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 |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/11/2011 10:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In , PeterN wrote: I am one who used to love to fly. Now it think it's a real PITA, with luggage restrictions and waiting on long lines for security checks. Also jammed flights have taken a lot of the enjoyment out of it, including in first class. I think I am more typical of retiree, than you. Some of my friends, who fly free, prefer driving, for similar reason. it's not difficult to have luggage restrictions waived and also avoid long lines at the ticket counter, for security and at the gate. however, capacity is lower and load factors are higher. it's rare that there's an empty seat and extremely rare for an empty row to stretch out. that's one thing i miss, but on the other hand, the chances for an idb are higher which makes up for it. What do you mean by idb? actually, i meant to say vdb, voluntary denied boarding, aka bumped. idb is involuntary denied boarding, which the airlines greatly prefer to avoid (as do the passengers), thus the generous vdb offerings to get them to volunteer. I was not familiar with the acronym. Now, I fly only for vacation purposes. I don't want to be bumped and miss part of my vacation, My guess is that It would take more money than the airlines are welling to pay. As for business flying, I guess if an employee wants to scam the company be saying he was late, and pocketing the reward, that's an issue between he and the company. Having said that, I can think of one time I volunteered, and that was coming home on a business where the compensation was a free first class ticket and the delay was two hours, which I spent relaxing in the lounge. -- Peter |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/11/2011 11:14 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:01:01 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 8/11/2011 11:16 AM, tony cooper wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:57:40 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 8/11/2011 1:04 AM, tony cooper wrote: Personally, I think that figure is bogus. It must be higher than 6%. The business class flyers are too busy knocking back free drinks and asking for hot towels and paper slippers to haul out their laptops. In my business flying days on the way to the meeting I would be busy reviewing my notes and preparing my presentation. Coming home, most of the time I was busy summarizing the results of my meetings. It was a rare occasion that I got to enjoy the "free" drinks, etc. It was only on vacation flights that I really got to enjoy the perks. Even then I would only drink more than one or two, if we were being picked up. I rarely did any business work on an airplane. I read a book. Any preparation for the trip was done prior to setting out for the airport. Summaries were done when I returned. I rarely even opened my briefcase. I was a 3x5 card person. I carried a stack of 3x5 cards in my pocket and pulled one out if a recordable thought came to mind. An associate of mine, who often traveled with me, filled pages of notes on a legal pad (no laptops in those days) and read everything in his briefcase on every flight. He'd kid me about being under-prepared and I'd kid him about being over-prepared, but we both managed to be well-prepared. We just had different styles of getting prepared. I seldom ate or drank on an airplane. In those days, we usually wore suits and ties when traveling, and there is an Absolute Rule that if you wear a tie on an airplane, something will spill on that tie. If an extra tie was not packed, the spill would be greasy and messy. There was another Absolute Rule about flying to a business meeting: the lighter-colored the suit, the more likely someone will spill a meal tray in your lap. The Corollary to that Rule is that spills are 92.3% more likely to happen on the departing flight than they are on the returning flight. Then, there was the leaky pen and the huge blue spot on the shirt pocket thing. The first flight I made after I bought my Montblanc fountain pen, I didn't cap it before sticking it back in shirt pocket. Those of my age who traveled on business will remember carrying Kodak carousals or stacks of transparencies with us. One of my secretary's tasks was to check with the destination company to make sure a projector was available. (Yes, she was a "secretary". The term PA didn't exist then) Once, in the departure lounge, I noticed another business-type lugging one of those easel things with a large pad of paper towards the gate. He had done his presentation on pages of the pad. The stewardess (Yes, we called them stewardesses in those days and they didn't seem to mind.) refused to let him take it on board. I thought the man was going to cry. Some uber-stew finally came out of the plane and agreed to take the easel and stow it somewhere. The modern traveler with a laptop and Power Point or one of those small projection devices just doesn't understand how lucky they are. The tie thing was rarely an issue. I went casual and slept over then night before, Most of the time I wore a suit and tie even if the meeting