Doesn't it make you wonder...
Nobody
the last four years is success for Microsoft...
... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
anything but horrible failure for Apple?
Steve Carroll
If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
called a success for one and a failure for the other. This includes
Linux... Apple and Linux are gaining ground and MS is losing it. MS
can't (and I'm sure doesn't) expect to hold on to their illegally
obtained lead forever.
Snit
Unless you count success just be units sold, which is absurd, what would
make you think the numbers you provided would tell enough of the story to
understand the situation of the two companies?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
"Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
If MS is making a shitload of money off of those sales (which in this
world, isn't a given) then of course it is a success to them. The
rapid decline that Windows market share is in is not much of a success
for *Windows* however. You guys once had 90+ of the world! Now you're
down to 70+-
> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
Since Apple is making a shitload of money on Macs, it most definately
is a huge success for them especially when considering the growth they
seen in sells the last years.
--
Sandman[.net]
Chance Furlong
> If posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft?
>
> How could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
You tell us.
Nobody
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CA03B614.9950D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Nobody stated in post irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net on 5/26/11 7:35 AM:
>
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>> in
>>
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>>
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>>
>>
> Unless you count success just be units sold, which is absurd,
So what you guys have been saying about iPhone, iPod, and iPad has been
absurd?
> what would
> make you think the numbers you provided would tell enough of the story to
> understand the situation of the two companies?
The ability to think rationally makes me think so. How about answering
the question now?
Nobody
"Steve Carroll" <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61a863a0-2e09-44bc...@q9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
SC: If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
called a success for one and a failure for the other.
You guys don't think so when the subject is smart phones or tablets.
Windows is the most successful software in history. Apple has done nothing
to make Microsoft a "failure," certainly nothing with the comparitively
paltry number of Macs they've sold. Do all 27 years of Mac sales match
even one year of Windows 7 sales?
SC: This includes
Linux... Apple and Linux are gaining ground and MS is losing it. MS
can't (and I'm sure doesn't) expect to hold on to their illegally
obtained lead forever.
A half a billion OS sales can be so misleading... makes Microsoft think
they're in the lead...
Snit
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:CA03B614.9950D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Nobody stated in post irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net on 5/26/11 7:35 AM:
>>
>>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>>> in
>>>
>>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>>>
>>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>>>
>>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>>>
>>>
>> Unless you count success just be units sold, which is absurd,
>
> So what you guys have been saying about iPhone, iPod, and iPad has been
> absurd?
Please quote when I said anything of the sort.
Oh.
You cannot.
>> what would
>> make you think the numbers you provided would tell enough of the story to
>> understand the situation of the two companies?
>
> The ability to think rationally makes me think so. How about answering
> the question now?
I did answer it. The answer simply went over your head.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Nobody
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-928A48.16...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>> in
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> If MS is making a shitload of money off of those sales (which in this
> world, isn't a given) then of course it is a success to them. The
> rapid decline that Windows market share is in is not much of a success
> for *Windows* however. You guys once had 90+ of the world! Now you're
> down to 70+-
"Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
Windows has 96.6% desktop share.
The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
<http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-share-to-78-6/>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> Since Apple is making a shitload of money on Macs, it most definately
> is a huge success for them especially when considering the growth they
> seen in sells the last years.
Microsoft has 78.6% of OS revenue share, and 96.6% of OS user share.
So how could your rules of judgement make the Mac anything but a horrible
failure?
Nobody
"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:AtqdneKbgdvO90PQ...@giganews.com...
"Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
<http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-share-to-78-6/>
AD
Last time I checked OSX came bundled in form of apple tax with my
macbook pros.
(I cowardly did not pay a dime for the copy running on the PC i'm
typing this from.)
-hh
>
> Microsoft has 78.6% of OS revenue share, and 96.6% of OS user share.
FAIL! :-)
-hh
Alan Baker
> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
Who ever said that?
But that does mean their OS share isn't declining.
>
> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
The success has been in growing the Macs market and usage shares.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Alan Baker
wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-928A48.16...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> >> in
> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
> >
> > If MS is making a shitload of money off of those sales (which in this
> > world, isn't a given) then of course it is a success to them. The
> > rapid decline that Windows market share is in is not much of a success
> > for *Windows* however. You guys once had 90+ of the world! Now you're
> > down to 70+-
>
> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
> worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
>
> Windows has 96.6% desktop share.
Counting by revenue.
"Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>
> The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
No. They're both revenue, but the 78.6% share is far all OSs (desktop
and other) and the 96.6% figure is just for desktops.
>
> <http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-share-
> to-78-6/>
>
> >> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
> >
> > Since Apple is making a shitload of money on Macs, it most definately
> > is a huge success for them especially when considering the growth they
> > seen in sells the last years.
>
> Microsoft has 78.6% of OS revenue share, and 96.6% of OS user share.
Incorrect... ....again.
>
> So how could your rules of judgement make the Mac anything but a horrible
> failure?
--
Alan Baker
wrote:
Right. 96.6% of revenue. As clearly stated in the article:
"Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
--
JEDIDIAH
...like Linux, Apple continues. It's OS remains useful for those that choose
it. It doesn't necessarily become less useful just because Steve Jobs hasn't
yet managed to displace Bill Gates as the monopoly tyrant du jour.
Apple survived the 90s. Today is not such a big deal.
--
Apple: Being able to install Firefox or VLC makes you a power user. |||
/ | \
Nobody
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
> In article <irlris$fr$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
>> news:mr-928A48.16...@News.Individual.NET...
>> > In article <irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>> > "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows
>> >> sold
>> >> in
>> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>> >
>> > If MS is making a shitload of money off of those sales (which in this
>> > world, isn't a given) then of course it is a success to them. The
>> > rapid decline that Windows market share is in is not much of a success
>> > for *Windows* however. You guys once had 90+ of the world! Now you're
>> > down to 70+-
>>
>> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
>> worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
>>
>> Windows has 96.6% desktop share.
>
> Counting by revenue.
Counting by desktop share. The reason the sentence reads "... 96.6% of
worldwide desktop share..."
> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
> of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
>
> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
While the actual desktop share of Windows is 96.6%, and your Web hits prove
nothing.
>>
>> The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
>
> No. They're both revenue, but the 78.6% share is far all OSs (desktop
> and other) and the 96.6% figure is just for desktops.
Wrong again.
>>
>> <http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-share-
>> to-78-6/>
>>
>> >> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years
>> >> be
>> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>> >
>> > Since Apple is making a shitload of money on Macs, it most definately
>> > is a huge success for them especially when considering the growth they
>> > seen in sells the last years.
>>
>> Microsoft has 78.6% of OS revenue share, and 96.6% of OS user share.
>
> Incorrect... ....again.
Good of you to realize you're incorrect... again.
Alan Baker
wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
> > In article <irlris$fr$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> >> news:mr-928A48.16...@News.Individual.NET...
> >> > In article <irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> >> > "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows
> >> >> sold
> >> >> in
> >> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
> >> >
> >> > If MS is making a shitload of money off of those sales (which in this
> >> > world, isn't a given) then of course it is a success to them. The
> >> > rapid decline that Windows market share is in is not much of a success
> >> > for *Windows* however. You guys once had 90+ of the world! Now you're
> >> > down to 70+-
> >>
> >> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
> >> worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
> >>
> >> Windows has 96.6% desktop share.
