Hi all,

Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
Leopard installed?
Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
how these fair during updates, any surprises?

Much thanks in advance.

Regards,
TMT

In article 
<ac00b781-4dd3-4bb3-98a1-d7112f888f8c@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
 Thundercleets <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> Leopard installed?

Nope.  I don't buy shit.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article 
<ac00b781-4dd3-4bb3-98a1-d7112f888f8c@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
 Thundercleets <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> Leopard installed?
> Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
> Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
> how these fair during updates, any surprises?

There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web sites 
(such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered but 
there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints that 
it's a loud box.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

> > Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> > Leopard installed?
> > Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?

Nothing. They use Gigabyte motherboards - very common - and very low 
end.  Only 2 ram slots on the $399 model.  

> > Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
> > how these fair during updates, any surprises?
> 
> There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web sites 
> (such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered but 
> there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
> installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints that 
> it's a loud box.

Actually Psystar just released a service pack. Yesterday I think.
If you want a "Psystar" just Google the parts and buy them.  You'll have 
something close to a Mac Pro for 20% of the cost.  Just don't expect 
thing to be "seemless".  Its more like a voyage...:)

In article <noemailhere-A0BAFC.14514023052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> > > Leopard installed?
> > > Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
> 
> Nothing. They use Gigabyte motherboards - very common - and very low 
> end.  Only 2 ram slots on the $399 model.  
> 
> > > Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
> > > how these fair during updates, any surprises?
> > 
> > There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web sites 
> > (such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered but 
> > there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
> > installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints that 
> > it's a loud box.
> 
> Actually Psystar just released a service pack. Yesterday I think.

Saw that not terribly long after I posted. Seems to me they're heading 
further down the road of violating Apple's licenses. I'll be quite 
surprised (actually outright baffled) if they don't get squashed in 
short order. Might be that Apple's current silence is in the line of 
making sure they have enough rope to hang themselves.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

> > > > Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> > > > Leopard installed?
> > > > Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
> > 
> > Nothing. They use Gigabyte motherboards - very common - and very low 
> > end.  Only 2 ram slots on the $399 model.  
> > 
> > > > Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
> > > > how these fair during updates, any surprises?
> > > 
> > > There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web sites 
> > > (such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered but 
> > > there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
> > > installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints that 
> > > it's a loud box.
> > 
> > Actually Psystar just released a service pack. Yesterday I think.
> 
> Saw that not terribly long after I posted. Seems to me they're heading 
> further down the road of violating Apple's licenses. I'll be quite 
> surprised (actually outright baffled) if they don't get squashed in 
> short order. Might be that Apple's current silence is in the line of 
> making sure they have enough rope to hang themselves.

Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
sell it for $129.  The world is going to be ready soon for Apple's next 
big step.  In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
more to business, technical and gaming.  With Parallels constantly 
improving, and file systems getting better and more compatible, we may 
someday have a file system that is both readable and writeable in both 
Windows and OS X.  Wouldn't that be wonderful.  Then both Apple and 
Windows wins.  In the future, it might just be an expected standard to 
run both OS's.

In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> What an amazing concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar 
> (actually WAY less), then sell it for $129.

You forget the costs of labor and infrastructure to develop what is on 
that DVD.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
> your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
> more to business, technical and gaming.

Two because business, technical and gaming have a lot in common?

In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  

That's comically improbable. Have you learned nothing from history??  Or 
maybe you just haven't been around long enough to see it unfold? 

If Apple has taught us anything through the years, it's that limiting 
(controlling) the number of hardware configurations on which Mac OS runs 
improves the entire computing experience in ways other operating system 
makers can never achieve. Apple cares about the computing experience 
more than anything.

> After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  

Correction: Microsoft made its billions by borrowing and stealing to 
create mediocre operating systems. 

How many times must you be told this?:  

     Apple doesn't aspire to create crap.

> What an amazing 
> concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> sell it for $129.  

Shit! If all it takes to create an operating system is a DVD burner, why 
aren't *you* doing it?!  Heck - you could make billions!

> The world is going to be ready soon for Apple's next 
> big step.  

Actually, history has shown the world is often not ready at all for 
Apple's next big steps:

     * Newton
     * QuickTake
     * complete absence of floppy drives in a computer
     * exclusive USB ports in a computer for peripherals
     * Firewire
     * iPod
     * iPhone
     ... this will continue as time goes on ...

> In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
> your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
> more to business, technical and gaming.  With Parallels constantly 
> improving, and file systems getting better and more compatible, we may 
> someday have a file system that is both readable and writeable in both 
> Windows and OS X.  Wouldn't that be wonderful.  Then both Apple and 
> Windows wins.  In the future, it might just be an expected standard to 
> run both OS's.

I hope you're wrong.  IMO, Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by 
taking the consumer market by storm. What we are seeing, particularly 
with the iPhone, but also with Macs, is the direction of the business 
market is pushed by consumers in a huge way these days more than ever. 

Look at what's happening with the iPhone. Corporations are scrambling to 
support the iPhone not because iPhones make good business sense, but 
because employees want them! Employees want them because they are 
fucking cool. Apple has appealed to consumers, and consumers are the 
driving force behind business adoption. 

This trend will continue, IMO. The way I see it, Windows is today's 
Classic - nothing more than a stopgap solution that will eventually go 
away. I see much greater things in the future for Mac OS X than you 
apparently do.  : )

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> > > > > Leopard installed?
> > > > > Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
> > > 
> > > Nothing. They use Gigabyte motherboards - very common - and very low 
> > > end.  Only 2 ram slots on the $399 model.  
> > > 
> > > > > Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was wondering
> > > > > how these fair during updates, any surprises?
> > > > 
> > > > There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web sites 
> > > > (such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered but 
> > > > there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
> > > > installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints that 
> > > > it's a loud box.
> > > 
> > > Actually Psystar just released a service pack. Yesterday I think.
> > 
> > Saw that not terribly long after I posted. Seems to me they're heading 
> > further down the road of violating Apple's licenses. I'll be quite 
> > surprised (actually outright baffled) if they don't get squashed in 
> > short order. Might be that Apple's current silence is in the line of 
> > making sure they have enough rope to hang themselves.
> 
> Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> sell it for $129.

You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
upgrades.


G

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

> > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> 
> If Apple has taught us anything through the years, it's that limiting 
> (controlling) the number of hardware configurations on which Mac OS runs 
> improves the entire computing experience in ways other operating system 
> makers can never achieve. Apple cares about the computing experience 
> more than anything.

So they pick a chipset and release it for that particular chipset.  All 
the major motherboard manufacturers can produce it.  Or just licence it 
to one manufacturer then.  It would still a good level of consistency.  
Do the same for video cards.  You don't need to offer a thousand 
different models.  But if they offered, say 3-5 models it would keep 
support at tolerable levels and give 99% of the public a great choice.  
And they would sell a ton more copies of OS X.  Especially as its priced 
so much lower than Vista.
 
> > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  
> 
> Correction: Microsoft made its billions by borrowing and stealing to 
> create mediocre operating systems. 

But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in 
hundreds of times that when selling it.
 
> How many times must you be told this?:  
> Apple doesn't aspire to create crap.

LOL....I would differ when looking at my Mini....!  

> > What an amazing 
> > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > sell it for $129.  
> 
> Shit! If all it takes to create an operating system is a DVD burner, why 
> aren't *you* doing it?!  Heck - you could make billions!

I meant (obviously) that once the R&D has been done, the costs for 
producing that DVD and putting it in a little package are pennies. 
 
> > In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
> > your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
> > more to business, technical and gaming.  With Parallels constantly 
> > improving, and file systems getting better and more compatible, we may 
> > someday have a file system that is both readable and writeable in both 
> > Windows and OS X.  Wouldn't that be wonderful.  Then both Apple and 
> > Windows wins.  In the future, it might just be an expected standard to 
> > run both OS's.
> 
> I hope you're wrong.  IMO, Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by 
> taking the consumer market by storm. What we are seeing, particularly 
> with the iPhone, but also with Macs, is the direction of the business 
> market is pushed by consumers in a huge way these days more than ever. 

I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
hardware is the greatest block to that.  It stops the cheaper people 
because its too expensive and it stops the high end people because its 
not good enough.  Or if they can outfit a Mac Pro to their wishes it 
costs far more than it would if doing the same the normal way in the PC 
world - buy the parts you need for a reasonable amount upgrading only 
when you need to.  
 
> Look at what's happening with the iPhone. Corporations are scrambling to 
> support the iPhone not because iPhones make good business sense, but 
> because employees want them! Employees want them because they are 
> fucking cool. Apple has appealed to consumers, and consumers are the 
> driving force behind business adoption. 
> 
> This trend will continue, IMO. The way I see it, Windows is today's 
> Classic - nothing more than a stopgap solution that will eventually go 
> away. I see much greater things in the future for Mac OS X than you 
> apparently do.  : )

And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use the 
iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once again 
Apple has only got a sliver of the market.  

But the OS is far more important to a world needing computer efficiency.  
The iPhone is more or less a toy.  An OS runs your life.  If it crashes, 
and does stupid things it costs you time and money.  For the sake of the 
world I hope Apple is moving in this direction.  They probably are just 
keeping their options open.  If opportunity presents itself for the 
release of OS X they will.  If not, they won't. I'm betting it will 
happen after Steve Jobs has gone.  Either off the planet or out of the 
company.  Hopefully the latter.

In article <uce-47AD25.13110926052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Anyone here have any experiences with purchasing a PsyStar with
> > > > > > Leopard installed?
> > > > > > Is there anything special about the hardware, BIOS?
> > > > 
> > > > Nothing. They use Gigabyte motherboards - very common - and very low 
> > > > end.  Only 2 ram slots on the $399 model.  
> > > > 
> > > > > > Apple does not support 3rd. party hardware as of yet and was 
> > > > > > wondering
> > > > > > how these fair during updates, any surprises?
> > > > > 
> > > > > There've been a few reviews published on reasonably reputable web 
> > > > > sites 
> > > > > (such as MacWorld's). The short form is that it works as delivered 
> > > > > but 
> > > > > there's really no support (from PsyStar even) for upgrading the 
> > > > > installed OS and there are multiple (but not universal) complaints 
> > > > > that 
> > > > > it's a loud box.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually Psystar just released a service pack. Yesterday I think.
> > > 
> > > Saw that not terribly long after I posted. Seems to me they're heading 
> > > further down the road of violating Apple's licenses. I'll be quite 
> > > surprised (actually outright baffled) if they don't get squashed in 
> > > short order. Might be that Apple's current silence is in the line of 
> > > making sure they have enough rope to hang themselves.
> > 
> > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > sell it for $129.
> 
> You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> upgrades.

Quite possible.  But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
to produce each DVD.  Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
ahead.  And more importantly, far more people get to experience a better 
designed OS.  Then Apple has them for years.  That has tremendous value 
too.  People are always so worried about short term profits.  Its not a 
good rule to run a business by, unless you have no vision of course.

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> hundreds of times that when selling it.

Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
box of donuts because you're a good guy.

Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
of manufacturing them?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <noemailhere-46F079.13293526052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use the 
> iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once again 
> Apple has only got a sliver of the market.  

the cellphone market is *huge*.  there were something like one billion
(with a 'b') cellphones sold last year.  apple said they expected to
sell 10 million units the first year and a half, or roughly 1% of the
market as a whole.  keep in mind, most of those one billion handsets
are 'free' or low cost phones, not the higher priced smartphones.

in the smartphone category (which the iphone clearly is), it has a 27%
market share for q3 '07 in the usa, according to canalys.  that's
pretty damned good for a brand new device from someone who never made a
cellphone before.

<http://www.intomobile.com/2007/12/14/in-your-face-steve-ballmer-apple-i
phone-q3-2007-market-share-busts-up-windows-mobile.html>

also, the iphone is the most popular mobile browser in the usa:

<http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/03/25/iphones-mobile-saf
ari-making-big-market-share-gains>

In article <noemailhere-97A298.13321226052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-47AD25.13110926052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > upgrades.
> 
> Quite possible.  But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> to produce each DVD.  Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> ahead.  

You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
software R&D expenditures at Apple.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-46F079.13293526052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> hardware is the greatest block to that. 

One important reason that it is a superior OS is that it is designed for 
a particular set of hardware, and that hardware is designed for that OS.

> And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use 
> the iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once 
> again Apple has only got a sliver of the market. 

Considering that the iPhone is less than a year old, sure.  However, the 
iPhone's market share in the US, among smart phones, was 28% by March of 
this year; that's second only to BlackBerry (all models combined), 
slightly ahead of Windows Mobile, and way, way, ahead of all the others.  
Worldwide, it's in third place, behind Nokia and BlackBerry.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-46F079.13293526052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > 
> > If Apple has taught us anything through the years, it's that limiting 
> > (controlling) the number of hardware configurations on which Mac OS runs 
> > improves the entire computing experience in ways other operating system 
> > makers can never achieve. Apple cares about the computing experience 
> > more than anything.
> 
> So they pick a chipset and release it for that particular chipset.  All 
> the major motherboard manufacturers can produce it.  

No - they don't just pick a chipset. They pick the entire hardware 
platform down to the processor, graphics cards, and so on.

> Or just licence it 
> to one manufacturer then.  

Those of us who were around back then remember that Apple has tried 
licensing in the past. While certainly profitable for other PC makers, 
the result of the Mac clone test was nearly disastrous for Apple itself. 
It simply doesn't work for Apple's business model.

> It would still a good level of consistency.  
> Do the same for video cards.  You don't need to offer a thousand 
> different models.  But if they offered, say 3-5 models it would keep 
> support at tolerable levels and give 99% of the public a great choice.  
> And they would sell a ton more copies of OS X.  Especially as its priced 
> so much lower than Vista.

Apple's done this in the past. It was a failure. Failure isn't a very 
good incentive to do it again.  ; )

> > > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  
> > 
> > Correction: Microsoft made its billions by borrowing and stealing to 
> > create mediocre operating systems. 
> 
> But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in 
> hundreds of times that when selling it.

You somehow missed the fact that considerable money was spent *creating* 
the stuff on the CD.

> > How many times must you be told this?:  
> > Apple doesn't aspire to create crap.
> 
> LOL....I would differ when looking at my Mini....!  

Sure you would.  You throw out all aspects of the design except one: 
heat. Apple and Apple users care about more than just heat. I have your 
model mini and a couple others, and I think they are very well designed 
- all things (including, but not limited to heat) considered.

> > > What an amazing 
> > > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > sell it for $129.  
> > 
> > Shit! If all it takes to create an operating system is a DVD burner, why 
> > aren't *you* doing it?!  Heck - you could make billions!
> 
> I meant (obviously) that once the R&D has been done, the costs for 
> producing that DVD and putting it in a little package are pennies. 

And how do you pay for all that R&D?  ; )

> > > In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
> > > your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
> > > more to business, technical and gaming.  With Parallels constantly 
> > > improving, and file systems getting better and more compatible, we may 
> > > someday have a file system that is both readable and writeable in both 
> > > Windows and OS X.  Wouldn't that be wonderful.  Then both Apple and 
> > > Windows wins.  In the future, it might just be an expected standard to 
> > > run both OS's.
> > 
> > I hope you're wrong.  IMO, Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by 
> > taking the consumer market by storm. What we are seeing, particularly 
> > with the iPhone, but also with Macs, is the direction of the business 
> > market is pushed by consumers in a huge way these days more than ever. 
> 
> I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> hardware is the greatest block to that.  

No, the hardware is what *enables* the superior computing experience.

> It stops the cheaper people 
> because its too expensive and it stops the high end people because its 
> not good enough. 

Anyone who can't spend more than $1000 on a computer doesn't deserve a 
brand-new Mac anyway.  : )  Let them buy used Macs.  Or, if they don't 
appreciate Macs for what they are, they can always buy a cheapo PC to 
run Linux or Winblows.

> Or if they can outfit a Mac Pro to their wishes it 
> costs far more than it would if doing the same the normal way in the PC 
> world - buy the parts you need for a reasonable amount upgrading only 
> when you need to.  

Nope.  Sorry - you're wrong. 

Macs aren't a great deal more expensive than *equivalent* PCs. You seem 
to like to compare Macs to PCs with lesser processors and so on. Of 
course PCs with lesser hardware is cheaper - crappier is always cheaper.  
LOL... 

You've tried this line before and have been proven wrong. Nothing has 
changed since then.

<http://soapboxrants.net/2008/05/07/mac-pro-vs-dell-precision/>
<http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2007/0417_dt2800.html>

> > Look at what's happening with the iPhone. Corporations are scrambling to 
> > support the iPhone not because iPhones make good business sense, but 
> > because employees want them! Employees want them because they are 
> > fucking cool. Apple has appealed to consumers, and consumers are the 
> > driving force behind business adoption. 
> > 
> > This trend will continue, IMO. The way I see it, Windows is today's 
> > Classic - nothing more than a stopgap solution that will eventually go 
> > away. I see much greater things in the future for Mac OS X than you 
> > apparently do.  : )
> 
> And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use the 
> iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once again 
> Apple has only got a sliver of the market.  

Pshaw!  Uh-huh... That's what they said about iPods for the first couple 
years as well. How quickly we forget:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod_sales_2008_Q1.svg>

> But the OS is far more important to a world needing computer efficiency.  
> The iPhone is more or less a toy.  An OS runs your life.  If it crashes, 
> and does stupid things it costs you time and money.  For the sake of the 
> world I hope Apple is moving in this direction.  They probably are just 
> keeping their options open.  If opportunity presents itself for the 
> release of OS X they will.  If not, they won't.
 
Nope - not as long as Apple is Apple.

> I'm betting it will 
> happen after Steve Jobs has gone.  Either off the planet or out of the 
> company.  Hopefully the latter.

Hopefully neither.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-97A298.13321226052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > sell it for $129.
> > 
> > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > upgrades.
> 
> Quite possible. But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> to produce each DVD. Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> ahead.

Um. No. Speaking as a working software developer: uh-uh. Huge profits on 
the sale of software are far more the exception than the rule. The costs 
*never* go away unless you declare the product dead and somehow still 
con people into paying you for it. Do you really have an idea of what 
the costs are in developing and supporting a product on this scale?

> And more importantly, far more people get to experience a better 
> designed OS.  Then Apple has them for years.  That has tremendous value 
> too.  People are always so worried about short term profits.  Its not a 
> good rule to run a business by, unless you have no vision of course.

Speculators worry about short-term profits. Investors and boards are 
more concerned about sustainable and increasing value.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <jollyroger-5341C1.14031826052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
> makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
> fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
> software R&D expenditures at Apple.

  In fact, it's very likely that this is why MacOS X costs so much less 
than Windows, even though it's a far superior operating system that 
probably cost a lot more to develop.

  Apple is primarily in the business of selling the computers -- 
computers that are different than what the rest of the world sells.  
MacOS X is the operating system that runs on these computers, and is a 
major reason to consider buying these computers instead of buying 
Windows-based computers.  Once development costs are factored in, Apple 
may be losing money on MacOS X itself, but the point is that it is 
helping them sell their computers, which is where they make their money.

  Microsoft, on the other hand, is in the business, primarily, of 
selling software -- primarily Windows.  You buy the computer from 
someone else, and the software from Microsoft, so Microsoft has to 
charge enough for its software to make its profits on that.

-- 
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and
we will bury them with their own confusion.
--
Remove "HatesSpam" and ".invalid" from email address to contact me.

In article 
<BobHatesSpam-CC5FE1.15470826052008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Bob Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to.invalid> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-5341C1.14031826052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
> > makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
> > fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
> > software R&D expenditures at Apple.
> 
>   In fact, it's very likely that this is why MacOS X costs so much less 
> than Windows, even though it's a far superior operating system that 
> probably cost a lot more to develop.
> 
>   Apple is primarily in the business of selling the computers -- 
> computers that are different than what the rest of the world sells.  
> MacOS X is the operating system that runs on these computers, and is a 
> major reason to consider buying these computers instead of buying 
> Windows-based computers.  Once development costs are factored in, Apple 
> may be losing money on MacOS X itself, but the point is that it is 
> helping them sell their computers, which is where they make their money.
> 
>   Microsoft, on the other hand, is in the business, primarily, of 
> selling software -- primarily Windows.  You buy the computer from 
> someone else, and the software from Microsoft, so Microsoft has to 
> charge enough for its software to make its profits on that.

