Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:26:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
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.

Tell that to PeterN. (And you are wrong: you can also measure
it in dollars.)

And let him tell you that fakeable browser identities on selected
pages isn't market share.

It is a
function of production only in that the units must be produced to be
sold.

Exactly.

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.

And the mortgage crisis in the US tells a nice story about
predicting such numbers.

-Wolfgang

On 9/2/2011 11:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

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.

Please provide proof for that claim. Let's start --- this being
a photo newsgroup --- with lenses. Which, as far as I know, are
produced in large batches well ahead of the eventual sales and well
ahead of knowledge of sales numbers, especially for the first run.

For example, I can buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version I ...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm.../dp/B00006I53X
... new. Even though it's been replaced by version II --- in
March 2010, 17 months ago. Now, is *that* JIT to you?



Please feel free to explain (in detail!) how lead times of at the
very least 17 months (and more likely 2-4 or even more years,
Canon has no extra assembly line for every single lens they
sell!) are JIT; or just admit you were wrong.


We were discussing computers, not lenses. Now you take an item to which
JIT is not applicable and extrapolate that to apply to everything.
Suggest you study Dell's assembly process.
BTW
look at:
http://www.slideshare.net/TheMolisticView/jit-manufacturing

Which clearly shows, to everyone buy you, that Apple uses JIT processes
for many of its Mac-books.

However, stick to the topic that casual, incidental and incomplete
observations a poorer sample.



--
Peter

On 9/3/2011 6:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

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.

That would explain why it takes *months* for new e.g. Canon cameras
to appear here, that would explain why e.g. Canon produces every
single lens just in time.

Did you know that Canon is spending more time retooling the
production lines than producing lenses and cameras? I told them
to produce a stockpile that will hopefully(!) sell over time
(sometimes even over years) and actually spend most of the time
*producing*, but they just muttered "PeterN said we have to
do JIT".


Not stockpiling only works when your demand is identical to your
production line capacity or higher.

-Wolfgang

And exactly how to you know that a JIT process was not applied to a sale
by Canon to the dealer. I await your response.

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
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.

If you take that comment IN CONTEXT, you will find that you
didn't grasp what I was saying when you made your comment.

And here ... you don't again. It seems the only one with the
idea of no Macs in the workplace was you.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your context reading.
There is even a question mark as the last character.

You DID say "So no Macs are used in the workplace?".
And if you look carefully, I *did* underline the question
mark, too.


-Wolfgang

On 9/4/2011 6:54 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
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.

If you take that comment IN CONTEXT, you will find that you
didn't grasp what I was saying when you made your comment.

And here ... you don't again. It seems the only one with the
idea of no Macs in the workplace was you.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your context reading.
There is even a question mark as the last character.

You DID say "So no Macs are used in the workplace?".
And if you look carefully, I *did* underline the question
mark, too.


I don;t know if you're think or jjust being obstinate
With or without a question mark, IN CONTEXT I was saying is that your
conclusion






--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:20 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/17/2011 11:23 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:57 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

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.

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?

I see you have no answer. Thought so.

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.

Given the right tools would you then be capable of rational and
practical thinking????????????????

Either you are a bad copy of Megahal or you quaffed too much
of Whiskey-Dave's stuff. Anyway, you don't make any sense,
and you know it.

Hope I didn't use up my quota of question marks for the day.

You need a new keyboard, your '?' key has terrible contact
chatter.

I have no interest in continuing your bull****.

s/your bull/PeterN's bull/

But that's all right, everybody makes mistakes.

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:21 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/17/2011 11:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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.

You didn't answer

You didn't bother to read the answer. You didn't even bother
to end your sentence with a '.'. You're just trying to be a
nuisance.

You still haven't answered

You STILL didn't bother to *READ* *THE* *EFFING* *ANSWER*.

Letmequotemyself:
| 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,

That answer enough?

Or do I have to spell the implications? Like "Even if Macs
are on the average twice as old, the marketshare claim isn't
reflected in real life"?

Or "If tony can use population numbers [...] to give market
share numbers, then so can I."

Didn't read that either, didya?


It's such a pleasure to engage in a conversation with you As you use
punctuation as an excuse to avoid answers

Here are enough periods for the next month
.................................................. .................................................. ...............

Spray and pray doesn't work, you need to *aim* and then *hit*
the target at the *right spot*. Don't they teach the kids
anything anymore? What's the world coming to?


-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:24 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
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:

I see you silent.
Maybe you googled?


I see you silent.
Perhaps you understood that your "accurate number" wasn't very
exact, argument wise.


I see you silent.
And I had so hoped to tell you binning works, for example.
But you found out yourself that you wrote an indefensible claim.


I see you silent.
Hmmm. Could it be I hit the nail on the head?


Again, I see you silent. Probably because you you found your
straw argument is silly and indefensible.


Actually, there are a lot of things where the probability of
the next event is determined by past events. For one trivial
example, the probability of pregnancy also depends on the past
random event of you being born male or female.

Going from a fair coin to gender is a straw argument. Gender analysis
fair coin analysis.

It's so very typical of you to only look on the very surface.
(Probably because it's the only way out for you now.)
[snip]

You are deliberately ignoring my comments, or evading what I said.

Pot, Kettle, Black.


Ignoring my comments, *playing* a complete idiot in not
grasping dependent events (and implying everything is an
independent event) ... and then having the chuzpe of telling
*me*, *I* am ignoring your comments. Pfui!


"Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the
next event." is, as I wrote, complete BULL**** outside specific
circumstances.

Market analysis *isn't* one of these circumstances, as you well
understand, for else noone would need accurate numbers of past
(i.e. *prior*) events --- which you claimed were needed.


