MS pours some more petrol on the ever burning flamewars.

I am sick of both sides acting retarded

That is a false statement as has been pointed out here. The article he links says retail sales, ie., B&M stores. HP, Dell etc sell their premium (business, and till recently XPS) lines over the internet. Take that into account and Apple share will be quite small.

 

Of course it is a cheap move, its Microsoft. Right now it is getting buzz and people are talking but not the people that Microsoft needs. People come to me for computer advice all the time and not one "average consumer" has mentioned the ad to me yet. If they do, I'll be more than happy to point out the problems I have with the ads. In the end I base my advice on what the person needs and can afford. I admit that most times it works out to being a PC due to cost factors.

Microsoft already has the cheap PC market cornered, so why is it bothering with these ads? All they are doing is further cementing a bad image into people's minds. Calling Macs "cool" and "sexy" isn't going to help Windows computers become cool or sexy.

 

I'm sure it would take the numbers down some but I wouldn't say that Apple's share would be "small". Many regular customers (like those targeted by the ads) shop in stores and not online because they don't need a customized system and want it NOW.

 

Mac's are perceived as cool and sexy, so saying that they aren't is kinda BS.

Really, Mac fanboys, please. Microsoft is calling Macs cool, sexy, and expensive (all true) and you guys are complaining? After all Apple's marketing did to Vista? The best thing about this ad campaign is just that - its completely true. Yes, the MBP matches the specs of the HDX16, but it costs an extra, what, $900? $1400? Some people just don't have that kind of money to spend on a computer. Microsoft is just pointing that out. Get over yourselves.

 

They would be small. I'm just considering the total number of >$1k laptops sold.
Businesses mostly buy business laptops, not MBPs.
AFAIR, Dell's business revenue was like 5x its consumer revenue.

 

The Apple ads didn't do anything to Vista, Microsoft is the one that ruined Vista. The only reason the ad is true is because they only talk about price and specs. There is a reason they never mention Vista, not even one time. The biggest complaint about the ad is that they claim it is a documentary when it is scripted.

 

OK so where are the numbers? Until you can show some evidence it is better to not ASSUME things since we know where that will get you. I'm not disputing that the retail numbers are not fair, just your assumption.

 

Can Apple be sued by saying that MS spent more money on marketing Vista than on developing it? Or by the crap they pulled on the iPhone ads before putting the "by the way this is nowhere at real life speed" notice at the bottom of the ad?
It's just marketing, bending the truth to your will if perfectly OK. While I love the reaction those ads get from hardcore Mac users, I prefer the more recent ones showing stuff like Live Gallery or the "I'm a PC and I sell fish" one .

 

The Mac ad was a parody that said MS was spending more money advertising Vista than FIXING it. Actually it may have been accurate but I don't think MS will say. The iPhone ad was a bad move.

 

I only have numbers for dell:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4590043&postcount=9

The rest is inference based on Apples total market share, dells total market share, assumption that HP is similar, and some algebra.

 

all i can say is... http://www.pcworld.com/article/156450/apple_laptops_extend_their_lead_in_reliability.html

and for a close up:
http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=156450&page=1&zoomIdx=1

 

This is true. The largest PC vendors, HP and Dell, are strongest in the enterprise segment, although HP is also very strong in the consumer market (Dell hasn't quite yet succeeded in that area). Their high end business laptops, which cost more than $1000, definitely sell in higher volumes than Apple's MBP simply due to the vast number deployed by corporate IT departments.

 

The point of the earlier post is that the retail numbers report that is cited is misquoted. There are really no assumptions to dispute.

This isn't an ago old quantity vs quality issue. Both customers only need ONE computer. More computers vs less computers is not an issue.

Its a pure value issue. Both computers fulfill the customers needs. One cost more for, arguably, aesthetic reasons.

quantity vs quality issue question would be more like what is better for the customer, three 1K laptops or one 3K laptop. That isn't the issue here. Rather Microsoft's message is "You don't need to overspend!"

Isn't Dell the #2 supplier of computers in the consumer market?

This article makes a couple of fair points and a couple of garbage points.

The writer makes a fair point about the screen. It isn't exactly gorgeous, but it is doable.

The paragraph about size is misleading. From what I've seen, 15" is the most common sized laptop around and it seems quite portable considering these 15" show up everywhere I go. Sure it doesn't fit in a purse. But what are the chances Mr. Giampaolo needs something to fit in a purse over something that will fit in, say, a backpack.

The paragraph about battery life is misleading. 5 hours of battery life is great if that is all you needed. It seems his needs are computing and harddrive space over battery life. It could have 15 hours of battery life and still not fulfill his needs.

I don't understand the point of mentioning that the memory on the HP is DDR2 vs the Mac's DDR3. What are the chances that Mr. Average Buyer is going to saturate the available bandwidth of DDR2? DDR3 is a marketing talk in the consumer market.

x64 vs x86 editions?? Again, what are the chances that Mr. Average buyer is going to saturate 3.5GB of RAM. I'd like to see what situations will an extra .5 GB of RAM offers a significant improvement for Mr. HP buyer.