was the next day. Habit, I suppose. On one trip I forgot to pack a tie. Since my first meeting was with the IRS and it was a hot day, I really didn't need one. My next meeting was with a client. It took me almost an hour to find a tie. When I got there, you guessed it, my client was wearing a golf shirt and mentioned that not having to wear a tie is one of the reasons he moved his company to Maryland. I immediately took of my new tie. whenever I could. Then there was the time KLM lost my luggage between Amsterdam& Zurich. Fortunately, I always carried toiletries, underwear and socks in my hand luggage. However, I went to three days of negotiations wearing jeans. My worst lost-luggage experience was between Puerto Rico and Tortola, British Virgin Islands. I had business reasons to travel to Puerto Rico, but left there for Tortola where my wife and I were to spend five days on a chartered sailboat with another couple. My wife, and the other couple, had flown from Orlando to Miami to Tortola and I had flown Orlando to San Juan with a later connection to Tortola. My luggage was stolen in San Juan and I didn't even have a carry-on bag. Just a briefcase. I was wearing a suit and tie and dress shoes, and that's all I had for a five day sailing trip. I bought some tee shirts, toiletries, and some shorts in Tortola. I couldn't find a pair of tennis shoes in my size and had to buy a much smaller pair and cut out parts to get my feet in them. I never saw my suitcase again. -- Peter |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 8/12/2011 6:38 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:01 pm, wrote: snip That's an interesting point, do you thiunk the type of trousers you wear affects your negotiationable abilities[1] or do they affect the way others percieve you do you job. In other words what differnce does jeans make in doing your job effectively ? and I wonder if the same thing happens with computers. [1] Well obviosuly someone like Lady Ga-Ga couldn't go on stage dressed in normal jeans or perhaps a football player couldn't play as well in jeans. Zurich is a very formal place. when a client is sending me to Zurich to negotiate a deal and we estimate the negotiations will take several days, proper business attire is an important part of the negotiations. similarly your position on the negotiation table is also a part of the negotiation. With any serious business negotiation I would try to schedule the initial meeting for late afternoon and take a nap prior to the start. thus I would be refreshed and the other party would be tired. Yes, in business negotiation is a technique. the seemingly unimportant points can give one an advantage. I would also try to -- Peter |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:39:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg tony cooper wrote: On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:13:18 -0700, nospam In article , tony cooper The numbers I've cited are compiled by firms that are in the business of collecting numbers and publishing them. They are not in the business of making truthful numbers, they are in the business of making money. All businesses are in the business of making money. Since any business in the field subscribes to the reports, it is to the firm's best interest to be as accurate as possible. They want Apple to subscribe as much as they want H/P to subscribe. And since they want Dell and all the other Windows laptop makers just as much, the single Apple gets the short straw --- it's outnumbered 25 to 1 or worse. To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never contested the numbers. Since Apple's shares are held publicly, you'd think Apple would be the first to contest the numbers if they under-report their market share. No, why should they? They report their sales and their earnings and lean back. i never said it was representative of all users, Good Lord! What do you think "market share" represents if not "purchased by all users"? Well, it could mean the population in use, for example. I have no idea what that means. Do you? Sure I do. Shall I rephrase that for you? OK, in easy terms. Think cars. Now, the cars on the road weren't all bought THIS YEAR, right? Imagine THIS YEAR everyone bought a Honda. Would all cars on the road be Hondas? Nope. So what is the market share of Honda? 100%? "100% *this year, so far*"? 32% (the other cars sold were used, but from Honda)? 28.36% (the number of all Honda cars on the road)? The average of the last 3 years of sales? Or the last 9 years (i.e. about the average age of a car)? Which could be *quite* different, e.g. if one product had to be replaced every 2-3 years and the other had to be replaced every 5-6 years. That has nothing to do with the figures for laptops sold, by brand, in a period. "laptops sold, by brand" is not a useful distinction. It neither tells us in which units it it counted nor or over which time frame the count was made. It is like someone from Minnesota saying that half the people he knows own snow tires, and projecting that snow tires have a 50% market share for all tires and insisting that national figures of snow tire sales must be bogus because he's observed far more snow