Exactly. This is what people who think Apple should license its 
operating system fail to see. As long as Apple is in the business of 
selling computers, licensing Mac OS X doesn't make much sense. 

It's not a problem for Apple that you must buy a Mac to run Mac OS X. 
Just the opposite is true: it's *better* for Apple this way!  If it's a 
problem for some 15-year-old dork who can't afford a MacBook Pro, tough 
titties! I want Apple to survive more than I want mommy's boy to have a 
Mac.  : )

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> > hundreds of times that when selling it.
> 
> Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
> economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
> company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
> you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
> box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> 
> Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
> of manufacturing them?

If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
that is minor after most of design work has been done.  Now if they sell 
DVD's at $129 and their cost is a dollar giving $128 profit......well 
now you see how Bill Gates and Microsoft became so wealthy.  You can 
just never make any huge money like MS without selling such high profit 
items as software discs.  The hardware is actually Apple's barrier to 
really huge money.  More than 90% of computer users never use Apple.  
That's billions of people. Billions at $128 profit each.  Its utterly 
staggering (once the R & D has been paid for.)  10.5's R & D costs have  
probably been paid for long ago with current Leopard sales.

In article <jollyroger-5341C1.14031826052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-97A298.13321226052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-47AD25.13110926052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > > upgrades.
> > 
> > Quite possible.  But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> > to produce each DVD.  Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> > ahead.  
> 
> You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
> makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
> fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
> software R&D expenditures at Apple.

Yes of course we all know that.  That's the problem.  Most people cannot 
afford Apple hardware or can't rationalize the prices when they can buy 
the same thing at their local discount store for a fraction of the 
price.  The hardware is the precise impediment to huge profits from 
Apple.  I predict they will release it.  When, I have no idea.  I'm sure 
they are just waiting for the correct timing.  Of course it could be 
years away.  I'm betting on about 2-4 years away.  Coinciding with Steve 
Jobs leaving.

> > I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> > hardware is the greatest block to that. 
> 
> One important reason that it is a superior OS is that it is designed for 
> a particular set of hardware, and that hardware is designed for that OS.

Most of the "hardware" people talk about is the motherboard.  And video 
card.  So they recommend a few motherboards and video cards.  Maybe 3 of 
each.  Wouldn't be so hard to support.  And you would open the OS X 
market to billions of people around the globe.  Apple would rather make 
$500 on 1 iMac than $128,000,000 (after R & D) selling OS X to a million 
new curious users.  
Apple:  Think Indifferent.  
"Your Head in the Sand company"
 
> > And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use 
> > the iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once 
> > again Apple has only got a sliver of the market. 
> 
> Considering that the iPhone is less than a year old, sure.  However, the 
> iPhone's market share in the US, among smart phones, was 28% by March of 
> this year; that's second only to BlackBerry (all models combined), 
> slightly ahead of Windows Mobile, and way, way, ahead of all the others.  
> Worldwide, it's in third place, behind Nokia and BlackBerry.

Just wait until the Koreans come out with next years models.  They are 
surely a force to reckon with.  I'm obviously not into cellphones 
(besides talking on them) but with only 1% of the market, Apple has a 
whopping long way to go for any significant market penetration.

In article <noemailhere-76A878.09044427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> > > hardware is the greatest block to that. 
> > 
> > One important reason that it is a superior OS is that it is designed for 
> > a particular set of hardware, and that hardware is designed for that OS.
> 
> Most of the "hardware" people talk about is the motherboard.  And video 
> card.  So they recommend a few motherboards and video cards.  Maybe 3 of 
> each.  Wouldn't be so hard to support.  And you would open the OS X 
> market to billions of people around the globe.  Apple would rather make 
> $500 on 1 iMac than $128,000,000 (after R & D) selling OS X to a million 
> new curious users.  
> Apple:  Think Indifferent.  
> "Your Head in the Sand company"

I am always amused by the number and (lack of) quality of of arguments 
on How Apple can increase its profits if only it would (insert your idea 
here). 

As both a user and shareholder I trust the wisdom of the current 
corporate leadership over the prognostications of those whose ideas 
and/or products have yet to gross at least a billion dollars in revenue.

Come back when you've proven that your a better businessman than those 
whose business practices you hold in such low esteem.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article <noemailhere-76A878.09044427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> > > hardware is the greatest block to that. 
> > 
> > One important reason that it is a superior OS is that it is designed for 
> > a particular set of hardware, and that hardware is designed for that OS.
> 
> Most of the "hardware" people talk about is the motherboard.  And video 
> card.  So they recommend a few motherboards and video cards.  Maybe 3 of 
> each.  Wouldn't be so hard to support.  And you would open the OS X 
> market to billions of people around the globe.  Apple would rather make 
> $500 on 1 iMac than $128,000,000 (after R & D) selling OS X to a million 
> new curious users.  
> Apple:  Think Indifferent.  
> "Your Head in the Sand company"

Again, Apple makes most of its profit from Mac hardware. In fact, it 
wouldn't surprise me if Apple's hardware income supplements R&D 
expenditures.

With your idea, less people would buy Mac hardware from Apple.

Apple has little incentive to do what you want.

> > > And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use 
> > > the iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once 
> > > again Apple has only got a sliver of the market. 
> > 
> > Considering that the iPhone is less than a year old, sure.  However, the 
> > iPhone's market share in the US, among smart phones, was 28% by March of 
> > this year; that's second only to BlackBerry (all models combined), 
> > slightly ahead of Windows Mobile, and way, way, ahead of all the others.  
> > Worldwide, it's in third place, behind Nokia and BlackBerry.
> 
> Just wait until the Koreans come out with next years models.  They are 
> surely a force to reckon with.  I'm obviously not into cellphones 
> (besides talking on them) but with only 1% of the market, Apple has a 
> whopping long way to go for any significant market penetration.

Yep. They said that about the iPod too...

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

> > > > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > > > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > > 
> > > If Apple has taught us anything through the years, it's that limiting 
> > > (controlling) the number of hardware configurations on which Mac OS runs 
> > > improves the entire computing experience in ways other operating system 
> > > makers can never achieve. Apple cares about the computing experience 
> > > more than anything.
> > 
> > So they pick a chipset and release it for that particular chipset.  All 
> > the major motherboard manufacturers can produce it.  
> 
> No - they don't just pick a chipset. They pick the entire hardware 
> platform down to the processor, graphics cards, and so on.

They can recommend just 2 motherboards and 2 video cards.  With the 
ability to replace CPU's, and add ram, it would give users an immense 
range of hardware.  With today's prices its just unbelievable how cheap 
a system is now.
$60 Motherboard with simple built on video
$80 Low end dual core CPU
$40 2 gb DDR-2 800mhz ram
$40 80 gb Sata hard drive
$30 DVD burner
$30 Case and simple power supply
$290 total...for a beginner setup.  Or about $200 used.  
Add $250 for a 22" monitor, or $150 for a 19". Or $100 for a 17".

ANYBODY can afford that.  That means ANYBODY can afford $129 for the OS, 
giving $128 to Apple. This way Apple grabs more than 30% of the cost of 
the computer for profit.  Its just an astounding business model. 
 
> > Or just licence it to one manufacturer then.  
> 
> Those of us who were around back then remember that Apple has tried 
> licensing in the past. While certainly profitable for other PC makers, 
> the result of the Mac clone test was nearly disastrous for Apple itself. 
> It simply doesn't work for Apple's business model.

Check out what I wrote above.  It would certainly work.  Times are 
totally different now.  Hardware costs pennies.  Such value for the 
money like never before.  Back then, people were dropping thousands for 
computers.  Now we can get a brand new machine for less than $400 
including a 17" LCD monitor.  It makes all the difference in the world 
when the price of hardware plummets.

> > It would still a good level of consistency.  
> > Do the same for video cards.  You don't need to offer a thousand 
> > different models.  But if they offered, say 3-5 models it would keep 
> > support at tolerable levels and give 99% of the public a great choice.  
> > And they would sell a ton more copies of OS X.  Especially as its priced 
> > so much lower than Vista.
> 
> Apple's done this in the past. It was a failure. Failure isn't a very 
> good incentive to do it again.  ; )

Times are a changing.
 
> > > > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > > > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  
> > > 
> > > Correction: Microsoft made its billions by borrowing and stealing to 
> > > create mediocre operating systems. 
> > 
> > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in 
> > hundreds of times that when selling it.
> 
> You somehow missed the fact that considerable money was spent *creating* 
> the stuff on the CD.

Doesn't matter.  Once the R & D has been paid for, its all profit.  The 
cost of producing a DVD and packaging is pennies.  
 
> > > How many times must you be told this?:  
> > > Apple doesn't aspire to create crap.
> > 
> > LOL....I would differ when looking at my Mini....!  
> 
> Sure you would.  You throw out all aspects of the design except one: 
> heat. Apple and Apple users care about more than just heat. I have your 
> model mini and a couple others, and I think they are very well designed 
> - all things (including, but not limited to heat) considered.

You need to raise your standards a smidgeon!  The Mini is a totally 
compromised design for cuteness.  But that's ok.  Anybody that can read 
and can follow directions can do what I did and have a wonderful little 
workhorse.  They only cost about $400 used, often much less.  And 667mhz 
SO-Dimms are dirt cheap now (just bought a pair of 1 gb's for less than 
$15!).  Apple currently wants $100 for and extra 1gb ram in their 
Mini's.  What wonderful competitiveness.  
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/91094002/
wo/tV2B0P8Kc3OV2WlvZDA14Emluys/2.?p=0
 
> > > > What an amazing concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar 
> > > > (actually WAY less), then sell it for $129.  
> > > 
> > > Shit! If all it takes to create an operating system is a DVD burner, why 
> > > aren't *you* doing it?!  Heck - you could make billions!
> > 
> > I meant (obviously) that once the R&D has been done, the costs for 
> > producing that DVD and putting it in a little package are pennies. 
> 
> And how do you pay for all that R&D?  ; )

Like every company does.  The first money coming in goes to pay for it. 
If it wasn't profitable, Apple wouldn't do it.  Does anybody know what 
the R & D was for Leopard?  Or Tiger? That would be interesting to note.

> > > > In the future it hopefully will be the norm to have 2 OS's on 
> > > > your system.  One for most stuff we do (OS X), and the other that leans 
> > > > more to business, technical and gaming.  With Parallels constantly 
> > > > improving, and file systems getting better and more compatible, we may 
> > > > someday have a file system that is both readable and writeable in both 
> > > > Windows and OS X.  Wouldn't that be wonderful.  Then both Apple and 
> > > > Windows wins.  In the future, it might just be an expected standard to 
> > > > run both OS's.
> > > 
> > > I hope you're wrong.  IMO, Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by 
> > > taking the consumer market by storm. What we are seeing, particularly 
> > > with the iPhone, but also with Macs, is the direction of the business 
> > > market is pushed by consumers in a huge way these days more than ever. 
> > 
> > I just want more people to experience a superior OS.  Right now the 
> > hardware is the greatest block to that.  
> 
> No, the hardware is what *enables* the superior computing experience.

That's a myth.  Many OSX86 users have no issues at all.  You just have 
to choose wisely.
 
> > It stops the cheaper people 
> > because its too expensive and it stops the high end people because its 
> > not good enough. 
> 
> Anyone who can't spend more than $1000 on a computer doesn't deserve a 
> brand-new Mac anyway.  : )  Let them buy used Macs.  Or, if they don't 
> appreciate Macs for what they are, they can always buy a cheapo PC to 
> run Linux or Winblows.

That's the point.  Look at 3rd world countries. They aren't going to 
drop $1000 on a computer when they are making 1/4 of that a month.  But 
they might drop $200 or $300 and rationalize it.  There are billions of 
potential OS X customers BECAUSE hardware is so cheap now.  
 
> > Or if they can outfit a Mac Pro to their wishes it 
> > costs far more than it would if doing the same the normal way in the PC 
> > world - buy the parts you need for a reasonable amount upgrading only 
> > when you need to.  
> 
> Nope.  Sorry - you're wrong. 
> 
> Macs aren't a great deal more expensive than *equivalent* PCs. You seem 
> to like to compare Macs to PCs with lesser processors and so on. Of 
> course PCs with lesser hardware is cheaper - crappier is always cheaper.  
> LOL... 

More myths.  Sorry sir, but any trip to Newegg or Tigerdirect will 
trounce that silly assumption in a heartbeat.
 
> You've tried this line before and have been proven wrong. Nothing has 
> changed since then.
> 
> <http://soapboxrants.net/2008/05/07/mac-pro-vs-dell-precision/>
> <http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2007/0417_dt2800.html>

Only a total idiot buys a Dell or Gateway and gives them the profit.  
Anybody that can hold a screwdriver and can read just goes and buys the 
parts and assembles it for vast savings.  The problem is that you just 
can't do that with a Mac.  That's the problem.  They've made themselves 
unaffordable to most of the world.  By doing that they've blocked OS X 
sales to most of the world.  At $129 most of the world COULD afford it.  
 
> > > Look at what's happening with the iPhone. Corporations are scrambling to 
> > > support the iPhone not because iPhones make good business sense, but 
> > > because employees want them! Employees want them because they are 
> > > fucking cool. Apple has appealed to consumers, and consumers are the 
> > > driving force behind business adoption. 
> > > 
> > > This trend will continue, IMO. The way I see it, Windows is today's 
> > > Classic - nothing more than a stopgap solution that will eventually go 
> > > away. I see much greater things in the future for Mac OS X than you 
> > > apparently do.  : )
> > 
> > And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use the 
> > iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once again 
> > Apple has only got a sliver of the market.  
> 
> Pshaw!  Uh-huh... That's what they said about iPods for the first couple 
> years as well. How quickly we forget: 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod_sales_2008_Q1.svg>

It will be interesting to see.  But the Koreans are competitive.  
Fiercely so.  And they rule the cell phone market.  Many other 
electronic areas as well.  It will be interesting to see what they come 
out with next.  I'm betting on something almost as good as the iPhone 
for a fraction of the cost.  That will gobble up sales as cost 
rationality of the buying public sways them to the more affordable 
option.  

> > But the OS is far more important to a world needing computer efficiency.  
> > The iPhone is more or less a toy.  An OS runs your life.  If it crashes, 
> > and does stupid things it costs you time and money.  For the sake of the 
> > world I hope Apple is moving in this direction.  They probably are just 
> > keeping their options open.  If opportunity presents itself for the 
> > release of OS X they will.  If not, they won't.
>  
> Nope - not as long as Apple is Apple.

We shall good sir...:)  
 
> > I'm betting it will 
> > happen after Steve Jobs has gone.  Either off the planet or out of the 
> > company.  Hopefully the latter.
> 
> Hopefully neither.

Hopefully the latter. Maybe he can go into semi-retirement and design 
cartoon characters on the side.  :)

In article <noemailhere-94D7CA.09001827052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-5341C1.14031826052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-97A298.13321226052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-47AD25.13110926052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > > > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > > > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > > > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > > > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > > > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > > > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > > > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > > > upgrades.
> > > 
> > > Quite possible.  But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> > > to produce each DVD.  Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> > > ahead.  
> > 
> > You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
> > makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
> > fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
> > software R&D expenditures at Apple.
> 
> Yes of course we all know that.  That's the problem.  Most people cannot 
> afford Apple hardware or can't rationalize the prices when they can buy 
> the same thing at their local discount store for a fraction of the 
> price.  

BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.

> The hardware is the precise impediment to huge profits from 
> Apple.  

Apple's sales figured show that is not the case. Apple is hugely 
profitable - mostly as a result of hardware sales.

> I predict they will release it.  When, I have no idea.  I'm sure 
> they are just waiting for the correct timing.  Of course it could be 
> years away.  I'm betting on about 2-4 years away.  Coinciding with Steve 
> Jobs leaving.

I'm confident you're wrong, and I don't want Steve Jobs to leave.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

> > > > Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > > sell it for $129.
> > > 
> > > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > > upgrades.
> > 
> > Quite possible. But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> > to produce each DVD. Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> > ahead.
> 
> Um. No. Speaking as a working software developer: uh-uh. Huge profits on 
> the sale of software are far more the exception than the rule. The costs 
> *never* go away unless you declare the product dead and somehow still 
> con people into paying you for it. Do you really have an idea of what 
> the costs are in developing and supporting a product on this scale?

That's how MS made their money.  And what drove Bill Gates to be the 
richest man in the world for many years.  

> > And more importantly, far more people get to experience a better 
> > designed OS.  Then Apple has them for years.  That has tremendous value 
> > too.  People are always so worried about short term profits.  Its not a 
> > good rule to run a business by, unless you have no vision of course.
> 
> Speculators worry about short-term profits. Investors and boards are 
> more concerned about sustainable and increasing value.

But they answer to the stockholders unfortunately. A sad fact of Wall 
Street.  So many ideas are sidelined or skipped over because of a lack 
of vision combined with the fear of the wrath of major stockholders.  If 
a lot of these companies were privately owned, the world would be so 
much richer in design excellence.  They could take years to realize a 
design idea's profit.  But it might be well worth it.

In article <noemailhere-7F4657.08571227052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> > > hundreds of times that when selling it.
> > 
> > Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
> > economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
> > company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> > building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> > includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
> > you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
> > box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> > 
> > Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
> > of manufacturing them?
> 
> If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
> at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
> gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> that is minor after most of design work has been done.  

The fact that you actually believe this babble coming out of your 
keyboard proves you have no idea what you are talking about!  

I have to know: (a) how old are you, kid?, and (b) exactly how long have 
you been working professionally in this industry?



Best guesses:

a. Extremely close to 20, or younger.
b. Zero years, or less.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

RE:
<< Again, Apple makes most of its profit from Mac hardware. 
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple's hardware income 
supplements R&D expenditures.
   With your idea, less people would buy Mac hardware from 
Apple.
   Apple has little incentive to do what you want. >>

Stop right there. Let's go back in time, say, about four years.

Back then, there were RUMORS that Apple was developing, kind 
of "side-by-side", a version of OS X that could run on 
_Intel_ hardware. Just rumors, mind you, and Apple (whenever 
the subject was brought up) denied them vehemently.

Presto! Bango!
Suddenly, Apple shocks the computing world by announcing 
that - due to problems in the PPC design - they will make 
the move to Intel processors in the future. And they 
accomplish this with amazing rapidity, releasing developer 
versions almost immediately.

The fact is that the so-called "rumors" proved to be true - 
that Apple had indeed been developing a "parallel version" 
of the OS all along, kept under the tightest wraps. By the 
time they actually ANNOUNCED this, their "Intelized" Mac OS 
was actually quite mature.

Now that Apple is running Intel processors on their hardware 
exclusively, we see hackers tweak the OS to run on _generic_ 
Intel hardware. Yes, tweaking is required, but in truth, the 
necessary modifications are relativlely minimal.

My speculation is that Apple has _already completed_, or is 
well on the way to having completed, a "generic Intel" 
version of their Mac OS that will install and run on most 
[up-to-date] PC hardware.

They're just holding it back, for obvious reasons.

- John

In article <noemailhere-76A878.09044427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Just wait until the Koreans come out with next years models.  They 
> are surely a force to reckon with.  I'm obviously not into cellphones 
> (besides talking on them) but with only 1% of the market, Apple has a 
> whopping long way to go for any significant market penetration.

Actually, in the cellphone market, 1% is significant market penetration.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <jollyroger-97BD38.09350027052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> b. Zero years, or less.

He's a time traveller?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-CA4D8F.07451527052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-97BD38.09350027052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > b. Zero years, or less.
> 
> He's a time traveller?

