Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: phranque
After a two-year hiatus Apple has returned to win the 2004 Readers’ Choice Awards for the brand with the most global impact—a title held by Google since 2002. It’s hard to imagine a brand having a shinier year than Apple. Notably punctuated with iMacs, iPods and iTunes, Apple’s 2004 presence was felt in the press, in ads and on the streets, with iPod coming to define the word “ubiquitous.” Coupled with strong revenue, Apple reported a net profit of US$ 295 million in the last quarter of 2004 alone and a 2004 overall net income growth of 300 percent. Yes, 300 percent.
Its all gonna change!
It won't - the reason non-Mac folk bought IPods was due to support for MP3s that did not require people having to have Mac: this is fundamental issue that is still not addressed with Macs -- they are not compatible with majority of software written today, ie for Windows.
If IPods required people to have Macs, then they would never sell as near as well as they did.
As a matter of fact, everyone I know that owns an iPod uses windows.
It a good move for Apple to get into some sort computer appliance business that's windows compatible, they need more niche markets like this.
Apple, a perenial favorite of graphic artists, has long benefited from a bias from many marketing agencies as a result. So, when I see a site put out by an ad agency, with a primary audience of other ad agencies, I'm not shocked to see Apple fair well.
Poking around that site, it has all the earmarks of an overly graphic designed site produced by someone who prolly works on a Mac. Copy text embeded in graphics, overly glossy graphics in general, numerous other small indicators.
That's not to say Apple didn't have a banner year in 2004. I just question the bias of the source.
It their heyday, it approached 4% - it's not even measurable now.
Well, most of us can measure it in our stats :-) A quick check of TheCounter.com shows that they are able to measure Mac use as well.
1. Windows XP: 64.87%
2. Win 98: 14.13%
3. Win 2000: 13.65%
4. Mac: 2.79%
5. Unknown: 2.20%
6. Win NT: 1.17%
7. Win 95: 0.44%
8. Linux: 0.39%
9. Win 3.x: 0.21%
10. Unix: 0.06%
11. WebTV: 0.06%
12. Windows ME: 0.02%
13. OS/2: 0.00%
14. Amiga: 0.00%
Of note... more people use Macs online than Unix, Linux, WebTV, WinME, WinNT, Win95 and Win3.1 combined.
Poking around that site, it has all the earmarks of an overly graphic designed site produced by someone who prolly works on a Mac
No doubt the web site's as colorful as a collection of 20th century iMacs, but did you consider the .asp file extensions? That says "Windows-only web department" pretty clearly to me.
You are confusing browser "statistics" with market share - here's a Mac-centric site with some recent market share data:
Quite true. But market share as a function of the number of computers sold isn't much use outside of financial concerns. Market share in terms of the number of computers in use is far more interesting and relevant to us as web folks. And I've found that Mac folks use their computers longer and then sell them or give them to someone else. Whereas PCs don't seem to have the same life or value once you're done with them. Of course, this is all anecdotal based on the Mac and PC users I know (being a PC user myself).
I posted a story on G News about NYT slamming Google because they have essentially stopped innovating since the IPO talk started, and how everything is still in Beta--ages later.
Between Microsoft and the PC manufacturing world – those stories are told best. Dell, if I may... Tells sells their product quite well to their audience. Imagine what Apple would be like if they really sold their product.
I am Mac user since ][. Apple depends on their consumers to market for them, and tell/sell Apple’s story. So no matter how great a year, popular brand awards, and innovative ideas they invent… They will continue to miss the boat.
Finally…. Mac heads may say “Microsoft ripped off Apple’s ideas…” Maybe they did(n't), but the truth of the matter is Microsoft got the word out and told the world their story and everyone bought in! Apple lost the ball.
Congrats Apple! I guess we won’t hear of anything great until the next Macworld ha ha!