> >
> > Counting by revenue.
>
> Counting by desktop share. The reason the sentence reads "... 96.6% of
> worldwide desktop share..."
Right. Revenue share.
>
> > "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
> > of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
> >
> > Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> > cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> > number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> > rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>
> While the actual desktop share of Windows is 96.6%, and your Web hits prove
> nothing.
Nope. It's revenue share is that.
>
> >>
> >> The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
> >
> > No. They're both revenue, but the 78.6% share is far all OSs (desktop
> > and other) and the 96.6% figure is just for desktops.
>
> Wrong again.
LOL
Nobody
> In article <irlrk9$if$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:AtqdneKbgdvO90PQ...@giganews.com...
>> > On 5/26/11 9:35 AM, Nobody wrote:
>> >
>> >> If posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>> >> in
>> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft?
>> >>
>> > > How could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>> >
>> > You tell us.
>>
>> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
>> worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
>>
>> <http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-share-
>> to-78-6/>
>
> Right. 96.6% of revenue. As clearly stated in the article:
"Microsoft's Windows accounted for 78.6% of worldwide operating system
revenue in 2010, up nearly a full percentage point, despite growth in Linux
servers and Mac desktops, according to Gartner."
78.6% of revenue is what the article clearly states, 96.6% desktop share.
> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
> of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
>
> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
""Windows desktops accounted for...96.6% of worldwide desktop share.."
Nobody
> In article <irlogg$pge$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>> in
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> Who ever said that?
You.
> But that does mean their OS share isn't declining.
You said it again.
>>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> The success has been in growing the Macs market and usage shares.
"Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
Alan Baker
wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-AEDD8...@news.shawcable.net...
> > In article <irlrk9$if$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
> >> news:AtqdneKbgdvO90PQ...@giganews.com...
> >> > On 5/26/11 9:35 AM, Nobody wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> >> >> in
> >> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft?
> >> >>
> >> > > How could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> >> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
> >> >
> >> > You tell us.
> >>
> >> "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6% of
> >> worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%."
> >>
> >> <http://www.pcworldme.net/2011/04/27/windows-7-helps-microsoft-boost-os-sha
> >> re-
> >> to-78-6/>
> >
> > Right. 96.6% of revenue. As clearly stated in the article:
>
> "Microsoft's Windows accounted for 78.6% of worldwide operating system
> revenue in 2010, up nearly a full percentage point, despite growth in Linux
> servers and Mac desktops, according to Gartner."
>
> 78.6% of revenue is what the article clearly states, 96.6% desktop share.
No. 78.6% is revenue from all OSs and 96.6% is revenue from just desktop
OSs
>
> > "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
> > of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at 0.6%.
> >
> > Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> > cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> > number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> > rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>
> ""Windows desktops accounted for...96.6% of worldwide desktop share.."
"Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
--
Alan Baker
wrote:
"Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
--
Nobody
The words say "desktop share." Why do you see them as "revenue share?"
What are you smoking?
>>
>> > "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
>> > of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at
>> > 0.6%.
>> >
>> > Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
>> > cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
>> > number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with
>> > the
>> > rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>>
>> While the actual desktop share of Windows is 96.6%, and your Web hits
>> prove
>> nothing.
>
> Nope. It's revenue share is that.
Is that why the words read "desktop share?"
>>
>> >>
>> >> The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
>> >
>> > No. They're both revenue, but the 78.6% share is far all OSs (desktop
>> > and other) and the 96.6% figure is just for desktops.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> LOL
"However, current usage patterns as tracked by Net Applications shows
Windows share dropping only slightly, and that is largely due to gains made
by mobile operating systems."
Laugh that off, Chuckles.
Nobody
Desktop share, just as the article says.
"However, current usage patterns as tracked by Net Applications shows
Windows share dropping only slightly, and that is largely due to gains made
by mobile operating systems."
No OSX gains even by Web use.
Nobody
"However, current usage patterns as tracked by Net Applications shows
Alan Baker
wrote:
Desktop revenue share.
>
> "However, current usage patterns as tracked by Net Applications shows
> Windows share dropping only slightly, and that is largely due to gains made
> by mobile operating systems."
>
> No OSX gains even by Web use.
--
Jim
> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
There are far more cockroaches than people on the planet, but that
doesn't mean people are inferior even if we aren't immune to radiation.
--
Jim
Alan Baker
wrote:
Because earlier the sentence describes revenue as the focus.
>
> >>
> >> > "Windows desktops accounted for $17.7 billion of OS revenue, and 96.6%
> >> > of worldwide desktop share, followed by Mac OS at 2.8% and Linux at
> >> > 0.6%.
> >> >
> >> > Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> >> > cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> >> > number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with
> >> > the
> >> > rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
> >>
> >> While the actual desktop share of Windows is 96.6%, and your Web hits
> >> prove
> >> nothing.
> >
> > Nope. It's revenue share is that.
>
> Is that why the words read "desktop share?"
Short for "desktop OS revenue share.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The 78.6% figure is revenue share, not user share.
> >> >
> >> > No. They're both revenue, but the 78.6% share is far all OSs (desktop
> >> > and other) and the 96.6% figure is just for desktops.
> >>
> >> Wrong again.
> >
> > LOL
>
> "However, current usage patterns as tracked by Net Applications shows
> Windows share dropping only slightly, and that is largely due to gains made
> by mobile operating systems."
>
> Laugh that off, Chuckles.
That's "largely" true. Why would I deny it. But it isn't only true, and
the Mac has been making gains and those include gains in sales of Mac OS
X that are faster than Windows gains.
:-)
Hadron
It does if the job in hand is resisting radiation and scuttling down 1"
wide pipes to the protection of the sewer pipes....
Hence, for example , Linux is perfect for embedded and smaller devices.
amicus_curious
"Steve Carroll" <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61a863a0-2e09-44bc...@q9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
>> in
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
> called a success for one and a failure for the other.
You could call it that, but you would be wrong. All you could say in that
case would be that one was gaining on the other, closing the gap if the
gainer were behind as are Apple and Linux vis-à-vis Microsoft or widening
the gap if the alternative. Of course you would need to first prove that
they were even on the same track in the same race before any such analysis
would have much meaning. For example, if someone wants a Linux notebook,
they buy a Windows notebook and put Linux on it most of the time. So
realistically, both Windows users and Linux users should be counted as
Microsoft buyers.
That does leave Apple as a sort of competitor to Microsoft, but Microsoft
doesn't make computers and so Microsoft is at the mercy of Dell, HP,, Sony,
and many others who make products that may or may not be purchased in lieu
of an Apple computer product. In that case it is more like a passenger on a
bus and a passenger on a train "competing" with one another to see who
arrives in Chicago first. The competition is artificial and contrived and
neither competitor is in control of the outcome.
>...This includes
> Linux... Apple and Linux are gaining ground and MS is losing it. MS
> can't (and I'm sure doesn't) expect to hold on to their illegally
> obtained lead forever.
