Gartner puts Apple's 1996 share at 4.6 percent, IDC at 5.1 percent. Market share in 2005 was 2.2 percent from Gartner and 2.3 percent from IDC. According to Gartner, Apple's market share peaked at 15.8 percent in 1980 -- four years before the Mac was introduced.
``It's a puzzle for sure, to the average Mac user,'' says Leander Kahney, author of the 2004 book ``The Cult of Mac'' and an editor at Wired News in San Francisco. ``They are baffled that more people don't use the Mac.''
Apple is somewhat stronger in U.S. consumer market share, with Gartner giving Apple 5.8 percent in 2005 and IDC at 2.9 percent.
so, US consumer marketshare is pegged between 2.9 and 5.8 got anything more recent and authoritative?
the entire point for the studios and companies supplying the movie is to maintain the DRM.
pray good sir, how to they retain their DRM intentions, and support the alternate platform, using quicktime? The answer is, they can't.. the download companies will only get the green light/licensing if they can secure the media~ they can only secure the media through drm development~ to serve this up on a macintosh, a small portion of the market, will cost as much as the lion's share.
I may not like it, but I acknowledge the realistic facts of the situation.
1- if you buy 60 minidiscs at once, you can save a little bit 2- if, as you assert, most folks only use half a 15g ipod, then you don't need 15 or 30 or 60 blanks.. only 7-8 so, 150+(7*8)= 206, $123 less than the 329 for the 30gig ipod.
I think what you watch is not the volume of the bits, but the ip's connected to, and the volume of the bits..
I'll bet the spiderweb of trades that is bittorrent looks a lot different than the connections that are voip.
most voip connections are two way, one ip to one other ip. most bittorrent connections are from you, to me, to him, to you to another guy, and all around back again.
I'm not talking about the consumption of electricity for the radio transmission I'm talking about the consumption of electricity for the video manipulation
consider a fm only walkman vs a personal video player.. to display video in a human consumable format, requires more electricity larger devices, larger batteries.. I have a bluetooth headset whose weight is given in grams... how will you do that with devices for video?
I'm not talking about the radio part. I'm talking about the handling of video part.
What will the video be used for- presumably for a human to watch.
a reciving/displaying device powerful enough to display video for a human eye will require more electricity than a simple speaker and microphone.
a transmitting/sourcing device will require more electrical consumption to suppy the video to the wireless.. e.g. if it's a camera, then the cmos will consume more than a condensing microphone
I did read it, I also know that the amount of processing power required to juggle a little itty bitty mono audio stream in two directions from my earpiece to my cellphone, vs the amount of processing power required to process and transmit video (presumably one way) is much more electrically intensive.. it's going to use more electricity, the power requirements will have to go up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=d efine:WMD&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title until today I always thought of WMD as being nuclear weapons or biologicals that got out of hand, and figured I would have heard/remembered if any had gone off/been used on populaces in my lifetime. Turns out the definition is more expansive than I knew, but I also can not find a reliable assertion for your claim the we KNOW they were used in the gulf war. Do you have a citation?
when in so simple a thing as an admission of guilt, in a setting where it doesn't matter for shit.... there is no job on the line, financial ruin threatening, criminial proceedings in condsideration...
if the developer of the geothermal system being installs discovers an 'error' or problem in the process do you, ricthofen80 think he will say
"never mind, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, this is a bad idea to implement?" or do you think he'll gloss over that, change the subject a little and carry on...
In the world of Slashdot, you accused me of 'trollish' behavior, and claimed my citation did not carry the content I claimed it did. I pointed out you were 100% wrong, and asked not for seconds at sunrise, but for an apology..
look what I got..
and you expect me to have faith in people, that if a multi-million dollar project starts to look bad, we'll find out before it's too late.
welcome to my foeship... you didn't earn it until you refused to acknowledge your mistake.
mass market paperbooks like sci fi have larger audiences, and can sit on the shelf for years.. tech books have small audiences, and a short shelf life.
Do you want to by a book on windows 95 in 2006? no? but you can still pick up a copy of Asimov robots of dawn...
Slashdot Mirror
still under 6% see my reply to your neighbor's post0 50715
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182036&cid=15
Howevers iness/columnists/mike_langberg/14191452.htm?source =rss&channel=siliconvalley_mike_langberg
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/bu
Gartner puts Apple's 1996 share at 4.6 percent, IDC at 5.1 percent. Market share in 2005 was 2.2 percent from Gartner and 2.3 percent from IDC. According to Gartner, Apple's market share peaked at 15.8 percent in 1980 -- four years before the Mac was introduced.
``It's a puzzle for sure, to the average Mac user,'' says Leander Kahney, author of the 2004 book ``The Cult of Mac'' and an editor at Wired News in San Francisco. ``They are baffled that more people don't use the Mac.''
Apple is somewhat stronger in U.S. consumer market share, with Gartner giving Apple 5.8 percent in 2005 and IDC at 2.9 percent.
so, US consumer marketshare is pegged between 2.9 and 5.8
got anything more recent and authoritative?
