P.S. Yeah, you’re probably gonna make some snide remark about Chinese quality. Don’t be so fast though. The iPhone already failed a security test when it got hacked last week.

P.S.S Not too hard to see how the Chinese improved this product. Look at the iPhone’s OEMs. the iPhone is practically Chinese anyway — err… Taiwanese. The Chinese had months to look at the iPhone’s specs and figure out how to make it obsolete.”

Young Rocco, you are a total tit. First off, Taiwan isn’t China. 2) the vast majority of the components/software/codecs in the iPhone are NOT Chinese, but European and American in origin. So, LOL, BACK UP your statement “iPhone is practically Chinese”. 3) The Chinese ripoff doesn’t run Mac OSX. 4) Mac OSX IS American 5) China allows this inferior shit to be marketed because that’s MUCH easier than conducting their own R&D (much like many Korean companies in that regard) 6)OF COURSE it’s a ripoff clone you fool, just a POS ripoff, as usual. Don’t hold your breath about me buying this Chinese crap. By the way, just so you know, Apple is ranked as the World’s Most Innovative Company.

Are you sure Bill Gates doesn’t make PCs, Ut Videam? The Xbox 360 resembles a PC in quite a few ways–but that’s a discussion for another day.

Ut Videam, its obvious from your answer that you know nothing about the computer industry. Everyone who follows the industry knows about the great rivalry that once existed between Gates and Jobs over operating systems and office applications.

In the late 80’s, Apple decided to go it alone and develop an operating system incompatible with IBM’s PCs. Apple’s bonehead move resulted in compatibility problems with third party software developers, high costs, and pretty much the near death of the company in the early 90’s. Gates, on the other hand, opted to develop the OS and office applications for IBM clones, thereby becoming the (second) richest guy on the planet. In the war over who’s software platform would dominate the future, Jobs lost and Gates won.

But your ignorance of the rivalry between Gates and Jobs is no excuse. You should have been able to figure out that increased mac sales hurt Gates; Windows Vista is not bundled with macs. The bottom line here is that Gates and Jobs still, on some level, compete.

Red Herring:

Who cares how his name is spelled? Your argument still has cavities.

Disingenuousness:

You said that you suspect that Dell would kill for Apple’s profits. Bah. Apple’s best is almost equal to Dell’s worst. Dell has enjoyed profits higher than Apple’s on numerous occasions. If you’re going to speculate, at least get your facts straight.

Disingenuousness:

Thanks for telling everyone what we already know. Lenovo bought IBM, but still sells PCs under the IBM name. Furthermore, IBM retains an 18.9% stake in Lenovo. These two facts should make it clear to you that IBM and Apple still have separate interests. They still compete.

You’re done, Ut Videam.

Thanks for playing!

There are a number of factors that are preventing you from understanding your weak position in this debate. Your consistent disingenuousness, myopia, and inability to refrain from red herrings. Fortunately for me, since your argument is weak, this post will be easy to write.

1. Myopia:

You fail to see the big picture. Ut Videam, Apple’s growth is certainly commendable, but you fail to consider the fact that high growth is easy when you have a low base to start with. Apple has to sell far fewer computers than Dell in order to post high quarterly growth in PC sales. Apple has less than 5% of the PC market while Dell currently controls 16.1%. HP controls about 18% of the market. These guys sell a lot more computers than Apple so they have to work harder to attain growth.

I thought this concept was so easy to understand that it didn’t merit explaining. Looks like I was wrong. I’ll make sure not to underestimate your naivete in the future.

2. Myopia

You still fail to see the big picture. Yes, Apple certainly does have higher profits than Dell…this quarter. But Dell has consistently beat Apple for the past few years. Apple’s highest quarterly profits ever were just under 900 million dollars. Dell, on the other hand, has had quarters over 900 million multiple times before. In the first quarter of 2006, after two years of deline, Dell posted profits of 949 million dollars–over a hundred dollars higher than Apple’s best quarter. My point, Ut Videam, is that one quarter or two are not sufficient basis for judging the success of a business model. Dell’s model has been far more consistent and successful than Apple’s over the long term.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelan.....6968.shtml

3. Misinformation.

In addition to your inability to critically evaluate information, you have also failed to gather accurate information. There are numerous weak points in your post. I’ll start with the biggest.

1. Apple does not choose between market share and margin.

Ut Videam, Apple does not have to choose between margin and market share. Apple can release different products to appeal to both the price sensitive and the trend savvy ends of the consumer spectrum. In other words, it can release both market share products and a margin products.

In fact, Apple has done just that. It recently released the Mac Mini, a low margin, mass market computer. Apple also released the Ipod shuffle, an mp3 player designed to compete with low cost mp3 players. These are two low-cost products, Ut Videam. You may focus only on glamour products, Ut Videam, but Apple’s executives certainly don’t.

Ut Videam, get your facts straight. Apple DOES release low margin, mass market products. Don’t attribute a strategy to Apple that Apple does not have.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4162009.stm

More to come.