It could be a number of months under 1 year, no?  : )

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-94D7CA.09001827052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-5341C1.14031826052008@individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-97A298.13321226052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-47AD25.13110926052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > > > > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's 
> > > > > per 
> > > > > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > > > > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even 
> > > > > upgrade 
> > > > > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where 
> > > > > it's 
> > > > > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > > > > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > > > > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for 
> > > > > single-license 
> > > > > upgrades.
> > > > 
> > > > Quite possible.  But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> > > > to produce each DVD.  Once your costs have been covered its huge 
> > > > profits 
> > > > ahead.  
> > > 
> > > You may not be aware of this, but it's a well-known fact that Apple 
> > > makes most of its money from *hardware* sales - not software sales. In 
> > > fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if hardware income supplemented 
> > > software R&D expenditures at Apple.
> > 
> > Yes of course we all know that.  That's the problem.  Most people cannot 
> > afford Apple hardware or can't rationalize the prices when they can buy 
> > the same thing at their local discount store for a fraction of the 
> > price.  
> 
> BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.

Just my experience talking to computer users every day.  Call it 
anything you want but that is how life works here in my small city.  
 
> > The hardware is the precise impediment to huge profits from 
> > Apple.  
> 
> Apple's sales figured show that is not the case. Apple is hugely 
> profitable - mostly as a result of hardware sales.

True.  I'm just saying it could be immense with software sales.  
 
> > I predict they will release it.  When, I have no idea.  I'm sure 
> > they are just waiting for the correct timing.  Of course it could be 
> > years away.  I'm betting on about 2-4 years away.  Coinciding with Steve 
> > Jobs leaving.
> 
> I'm confident you're wrong, and I don't want Steve Jobs to leave.

We'll see what what the future holds in a few years.  

You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
action against Psystar yet.  There is a legal timeline so if they don't 
act within a period of time, they lose their right to sue.  Not sure 
what that timeline is.  Nobody else seems to either.  Maybe its up for 
legal interpretation. At the very least, by not acting promptly, they 
are encouraging other companies to do the very same thing as Psystar has 
done.  But perhaps that is exactly what they want to happen.  Clone 
companies selling OS X with their products and Apple has no support 
responsibilities with all the revenue.  By doing nothing they are 
speaking rather loudly - at least that will be the case if much more 
time goes by with no legal response.  Another option is that Apple may 
not be willing to risk a court confrontation with Psystar just in case 
they lose.  Even if its a small chance, it could open the floodgates 
with all the attention it would generate.  This way, it keeps the clones 
to a minimum.  An interesting game of legal chess going on here.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:57:12 -0400, The NewGuy wrote
(in article <noemailhere-7F4657.08571227052008@news.mts.net>):

> In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>> 
>>> But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
>>> hundreds of times that when selling it.
>> 
>> Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
>> economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
>> company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
>> building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
>> includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
>> you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
>> box of donuts because you're a good guy.
>> 
>> Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
>> of manufacturing them?
> 
> If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
> at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
> gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> that is minor after most of design work has been done.  Now if they sell 
> DVD's at $129 and their cost is a dollar giving $128 profit......well 
> now you see how Bill Gates and Microsoft became so wealthy.  You can 
> just never make any huge money like MS without selling such high profit 
> items as software discs.  The hardware is actually Apple's barrier to 
> really huge money.  More than 90% of computer users never use Apple.  
> That's billions of people. Billions at $128 profit each.  Its utterly 
> staggering (once the R & D has been paid for.)  10.5's R & D costs have  
> probably been paid for long ago with current Leopard sales.

So, once you're done with a project, say... OS X 10.5.0, you fire all the 
people who worked on it, right? Hmmm... problem. Who do you get to work on 
10.5.1 and following? Not to mention any _other_ projects which might be 
going on... You know, 10.6, QuickTime, iLife, iWork, iPhone, iPod, etc? Guess 
you gotta hire 'em back. And they'll need a place to work, so that's another. 
And they'll need equipment to work with, so that's yet one more. Hmmm. Gee, 
it almost looks as though you're going to have _at least_ the same level of 
costs going forwards _after_ 10.5.0 was released as you did _before_ it was 
done. Unless, of course, you're simply going to freeze in place. Remember, 
all 10.5.x updates are free, and work on 'em has to be charged _somewhere_. 
All updates to QuickTime are free. All updates to iTunes, iWork, iLife 
(until, of course, the next released version upgrade) are free. Someone's 
gotta pay for all that. Then there's advertising; do you think that those who 
act in, direct, and produce those "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads work for free? Do 
you think that placing those ads on major networks, in prime time, is free? 
Then there's the Apple Stores, and Apple's tech support people, and all that 
disk space for Apple's various websites... who do you suppose is _paying_ for 
all that? Have you got any idea just how much disk space Apple's _public_ 
sites eat up, and what bandwidth serving all of that requires?

Are you insane, or stupid, or both?

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:45:15 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-CA4D8F.07451527052008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <jollyroger-97BD38.09350027052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> b. Zero years, or less.
> 
> He's a time traveller?
> 
> 

A time-traveling industrial rocker.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>, Jolly
Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.

The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business.

That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <g1h7d20213r@news5.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
<try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> Are you insane, or stupid, or both?

A master of the rhetorical question strikes again!

;-)

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <jollyroger-97BD38.09350027052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-7F4657.08571227052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> > > > hundreds of times that when selling it.
> > > 
> > > Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
> > > economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
> > > company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> > > building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> > > includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
> > > you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
> > > box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> > > 
> > > Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
> > > of manufacturing them?
> > 
> > If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
> > at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> > each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
> > gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> > done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> > that is minor after most of design work has been done.  
> 
> The fact that you actually believe this babble coming out of your 
> keyboard proves you have no idea what you are talking about!  

If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?

Here's something interesting:
http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/21/dell
"Apple says it currently has 2,500 employees working in R&D, and spent 
$471 million in R&D costs in fiscal 2003."  Unfortunately its not broken 
up between hardware and software.  Or how much is the OS.  
   
> I have to know: (a) how old are you, kid?, and (b) exactly how long have 
> you been working professionally in this industry?
> Best guesses: 
> a. Extremely close to 20, or younger.
> b. Zero years, or less.

Mom is just making me lunch.  Have to go soon.  As for working 
professionaly - absolutely.  I had a paper route once and one of my 
deliveries had a Mac.  I think.  Or maybe it was a clock radio.  Well 
whatever it was, it was way cool.  I told all my friends at my next 
birthday party.  That's the only way I can get people to come over - 
have a birthday party.  Except I give presents to them.  Mom says 
"whatever works".  Not sure what she meant by that.  Dad is real smart 
too.  He's in all my school classes because he says "I likes me some 
school - passing grades are for sissies y'all."  So just trust me, ok?  
I have me qualifications AND some.  Hookd on Fonix werked for mee.

In article <P3V_j.5300$Ri.129@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> RE:
> << Again, Apple makes most of its profit from Mac hardware. 
> In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple's hardware income 
> supplements R&D expenditures.
>    With your idea, less people would buy Mac hardware from 
> Apple.
>    Apple has little incentive to do what you want. >>
> 
> Stop right there. Let's go back in time, say, about four years.
> 
> Back then, there were RUMORS that Apple was developing, kind 
> of "side-by-side", a version of OS X that could run on 
> _Intel_ hardware. Just rumors, mind you, and Apple (whenever 
> the subject was brought up) denied them vehemently.
> 
> Presto! Bango!
> Suddenly, Apple shocks the computing world by announcing 
> that - due to problems in the PPC design - they will make 
> the move to Intel processors in the future. And they 
> accomplish this with amazing rapidity, releasing developer 
> versions almost immediately.
> 
> The fact is that the so-called "rumors" proved to be true - 
> that Apple had indeed been developing a "parallel version" 
> of the OS all along, kept under the tightest wraps. By the 
> time they actually ANNOUNCED this, their "Intelized" Mac OS 
> was actually quite mature.
> 
> Now that Apple is running Intel processors on their hardware 
> exclusively, we see hackers tweak the OS to run on _generic_ 
> Intel hardware. Yes, tweaking is required, but in truth, the 
> necessary modifications are relativlely minimal.
> 
> My speculation is that Apple has _already completed_, or is 
> well on the way to having completed, a "generic Intel" 
> version of their Mac OS that will install and run on most 
> [up-to-date] PC hardware.
> 
> They're just holding it back, for obvious reasons.
> 
> - John

I think you're right. Well said too. Timing is everything.

In article <g1h7d20213r@news5.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:57:12 -0400, The NewGuy wrote
> (in article <noemailhere-7F4657.08571227052008@news.mts.net>):
> 
> > In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> >> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> >>> hundreds of times that when selling it.
> >> 
> >> Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
> >> economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
> >> company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> >> building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> >> includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
> >> you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
> >> box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> >> 
> >> Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
> >> of manufacturing them?
> > 
> > If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
> > at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> > each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
> > gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> > done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> > that is minor after most of design work has been done.  Now if they sell 
> > DVD's at $129 and their cost is a dollar giving $128 profit......well 
> > now you see how Bill Gates and Microsoft became so wealthy.  You can 
> > just never make any huge money like MS without selling such high profit 
> > items as software discs.  The hardware is actually Apple's barrier to 
> > really huge money.  More than 90% of computer users never use Apple.  
> > That's billions of people. Billions at $128 profit each.  Its utterly 
> > staggering (once the R & D has been paid for.)  10.5's R & D costs have  
> > probably been paid for long ago with current Leopard sales.
> 
> So, once you're done with a project, say... OS X 10.5.0, you fire all the 
> people who worked on it, right? 
> Hmmm... problem. Who do you get to work on 
> 10.5.1 and following? 
> Not to mention any _other_ projects which might be 
> going on... You know, 10.6, QuickTime, iLife, iWork, iPhone, iPod, etc? Guess 
> you gotta hire 'em back. And they'll need a place to work, so that's another. 
> And they'll need equipment to work with, so that's yet one more. 

No. You put them to work on the next project.  Like 10.6.  

> Hmmm. Gee, 
> it almost looks as though you're going to have _at least_ the same level of 
> costs going forwards _after_ 10.5.0 was released as you did _before_ it was 
> done. 

Perhaps.  And those costs will be paid for by the sale of 10.6 and the 
other programs when they are available.  How simple is that?  Its like 
some of you have had brain damage in economics.  

> Unless, of course, you're simply going to freeze in place. Remember, 
> all 10.5.x updates are free, and work on 'em has to be charged _somewhere_. 
> All updates to QuickTime are free. All updates to iTunes, iWork, iLife 
> (until, of course, the next released version upgrade) are free. Someone's 
> gotta pay for all that. 

Bringing out an update is a fraction of the cost of bringing out a new 
OS.  Duh... So you keep a skeleton staff on to do the updates.  Simple.

> Then there's advertising; do you think that those who 
> act in, direct, and produce those "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads work for free? Do 
> you think that placing those ads on major networks, in prime time, is free? 

Paid for by sales of the product.  We're talking 100's of millions I 
would imagine.  Advertising is a sliver of those gross numbers. 

> Then there's the Apple Stores, and Apple's tech support people, and all that 
> disk space for Apple's various websites... who do you suppose is _paying_ for 
> all that? Have you got any idea just how much disk space Apple's _public_ 
> sites eat up, and what bandwidth serving all of that requires?

Obviously Apple stores are self sufficient.  They are not a drain.  They 
uplift the image of the company by their attractive design and sell lots 
of product.  The OS is only a sliver of their sales.  I would venture 
most of their sales are portable in nature.  The OS would be at the 
bottom, far lower than people buying Macs themselves.  
 
> Are you insane, or stupid, or both?

Both.  I guess.  Since most people don't seem to understand simple 
economics here.  

Obviously you take people that worked on 10.0 and put them to work on 
other projects.  But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to 
the market.  That will be much more than the cost of getting the 10.5.1 
update to market.  So it all boils down to "what is the R & D cost for 
10.4 Tiger and how many copies did they sell individually?  That would 
be interesting to know.

> >> b. Zero years, or less.
> > 
> > He's a time traveller?
> 
> A time-traveling industrial rocker.

I like classical, remember?  I've got culture dude.  No Beatles pablem 
here.  Steve can hog Paul and John and Ringo and George all he wants 
along with his other simplistic rock tastes.

In article <270520080901257308%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> > Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> 
> The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
> that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business. 
> That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.

The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
"Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more customers 
are best."  They care not who or what economic class of wallet the cash 
is procured from.  Apple not WANTING business is like you not wanting 
food.  Doesn't wash.

In article <noemailhere-1A4591.10223927052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-97BD38.09350027052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-7F4657.08571227052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1ihjxrg.1czkp1t1pqu1edN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking in
> > > > > hundreds of times that when selling it.
> > > > 
> > > > Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept of
> > > > economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you run a
> > > > company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> > > > building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> > > > includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, etc.),
> > > > you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy them a
> > > > box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> > > > 
> > > > Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual cost
> > > > of manufacturing them?
> > > 
> > > If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million DVD's 
> > > at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> > > each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's ($4,000,000 
> > > gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> > > done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> > > that is minor after most of design work has been done.  
> > 
> > The fact that you actually believe this babble coming out of your 
> > keyboard proves you have no idea what you are talking about!  
> 
> If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?

Well, let's see:
$1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
$1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
$2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
$0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.

And you've neglected the interest a/o lost income on the initial 
investment as well as the marketing costs to promote the sale of the 
first million DVDs.

As for ongoing maintenance of an existing program, you show your naivet� 
when you say the cost "is minor after most of design work has been done".

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article <noemailhere-00253A.10380027052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <270520080901257308%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> > Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> > > Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> > 
> > The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
> > that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business. 
> > That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.
> 
> The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more customers 
> are best."  They care not who or what economic class of wallet the cash 
> is procured from.  Apple not WANTING business is like you not wanting 
> food.  Doesn't wash.

That explains the terrible stock price since Steve took over, right?

Look, you simply don't understand business. Admit it and move on.

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

> > > > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > > > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't 
> > > > afford Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> > > 
> > > The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
> > > that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business. 
> > > That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.
> > 
> > The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> > "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more customers 
> > are best."  They care not who or what economic class of wallet the cash 
> > is procured from.  Apple not WANTING business is like you not wanting 
> > food.  Doesn't wash.
> 
> That explains the terrible stock price since Steve took over, right?
> Look, you simply don't understand business. Admit it and move on.

Dave, I'll admit I don't understand wood. That's what I'll admit.  :) 
In that I'm sure you have me beat hands down.  
But for me, business is pretty logical.  I thrive on logic.  If you 
don't agree on something, be specific.  Usenet works better that way.

> > > > > > But the profit is from paying pennies to produce the DVD and taking 
> > > > > > in hundreds of times that when selling it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Um, no. If you think R&D costs aren't relevant, you have no concept 
> > > > > of economics.  Let's put it in terms you might understand.  Say you 
> > > > > run a
> > > > > company that creates and sells products on DVD. You pay rent on the
> > > > > building, you pay people's salaries to create those products (that
> > > > > includes the actual products, the documentation, the packaging, 
> > > > > etc.),
> > > > > you pay for whatever equipment they need, and once a week you buy 
> > > > > them a
> > > > > box of donuts because you're a good guy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now, when you sell the DVDs, do _you_ sell them for just the actual 
> > > > > cost of manufacturing them?
> > > > 
> > > > If it costs $1,000,000 to create a program, and you sell 1 million 
> > > > DVD's 
> > > > at $2 each ($2,000,000 gross) with a production cost of each DVD at $1 
> > > > each, you'll profit $1,000,000.  If you sell 2 million DVD's 
> > > > ($4,000,000 
> > > > gross) your profit will be $3,000,000.  The point is once the R&D is 
> > > > done, its done.  Of course there are going to be updates and such but 
> > > > that is minor after most of design work has been done.  
> > > 
> > > The fact that you actually believe this babble coming out of your 
> > > keyboard proves you have no idea what you are talking about!  
> > 
> > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?
> 
> Well, let's see:
> $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.

I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
 
> And you've neglected the interest a/o lost income on the initial 
> investment as well as the marketing costs to promote the sale of the 
> first million DVDs.

All wrapped up in "costs".  
 
> As for ongoing maintenance of an existing program, you show your naivet� 
> when you say the cost "is minor after most of design work has been done".

You think that they don't spend a lot more designing a new OS than 
bringing out an update after its released?  Absurd. 

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/02/01.14.shtml
"Apple Computer expensed US$19.3 million in the last two fiscal quarters 
on research and development costs for its soon-to-be-released update of 
Mac OS X, code named "Tiger", the company revealed Tuesday in its 
quarterly report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Apple 
also said that its fiscal first-quarter earnings would have been reduced 
by $20 million, to $275 million, had the company accounted for 
stock-compensation expenses."
"The company acknowledged that it capitalized "Tiger" development costs 
of approximately $4.5 million in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2004 and 
$14.8 million in the fiscal first quarter of 2005."
"Expenditures for R&D increased 3% or $4 million to $123 million in the 
first quarter of 2005 compared to $119 million in the same quarter of 
2004 due primarily to an increase in R&D headcount in the current year 
to support expanded R&D activities, the company said."

So out of $123,000,000 spent on total R & D, only a small part was 
devoted to the OS.  

Hopefully this will give some perspective to some of your deluded 
economic perspectives of R & D.  Their stock compensations were more 
than R & D for Tiger!

In article <noemailhere-FA40A1.09314427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> If 
> a lot of these companies were privately owned, the world would be so 
> much richer in design excellence.  

Except that Mathematica from WRI (privately owned by W) is currently in 
certain important aspects providing an exactly opposite case study.

In article <noemailhere-8661F6.11021227052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > > > > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't 
> > > > > afford Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> > > > 
> > > > The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
> > > > that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business. 
> > > > That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.
> > > 
> > > The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> > > "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more customers 
> > > are best."  They care not who or what economic class of wallet the cash 
> > > is procured from.  Apple not WANTING business is like you not wanting 
> > > food.  Doesn't wash.
> > 
> > That explains the terrible stock price since Steve took over, right?
> > Look, you simply don't understand business. Admit it and move on.
> 
> Dave, I'll admit I don't understand wood. That's what I'll admit.  :) 
> In that I'm sure you have me beat hands down.  
> But for me, business is pretty logical.  I thrive on logic.  If you 
> don't agree on something, be specific.  Usenet works better that way.

If your logic is correct then Apple's shareholders should be upset.
Upset shareholders sell their stock. Many shareholders selling stock
drives the price down.

Logically, then, Apple's shareholders are NOT upset with how Steve is
running the company and do NOT "lean to a different business model."

I also did not say Apple doesn't want business. The words I used
apparently confused you, so I'll rephrase:

Apple has decided on a price and quality range for its products.
Selling to people who cannot afford Apple products is obviously not
part of Apple's business plan.

If Apple shareholders disagreed with this plan, Apple stock price would
have risen during Steve Jobs' tenure at Apple.

You're arguing that Ferrari should be making $2,000 Tatas instead of
$250,000 Testarossas simply because they'd sell more units.

That's dumb.

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <270520081041599396%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> If Apple shareholders disagreed with this plan, Apple stock price would
> have risen during Steve Jobs' tenure at Apple.

s/b "would NOT have risen"

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <noemailhere-00253A.10380027052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more 
> customers are best."  

Which is better:

a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
c.  Neither is better; they're the same

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Bringing out an update is a fraction of the cost of bringing out a 
> new OS.  Duh... So you keep a skeleton staff on to do the updates.  
> Simple.

Many of us here work or have worked in software development, some of us 
have worked for Apple.  We know from experience what we're talking 
about.  You obviously have no clue about it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to the market.  
> That will be much more than the cost of getting the 10.5.1 update to 
> market.