"Illegally obtained lead"? Tut. The highest courts in the land have ruled
that Microsoft obtained its monopoly totally in a legal manner. There is a
view that keeping it requires careful attention to some pertinent rules of
law, but since they were adjudicated as having a monopoly in the Intel x86
architecture desktop client computer business, they have been watched
carefully to make sure that they meet all the requirements for conduct of
their business.
Hadron
> On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
> called a success for one and a failure for the other.
You could if you are a simpleton. Fortunately most others base success
and failure no more that relative %s for one arbitrary element.
e.g MS revenue has hit new records. That is a failure?
Linux share is falling but its not necessarily loss since its "free" as
well as Free.
Rex Ballard
Microsoft is winning in it's ever shrinking market niche, desktops.
Meanwhile Linux and UNIX are showing up on billions of embedded devices, tablets, phones, DVD players, DVRs, Cable boxes, printers, storage devices, and of course, the highest capacity servers that serve billions of customers all over the world.
Even Windows market share is shrinking, because modern Windows 7 boxes can ALSO run Linux, and Macs ALSO run Windows. But most surveys assume that "there can be only one". When that's one OS per TCP/IP address per month, based on who gets the most activity - that could really distort the statistics.
A corporate network may have as many as 20% of their workstations running Linux at least part time (virtualization) - but the most popular survey quoted by WinTrolls wouldn't even count them.
When you see mobile stats that are really low, that's a pretty good indication that the survey is counting based on the IP address.
The laptop I'm using now is running native Windows 7, and Linux on VMWare.
The other one is running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Windows XP on VMWare.
Since these all go through the NAT IP router, which is also shared with my wife who likes to play POGO, it's most likely that only 1 Windows system would be counted.
Nobody knows for sure how many Linux desktops there are out there, or even Linux devices there are, for that matter. Google was registering 300,000 devices per day - Which would mean there would be more Android devices than Windows devices in less than a year. Kindles, which also run Linux under the covers, are also selling in the millions per week.
Macs run full-blown BSD Unix under the covers, iOS runs a more embedded subset.
The Blackberry Playbook is running QNX, which is essentially a real-time low memory version of UNIX.
It could be an interesting year for Microsoft, as more and more companies and individuals opt to keep their laptops and netbooks another year or so, and opt for iPads and Android tablets instead.
What might be really interesting is to see how many PC users can actually get the days work down without using Linux - on servers, routers, WiFi hubs, e-mail routers, and firewalls. Even Steve Ballmer can't make that claim.
Alan Baker
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
Ummmm..... ....no.
Nobody
"Jim" <j...@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in message
news:jim-500FB5.1...@news.newsguy.com...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qbm7EZbqH8&feature=related>
amicus_curious
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>
Web usage share is a mere factoid that, at best, describes how intensely
various groups use the internet web sites. Revenue, OTOH, you can take to
the bank after you pay expenses and taxes and that is the only thing that
matters in the business aspect.
Hadron
Complete nonsense of course when one wants to consider relative usage
/market share and therefore potential market for third party SW
development. I'm astonished you still don't seem to understand this very
simple concept. It's as if you have a flick where common terms are used
that contradict some dusty book you once read.
If anything, a HIGHER % of Linux desktop users use the web and skew the
readings since as we all know its much more secure and many windows boxes
are probably locked down with no net access.
Birthday Boy
"Rex Ballard" <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d1b5d6-4e96-4497...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> Microsoft spends $billions to keep it's competitors out of as much of the
> market as they possibly can. What's remarkable is that IBM and Apple are
> now both larger than Microsoft - fueled mostly by their adoption of UNIX
> and Linux.
What is remarkable is that you managed to screw up a simple fact like this.
MSFT Market Cap: $208.04B
IBM Market Cap: $202.49B
amicus_curious
"Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote in message
news:irm2co$g8m$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> The words say "desktop share." Why do you see them as "revenue share?"
> What are you smoking?
>
I think the article is saying that MS has a 78% share of the revenues for
operating systems of all kinds sold in the world. They have 96.6% of the
revenue that accrues from sales of desktop operating systems. Since we also
know from SEC filings that MS gets about 15 billion from selling desktop
Windows, the figures show that someone is getting 0.6% or around $90 million
from selling Linux to someone buying it. Also that means Apple is getting
about $420 million selling OS X upgrades, presumably to Mac users.
Web share is an elusive quantity, I think. Linux shows up around 1% in
general purpose studies. Does that reflect how many people are using Linux?
If they were the same sort of people as Windows users, it would, but they
are mostly odd balls. Techies. Geeks. Dweebs. Do they use the internet
the same as regular people? I doubt it. I think that they use it more, in
terms of hours of use per day, but they likely use it for less general
purpose sites. So do these factors offset one another? You can argue all
day and not get anywhere, particularly in COLA.
The revenue values give you more to chew on. If the figures are at all
accurate, who is getting the $90M that is being paid for Linux? Who is
buying it? Is there any way for Microsoft to tap that revenue by selling
these buyers Windows instead. Could any of these sellers compete with
Windows and expand their market share?
chrisv
> "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
>> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>>
>> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
>> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
>There are far more cockroaches than people on the planet, but that
>doesn't mean people are inferior even if we aren't immune to radiation.
And all the craft beers in the world are "horrible failures", because
Budweiser out-sells them all by far. (rolling eyes)
--
"And yet it has 20x the amount on Linux users give or take. If that's
failure then ...." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, explaining
that if Vista is a failure, Linux is REALLY a failure.
Redjak
"Steve Carroll" wrote in message
news:61a863a0-2e09-44bc...@q9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> in
> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
>called a success for one and a failure for the other. This includes
>Linux... Apple and Linux are gaining ground and MS is losing it. MS
>can't (and I'm sure doesn't) expect to hold on to their illegally
>obtained lead forever.
Both have lost. OSX has lost over 66% and Windows has lost 3%. A "gain" is
a gain over their high, just as a loss is a loss under their high. I love
how jerks like you fall back on the double standard.
Hadron
And he IS a jerk. Ask the COLA "advocates" about how they think the
absolute share price for a single share dictates the relative worth of a
company. I kid you not. Many DO think that.
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:61a863a0-2e09-44bc...@q9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> >> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> >> in
> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> >> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> > If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
> > called a success for one and a failure for the other.
>
> You could call it that, but you would be wrong.
Not if the context was focused on the gaining or losing of
marketshare... which is why I said it "could be called" a failure (to
gain market share).
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
> >> ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold in
> >> the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> >> ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> >> anything but horrible failure for Apple?
>
> > If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
> > called a success for one and a failure for the other.
>
> You could if you are a simpleton.
Or... if you recognize that the statement "could be" made focusing on
the gaining or losing of market share.
> Fortunately most others base success
> and failure no more that relative %s for one arbitrary element.
Fortunately, most others recognize there are different contexts in
which a given statement "could be" made. There are, of course, still
examples of the rare simpleton in existence who are unable to grasp
this concept and they will do or say anything when the threat of their
exposure finally looms.
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" wrote in message
>
> news:61a863a0-2e09-44bc...@q9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 26, 8:35 am, "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote:
>
> > ... if posters here do not think a half a billion copies of Windows sold
> > in
> > the last four years is success for Microsoft...
>
> > ... how could the much lower sales of OSX over they last eleven years be
> > anything but horrible failure for Apple?
