Apple's desktop market share is only 3.1%. That's lower than five years ago. Apple's "quest to desktop dominance" is not going anywhere.
Who is to say that is their goal? I thought the main goal of most companies is to be profitable and to grow their sales numbers and Apple has done both. Their percentage of the market has dropped because the overall market grew faster than their sales numbers growth. You make the common mistake to assume that an increase or decrease in marketshared percentage is directly related to an increase or decrease in sales numbers.
It is perfectly possible for a company to gain marketshare percentage but see a decrease in sales number year over year if the overall market shrinks. The inverse is also possible if the market grows faster than the growth of the company.
"And you've read Steve Job's mind on this. That he'd rather have tiny market share than be the biggest PC retailer (remember Apple is a hardware vendor) in the world. Yeah, that's the Steve we know -- thinking small as usual."
Ok let's put it this way. Which would you rather be, the largest PC manufacturer with 1 billion annually in profit or the third or fourth largest manufacturer with 6 billion profit annually and the admiration of the media and the general public? I would choose the latter.
Cost of production? What about cost of promotion, logistics and the signing amount given to the artist? Those do not disappear with electronic distribution. You are thinking solely on the fixed cost directly related to providing you with the song. There are many other costs which must be recouped from the profit margin on the sales. From the time a contract is signed with a label, the label is in the hole until the profit from sales of the record reach the break even point. Do you think all of the people involved creating music work for free?
Ok, many of you seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is only one set of artists which sell across multiple markets. While it may be true that there are some artists that do well, many markets have their own local musicians which usually do not sell in other markets. Many Americans assume that their cultural imperialism is equally accepted everywhere but what you fail to notice that not everyone in non-english speaking countries would be interested in listening to american artists.
Music cannot be compared with physical goods which are easy to produce and to create knock offs of. Music, on the other hand is a service. The musicians provide a service to you which is supposed to entertain. The fact that you can purchase a reproduction of that service for your own use within your home does not change this reality.
You all seem to forget that musicians in the middle ages performed to provide a service (entertainment) for their patrons. With advances in technology, we are now able to capture and reproduce this service for distribution but it does not change the fact that the initial performance itself is not a product but rather a service.
You speak of fundamental market forces but you insist on not having your wages affected by those same forces. Isn't that hypocritical?
*sarcasm* Damn straight. Those damn governments enforcing rules like minimum labour standards and wages. How dare they prevent you from being exploited like those people in third world countries.*sarcasm*
I think you should think things through a bit before you go off foaming at the mouth like that.
OMG! You are right. Rent is different in different cities too and the same thing with wages. Thanks for stating the obvious, Captain Obvious. It's not price fixing.
Because music videos cost more money and the signing bonuses are larger. In fact, the general cost of doing business is higher today that it was back then. You see, there is a thing called inflation, perhaps you've heard of it? If you had a job, you would see that this inflation causes not only the price of goods to go up but wages as well. It is a vicious circle where higher wages causes prices to go up which in turn cause wages to go up.
I had hoped that you would have a better grasp of economics when I saw you quote the the first part but alas, it was not so. The wholesale prices and retail prices of goods and services are usually determined not only on what the market can bear but also on the cost of doing business in each country. Do you honestly think the companies have no brick and mortar operations in each country for logistical purposes? They need to have a head office in each market they are dealing in and people on the ground scouting for new talent. All of this costs money and the amount varies from market to market based on the cost of living and government imposed payroll taxes.
I have a few questions for you. How would they determine how much of the sales to provide for each sales region if there was only one store? Which region would be used to determine the price? How would you handle currency fluctuations? Why should some regions suffer with lower margins in times of currency market instability while others profit more? If prices fluctuated with the currency markets, should wages do the same?
I really don't think the slashdot community understands some of the basic tenents of local economics and how the internet plays into it. If you can a company without a presence in other countries, then you can ship anywhere and charge the same price+shipping to everyone but if you have a presence in each market, you have to be able to cover your margins in those regions with slightly differing prices. Also, if you are going to have universal pricing of physical goods, chances are that your customers will have to foot the bill for import duties.
In closing, I really don't blame the slashdotters themselves but rather the clueless media which have led people to believe things which are not true like that the internet will bring down all barriers to trade. Such notions are naive and simplistic because they cannot apply to every business model out there. The only way you could have a single market is if you had a single currency and a single set of labour practices/taxes.
