Hi, John.
Thank you for the civil reply. I agree with you that this thread
risks wandering, so I will respond very briefly to all your points by
saying three things. First, I do not deny that OSX has been increasing
in market share for some years. I am just saying that, despite this
increase, it still runs significantly behind Windows in the developed
world and very significantly behind Windows worldwide. Obviously, I
make no predictions about the future.
Secondly, the numbers I quoted in my last message came both from data
about sales and data of web usage. I also gave the numbers a wide
margin of error. That is, the numbers I have read, if my memory has
not gone back on me, are on the low end of the ranges I gave for them.
Finally, the fact that Apple is the only seller of the operating
systems is just the problem I have been talking about. If they allowed
the product to be used by other manufacturers, I very probably
wouldn't be complaining so loudly about lack of adaptability, and
their market share might be significantly competitive.
I think that deals with most of the issues you raise, my apologies if
I've skimped.
Aman
On 4/30/11, John Panarese <jpanar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not exactly true, though I fear the subject of this thread is
> starting to drift far astray. It is going to start getting a bit
> complicated if I were to explain to you the several marketing factors that
> make your asserted numbers very misleading. Yes, without a doubt, the share
> of OS X users compared to other operating systems, and that, by the way,
> incorporates more than just Windows users, is significantly smaller, but,
> again, you have to actually start to look at the numbers and break downs to
> see the shifts over the last 5 years alone.
>
> Also keep in mind that Apple is one company making the operating system
> and manufacturing the hardware. How many PC companies are out there
> competing against Apple and are forced to put Windows on to their systems by
> their agreements with Microsoft? Not to mention, how many other different
> operating systems, aside from OS X and Windows are often included when
> people start tossing around "market share" numbers? It gets way too complex
> and, again, this subject will start to drift into something far out of hand.
>
> Suffice it to say, examining overall trends worldwide over the last 5
> years clearly demonstrates that Mac OS X is swiftly gaining ground as, by
> way of comparison, Windows is shrinking. Remember that while Apples 48
> percent of laptop market share this passed year and 25 percent of desktop
> sales equals OS X users. Additionally, a lot of these surveys used to
> generate percentages does not consider the number of people who are running
> both Mac and Windows simultaneously in their house. And, of course, how
> many people are forced to use Windows at work, but use Macs at home. Then,
> of course, what the iPad has done and will continue to do to desktop and
> laptop sales figures also is a statistic that has not fully been grasped,
> especially when the iPad is actually running on OS X.
>
> Lastly, as a final fact that is often not addressed, one of the major
> differences between Apple and Microsoft in market data is how sales are
> counted. Apple only considers actual sales and activations by the end user
> in their numbers. Microsoft counts anything shipped to retail stores as
> "sales". In other words, they don't consider how much inventory goes unsold
> and gathers dust on shelves, as was the case with the Zune, Windows Vista
> and as currently occurring with Windows Phone 7 handsets, Also, how many
> people take Windows off their PCs, laptops or net books after the sale to
> use Linux or another alternative. No matter how you slice it, the trend
> over the last 5 years shows that Windows use is decreasing while Mac OS X
> usage is growing rapidly. When Windows has owned the planet for some 15
> years prior, breaking down that mammoth volume is not an immediate figure as
> it stands on its own.
>
> Anyway, folks, my apologies for wandering.
>
> On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Aman Singer wrote:
>
>> Hi, Scott.
>> Let me first thank you for a civil reply. I am grateful for your
>> answering my message without a hint of emotionalism and without trying
>> to defend any particular technology or option in a sharp way. I think
>> my reply to Tim deals with everything below except for one matter, and
>> that is market share.
>> You say
>> APple has not failed at all and in
>>> fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers
>>> speak for themselves
>>
>> With respect, I think the numbers indicate that Apple is a very
>> successful tablet and music player maker, a successful phone maker, a
>> fairly successful hardware maker, and a failure as an operating system
>> development company. So far as I know, Apple has yet to hit the ten
>> percent mark in operating system usage, and is significantly below
>> that worldwide. Even in the United States, their home territory, their
>> operating system usage is still somewhere between ten and twenty
>> percent, so far as I know. This indicates that, though they have
>> improved, they are still very far behind Microsoft. The fact that a
>> student has progressed from getting 10% on an examination to getting
>> 35%, while creditable, does not mean he is passing the course, still
>> less that he is doing very well. I have no financial or emotional
>> investment in Apple or any other OS company. I am just noting what I
>> see, and what I see is that Apple is still doing fairly badly in OS
>> usage, even after a great deal of hype and a long period of
>> improvement. My conclusion, based on the evidence I've put up in my
>> other messages on this thread, is that some of this is due to their
>> product not being as adaptable as the other OS products.