> >If one is losing marketshare and the other is gaining ... it could be
> >called a success for one and a failure for the other. This includes
> >Linux... Apple and Linux are gaining ground and MS is losing it. MS
> >can't (and I'm sure doesn't) expect to hold on to their illegally
> >obtained lead forever.
>
> Both have lost. OSX has lost over 66% and Windows has lost 3%. A "gain" is
> a gain over their high,
This underscores a misunderstanding of the purpose for measuring
market share. Unless otherwise specified market share is measured
solely by what is currently held. When it is specified (for assessing
gain or loss in conjunction with other metrics used to assess how the
market regularly changes) it's usually done for a given time period of
a year, a quarter, a month, etc. You're free to look at it any way you
want... but the idea that it is measured "over their high" isn't one
you will find is widely accepted by anyone other than a simpleton.
That Hadron has agreed with you tells you all you need to know about
this.
Tom Shelton
Now, now... Cola's president - the honerable (*snicker*) Mr. 7 -
already explained that this is due to Micro$haft illegal stock price
manipulation. So, please stop with your FUD!
--
Tom Shelton
Redjak
"Steve Carroll" wrote in message
news:62d70a6b-6ae8-4e0f...@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
**************************************************************************
Of course. You wouldn't have it any other way - but if the shoe was on the
other foot, you would be singing a different tune. You are pathetically
almost amusing.
Steve Carroll
You can't fight reality without a rest...good to see you come up for
air occasionally.
Snit
4ddf8b9b$0$6699$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/27/11 4:28 AM:
For the extremely short sighted, sure.
But a lot of people in business understand things better than that... hence
how they continue to do well over the long haul.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4ddf9068$0$6748$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/27/11 4:49 AM:
>
>
> "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:irm2co$g8m$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> The words say "desktop share." Why do you see them as "revenue share?"
>> What are you smoking?
>>
> I think the article is saying that MS has a 78% share of the revenues for
> operating systems of all kinds sold in the world.
-----
Microsoft's Windows accounted for 78.6% of worldwide
operating system revenue in 2010, up nearly a full percentage
point, despite growth in Linux servers and Mac desktops,
according to Gartner.
-----
Wait? Including Mac desktops and not just OS upgrades to such systems?
But that goes completely against your past claims... but you make no mention
of it now. Interesting.
> They have 96.6% of the revenue that accrues from sales of desktop operating
> systems. Since we also know from SEC filings that MS gets about 15 billion
> from selling desktop Windows, the figures show that someone is getting 0.6% or
> around $90 million from selling Linux to someone buying it. Also that means
> Apple is getting about $420 million selling OS X upgrades, presumably to Mac
> users.
But before you said MS was getting 99.9%+ of the revenue.
> Web share is an elusive quantity, I think. Linux shows up around 1% in
> general purpose studies. Does that reflect how many people are using Linux?
> If they were the same sort of people as Windows users, it would, but they
> are mostly odd balls. Techies. Geeks. Dweebs. Do they use the internet
> the same as regular people? I doubt it. I think that they use it more, in
> terms of hours of use per day, but they likely use it for less general
> purpose sites. So do these factors offset one another? You can argue all
> day and not get anywhere, particularly in COLA.
Well, you make all sorts of arguments and when you realize how absurd your
claims are you just call people who disagree names.
> The revenue values give you more to chew on. If the figures are at all
> accurate, who is getting the $90M that is being paid for Linux? Who is
> buying it? Is there any way for Microsoft to tap that revenue by selling
> these buyers Windows instead. Could any of these sellers compete with
> Windows and expand their market share?
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
I thought you were claiming some sort of business degree or
qualification?
Short term revenue increase is rarely pursued at the expense of long term
stability.
Example, since you're obviously a little dense when it comes to general
terms and business practices : Microsoft could TODAY sell all the rights
to Windows 7 to Apple for 1 Billion dollars. They would have MADE 1
Billion dollars MORE than this time last year. Unfortunately they're a
it fucked when it comes to NEXT year.
It really isn't difficult and for someone I thought reasonably
intelligent and clued in when it came to bashing "advocates" back into
their basements you seem really, really confused about the most basic of
real world business practices.
I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole
you were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
Snit
8:29 AM:
I let him lead himself. He now has a hole dug so deep he has no idea how to
get out of it... so he keeps insisting he has some sort of elite mind that
can understand not only what others cannot, but what he cannot even explain
or support. He is just *that* smart. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> writes:
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> >> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
> >> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
> >> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
> >> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>
> > Web usage share is a mere factoid that, at best, describes how intensely various
> > groups use the internet web sites. Revenue, OTOH, you can take to the bank
> > after you pay expenses and taxes and that is the only thing that matters in the
> > business aspect.
>
> I thought you were claiming some sort of business degree or
> qualification?
>
> Short term revenue increase is rarely pursued at the expense of long term
> stability.
>
> Example, since you're obviously a little dense when it comes to general
> terms and business practices : Microsoft could TODAY sell all the rights
> to Windows 7 to Apple for 1 Billion dollars. They would have MADE 1
> Billion dollars MORE than this time last year. Unfortunately they're a
> it fucked when it comes to NEXT year.
Interesting how you are focusing on the concept of "NEXT year" here...
yet, just a few posts up you are seen agreeing with a poster that
called me a "jerk" for pointing out that market share is a metric for
periodically measuring, not for measurements made solely from a
company's "high" point.
> It really isn't difficult and for someone I thought reasonably
> intelligent and clued in when it came to bashing "advocates" back into
> their basements you seem really, really confused about the most basic of
> real world business practices.
>
> I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole
> you were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
You sound a lot like Snit, actually... taking both sides of an
argument within a mere few posts.
cc
Well, they are lovers...
Steve Carroll
Interesting. Snit did once admit his 'wife' is a "him":
"Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started sending him
bizarre accusations..."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/526694414e4e9327?
cc
> On May 27, 12:38 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 2:34 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 9:29 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole
> > > > you were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
>
> > > You sound a lot like Snit, actually...
>
> > Well, they are lovers...
>
> Interesting. Snit did once admit his 'wife' is a "him":
>
Lovers don't have to be wives, dumbass.
Snit
861b0bc9-9664-4dd7...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 5/27/11
11:38 AM:
I hope you, some day, get over posting such BS. But you are not ready
yet...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
85b7bfec-c7e8-4e5b...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 5/27/11
12:06 PM:
Maybe if you use an 18th century definition? [Refers to a really old debate
where Steve could not figure out if he was married or not]
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> cc stated in post
> 861b0bc9-9664-4dd7-ae2e-68f75ed4e...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 5/27/11
> 11:38 AM:
>
> > On May 27, 2:34 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 9:29 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole
> >>> you were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
>
> >> You sound a lot like Snit, actually...
>
> > Well, they are lovers...
>
>
>
From your whiney tone I can only assume you are a bottom.
Steve Carroll
Who said they did, dumbass?
Steve Carroll
Translation: Snit was as confused then as he is now... about, well,
most everything.
Hint: Nothing precludes your wife from being your lover. Pass it along
to to your troll buddy cc.