You can say what you want about the MSFT tax on OEM's which is passed onto the customer but in this case, Apple makes the machine and is free do bundle the OS with their own hardware all they like similar to how the console makers bundle their own firmware with their machines.
When MSFT starts making their own machines, then you can get back to us about comparing the two companies.
The public interest means that it is in the best interest for the public to know. Unless there is a danger to public safety or security, publishing secrets is not protected by the first ammendment.
It causes no harm? Did you notice how the stock price tanked when Apple announced the HiFi and Mac mini intel instead of the rumoured products? Have you noticed that asteroid has not seen the light of day yet?
Do you realize that not all bloggers are journalists? Some bloggers are indeed journalists but they do tend to follow a set of ethics. What this guy did was not in the public interest. An interested public is not the same as public interest.
Remember the Mike Rowe incident? MSFT pressured a guy to give up a domain because it sounded the same. Are you trying to tell me that a company should not be able to do everything in their power to defend their trade secrets? Are you trying to tell me that you would be ok with someone taking your trade secret and leaking it over the internet?
This is not about whether bloggers are journalists but whether this guy can use the first ammendment to project his partners in crime. Was in news? Was it in the public interest? No.
"Apple shipped 1,254,000 Macintosh® computers and 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 20 percent growth in Macs and 207 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter."
They saw a 207% increase year over year in the first quarter for iPod sales. This is why there was such a sharp drop. The previous quarter was an anomoly and should not be seen used to base trends on. You are forgetting this it was also the quarter when Apple revised their iPod product line significantly and grabbed marketshare away from competitors in the 2-6GB Flash mp3 player market.
It could be that the market is becoming saturated and "growth" is levelling off but demand is not dropping. There is a difference between "growth" and sale numbers.
You are comparing a record breaking Christmas season quarter with the next quarter? Do you know anything about economics? There is always a significant drop in demand for consumer electronics in general in the quarter following Christmas. Looking at the year over year for the "same" quarter, there is a significant increase. The stats you quote may be accurate but your interpretation of the number is flawed.
How is it illegal to bundle an operating system created by the same company that designs and markets the hardware? If MSFT decided to make their own hardware platform, it also would not be illegal to bundle their OS on it. In fact, it is not illegal for an OEM to only offer systems with windows on it. You have a choice to vote with your wallet and buy elsewhere but you cannot demand a company provide you with a system without an OS.
I have checked out the package managers thank very much. I have a clue but apparently you do not understand that package managers are not needed if you develop against a standard base of libraries and include extras proprietary to your project with your application or project.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is to say that is their goal? I thought the main goal of most companies is to be profitable and to grow their sales numbers and Apple has done both. Their percentage of the market has dropped because the overall market grew faster than their sales numbers growth. You make the common mistake to assume that an increase or decrease in marketshared percentage is directly related to an increase or decrease in sales numbers.
It is perfectly possible for a company to gain marketshare percentage but see a decrease in sales number year over year if the overall market shrinks. The inverse is also possible if the market grows faster than the growth of the company.
Have you told your friend about Bootcamp and Parallels?
Ok let's put it this way. Which would you rather be, the largest PC manufacturer with 1 billion annually in profit or the third or fourth largest manufacturer with 6 billion profit annually and the admiration of the media and the general public? I would choose the latter.
Markshare at the expense profit is bad business.
Cost of production? What about cost of promotion, logistics and the signing amount given to the artist? Those do not disappear with electronic distribution. You are thinking solely on the fixed cost directly related to providing you with the song. There are many other costs which must be recouped from the profit margin on the sales. From the time a contract is signed with a label, the label is in the hole until the profit from sales of the record reach the break even point. Do you think all of the people involved creating music work for free?
Music cannot be compared with physical goods which are easy to produce and to create knock offs of. Music, on the other hand is a service. The musicians provide a service to you which is supposed to entertain. The fact that you can purchase a reproduction of that service for your own use within your home does not change this reality.
You all seem to forget that musicians in the middle ages performed to provide a service (entertainment) for their patrons. With advances in technology, we are now able to capture and reproduce this service for distribution but it does not change the fact that the initial performance itself is not a product but rather a service.
