I don't think the assumption is that big a stretch. Apple must be carving their sales growth out of somewhere. Is it that far fetched to assume they're carving it out of the Windows market?
THAT far-fetched? No. Overly simplistic for a published market analysis? Definitely.
Among the many alternate growth areas:
-- The decreasing cost of computers is changing the price point that defines "people that can afford to buy a computer"
-- You have potential expansion of businesses that are already Mac-based
-- Growth of multiple computer environments
I also wouldn't completely disregard the Mac upgrade cycle as growing, since Apple has really put out some neat software lately, like Motion and good OS X upgrades, that might demand a new machine.
Please don't dissect my examples, because I'm not pretending to have the answer. I don't have the data. But I find attributing 100% of the growth to switchers without some additional explanation a pretty tough pill to swallow. (I'll be honest -- I'm a fan and would really like it to be the reason. I'm just not convinced it is.)
Worse than that, they don't really provide any support for the assumption you quoted --
"If we assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from Windows users purchasing a Mac, then purchases by Windows users exceeded one million," the analyst said. "Indeed, the number of Windows users purchasing Macs in 2005 could easily exceed our forecast of 1.3 million switchers in 2006."
Assume that ALL growth was from Windows users making Mac purchases? How'd they decide on that? Can't you get to any conclusion playing that game? You know, if you assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from colobus monkeys purchasing a Mac, well, there's a bunch of monkeys out there that are going to come up with some Shakespeare in TextPad any day now.
Don't assume Microsoft is trying to enact a law that *protects* your privacy.
Exactly. Right now, I think privacy laws are pretty weak. But this isn't necessarily a good change -- remember that CAN-SPAM eliminated a bunch of far stronger state laws and left the end user with far less recourse in many cases.
To take this a step further, Microsoft's next logical step would be to gear up their lobbying machine to make certain the federal privacy law would supercede all state laws, limit corporate liability for violations, and leave as much latitude as possible on what they can do with the information.
I hope everyone is compiling their list of items that should be included in a consumer-focused privacy law and is ready to contact their representatives. If this goes forward, I can guarantee you that corporate America has their checkbooks ready to support their idea of how your personal information can be gathered, held, used and sold.
If I want to buy a toaster made in Canada, I order one from their website and they ship it to me. I may or may not be responsible for paying an extra tax or levvy on it because it is exported/imported. This seems pretty reasonable. The company that makes the toaster sells it.
I think you're ignoring the enormous number of hoops that the company shipping you the toaster has gone through to be able to export their product to the U.S. Don't assume that just because it's easy for you that it was easy to make it happen.
...look for Apple to come out with a sleek little set top box that's essentially a Video iPod on steroids. It'll be pizza box thin, look sexy in your stereo cabinet, have an interface that makes TiVo look complicated, and cost a mere $499.
I think you're absolutely right. The moment I saw the new iMac, I thought the same thing. I think Front Row is really the first stages of an interface for a set top box. Add a DVR, some high-quality component outputs, and turn the design team loose and it's potentially a winner.
The problem is that DVR's are a market where, like GUI operating systems, "good enough" has prevailed. TiVo has struggled because enough people aren't willing to spring for a standalone unit that entails a monthly fee when they already have a crappy unit included in their cable box. The CableCARD changes this equation. I would hope that any set top box Apple produces incorporates CableCARD into the tuner and has a subscription that is virtually free.
Some things, of course are changed, small things like no transfer over FW (Apple has glitchy USB 2.0 support on some machines) and the lack of remote functionality on the iPod's specialized headphone connector (now, it's dock-only).
That's unfortunate. I wasn't aware of those changes.
But without massive video iTMS sales, the fact that the iPod does not allow users to easily create/acquire content outside of commercial distribution channels may scratch the pristine surface of the iPod's reputation.
I thought the only flaw was that iTunes doesn't rip DVDs directly. I haven't played with the new iPod, but it's possible to import video to the iTunes 6 library as easily as audio. Does that video not transfer to the iPod?
And then my iPod -- it does not try to do much more than it is designed for -- a music player (ok, now also a video player -- but I think the vPod was a bad move).
I've seen a few people say this, and I really don't understand it. Could someone explain? As I see it, the new iPod has increased battery life, it's a bit thinner and has a little larger display. Beyond that, it's the exact same device it's always been and functions the exact same way it always has -- except that it'll play some video now.