tires in use than the figures indicate. it's nothing at all like that. you can't be that stupid. Exactly like that. Well, if the snow tire market share is indeed only 5%, you can surely explain why someone from Minnesota would see a much higher rate. No one with a lick of sense would extrapolate what type of tires they see in use in Minnesota to a national market share by type. Oh, you cannot explain? That's interesting ... Now: Why is there a much higher rate of Macs in e.g. planes? Who says there is? We have one person of doubtful veracity Extrapolating from yourself? making a claim based on a laughable survey technique, It's a pretty fair technique to check numbers. Not to generate them, but to verify their sanity. and a claim that is the figures are "bogus" because he personally sees "a lot" of Macs in use. The figures don't match his reality, they're *way* off base from his personal experience in rather random populations. Since you bring up the figures, you have to explain why they are still correct, or stop using the figures. He offers no numbers, no percentages, no ratios...just "a lot". He has offered specific ratios: namely about equal Macs and non-Mac-laptops on flights. He has consistently seen multiple times the numbers of Macs expected by your 6-9% claim. There may be more Macs in use on flights than their market share indicates, but that doesn't make the market share figures bogus. You surely can explain ... or can't you? I did. In another post. Demographics. I debunked that; the demographics would speak for more than average Windows. Gaming is a *very* strong Windows indicator. Business is another one --- not only because businesses (or their IT shops) decree everyone has to use Windows. -Wolfgang |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper Any sale to a person or company that is not buying the product for resale is an end user sale. If a hospital buys a unit for an employee to work with, the sale to the hospital is an end user sale. Take a sale to a car maker that uses the laptop inbuild in cars as a motor management/navigation/etc gadget (running under Windows, god help us!). The car maker sells the car with the laptop installed into the car. Is the sale of the laptop to the car maker an end user sale? Is the sale of the car to an end user an end user sale of the laptop? you're missing the point. someone who walks into best buy or microcenter and buys a computer is an entirely customer than a corporate buyer staffing a hospital or call center or whatever. if the company is running custom software (i.e., point of sales terminals), they may not even have a choice in hardware. It doesn't make any difference. The end user is the person or entity that buys the computer without intent to re-sell it. It doesn't make a difference if the person or entity buys one or a dozen units; what makes a difference is what the person or entity does with the unit. that's correct. what the user does with it is exactly the point and you've just contradicted yourself. I think he just thinks 'does' only in conjunction with 'resale'. If you are going to use a term, understand the term. So, your 6-9% "market share" --- can you explain what that term means exactly in that case? 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? You have made absolutely no gains in convincing anyone of this. you've done a survey of all readers? or is that another one from gartner? He hasn't asked me. But tony is good at mind reading, or so his mind reading skill tells him. -Wolfgang |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:09:00 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 8/8/2011 4:39 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: tony wrote: The numbers I've cited are compiled by firms that are in the business of collecting numbers and publishing them. They are not in the business of making truthful numbers, they are in the business of making money. Just how long would they remain in business if the numbers were continually doctored. Unless the study is sponsored by someone with no interest in the result --- and why would they sponsor such a study? --- Nothing like a person who has absolutely no understanding of a subject sounding off about the subject. Yep. Now put the mirror down. The surveys cited are not "sponsored". They have been published by firms like Gartner. Also known as Gärtner (Gardener). | [Microsoft fighting against Linux] also decided to commission | studies which show GNU/Linux to be more expensive [1, | 2]. Failing the first time, Microsoft argued, they can simply | try again. This methodology fits well with tactics that | are presented in internal Microsoft talks about "Effective | Evangelism". One of the tactics is *to* *manufacture* | *evidence* that you need and then reference it. Analysts can | be compensated in many ways that escape the public eye, as | detailed in the company’s presentations (all endorsed by Bill | Gates by the way). | | In one of the documents disclosed in Comes vs Microsoft, | Microsoft was seen explicitly asking IDC to remove signs of | its sponsorship of a study. This study accidentally showed | GNU/Linux (server) to be superior. Microsoft had similar | studies conducted