>> Aman
>>
>> scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Aman,
>>>
>>> For The best thing is you have choice. APple has not failed at all and in
>>> fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers
>>> speak for themselves and based on that it is apparent many feel the Mac
>>> is a
>>> worthwhile investment. I understand your point concerning a mobile
>>> solution
>>> and you want something that is cheap, so if it is stolen or damaged, you
>>> are
>>> out hundreds instead of a $1,000 etc. That works for you and You are
>>> correct
>>> that a computer is a tool, but in purchasing any tool, you have to
>>> consider
>>> your needs and what you are willing to invest in the tool. An inexpensive
>>> machine might be perfect for you when traveling etc., and again you have
>>> choice, which is great. However, if you have the money or are willing to
>>> make the investment in a more expensive tool because it will better meet
>>> your needs, then at least you have options. I could not disagree more
>>> though
>>> that APple has failed to consider consumers. If that were the case they
>>> would not be in the position they are today. Is Bose wrong for charging
>>> what
>>> they do for their products? THey charge more for headphones etc. then
>>> most
>>> manufacturers, but there is again even in this space a price point to fit
>>> all budgets. Bose however charges what they believe is a reasonable price
>>> for their product and this holds true for APple. Just because someone
>>> cannot
>>> afford or wishes to spend the money does not mean the company has failed.
>>> Does this make sense?
>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Aman Singer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Carolyn and all.
>>>> I do not use a Mac for two reasons. The first, and most important,
>>>> has nothing to do with this thread, but a second, and almost equally
>>>> important reason is one which Carolyn's message below hints at.
>>>> Carolyn writes
>>>> The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent
>>>> specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC
>>>> machines. And there's
>>>> a good reason. They're worth more.
>>>>
>>>> I think they are worth more. That's not to say that they're worth
>>>> what is being charged for them, but if you're saying that a Mac is
>>>> worth more than most netbooks, I absolutely agree. The problem with
>>>> Apple is, though, that they don't realize that technology needs to be
>>>> adaptable to be taken up by a large number of people. I want a very
>>>> good desktop and an adequate laptop. That's because I want to carry my
>>>> laptop around with me everywhere. I want it light and I don't want to
>>>> worry about damaging it, losing it, etc. I can use my powerful desktop
>>>> remotely and everything works well. A $300 netbook is just the thing
>>>> for me. No Mac is. The wonderful thing about both Windows and Linux is
>>>> that they are so adaptable. Your $250 netbook runs Windows, and your
>>>> $1000 laptop runs Windows, and your $2500 desktop runs Windows. Your
>>>> plug PC costing $50 runs Linux and your $500 laptop Runs Linux and
>>>> your $2500 desktop runs Linux. Obviously, I could say more, but I'm
>>>> speaking strictly as a consumer. Anyhow, this is where Apple fails.
>>>> Their products are adaptable over a narrow range. For many
>>>> circumstances, what you want is simply something that will do the job
>>>> cheaply and reasonably, and that usually isn't a Mac. Sometimes you
>>>> want the fastest/best components on the market and here, again, Apple
>>>> fails because of its stringency. For example, SSDs were available for
>>>> other computers for nearly a year before they were available for the
>>>> Mac. I think what Brant is pointing out here isn't that the Mac is too
>>>> expensive for what you get, though that may well be true, but is too
>>>> rigidly expensive for certain users, and too rigidly cheap for others.
>>>> The fact that he finds the prices high is just a symptom, the disease,
>>>> if I may be so fanciful, is that a Mac machine doesn't adapt to his
>>>> situation. If you want the very high-end or the somewhat/very low-end,
>>>> you don't want a new Mac. If you want to spread your money
>>>> differently, spending more on certain components and less on others,
>>>> you don't want a Mac at all. Of course, that also means that your
>>>> skill set on a Mac, and this is particularly as an AT user, isn't as
>>>> useful because it isn't used on as many devices and at as many
>>>> locations.
>>>> Now, you may argue that all of the above is well and good for the
>>>> ordinary user but that it doesn't apply to the blind user because of
>>>> the cost of screen readers and other at. The cost savings, though, on
>>>> AT, have been somewhat exaggerated, in my view. They apply most
>>>> obviously to a person who has never bought a screen reader or other AT
>>>> before, and who wants something a bit more complicated than NVDA. This
>>>> person saves money, and gets capability, with the Mac. Others don't
>>>> save money quickly, don't save it at all, or take a cut in capability
>>>> when they buy a Mac. An example of where the financial savings take
>>>> quite a while to kick in is where people have already purchased a
>>>> screen reader, Say Jaws or Window Eyes, and are purchasing a Mac
>>>> rather than purchasing an SMA. Depending on the cost of the Mac and
>>>> the SMA, their savings may not kick in for anywhere from 2-5 years.
