[lbj]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I wholeheartedly think that the MP3 player market was "mature." The Rio was doing very well, Creative Labs seemed like they couldn't make enough MP3 players, and competition was rampant. A large segment of the population knew about, owned, or planned to buy an MP3 player.

I disagree. Just like what you argue now, at the time of the initial iPod introduction I had a total of 1 friend with an mp3 player. I did not, and did not want one. And my mom, grandma, sister, and pregnant neighbor were pretty much clueless.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple just revolutionized and simplified them with great success.

Concur wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Again, I think that a netbook is a poor replacement for a laptop. A netbook isn't a "smaller laptop." It's a laptop with less power and less features. Uses far less powerful processors. Typically has less memory than other, full-size laptops. Does not include powerful graphics. Uses a lot of embedded (and slower) technology.

And for huge swaths of the population, that is all that is needed. Browser, email, ability to do "Office" like work. No one admits it, but that is all that most need. And actually, it's all that most use. So while the geeks, nerds, and techs will all bash performance, the masses (me included) will be very satisfied with what the MacNet does and how it does it.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple's stock price fluctuates up and down independent of their market share.

Short term, sure. Long term, nope. Provided share allocation isn't thrown in the thrasher, stock price is based on perceived value of the company in aggregate divided by the number of shares. If you keep your margin fixed or improving, the more you sell, the more you make. And the more you make, the more you are worth. And the more you are worth will increase the value of your stock. Short term speculation, under-realization of potential, overly optimistic future projection, calamity, lawsuits, etc will all affect this perceived value in the short term. But long term will always tell the truth. Bubbles don't last, ever. Not in sectors. Not in companies. Not in products. And not in soap suds.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Their stock price was higher when they had less market share, and it's lower now that they have more market share.

You are looking short term. Perception of value always skews the short term. It overinflated the price before and it is undervaluing it now.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Having a bigger slice of the market has nothing to do with stock price. Look at Microsoft... IBM... Google...

I will let you plot out at your convenience each of those companies stock price in relation to market share over the years (again, LONG TERM). Be sure to adjust for stock splits. No need to report back, I know what you will find.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple didn't squirrel away 15 billion dollars by selling -- that's a gross misunderstanding of how Apple was able to eliminate all their debt and put away billions in cash.

No it's not. It's a gross misunderstanding to think Apple payed back debt without cash flow.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

It had to do with refining the pipeline that exists between the different channels involved in creating a computer -- the manufacturing of it, the shipping of it and how to eliminate stagnant stock sitting in warehouses (hint: it wasn't by selling the stagnant stock), etc.

You can have the most efficient product pipeline in the world. Let's say one that involved zero costs. Resources were free, energy free, workers free, R&D free...you get the idea. You will still not make one penny if you can't/don't sell what comes out the other end. And without making that penny, you cannot pay down your debt let alone build up cash. Efficiency is awesome, but meaningless without sales.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple got rid of their debt long before their computers were flying off the shelves, and it had little-to-nothing to do with the volume of computers they sold.

It had everything to do with the number of computers sold times the profit margin built into each unit. Period. Dot.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I don't think you think that. I think that you think that the percentage of the population that is interested in a netbook is much higher than it is actually.

And that truly is the core of our disagreement.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Soccer moms and grandmothers know damn well what an iPod and an iPhone are, and know that they're in demand. Try saying "netbook" to them, though, and more often than not, they won't know what it is nor will they have seen one.

But I can tell you from personal experience, when they do see mine, I get non-stop questions and admiration. And as a personal aside, two friends, both recently delivered first child, both immediately got netbooks to replace older, clunkier laptops to carry about in the stroller. Sure, n=2, statistically worthless but I bring it up just the same. And as mentioned, when the iPod first came out I was surrounded in a sea of ignorance and/or indifference.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I am positive that when Apple does some form of netbook, it will be both "cool" and have the broad appeal that the rest of their consumer-level products have.

Agree wholeheartedly. Why can't that be now?

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

The PowerMac was the first computer to use a phenomenally more powerful processor (and a new type of processor). Pretty revolutionary for the time. All at a time when companies were touting "megahertz!" -- Apple came along and crushed that myth with a processor that was more efficient and faster than an Intel processor at a higher speed.

Revolutionary: when people were stuck thinking that speed was everything, Apple came along and taught them different.

Crushed that myth amongst the nerds. The masses still think hertz rules. And megapixels--but that’s a different story for a different day.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

The iMac revolutionized a lot of things: the all-in-one computer, the first computer geared toward getting you on the internet quickly, and the proliferation of the USB standard.

No all in one before the iMac? From anyone, not even Apple? No revolution, sorry. The first "cute" computer? Yes. They won that hands down. And I don't mean that derisively, it caused the masses to take notice and take a closer look.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I see "revolutionary" as someone/thing approaching an existing thing and improving on it in a way that no one else can -- I hope we can agree that the scrollwheel was genius, and it wasn't like there were a bunch of companies racing to get their scrollwheel out first. Apple did it and blindsided the industry, and everyone rushed to copy it because they were upset to know that it was something they would have never though of.

Yes. I hand that one to you. The scrollwheel was huge--I was wrong to neglect it.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple is not just hardware. Not just software. It's the integration of the two. The iPhone is a beautiful piece of equipment where the software and hardware blend together perfectly. So is the range of iPods.

Agree. Agree. Agree. A slick MacNet with the same OS we know and love would hold the same beauty currently felt/experienced in the MacBook or Pro.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Go use a Zune for a day. Or a Sony walkman MP3 player. Tell me that the hardware is the "same" as an iPod. Tell me the software works as well as the iPod software. Sure, the hardware is all metal, plastic and glass, just like any other, and the software is all bits and bytes not unlike any other software, but it goes beyond that.

It's not that they use exotic materials, or funky shapes, or even software that is proprietary. It's the way they can integrate it all with elegance and intelligence, and bring what was once cumbersome and clunky to an elegant level that the majority of the population can understand, use, and be productive with.

Believe it or not, I concur. The overall experience (hardware AND software integration) is revolutionary. The physical product, while seemingly always beautiful, is generally not revolutionary in the physical sense.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Then we disagree. I think you're wishing for the moon if you want to see a $650 Apple-branded "netbook" before the end of the year. The current iPhone costs close to that. The Mac mini costs close to that.

Yes. This is where my desire/argument will fail. Not that there isn't a netbook coming by year's end, but that it will be so expensive (ala Cube or Air) that folks will shrug and walk away.