 

So you are assuming. Your link is to revenue amounts not market share. The only way to make a conversion to market share is to ASSUME an average sale price and Divide into the revenue. Like I said before show some real numbers where adding in online sales will make Apple's share "quite small" in over $1000 systems.

 

Dude, I'm not assuming. Did you read that thread ? Dells business revenue is 3x that of apple (inclusing iphone + ipods). Add in HP business and thinkpads, and you get a bound on Apple's market share in "high end laptop" segment.

 

Are you trying to say that all business PCs are over $1000?
Look at Dell's business website and you will see that the many of their systems are under $1000. Sure they sell many over $1000 but there is no way of telling market share in over $1000 systems based on revenue. You are most definitely ASSUMING.

 

Alright guys, let's calm down here, and keep it civilized.

 

I'm perfectly calm, thanks for speaking up though. I would love anyone to show me how you can make an accurate call on market share of over $1000 systems based on revenue alone, because it is impossible.

 

To get a high-quality screen on a Mac laptop, you need to get at least the $1800 MBA... if you want something powerful too then you need to get at least the $2000 MBP.

He does say at the beginning of the ad that portability and battery life are things he's looking for... so I do feel like what he ended up choosing isn't quite what I would've expected from what he said he was looking for.

Yeah, this is a red herring. DDR3 benefits Apple's designs because the Mac laptops use shared graphics memory. The HP chosen in this ad has dedicated graphics (only), so DDR2 vs. DDR3 system RAM isn't going to matter significantly... and honestly the money that could've been spent on using DDR3 system RAM can probably be spent more effectively on other things... like having 4 gb of RAM instead of just 2 gb.

Also not a real issue, since most PC makers have wisened up by now and put 64-bit Vista on all their preconfigured systems that they ship with 4 gb of RAM (on CTO models, they usually offer a choice).

Me too.

 

Most systems with any sort of upgrades are over 1000. HP business is even more expensive. You are correct in that I cannot give a precise market share for over 1000 market; but there is a thing as reasonable evidence and extrapolation.

 

wrong.dell is now struggling to make any money at all...and ATM,Apple costs more then HP+Dell.

 

Sigh. Please read the link I posted. I took the data directly off Dell and Apple economic reports.

 

I am sorry(since I am not good in finances),but aren't those "apple" results only for Q1 2009?

 

Yes, they are; but from Apples filing, their revenue was slightly lower in 2007 if thats what you are getting at ?

Dells revenue is more but dells profit margin is lower; some may interpret this as meaning that dell gives better value

But still dell is making close to 2x apples profits (data in my linked post)

 

From what I see-

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DELL

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=Aapl

apple is leading in everything except revenue.can someone explain me the numbers a little better?

 

Looking at those 2 links Xirurg it looks like in the past 12 monthas Dell has made about 10 billion in gross profits on 60 million of revenue while Apple has made about 11 billion in gross profits on 33 million of revenue. If you calculate profits as a percentage of revenue, it looks like Apple has profit margins which are two times greater than Dell. I'm no business major but I've taken some intro courses and thats what i get from these numbers.

This wiki link clarifies some things about gross profit used in those numbers from yahoo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_profit

 

If you follow the links in thread, you will find the following for earnings/share:
Dell: $1.33
Apple: $1.81
(Apple's per share earnings are higher, as dell has more shares floating).

Now, based on this, you tell me whether an Apple share is worth 10x that of dell
A share of apple earns $1.81, a share of dell earns $1.33.

 

it is not that simple,there is a reason why apples share cost more.

EDIT: wait a sec,isn't EPS-earn per share?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=dell&.yficrumb=hOsXsvl6wyC

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL&.yficrumb=hOsXsvl6wyC

 

You're right (except for mixing B with M )
But that seems inconsistent with Apples release. In their release, for 3 months, they have a net income of 1.6B; that doesn not translate to a 11B income/year

 

The reason is expectations growth. As per the yahoo lnks, the Price/Earnings rato for apple is 21.5, for dell 8.3. People are expecting Apple to grow much more than dell.

 

wait a sec,isn't EPS-earn per share?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=dell&.yficrumb=hOsXsvl6wyC

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL&.yficrumb=hOsXsvl6wyC

 

The 11 Billion is gross profit. Gross profits does not subtract overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments. Apple probably made 1.6 Billion in net profit which includes the subtraction of these things.

 

No no, the 1.6 data that I posted is per quarter (3 months); the yahoo earnings etc are per year. But there is still a discrepancy 1.6x4 is way off from 11

 

It doesn't have to translate since earnings fluctuate. Its not as easy as 1.6 x 4=yearly earnings.

 

Apple still can buy dell

anyway,those numbers lots me,so lets stop talking about them and go back to ads?my conclusion-it is a good idea,but they need someone that actually can make decent ad which explains why windows is better then MacOS,not why HP is cheaper then apple.