But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <jollyroger-2E72A2.09483527052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > b. Zero years, or less.
> > 
> > He's a time traveller?
> 
> It could be a number of months under 1 year, no?  : )

But that still won't be less than zero years; it would be a fraction of 
one year.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <P3V_j.5300$Ri.129@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> Stop right there. Let's go back in time, say, about four years.
> 
> Back then, there were RUMORS that Apple was developing, kind of 
> "side-by-side", a version of OS X that could run on _Intel_ hardware. 
> Just rumors, mind you, and Apple (whenever the subject was brought 
> up) denied them vehemently.

I believe that Apple simply had no comment, rather than a denial.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?
> > 
> > Well, let's see:
> > $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> > $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> > $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> > $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> 
> I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 

You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
- including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
optimistic.

Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <g1h7d20213r@news5.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > So, once you're done with a project, say... OS X 10.5.0, you fire all the 
> > people who worked on it, right? 
> > Hmmm... problem. Who do you get to work on 
> > 10.5.1 and following? 
> > Not to mention any _other_ projects which might be 
> > going on... You know, 10.6, QuickTime, iLife, iWork, iPhone, iPod, etc? 
> > Guess 
> > you gotta hire 'em back. And they'll need a place to work, so that's 
> > another. 
> > And they'll need equipment to work with, so that's yet one more. 
> 
> No. You put them to work on the next project.  Like 10.6.  

I'm quite comfortable making the guess that development on 10.6 was well 
under way before 10.5.0 shipped.

> > Hmmm. Gee, 
> > it almost looks as though you're going to have _at least_ the same level of 
> > costs going forwards _after_ 10.5.0 was released as you did _before_ it was 
> > done. 
> 
> Perhaps.  And those costs will be paid for by the sale of 10.6 and the 
> other programs when they are available.  How simple is that?  Its like 
> some of you have had brain damage in economics.

No. It's like some of us have experience developing, distributing and 
supporting software.

G

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-FA40A1.09314427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > > > sell it for $129.
> > > > 
> > > > You forgot to factor in the cost of actually creating the software. 
> > > > Duplication costs may amortize away completely, but an OS vendor's per 
> > > > unit cost is far greater than you suggest. And last time I checked a 
> > > > large percentage of Windows users weren't paying retail or even upgrade 
> > > > prices for their OS. They're getting it with their machines, where it's 
> > > > itemized at a few dollars. Or they're businesses getting substantial 
> > > > site licenses. Or they're pirating. I'd estimate close to none are 
> > > > actually paying full price and a minority are paying for single-license 
> > > > upgrades.
> > > 
> > > Quite possible. But once the OS has been developed, its costs pennies 
> > > to produce each DVD. Once your costs have been covered its huge profits 
> > > ahead.
> > 
> > Um. No. Speaking as a working software developer: uh-uh. Huge profits on 
> > the sale of software are far more the exception than the rule. The costs 
> > *never* go away unless you declare the product dead and somehow still 
> > con people into paying you for it. Do you really have an idea of what 
> > the costs are in developing and supporting a product on this scale?
> 
> That's how MS made their money.  And what drove Bill Gates to be the 
> richest man in the world for many years.

Ahem. "... far more the exception than the rule." It can happen. It does 
happen. It doesn't happen often. And you neglect to note the events 
which catapulted Microsoft into the big time, which didn't involve 
direct sales to consumers and are even rarer than just the "huge profits 
on software" scenario.


> 
> > > And more importantly, far more people get to experience a better 
> > > designed OS.  Then Apple has them for years.  That has tremendous value 
> > > too.  People are always so worried about short term profits.  Its not a 
> > > good rule to run a business by, unless you have no vision of course.
> > 
> > Speculators worry about short-term profits. Investors and boards are 
> > more concerned about sustainable and increasing value.
> 
> But they answer to the stockholders unfortunately.

The stockholders they answer to are in the "investors" category.

G

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-00253A.10380027052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <270520080901257308%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> > Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> > > Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> > 
> > The people who can't afford Apple hardware, simply put, aren't people
> > that Apple markets to. Apple doesn't *want* their business. 
> > That's a rational, successful business decision on Apple's part.
> 
> The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more customers 
> are best."  They care not who or what economic class of wallet the cash 
> is procured from.  Apple not WANTING business is like you not wanting 
> food.  Doesn't wash.

A lot more customers means a lot higher support costs. A lot more 
customers acquired by a strategy which inherently complicates your 
support process is doom.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-7E1DC0.13451027052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> A lot more customers means a lot higher support costs. A lot more 
> customers acquired by a strategy which inherently complicates your 
> support process is doom.

Indeed. We've been partners for a few years with a much larger company. 
One of their biggest concerns was we'd try to scale poorly and end up 
dead. It was not a theoretical problem, but one based on their past 
experience.

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> But for me, business is pretty logical.  I thrive on logic.

You believe you thrive on logic, but your posting history indicates that
what you consider "logic" is actually circular reasoning.
 
-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:57:47 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-C37B5D.09574727052008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <noemailhere-00253A.10380027052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
>> The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
>> "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more 
>> customers are best."  
> 
> Which is better:
> 
> a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
> b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
> c.  Neither is better; they're the same

the answer is A of course.

A $2000 computer doesn't necessarily cost to make double what a $1000 
computer. On a $2000 computer the margins are likely higher. And with 
1,000,000 customers you have half the support cost of 2,000,000 
customers.

So $2 billions for 1 million computers is way more profitable than $2 
billions for 2 million computers.

In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-94D7CA.09001827052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes of course we all know that.  That's the problem.  Most people cannot 
> > > afford Apple hardware or can't rationalize the prices when they can buy 
> > > the same thing at their local discount store for a fraction of the 
> > > price.  
> > 
> > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> > Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> 
> Just my experience talking to computer users every day.  Call it 
> anything you want but that is how life works here in my small city.  

Uh huh.  I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of your sample 
base still live at home with mommy, too.

> > > The hardware is the precise impediment to huge profits from 
> > > Apple.  
> > 
> > Apple's sales figured show that is not the case. Apple is hugely 
> > profitable - mostly as a result of hardware sales.
> 
> True.  I'm just saying it could be immense with software sales.  

Nope.

> > > I predict they will release it.  When, I have no idea.  I'm sure 
> > > they are just waiting for the correct timing.  Of course it could be 
> > > years away.  I'm betting on about 2-4 years away.  Coinciding with Steve 
> > > Jobs leaving.
> > 
> > I'm confident you're wrong, and I don't want Steve Jobs to leave.
> 
> We'll see what what the future holds in a few years.  
> 
> You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> action against Psystar yet.  

There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
don't expect you to know much about that, though.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <michelle-02AC22.10063127052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-2E72A2.09483527052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > b. Zero years, or less.
> > > 
> > > He's a time traveller?
> > 
> > It could be a number of months under 1 year, no?  : )
> 
> But that still won't be less than zero years; it would be a fraction of 
> one year.

Oh ok ok... : )

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> sell it for $129.

And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?

Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
sale of an OS.

Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
be suicide.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <noemailhere-46F079.13293526052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> So they pick a chipset and release it for that particular chipset.  All 
> the major motherboard manufacturers can produce it.  Or just licence it 
> to one manufacturer then.

If they do that, how are they going to sell "a ton more copies" of OS X? 
The more you restrict the platforms it will run on, the fewer it will 
sell.

<snip>

> And what percentage of cell phone users in the US do you think use the 
> iPhone?  I'm betting less than 5%.  Probably way less.  So once again 
> Apple has only got a sliver of the market.  

The iPhone had 28 percent of the North American smartphone market in Q4 
2007, was second only to RIM.

Worldwide it was third to Nokia and RIM, with 6.5 percent of the 
smartphone market.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <noemailhere-87C629.09284827052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> ANYBODY can afford that.  That means ANYBODY can afford $129 for the OS, 
> giving $128 to Apple.

Only if you ignore the R&D costs. In the two full quarters prior to 
releasing Tiger, Apple spent $19.3 million in R&D on it. And that's not 
the total cost.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > action against Psystar yet.  
> 
> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> don't expect you to know much about that, though.

Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.

-- 
Jim Gibson

In article <noemailhere-87C629.09284827052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Anybody that can hold a screwdriver and can read just goes and buys the 
> parts and assembles it for vast savings.  The problem is that you just 
> can't do that with a Mac.

Oh, really?

Build Your Own G4
<http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/>

Monster Machine: G4/PC Hybrid
<http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/39123/Monster_Machine_G4PC_Hyb
rid.html?article_key=39123>

or <http://tinyurl.com/5uhzd5>

Make Your Own Intel Mac
<http://www.lowendmac.com/mail/mb07/0718.html#1>

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Its like some of you have had brain damage in economics.  

I studied economics at the Wharton School of Business. And you?

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article 
<dfmanno-B1237F.18523727052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Its like some of you have had brain damage in economics.  
> 
> I studied economics at the Wharton School of Business. And you?

He's a kid.  He has no qualifications.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article 
<dfmanno-D66BCA.18194027052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > sell it for $129.
> 
> And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?
> 
> Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> sale of an OS.
> 
> Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> be suicide.

The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap 
its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business 
that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in 
hardware sales...

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article 
<dfmanno-E69DD8.18414627052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-87C629.09284827052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > ANYBODY can afford that.  That means ANYBODY can afford $129 for the OS, 
> > giving $128 to Apple.
> 
> Only if you ignore the R&D costs. In the two full quarters prior to 
> releasing Tiger, Apple spent $19.3 million in R&D on it. And that's not 
> the total cost.

It's a safe bet that Apple spent well over a year working on every 
single major release of Mac OS X since 10.0.

The NewGuy wants Apple to make cheap hardware and cheap software. Apple 
has better things in mind, thankfully.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
 Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > 
> > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> 
> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.

Another good point.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <g1hjrl02du4@news5.newsguy.com>,
 John Drako <jbravo556@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:

> > Which is better:
> > 
> > a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
> > b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
> > c.  Neither is better; they're the same
> 
> the answer is A of course.
> 
> A $2000 computer doesn't necessarily cost to make double what a $1000 
> computer. On a $2000 computer the margins are likely higher. And with 
> 1,000,000 customers you have half the support cost of 2,000,000 
> customers.
> 
> So $2 billions for 1 million computers is way more profitable than $2 
> billions for 2 million computers.

Of course, but I wanted New Guy to answer it; now you've told him the 
correct answer.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap
> its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business
> that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in
> hardware sales...

A little confusing why it is that someone with the New Guy's "obvious"
expertise in these matters is wasting his time posting to newsgroups
instead of out making billions of dollars applying all that knowledge.
If not billions, at least a few tens of millions shouldn't be a big deal
for him.

People who are actually good at such things tend to be quite well paid
(or make quite respectable amounts of money on their own).

And then there are the people who think they are good at it. Those are a
lot more common. In fact, we seem to have an amazing number of them post
to this newsgroup. Surprising how much expertise the newsgroup attracts,
eh? :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

D.F. Manno a �crit :
> In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
>> Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
>> business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
>> After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
>> 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
>> concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
>> sell it for $129.
> 
> And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?

None. Apple would go bankrupt within a semester. Jobs makes $660 
millions a year, and that's only a drop in the bucket, because of Mac 
users' silly insistence on having the OS installed on their computer 
when they buy it just as Windows is installed on not-Jobbised PCs.

Installing Mandriva Linux takes an hour and saves you from Jobby's 
greediness for ever and ever amen. Great deal! No more stupid "please, 
please, please, please, stop stealing from us Mr Jobby" thread like this 
one.

> Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> sale of an OS.
> 
> Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> be suicide.

Absolutely. And, as we already explained, they never sweat much for it. 
They got their kernel from Carnegie-Mellon University, most of their OS 
from FreeBSD, for free. They did buy Jobby's NeXT, though...

Ross Perot lost $20 millions with this lame company. Then, NeXT decided 
software was the way out and collaborated with SUN who was late in 
producing a graphical interface. NeXT was really getting nowhere when 
Apple paid $429 frickin' millions for it.

So fundamentally, you Morons are paying hardware twice the price in 
order to get... free software. I must confess the names Jobby puts on 
very basic UNIX "features" -- calling virtual desktops "Spaces", for 
exemple -- are very trendy indeed. But fashion comes at a price: leaking 
G4s, MacBook Air being only a squeezed out laptop (unswappable battery, 
no DVD, no ethernet, no, no, no, no!) and, of course, the missing link 
between the lame Mini and the overly expensive Pro.

Pray, pray, pray, while you pay, pay, pay, Morons!

In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
>  Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> > Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > > 
> > > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> > > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> > 
> > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> 
> Another good point.

Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
machines.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 01:56:57 -0400, Michael Vilain wrote
(in article <vilain-CD6EAA.22565627052008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):

> In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
>> Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
>>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
>>>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
>>>>> action against Psystar yet.  
>>>> 
>>>> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
>>>> don't expect you to know much about that, though.
>>> 
>>> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
>>> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
>>> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
>>> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
>> 
>> Another good point.
> 
> Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
> machines.
> 
> 

I would say that the probability that 10.5.3 will do exactly that is very 
high. And as I read the Psystar site, Psystar ducks all responsibility for 
compatibility to any future updates. From the FAQs:

"Can I update my Open/OpenPro with the Leopard OS using the Apple web site or 
the Leopard Automatic Update Feature?
We do not support that feature of the operating system. Supported updates 
will be listed under support on the Psystar website. Future operating system 
updates may cause severe system problems. Only install updates that have been 
tested and posted to the Psystar support website."

Brick City, here we come... and they _said_ not to do it, so buyers have 
little or no recourse if they do.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Michael Vilain wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
>>  Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
>>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
>>>>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
>>>>> action against Psystar yet.  
>>>> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
>>>> don't expect you to know much about that, though.
>>> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
>>> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
>>> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
>>> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
>> Another good point.
> 
> Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
> machines.

Almost guaranteed.

I've just started fooling around with Wintel boxes after 20 years of 
using Macs.  I might try building a new machine and seeing if I can get 
OSX to run on it, along with WinXP and Linux.  I won't be silly enough 
to expect updates to work properly though.

Cheers,
Andy.

In article <jollyroger-039254.20594727052008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap 
> its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business 
> that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in 
> hardware sales...

Didn't The NewGuy also post that Mac OS X DVDs should be about $2? Lots 
of profit there!

In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
 Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.

Waiting is a win-win, I think. Either PsyStar dies on its own, or Apple 
gets to sue for actual damages.

In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?
> > > 
> > > Well, let's see:
> > > $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> > > $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> > > $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> > > $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> > 
> > I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> > I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> 
> You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
> - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> optimistic.
> 
> Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.

My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.

> > The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like in 
> > "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more 
> > customers are best."  
> 
> Which is better: 
> a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
> b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
> c.  Neither is better; they're the same

I think you mean a million customers buying a computer generating $2000 
each profit for the company as opposed to 2 million customers buying a 
computer generating $1000 each for the company.

But I would say 100,000,000 people paying $129 for an OS bringing in 
$128,000,000 or $125,000,000 or $100,000,000 profit is way better.  
There are so many more people willing to buy an OS at $129 than a 
computer at $1000.  That's my point.  Because many of those people 
already have the computer that COULD run OS X.  

The key to this scenario is orchestrating it so piracy isn't rampant.

In article <michelle-290C3F.10043627052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to the market.  
> > That will be much more than the cost of getting the 10.5.1 update to 
> > market.
> 
> But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.

That's ok.  There is lots of income from 10.5.1 DVD's that are being 
sold every minute of every hour of every day.

In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-01B0EB.09293127052008@individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-94D7CA.09001827052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Yes of course we all know that.  That's the problem.  Most people 
> > > > cannot 
> > > > afford Apple hardware or can't rationalize the prices when they can buy 
> > > > the same thing at their local discount store for a fraction of the 
> > > > price.  
> > > 
> > > BZZZZT!  I know lots of people - and most of them *can* afford Apple 
> > > hardware.  I'm not taking your word for it that most people can't afford 
> > > Apple hardware. Show proof, or I'm calling bullshit.
> > 
> > Just my experience talking to computer users every day.  Call it 
> > anything you want but that is how life works here in my small city.  
> 
> Uh huh.  I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of your sample 
> base still live at home with mommy, too.
> 
> > > > The hardware is the precise impediment to huge profits from 
> > > > Apple.  
> > > 
> > > Apple's sales figured show that is not the case. Apple is hugely 
> > > profitable - mostly as a result of hardware sales.
> > 
> > True.  I'm just saying it could be immense with software sales.  
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > > > I predict they will release it.  When, I have no idea.  I'm sure 
> > > > they are just waiting for the correct timing.  Of course it could be 
> > > > years away.  I'm betting on about 2-4 years away.  Coinciding with 
> > > > Steve 
> > > > Jobs leaving.
> > > 
> > > I'm confident you're wrong, and I don't want Steve Jobs to leave.
> > 
> > We'll see what what the future holds in a few years.  
> > 
> > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > action against Psystar yet.  
> 
> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> don't expect you to know much about that, though.

I sure don't.  I'm no lawyer.  But I thought that in the past Apple was 
quite vigilant about jumping on legal issues they viewed a threat to the 
company.  That is, I think, what most people find odd about the Psystar 
thing.  Their inaction.  By not at least making a statement, it makes 
some people think that maybe Apple is OK with it.

> > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > sell it for $129.
> 
> And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?

Here's the problem with some of you.  You fail to realize that the 
optimum computer experience draws on both Operating Systems.  Run both.  
Just run Windows offline as much as possible.  Best of both worlds.  
 
> Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> sale of an OS.

Almost every person I sell PC parts to is ripe for buying OS X.  Almost 
all are interested.  They know its stable, they know its secure.  They 
want to try it.  But they sure ain't going to plunk down 2 or 3 times 
what they paid for their PC to do it.  I would estimate for every time 
one person buys a Mac computer there are at least 10 people that would 
buy the OS if they could run it on their PC.  
 
> Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> be suicide.

Yeah - that's the delusion.  From people without vision.  When 90%+ of 
the world is ripe for the picking, its a great concept.  Put an 
overpriced hardware obstacle in the mix and you kill the potential.

> > ANYBODY can afford that.  That means ANYBODY can afford $129 for the OS, 
> > giving $128 to Apple.
> 
> Only if you ignore the R&D costs. In the two full quarters prior to 
> releasing Tiger, Apple spent $19.3 million in R&D on it. And that's not 
> the total cost.

Well whatever they spent/spend its obviously worth it. Now is the time 
to profit from that R & D.  Remember, almost every PC user is a 
potential customer.  That's probably 100,000,000 just in the US alone.  
That's not going to happen in the first year, but in 3 or 4 years its 
definitely a possibility.  And yes, their hardware sales would plummet, 
but that's the cost of vision.  You make sacrifices now for better 
choices in the future.  They could still keep the Mac line for people 
loving the style.

> > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > 
> > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> > don't expect you to know much about that, though.

Companies usually issue statements. That doesn't take time or cost 
anything.  
 
> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.

Psystar is swamped with business. Its pretty hard to fail. They'd have 
to be the most brain-dead entrepreneurs to fail at that. Don't count on 
it.

> > Anybody that can hold a screwdriver and can read just goes and buys the 
> > parts and assembles it for vast savings.  The problem is that you just 
> > can't do that with a Mac.
> 
> Oh, really? 
> Build Your Own G4
> <http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/>

Who wants an archaic G4?  Useless.

> Monster Machine: G4/PC Hybrid
> <http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/39123/Monster_Machine_G4PC_Hyb
> rid.html?article_key=39123>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/5uhzd5>

Another arcahic G4. Useless.  So many of you Macheads live in the past.  
Its like going into a time warp talking to you.  

> Make Your Own Intel Mac
> <http://www.lowendmac.com/mail/mb07/0718.html#1>

Hey brainiac, this is an OSX86 machine.  Breaks the Eula.  Lots of 
headaches.  Try an update and the whole OS can collapse.  Its not a Mac 
at all.

In article 
<dfmanno-B1237F.18523727052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Its like some of you have had brain damage in economics.  
> 
> I studied economics at the Wharton School of Business. And you?