-Wolfgang

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:22:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Handwaving. Lots of. And you're wrong, to boot: there's an
equally generally accepted definition for market share that is
in monetary units.

Where in the world do you get that idea?

Market share can be expressed in dollars or in units depending on what
is to be determined.

See. What I said.



A fast food restaurant is interested in another fast food's market
share in dollars because their product line is comparably priced and
they are going after the same market.

If they are comparatively priced, they could as well use
units by your own logic.


An auto maker is interested in another auto maker's unit sales because
the product line may be priced differently, the price includes
after-market items, and the price is affected by the dealer's
policies.

Wrong.

Auto makers are interested in how much money they can divert
from the customers. Any business must be. And that depends on
how much money they make. After market doesn't come into the
equation; it's not even recorded in the market share. And yes,
they'd rather sell 3 cars for $25.000 than 4 cars for $25.000 ---
because the margin is larger.

And since the values are different, units cannot compare econoboxes
to luxury cars in any meaningful way (and noone but you would lump
them into the same market anyway[1]). If a comparison could be
made[2], it must be on price[2].


So auto makers are interested in their own market. If they make
middle sized family cars and luxury SUVs, and do not intend to
enter another segment, they'll have the numbers for middle sized
family cars, and they have the separate numbers for luxury SUVs,
but they don't much care how many econoboxes are bought ---
these people wouldn't switch to their products anyway.


So Apple doesn't care at all about the cut throat competition and
cut corners of the $498 laptop and their buyers --- only for the
$1000+ laptop crowd where they want to compete. And there Apple
leads by 90%. There Apple gets the money from the customers
much better than anyone else.

So maybe they sell only one $2.500 laptop verszs 5 $500 laptops.

SO WHAT?

The margin for $500 laptops can be had for a song, and you've
to cut any corner there is. The margin of one $2.500 laptop
is substantional, even without having to cut any corners, and
produces happy customers. Customers who'll return.


Also you don't seem to understand that we're not trying to
measure market share, we're falsifying a given number as
market share. All the reasons why Mac laptops could be seen
more often don't explain the discrepancy between what's
expected and what's observed.

By one observer with a limited exposure in a limited environment and a
limited view of who owns what?

So how many observers do you need, and how will they have an
unlimited exposure and an unlimited environment and an unlimited
view of who owns what?

Basically you seem to be saying that sampling, however it may be
done, will always be limited and --- as you imply --- therefore
wrong. Common sense teaches that this is not the case.

-Wolfgang


[1] you insist that $500 laptops and $2.500 laptops are the
same market? For the same people? You're insane!

[2] Which is why it's meaningless to compare $499 laptops and
$1.000+ laptops by units.

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:23:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:04:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If you can't figure out that a sample is a subset of a population and
the entire population is a different thing, then I can't help you.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/570955/subset
As stated previously, a set B is included in, or is a
subset of, a set A (symbolized by B ⊆ A) if every element
of B is an element of A. So defined, a subset may
possibly include all of the elements of A, so that A can
be a subset of itself. Furthermore, the empty set,
because it by definition has no elements that are not...


http://www.basic-mathematics.com/subset-of-a-set.html
Definition:

Set B is a subset of a set A if and only if every object
of B is also an object of A.


http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/sets-introduction.html
Subsets
When we define a set, if we take pieces of that set, we can
form what is called a subset.

So for example, we have the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. A subset of
this is {1, 2, 3}. Another subset is {3, 4} or even another,
{1}. However, {1, 6} is not a subset, since it contains an
element (6) which is not in the parent set. In general:

A is a subset of B if and only if every element of A is in B.


http://math.comsci.us/sets/subset.html
subset, n.
(math) The set A is a subset of set B iff every member of
A is also a member of B.

Want more URLs? I'm sure "mathematical definition subset"
on google can deliver.


You _might_ be thinking of a proper subset (A c B). Or just
trying to apply 'common sense' to math (which is the wrong way
to go). That's OK, noone says a sample must be a *proper* subset.


You would also think that even Wolfie would understand that not all
responders provide accurate and true responses, so even a 100% survey
does not result in complete certainty.

Where in the world does tony get the abstruse ideas then that
- all laptop manufacturers and sellers provide accurate and
true data

You're mixing things up. The discussions about laptop market share
figures was not based on sampling techniques or surveys. Those
figures are based on submissions of figures by the manufacturers.

There's no guarantee of accuracy, but it is to each submitter's best
interest to submit accurate figures. They are submitting the figures
in order to know what other manufacturers are doing. If they abuse
the system, the other manufacturers will abuse the system and no one
gains.

So you say there's no crime, because if there was crime,
someone else would commit crimes against the criminal and
noone gains. Hmmm ...


- there are only cases that involve asking responders, and no
cases where e.g. counting people or cars etc. can be used
for statistics?

Yes, and examples of that were given in an earlier post. I used the
example of an automobile dealership having a survey conducted that
counted cars on a particular road to determine the benefit of buying
billboard space on that road.

Foot traffic surveys, and road traffic surveys, are frequently used by
firms involved in renting retail space or selling commercial property.
If you have a commercial building for sale or rent, it makes sense to
say "X thousand people pass this space every day".

So in fact counting can be used. Thank you.


What with extrapolation election results on partially (e.g. counted
in some districts, but not yet in others) counted data? Who's the
responder there?

You talking about Exit Polls? People leaving the poll site are asked
who they voted for.

Nope. Ever been through an election night when the early results
come in and the TV stations use specialist who project the number
of seats based on the early data? And then refine it, when more
data comes in?

-Wolfgang