Snit
f6383a9c-1865-4981...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on 5/27/11
12:25 PM:
> On May 27, 3:23 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 861b0bc9-9664-4dd7-ae2e-68f75ed4e...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 5/27/11
>> 11:38 AM:
>>
>>> On May 27, 2:34 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 9:29 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole you
>>>>> were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
>>>>>
>>>> You sound a lot like Snit, actually...
>>>>
>>> Well, they are lovers...
>>>
>> I hope you, some day, get over posting such BS. But you are not ready yet...
>
> From your whiney tone I can only assume you are a bottom.
You just proved my point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Redjak
"Steve Carroll" wrote in message
news:f1a29511-d71a-46a6...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Ah!! The "snip defense". And used like the true Scumbag you are.
For losers like you - *plonk* into the KF.
Snit
...
>> You can't fight reality without a rest...good to see you come up for
>> air occasionally.
>
> Ah!! The "snip defense". And used like the true Scumbag you are.
>
> For losers like you - *plonk* into the KF.
When Carroll knows he is beaten he snips and runs... and insists he has no
obligation to support his BS (basically saying "why should I support my
claims to you - I can call you names!")
When *that* fails him, he sinks even lower and tracks people down -
contacting their family and employers. Here is a post he made to me when he
was completely breaking down:
Why, because I don't believe that a college level instructor,
at least, not one in his right mind, would act the way that
this "Snit" person has acted? Or that I might reasonably
believe, based on how he has acted, that this "Snit" person
isn't really a college level instructor at all but is merely
impersonating one?
Your position is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that this
potential imposter calling himself "Snit" has been tolerated
as long as he has is what's "SICK". Were you concerned for
the children in our society and fully cognizant of the role
model aspect that teachers play in it... you should be
standing beside me on this!
Undoubtedly, this person named "Snit" will claim I "know" he
is a teacher based on what I just wrote... but my point is
simple, it's to protect the role model aspect for real
teachers who work hard at what they do. I can do that here by
calling into question the likelihood of an imposter or a
person who, by sheer dumb luck, happens to hold a teaching
position while casting a very dark shadow on the teaching
profession in a public forum. Whatever turns out to be the
truth regarding any relationship between "Snit" and Michael
Glasser, given what "Snit" has written and done online, I'm
thoroughly convinced that the folks at Yavapai College will
see my viewpoint on this. If they don't then I'll have some
arm twisting to do. I don't expect to have to do much of that
but I am well aware of the mechanisms.
This "Snit" person... a person who posts while not using his
real name online and has told too many lies to count
(thereby, publicly trashing his reputation), seems to believe
(falsely) that the law will protect his anonymity... but he's
mistaken about that and he's about to have it proven to him
in a way I'm sure he never expected. He obviously believes
he's quite clever and has thought all the angles... but he
clearly hasn't. Unless he, or someone, gives me a sound
reason not to... I intend to do what I said I'll do. That's
not a threat... that's a promise. Being that he's making
jokes about the whole thing... he's obviously not too worried
about it so I don't expect to see any sound reasoning come
from him. I reject the reasoning you've tried to use thus
far. Notably, not one other person has stepped up to offer a
sound reason.
Steve tracked me down to my job, claimed I was "impersonating" who he claims
I am, and then says he will have the person he claims I am "impersonating"
fired, even if he has to do some "arm twisting". He also makes all sorts of
veiled accusations about what I do but, of course, *never* supports his
accusations. He used to accuse me of lying - but I showed him that in the
half-decade plus of obsessively following me, he could find fewer things he
could claim were lies than I could find *actual* lies from him in *one day*.
He lies more in one day than I do in a decade.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> You can't fight reality without a rest...good to see you come up for
>> air occasionally.
>
> Ah!! The "snip defense". And used like the true Scumbag you are.
>
> For losers like you - *plonk* into the KF.
Steve Carroll:
If you even do work, how can anyone possibly get you in "hot
water" at work if you are innocent of the things people claim
about you?
Snit:
Some day, Steve, I hope you enter the real world. Accusations
- even false ones such as yours - can ruin carriers.
Steve Carroll:
Irrelevant.
The more you point out Steve's BS, the more he will lash out against you.
And the more personal he will get - even targeting your home and business
life and openly making up stories about you. When called on his lies, he
insists his lies cannot hurt an innocent person:
Steve Carroll is complete and utter scum... worse than any other COLA troll.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Nobody
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CA056B62.9992F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
You're both Mac users. Both cut from the same cloth.
Nobody
> Redjak stated in post irp3o0$t1p$1...@dont-email.me on 5/27/11 2:06 PM:
>
> ...
>>> You can't fight reality without a rest...good to see you come up for
>>> air occasionally.
>>
>> Ah!! The "snip defense". And used like the true Scumbag you are.
>>
>> For losers like you - *plonk* into the KF.
>
> When Carroll knows he is beaten he snips and runs...
At least he knows. Wink, wink.
Snit
Your group people oddly. In any case, Carroll also makes up stories about
Mac problems, including:
* A keyboard that generated characters it was not supposed to
* A weird exclamation point in a login field that has been
reported nowhere else
* Problems with the caps lock indicator
* Problems with Time Machine
* Problems with an OS somehow killing a battery
* An OS forcing him to nym-shift when he used his news reader
* Bad tech support from Apple
* Inability to burn CDs where he got an error message he could
neither quote not paraphrase
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Nobody
"Steve Carroll" <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ed12f8f-d886-4896...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Not even if she's married to Snit?
Nobody
Yep, two peas in a pod.
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
>
Nobody
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/526694414e4e9327?
Is Snit married to Alan Baker?
Nobody
"cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:861b0bc9-9664-4dd7...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Well, they are lovers...
This is their cybersex room?
Snit
Steve claims I was confused with his evidence being he insisted on using
18th century definitions to try to dig his way out of his lies.
That is just rich.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> You're both Mac users. Both cut from the same cloth.
>>>
>>>
>> Your group people oddly. In any case, Carroll also makes up stories about
>> Mac problems, including:
>>
>> * A keyboard that generated characters it was not supposed to
>> * A weird exclamation point in a login field that has been
>> reported nowhere else
>> * Problems with the caps lock indicator
>> * Problems with Time Machine
>> * Problems with an OS somehow killing a battery
>> * An OS forcing him to nym-shift when he used his news reader
>> * Bad tech support from Apple
>> * Inability to burn CDs where he got an error message he could
>> neither quote not paraphrase
>
>
> Yep, two peas in a pod.
I *never* sink to the levels Carroll generally lives. Never.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Not any more.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Nobody
Is he good in bed? How often do the two of you have sex in RL?
>
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
>
Nobody
Did he divorce you after he caught you with Steve Carroll?
>
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
>
Nobody
You go much lower?
>
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
>
Snit
>>>> Your group people oddly. In any case, Carroll also makes up stories about
>>>> Mac problems, including:
>>>>
>>>> * A keyboard that generated characters it was not supposed to
>>>> * A weird exclamation point in a login field that has been
>>>> reported nowhere else
>>>> * Problems with the caps lock indicator
>>>> * Problems with Time Machine
>>>> * Problems with an OS somehow killing a battery
>>>> * An OS forcing him to nym-shift when he used his news reader
>>>> * Bad tech support from Apple
>>>> * Inability to burn CDs where he got an error message he could
>>>> neither quote not paraphrase
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, two peas in a pod.