Then why are your posts so thoughtless?  Of all the posters commenting 
yours are the only ones I almost killfiled.  You don't seem to 
comprehend the concepts raised, then when you respond its like there's 
no common sense.  Do you read at all these days?  In your own Apple 
bubble?

In article <jollyroger-039254.20594727052008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <dfmanno-D66BCA.18194027052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-17F362.09535726052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > sell it for $129.
> > 
> > And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> > switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?
> > 
> > Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> > sale of an OS.
> > 
> > Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> > software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> > be suicide.
> 
> The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap 
> its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business 
> that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in 
> hardware sales...

Exactly.  Well put.  Thank you.  
Selling at a profit of $100+ for each DVD to 500 million around the 
world would mean a profit of $50,000,000,000.  That's just taking into 
account North America, Australia/NZ and Europe.  Then you have the 
Middle East, Eastern Europe/Russia and Asia.  Where is your vision?  
They could make discounted versions for the poorer countries just in 
ther language so it would unusable for the English speaking world for 
further market penetration.  The world is their oyster.  And the real 
benefactor is the world because productivity would go up using a better 
OS most of the time.  Apple has the opportunity to really make a dent in 
world efficiency.  Computers run our lives.  When they disappoint, it 
costs us in so many areas.  Hampering someone with solely a Windows only 
OS is cruel and unusual punishment.

> > > ANYBODY can afford that.  That means ANYBODY can afford $129 for the OS, 
> > > giving $128 to Apple.
> > 
> > Only if you ignore the R&D costs. In the two full quarters prior to 
> > releasing Tiger, Apple spent $19.3 million in R&D on it. And that's not 
> > the total cost.

So at say $100 profit (some sales are discounted) each, it would take 
about 200,000 sales to recover it.  Well it just happens they sold over 
2,000,000 the first week!  

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/apples-leopard-leaps-mac-sales/stor
y.aspx?guid=%7B0B191961-D06D-4DDA-9458-89910C2D8274%7D
"200,000 of those sales included Macs that were pre-installed with 
Leopard."
Only 10% of the sales were included in Macs. 
My points were getting validated more and more.

> It's a safe bet that Apple spent well over a year working on every 
> single major release of Mac OS X since 10.0. 
> The NewGuy wants Apple to make cheap hardware and cheap software. Apple 
> has better things in mind, thankfully.

I couldn't care less what Apple makes in the hardware field.  Just don't 
restrict software sales is what I want.  Apple should make any hardware 
it deems profitable.  I'm not into brand/proprietary control.  I'm into 
consumer freedom.

In article <michelle-3B7E2E.19215527052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <g1hjrl02du4@news5.newsguy.com>,
>  John Drako <jbravo556@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Which is better:
> > > 
> > > a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
> > > b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
> > > c.  Neither is better; they're the same
> > 
> > the answer is A of course.
> > 
> > A $2000 computer doesn't necessarily cost to make double what a $1000 
> > computer. On a $2000 computer the margins are likely higher. And with 
> > 1,000,000 customers you have half the support cost of 2,000,000 
> > customers.
> > 
> > So $2 billions for 1 million computers is way more profitable than $2 
> > billions for 2 million computers.
> 
> Of course, but I wanted New Guy to answer it; now you've told him the 
> correct answer.

This is a good example of how small most of you think.  They sell 2 
million copies of Leopard in the first 2 days, 90% of them not included 
with hardware.  That's about 180,000 x $100 (minimum, probably a lot 
more) each = $18,000,000 gross......in 2 days.  Now their profit on that 
sale after DVD and packaging costs is probably 99%.  Now realize that at 
least 10 times as many people would have snapped them up if they could 
run them on their PC's.  At 99% profit, R & D costs would be paid rather 
quickly.  Then its all gravy.

In article <1ihm6ur.p3amk5lez2uaN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap
> > its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business
> > that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in
> > hardware sales...
> 
> A little confusing why it is that someone with the New Guy's "obvious"
> expertise in these matters is wasting his time posting to newsgroups
> instead of out making billions of dollars applying all that knowledge.
> If not billions, at least a few tens of millions shouldn't be a big deal
> for him.
> 
> People who are actually good at such things tend to be quite well paid
> (or make quite respectable amounts of money on their own).
> 
> And then there are the people who think they are good at it. Those are a
> lot more common. In fact, we seem to have an amazing number of them post
> to this newsgroup. Surprising how much expertise the newsgroup attracts,
> eh? :-)

And then there are people that talk in nebulous generalities instead of 
rebutting a point they disagree with.  :)  Get specific!  Its the point 
of usenet.

In article <vilain-CD6EAA.22565627052008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
> >  Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> > > Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
> > > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > > > 
> > > > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  
> > > > I 
> > > > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> > > 
> > > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> > 
> > Another good point.
> 
> Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
> machines.

Then the hackers unbrick them....and on it goes.

In article <g1jef20vtq@news5.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 May 2008 01:56:57 -0400, Michael Vilain wrote
> (in article <vilain-CD6EAA.22565627052008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
> >> Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> >>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
> >>>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> >>>>> action against Psystar yet.  
> >>>> 
> >>>> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> >>>> don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> >>> 
> >>> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> >>> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> >>> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> >>> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> >> 
> >> Another good point.
> > 
> > Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
> > machines.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I would say that the probability that 10.5.3 will do exactly that is very 
> high. And as I read the Psystar site, Psystar ducks all responsibility for 
> compatibility to any future updates. From the FAQs:
> 
> "Can I update my Open/OpenPro with the Leopard OS using the Apple web site or 
> the Leopard Automatic Update Feature?
> We do not support that feature of the operating system. Supported updates 
> will be listed under support on the Psystar website. Future operating system 
> updates may cause severe system problems. Only install updates that have been 
> tested and posted to the Psystar support website."
> 
> Brick City, here we come... and they _said_ not to do it, so buyers have 
> little or no recourse if they do.

I'm betting they will do no such thing or if they do it will be 
unbricked within days.  10.5.3 should be out soon.  We'll see who's 
right.  Me the idiot - or all of you experts......:)

In article 
<483d5a5a$0$21138$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> Michael Vilain wrote:
> > In article <jollyroger-241E70.21050727052008@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
> >>  Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <jollyroger-0D5225.14325427052008@individual.net>, Jolly
> >>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <noemailhere-D159BB.09484427052008@news.mts.net>,
> >>>>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> >>>>> action against Psystar yet.  
> >>>> There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> >>>> don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> >>> Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> >>> starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> >>> survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> >>> Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> >> Another good point.
> > 
> > Or they put something in a release of MacOS X that will brick the pystar 
> > machines.
> 
> Almost guaranteed.
> 
> I've just started fooling around with Wintel boxes after 20 years of 
> using Macs.  I might try building a new machine and seeing if I can get 
> OSX to run on it, along with WinXP and Linux.  I won't be silly enough 
> to expect updates to work properly though.

Andy - read about EFI.  Updates can work - if you understand EFI.  And 
enjoy the speed of your Wintel Mac, your Hackintosh, your Hack Pro.  And 
don't worry so much about updates.  Its rare they even make a difference 
BECAUSE the OS is so well designed.  Its not as if you're burdened with 
the flakiness of Windows.

> > The NewGuy believes it would make good business sense for Apple to scrap 
> > its lucrative hardware business to replace it with a software business 
> > that would magically bring in even more money, despite the decline in 
> > hardware sales...
> 
> Didn't The NewGuy also post that Mac OS X DVDs should be about $2? Lots 
> of profit there!

No Steven.  I said nothing of the kind.  Many posts ago, I made an 
economic example demonstrating a point. I kept it simple for the 
mathematically challenged of which I am one.  :)  Always think in 
percentages for economic logic.  Its easy to get distracted.  
Percentages keep you grounded, so to speak.  Hey - if it works for my 
paper route, it can work for multi-national, zillion dollar companies.  
Which I own.  Like...a lot of them.  Really.

In article <sdfisher-B5556F.07510228052008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <270520081541587387%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
>  Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> 
> Waiting is a win-win, I think. Either PsyStar dies on its own, or Apple 
> gets to sue for actual damages.

I predict neither.  There are already people all over the net selling 
Psystar type computers.  Apple saying nothing is giving the green light 
to such behavior.

In article <noemailhere-9718CA.10211428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which 
> > > > > one?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, let's see:
> > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> > > > $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> > > > $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> > > 
> > > I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> > > I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> > 
> > You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> > with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
> > - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> > optimistic.
> > 
> > Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> > large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> 
> My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.

My point is that your claim is not descriptive of common software 
development experience. Apple's profit machine is their hardware. You're 
underestimating pre- and post-release costs, and overestimating revenue.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-9718CA.10211428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which 
> > > > > one?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, let's see:
> > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> > > > $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> > > > $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> > > 
> > > I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> > > I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> > 
> > You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> > with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
> > - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> > optimistic.
> > 
> > Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> > large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> 
> My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.

Sorry, but you'll need to provide proof of that assertion.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <noemailhere-200030.10314428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I thought that in the past Apple was 
> quite vigilant about jumping on legal issues they viewed a threat to the 
> company.  That is, I think, what most people find odd about the Psystar 
> thing.  Their inaction.  By not at least making a statement, it makes 
> some people think that maybe Apple is OK with it.

I don't find that Apple is any slower than normal in this case.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <noemailhere-70A26A.10422628052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > > 
> > > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  I 
> > > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> 
> Companies usually issue statements. That doesn't take time or cost 
> anything.  

You're dumb, dude. You seem to have forgotten that statements have legal 
implications. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation knows legal 
process takes time.

> > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> 
> Psystar is swamped with business. Its pretty hard to fail. They'd have 
> to be the most brain-dead entrepreneurs to fail at that. Don't count on 
> it.

Right - because we never see small PC makers fold in this industry... 
Get real.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <noemailhere-7E4E88.10463928052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Make Your Own Intel Mac
> > <http://www.lowendmac.com/mail/mb07/0718.html#1>
> 
> Hey brainiac, this is an OSX86 machine.  Breaks the Eula.  Lots of 
> headaches.  Try an update and the whole OS can collapse.  Its not a Mac 
> at all.

Neither is a PsyStar, dummy.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <noemailhere-B91AD9.10482428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article 
> <dfmanno-B1237F.18523727052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-989B08.10334227052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Its like some of you have had brain damage in economics.  
> > 
> > I studied economics at the Wharton School of Business. And you?
> 
> Then why are your posts so thoughtless?  Of all the posters commenting 
> yours are the only ones I almost killfiled.  You don't seem to 
> comprehend the concepts raised, then when you respond its like there's 
> no common sense.  Do you read at all these days?  In your own Apple 
> bubble?

I found his posts to be just fine  Maybe it's you.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I'm into consumer freedom.

And that somehow translates into companies having to sell exactly what
_you_ want them to?  Hey, I like the way HP inkjet printers use
cartridges that include the print heads, unlike Epson printers, in which
the print heads are integral to the printer and not replaceable by the
consumer. On the other hand, I think Epson's drivers are vastly superior
to HPs, so I think it's wrong of Epson not to make their drivers work
with HP printers.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <michelle-3B7E2E.19215527052008@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <g1hjrl02du4@news5.newsguy.com>,
> John Drako <jbravo556@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>> > Which is better:
>> > 
>> > a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
>> > b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
>> > c.  Neither is better; they're the same
>> 
>> the answer is A of course.
>> 
>> A $2000 computer doesn't necessarily cost to make double what a $1000 
>> computer. On a $2000 computer the margins are likely higher. And with 
>> 1,000,000 customers you have half the support cost of 2,000,000 
>> customers.
>> 
>> So $2 billions for 1 million computers is way more profitable than $2 
>> billions for 2 million computers.
>
>Of course, but I wanted New Guy to answer it; now you've told him the 
>correct answer.

Don't worry, he won't learn from it.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <noemailhere-F9B3B7.11012028052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I couldn't care less what Apple makes in the hardware field.

That's the difference between you and Apple: Apple does care what it 
makes.

> Just don't restrict software sales is what I want.

They're not restricted. Anybody with $129 can buy Leopard.

> Apple should make any hardware it deems profitable.

Which it's already doing.

> I'm not into brand/proprietary control.

A brand is worth real money in the business world. In the Blackstone 
Group's IPO, it was valued at $3.7 Billion. A brand is worthless if a 
company doesn't take steps to protect it.

> I'm into consumer freedom.

The consumer is not always right.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> And then there are people that talk in nebulous generalities instead of
> rebutting a point they disagree with.  :)

I disagree with pretty much every single thing you've said in this
entire thread. Is that specific enough? And frankly, I don't consider it
worth my time to write detailed rebuttals. What would the point be? It
seems most unlikely that I would be able to convince you of anything of
substance, no matter what. It seems even more unlikely that anything
said here by any of us will have any influence on the real world - for
example that Apple would actually pay attention even if somehow all the
posters here came to agreement on the Way Things Should Be.

It seems like about the only thing left is argument for the sake of
argument, on something that is off-topic for the newsgroup anyway. I
don't particularly get my "kicks" out of such games.

I'm much closer to just killfiling you and all responses to you than to
getting into an extended debate.

> Get specific!  Its the point of usenet.

You had a smiley for the first sentence, but left it off of this part.
Either that, or you really must be a "new guy" here. :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <noemailhere-EEF6EA.10362628052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), then 
> > > sell it for $129.
> > 
> > And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> > switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?
> 
> Here's the problem with some of you.  You fail to realize that the 
> optimum computer experience draws on both Operating Systems.  Run both.

I've used Windows and I use the Mac OS. I've done tech support for a 
Windows computer lab and a Mac computer lab. I have neither desire nor 
need to run Windows on anything, not even my toaster.

My optimum computer experience is running OS X on a Mac. Period.

I want Apple around so they can continue to make great hardware and the 
software to run on it. What you propose would destroy Apple.
  
> Just run Windows offline as much as possible.  Best of both worlds.  
 
> > Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> > sale of an OS.
> 
> Almost every person I sell PC parts to is ripe for buying OS X.  Almost 
> all are interested.  They know its stable, they know its secure.  They 
> want to try it.  But they sure ain't going to plunk down 2 or 3 times 
> what they paid for their PC to do it.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. When you compare _comparably 
equipped_ computers, the price differential all but disappears.

> I would estimate for every time 
> one person buys a Mac computer there are at least 10 people that would 
> buy the OS if they could run it on their PC.  

Which means that for every 10 PC customers that would buy the OS instead 
of a Mac, Apple loses money.

> > Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> > software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> > be suicide.
> 
> Yeah - that's the delusion.  From people without vision.

The stock market values Apple at $164.87 Billion. Not bad for a company 
"without vision."

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

The NewGuy wrote:
> In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
>>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?
>>>> Well, let's see:
>>>> $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
>>>> $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
>>>> $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
>>>> $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
>>> I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
>>> I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
>> You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
>> with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
>> - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
>> optimistic.
>>
>> Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
>> large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> 
> My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.

More proof that you've got absolutely no idea how much is invested (in 
both time and money) to get a (massive in this case) piece of software 
ready for release to the market.

Andy.

In article <uce-6F6C8D.14052228052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-9718CA.10211428052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which 
> > > > > > one?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, let's see:
> > > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> > > > > $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> > > > > $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> > > > > $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> > > > 
> > > > I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> > > > I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> > > 
> > > You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> > > with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
> > > - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> > > optimistic.
> > > 
> > > Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> > > large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> > 
> > My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> > income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.
> 
> My point is that your claim is not descriptive of common software 
> development experience. Apple's profit machine is their hardware. You're 
> underestimating pre- and post-release costs, and overestimating revenue.

Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
$180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
its release.  

Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.

> > > > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > > > 
> > > > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time.  
> > > > I 
> > > > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> > 
> > Companies usually issue statements. That doesn't take time or cost 
> > anything.  
> 
> You're dumb, dude. You seem to have forgotten that statements have legal 
> implications. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation knows legal 
> process takes time.

Well I guess here are a LOT of other dumb dudes out there because that 
is exactly what most people are talking about.  "Why is Apple not doing 
anything?"  And "Why are they keeping so quiet?".  By keeping quiet it 
just encourages others to do the Psystar thing.  If Apple issues a 
statement right away that they were going to do this or that, it would 
be a huge disincentive for others to emulate Psystar.  Are they going to 
sue thousands of small sellers?   
 
> > > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> > 
> > Psystar is swamped with business. Its pretty hard to fail. They'd have 
> > to be the most brain-dead entrepreneurs to fail at that. Don't count on 
> > it.
> 
> Right - because we never see small PC makers fold in this industry... 
> Get real.

But they are taking existing hardware and just bundling it.  Its so 
easy.  Their profit is high as their competition is nil.  When they sell 
a computer for $399, their cost is probably less than $250.  They are 
using really low end parts in that thing.

In article <jollyroger-3BECB3.13131028052008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-7E4E88.10463928052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > Make Your Own Intel Mac
> > > <http://www.lowendmac.com/mail/mb07/0718.html#1>
> > 
> > Hey brainiac, this is an OSX86 machine.  Breaks the Eula.  Lots of 
> > headaches.  Try an update and the whole OS can collapse.  Its not a Mac 
> > at all.
> 
> Neither is a PsyStar, dummy.

We all know that smartypants.  :)

In article <1ihnogk.aotcc1typqwnN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > I'm into consumer freedom.
> 
> And that somehow translates into companies having to sell exactly what
> _you_ want them to?  

Yes.  And most everyone else I talk to and read about.  All most people 
want is a chance to give Apple $128 profit for a $129 purchase.  Maybe 
one day Apple will wake up and I will be vindicated.

In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:


> Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
> sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
> days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> $180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> its release.  
> 
> Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.

Where is the supporting documentation that there is $100 profit (either 
net or gross) on the sale of a CD?

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article <1ihnj3p.142yew31oz7bliN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > And then there are people that talk in nebulous generalities instead of
> > rebutting a point they disagree with.  :)
> 
> I disagree with pretty much every single thing you've said in this
> entire thread. Is that specific enough? 

That's pretty darn specific!  :)

> And frankly, I don't consider it
> worth my time to write detailed rebuttals. What would the point be? It
> seems most unlikely that I would be able to convince you of anything of
> substance, no matter what. It seems even more unlikely that anything
> said here by any of us will have any influence on the real world - for
> example that Apple would actually pay attention even if somehow all the
> posters here came to agreement on the Way Things Should Be.

Yeah - it would be interesting to see what they value as opinion in the 
online community.  But to be really visionary sometimes you have to 
really disconnect yourself from the normal world.  
 
> It seems like about the only thing left is argument for the sake of
> argument, on something that is off-topic for the newsgroup anyway. I
> don't particularly get my "kicks" out of such games.

That's my point.  If someone disagrees with someone, its good to point 
out why.  Insults do no good.  I've presented a lot of numbers to 
bolster my view.  Almost all the replies use insults and general 
"classic" Apple opinions like "Apple is a hardware company".  Apple is a 
company in business to make money.  If its profitable for them to 
release their princess OS X into uncharted dangerous territory, so be 
it, they will do it.  Get over it.  It may happen.  All will not be 
lost. Many of you whimpered and whined when you heard of the Intel 
transition.  Maybe it will be the same with the general release of OS X.  
People are always wary of change, and rightly so.  
 
> I'm much closer to just killfiling you and all responses to you than to
> getting into an extended debate.

Seems like a logical thing to do if are opinions are vastly apart.  
Quite understandable.  No point in reading opinions from someone who 
things differently then you.
 
> > Get specific!  Its the point of usenet.
> 
> You had a smiley for the first sentence, but left it off of this part.
> Either that, or you really must be a "new guy" here. :-)

I'm certainly new in Mac.  And I'm pretty happy most of the time.  I 
should probably use more smileys to convey that.  You notice I don't get 
angry when people insult me.  Its just their opinion.  I'm thankful I 
live in a world where its possible to voice it.

