FY09 Strategic Update

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:07:07 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:16:03 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:05:42 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:10:26 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:15:43 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

两个Memo

apple4us — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:28:36 GMT

本文译自 John Gruber 的《Memoranda》苹果和微软多年来都是理想的对比研究对象。最...

Armchair CEO - beezhouse.com

Armchair CEO - beezhouse.com — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:13:31 GMT

Pingback from Armchair CEO - beezhouse.com

ZDNet.de IT-Business-Blog » Blog Archiv » Steve contra Steve: E-Mails an die Belegschaft

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:03:36 GMT

Pingback from ZDNet.de IT-Business-Blog » Blog Archiv » Steve contra Steve: E-Mails an die Belegschaft

scottberkun.com » How not to set goals: Steve Ballmer, a case study

scottberkun.com » How not to set goals: Steve Ballmer, a case study — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:38:26 GMT

Pingback from scottberkun.com » How not to set goals: Steve Ballmer, a case study

Steamd » Blog Archive » Steve vs Steve

Steamd » Blog Archive » Steve vs Steve — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:32:15 GMT

Pingback from Steamd » Blog Archive » Steve vs Steve

News » ??? Memoranda

News » ??? Memoranda — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:09:58 GMT

Pingback from News » ??? Memoranda

re: FY09 Strategic Update

johnpapola — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:46:35 GMT

@Mike,

Here's the problem with that. Jobs is the CEO of a public company whose endgame is delivering value to shareholders. He's done that like nobody's business. He's also established Apple as the new Sony with the iPod this decade's walkman selling 10+ million per quarter (in the slow quarters). The guy has tripled the revenue and profit of Apple, man and vaulted their market cap ahead of market leaders like Dell and Intel. That's huge success. Absolutely, astoundingly huge. Period.

Blame momentum and network effects for the continued downward slide (As well as being on a "non-standard" powerpc platform) of the Mac after Job's return.

As for why 3% in 1997 being near death... it's all about derivatives. Remember calculus? Rates of change? In 1997, the graph was heading in the wrong direction (down). Now, it's heading in the right direction and is being supported by Job's other efforts in the iPod and iPhone, providing their own network effects among consumers.

Mike, you really need to get a handle on you love of worldwide share (as does paul). The stat simply doesn't make any sense to discuss and doing so makes you look like a hack. You do realize that tens of millions of PCs sold every year go on shelves as POS systems, in factories as single-purpose boxes, hospitals as single-purpose boxes, corporate desktops where they only run office and intranet web apps... and on and on and on.

Computers are very broad, diverse devices that serve nearly every market on earth. There isn't one computer market. It doesn't exist. There are many many markets for computers and most of them do not relate to each other. Aggregating all the diverse and unrelated markets into one number is a pissing contest with no use except trend watching. I just don't know why this indisputable reality is so hard for so many of you to understand.

Consumers should care about consumer share. Consumer software companies certainly do. Adobe doesn't care how many computers get used at check-out counters... why do you?

re: FY09 Strategic Update

mikegalos@msn.com — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:42:08 GMT

Subzero

The difference between my numbers and the ones you listed for Paul were that mine were 2007FY. Paul's were half 2007 and half 2008 to talk about the latest quarter.

My point is this:

In the period while Jobs was at NeXT, the incompetent Apple management team managed to drop them from a major industry force with almost 20% share down to a niche product with 3.2% of the market.

In a decade of Steve Jobs' "brilliant and innovative" leadership, he managed to have it drop even more (or, if you pick and choose years, at best, kept it at the same dismal level)

I'm not saying don't buy a Mac. I'm saying don't praise Apple leadership where it isn't deserved.

re: FY09 Strategic Update

subzerohitman721 — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:23:47 GMT

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Subzerohitman721

I do wonder how you reconcile these two data points:

Apple Worldwide Market Share - 1997 - 3.2% - "Apple [is] dying"

Apple Worldwide Market Share - 2007 - 2.9% - "Apple [is] in the midst of a full revival

0.3% drop in share in a decade changes them from "dying" to being in a "full revival"?

Since Apple's quite likely to get 3.2% share for 2008 and equal their 1997 share even with their analysts warnings this week does that mean they're "dying" again?

My Comments:

Mike, I can reconcile those data points by this. First, Paul's report on the state of Mac's Worldwide numbers.

community.winsupersite.com/.../mac-worldwide-market-share-hits-3-5-percent-in-q2-2008.aspx

Q2 2008: 3.50 percent

Q1 2008: 3.26 percent

Q4 2007: 3.12 percent

Q3 2007: 3.19 percent

Now either Paul's numbers are wrong or yours. I tend to give Paul more credence in this department.

Second, clearly there is a pop cultural increase in Apple's visibility as a platform. There's no way Apple would be making the profits and reporting them if people weren't buying them. Falsifying profit and earnings reports is a federal offense, that would bring the wrath of the SEC and other government agencies.

I understand the need to challenge for honest discourse. However, I think you are being a little bit unfair here. Clearly there has been a renewed interest in the Apple plat form of computing. Just because it's not as large as Microsoft's, doesn't mean its completely and utterly irrelevant. The approximately 25 million Apple computer users have a right to express themselves and have some pride in their platform. What I rail against is the marketing hyperbole, vitriolic anger of the extreme Mac fans at Windows users, and plain false information. To insist that the platform and the user base is stale, isn't consistent with the facts that I keep reading.

Before I ever was a Windows user, I used Macs on a regular basis. I can see why people buy it. My problem with Macs today is the price point. Other than that I think its a rock solid platform for those who consent to purchasing them. There's a lot of good people who use Macs and they shouldn't be damned for their choice. Last I checked in the United States, we still do have that right in a free market economy?

re: FY09 Strategic Update

Yawn! — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:59:00 GMT

@RaaJ

>>% marketshare is 3% marketshare. It is black and white.

The only thing about market share that is black and white is that it = 100%.

Nothing more and nothing less.

In this case market share only shows how all the combine computer makers are doing all together and against each other from a period of time to a period of time. Market share is variable and changes from Q to Q in this market.

Mike used an old trick used by old politicians, sleazy stock brokers, and religious zealots (I am not stating he is any of these). He was implying that market share determines the health (Financial) of a company.

One only needs to know the margins and # of units sold vs. expenses to determine the health of a company at any time. You can find these answer in any companies 10q's and 10k's.

Feel free to look back at the history behind his question and you will find this to be the case. Here are two quick links:

www.time.com/.../0,9171,990642,00.html

arstechnica.com/.../8

The only way to measure the health of a company in any given market is to know the # of units sold and the margin per unit.

Yawn!

(Windows 7, SP1)