>>
>> I *never* sink to the levels Carroll generally lives. Never.
>
> You go much lower?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
> "Nobody" <nob...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:irm2co$g8m$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >
> > The words say "desktop share." Why do you see them as "revenue share?"
> > What are you smoking?
> >
> I think the article is saying that MS has a 78% share of the revenues for
> operating systems of all kinds sold in the world. They have 96.6% of the
> revenue that accrues from sales of desktop operating systems.
Funny...
Edwin answered so many posts this afternoon...
...but left this one untouched.
:-)
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
amicus_curious
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dpqn47...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
>>> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
>>> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
>>> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>>>
>> Web usage share is a mere factoid that, at best, describes how intensely
>> various
>> groups use the internet web sites. Revenue, OTOH, you can take to the
>> bank
>> after you pay expenses and taxes and that is the only thing that matters
>> in the
>> business aspect.
>
> Complete nonsense of course when one wants to consider relative usage
> /market share and therefore potential market for third party SW
> development. I'm astonished you still don't seem to understand this very
> simple concept. It's as if you have a flick where common terms are used
> that contradict some dusty book you once read.
>
It is plain that you have no idea how things are done, Hadron. If you were
a product developer or marketer for some software product you would define a
potential market for your product and identify the target customers for your
product and then determine the product characteristics that you felt would
satisfy that customer's needs better than anything available from others.
Certainly the OS platform that would need to be used has to be considered as
part of the feature, function, and benefit analysis. If you propose
something that the prospect is not likely to have on hand and has to procure
in addition to your own software, that is a competitive disadvantage. If
one were selling some office automation product, it would obviously be
better to have a Windows version first because of the known higher incidence
of Windows in use by prospective customers and the resultant easier sales
effort. But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
right kind of product to be successful.
People do not go into the "Windows Software Business". They find something
that fills a need that others may have and be willing to pay for.
You are just as dumb as snit in this regard.
> If anything, a HIGHER % of Linux desktop users use the web and skew the
> readings since as we all know its much more secure and many windows boxes
> are probably locked down with no net access.
So what?
amicus_curious
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6py61s1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
>>> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
>>> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
>>> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>>>
>> Web usage share is a mere factoid that, at best, describes how intensely
>> various
>> groups use the internet web sites. Revenue, OTOH, you can take to the
>> bank
>> after you pay expenses and taxes and that is the only thing that matters
>> in the
>> business aspect.
>
> I thought you were claiming some sort of business degree or
> qualification?
>
> Short term revenue increase is rarely pursued at the expense of long term
> stability.
>
> Example, since you're obviously a little dense when it comes to general
> terms and business practices : Microsoft could TODAY sell all the rights
> to Windows 7 to Apple for 1 Billion dollars. They would have MADE 1
> Billion dollars MORE than this time last year. Unfortunately they're a
> it fucked when it comes to NEXT year.
>
> It really isn't difficult and for someone I thought reasonably
> intelligent and clued in when it came to bashing "advocates" back into
> their basements you seem really, really confused about the most basic of
> real world business practices.
>
> I suspect you let your dislike for Snit lead you too far into the hole
> you were digging yourself and he so expertly led you into...
Where on earth did you come up with such a misreading of my post, Hadron? I
simply said that the measure of success of a business is the revenue
generated. You somehow come to the notion that means that Microsoft could
sell their crown jewels at a bargain rate to boost some quarterly result? I
suspect that what others say about your being up snits ass is true. Go
away.
-hh
> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
> right kind of product to be successful.
Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
to be particularly "successful".
-hh
Snit
4de24573$0$28538$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/29/11 6:04 AM:
Clearly you argue with me just to argue. Well, you *try* to argue but then
run away calling me names and the like. You make absurd claims and whine
when called on it.
> I simply said that the measure of success of a business is the revenue
> generated. You somehow come to the notion that means that Microsoft could
> sell their crown jewels at a bargain rate to boost some quarterly result? I
> suspect that what others say about your being up snits ass is true. Go away.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4de24425$0$28527$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/29/11 6:00 AM:
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dpqn47...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:alangbaker-867B2...@news.shawcable.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Counting by revenue, rather than unit share, seems to help Microsoft's
>>>> cause. Usage tracker Net Applications gives Windows 89.6% of share by
>>>> number of users, while StatCounter gives Windows 91.6% of users with the
>>>> rest going mostly to Mac and Linux."
>>>>
>>> Web usage share is a mere factoid that, at best, describes how intensely
>>> various groups use the internet web sites. Revenue, OTOH, you can take to
>>> the bank after you pay expenses and taxes and that is the only thing that
>>> matters in the business aspect.
>>>
>> Complete nonsense of course when one wants to consider relative usage /market
>> share and therefore potential market for third party SW development. I'm
>> astonished you still don't seem to understand this very simple concept. It's
>> as if you have a flick where common terms are used that contradict some dusty
>> book you once read.
>>
> It is plain that you have no idea how things are done, Hadron. If you were
> a product developer or marketer for some software product you would define a
> potential market for your product and identify the target customers for your
> product and then determine the product characteristics that you felt would
> satisfy that customer's needs better than anything available from others.
Yeah, and Hadron argued so strongly against that.
Wait.
No he did not. Not even a little. He noted how you were making no sense
and, in response, you made up stories about him as you completely changed
the topic.
Really: you repeatedly try to sound clever and end up just advertising how
ignorant you are.
> Certainly the OS platform that would need to be used has to be considered as
> part of the feature, function, and benefit analysis. If you propose
> something that the prospect is not likely to have on hand and has to procure
> in addition to your own software, that is a competitive disadvantage. If
> one were selling some office automation product, it would obviously be
> better to have a Windows version first because of the known higher incidence
> of Windows in use by prospective customers and the resultant easier sales
> effort. But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
> right kind of product to be successful.
>
> People do not go into the "Windows Software Business". They find something
> that fills a need that others may have and be willing to pay for.
>
> You are just as dumb as snit in this regard.
See: you make a fool of yourself by showing you cannot understand what you
read... and to try to hide it you call people names. This is a bad habit of
yours.
Heck, remember when you used to deny MS cared about Macs and their users.
LOL! Wait... even with all the proof you were wrong you still claim that,
don't you?
Too funny...
>> If anything, a HIGHER % of Linux desktop users use the web and skew the
>> readings since as we all know its much more secure and many windows boxes
>> are probably locked down with no net access.
>
> So what?
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:53bd4d00-980e-4246...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Sure it is, silly. At the end of the day, we count the money to see who is
first. When you count the OS money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
count the office automation money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
count the development software money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
count the antivirus software money, Symantec is in first place. When you
count the personal finance software money, Intuit is in first place. When
you count the browser money, you find out that there is none.
"Successful" means that you make money when you are talking about a
business. If you are playing poker for matchsticks, then success means
winning a lot of matchsticks, sure, but is that really a success in anything
that means a damn? Go ahead and brag about how popular some non-entity is
if it makes you feel less of a loser. It is a cheap high.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CA07D153.99D6B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> Clearly you argue with me just to argue.
Where on earth do you get the idea that I am arguing with you, little man?
Is your name "Hadron"? Shoo! Go back to your mail order business!