> > > > Or maybe Apple is hoping Psystar's volume will grow and use this as a 
> > > > business guide for releasing OS X for specific Intel motherboards.  
> > > > After all that's how Microsoft made most of their billions.  More than 
> > > > 90% of the computing world is ripe for the picking.  What an amazing 
> > > > concept.  Produce a DVD for less than a dollar (actually WAY less), 
> > > > then 
> > > > sell it for $129.
> > > 
> > > And depress if not kill their sales of Macs. How many PC users will 
> > > switch to Mac if they can buy OS X for PCs?
> > 
> > Here's the problem with some of you.  You fail to realize that the 
> > optimum computer experience draws on both Operating Systems.  Run both.
> 
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> I've used Windows and I use the Mac OS. I've done tech support for a 
> Windows computer lab and a Mac computer lab. I have neither desire nor 
> need to run Windows on anything, not even my toaster.

Now THAT's funny!
 
> My optimum computer experience is running OS X on a Mac. Period.

And it would be for most of us but there are so many fields where 
Windows has a vastly wider selection of software.  And several fields 
where OS X has almost none.  Sad but true.  By running both you lose 
nothing.  
 
> I want Apple around so they can continue to make great hardware and the 
> software to run on it. What you propose would destroy Apple.

Look at that numbers.  It would catapult Apple into big leagues.  
   
> > Just run Windows offline as much as possible.  Best of both worlds.  
>  
> > > Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> > > sale of an OS.

Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
$100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
$180,000,000 of profit.  

In 2 days.  They paid for their $19,000,000 R & D for the last year in 
hours.

What some of you people can't quite grasp is that for every person that 
wanders into an Apple store to buy OS X, there are at least 10 more 
outside that would do the same if only it ran on their hardware.  
Probably 20 or 30 more.  What percentage of the population has newer 
Macs?  Maybe 2%. Maybe 4%.  What percentage of the population has newer 
PC hardware?  WAY more.  Almost all of those are potential customers, 
especially as the price of OS X is so reasonable.  
 
> > Almost every person I sell PC parts to is ripe for buying OS X.  Almost 
> > all are interested.  They know its stable, they know its secure.  They 
> > want to try it.  But they sure ain't going to plunk down 2 or 3 times 
> > what they paid for their PC to do it.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it's not true. When you compare _comparably 
> equipped_ computers, the price differential all but disappears.

Like I said your math isn't so good.  I can put together a computer that 
can trounce the Mini is every aspect except size for 1/3 the cost.  Same 
with any iMac.  Some of you Apple people just have no idea what the rest 
of the world pays for stuff.  Why do you think Psystar's business is 
booming?  Think about it.  They sell mediocre parts (the $399 model) for 
way more than most PC sellers do.  The only reason is because Apple's 
prices are so ludicrously high! Otherwise they COULDN't operate their 
business.  
 
> > I would estimate for every time 
> > one person buys a Mac computer there are at least 10 people that would 
> > buy the OS if they could run it on their PC.  
> 
> Which means that for every 10 PC customers that would buy the OS instead 
> of a Mac, Apple loses money.

Wow - your math is atrocious.  Lets run some numbers.  10 x $129 = 
$12900 of which almost all is profit.  The hardware profit for most of 
Apple's computers is 25-40% I think.  So for the average person buying a 
20" iMac for $1199 right now which probably makes Apple about $300:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?
nnmm=browse&node=home/desktop/imac
you've got the potential of $12900 or $12800 profit for those 10 PC 
users that would love to try OS X.  Let's see.  $12,800 vs $300.  Hmmmmm 
which is bigger?  
 
> > > Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> > > software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> > > be suicide.
> > 
> > Yeah - that's the delusion.  From people without vision.
> 
> The stock market values Apple at $164.87 Billion. Not bad for a company 
> "without vision."

Microsoft is far bigger and richer.  No vision there either.  You'd 
think they'd design a reliable OS but they haven't.  The world is 
strange.  Never a dull moment.  :)

In article 
<483dd945$0$21126$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> The NewGuy wrote:
> > In article <uce-41DBE9.13360927052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <noemailhere-5E5BA2.11090927052008@news.mts.net>,
> >>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> If you don't agree with those calculations, why not point out which one?
> >>>> Well, let's see:
> >>>> $1,000,000 out of pocket development costs,
> >>>> $1,000,000 out of pocket to produce 1,000,000 DVDs,
> >>>> $2,000,000 revenue for sale of DVDs,
> >>>> $0 gross profit on the sale of DVDs.
> >>> I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more publicity.
> >>> I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> >> You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> >> with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that people 
> >> - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> >> optimistic.
> >>
> >> Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> >> large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> > 
> > My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> > income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.
> 
> More proof that you've got absolutely no idea how much is invested (in 
> both time and money) to get a (massive in this case) piece of software 
> ready for release to the market.
> 
> Andy.

Really?  R & D was estimated at $19,000,000.  Sales were $180,000,000 in 
2 days of non-bundled software.  Do the math.

In article <tomstiller-9E8FF5.18335328052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
> > sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
> > days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> > $180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> > its release.  
> > 
> > Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> > If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.
> 
> Where is the supporting documentation that there is $100 profit (either 
> net or gross) on the sale of a CD?

Well I guess when I buy a stack of 100 DVD's for 15 to 25 cents each I 
realize the cost of the disc isn't very high!  And the last time looked 
at cardboard it was pretty cheap.  Its a wonder some of you can balance 
a checkbook.  We're not talking R & D ($19,000,000). We're talking about 
costs of getting the product out the door.  The same costs whether you 
sell a million or a billion.  No wonder so many of you buy new.  You 
don't understand the true cost of an item.  Its the difference between 
the buying and selling price plus maintenance. That's it.  That's why 
one person can spend 100 times more on a Mac than another.  And its the 
same machine.

In article <noemailhere-8FB1CB.17575128052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Look at that numbers.  It would catapult Apple into big leagues.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <tomstiller-9E8FF5.18335328052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
> > sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
> > days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> > $180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> > its release.  
> > 
> > Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> > If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.
> 
> Where is the supporting documentation that there is $100 profit (either 
> net or gross) on the sale of a CD?

He thinks Apple does all their own DVD duplication, packaging, printing, 
and so on.  Or probably more correctly - he simply didn't think of 
things like this at all.  It's easy to understand how he comes to these 
conclusions.  He has no professional experience with software 
development, marketing, and sales - unlike others here who do have such 
professional experience.  ; )

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-99A91D.18031028052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <tomstiller-9E8FF5.18335328052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
> > > sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
> > > days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> > > $180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> > > its release.  
> > > 
> > > Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> > > If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.
> > 
> > Where is the supporting documentation that there is $100 profit (either 
> > net or gross) on the sale of a CD?
> 
> Well I guess when I buy a stack of 100 DVD's for 15 to 25 cents each I 
> realize the cost of the disc isn't very high!  And the last time looked 
> at cardboard it was pretty cheap.  Its a wonder some of you can balance 
> a checkbook.  We're not talking R & D ($19,000,000). We're talking about 
> costs of getting the product out the door.  

Right - and it's obvious you have no idea what costs are involved with 
getting a software product out of the door. If you would but admit your 
ignorance and ask for more details, people wouldn't be so hostile 
towards you. Instead, you profess to know what you are talking about, 
while it's clear to those of us who actually work in the industry you 
haven't a clue. You should just admit what the rest of us can clearly 
see - if for no reason but to save face.

> The same costs whether you 
> sell a million or a billion.  No wonder so many of you buy new.  You 
> don't understand the true cost of an item.  Its the difference between 
> the buying and selling price plus maintenance. That's it.  That's why 
> one person can spend 100 times more on a Mac than another.  And its the 
> same machine.

You are so wrong. I can't speak for others here, but I personally buy 
new Macs because:

a) I can afford it.
b) I like that "new computer" smell.
c) I want the warranty that comes with it.
d) I don't want to spend my time building another PC. 
e) I have zero debt and can fucking afford it.   :)

I know I can get a used Mac cheaper.  I know I could build a cheap-o PC 
and hack Mac OS X to run on it. I have built enough of them that it's no 
longer what I consider a fun way to spend my time. I want to be up and 
running in 5 minutes or less. My choice has absolutely nothing to do 
with my intelligence, my knowledge, or skill level.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-3FE496.19202028052008@individual.net>, Jolly
Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <tomstiller-9E8FF5.18335328052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.  They 
> > > sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first 2 
> > > days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> > > $180,000,000.  So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> > > its release.  
> > > 
> > > Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> > > If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.
> > 
> > Where is the supporting documentation that there is $100 profit (either 
> > net or gross) on the sale of a CD?
> 
> He thinks Apple does all their own DVD duplication, packaging, printing, 
> and so on.  Or probably more correctly - he simply didn't think of 
> things like this at all.  It's easy to understand how he comes to these 
> conclusions.  He has no professional experience with software 
> development, marketing, and sales - unlike others here who do have such 
> professional experience.  ; )

You must be wrong. He only comments on things he has expertise with.

I wonder which multi-billion company he's been a board member of?

He won't tell us where he studied economics, nor how old he is.

Personally, I'm also curious about his BMI, but suspect the answer
would be "eeew!"

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <noemailhere-8FB1CB.17575128052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > My optimum computer experience is running OS X on a Mac. Period.
> 
> And it would be for most of us but there are so many fields where 
> Windows has a vastly wider selection of software.  And several fields 
> where OS X has almost none.  Sad but true.  By running both you lose 
> nothing.  

That's not a valid argument for the vast majority of consumers. The fact 
is people who have careers in fields that require Windows-only software 
are usually provided Windows hardware by their employers to get that job 
done.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.  

Oh you mean these numbers?:

> Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> $180,000,000 of profit.  

You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac 
OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get 
that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-F742EF.17323128052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <1ihnogk.aotcc1typqwnN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm into consumer freedom.
> > 
> > And that somehow translates into companies having to sell exactly what
> > _you_ want them to?  
> 
> Yes.  And most everyone else I talk to and read about.  All most people 
> want is a chance to give Apple $128 profit for a $129 purchase.  Maybe 
> one day Apple will wake up and I will be vindicated.

I feel very secure saying that Apple spends significantly more than $1 
per copy of Mac OS X just on the DVD and packaging alone - not even 
figuring in development, legal, and so on. There are many other costs 
involved. You don't think of these things because you haven't been 
there. Others here, including me, have worked professionally for large 
corporations that make and sell software, and we are, as a result, well 
aware that software is a very tight business.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-1BAF76.17301928052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > > You've got to admit its mighty strange why they have taken no legal 
> > > > > > action against Psystar yet.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > There's nothing strange about it.  Corporate legal actions take time. 
> > > > >  
> > > > > I 
> > > > > don't expect you to know much about that, though.
> > > 
> > > Companies usually issue statements. That doesn't take time or cost 
> > > anything.  
> > 
> > You're dumb, dude. You seem to have forgotten that statements have legal 
> > implications. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation knows legal 
> > process takes time.
> 
> Well I guess here are a LOT of other dumb dudes out there because that 
> is exactly what most people are talking about.  "Why is Apple not doing 
> anything?"  And "Why are they keeping so quiet?".  

Yes, and people have said similar things just about ever single other 
time some company has infringed on Apple's turf, too.  I specifically 
remember people saying the exact same thing when the iPhone clones 
started coming out of China.  Pop quiz: Did Apple take action against 
any of those companies?

> > > > Legal action is also very expensive. There would be no point in
> > > > starting in on a lawsuit if Psystar folds in six months. Even if they
> > > > survive, Apple may not do anything unless they feel that sales to
> > > > Psystar are affecting Apple's sales and costing them money.
> > > 
> > > Psystar is swamped with business. Its pretty hard to fail. They'd have 
> > > to be the most brain-dead entrepreneurs to fail at that. Don't count on 
> > > it.
> > 
> > Right - because we never see small PC makers fold in this industry... 
> > Get real.
> 
> But they are taking existing hardware and just bundling it.  Its so 
> easy.  Their profit is high as their competition is nil.  When they sell 
> a computer for $399, their cost is probably less than $250.  They are 
> using really low end parts in that thing.

Uh huh...

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <1ihnj3p.142yew31oz7bliN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> > I'm much closer to just killfiling you and all responses to you than to
> > getting into an extended debate.
> 
> Seems like a logical thing to do if are opinions are vastly apart.  
> Quite understandable.  No point in reading opinions from someone who 
> things differently then you.

I thought you didn't do insults. Or maybe that doesn't sound like an
insult to you. Apparently neither does an accusation of "whimpering and
whining", although I personally quite welcomed the Intel transition, but
I guess all folk that disagree with you get lumped together, since you
bring that up in reply to me.

I actually make it quite a point to read diverse opinions. In fact, I am
having to resist the temptation to go into an off-topic rant about how
important I think it is to be exposed to diverse opinions and how I
dislike the tendency of some Americans to want to keep such diversity
out of the schools - wouldn't want the kids to learn that there are
other viewpoints.... Um... I said I was going to resist that. Ok. 

You severely overgeneralize. Just because I don't think it much worth
listening to *YOU*, that does not generalize to me not thinking it worth
listening to anyone who I disagree with. You are not an adequate sample
of the rest of the world. If things were that simple, I wouldn't listen
to myself, as I've certainly been known to disagree with my own former
opinions.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <noemailhere-8FB1CB.17575128052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> And it would be for most of us but there are so many fields where 
> Windows has a vastly wider selection of software.  And several fields 
> where OS X has almost none.  Sad but true.  By running both you lose 
> nothing.  

Except my sanity.
 
> > I want Apple around so they can continue to make great hardware and the 
> > software to run on it. What you propose would destroy Apple.
> 
> Look at that numbers.  It would catapult Apple into big leagues.  

Your numbers are bogus.
    
> > > > Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on the 
> > > > sale of an OS.
> 
> Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> $180,000,000 of profit.  

There is no way that their profit on sales of Leopard is $100.

> In 2 days.  They paid for their $19,000,000 R & D for the last year in 
> hours.

You can't read. That was the figure for only two quarters (six months). 
It was by no means their total R & D expenditure on Tiger.

> > > Almost every person I sell PC parts to is ripe for buying OS X.  Almost 
> > > all are interested.  They know its stable, they know its secure.  They 
> > > want to try it.  But they sure ain't going to plunk down 2 or 3 times 
> > > what they paid for their PC to do it.
> > 
> > You keep saying that, but it's not true. When you compare _comparably 
> > equipped_ computers, the price differential all but disappears.
> 
> Like I said your math isn't so good.  I can put together a computer that 
> can trounce the Mini is every aspect except size for 1/3 the cost.

And it won't run OS X reliably.

> Same with any iMac.

And it won't run OS X reliably.

> Some of you Apple people just have no idea what the rest 
> of the world pays for stuff.  Why do you think Psystar's business is 
> booming?  Think about it.  They sell mediocre parts

Emphasis on _mediocre_. You get what your pay for.

> (the $399 model) for 
> way more than most PC sellers do.  The only reason is because Apple's 
> prices are so ludicrously high! Otherwise they COULDN't operate their 
> business.  

They're aren't operating their business legally. When you factor in 
their eventual legal expenses, their cost per unit is going to skyrocket.
  
> > > I would estimate for every time 
> > > one person buys a Mac computer there are at least 10 people that would 
> > > buy the OS if they could run it on their PC.  
> > 
> > Which means that for every 10 PC customers that would buy the OS instead 
> > of a Mac, Apple loses money.
> 
> Wow - your math is atrocious.  Lets run some numbers.  10 x $129 = 
> $12900

Your math is as bad as your grammar. 10 x $129 = $1,290, NOT $12,900.

> of which almost all is profit.

You keep saying that, but it is not true.

> The hardware profit for most of Apple's computers is 25-40% I think.

I doubt you do. Think, that is.

> So for the average person buying a 
> 20" iMac for $1199 right now which probably makes Apple about $300:
> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?
> nnmm=browse&node=home/desktop/imac
> you've got the potential of $12900 or $12800 profit for those 10 PC 
> users that would love to try OS X.  Let's see.  $12,800 vs $300.  Hmmmmm 
> which is bigger?  

Both numbers are figments of your imagination.
  
> > > > Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> > > > software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC would 
> > > > be suicide.
> > > 
> > > Yeah - that's the delusion.  From people without vision.
> > 
> > The stock market values Apple at $164.87 Billion. Not bad for a company 
> > "without vision."
> 
> Microsoft is far bigger and richer.

You're comparing a software company with a hardware company. Find me a 
computer hardware company that's doing better than Apple. Dell, for 
instance, has a market cap of $44.3 Billion.

As for "richer," MSFT's cash on hand is $26.3 Billion, compared with 
Apple's $19.5 Billion.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <noemailhere-CA732B.17590228052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Really?  R & D was estimated at $19,000,000.  Sales were $180,000,000 in 
> 2 days of non-bundled software.  Do the math.

Do _all_ the math. That R & D figure is for only _six months_, and only 
on one update. That is by no means the full R & D cost for OS X, let 
alone the full cost of producing it - which you continuously and 
ridiculously underestimate with no evidence at all to back you up.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article 
<dfmanno-097F9C.22022428052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-CA732B.17590228052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Really?  R & D was estimated at $19,000,000.  Sales were $180,000,000 in 
> > 2 days of non-bundled software.  Do the math.
> 
> Do _all_ the math. That R & D figure is for only _six months_, and only 
> on one update. That is by no means the full R & D cost for OS X, let 
> alone the full cost of producing it - which you continuously and 
> ridiculously underestimate with no evidence at all to back you up.

Even if it was 10 times that much its been paid for long ago.  You think 
it cost more than $180,000,000?  That's what the approximate profit was 
from the first 2 days of sale.  Unless I've made some math mistakes.  So 
many of you think my concepts are unfounded yet you don't provide any 
figures to bolster your view.  No need to get hostile or angry.  But 
numbers would be nice.

In article <jollyroger-2EE104.19341828052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.  
> 
> Oh you mean these numbers?:
> 
> > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> 
> You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac 
> OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get 
> that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.

What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?  
And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a 
sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.  
Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
each.  Remember many sales are for family packs at $199.  An average 
price of $130 might have been more realistic.  But I'm conservative so I 
pegged it at $100.

In article <noemailhere-15C703.23155628052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> But numbers would be nice.

Why don't you supply some real ones?

For a change...

-- 
"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full 
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the 
clue mating dance." -- Edward Flaherty

In article <noemailhere-E08976.23244928052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-2EE104.19341828052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.  
> > 
> > Oh you mean these numbers?:
> > 
> > > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> > 
> > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac 
> > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get 
> > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.
> 
> What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?  
> And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a 
> sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.  
> Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> each.  Remember many sales are for family packs at $199.  An average 
> price of $130 might have been more realistic.  But I'm conservative so I 
> pegged it at $100.

I said you'll need to back up those numbers with _real data_ not data 
out of your ass. Again, those of us who have worked in the industry have 
a better idea of the expenses, and it's not pennies as you suggest.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-15C703.23155628052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article 
> <dfmanno-097F9C.22022428052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-CA732B.17590228052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Really?  R & D was estimated at $19,000,000.  Sales were $180,000,000 in 
> > > 2 days of non-bundled software.  Do the math.
> > 
> > Do _all_ the math. That R & D figure is for only _six months_, and only 
> > on one update. That is by no means the full R & D cost for OS X, let 
> > alone the full cost of producing it - which you continuously and 
> > ridiculously underestimate with no evidence at all to back you up.
> 
> Even if it was 10 times that much its been paid for long ago.  

Right... I don't know what gives you that idea. Salaries, packaging and 
distribution costs, legal support, technical support, and the slew of 
other costs that go into product development aren't one-time charges 
that magically stop.

> You think 
> it cost more than $180,000,000?  That's what the approximate profit was 
> from the first 2 days of sale.  Unless I've made some math mistakes.  So 
> many of you think my concepts are unfounded yet you don't provide any 
> figures to bolster your view.  No need to get hostile or angry.  But 
> numbers would be nice.