I personally think the video iPod is a brilliant strategic move. They've kept the device essentially the same, not upsetting a winning formula. They still made marginal improvements in the core music player in terms of battery life and size. But they've put video capability out there to test the waters and see if the legal video download market turns out like the legal music download market has. If downloading Lost and Desperate Housewives turns out to be a winner, you can bet that other content providers will come running.
So what am I missing? Why is the video iPod a "bad move"? It looks to me like they've managed to pilot a totally new service while continuing to give people the same device they already love.
I realize it would be so much cooler if iTunes 6 had the ability to rip video content and transfer it just like we do with audio, but I just don't think that's possible. Since most DVDs incorporate copy protection, I don't think it would fly under the DMCA. If Rick Boucher's legislation gets passed, we may see something like that. You should probably head over to the EFF Action Center and support it.
As for wanting a share of the music player revenue stream and needing to "monetize their product", what's wrong with the ~75c per song of pure profit that they're making now? Music labels didn't get a cut of Walkman or Discman sales; why should anything change now?
Did they not? Whatever happened to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992? I thought they get a cut of tapes, discs and recorders because of that act.
Think about it, if your computers went down, and all you had were your customers keycards... they want to be able to bill you no matter what.
I find this whole article suspect. Just the other day when I checked into a Sheraton, the computer system was down. No reservation data (they had a faxed list from some other location), no swiping of the credit card, nothing. Still, I could get my keycard and get into my room -- because the keycard encoding was part of a completely different system.
I'm not suggesting that when all systems are online that additional info couldn't be passed to the keycard, but I don't buy it.
Is it really that hard to enable WPA, change the default SSID, and disable broadcasting of the SSID? I didn't think so, but maybe I'm just crazy.
It's not too hard, but my crappy D-Link wireless router keeps resetting to the default settings for no reason. Until I replace it, it's wide open. Very irritating.
You know what I do instead of letting ads through? I donate to sites and projects that I regularly use. I buy stocks in corporations that provide me with a lot of my goods (such as CNet and Google).
Not to nitpick, but you do realize that buying stock in corporations that you like doesn't support the corporation in any way, right? You understand that after the public offering, the corporation receives no benefit from the subsequent transactions?
Not being critical. It's cool if you want to own stock in companies you buy stuff from or interact with. I just wanted to be sure you knew that doing so doesn't help those companies. (You probably do, but ignorance of financial markets can run pretty high in the general population.)
Using a computer for a "to-do" list or calendar is just using technology for the sake of using technology. Pen and paper works fine. It has the advantage of being more portable than the smallest PDA as well.
This is just nonsense. Maybe it's "more portable than the smallest PDA" if you're scribbling your schedule on the back of a napkin. But if you have a job and a genuinely complicated schedule, where you might actually need to go back and review what you did and when, then you're carrying around some kind of organizer like a Day-Timer. My old one 8 x 5.5 and over an inch thick.
My buddy still carries one because he says it's more "convenient." Every day he has to carry forward the To Do items that are still outstanding to the next page. A change to an appointment involves lots of erasing and rewriting. And if the appointment is further out than the 3 months that fit (under the 2-page-per-day format), then they go into a summary calendar that gets recopied when the correct month rolls around.
Notice that the machine Jobs demonstrated was a quad 3.6GHz Pentium 4, and it was as fast as, what, an oldish G4? It's going to be a while before emulated PowerPC on an x86 system with sane power requirements is feasible.
Maybe I miss the point (entirely possible) but why would I want to buy a brand new machine to run ancient software? I realize that some software may not be available for the new architecture and that's a genuine problem. Some kind of replacement would have to be found.
But for software that's still being published, we're not talking about purchasing new copies -- we're merely upgrading to newer, Intel-native releases, right? Isn't this sort of a tempest in a teacup? It seems that if you want to run a bunch of PowerPC-native or 68K-emulated software, then you should buy a current Mac.
Well congratulations to you. Would you like a biscuit?
No, of course not, humor-meister. How would you get me a biscuit?
You used broad statements like "a world where we can interact" and "this day when PCs don't need a swath of fixed-purpose thick-client software". It definitely sounded more general purpose than you're now suggesting. Thick and thin do have their places, as I said.
I really don't think this is the right thin solution, however -- Microsoft creating another flavor of Windows as a crappy thin-client so they can then foist off an expensive server-side solution that doles out Microsoft apps with a never-ending license revenue stream? I just don't see this as helping those masses of low-end PC users.
I think they envision a world where we can interact with discussion boards, access our banking information, send and receive emails, and even read newspapers, all through a thin client interact tool, which I believe they call a "web browser".
