Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

PeterN wrote:
On 9/2/2011 5:28 PM, tony cooper wrote:

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.

Because Apple is a publicly traded security, the knowing release of
inaccurate information could be a violation of Securities laws.

Could. In other words, you don't even know if it would. Much less
if other submitters provide true data, even if Apple does.

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
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:
On 8/9/2011 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:

who said they're doctored? apple doesn't sell to a lot of markets in
which pcs are sold, so the numbers may be 'correct' but they are
misleading.

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

You were saying that that was my conclusion (now figure out if
that needs a '!', a '.' or a '?')


IN CONTEXT you were asking nospam. I've replaced the missing
CONTEXT. So IN CONTEXT that wasn't neither nospam's nor my
conclusion, but YOUR conclusion. And I dared to say so.

-Wolfgang

On 9/5/2011 12:50 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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?



Unanswered question from earlier.

"If market position is on a periodic basis how is period of sale
accounted for by casual observation."

BTW what is the factual basis for you answer that Macs have a 2.5 x
longer life cycle than Windows PCs


--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
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.

We were discussing "today's economy with JIT availability",
and that "production is a function of actual sales".

And lenses are on topic here.


Now you take an item to which
JIT is not applicable and extrapolate that to apply to everything.

Now *you* claimed that JIT applied to *everything*. I happened
to call you on that.

The proper course would be to apologize, correct your statement
to only apply to whatever it applies to and to provide proof that
that claim is true for that area, because sure as hell it's
not true for everything!

Suggest you study Dell's assembly process.

Dell builds laptops?

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.

The JIT being some worker slotting in an extra memory module into
a unit if they misguessed and didn't complete enough 4GB units.

Since that unit has been revealed just one day ago, it's taken
from the current batch which has been in production for some time
to buffer against the initial rush Apple nearly always gets.

Then it's shipped from their manufacturer cum storage.


If you buy it now, they take one from the heap produced (some)
months ago, maybe slap a fairly new battery in, maybe need to
stick in the memory module and ship it, probably from their local
storage --- that's cheaper than air freight.[1]


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

Stick to the topic that 5% fakeable browser IDs of Apple == 5%
market share. Or at least to the topic "90+% Apple market share
in it's market". No wonder the 10% "market share" doesn't
jive with the real world.


-Wolfgang

[1] But won't work for a completely new unit, of course, unless
you can tell the customer to wait a month or two.

The JIT again being slapping in the memory module.

On 9/5/2011 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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.

Again you misquote me.
The clear meaning IN CONTEXT, of my comment which anyone discussing in
good faith should understand.

Accurate numbers are necessary when creating an adequate sample.

Look at a Venn diagram an you will see that a sample is a subset of the
population. If you really believe that casual observations can be taken
as a statistically valid subset of the entire population, and are more
valid than published actual data, then I hope you have students who
question this closely. If your employer believes it, that's its problem


BTW:
If you bother to check, you will see that I brought the fair coin
example into this thread.


--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
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.


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.


I *said* they are using JIT, against my protests. Can't you read?


Look at some other posts where you get a 17+ months JIT from
Canon.

-Wolfgang

On 9/5/2011 4:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 5:28 PM, tony cooper wrote:

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.

Because Apple is a publicly traded security, the knowing release of
inaccurate information could be a violation of Securities laws.

Could. In other words, you don't even know if it would. Much less
if other submitters provide true data, even if Apple does.


While your English is reasonably good, please don't take my precise
words to mean other than I have stated. Maybe you know all the facts. I
don't.


--
Peter

On 9/5/2011 4:34 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
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:
On 8/9/2011 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:

who said they're doctored? apple doesn't sell to a lot of markets in
which pcs are sold, so the numbers may be 'correct' but they are
misleading.

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

You were saying that that was my conclusion (now figure out if
that needs a '!', a '.' or a '?')


IN CONTEXT you were asking nospam. I've replaced the missing
CONTEXT. So IN CONTEXT that wasn't neither nospam's nor my
conclusion, but YOUR conclusion. And I dared to say so.


Are you just pretending to be arrogant and obstinate, or are you that
way all the time.


--
Peter

On 9/5/2011 4:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
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.


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.


I *said* they are using JIT, against my protests. Can't you read?

Why should Canon care about your protests.



Look at some other posts where you get a 17+ months JIT from
Canon.





--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 9/5/2011 4:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 5:28 PM, tony cooper wrote:

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.

Because Apple is a publicly traded security, the knowing release of
inaccurate information could be a violation of Securities laws.

Could. In other words, you don't even know if it would. Much less
if other submitters provide true data, even if Apple does.

While your English is reasonably good, please don't take my precise
words to mean other than I have stated. Maybe you know all the facts. I
don't.

I read your words to mean "If I was Apple, I'd research if I'd
violate the Securities laws first, because I don't know if they
might be broken by submitting incorrect figures. IANAL."

Right?


-Wolfgang