Nope. Sorry, but the onus is on *you* to provide proof to back up your 
wild-ass assertions. You pulled some numbers out of thin air, and we're 
still waiting for you to provide real proof of those numbers.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

The NewGuy wrote:
> In article 
> <483dd945$0$21126$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

>> More proof that you've got absolutely no idea how much is invested (in 
>> both time and money) to get a (massive in this case) piece of software 
>> ready for release to the market.
>>
>> Andy.
> 
> Really?  R & D was estimated at $19,000,000.  Sales were $180,000,000 in 
> 2 days of non-bundled software.  Do the math.

Fuck me...it's like banging my head against a brick wall.

Only 'cause it feels so good when I stop.


Which I'm going to do right now.  Your arguments are ludicrous.


Andy.

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.
> 
> What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> each. 

This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
some actual research, get some actual numbers.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <noemailhere-9BD8B6.17245228052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > I retitled the subject.  No point in giving Psystar even more 
> > > > > publicity.
> > > > > I said IF costs were $1,000,000.  Costs include everything. 
> > > > 
> > > > You said costs to "create." Since there are a lot of costs associated 
> > > > with a product *after* creation, it should be understandable that 
> > > > people 
> > > > - including me - think your analysis is both too simplistic and too 
> > > > optimistic.
> > > > 
> > > > Support costs over the life of the product can easily be at least as 
> > > > large as the development costs, depending on the product and market.
> > > 
> > > My point is whatever the costs are, they pale in comparison to the 
> > > income derived from a new OS.  Its a profit machine.
> > 
> > My point is that your claim is not descriptive of common software 
> > development experience. Apple's profit machine is their hardware. You're 
> > underestimating pre- and post-release costs, and overestimating revenue.
> 
> Someone previously posted that the R & D costs were $19,000,000.

No. "Someone" (that would be you) posted that R&D costs for Tiger over a 
6-month span near the end of its development cycle were $19.3M. Tiger 
took more than 6 months to develop. Leopard took longer than Tiger and 
costs have increased in the interim.


> They sold 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled with hardware) in the first
> 2 days.  1,800,000 x $100 (approximation of average price each) is 
> $180,000,000.

I suspect you're overestimating Apple's gross revenue per copy.

> So they paid for all the R & D in the first few hours of 
> its release.  
> 
> Now are you starting to comprehend the potential of sales of software?  
> If I've got my figures wrong, please correct me.

Aside from the errors noted above, you're neglecting significant post-GM 
costs related to trivialities such as distribution and support. Again. 
Even though they've been raised as an issue multiple times in this 
thread. Understand: Post-sale support costs can dwarf pre-release costs, 
and make a huge dent in your bottom line. You're advocating a course of 
action that would increase per-unit support costs considerably.

Having been involved at some level in the production, sales and support 
of software for 2 decades, I rather fancy I already comprehend the 
potential of sales of software.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <jollyroger-3AFF3C.19281028052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Right - and it's obvious you have no idea what costs are involved 
> with getting a software product out of the door. If you would but 
> admit your ignorance and ask for more details, people wouldn't be so 
> hostile towards you. Instead, you profess to know what you are 
> talking about, while it's clear to those of us who actually work in 
> the industry you haven't a clue. 

Napoleon said, "Every corporal has a baton in his knapsack."  By that he 
meant that every soldier, no matter how low ranking (Corporal was the 
lowest rank back then.) believed that he knew enough to be a field 
marshal.  NewGuy is merely a manifestation of that phenomenon.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-15C703.23155628052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Even if it was 10 times that much its been paid for long ago.  You 
> think it cost more than $180,000,000?  That's what the approximate 
> profit was from the first 2 days of sale. 

No, that wasn't the profit; that was the gross sales.  Do you think that 
Apple doesn't pay rent or utilities for its stores and that the 
salespeople in those stores work for free?  And that the tech support 
people work for free in rent- and utility-free buildings?  And that the 
boxes are shipped to the stores for free?

You have absolutely no concept of business.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.

The numbers you presented were either out of context or made up.

> No point in reading opinions from someone who things differently then 
> you.

Your opinions are out of touch with reality.  It's like trying to have a 
discussion with a flat-earther or someone who believes that the Moon is 
made of green cheese.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-B91AD9.10482428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Then why are your posts so thoughtless?  Of all the posters 
> commenting yours are the only ones I almost killfiled.  You don't 
> seem to comprehend the concepts raised, then when you respond its 
> like there's no common sense.  Do you read at all these days?  In 
> your own Apple bubble?

You were lying when you said that you don't engage in insults.

You are a living example of the dictum that the less a person knows 
about something, the more vociferous they are in insisting they are 
right.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-98AFFE.06333229052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.
> 
> The numbers you presented were either out of context or made up.
> 
> > No point in reading opinions from someone who things differently then 
> > you.
> 
> Your opinions are out of touch with reality.  It's like trying to have a 
> discussion with a flat-earther or someone who believes that the Moon is 
> made of green cheese.

Y'know, just recently I got a pamphlet in my mailbox from an 
organization that claims the universe has to be geocentric.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.
> > 
> > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > each. 
> 
> This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> some actual research, get some actual numbers.

I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.

He's on his own for the rest.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

> > And it would be for most of us but there are so many fields where 
> > Windows has a vastly wider selection of software.  And several fields 
> > where OS X has almost none.  Sad but true.  By running both you lose 
> > nothing.  
> 
> Except my sanity.

LOL...that may be a price you pay for using Windows occasionally. 
  
> > > I want Apple around so they can continue to make great hardware and the 
> > > software to run on it. What you propose would destroy Apple.
> > 
> > Look at that numbers.  It would catapult Apple into big leagues.  
> 
> Your numbers are bogus.

Fine.  Provide numbers from a website that back your viewpoint.
    
> > > > > Apple makes a lot more money off the sale of a Mac than it would on 
> > > > > the 
> > > > > sale of an OS.
> > 
> > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> 
> There is no way that their profit on sales of Leopard is $100.

You think it costs $29 to package a DVD?  I'm not talking about R & D, 
advertising or Apple store costs.  I'm talking about making a DVD and 
putting in a box.  Couldn't possibly be more than a buck.  Probably 
around a quarter.  That means for a $129 sale, more than $128 pays for R 
& D, advertising, etc.  But we know that R & D is or a sample of it.  In 
the large scheme of things, producing an OS and selling it for $128 of 
profit to hundreds of millions of people is rather lucrative.  
"October Leopard sales outpace Windows in Japan"
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/11/13/october-leopard-sale
s-outpace-windows-in-japan
The demand is there if they open their eyes.
 
> > In 2 days.  They paid for their $19,000,000 R & D for the last year in 
> > hours.
> 
> You can't read. That was the figure for only two quarters (six months). 
> It was by no means their total R & D expenditure on Tiger.

So what? The sales dwarf those figures.  Even it was 3 times that much 
they are rolling in profit.  I couldn't find total sales of Leopard up 
to this date.  Maybe somebody knows where to look?  That would be 
interesting.  Also, perhaps Apple wants the info kept private. 
 
> > > > Almost every person I sell PC parts to is ripe for buying OS X.  Almost 
> > > > all are interested.  They know its stable, they know its secure.  They 
> > > > want to try it.  But they sure ain't going to plunk down 2 or 3 times 
> > > > what they paid for their PC to do it.
> > > 
> > > You keep saying that, but it's not true. When you compare _comparably 
> > > equipped_ computers, the price differential all but disappears.
> > 
> > Like I said your math isn't so good.  I can put together a computer that 
> > can trounce the Mini is every aspect except size for 1/3 the cost.
> 
> And it won't run OS X reliably.

I'm talking about hardware.  You mentioned comparably equipped 
computers.  Pick a Mac and I'll duplicate the hardware for a fraction of 
the Apple store cost.  But then you'll say its not as pretty or not as 
cute or whatever.  There's always an excuse for Apple's ludicrous 
pricing.  Like I've said many times before, when Windows users start 
buying Macs to run Windows only, you'll know the hardware is 
competitively priced.  Then you'll say its priced higher because of all 
the software you get.  And on and on.  There's always an excuse.   
 
> > Same with any iMac.
> 
> And it won't run OS X reliably.

Ditto - above.
 
> > Some of you Apple people just have no idea what the rest 
> > of the world pays for stuff.  Why do you think Psystar's business is 
> > booming?  Think about it.  They sell mediocre parts
> 
> Emphasis on _mediocre_. You get what your pay for.

There is quality in Mac parts?  Where?  Intel processors, the same ram 
and hard drives as everybody else uses?  Where is the quality?  Yes 
there monitors are good.  But almost nobody buys them because they are 
ridiculously priced.  
 
> > (the $399 model) for 
> > way more than most PC sellers do.  The only reason is because Apple's 
> > prices are so ludicrously high! Otherwise they COULDN't operate their 
> > business.  
> 
> They're aren't operating their business legally. When you factor in 
> their eventual legal expenses, their cost per unit is going to skyrocket.

Well we'll see what happens on the legal front.  My bet is that Apple 
will do absolutely nothing about Psystar.  I think they want them to 
just chug along, quietly selling OS X DVD's for them that they don't 
have to support.  Most of you were saying Psystar was a scam, Psystar 
was phony, Psystar won't last a month.  Most of you are afraid of 
change.  
   
> > > > I would estimate for every time 
> > > > one person buys a Mac computer there are at least 10 people that would 
> > > > buy the OS if they could run it on their PC.  
> > > 
> > > Which means that for every 10 PC customers that would buy the OS instead 
> > > of a Mac, Apple loses money.
> > 
> > Wow - your math is atrocious.  Lets run some numbers.  10 x $129 = 
> > $12900
> 
> Your math is as bad as your grammar. 10 x $129 = $1,290, NOT $12,900.

You got me there.  Thanks for the correction.  No matter - the 
percentages stay the same.  The profit picture is the same.  

> > of which almost all is profit.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it is not true.

So show me how producing a DVD and putting it in a package and shipping 
that package to a store costs any more than doing the same thing for a 
movie.  Or a game.  
 
> > The hardware profit for most of Apple's computers is 25-40% I think.
> 
> I doubt you do. Think, that is.

Good rebuttal.  
 
> > So for the average person buying a 
> > 20" iMac for $1199 right now which probably makes Apple about $300:
> > http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?
> > nnmm=browse&node=home/desktop/imac
> > you've got the potential of $1290 or $1280 profit for those 10 PC 
> > users that would love to try OS X.  Let's see.  $1280 vs $300.  Hmmmmm 
> > which is bigger?  
> 
> Both numbers are figments of your imagination.

OK - I corrected the numbers.  But the superiority of software sales is 
still obvious.  If you don't agree, provide some numbers.  Its common 
knowledge that Apple makes about 30% on hardware.  I've read it in many 
articles.  
  
> > > > > Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell hardware. It sells 
> > > > > software only to drive hardware sales. Releasing OS X for the PC 
> > > > > would be suicide.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah - that's the delusion.  From people without vision.
> > > 
> > > The stock market values Apple at $164.87 Billion. Not bad for a company 
> > > "without vision."
> > 
> > Microsoft is far bigger and richer.
> 
> You're comparing a software company with a hardware company. 

That's my point.  Its a company.  Unless they are adverse to making a 
lot more money selling software than hardware.  Any idiot can screw 
computer parts together. It takes genius to run it with an OS.  Apple 
has that genius.  I just wish more people could be exposed to it and run 
their lives more efficiently with it.

In article <jollyroger-50BAC4.00031929052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-E08976.23244928052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-2EE104.19341828052008@individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.  
> > > 
> > > Oh you mean these numbers?:
> > > 
> > > > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > > > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > > > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > > > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> > > 
> > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac 
> > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get 
> > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.
> > 
> > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?  
> > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a 
> > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.  
> > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > each.  Remember many sales are for family packs at $199.  An average 
> > price of $130 might have been more realistic.  But I'm conservative so I 
> > pegged it at $100.
> 
> I said you'll need to back up those numbers with _real data_ not data 
> out of your ass. Again, those of us who have worked in the industry have 
> a better idea of the expenses, and it's not pennies as you suggest.

Well why doesn't someone provide some numbers to back up their point?  
Actually I thought my ass looked great....lol.

In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real data.
> > 
> > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > each. 
> 
> This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> some actual research, get some actual numbers.

No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out 
of the air.  Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?

In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > each. 
> > 
> > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> 
> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.

And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
media.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <michelle-8715AC.06383229052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-B91AD9.10482428052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Then why are your posts so thoughtless?  Of all the posters 
> > commenting yours are the only ones I almost killfiled.  You don't 
> > seem to comprehend the concepts raised, then when you respond its 
> > like there's no common sense.  Do you read at all these days?  In 
> > your own Apple bubble?
> 
> You were lying when you said that you don't engage in insults.

Out of interest, which part of that post did you feel was insulting?  I 
didn't mean it as an insult to him personally - rather as a challenge to 
think more before typing.  I didn't call him a name - I was commenting 
on his post.  Not him.  Hopefully the difference is understood.  We're 
all kind of passionate here I guess.

In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > each. 
> > 
> > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> 
> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.

That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
these days?  Does Apple use diamond encrusted ink?  Are we at $1.30 yet?  
Even if its $10 it makes little difference.  The profit potential is 
immense no matter how you look at it.

In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > Mac
> > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > get
> > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > data.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is 
> > > > a
> > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > each. 
> > > 
> > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > 
> > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> 
> And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> media.

Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.

In article <noemailhere-D4DFE6.11182529052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > Mac
> > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > get
> > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > data.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is 
> > > > a
> > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > each. 
> > > 
> > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > 
> > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> 
> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> these days?  Does Apple use diamond encrusted ink?  Are we at $1.30 yet?  
> Even if its $10 it makes little difference.  The profit potential is 
> immense no matter how you look at it.

LOL... Are you actually suggesting printing can be done for thee cost of 
the paper alone?

And you conveniently ignore the plethora of other expenses like 
salaries, technical support, legal support, corporate expenditures such 
as human resources, facilities, and so on...

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > penny?
> > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D 
> > > > > is 
> > > > > a
> > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > > each. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > 
> > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > 
> > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> > media.
> 
> Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.

Another figure you pulled out of thin air.

Again, proof please. You haven't done a shred of investigatory work, and 
it's clearly evident to those of us who work in the field.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > each. 
> > 
> > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> 
> No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out 
> of the air.  Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?

You haven't quoted a web site.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-1CF166.11082529052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-50BAC4.00031929052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-E08976.23244928052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-2EE104.19341828052008@individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <noemailhere-5C6850.17410128052008@news.mts.net>,
> > > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I've presented a lot of numbers to bolster my view.  
> > > > 
> > > > Oh you mean these numbers?:
> > > > 
> > > > > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > > > > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > > > > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > > > > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> > > > 
> > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac 
> > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get 
> > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?  
> > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a 
> > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.  
> > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > each.  Remember many sales are for family packs at $199.  An average 
> > > price of $130 might have been more realistic.  But I'm conservative so I 
> > > pegged it at $100.
> > 
> > I said you'll need to back up those numbers with _real data_ not data 
> > out of your ass. Again, those of us who have worked in the industry have 
> > a better idea of the expenses, and it's not pennies as you suggest.
> 
> Well why doesn't someone provide some numbers to back up their point?  

Yes - why don't you?

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-87D03C.11072529052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > I want Apple around so they can continue to make great hardware and the 
> > > > software to run on it. What you propose would destroy Apple.
> > > 
> > > Look at that numbers.  It would catapult Apple into big leagues.  
> > 
> > Your numbers are bogus.
> 
> Fine.  Provide numbers from a website that back your viewpoint.

You first.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-A30629.10272428052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to the 
> > > market.  That will be much more than the cost of getting the 
> > > 10.5.1 update to market.
> > 
> > But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.
> 
> That's ok.  There is lots of income from 10.5.1 DVD's that are being 
> sold every minute of every hour of every day.

The same income that would have been from selling 10.5 DVDs and 
downloading a free 10.5.1 update.  Apple didn't make any money from 
10.5.1, nor 10.5.2, nor from 10.5.3 that they wouldn't have made from 
10.5 with free downloadable upgrades.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-C83D25.10263628052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > The stockholders might lean to a different business model!  Like 
> > > in "Customers are good.  More customers are better.  A lot more 
> > > customers are best."  
> > 
> > Which is better: 
> > a.  1,000,000 customers paying $2,000 each for a computer
> > b.  2,000,000 customers paying $1,000 each for a computer
> > c.  Neither is better; they're the same
> 
> I think you mean a million customers buying a computer generating 
> $2000 each profit for the company as opposed to 2 million customers 
> buying a computer generating $1000 each for the company.

No, I meant what I asked, but I notice that you avoided answering the 
question.

Please answer my question.  Also answer the question that you think I 
meant, if you like.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-D6D195.11155429052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Out of interest, which part of that post did you feel was insulting?

Calling his posts thoughtless.  Saying that he doesn't comprehend the 
concepts raised.  Saying that there's no common sense in his responses.  
Implying that he doesn't read.  Implying that he's in his own Apple 
bubble.

In other words, every sentence of that paragraph.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> out of the air.

You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-4D4587.09372629052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> > out of the air.
> 
> You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.

He won't be able to find much on the web anyway, since most professional 
DVD duplication, printing, legal, etc. firms don't publish their 
corporate rates on the public web. He'd have to get on the phone, like 
most corporations do, and do the same leg work to get competitive, real 
rates. And before he can do that, he has to know what services he'll 
need. He's demonstrated he only considers the most basic of things in 
his calculations. So his list will likely be overwhelmingly incomplete.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-87D03C.11072529052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Your numbers are bogus.
> 
> Fine.  Provide numbers from a website that back your viewpoint.

You first.

> > There is no way that their profit on sales of Leopard is $100.
> 
> You think it costs $29 to package a DVD?  I'm not talking about R & 
> D, advertising or Apple store costs.  I'm talking about making a DVD 
> and putting in a box.

Once again, you prove that you don't know what you're talking about.  
You can't isolate that to prove your point; doing so is meaningless.

> Couldn't possibly be more than a buck.  Probably around a quarter. 

You have absolutely no idea what the costs are, so you're making it all 
up.

You are debating with people who are or were in the industry, who speak 
from experience and knowledge.  And even though you don't know squat 
about it, you insist that you know more than we do.

I don't know whether you're an accomplished troll or whether you really 
believe this BS you're spouting.  Nor do I know which is worse.

But you are amusing; that's the reason you haven't joined Zara, Priam, 
etc., in my killfile.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of Mac
> > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you get
> > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is a
> > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > each. 
> > 
> > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> 
> No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out 
> of the air.

Not if you actually provide a citation, as responsible people do.

Now we *might* argue that the web site has invented the numbers, but we 
might not, too. Really depends on how credible this unseen site is.

> Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?

You're the one arguing for a change. Since change has an inherent cost, 
it's your responsibility to provide a defensible justification.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > penny?
> > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D 
> > > > > is 
> > > > > a
> > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > > each. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > 
> > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD 
> > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > 
> > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> > media.
> 
> Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.

Actually, that seems to get you to a baseline of about $2. Or more, but 
I'll assume Apple's size allows them some negotiating power. So your 
most pessimistic estimate was off by a factor of 8 on the media. I 
suspect you were making the mistake of thinking that the pressed DVDs in 
the box were comparable in cost to spindles of recordable media. Nope.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-87D03C.11072529052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Guess your math isn't so hot.  As I previously posted, they sold 
> > > 2,000,000 copies (90% not bundled) in the first 2 days.  1,800,000 x 
> > > $100 (average profit per DVD considering variable pricing) = 
> > > $180,000,000 of profit.  
> > 
> > There is no way that their profit on sales of Leopard is $100.
> 
> You think it costs $29 to package a DVD?  I'm not talking about R & D, 
> advertising or Apple store costs.  I'm talking about making a DVD and 
> putting in a box.  Couldn't possibly be more than a buck.

Heh. Heh. Snirk. Bwahahahahaha. Oh, I see. You hadn't yet seen the price 
estimate I found. So let's start again, recognizing that the pressed,, 
undecorated media all by itself is "more than a buck."