 

Your right, but still 1.6x4=6.4; so did apple take a massive hit in earnings in late 2008 ?

 

The 11 billion is gross profit which does NOT factor in stuff like overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments. Using your 6.4 Billion figure it means taht apple pays 11 - 6.4 Billion to pay for these things. Gross profit and net profit are not the same.

 

So revenue, gross profit, and net income are all different ?

 

Revenue equals total money made from sales.

Gross profit equals total money made from sales MINUS variable costs, such as component parts.

Net income equals gross profit MINUS fixed costs, such as labour, tax, rent etc.

And yes, I'm watching this and it is going quite off topic.

 

Well then, let's get it back on topic as I am going to go out on a limb here and say M$ will make more of these silly commercials and eventually Apple will respond with something...it would be nice to keep them all running together in one thread!

In the end, I think come this summer with the next iteration of the iPhone it will be game over for M$. True, Apple computers will still cost more, M$ will still not be selling hardware, and ad companies will still be using actors to sell products...but no one is going to be able to deny the viability of Apple as a corporation.

Personally as an owner of computers running Windows 3.1 through Vista 64 over the years and having recently switched to OS X via a late 2008 MBP, I can say these commercials don't interest me in the least. I can honestly say I've watched neither of them from beginning to end.

I find it humorous that a company like M$ thinks they are going to use peer pressure against me to force my buying decisions. I buy what I want and what I can afford.

Bottom line...I don't drive a Yugo and I don't use Vista anymore (work forces XP on me).

Edit - as for the wife's NC10 in the sig...if Apple comes through with a netbook, you can bet that will get replaced as well...

 

Not that I am an ad executive, but someone at Apple should be all over this...

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...p_to_wipe_windows_7_with_xp_through_2010.html

 

What in the world??????????

I take a day away from this Forum and this thread turns into some ridiculous arguement based on revenue and stock prices. I thought I made it clear in a previous post. That often quoted marketing research is RETAIL SALES ONLY. For those who don't read the news, did't pay attention in marketing class, and don't have a clue what "retail" means...

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/05/soaring_mac_market_share_means.html

You could put it another way. If Apple's laptop shipments were 15% of the total laptop market, assuming optimisticly that HALF were Mac Pros, then that would mean only 6% of PC laptop shipments are laptops over 1K. Which sounds kind of odd and unreasonable. And this is considering BEST case scenario. And if that doesn't put down this ridiculous discussion, then click the above link.


Doubtfully will this be the last time that report will be cited and conclusions misdraw. Churchilll once said something like "a rumour will spread around the world in the time it takes for the truth to put its pants on.

I'm not surprised myself. It was the same way when XP, windows 2K, Windows ME, Windows 98SE first came out. I'm sorry the youngins don't remember that far. But here is a little lesson from us older folks. "There is no present or future. Just the past repeating itself over and over again."

 

Oh sorry Your Highness!please forgive us!

Jeez,cool down...it is only a forum and there is no need to react like that!

 

Now that we are back on topic, I think the Lauren ad was cooler. The "I guess I'm not cool enough to get a Mac" line is a real kidney punch to Mac owners. Literally every Mac owner I know rolleyed their eyes when I mentioned this line.

 

and......?

 

On a side note, I had to deal with some broken scripts because some devs using their sexy Macs hard-coded UNIX paths and env vars in them and when I brought up the issue, responded with an ignorant "Why don't you just get a Mac" comment because I was working from my Windows machine (yes, it's Vista but it works well for me). Hate it when such comments are thrown about as if Macs are like the God of computers or something. For the record, yes, I do own a Macbook too, but it's a poor development machine.

 

LOL...my guess is they rolled their eyes because they know how absurd it is...Macs aren't about being cool, they're about being creative/productive/OS uptime/etc.

I think the line should have been something like "I am not cool enough to learn an OS other than the one M$ has been shoving down my throat for 20 years"...

Still find it funny that Windows 7 is just minimal adjustments to Vista (well and all the stuff they're using from OS X)...

 

If I were to choose one path to convert a PC guy to a Mac, this is where I would hammer away. PC geeks are generally have that "right brain" mentality where items like cost, specs, and appcombat are large factors in their decision to computer purchases. A unified software and hardware solution is a very attractive feature and I myself would be all for it. Cisco is trying that same strat with their Unified Computing System. I myself swear by HP routers and switches due to their great management software.

This should be obvious to anyone who has done both Windows and OSX software development. While I personally haven't, the general consensus I have heard is that developing on the Windows platform is almost comically easy versus on OSX. Microsoft, for years, have developed tools that only make it easier and easier to develop solutions on the Windows platform. Their developer friendly reputation is something that Apple has yet to match.

 

well,I think that depends on what you are actually "developing"

 

The contrasting development environment are even more evident if you look at the relationship between iPhone developers and the Apple store. There is no shortage of articles bashing Apple's mysterious approval process.

And Apple's stance on appcom (application compatibility) has been a sore point for developers who live in the fear that the next version of OSX could wipe out the underlying libraries that their program depends on.