Fun with Headlines: 4th of July Edition

Subzero- I'm not in denial of anything. I simply find the metric gauge used to measure market share so skewed that its hardly a worthwhile metric IMHO. Market share? What are the parameters? What is used to equate Market share? John is absolutely right , Dell is a shinning example of a darling of Wall street, Market share was all that mattered and then they became the Wal-mart of computing. Actually you and I are in agreement more then you would realize. However I will point out one potential flaw in your logic (which is otherwise fine with me): Subzero Wrote: Here the consumers both business and consumer oriented makes the decisions by their wallets. Unfortunately, some of you guys keep saying that market share is irrelevant? It is indeed irrelevant. The Price Paradox/Windows monopoly makes it so. Its not like "Joe User" @ company X can actually choose which computer he wants to use at his place of employment. The IT dictatorship (of which I am a part of) makes their Stalinist decrees from on high and that's it, end of discussion. Sort of makes the whole debate of choice a rather moot one. The reasons have been flogged to death ,some (read a tiny bit have merit) most are nothing but bias and uninformed rhetoric. Whether or not Apple chooses to compete in this market is likewise irrelevant. There is no way that IT is gonna budge in any meaningful form. Which is why Apple is smart to avoid businesses, which provide high market share numbers, but low profit per machine, which is the opposite of Apple's approach. Thats assuming that Apple would even have change to get in the door, smaller companies sure, large ones, different story all together. To which I'll also counter. Selling to business? Why do that when you can go direct to the consumer where tehy real innovation is happening. In other words: "Nominal market share is a useless number. Profitable market share is what gives Apple just about the strongest balance sheet in the PC business" . In short in the areas that Apple chooses to compete in they are doing a phenomenal job. In order to make that look otherwise fanboys throw out the market share argument. Or resort to the overprice myth perpetuated by the likes of Waethorn. This doesn't even get into the question of just what is counted in market share or longevity of a given computer... As far as Steve Jobs quotes go, I argee with one: "We have to let go of a few things here. We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose." Macworld Expo 1997. That is just what Apple is doing, keep creating cool products and the rest will follow. Don't get dragged down in the the question of the ad campaign(s) (anyone that is) advertising is something else entirely. In closing, market share is indeed meaningless. If it were the opposite Apple would have closed up shop a long time ago, when in fact they are doing better then ever before.

Ah Waethorn, the numbskull enforcer of the winCabal. Always ready with a lame ad hominem attack. It's more like this: "Why chase after businesses selling $399, stripped-down garbage computers and make almost nothing on them like Dell when you can sell competitively priced, higher-end consumer systems by the millions and make more money than Dell while actually doing real innovation like your own operating system and R&D." Basic math and the ability to read charts tells everyone on earth that being an Apple shareholder has been a far better position than owning Microsoft or Dell stock. It baffles the mind why, given this inalienable truth, you continually reference the shareholders when slamming Apple. Apple shareholders are doing GREAT thanks to Steve Jobs and the new Apple. But, that's what you get from the winCabal. Delusion.