with market research groups like Yankee and | *Gartner*. (Emphasis mine) http://techrights.org/2009/03/02/gar...c-linux-share/ Gartner specializes research in the technology field. Gartner sells their services to clients, and they have about 60,000 clients at present and their 4,600 associates collect data. Their 2010 revenue was US$ 1.2 billion. It's not one guy running around airports with a clipboard. No, it's many guys thinking to which airports to send their associates to, to get the numbers they can sell better. | Bill Gates is also a major Gartner investor and Microsoft a big | client. http://techrights.org/2010/03/01/gar...et-share-bias/ The article goes on showing how Gartner continously uses methods to measure market share in the GNU/Linux case that are obviously a) beneficial to Microsoft and b) not applicable to reality. A firm like Gartner wants all manufacturers of similar products to hire them, so they have to provide accurate data. | Gartner operates by providing reports to firms that request | them, usually handling data and methods that are *selected* | *or* *designed* *to* *produce* *the* *required* *outcome.* The | firm which pays Gartner to produce a report expects it to be | positive. In turn, in order to invite future business, a mutual | relationship needs to be formed; the companies which Gartner | praises have to respect Gartner in public and hopefully pay | Gartner too [...] | | The Gartner Group has been caught deceiving many times in | the past. [...] Backlash from Gartner is unhealthy to one's | business as Gartner is able to 'punish' its critics by giving | them negative ratings. | [...] | Court material that we got hold of shows Microsoft writing to | say that it "Successfully lobbied and changed the Gartner Group | TCO model to show Windows as providing the lowest overall TCO". http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gartner_Group Apple, or any other company, isn't going to subscribe to Gartner's service if they know that their own data has been misrepresented. They would assume that all data is misrepresented. Sure, and any company isn't going to pay for advertisements, seeing how their own products are misrepresented. They would assume that all products are misrepresented. Hello??? Somebody home? It isn't just companies that make laptops that are interested in laptop market statistics. There are hundreds of companies that make or design or develop components used in laptops. A company that makes, or is planning to make, laptop cases is just as interested in the marketing figures as a company that makes laptops. They are much more interested in which laptops are around and don't have a case. After all, no oßne case fits all laptops and since even the choice of parameters can skew a result, It doesn't skew the results. Reports are labeled as to what figures are being presented. The figures at http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...s-globally.ars are clearly labeled as being the comparison of unit sales. No, they aren't. The unit growth is unit, but is the 10.5% units? I cannot find it saying that anywhere. And the numbers are from Gartner, which, well, look above. Still, your 5% Mac market share seems wrong, now, doesn't it? And you do agree that Apple does better in laptop than in PC sales, so maybe it's 20+% laptop market share? (note that tony cooper hasn't yet told us what his numbers are based on) Of course I did. When I posted the first cite, it was a link to a website showing industry figures. A link isn't explaining. But let's see: you gave http://marketshare.hitslink.com/oper...e.aspx?qprid=8 = that's population by whatever the browser fakes in it's headers (and includes smart phones and washing machines) for a number of sites (i.e. skewed sample), that's not market share according to you. There's no indication over the timeframe the data was sampled. Subsequent posts linked to other website figures. And you gave http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...NPD/1248313624 which actually gave units --- and also 91% (ninetyone! percent) market share for Apple (US-Dollars, Computers costing $1000+) --- which is the market Apple caters for (June 2009). Or 8.1% (US only, PCs only, no date or timespan indication). And that's it. So not "subsequent post*s*" --- it's one single post. (But everytime you claim something like this, you are wrong, scatterbrain cooper.) Funnily, you don't use the number for the market of Apple. Only the everything-numbers. That's as if an high end electro-bike maker selling only to Great Britain would include the cheap (and obviously mostly non-electrified) bikes in China in it's market numbers. There is a range of figures because what is available to link to changes. The link above is to all types of computers (not just laptops) PCs don't include laptops. Unless you can prove differently from the websites you cite. and compares third quarter 2009 to third quarter 2010. Another link may be to second quarter comparisons or fourth quarter comparisons. Market share is a dynamic, not static, figure. Market share is a great way to lie with numbers, and Gärtner knows how to do that. A Windows-pro study would simply choose units, an Apple-sponsored study likely dollars. Same numbers, different results. What nonsense. See above. 