If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/16/2011 11:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote: What you miss is that market share is a function of production for a defined period. (Usually that latest reporting period.) I can't understand the difficulty you are having with that concept. So basically what you say is "market share doesn't say anything about sales, or market, it's a number derived from the production (over a given period)". OK. Then the number is without worth in any discussion Mac vs Windows. Noone cares if manufacturers produce tons of unsellable stuff just to have 'market share'. And then has to destroy the stuff. Please tell that to tony cooper. Useful life of products is a different measure. And a rather important one. If you stand on the Autobahn and count cars by manufacturer, the result will have no business relevance, except perhaps for a decision whether to equip autos for high speed driving. Or so you say. I might be dull, but even I can imagine lots of business relevant uses of that number. For example, deciding which manufacturer's authorized repair shop to open. (No, the raw numbers won't do, you have to correlate them with failure rates, at the very least.) You totally miss that in today's economy with JIT availability, production is a function of actual sales, which is a determinant of market share. -- Peter |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/16/2011 11:12 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote: On 8/13/2011 5:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Others would have admitted being wrong, or reasons that the spot checks had to have these results (the Mac hardware being better at these tasks). Can you point to the last time you admitted being wrong. Sure. Unfortunately, you were not there. -Wolfgang I thought so. -- Peter |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/16/2011 11:27 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote: On 8/13/2011 6:00 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: On 8/9/2011 6:34 PM, nospam wrote: wrote: So no Macs are used in the workplace? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i never said that. Who did? At a guess, a certain PeterN. So show me where I said that. Inquiring minds want to know! I've underlined the relevant part. If take that comment IN CONTEXT you will quickly see that it doesn't meant that at all. Perhaps you need to brush up on your context reading. There is even a question mark as the last character. -- Peter |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
PeterN wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: On 8/9/2011 6:09 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: A major role of marketing is advance product design. I see. Funny, whenever I watched them, they'd very rarely do any advance product design (and they didn't need much in the way of market share absolutes, which would have been impossible to calculate, they were interested in comparative market share with the top competitors), they'd go 'I got that customer wish and I said we could do that' (even when it's "repeal gravity" or similar (today) unattainable goals). But that of course can only be wrong, since you have a theoretical degree in the theory and I only have some actual experience over a decade. Is your experience in marketing? It is. Are you saying product design is not a part of marketing. Here's a free '?' for you. Product design is a part of every relevant part of a company, usually including decision makers way above marketing. Marketing gives input, but so do others, because often marketing doesn't grasp the lack of unobtainium. It's called predictive analysis. the firms supplying the information have to supply accurate numbers and the purchaser needs to have accurate numbers. And how do you know that the numbers are accurate? And how accurate are they supposed to be, to which digit? Think supermarket product location. Think diapers & beer. Ah, at best approximate numbers, learned patterns and trial and error. As to how accurate they need to be, it depends on the purpose for the analysis. You claimed predictive analysis needed accurate numbers. You have neither proven that they are accurate (Apple's sales numbers aren't exactly diapers and beer) nor that they need to be very exact. After all, predicting products to be well received in the market is quite a gamble, even though some things (early Palm, Apple with iPhone, iPod, iPad, netbooks (actually started by the XO) come to mind) are real hits. When I think of the periodic 3D photography and TV and films and so on hype, there's a lot of misses right there --- and a lot of 'me too' products. And you really don't need very accurate numbers to know tablets are a big market and at the moment Apple leads. You need to evaluate what makes the iPad such a hit, and there you don't need marketing numbers. I guess if you rely on inaccurate numbers, you can make any claim you want. However, there is a lot of ground between accurate, exact and inaccurate numbers. I am still waiting for the source that supports your comment regarding supply of inaccurate data. Please reread what I wrote. Or look at studies e.g. regarding Linux sponsored by Microsoft. Tuning the Windows, not installing patches for the Linux, not enabling new techniques for speed, using e.g. a peak measurement when average throughput or time to completion is actually the relevant number, etc ... accurate? Sure, they probably didn't need to fake the numbers. Reflecting reality? Hmmm ... You still haven't supplied a clear response. If you don't even know the difference bettween what I wrote and what you put in my mouth, I cannot help you anymore. -Wolfgang |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: