🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7/17/2010 12:37 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<Whc0o.29891$dx7.18165@newsfe21.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>
>>           Here's another one for you if you still have trouble
>> understanding.
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
>>
>>            Does that clear it up any?
>
> that shows os x is growing. thanks for proving my point.

      No, it shows that back in 2007 they were growing, this 
current chart from the same people show OS X losing market share.

>
>>       So all we can go on is sales of Macs and OS usage from the
>> same sources. The sales figures show Apple isn't even in the top
>> five computer makers in worldwide sales.
>
> what that doesn't tell you is that a lot of third world countries don't
> buy macs.

     What is shows is worldwide sales, doesn't matter who buys what.


>
> now go look at usa market share or europe. worldwide doesn't mean all
> that much.

       Worldwide share is an indicator of the actual market 
share, the US and European markets are not the entire world.


>
>>>>        No it's not. The vast majority of computers sold are not
>>>> over $1000.
>>>
>>> cite a source to back up your claim.
>>
>>         As soon as you cite a source that shows most computers
>> cost more than $1000. I mean you saw the actual sales figures
>> and you're still trying to spin this?
>
> so you don't have anything to refute it. got it.

     I posted an article that showed that the 91% was of a small 
segment of the computer market. That being computer sold in 
brick-and-mortar stores that cost over $1000.

>
>>>>         Complete horse shit. 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.
>>
>>         No it's not, actual sales figures compiled from the
>> computer makers themselves is the indicator.
>
> you're forgetting that a lot of those are corporate sales where one guy
> is buying 1000 computers in one shot.
>
> apple is weak in that sector, but huge where people buy their own
> machines.
>
> like i said, it all depends how you want to count it.

       However you count it? In other words you ignore the real 
sales numbers and the market share figures from the same sources 
you cite. Basically you're saying that 2007 numbers of OS X 
market share are more accurate than June 2010 market share 
numbers. Geez and it's from the same source too. So I guess you 
can lie and spin all you want. How you count it is very inaccurate.

>
>>          But the fact that their growth is phenomenal should tell
>> you that Apple's 15% growth in the US is not much. Let me
>> explain it to you in simpler terms for you. If a company that
>> sells 100 computers a year has 75% growth, it is nothing
>> compared to a company that sells 100,000 computers a year an had
>> 10% growth. Does that clear it up any?
>
> asus growth is due to netbooks, a sector apple does not even
> participate! of course it's going to be bigger. duh.

      The iPad is Apple's netbook entry but since it's so 
underpowered, I don't really see it as a netbook. It's 
performance is lacking when comparing to cheaper netbooks.

>

>
>>> and you'll believe what you want to believe, regardless if the facts
>>> show otherwise.
>>
>>        I have the actual sales data to back me up. You have
>> nothing but sales figures from a tiny portion of the computer
>> market.
>
> post a link.

      Already did. If you're to stupid to know you were proven 
wrong on multiple occasions, then you are one of those nutty 
Apple cult members. Even though you're proven wrong, you keep 
spewing the same bullshit and lies like some brainwashed cult 
member. I think I'm done with you. PLonk

John