91% Apple market share. The people in the industry are not as ill-informed as you are. The figures are not to inform the public, they are to inform the industry. They are to cement a belief of knowledge in Gartner, and to carter to those who are investors in Gartner (including Bill Gates) and those who are big clients (including Microsoft). The public doesn't give a rat's ass if the market share is 5% or 10% or 20% or if it goes up or down by quarter. The industry people care, though, and base their strategies on the figures. I see you must be an industry people and Gartner analyst: - You deeply care about these numbers - You misrepresent numbers, e.g. easily fakeable browser ID on a limited number of self-selected sites --- which is a very skewed sample and will show major biases --- i.e. a skewed population as market share. Dollar figures are meaningless, anyway. Are they wholesale dollars, retail dollars, pre-rebate dollars, or what? Unit figures are meaningless, anyway. Are they per CPU, per item (mouse? USB stick? Harddrive (yes, there's a computer inside)? MP3 player? or what? And yes, dollar figures are very meaningful --- after all, earnings and winnings are not expressed in units other than monetary units. -Wolfgang |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:47:50 -0700, nospam In article , tony cooper You'll often see industry figures for the same time period but for different measurements. For example, one figure for unit sales and a different figure for unit orders. With products that have a lead time between order and delivery, the figures can differ considerably. So you basically say the idea of accurate numbers being provided by Gartner has gone down the drain, since the numbers aren't even repeatable over different firms conducting such research. Thank you for contradicting yourself. and anyone who blindly follows market share numbers misses the boat. Again, you fail to employ common sense. If you were the owner of a company that makes those carry-around cases for portable devices, how would you go about designing a case that would be expected to sell well? Wouldn't it be common sense to follow the trends in market share of various devices and design your product to fit the devices that are gaining market share? No. I'd sell cases to those populations that are apt to buy cases, which is *absolutely* *not* even close to the market share of different portable devices. To switch over your production lines from designs that fit units with declining market to units that have an increasing market share and are newer and more popular devices? The sheep's way of leadership. If the units with the so-called declining market (by what numbers? See above, you yourself say that they are varying a lot!) are devices for which owners often buy carrying cases and the new and so-called more popular (by what numbers?) already are delivered with a case --- I might better commit suicide than destroy the whole company! To design a product that is sized to accommodate the devices that are in a growing market? With all the others fighting for a 3% market share of a 2% market, when I can have a 2% market share of a 30% market? The 6% to 10% share is the figure for Mac laptop share. Source? What is included in the market? Well, gee, what an astute observation. For most purposes, unit sales are the most meaningful figure, though. Wikipedia disagrees. So do most managers. You refer above to Apple's "tiny market niche", which is a misrepresentation. Apple has a small share of the overall market, but the overall market is large enough in number of units that products designed for Macs are in an attractive market. Apple doesn't care for the overall market. Apple cares for it's profits. They are, BTW, fine. Again, you abandon common sense by not seeing this. Common sense tells you that a small percent of a large market can be a large number. Common sense tells you to not blindly quote numbers that have an uncertainity range of 80%. actually, the public does care, because many people are sheep and buy whatever everyone else is buying, without ever looking at what might best fit their needs. You are the one that says that the Apple stores are always busy. Are you saying that the sheep follow the other sheep into these stores? Since everyone buys Apple, that's it. Noone buys Windows any more. Compare iPhones and Win-phones. However, the sheep mentality is not based on market share numbers published primarily for industry use. It is more likely manifested by seeing what is used on airplanes and coffee shops by the cool people. Really, you should give more consideration to formulating more intelligent arguments. Yes, you should, tony. Too much of your output is just plain silly in your efforts to contradict. Too much of your output contradicts itself. -Wolfgang |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:34:51 -0700, nospam wrote: In article , tony cooper wrote: You'll often see industry figures for the same time period but for different measurements. For example, one figure for unit sales and a different figure for unit orders. With products that