tony cooper wrote: Nothing like a person who has absolutely no understanding of a subject sounding off about the subject. Yep. Now put the mirror down. Grow up. .... said the mental dwarf to the grownup. Back to the killfile with you. See you in half a year. -Wolfgang |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:26:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: PeterN wrote: What you miss is that market share is a function of production for a defined period. (Usually that latest reporting period.) I can't understand the difficulty you are having with that concept. So basically what you say is "market share doesn't say anything about sales, or market, it's a number derived from the production (over a given period)". OK. Then the number is without worth in any discussion Mac vs Windows. Noone cares if manufacturers produce tons of unsellable stuff just to have 'market share'. And then has to destroy the stuff. Market share is the number of units sold in a time period. It is a function of production only in that the units must be produced to be sold. There are reports that deal with orders placed, but they are not market share numbers. These reports are usually compiled for manufacturers with a long lead time. They provide an indication of what future market share numbers might be. For example, a report of building permits issued is an indication of what new home sales might be in the future. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/16/2011 1:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote: On 8/13/2011 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: On 8/9/2011 6:09 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: A major role of marketing is advance product design. I see. Funny, whenever I watched them, they'd very rarely do any advance product design (and they didn't need much in the way of market share absolutes, which would have been impossible to calculate, they were interested in comparative market share with the top competitors), they'd go 'I got that customer wish and I said we could do that' (even when it's "repeal gravity" or similar (today) unattainable goals). But that of course can only be wrong, since you have a theoretical degree in the theory and I only have some actual experience over a decade. Is your experience in marketing? It is. Are you saying product design is not a part of marketing. Here's a free '?' for you. Product design is a part of every relevant part of a company, usually including decision makers way above marketing. Marketing gives input, but so do others, because often marketing doesn't grasp the lack of unobtainium. It's called predictive analysis. the firms supplying the information have to supply accurate numbers and the purchaser needs to have accurate numbers. And how do you know that the numbers are accurate? And how accurate are they supposed to be, to which digit? Think supermarket product location. Think diapers& beer. Ah, at best approximate numbers, learned patterns and trial and error. As to how accurate they need to be, it depends on the purpose for the analysis. You claimed predictive analysis needed accurate numbers. You have neither proven that they are accurate (Apple's sales numbers aren't exactly diapers and beer) nor that they need to be very exact. After all, predicting products to be well received in the market is quite a gamble, even though some things (early Palm, Apple with iPhone, iPod, iPad, netbooks (actually started by the XO) come to mind) are real hits. When I think of the periodic 3D photography and TV and films and so on hype, there's a lot of misses right there --- and a lot of 'me too' products. And you really don't need very accurate numbers to know tablets are a big market and at the moment Apple leads. You need to evaluate what makes the iPad such a hit, and there you don't need marketing numbers. I guess if you rely on inaccurate numbers, you can make any claim you want. However, there is a lot of ground between accurate, exact and inaccurate numbers. I am still waiting for the source that supports your comment regarding supply of inaccurate data. Please reread what I wrote. Or look at studies e.g. regarding Linux sponsored by Microsoft. Tuning the Windows, not installing patches for the Linux, not enabling new techniques for speed, using e.g. a peak measurement when average throughput or time to completion is actually the relevant number, etc ... accurate? Sure, they probably didn't need to fake the numbers. Reflecting reality? Hmmm ... You still haven't supplied a clear response. If you don't even know the difference bettween what I wrote and what you put in my mouth, I cannot help you anymore. Any statistical sampling analysis is by definition not exact as it contains a desired degree of uncertainty. Therefore I have been careful to use the expression accurate, as opposed to exact. However, I do know that nospam's method contains an unacceptably high degree of inaccuracy. It certainly is not random. -- Peter |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/16/2011 1:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote: On 8/13/2011 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: On 8/9/2011 6:09 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: A major role of marketing is advance product design. I see. Funny, whenever I watched them, they'd very rarely do any advance product design (and they didn't need much in the way of market share absolutes, which would have been impossible to calculate, they were interested in comparative market share with the top competitors), they'd go 'I got that customer wish and I said we could do that' (even when it's "repeal gravity" or similar (today) unattainable goals). But that of course can only be wrong, since