Snit
4de2b681$0$28515$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/29/11 2:08 PM:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:53bd4d00-980e-4246...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
>>> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
>>> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
>>> right kind of product to be successful.
>>
>>
>> Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
>> seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
>> replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
>> to be particularly "successful".
>
> Sure it is, silly. At the end of the day, we count the money to see who is
> first.
That is one way of counting success - but certainly not the only!
> When you count the OS money, Microsoft is in first place.
The "OS money"? What? There is no such thing. There is "money". And MS
is *not* first there.
> When you count the office automation money, Microsoft is in first place. When
> you count the development software money, Microsoft is in first place. When
> you count the antivirus software money, Symantec is in first place. When you
> count the personal finance software money, Intuit is in first place. When you
> count the browser money, you find out that there is none.
Sure there is. Do you think Google is making nothing off of Chrome? Apple
is making nothing off of WebKit? Only if you look at things in a very
narrow and direct way can you say these things do not bring in money.
But let us pretend they do not... and by your counting they do not. Then
there is no reason for them to exist because they do not help make these
companies money. Your own claims are self-refuting.
> "Successful" means that you make money when you are talking about a
> business.
A couple of problems with this: you are looking at this only very, very
directly - hence the reason you count OSs only when they sell alone and not
when they sell as a part of a product and why you think browsers do not make
money for companies. Another problem, of course, is that not everyone -
even every business - seems making money as the only goal. People (even
those who run businesses) like to have pride in their work.
Really, your "analysis" of these things is very shallow and silly.
> If you are playing poker for matchsticks, then success means
> winning a lot of matchsticks, sure, but is that really a success in anything
> that means a damn?
People play poker for *fun*, not just money. And enjoyment of life means
*more* than money.
> Go ahead and brag about how popular some non-entity is
> if it makes you feel less of a loser. It is a cheap high.
If it is cheap, you think it means little - so why would anyone do it?
Oh, I love when you self-nuke. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4de2b7c4$0$28463$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/29/11 2:12 PM:
You are not able to argue... you spew BS just to get attention as you run.
Whatever. The bottom line is you know you have no ability to defend your
shallow attempts at "analysis" and your other BS, so you call me names and
mock me. It shows how little you think of yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>
> news:53bd4d00-980e-4246...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> >> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
> >> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
> >> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
> >> right kind of product to be successful.
>
> > Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
> > seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
> > replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
> > to be particularly "successful".
>
> you are talking about a business.
Sorry, but that is a simpleton's view that seeks a simple "+/-"
without any perspective or context.
For example, before their bailout GM was "successfully" making money,
but their profit margin was very small and thus was not commensurate
with the level of risk that GM was incurring in order to build cars to
sell & profit from. As such, had GM not built any cars but simply
put all of their cash into T Bills...they would have been a greater
benefit to their stockholders because they would have been *more*
profitable at *lower* risk.
Everything has risks; everything has costs. Success is a continuum.
...and insofar as Windows OS, the consumer is no longer beating a path
to their door for the next great thing. Today, Windows sales is tied
to hardware lifecycles, and no longer the OS Software development
cycle. Since the former is slower than the latter, Microsoft's level
of success has declined.
-hh
Snit
5917d3b1-82b2-4a4d...@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com on 5/29/11
3:20 PM:
> On May 29, 5:08 pm, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:53bd4d00-980e-4246...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
>>>> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
>>>> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
>>>> right kind of product to be successful.
>>
>>> Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
>>> seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
>>> replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
>>> to be particularly "successful".
>>
>> Sure it is, silly... "Successful" means that you make money when
>> you are talking about a business.
>
> Sorry, but that is a simpleton's view that seeks a simple "+/-"
> without any perspective or context.
Hmmm, where have I heard something similar:
Snit:
-----
A couple of problems with this: you are looking at this only
very, very directly - hence the reason you count OSs only
when they sell alone and not when they sell as a part of a
product and why you think browsers do not make money for
companies. Another problem, of course, is that not everyone
- even every business - seems making money as the only goal.
People (even those who run businesses) like to have pride in
their work.
Really, your "analysis" of these things is very shallow and
silly.
-----
Amicus, however, is not able to understand what he is being told.
> For example, before their bailout GM was "successfully" making money,
> but their profit margin was very small and thus was not commensurate
> with the level of risk that GM was incurring in order to build cars to
> sell & profit from. As such, had GM not built any cars but simply
> put all of their cash into T Bills...they would have been a greater
> benefit to their stockholders because they would have been *more*
> profitable at *lower* risk.
>
> Everything has risks; everything has costs. Success is a continuum.
>
> ...and insofar as Windows OS, the consumer is no longer beating a path
> to their door for the next great thing. Today, Windows sales is tied
> to hardware lifecycles, and no longer the OS Software development
> cycle. Since the former is slower than the latter, Microsoft's level
> of success has declined.
Apple, though, does a pretty good job of getting customers to upgrade. What
do you think MS's problem is in this area?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> amicus_curious stated:
> > "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:...
> >> On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
> >>> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
> >>> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
> >>> right kind of product to be successful.
>
> >> Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
> >> seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
> >> replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
> >> to be particularly "successful".
>
> > Sure it is, silly. At the end of the day, we count the money to see who is
> > first.
>
> That is one way of counting success - but certainly not the only!
Unfortunately, it is the only way that AC can conceive counting. It
is the technique that was responsible for GM's downfall, since they
had failed to take Risk:Benefit into account - - historically, GM
could have made more money for their stockholders had they simply
invested in T-Bills instead of automobiles ... and T-Bills would have
been LOWER risk!
> > "Successful" means that you make money when you are talking about a
> > business.
>
> A couple of problems with this: you are looking at this only very, very
> directly - hence the reason you count OSs only when they sell alone and not
> when they sell as a part of a product and why you think browsers do not make
> money for companies. Another problem, of course, is that not everyone -
> even every business - seems making money as the only goal. People (even
> those who run businesses) like to have pride in their work.
>
> Really, your "analysis" of these things is very shallow and silly.
Thus, AC stoops to name-calling.
> > If you are playing poker for matchsticks, then success means
> > winning a lot of matchsticks, sure, but is that really a success in anything
> > that means a damn?
>
> People play poker for *fun*, not just money. And enjoyment of life means
> *more* than money.
Doesn't matter: AC is actually in the right direction when viewing
things as a poker game - - but what he fails to see is that when one
chooses to risk long odds, the payoff has to be big enough to be worth
it.
-hh
Snit
14988fb1-68b5-4aa5...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 5/29/11
7:02 PM:
> On May 29, 5:23 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> amicus_curious stated:
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:...
>>>> On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
>>>>> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
>>>>> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
>>>>> right kind of product to be successful.
>>
>>>> Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
>>>> seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
>>>> replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
>>>> to be particularly "successful".
>>
>>> Sure it is, silly. At the end of the day, we count the money to see who is
>>> first.
>>
>> That is one way of counting success - but certainly not the only!
>
> Unfortunately, it is the only way that AC can conceive counting. It
> is the technique that was responsible for GM's downfall, since they
> had failed to take Risk:Benefit into account - - historically, GM
> could have made more money for their stockholders had they simply
> invested in T-Bills instead of automobiles ... and T-Bills would have
> been LOWER risk!
