure you want to delete xxxx?" I think a "Yes" or "No" are the best possible choices.
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
cocky jeremy
Apr 2, 03:20 AM
AirDrop wasn't on Preview 1 for me. (2008 iMac, C2D) and is now showing up on Preview 2. This wasn't specific folder older models, i don't think. It appeared to be random, as far as the machines it did and didn't show up on. So i'm not sure about others..
Bernard SG
Oct 21, 05:52 AM
14 million devices sold in Q3 2010.
'Nuff said.
'Nuff said.
twoodcc
Oct 14, 07:14 AM
Thanks! I'll try it on my work computer, its a quad.
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
DavidLeblond
Aug 16, 07:34 AM
Compete with Zune? Seriously? Zune is even on Apple's radar?
Let me get this straight, maybe I'm mistaken. Is this the same Zune that was announced that it will "play music! videos! games! ... wait... no, we changed our minds... no games. And videos? Yeah we can't quite get that to work, it won't do that either. But it plays music! And looks like an iPod... except its a tad on the fugly side...."
Please. Apple already has something to compete with this, its called the iPod. Who needs wireless??
Let me get this straight, maybe I'm mistaken. Is this the same Zune that was announced that it will "play music! videos! games! ... wait... no, we changed our minds... no games. And videos? Yeah we can't quite get that to work, it won't do that either. But it plays music! And looks like an iPod... except its a tad on the fugly side...."
Please. Apple already has something to compete with this, its called the iPod. Who needs wireless??
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
No comments:
Post a Comment