>>>> Again, people who want multiple computers, even if it is two machines,
>>>> can, because they need only purchase the screen reader once, end up
>>>> spending less on the Windows option over all. The more computers you
>>>> have, the more the cost of a screen reader purchase is wiped out by
>>>> cheaper hardware. Again, people who run Windows for any reason do not
>>>> save money except possibly for upgrade costs in their screen reader.
>>>> Again, people who want fairly simple computing can buy a netbook, use
>>>> NVDA, and save large amounts of money compared to those who buy a Mac.
>>>> My point, as if I haven't belaboured it enough, is that the Mac is not
>>>> adaptable in the same way the PC is, and that what I hear from those
>>>> who say that "the Mac costs more because it's better than Windows
>>>> Machines", ignores the further question "Why should I care if I don't
>>>> need to pay for a better machine?".
>>>> Note that where Apple has been really successful, they have brought
>>>> out devices which either push forward a category in its infancy (the
>>>> iPad and iPod), or fit into a fairly narrow category (iPhone). They
>>>> haven't been general purpose, like PCs are.
>>>> I should say that I know about, but completely ignore, the cool/other
>>>> emotional factors in buying any computer. I understand that people buy
>>>> the Mac because they feel that they're supporting accessibility, or
>>>> that buying mainstream technology rather than specialized access
>>>> technology is somehow important/beneficial, or that they like Apple's
>>>> design philosophy, or that their friends have Macs, and so on. I
>>>> acknowledge that these are reasons for some people, they're just not
>>>> reasons for me. I am not emotionally invested in any platform or
>>>> computer, a computer is a tool, and the only questions that matters to
>>>> me is what can it do and how much does it cost? It seems to me that
>>>> the Mac is still on the high-cost end of the curve, and that its
>>>> capabilities do not justify the premium charged by Apple which, as I
>>>> understand Brandt, is what he is saying.
>>>> Aman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/29/11, carolyn Haas <chaas0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Brandt:
>>>>> Couldn't disagree with this point of view more. First you're comparing
>>>>> Apples and raspberries.:)
>>>>> The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent
>>>>> specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC
>>>>> machines.
>>>>> And there's a good reason. They're worth more.
>>>>> Secondly: you're buying mainstream technology, and not having to fork
>>>>> out
>>>>> the price of a second machine just to get it to talk. Voiceover is
>>>>> built
>>>>> into the system, not as an adaptation of the system.
>>>>> As such, Vo is intended to give the VI Mac user a more accurate picture
>>>>> of
>>>>> the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, even at $299, if docuscan works as well as we're hoping it
>>>>> does,
>>>>> it's still a third of the price of your krzweil or openbook programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I believe when you buy a Mac, you get what you pay for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carolyn
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:33 AM, brandt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, $299 is a fair bit of money, but how many actually went and
>>>>>> bought
>>>>>> open Book or something similar back when ever for 3 ore 4 times more?
>>>>>> My
>>>>>> biggest complaint is not the cost of software but the ridiculous
>>>>>> prices
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Mac computers. I can and probably will go the Hakintosh route just
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brandt Steenkamp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you like country, oldies and the occasional modern track, you can
>>>>>> tune
>>>>>> in to my show, "an Eclectic mess" every Wednesday afternoon at 3 PM
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> going to www.TheGlobalVoice.info
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contact me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skype: brandt.steenkamp007
>>>>>> MSN: brandt...@live.com
>>>>>> Google talk/AIM: brandt.steenk...@gmail.com
>>>>>> Twitter @brandtsteenkamp
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: E.J. Zufelt
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: For those who can actually afford this, DocuScan Plus is
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> on the mac app store.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know nothing at all about this app. But, I suspect that a
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> portion of the cost is related to licencing a OCR SDK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everett Zufelt
>>>>>> http://zufelt.ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow me on Twitter
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> View my LinkedIn Profile
>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-04-28, at 10:05 PM, Matthew Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Listers.
>>>>>>> DocuScan is now mac compatible and can be found on the mac app store.
>>>>>>> Don't get too excited though, unless you have $299.00 to burn on it.
>>>>>>> Hope this actually benefits someone.
>>>>>>> the Infuriated Matt Campbell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>> Groups
>>>>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups
>>>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit this group
>>>>>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups
>>>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups
>>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