You speak of fundamental market forces but you insist on not having your wages affected by those same forces. Isn't that hypocritical?
I think you should think things through a bit before you go off foaming at the mouth like that.
Yeah, now the want to be paid to illegally download music.
...and you were paid too much wages compared with people in india.
OMG! You are right. Rent is different in different cities too and the same thing with wages. Thanks for stating the obvious, Captain Obvious. It's not price fixing.
Because music videos cost more money and the signing bonuses are larger. In fact, the general cost of doing business is higher today that it was back then. You see, there is a thing called inflation, perhaps you've heard of it? If you had a job, you would see that this inflation causes not only the price of goods to go up but wages as well. It is a vicious circle where higher wages causes prices to go up which in turn cause wages to go up.
You are absolutely right. You have legally justified yourself but how does that justify doing it on moral grounds?
I have a few questions for you. How would they determine how much of the sales to provide for each sales region if there was only one store? Which region would be used to determine the price? How would you handle currency fluctuations? Why should some regions suffer with lower margins in times of currency market instability while others profit more? If prices fluctuated with the currency markets, should wages do the same?
I really don't think the slashdot community understands some of the basic tenents of local economics and how the internet plays into it. If you can a company without a presence in other countries, then you can ship anywhere and charge the same price+shipping to everyone but if you have a presence in each market, you have to be able to cover your margins in those regions with slightly differing prices. Also, if you are going to have universal pricing of physical goods, chances are that your customers will have to foot the bill for import duties.
In closing, I really don't blame the slashdotters themselves but rather the clueless media which have led people to believe things which are not true like that the internet will bring down all barriers to trade. Such notions are naive and simplistic because they cannot apply to every business model out there. The only way you could have a single market is if you had a single currency and a single set of labour practices/taxes.
When MSFT starts making their own machines, then you can get back to us about comparing the two companies.
Did you RTFA? Apple it trying to force this guy to reveal the leaks so they can sue those people.
The public interest means that it is in the best interest for the public to know. Unless there is a danger to public safety or security, publishing secrets is not protected by the first ammendment.
It causes no harm? Did you notice how the stock price tanked when Apple announced the HiFi and Mac mini intel instead of the rumoured products? Have you noticed that asteroid has not seen the light of day yet?
Does that make sense?
You want to see pissed off journalists? Force them to use windows.
Remember the Mike Rowe incident? MSFT pressured a guy to give up a domain because it sounded the same. Are you trying to tell me that a company should not be able to do everything in their power to defend their trade secrets? Are you trying to tell me that you would be ok with someone taking your trade secret and leaking it over the internet?
This is not about whether bloggers are journalists but whether this guy can use the first ammendment to project his partners in crime. Was in news? Was it in the public interest? No.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18results .html
"Apple shipped 1,254,000 Macintosh® computers and 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 20 percent growth in Macs and 207 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter."
They saw a 207% increase year over year in the first quarter for iPod sales. This is why there was such a sharp drop. The previous quarter was an anomoly and should not be seen used to base trends on. You are forgetting this it was also the quarter when Apple revised their iPod product line significantly and grabbed marketshare away from competitors in the 2-6GB Flash mp3 player market.
It could be that the market is becoming saturated and "growth" is levelling off but demand is not dropping. There is a difference between "growth" and sale numbers.
You are comparing a record breaking Christmas season quarter with the next quarter? Do you know anything about economics? There is always a significant drop in demand for consumer electronics in general in the quarter following Christmas. Looking at the year over year for the "same" quarter, there is a significant increase. The stats you quote may be accurate but your interpretation of the number is flawed.
Dual booting did not kill OS/2. Windows software compatibility within OS/2 killed it.
How is it illegal to bundle an operating system created by the same company that designs and markets the hardware? If MSFT decided to make their own hardware platform, it also would not be illegal to bundle their OS on it. In fact, it is not illegal for an OEM to only offer systems with windows on it. You have a choice to vote with your wallet and buy elsewhere but you cannot demand a company provide you with a system without an OS.
I don't think you get it. There is no need for such things if developers work together to agree upon community releases of frameworks.
I have checked out the package managers thank very much. I have a clue but apparently you do not understand that package managers are not needed if you develop against a standard base of libraries and include extras proprietary to your project with your application or project.