Article View: alt.cellular.attws
Article #363Re: Consumer Reports testing confirms that the Apple "Bumpers" for the iPhone 4 solves its antenna problem
From: Todd Allcock
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:19
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:19
61 lines
3503 bytes
3503 bytes
At 17 Jul 2010 00:40:47 -0400 nospam wrote: > In article <KJ90o.17596$0A5.15709@newsfe22.iad>, John Slade > <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > But I still don't see the OS X market share growing. > > as i said before, apple's sales are outpacing the market itself, which > means their market share is growing. > > here's another, from over two years ago: > <http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9839886-16.html> > > Mac's market share growth is 'nothing short of spectacular' <snip> Here's one from January 2010, that shows Apple's market share relatively flat; 7.9% in 2008, and 8.0% 2009. <http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market-rebounds- apple-slips-into-5th-place-in-us.ars> > > Amazon represents a tiny portion of > > all computer sales. > > maybe so but it's a good indication of what's selling and what isn't. Individual models, yes, but this is another example of where selling a limited number of models skews the data. Apple sells how many laptop models? A half-dozen? How many models does HP sell? Thirty? I was looking at low-end laptops for my daughters the other day to replace the six year-old Dell Inspiron they're using. At Office Depot alone there were six models of HP/Compaq laptops (not counting netbooks!) between $350 and $600. > where does it say that the vast majority of computers are under $1000? Simple math would show that. If Apple sells 91% of computers over $1K, but only sells 8% of computers total, simple math tells us the vast majority are under $1K. Even if Apple didn't sell a single computer under $1K, (which obviously isn't true) at most, 9% of computers sold could be over $1K to drop Apple's total share from 91% to 8%. (91% * 9% = 8%) > > 91% of the computers costing over $1000 is a > > tiny portion. > > actually it isn't, but more importantly, it's where the profit is. do > you think asus is making a lot of money selling $200 netbooks? Not individually, but in aggregate? Yes. If ASUS is selling ten $200 netbooks for every $1500 Macbook Air, the question is does ASUS make more on ten netbooks as Apple does on one Air? (Probably not!) ;)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<iQc0o.12771$wm1.3124@newsfe01.iad>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mailReferences:
<160720101834129776%nospam@nospam.invalid> <f860o.17561$0A5.16729@newsfe22.iad> <160720101958263056%nospam@nospam.invalid> <KJ90o.17596$0A5.15709@newsfe22.iad> <170720100040473070%nospam@nospam.invalid>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 110038,b1140feb57b2493a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: fa874,b1140feb57b2493a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gidd668eef4dc,gidaa617e85ca,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mail From: Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> In-Reply-To: <170720100040473070%nospam@nospam.invalid> References: <160720101834129776%nospam@nospam.invalid> <f860o.17561$0A5.16729@newsfe22.iad> <160720101958263056%nospam@nospam.invalid> <KJ90o.17596$0A5.15709@newsfe22.iad> <170720100040473070%nospam@nospam.invalid> Subject: Re: Consumer Reports testing confirms that the Apple "Bumpers" for the iPhone 4 solves its antenna problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Newsgroups: alt.cellular.attws,ba.internet X-Mailer: QMAIL 3.0.7.4336 / Windows CE 5.02 / ARM Lines: 63 Message-ID: <iQc0o.12771$wm1.3124@newsfe01.iad> X-Complaints-To: abuse@WWWSpace.NET NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:19:42 UTC Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:19:21 -0600