"Even read newspapers"? Such a lofty goal.
If that's all you're doing with your PC, maybe thin-client computing is for you. I'm using mine in environments where I still need to be able to do my work offline. And I also use my computer to digitize video, edit it, render it, etc. I really don't want to hand those tasks off to some server somewhere. I have some great software that handles the task quickly and efficiently.
I trust Apple a great deal more than I trust any cell phone company.
Yup. Conveniently, an article in today's USA Today discusses the wireless industry and their abysmal record of customer satisfaction.
"In nearly every gauge of customer satisfaction, the wireless industry scores at or near the bottom. Worse than insurance companies. Worse than credit card outfits. Worse than car dealers."
You'll forgive me if I don't want these people to have anything to do with how I obtain and listen to music. The wireless providers want to maintain of lot of control over these heavily subsidized handsets and what we can do with 'em.
And I won't. Just because you'd prefer to use your phone as a music player doesn't mean it's what a majority of people want, and it doesn't make Bill right. I suspect we'll see a substantial market for both kinds of devices for a very long time.
I don't necessarily agree with all those reasons, but I definitely push Firefox and Thunderbird. I care because I'm the one my family/friends call when an Internet Explorer security hole destroys their PC, or when spyware grinds the thing to a halt.
So far all I can get (I am not a laywer) out of this is motion is that SCO wanted to file more compliants agaisnt IBM and the judge denied it
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've worked with enough legal nonsense to explain this. (Though probably not as well as Groklaw.) You slightly missed what happened.
SCO already had a motion (the "motion to amend") on the table to add one additional claim to their suit. This amendment motion then got scheduled to be heard on April 21, meaning that both parties show up in court and make their arguments. They were also scheduled to discuss scheduling proposals, which I think means that they would hammer out dates on which no new discovery can take place and that kind of thing. This is the motion you were referring to. No decision was made by the judge on it.
The motion in the article was to adjourn the April 21 hearing, that is to say they wanted to cancel the scheduled courtroom discussion of the motion mentioned above. They said they needed this cancellation because they wanted to add even more claims besides the single new one that would be discussed April 21. I think they also said they wanted to change around the scheduling proposal. The judge ruled against this motion to adjourn -- essentially saying no, we're not going to delay any longer, you are going to show up on April 21 and argue your amendment motion.
The shorter version -- SCO tried to cancel a court date and stall some more. The judge said no, they need to show up and proceed.
Note that this only means they have to appear on April 21 and argue on whether or not they can add another claim to their lawsuit. I am pretty sure they will NOT be arguing any aspect of the actual lawsuit on April 21.
Most farmers like DST so they don't need to get up so early in order to get chores done.
You'll need to cite a source for this. I read the opposite -- that farmers loathe DST because while the crops do not magically get an extra hour of daylight, the change in the farmer's routine relative to dawn disrupts things like the egg-laying of the hens. Regardless of the clock-time, I think many farm duties are tied to sunrise. Your grandfather sounds more representative of farmers.
No, it's not true, at least in my experience. I use mine frequently on my motorcycle, including some long, cross-country trips on some pretty rough roads, and I've had it skip a total of one time.
What's also misleading, and this really bugs me about these new Microsoft DRM-based services, is the description of the subscription services. #6 makes the same statement I've seen before -- download all you want for the cost of one CD. But they never mention that once you stop paying, the music stops working.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should read the subject again. I don't think he was objecting to the OP's use of the word "publicity".
THAT far-fetched? No. Overly simplistic for a published market analysis? Definitely.
Among the many alternate growth areas:
-- The decreasing cost of computers is changing the price point that defines "people that can afford to buy a computer"
-- You have potential expansion of businesses that are already Mac-based
-- Growth of multiple computer environments
I also wouldn't completely disregard the Mac upgrade cycle as growing, since Apple has really put out some neat software lately, like Motion and good OS X upgrades, that might demand a new machine.
Please don't dissect my examples, because I'm not pretending to have the answer. I don't have the data. But I find attributing 100% of the growth to switchers without some additional explanation a pretty tough pill to swallow. (I'll be honest -- I'm a fan and would really like it to be the reason. I'm just not convinced it is.)
"If we assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from Windows users purchasing a Mac, then purchases by Windows users exceeded one million," the analyst said. "Indeed, the number of Windows users purchasing Macs in 2005 could easily exceed our forecast of 1.3 million switchers in 2006."