No argument here. Amicus pretends to have some grand business knowledge,
but whenever he opens his mouth on the topic he proves otherwise.
>>> "Successful" means that you make money when you are talking about a
>>> business.
>>
>> A couple of problems with this: you are looking at this only very, very
>> directly - hence the reason you count OSs only when they sell alone and not
>> when they sell as a part of a product and why you think browsers do not make
>> money for companies. Another problem, of course, is that not everyone -
>> even every business - seems making money as the only goal. People (even
>> those who run businesses) like to have pride in their work.
>>
>> Really, your "analysis" of these things is very shallow and silly.
>
> Thus, AC stoops to name-calling.
Exactly.
>>> If you are playing poker for matchsticks, then success means
>>> winning a lot of matchsticks, sure, but is that really a success in anything
>>> that means a damn?
>>
>> People play poker for *fun*, not just money. And enjoyment of life means
>> *more* than money.
>
> Doesn't matter: AC is actually in the right direction when viewing
> things as a poker game - - but what he fails to see is that when one
> chooses to risk long odds, the payoff has to be big enough to be worth
> it.
There is a reason they have penny poker machines in Vegas... and tables with
a $1000 minimum.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
> "-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:53bd4d00-980e-4246...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 29, 9:00 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> >> But if you are selling some software equivalent of a golden goose
> >> that is so beneficial that people will not only buy the software but will
> >> also go get the necessary platform/framework to run it, then you have the
> >> right kind of product to be successful.
> >
> >
> > Yes, when one has a software product that consumers don't proactively
> > seek it out to buy, but they will get it when they're happening to be
> > replacing hardware and it is bundled, said product can't be considered
> > to be particularly "successful".
>
> Sure it is, silly. At the end of the day, we count the money to see who is
> first. When you count the OS money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
> count the office automation money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
> count the development software money, Microsoft is in first place. When you
> count the antivirus software money, Symantec is in first place. When you
> count the personal finance software money, Intuit is in first place. When
> you count the browser money, you find out that there is none.
When you count the profit, Apple is ahead of Microsoft.
amicus_curious
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:5917d3b1-82b2-4a4d...@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
I doubt that you are capable of understanding just how stupid your statement
is. GM, for starters, didn't have any cash to put anywhere, hence the need
for a bailout. GM stays in business during the downturn because their money
is tied up in brick and mortar facilities that have little value in terms of
real estate and only have value in terms of being able to produce wealth by
turning raw materials into finished automobiles or trucks or various other
items. Ignoring their finance company and any other subsidiaries, of
course.
GM's value was its business. Since it didn't make enough money to stay
afloat, it was not a success, it was a failure, pretty much certified by
entering into bankruptcy. The current success of the reformed company that
is now operating some but not all of the former GM assets is not really
related to the former's failure, but rather to the deftness of the
reorganization and the proper recognition of what was the meat and what was
just potatoes.
> Everything has risks; everything has costs. Success is a continuum.
>
> ...and insofar as Windows OS, the consumer is no longer beating a path
> to their door for the next great thing. Today, Windows sales is tied
> to hardware lifecycles, and no longer the OS Software development
> cycle. Since the former is slower than the latter, Microsoft's level
> of success has declined.
>
So your premise is that "success is a continuum" that comes and goes with
the ebb and flow of the times? I rather think that it is the integrated
results over some pertinent timeframe. You could say that GM was a success
from the early 1900's to the 1990's or later. You could say that GM was a
failure in the 21st Century. If you are not involved, it is only an
academic label. If you have some skin in the game, say having bought a
million shares of GM in 1990 and still holding it in 2008, you would have a
much more real understanding of success and failure in that regard.
amicus_curious
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-95DE4...@news.shawcable.net...
Whose, telling you fibs? According to Fortune, Microsoft has 18.7B in
profits in the previous 12 months vs 14B for Apple. That doesn't make
Microsoft first though, they are behind Exxon, AT&T , and Chevron. So you
could say that when you count profits, Exxon Mobile is in first place.
Alan Baker
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
The world moves on, AC.
Look at the last quarter:
Revenue Gross Profit Income after tax
Apple $24.7M $10.2M $6.0
Microsoft $16.4M $12.5M $5.2
<http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii>
<http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:MSFT&fstype=ii>
Snit
4de3de00$0$3556$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/30/11 11:09 AM:
Why do you think it is "stupid" to point out your ignorance? Do you think
your insults are a reason not to?
> GM, for starters, didn't have any cash to put anywhere, hence the need
> for a bailout. GM stays in business during the downturn because their money
> is tied up in brick and mortar facilities that have little value in terms of
> real estate and only have value in terms of being able to produce wealth by
> turning raw materials into finished automobiles or trucks or various other
> items. Ignoring their finance company and any other subsidiaries, of
> course.
Had they not made those factories but instead just bought T Bills they would
have done better, financially. Is that what you think they should have
done?
...
>> Everything has risks; everything has costs. Success is a continuum.
>>
>> ...and insofar as Windows OS, the consumer is no longer beating a path
>> to their door for the next great thing. Today, Windows sales is tied
>> to hardware lifecycles, and no longer the OS Software development
>> cycle. Since the former is slower than the latter, Microsoft's level
>> of success has declined.
>>
> So your premise is that "success is a continuum" that comes and goes with
> the ebb and flow of the times? I rather think that it is the integrated
> results over some pertinent timeframe. You could say that GM was a success
> from the early 1900's to the 1990's or later. You could say that GM was a
> failure in the 21st Century. If you are not involved, it is only an
> academic label.
Yet you keep pushing such labels. Good to see you admit you see your error.
> If you have some skin in the game, say having bought a
> million shares of GM in 1990 and still holding it in 2008, you would have a
> much more real understanding of success and failure in that regard.
You love to act like you have superior knowledge even after your claims have
been ripped apart. Why is that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4de3e195$0$3650$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/30/11 11:24 AM:
>> When you count the profit, Apple is ahead of Microsoft.
>>
> Whose, telling you fibs? According to Fortune, Microsoft has 18.7B in
> profits in the previous 12 months vs 14B for Apple. That doesn't make
> Microsoft first though, they are behind Exxon, AT&T , and Chevron. So you
> could say that when you count profits, Exxon Mobile is in first place.
Look at the last quarter. Apple made more money than MS.
For someone who claims to know a lot about this stuff, you are *amazingly*
ignorant.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> If you have some skin in the game, say
> having bought a million shares of GM in 1990 and still holding it in
> 2008, you would have a much more real understanding of success and
> failure in that regard.
Is that what you did? For your personal accounts?
amicus_curious
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-51CCC...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> The world moves on, AC.
>
> Look at the last quarter:
>
>
> Revenue Gross Profit Income after tax
>
> Apple $24.7M $10.2M $6.0
> Microsoft $16.4M $12.5M $5.2
>
Well, AAPL did have a very fine quarter, that is for sure. But it was
related to their iPhone sales and not computers. Exxon had a great year,
but it was related to petroleum products and not smart phones. Microsoft
had a very good quarter, too, and it was related to software and not to
petroleum products or smart phones or computers. Are you saying that Apple
is a greater success than Microsoft? It may very well be, but they are in
different businesses and not directly comparable either way.
Did Linux do as well as either MSFT or AAPL? Of course not!