you have a theoretical degree in the theory and I only have some actual experience over a decade. Is your experience in marketing? It is. Are you saying product design is not a part of marketing. Here's a free '?' for you. Product design is a part of every relevant part of a company, usually including decision makers way above marketing. Marketing gives input, but so do others, because often marketing doesn't grasp the lack of unobtainium. Meaning? It's called predictive analysis. the firms supplying the information have to supply accurate numbers and the purchaser needs to have accurate numbers. And how do you know that the numbers are accurate? And how accurate are they supposed to be, to which digit? Think supermarket product location. Think diapers& beer. Ah, at best approximate numbers, learned patterns and trial and error. As to how accurate they need to be, it depends on the purpose for the analysis. You claimed predictive analysis needed accurate numbers. You have neither proven that they are accurate (Apple's sales numbers aren't exactly diapers and beer) nor that they need to be very exact. correct accurate to margin of error, not inaccurate. No predictive analysis can be more accurate than the numbers upon which it is based. that's why it is also referred to a probability analysis. If I accurately observe that a fair coin has landed on tails, 200,000 time in a row, the probability of it landing on tails is exactly .5. Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the next event. After all, predicting products to be well received in the market is quite a gamble, even though some things (early Palm, Apple with iPhone, iPod, iPad, netbooks (actually started by the XO) come to mind) are real hits. When I think of the periodic 3D photography and TV and films and so on hype, there's a lot of misses right there --- and a lot of 'me too' products. And you really don't need very accurate numbers to know tablets are a big market and at the moment Apple leads. You need to evaluate what makes the iPad such a hit, and there you don't need marketing numbers. I guess if you rely on inaccurate numbers, you can make any claim you want. However, there is a lot of ground between accurate, exact and inaccurate numbers. I am still waiting for the source that supports your comment regarding supply of inaccurate data. Please reread what I wrote. Or look at studies e.g. regarding Linux sponsored by Microsoft. Tuning the Windows, not installing patches for the Linux, not enabling new techniques for speed, using e.g. a peak measurement when average throughput or time to completion is actually the relevant number, etc ... accurate? Sure, they probably didn't need to fake the numbers. Reflecting reality? Hmmm ... You still haven't supplied a clear response. If you don't even know the difference bettween what I wrote and what you put in my mouth, I cannot help you anymore. -Wolfgang -- Peter |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
PeterN wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:57 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: In , tony cooper More stray straws. Your dentist is an end user. What software the dentist installs on the laptop means jack-**** as far as his laptop purchase being part of the market share as reported when the manufacturer sold it. nope. an x-ray machine that's built around a pc is counted as a pc running windows in market share numbers, but to the end user (the dentist) it's an x-ray machine. And a Therac-25 counts as a PDP 11 in market share numbers? Above laptop inbuild in the car is counted as Windows laptop in market share numbers? Please define what you mean by laptop. Can you take this laptop out of the car and take it on a plane. Here, I'll give you a few: ?????????? Copy and paste them. You can even take the car on a plane. You can also just take the right front wheel of the car into a plane. So what gives? If so, what process is involved in the removal? Is that relevant? A car radio can be removed in mere seconds ... a wheel too, given the right tools. -Wolfgang |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
PeterN wrote:
On 8/14/2011 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: tony wrote: Oh, I think I can say that with about 99% probability of accuracy. You are saying lots of wrong things lately. For example, nospam's pretty convincing to me. "anyone" is thus wrong by default, so the accuracy is ZERO. So your 99% happens to not capure reality. Did you understand that market position is considered on a periodic basis. I'll gift you with an '?'. If market position is on a periodic basis how is period of sale accounted for by casual observation? If tony can use population numbers (see other posts) --- and ones sampled with a easily strong bias --- to give market share numbers, then so can I. A higher number of Mac laptops in population compared to their sales per time-unit rate would show that they are used longer, hence cheaper to buy as price-per-time-unit-of-ownership than the price at the time of purchase would indicate in a naive comparison. Anyway, we're arguing over a factor 5, and I'd guess even Mac laptops are laid to rest after twice the age of a Windows laptop. Still a 2.5x difference, and a good idea to buy a Mac laptop even if it would be quite a bit more expensive on identical features than Windows laptops. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDR. The horror continues | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 8th 10 09:38 AM |
Anti-digital backlash continues ... | Bill Hilton | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 284 | July 5th 04 05:40 PM |
Digital rants - got to end. | ColdCanuck | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | January 30th 04 05:27 AM |