have a lead time between order and delivery, the figures can differ considerably. in other words, the numbers are misleading. Why would they be misleading? The people who digest and use these figures know which to apply. That excludes you, obviously. Unit orders are a predictive figure for what unit sales will be at a future time. I see. And the predicted temperatures are a predictive figure for unit sales in the future, too --- and usually more correct. Just think of ice cream. Evidently, the industry feels there's something significant there or just one company - Gartner - wouldn't be enjoying $1.28 billion in annual revenue. Organized crime, racketeering, drugs and smuggling people also have a very good annal revenue. They must provide good business figures, just like Gärtner. The 6% to 10% share is the figure for Mac laptop share. It is not the share of all Mac computers. Desktops usage is a larger market for Photoshop and Lightroom products. proof? Use your head. That's only proof that nospam's got a head. Obviously you again have no proof, not even rumours. -Wolfgang |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
PeterN 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. -Wolfgang |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:02:37 -0700, nospam In article , tony cooper Yes, that would result in the sale of two PCs just as someone buying a Mac, and having that Mac stolen from their auto, would result in the sale of two laptops. So Macs are stolen and cheap PCs break *and* are stolen. More PC sales, then. Neither scenario, though, is a major source of sales, but replacement because of theft of either Macs or PCs is a bigger source. Proof? None? Thought so. you are also ignoring channel stuffing, where the sales are to stores, not end users, hoping that people will ultimately buy them. that's what samsung did with the galaxy tab (the link is in an earlier post). Sure. All retailers/re-sellers have computers in stock that have been reported as sold by the manufacturer but have not been re-sold to end users. So your claim that the market share numbers are sales to end users is hereby contradicted! The numbers are sales from the manufacturers to resellers. Any brand of computer that is distributed by a re-seller has a certain number of sales-by-manufacturer that are not yet sales to end users. It evens out. Osborne effect. The people who work with reports understand this and take it into account. So you lied to us when you claimed your numbers --- you presented them as end-user sales. You really don't understand this? much better than you do. your understanding is superficial. you aren't looking at how the numbers were obtained or what they really mean. You really don't know how the figures are obtained, do you? Tell us! After all you quoted webbrowser headers (easily faked) on selected sites as "market share" ... remember? 5% or thereabouts ... I really want to know how much you knew --- if you really know, then you are a liar, if you There are two ways figures are obtained: 1. The figures are supplied to the reporting firms *by the manufacturers*. Apple supplies their figures to the reporting firm as do Toshiba, Dell, etc. And manufacturers never would lie. Or mislead. Or count mice as units. The reason Apple is willing to divulge their figures to the reporting firm is that they subscribe to the reporting firm's results and this allows them to get Toshiba and Dell's figures. This is the most common way it's done for market share. A-ha. I see. So you claim to have end user sales and market share --- and produce random numbers that are neither. How did you think it was done? Observers in airports? Counting browser headers on Microsoft sites. That's how you do it. 2. Some reports are estimates and clearly identified by the reporting firm as estimates. The figures are based on projections made from a statistical sample with a stated margin of error. Aha. And where is the URL that shows that the Apple numbers are not estimates? And how broad is the margin of errors? 50%? 90%? 3 sigma? 95%? more? Have you any idea? Of course, I don't expect an answer, as you don't even understand what I am saying. This is the most common way of predicting trends, interest in new products, and price points. Members of the sample group are asked if they intend to buy a X in the next X months, would they be interested in buying an X with X features, and would they pay $X for this product. At airports! Or wherever the groups are that are apt to buy such stuff, if the study is for a client who gains by many sales. I find it very amusing that you claim my knowledge is "superficial" when you don't have any idea of where the figures come from, think that one person's personal observations is a legitimate reason to call industry figures bogus, think a viable statistical sample is what you see from your seat in Coach, repeatedly make ridiculous statements, think retirees and students fly as frequently as business types, and think "lots" is a meaningful term. I think it's interesting that you claim to know so much --- and yet use numbers that are less valid than counting computers in airports. -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 |