As for Google not winning, other than offering free e-mail(nothing much new there, lotsa places have that) and the IPO, I can't think of anything that significant to the world Google has done in the last year or two. Apple has at least been trying. The iTunes store is a compromise between the downloaders and the big music companies and is pretty successful now, whether or not it is viable long-term. iPod has the portable music market running full speed now, and active competition is always good for us consumers. :) Maybe Google will find something big to do this year.
this is fundamental issue that is still not addressed with Macs -- they are not compatible with majority of software written today, ie for Windows.
Oh goody, this argument. K, enlighten me, please, it would be helpful for me. Gaming aside(it's almost universally agreed on both sides Windows PCs are better for gaming at this point), please explain what software written for Windows does not have a Mac version or a perfectly good equivalent?
Apple TV ad banned in U.K.
Last modified: November 11, 2003, 11:24 AM PST
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
British TV regulators banned an ad for Apple Computer's Power Mac G5, saying its claim to the title "world's fastest personal computer" is not fully supported.
While reviewers initially gave the ad the OK, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) this week decided to take action after receiving eight complaints from viewers. The agency concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to support the claim 'world's fastest, most powerful personal computer.'"
In addition, the commission said that "it shared one viewer's doubt that the claim could be substantiated at all because, as evidence for and against the claim showed, computers are constantly being updated and have many different applications and benchmarks."
The ITC decision means the ad cannot air in its current form, according to a commission representative.
An Apple representative declined to comment on the move.
The company now has a slightly different page for the PowerMac G5 on its U.K. site than it does in the United States. The Apple U.K. page does not have a clip of the TV ad in question and includes an additional footnote qualifying Apple's claim that the G5 is the fastest personal computer.
The performance claims for the G5 have already been a point of contention, as benchmarks often are, with some defending and others criticizing Apple's methods.
Apple cites SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation) benchmark results that show the G5 outperforming a 3GHz Pentium 4-based Dell Dimension 8300 and 3.06GHz Dual Xeon-based Dell Precision 650. The tests were commissioned by Apple but performed by Veritest, an independent testing firm.
Veritest used the same GCC compiler for both machines, with the Dell boxes running the Linux operating system, a move it says allows for the best comparison of hardware performance. Critics charged that higher benchmarks can be achieved using the Windows OS and an Intel-optimized compiler, rather than GCC.
Copyright ©2004 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The claim: www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/ uploads/ADVERTISING_COMPLAINTS_BULLETIN_NO_261.doc
It's not surprising that the Apple ad was deemed to be over-reaching in its claims ... unless you only count Mac, Windows and other low-ball systems as the ONLY personal computers.
What they should have said was "personal computers under US$2,000.00". I work with lots of folks who are running Silicon Graphics PCs (starting at around US$4,500 and going up to over US$15,000) or Sun Microsystems PCs (starting at around US$3,000 and going up to over US$20,000). (PS: Both manufacturers feature proprietary 'Nix derivatives: SGI = Irix and Sun = Solaris or Linux.)
Let's not forget that there are PCs out there that eat Macs and MS boxes for a light snack, when it comes to performance. They just aren't as cheap.
Only graphics, multimedia and a genome test were performed, with only the genome test using the same software on both Macs and non-Macs.
There is no indication of the performance characteristics of the software, which typically is the biggest roadblock to higher performance. If they are trying to point out that different software performs differently, they succeeded.
In addition, Macs have always tested better for math-intensive (processor load) activities like applying Photoshop filters ... and they have nearly always tested WORSE for business-related functions, like manipulating spreadsheets and such.
You will note that they did not go up against any RISC-based systems (like SGI). They only compared their own RISC systems to CISC systems. Hardly fair.
Do you think the folks at Pixar are running Macs to make their movies? Uh uh. SGI.
It's like they compared their 450HP 12-cylinder turbo-driven sports car to a Dodge minivan. Oh well.
Apple's failure is not its product. Apple's failure is the inability to market their products properly.