I can't find anything authoritative on the subject, that isn't old, or does not refer to quicktime DRM having been succesfully defeated.
can you give me a citation that's recent on the subject?
the entire point for the studios and companies supplying the movie is to maintain the DRM.
pray good sir, how to they retain their DRM intentions, and support the alternate platform, using quicktime?
The answer is, they can't.. the download companies will only get the green light/licensing if they can secure the media~
they can only secure the media through drm development~
to serve this up on a macintosh, a small portion of the market, will cost as much as the lion's share.
I may not like it, but I acknowledge the realistic facts of the situation.
a big mac base?+ Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to
1.8 percent of the market..
realistically, 1.8% is a fine percentage of folks to skip, when development and support would cost just as much as for the 98%
kinda like movies that no longer get released in vhs...
who wins dollariwse if you need 61gb of music?
1- if you buy 60 minidiscs at once, you can save a little bit
2- if, as you assert, most folks only use half a 15g ipod, then you don't need 15 or 30 or 60 blanks.. only 7-8
so, 150+(7*8)= 206, $123 less than the 329 for the 30gig ipod.
even with videoconferencing thrown in?
I think what you watch is not the volume of the bits, but the ip's connected to, and the volume of the bits..
I'll bet the spiderweb of trades that is bittorrent looks a lot different than the connections that are voip.
most voip connections are two way, one ip to one other ip.
most bittorrent connections are from you, to me, to him, to you to another guy, and all around back again.
to get hotmail, you open each one, and copy and paste
to get your shows, you watch & record.
I want to compare a fm radio (or it should be walkie-talkie, as it's two way)
to a color tv, for the purposes of power consumption
you are comparing the equivelent of a black and white tv to a color tv
see your neighbors response in part.
short form.
I'm not talking about the consumption of electricity for the radio transmission
I'm talking about the consumption of electricity for the video manipulation
consider a fm only walkman vs a personal video player.. to display video in a human consumable format, requires more electricity
larger devices, larger batteries..
I have a bluetooth headset whose weight is given in grams... how will you do that with devices for video?
I'm not talking about the radio part.
I'm talking about the handling of video part.
What will the video be used for- presumably for a human to watch.
a reciving/displaying device powerful enough to display video for a human eye will require more electricity than a simple speaker and microphone.
a transmitting/sourcing device will require more electrical consumption to suppy the video to the wireless.. e.g. if it's a camera, then the cmos will consume more than a condensing microphone
is the old philosophy wrong? what makes it old?
did he not in fact, capture the market?
I did read it, I also know that the amount of processing power required to juggle a little itty bitty mono audio stream in two directions from my earpiece to my cellphone, vs the amount of processing power required to process and transmit video (presumably one way) is much more electrically intensive.. it's going to use more electricity, the power requirements will have to go up.
the point of bluetooth is to be LOW POWER so it can be REALLY SMALL and you can't have video capable bandwidth in a micropowered device.
it was done by marketing!
but you don't need it via voip
look into the IOBI offerings at verizon..
kinda very cool...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=d efine:WMD&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title until today I always thought of WMD as being nuclear weapons or biologicals that got out of hand, and figured I would have heard/remembered if any had gone off/been used on populaces in my lifetime. Turns out the definition is more expansive than I knew, but I also can not find a reliable assertion for your claim the we KNOW they were used in the gulf war. Do you have a citation?
m ass_destruction#Documented_uses_of_WMD says The british were the first to use WMD in iraq
Now, wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_
it says that iraq used them against iran
it says iraq used them against kurdistan
but it does not say anything about them USED during the 91 gulf war
do you have a rebuttal cite?
why the hell do you have to keep reminding me of the WORST PARTS>. if we stop discussing it, we can FORGET ABOUT IT PEOPLE...
you can't have any exchanges that start with
411 or 911 or I think 611 for example.
There, I've just taken 30 thousand from your 10 million.
when in so simple a thing as an admission of guilt, in a setting where it doesn't matter for shit....
there is no job on the line, financial ruin threatening, criminial proceedings in condsideration...
if the developer of the geothermal system being installs discovers an 'error' or problem in the process do you, ricthofen80 think he will say
"never mind, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, this is a bad idea to implement?" or do you think he'll gloss over that, change the subject a little and carry on...
In the world of Slashdot, you accused me of 'trollish' behavior, and claimed my citation did not carry the content I claimed it did.
I pointed out you were 100% wrong, and asked not for seconds at sunrise, but for an apology..
look what I got..
and you expect me to have faith in people, that if a multi-million dollar project starts to look bad, we'll find out before it's too late.
welcome to my foeship... you didn't earn it until you refused to acknowledge your mistake.
In the article the assumption is, it's to get you to look at googles 'other parts'
I say it's to accomodate wide aspect monitors better.
read the last line again, then please apologize.
"it may cause sinking of land at the surface"
As to the movie ref, consider, take the heat out of the center planet, will the magnetic core still do it's job?
your example- machine learning
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #76,873 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books)
Yesterday: #70,264 in Books
My guess? yesterday they sold ONE... what does that say about how many people buy this book?
ROI
mass market paperbooks like sci fi have larger audiences, and can sit on the shelf for years..
tech books have small audiences, and a short shelf life.
Do you want to by a book on windows 95 in 2006? no? but you can still pick up a copy of Asimov robots of dawn...