Assume that ALL growth was from Windows users making Mac purchases? How'd they decide on that? Can't you get to any conclusion playing that game? You know, if you assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from colobus monkeys purchasing a Mac, well, there's a bunch of monkeys out there that are going to come up with some Shakespeare in TextPad any day now.
Exactly. Right now, I think privacy laws are pretty weak. But this isn't necessarily a good change -- remember that CAN-SPAM eliminated a bunch of far stronger state laws and left the end user with far less recourse in many cases.
To take this a step further, Microsoft's next logical step would be to gear up their lobbying machine to make certain the federal privacy law would supercede all state laws, limit corporate liability for violations, and leave as much latitude as possible on what they can do with the information.
I hope everyone is compiling their list of items that should be included in a consumer-focused privacy law and is ready to contact their representatives. If this goes forward, I can guarantee you that corporate America has their checkbooks ready to support their idea of how your personal information can be gathered, held, used and sold.
I think you're ignoring the enormous number of hoops that the company shipping you the toaster has gone through to be able to export their product to the U.S. Don't assume that just because it's easy for you that it was easy to make it happen.
I think you're absolutely right. The moment I saw the new iMac, I thought the same thing. I think Front Row is really the first stages of an interface for a set top box. Add a DVR, some high-quality component outputs, and turn the design team loose and it's potentially a winner.
The problem is that DVR's are a market where, like GUI operating systems, "good enough" has prevailed. TiVo has struggled because enough people aren't willing to spring for a standalone unit that entails a monthly fee when they already have a crappy unit included in their cable box. The CableCARD changes this equation. I would hope that any set top box Apple produces incorporates CableCARD into the tuner and has a subscription that is virtually free.
That's unfortunate. I wasn't aware of those changes.
But without massive video iTMS sales, the fact that the iPod does not allow users to easily create/acquire content outside of commercial distribution channels may scratch the pristine surface of the iPod's reputation.
I thought the only flaw was that iTunes doesn't rip DVDs directly. I haven't played with the new iPod, but it's possible to import video to the iTunes 6 library as easily as audio. Does that video not transfer to the iPod?
I've seen a few people say this, and I really don't understand it. Could someone explain? As I see it, the new iPod has increased battery life, it's a bit thinner and has a little larger display. Beyond that, it's the exact same device it's always been and functions the exact same way it always has -- except that it'll play some video now.
I personally think the video iPod is a brilliant strategic move. They've kept the device essentially the same, not upsetting a winning formula. They still made marginal improvements in the core music player in terms of battery life and size. But they've put video capability out there to test the waters and see if the legal video download market turns out like the legal music download market has. If downloading Lost and Desperate Housewives turns out to be a winner, you can bet that other content providers will come running.
So what am I missing? Why is the video iPod a "bad move"? It looks to me like they've managed to pilot a totally new service while continuing to give people the same device they already love.
I realize it would be so much cooler if iTunes 6 had the ability to rip video content and transfer it just like we do with audio, but I just don't think that's possible. Since most DVDs incorporate copy protection, I don't think it would fly under the DMCA. If Rick Boucher's legislation gets passed, we may see something like that. You should probably head over to the EFF Action Center and support it.
Since when is an AC's link to an eight-year-old news article "insightful"?
Did they not? Whatever happened to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992? I thought they get a cut of tapes, discs and recorders because of that act.
I find this whole article suspect. Just the other day when I checked into a Sheraton, the computer system was down. No reservation data (they had a faxed list from some other location), no swiping of the credit card, nothing. Still, I could get my keycard and get into my room -- because the keycard encoding was part of a completely different system.
I'm not suggesting that when all systems are online that additional info couldn't be passed to the keycard, but I don't buy it.
It's not too hard, but my crappy D-Link wireless router keeps resetting to the default settings for no reason. Until I replace it, it's wide open. Very irritating.
Not to nitpick, but you do realize that buying stock in corporations that you like doesn't support the corporation in any way, right? You understand that after the public offering, the corporation receives no benefit from the subsequent transactions?
Not being critical. It's cool if you want to own stock in companies you buy stuff from or interact with. I just wanted to be sure you knew that doing so doesn't help those companies. (You probably do, but ignorance of financial markets can run pretty high in the general population.)
This is just nonsense. Maybe it's "more portable than the smallest PDA" if you're scribbling your schedule on the back of a napkin. But if you have a job and a genuinely complicated schedule, where you might actually need to go back and review what you did and when, then you're carrying around some kind of organizer like a Day-Timer. My old one 8 x 5.5 and over an inch thick.