Further, you’ve misrepresented my argument about Apple’s market share and strategy. I never argued that Apple’s low market share was a strategic decision on their part. Rather, Apple is not willing to sacrifice its high margins to achieve higher market share. HP and Dell have high market share—and their margins suck. Why? Because they, like most other PC makers, have been sucked into the race to the bottom, cutting margins to the absolute minimum to get an edge on consumer pricing. Why? Because they offer largely indistinguishable products.

Apple has chosen another path—one that has proven hugely successful. That path has allowed Apple to post a higher profit than Dell at just over half the revenues. Not just higher margin, but higher profit. More dollars, Rocco. Just because you’re unable or unwilling to see the wisdom of Apple’s path doesn’t mean it’s not there. Apple’s investors are laughing all the way to the bank, while the stock prices of Microsoft, HP, and Dell stagnate.

Just for fun, let’s address one more of your foolish statements:

Because Bill Gates, Micheal Dell and IBM outflank Apple time and time again.

1) Bill Gates doesn’t make PCs. Who’s comparing apples to oranges, Rocco? And oh, by the way, Windows Vista sales have been sluggish. Far below expectations. Mac sales, meanwhile, are breaking records.

2) It’s Michael Dell, not “Micheal.” And Mr. Dell would kill for the kind of profitability Apple enjoys, I suspect.

3) IBM got out of the PC business. They sold their operations to Lenovo, a Chinese firm.

But I’m not going to keep this up anymore. It’s obvious that you’re out of your league, Rocco. While this has been amusing, it’s clearly pointless—you’re obviously unable or unwilling to concede that Apple is a far more successful business than you’ve been willing to admit, even in the face of voluminous evidence. Enjoy your weekend!

I made a point about market share. You responded with a point about market position. I am talking about apples. You’re talking about oranges. You’re being disingenuous.

Furthermore, your argument about Apple’s strategy fits in with your pattern of verbal legerdemain. Ut Videam, Apple’s low market position in the PC market is not a strategy. Apple is not, as you implied, eschewing market share for margin and the notion that a company would do that is absurd. A company that can have both market share and margin will go for both. Why doesn’t Apple have both in the PC market? Because Bill Gates, Micheal Dell and IBM outflank Apple time and time again.

Ut Videam, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just naive. However, I would ask again that you stay on the topic of the debate. If we’re having a discussion about the effect of low interest asian currencies on American home mortgages, don’t start talking about termite infestation in teak–and then claim that home mortgages are a function of teak quality. If you just stay on track and fashion your arguments accordingly, you’ll do fine.

Ut Videam, you are so out of your league in this debate that you don’t even know what the term market share means.

Wrong and wrong. Next!

Ut Videam, market position and market share are two completely different concepts.

Yes, completely different… except for the little fact that market position is a function of market share. Further, their #4 market share is comparable to (though higher than) many other famous PC makers such as Gateway, Acer, Toshiba, et al. Of course Dell and HP are way ahead of the others. I haven’t denied that for an instant. But Apple’s gaining strongly (viz. their record-breaking Mac sales in the quarter just ended—33 percent growth over the year ago quarter and 150,000 units higher than the previous quarterly record), while the others are stagnant.

Telling the difference between these two concepts is easy, and yet you couldn’t do it.

Wrong, as I’ve just demonstrated. Next!

Furthermore, the margin figures you posted for Apple’s products were for the ipod and iphone, not for the mac.

Wrong again. I didn’t post any margin figures—and Apple does not release margin figures for specific products.. I did state that Apple enjoys extremely high margins across the board—a statement you’re welcome to refute if you can. Oh wait, what’s this? “Gross margin was 36.9 percent, up from 30.3 percent in the year-ago quarter.” You can’t refute it. Never mind.

You’re getting sloppy, Rocco. Not only can’t you keep track of who posted what, you’re utterly failing to address the substance of your opponents’ points. To carry on the motif from above, you’re grasping at straws.

Strawman? No strawman here. The only straw here is the straw in your head.

Anyways.

Ut Videam, you are so out of your league in this debate that you don’t even know what the term market share means.

I told you that Apple has low market share. You responded by underscoring Apple’s number four position in the PC market. Ut Videam, market position and market share are two completely different concepts.

Telling the difference between these two concepts is easy, and yet you couldn’t do it.

Ut Videam, Apple’s market share is below 5% in the PC industry. Less than 5 percent. Furthermore, the margin figures you posted for Apple’s products were for the ipod and iphone, not for the mac. Please don’t confuse your own points.

As for the Meizu, you can be darn sure that the Meizu will be heard from a year later. Apple is able to command high margins because of its coolness factor, but coolness can’t long retain its relevance against a product with superior functionality and lower cost.

Ut Videam, I like you, and I hope that we will continue to debate in the future. I’m sure that there are some issues that we can agree on. However, I think we would all appreciate it if you could keep your terms and arguments straight during debates. Don’t run away from facts. Embrace them.