[ElDiabloConCaca]

If we keep quoting each other, no one else will read this. I'll reply more selectively now, but concur that over the long term, stock price tends to go up as a company gains market share -- but will not concur that market share is the main influence in a stock price's upward movement... a company can both gain market share while stock prices go down. They are not "linked at the hip."

And I do think that MP3 players were more common than netbooks are now, comparatively. MP3 players were a natural transition from tape players and CD players (tapes -> CDs -> MP3 CDs -> MP3 players), and the market had matured enough and very well-known outside of the "geek" circle. So much so that they were encroaching on "mainstream."

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.

I found that each of these companies' stock increased as the level of carbon monoxide in our atmosphere increased. Coincidence?

I also found Microsoft's stock increased in price steadily, as did Apple's, much of the time coinciding. Does that mean that both were gaining market share at the same time, somehow pushing the maximum past 100%?

I'll agree that market share does good for a company's stock, but that's how it happens and is not a set-in-stone rule. Downsizing, specializing and segmenting also can drive the perceived stock value up. Just because a company's stock goes up does not mean that the company must be gaining market share -- and, just because a company is gaining market share does not mean that the stock price will magically go up.

I'll concur that perceived value can drive stock worth skyward, but there are many ways that a company can perform in order to increase that perceived value... one of which is expanding.

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

You don't have to have magnificent sales in order to pay down debt. Apple didn't have magnificent sales until their debt was already being paid down -- from $1 billion in the mid-90s to under $300 million in 2004.

Yes, sales are required, but not exponential growth. If Apple would have continued with Gil Amelio's convoluted computer lineup and the excess of stock in the warehouses, only an unachievable amount of sales would have saved Apple.

Answering, "How did Apple become debt-free?" with, "They sold more computers," is looking only at the tip of the iceberg. The sales were the end result of everything before it. Apple could have kept their sales exactly constant, while doing everything else (making the assembly/delivery/sales pipeline much, much, much more efficient, in turn reducing the backlog of stock) and still paid off their debt. Efficient pipelines make for more profit, and more profit allows you to pay off debt. Again, I think it's a stretch to entangle the concept of higher numbers of sales with paying off debt.

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.

I'll give you that, but not everything that everyone is interested in is going to sell. Interest drums up publicity, but publicity does not correlate to sales. It has to be a product that appeals to people not only for the "ooh, look, what's that? Interesting! Tell me about it!" factor, but for the, "wow, I need one of those," factor. I don't see that with netbooks. I see the "golly, gee, that's cool! What is it?" but I don't see the, "wow, I should totally get a smaller laptop because it is a better fit for my needs," a whole lot.

And as mentioned, when the iPod first came out I was surrounded in a sea of ignorance and/or indifference.

It didn't take long for it to catch on -- as soon as word got out, it was a hit. Everyone likes music. If you ask 100 people, "What is your favorite kind of music?" you will probably get 0 responses of, "I don't like music." The iPod just reinforced people's love of music and made it easy to take tons of it on the go.

I don't see that kind of thing happening with netbooks -- what do people need on-the-go that a laptop or an iPhone don't already satisfy? Would it be possible to simply improve on the iPhone or laptop instead of adding another category to the product lineup that does exactly what the iPhone and the laptop already do?

Agree wholeheartedly. Why can't that be now?

I thought we went over this... market's not right... hehe...

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

...but Apple got them to question the myth, and people's minds opened up to that "computer they were always interested in but too scared to make the leap." The Intel-burning commercials, remember? It was revolutionary technology that tackled a myth head-on, with some degree of success. If anything, it made people more critical of the megahertz myth.

No all in one before the iMac? From anyone, not even Apple?

Huh? I never said, nor did I ever even imply that the iMac was the very first all-in-one computer. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that the iMac revolutionized the all-in-one concept. I said, "first computer designed to get you on the internet quickly." And my entire argument from the onset of this was that Apple is rarely, if ever, the "first" to market with a new product -- they're all about entering an already mature market and improving on what they see as shortcomings of existing products, and a lot of the time, revolutionizing the way people view and what they expect out of those products.

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.

...so if it delivers nothing more than a MacBook or MacBook Pro, it's just smaller, where does that fit in with the current product lineup?

Again, hey, that would be cool and I'd love to have one. Obviously, you would too. I just don't think there are enough people like us to justify that kind of endeavor for Apple within the next 6 months. Sure, we can find thousands of people in tech forums and Apple fan-boy sites to think that there are enough out there, but that's a skewed representation of the actual population and whom Apple markets to.

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.

Agreed -- the use of plastic and/or metal is what computer cases are built from, both from cheap-o knock off computer companies and Apple themselves. It's how they use it that is revolutionary. A pencil can be used by a grade-schooler and it can also be used by Michelangelo.

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.

Well, you know that whatever the price is, it will probably be worth it, and both you and I will go into severe debt and/or put ourselves in harm's way to get our hands on one.