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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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