My buddy still carries one because he says it's more "convenient." Every day he has to carry forward the To Do items that are still outstanding to the next page. A change to an appointment involves lots of erasing and rewriting. And if the appointment is further out than the 3 months that fit (under the 2-page-per-day format), then they go into a summary calendar that gets recopied when the correct month rolls around.
Maybe I miss the point (entirely possible) but why would I want to buy a brand new machine to run ancient software? I realize that some software may not be available for the new architecture and that's a genuine problem. Some kind of replacement would have to be found.
But for software that's still being published, we're not talking about purchasing new copies -- we're merely upgrading to newer, Intel-native releases, right? Isn't this sort of a tempest in a teacup? It seems that if you want to run a bunch of PowerPC-native or 68K-emulated software, then you should buy a current Mac.
No, of course not, humor-meister. How would you get me a biscuit?
You used broad statements like "a world where we can interact" and "this day when PCs don't need a swath of fixed-purpose thick-client software". It definitely sounded more general purpose than you're now suggesting. Thick and thin do have their places, as I said.
I really don't think this is the right thin solution, however -- Microsoft creating another flavor of Windows as a crappy thin-client so they can then foist off an expensive server-side solution that doles out Microsoft apps with a never-ending license revenue stream? I just don't see this as helping those masses of low-end PC users.
"Even read newspapers"? Such a lofty goal.
If that's all you're doing with your PC, maybe thin-client computing is for you. I'm using mine in environments where I still need to be able to do my work offline. And I also use my computer to digitize video, edit it, render it, etc. I really don't want to hand those tasks off to some server somewhere. I have some great software that handles the task quickly and efficiently.
Thick and thin both have their places.
I'd suggest that they really haven't even shown any flaccid, squishy evidence.
Yup. Conveniently, an article in today's USA Today discusses the wireless industry and their abysmal record of customer satisfaction.
"In nearly every gauge of customer satisfaction, the wireless industry scores at or near the bottom. Worse than insurance companies. Worse than credit card outfits. Worse than car dealers."
You'll forgive me if I don't want these people to have anything to do with how I obtain and listen to music. The wireless providers want to maintain of lot of control over these heavily subsidized handsets and what we can do with 'em.
And I won't. Just because you'd prefer to use your phone as a music player doesn't mean it's what a majority of people want, and it doesn't make Bill right. I suspect we'll see a substantial market for both kinds of devices for a very long time.
I don't necessarily agree with all those reasons, but I definitely push Firefox and Thunderbird. I care because I'm the one my family/friends call when an Internet Explorer security hole destroys their PC, or when spyware grinds the thing to a halt.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've worked with enough legal nonsense to explain this. (Though probably not as well as Groklaw.) You slightly missed what happened.
SCO already had a motion (the "motion to amend") on the table to add one additional claim to their suit. This amendment motion then got scheduled to be heard on April 21, meaning that both parties show up in court and make their arguments. They were also scheduled to discuss scheduling proposals, which I think means that they would hammer out dates on which no new discovery can take place and that kind of thing. This is the motion you were referring to. No decision was made by the judge on it.
The motion in the article was to adjourn the April 21 hearing, that is to say they wanted to cancel the scheduled courtroom discussion of the motion mentioned above. They said they needed this cancellation because they wanted to add even more claims besides the single new one that would be discussed April 21. I think they also said they wanted to change around the scheduling proposal. The judge ruled against this motion to adjourn -- essentially saying no, we're not going to delay any longer, you are going to show up on April 21 and argue your amendment motion.
The shorter version -- SCO tried to cancel a court date and stall some more. The judge said no, they need to show up and proceed.
Note that this only means they have to appear on April 21 and argue on whether or not they can add another claim to their lawsuit. I am pretty sure they will NOT be arguing any aspect of the actual lawsuit on April 21.
You'll need to cite a source for this. I read the opposite -- that farmers loathe DST because while the crops do not magically get an extra hour of daylight, the change in the farmer's routine relative to dawn disrupts things like the egg-laying of the hens. Regardless of the clock-time, I think many farm duties are tied to sunrise. Your grandfather sounds more representative of farmers.
Who knew the cable companies had rabid fans? That's wild.
What's also misleading, and this really bugs me about these new Microsoft DRM-based services, is the description of the subscription services. #6 makes the same statement I've seen before -- download all you want for the cost of one CD. But they never mention that once you stop paying, the music stops working.
And 64 kbps for "CD quality" sound? Ugh.