> Probably 
> around a quarter.  That means for a $129 sale, more than $128 pays for R 
> & D, advertising, etc.  But we know that R & D is or a sample of it.  In 
> the large scheme of things, producing an OS and selling it for $128 of 
> profit to hundreds of millions of people is rather lucrative.

Cute. I like how even your overly optimistic "$128 pays for R & D, 
advertising, etc." (Bah. How much can etc cost?) turns into "$128 of 
profit."

What's wholesale on a single license of the OS X workstation edition? Or 
did you forget that a large percentage of those buyers probably went to 
Amazon. I doubt Amazon's handing Apple $128 per box when they charge 
less than that and have to eat the shipping cost.

So there's your homework. Find out how much OS X costs the retailer. The 
rest of your numbers eat away at *that* figure.

  
> > You can't read. That was the figure for only two quarters (six months). 
> > It was by no means their total R & D expenditure on Tiger.
> 
> So what? The sales dwarf those figures.  Even it was 3 times that much 
> they are rolling in profit.

Are you seriously thinking "3 times the expenses of the last 6 months of 
the development cycle" is a *generous* estimate?


> So show me how producing a DVD and putting it in a package and shipping 
> that package to a store costs any more than doing the same thing for a 
> movie.

Tell me what the post-sale support costs are for a DVD movie.

> Or a game.

The economics of the A-list computer game market are brutal. There's 
nothing about them that's usefully comparable to DVD movies, 
productivity software or operating systems.

  
G

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.
> 
> That's ok.  There is lots of income from 10.5.1 DVD's that are being 
> sold every minute of every hour of every day.

First, pretty much no one who buys a new major OS upgrade buys another
disc later with the incremental updates, so what you're talking about
isn't additional income from the additional development.

Second, you're _GROSSLY_ underestimating that additional development.
Forget Leopard, let's talk about Tiger. That, as I'm sure you know, is
up to version 10.4.11.  That's _ELEVEN_ incremental updates right there,
and that's in addition to a whole slew of security updates and other
separate releases. And, as I'm sure you also know, Apple has continued
developing Tiger updates long after they started selling Leopard. Heck,
I notice through VersionTracker that there was a Tiger security update
out just yesterday.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> 
> No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out
> of the air.

No, I would not. If you actually were to quote a web site, that would
demonstrate that you have _not_ pulled the numbers out of the air. My
disagreement, if any, would then be with the site, not with you.

> Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?

You've made claims based on numbers, you've provided nothing to
demonstrate those numbers have any basis in reality, and you continue to
provide nothing when asked for some citations. The onus of proof is on
you, as they're your claims in the first place.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <michelle-C308CE.09271329052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-A30629.10272428052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to the 
> > > > market.  That will be much more than the cost of getting the 
> > > > 10.5.1 update to market.
> > > 
> > > But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.
> > 
> > That's ok.  There is lots of income from 10.5.1 DVD's that are being 
> > sold every minute of every hour of every day.
> 
> The same income that would have been from selling 10.5 DVDs and 
> downloading a free 10.5.1 update.  Apple didn't make any money from 
> 10.5.1, nor 10.5.2, nor from 10.5.3 that they wouldn't have made from 
> 10.5 with free downloadable upgrades.

Yes but they do make money from selling 10.5.1/2/3 DVD's.  There is a 
constant income from whatever OS is the most current.

In article <michelle-301D0E.09360029052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-D6D195.11155429052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Out of interest, which part of that post did you feel was insulting?
> 
> Calling his posts thoughtless.  Saying that he doesn't comprehend the 
> concepts raised.  Saying that there's no common sense in his responses.  
> Implying that he doesn't read.  Implying that he's in his own Apple 
> bubble.
> 
> In other words, every sentence of that paragraph.

Fair enough.  I'll tame myself.

In article <michelle-4D4587.09372629052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> > out of the air.
> 
> You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.

A couple of days ago I posted some links but they are long deleted.

In article <jollyroger-B365C0.11401229052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-4D4587.09372629052008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> > > out of the air.
> > 
> > You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.
> 
> He won't be able to find much on the web anyway, since most professional 
> DVD duplication, printing, legal, etc. firms don't publish their 
> corporate rates on the public web. He'd have to get on the phone, like 
> most corporations do, and do the same leg work to get competitive, real 
> rates. And before he can do that, he has to know what services he'll 
> need. He's demonstrated he only considers the most basic of things in 
> his calculations. So his list will likely be overwhelmingly incomplete.

Why would you think that printing a piece of paper would cost 100 times 
more than printing most any nice graphic on a piece of paper?  What 
would you estimate the cost is for printing a few nice graphics on the 
paper/cardboard in the OS X DVD?  $50?

In article <michelle-0797C2.09433129052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-87D03C.11072529052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > Your numbers are bogus.
> > 
> > Fine.  Provide numbers from a website that back your viewpoint.
> 
> You first.
> 
> > > There is no way that their profit on sales of Leopard is $100.
> > 
> > You think it costs $29 to package a DVD?  I'm not talking about R & 
> > D, advertising or Apple store costs.  I'm talking about making a DVD 
> > and putting in a box.
> 
> Once again, you prove that you don't know what you're talking about.  
> You can't isolate that to prove your point; doing so is meaningless.

Actually by isolating things it allows you to analyze.  Its by lumping 
things together that we lose perspective.  But its good marketing!  
Apple is pretty slick.  :)
 
> > Couldn't possibly be more than a buck.  Probably around a quarter. 
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what the costs are, so you're making it all 
> up.

Enlighten me.  I see graphics printed on stuff selling for a quarter.  
So it can't be expensive when printing millions.  
 
> You are debating with people who are or were in the industry, who speak 
> from experience and knowledge.  And even though you don't know squat 
> about it, you insist that you know more than we do.

It would be nice if they would debate with a number or two since that's 
the crux of this discussion!  
 
> I don't know whether you're an accomplished troll or whether you really 
> believe this BS you're spouting.  Nor do I know which is worse. 
> But you are amusing; that's the reason you haven't joined Zara, Priam, 
> etc., in my killfile.

Well for that I thank you!  :)  I'll just try to be a nicer form of 
amusing in the future.

In article <uce-DF3F7D.12524729052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > Mac
> > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > get
> > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > data.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A penny?
> > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D is 
> > > > a
> > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > each. 
> > > 
> > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > 
> > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out 
> > of the air.
> 
> Not if you actually provide a citation, as responsible people do.
> 
> Now we *might* argue that the web site has invented the numbers, but we 
> might not, too. Really depends on how credible this unseen site is.

I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find it!  
Grrrr.
 
> > Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?
> 
> You're the one arguing for a change. Since change has an inherent cost, 
> it's your responsibility to provide a defensible justification.

I'll post it when I find it again.  I'm searching with:
"OS X" "R & D" costs
"OS X" "research and development" costs
but its not producing anything. 
Any suggestions for a better search string?

In article <uce-821BCA.12581629052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
>  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy 
> > > > > > > of 
> > > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd 
> > > > > > > you 
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with 
> > > > > > > real 
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > > penny?
> > > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D 
> > > > > > is 
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a 
> > > > > > sliver.
> > > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than 
> > > > > > $100 
> > > > > > each. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale 
> > > > DVD 
> > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > 
> > > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> > > media.
> > 
> > Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.
> 
> Actually, that seems to get you to a baseline of about $2. Or more, but 
> I'll assume Apple's size allows them some negotiating power. So your 
> most pessimistic estimate was off by a factor of 8 on the media. I 
> suspect you were making the mistake of thinking that the pressed DVDs in 
> the box were comparable in cost to spindles of recordable media. Nope.

So we're looking at $127 profit instead of $128?  Does it really make 
any difference?  How about looking at the big picture?  The big picture 
is that is far more lucrative selling software than hardware.

In article <noemailhere-090DC4.14375129052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-B365C0.11401229052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-4D4587.09372629052008@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> > > > out of the air.
> > > 
> > > You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.
> > 
> > He won't be able to find much on the web anyway, since most professional 
> > DVD duplication, printing, legal, etc. firms don't publish their 
> > corporate rates on the public web. He'd have to get on the phone, like 
> > most corporations do, and do the same leg work to get competitive, real 
> > rates. And before he can do that, he has to know what services he'll 
> > need. He's demonstrated he only considers the most basic of things in 
> > his calculations. So his list will likely be overwhelmingly incomplete.
> 
> Why would you think that printing a piece of paper would cost 100 times 
> more than printing most any nice graphic on a piece of paper?  What 
> would you estimate the cost is for printing a few nice graphics on the 
> paper/cardboard in the OS X DVD?  $50?

So you know fuck all about the design and print industries too...

What do you do for a living?

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > The same income that would have been from selling 10.5 DVDs and 
> > downloading a free 10.5.1 update.  Apple didn't make any money from
> > 10.5.1, nor 10.5.2, nor from 10.5.3 that they wouldn't have made from
> > 10.5 with free downloadable upgrades.
> 
> Yes but they do make money from selling 10.5.1/2/3 DVD's.  There is a
> constant income from whatever OS is the most current.

You're actually arguing against the very point you're trying to make.
They're making exactly the same as they would make selling the original
10.5 discs but they're continuing to spend money on development.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.
> 
> A couple of days ago I posted some links but they are long deleted.

What the heck are you talking about? Anything you posted is most
certainly still there, unless you're talking about links to sites that
have since been shut down.

Meanwhile, though, it's odd that no one but you has seen that post.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <noemailhere-320031.14524229052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-821BCA.12581629052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > > > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each
> copy 
> > > > > > > > of 
> > > > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd 
> > > > > > > > you 
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with 
> > > > > > > > real 
> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > > > penny?
> > > > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R &
> > > > > > > D 
> > > > > > > is 
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a 
> > > > > > > sliver.
> > > > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than 
> > > > > > > $100 
> > > > > > > each. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air.
> > > > > > Do
> > > > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale 
> > > > > DVD 
> > > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > > 
> > > > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> > > > media.
> > > 
> > > Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.
> > 
> > Actually, that seems to get you to a baseline of about $2. Or more, but 
> > I'll assume Apple's size allows them some negotiating power. So your 
> > most pessimistic estimate was off by a factor of 8 on the media. I 
> > suspect you were making the mistake of thinking that the pressed DVDs in 
> > the box were comparable in cost to spindles of recordable media. Nope.
> 
> So we're looking at $127 profit instead of $128?  Does it really make 
> any difference?  How about looking at the big picture?  The big picture 
> is that is far more lucrative selling software than hardware.

You think the retail selling price of something equals profit. Your
ignorance simply knows no bounds, does it?

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
> > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> 
> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> these days?

Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
of paper and cardboard you're talking about?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I'll post it when I find it again.  I'm searching with:
> "OS X" "R & D" costs
> "OS X" "research and development" costs
> but its not producing anything. 
> Any suggestions for a better search string?

You gotta be kidding! Now you want _us_ to tell _you_ how to even do
your research? Since you allegedly found a URL a few days ago, shouldn't
you know how you found it?

Anyway, you make A LOT of claims without substantiating them. Providing
one URL may help with one of your claims, but overall, Lucy, you got a
lot of splainin' to do!

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:

> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
> > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > 
> > That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> > these days?
> 
> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?

Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
what type of printing press...

This kid's hilarious!

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <noemailhere-24B5A3.14470629052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-DF3F7D.12524729052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each copy of 
> > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd you 
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with real 
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > penny?
> > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & D 
> > > > > is 
> > > > > a
> > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a sliver.
> > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than $100 
> > > > > each. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence supporting
> > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. Do
> > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > 
> > > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers out 
> > > of the air.
> > 
> > Not if you actually provide a citation, as responsible people do.
> > 
> > Now we *might* argue that the web site has invented the numbers, but we 
> > might not, too. Really depends on how credible this unseen site is.
> 
> I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find it!  
> Grrrr.

True. You did post that URL (and then, bizarrely, attributed that action 
to a nameless "someone"). And no-one has, I think, argued with that 
number as it was presented. People have argued with *your* use of it, 
because *you* have repeatedly mischaracterized what it actually 
represents.


> > > Why don't you provide some numbers to refute my numbers?
> > 
> > You're the one arguing for a change. Since change has an inherent cost, 
> > it's your responsibility to provide a defensible justification.
> 
> I'll post it when I find it again.  I'm searching with:
> "OS X" "R & D" costs

I searched on the fake email address in your header and "R&D". Exactly 
one hit came back.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/browse_frm/thread/ca9
15c7997500e8d/8cb94811f9d639b9?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#8cb94811f9d639b9>

If you read carefully, you'll see that in that post you didn't even 
accurately summarize the information you had excerpted from your 
provided link.

Aside from that, it doesn't say a peep about the post-development 
expenses for which many of us have been critical of your analysis.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-2CFA2A.14362929052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-4D4587.09372629052008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-1B3543.11091629052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > No matter what website I quote, you'll tell me I pulled the numbers 
> > > out of the air.
> > 
> > You haven't quoted anything to substantiate your numbers.
> 
> A couple of days ago I posted some links but they are long deleted.

Google. Even if you set X-No-Archive they'd still have something that 
recent. And they do.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find it!
> > Grrrr.
> 
> True. You did post that URL

He did? I owe him an apology then.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> > actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> > what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> > of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> 
> Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
> what type of printing press...
> 
> This kid's hilarious!

I have the inner box from the Leopard retail package right here. I
wonder how much this 80-page Welcome to Leopard booklet costs. Oh, and
here's a couple of Apple stickers. I bet they cost something to make. I
don't have the outer packaging to look at, though.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> > actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> > what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> > of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> 
> Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
> what type of printing press...
> 
> This kid's hilarious!

As an aside, I have fun talking to the clients who say they're saving
money by printing photos themselves. They buy the photo paper and all
the ink refills without ever thinking about the cost per photo.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <290520081402042819%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-320031.14524229052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
> <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-821BCA.12581629052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
> > > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > > > > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each
> > copy 
> > > > > > > > > of 
> > > > > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. 
> > > > > > > > > Where'd 
> > > > > > > > > you 
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up 
> > > > > > > > > with 
> > > > > > > > > real 
> > > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > > > > penny?
> > > > > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R 
> > > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > > D 
> > > > > > > > is 
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a 
> > > > > > > > sliver.
> > > > > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than 
> > > > > > > > $100 
> > > > > > > > each. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You 
> > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence
> > > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin 
> > > > > > > air.
> > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that 
> > > > > > large-scale 
> > > > > > DVD 
> > > > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of 
> > > > > the 
> > > > > media.
> > > > 
> > > > Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.
> > > 
> > > Actually, that seems to get you to a baseline of about $2. Or more, but 
> > > I'll assume Apple's size allows them some negotiating power. So your 
> > > most pessimistic estimate was off by a factor of 8 on the media. I 
> > > suspect you were making the mistake of thinking that the pressed DVDs in 
> > > the box were comparable in cost to spindles of recordable media. Nope.
> > 
> > So we're looking at $127 profit instead of $128?  Does it really make 
> > any difference?  How about looking at the big picture?  The big picture 
> > is that is far more lucrative selling software than hardware.
> 
> You think the retail selling price of something equals profit. Your
> ignorance simply knows no bounds, does it?

OK Mike.  Tell me what you think the cost of printing the paper, burning 
the DVD and the paper sleeves they put it in cost?  Not R & D, not 
advertising, not Apple's store janitorial bill.  Just the cost of 
producing each DVD (considering they are making them in the 10,000's.

In article <290520081421131732%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> 
> > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
> > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > 
> > > That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> > > these days?
> > 
> > Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> > actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> > what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> > of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> 
> Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
> what type of printing press...

I don't have one in front of me right now, but I'm sure I even remember 
foil stamping on parts of it. And thee registration quality is 
top-notch, too. It's certainly not a cheap print job.

> This kid's hilarious!

Yep.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <uce-ADBDA8.16253029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find it!  
> > Grrrr.
> 
> True. You did post that URL (and then, bizarrely, attributed that action 
> to a nameless "someone"). And no-one has, I think, argued with that 
> number as it was presented. People have argued with *your* use of it, 
> because *you* have repeatedly mischaracterized what it actually 
> represents.

He didn't post that. I did. And here's the URL:

<http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/02/01.14.shtml>

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)

In article <jollyroger-B28881.17330329052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <290520081421131732%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> > Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale 
> > > > > DVD
> > > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > > 
> > > > That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> > > > these days?
> > > 
> > > Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> > > actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> > > what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> > > of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> > 
> > Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
> > what type of printing press...
> 
> I don't have one in front of me right now, but I'm sure I even remember 
> foil stamping on parts of it. And thee registration quality is 
> top-notch, too. It's certainly not a cheap print job.
> 
> > This kid's hilarious!
> 
> Yep.

So what would you estimate it costs Apple to produce it?  
(Top notch graphics and a little booklet and a DVD.)

In article <noemailhere-F57F68.16094929052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy
<noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <290520081402042819%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

snip

> > You think the retail selling price of something equals profit. Your
> > ignorance simply knows no bounds, does it?
> 
> OK Mike.  Tell me what you think the cost of printing the paper, burning 
> the DVD and the paper sleeves they put it in cost?  Not R & D, not 
> advertising, not Apple's store janitorial bill.  Just the cost of 
> producing each DVD (considering they are making them in the 10,000's.

There you go, ducking the question again.

Let's summarize...

You won't tell us where you studied economics.

You won't tell us what your experience in running a software and/or
hardware business is.

You don't know anything about the packaging or printing industry.

You won't tell us how old you are.

You won't tell us what you do for a living.

But you expect everyone here to agree with your spouted nonsense,
grabbed out of your ass numbers, and ridiculous assertions about how to
run businesses you obviously know fuck-all about.

-- 
Woodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article <noemailhere-85289F.18484929052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-B28881.17330329052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <290520081421131732%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> >  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> > > Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that 
> > > > > > large-scale 
> > > > > > DVD
> > > > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> > > > > these days?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> > > > actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> > > > what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> > > > of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> > > 
> > > Plus holograms, and embossing. Oh, and how many inks were used, and on
> > > what type of printing press...
> > 
> > I don't have one in front of me right now, but I'm sure I even remember 
> > foil stamping on parts of it. And thee registration quality is 
> > top-notch, too. It's certainly not a cheap print job.
> > 
> > > This kid's hilarious!
> > 
> > Yep.
> 
> So what would you estimate it costs Apple to produce it?  
> (Top notch graphics and a little booklet and a DVD.)

I don't have the time or interest in finding out. You're the one making 
the wild-ass claims here. The onus is on you to prove your claims. Do 
your own research.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Dave Balderstone wrote :

> In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> 
>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
>>>> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
>>> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
>>> these days?
>> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
>> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
>> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
>> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> 
> Plus holograms

Unit cost is determined by hologram type, size, and quantity. Small
embossed hologram cost just pennies per unit, in volume

http://www.holographicdesign.com/faq.html

Let's go halfway: $0.50.

> and embossing. 

I have a tube of Colgate Pro-Health. It is embossed and is worth $2.19.
Let's say $0.05

> Oh, and how many inks were used,

Heavy Duty Jewel Case Mailer: $0.28

http://www.mailersco.com/cdmailersandsleeves.htm

Usually 4 color printing does a pretty good job. You may use 4 different
solid colors if you wish: $0.35 (Including jacket)

http://www.gnscd.com/services.htm

The DVD: $0.35

<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=blank+dvd&x=0&y=0>

Booklet, 16 page, full color:

5000 	$2075

http://www.digitalbrothers.com/drygoods.html

In quantities of 100,000 $0.50 is a fair estimation. 80 pages, $2.50

Altogether: .50 + .5 + .28 + .35 + 2.07 = $3.25 . For hundred thousands
quantities, with an invitation to bid, let's say $2.50, max.

Compared to the sale price "the hilarious kid" suggests ($100), it's
really not much.

> This kid's hilarious!

???

If you find $2.50 is still too expensive, it could be available for
download on the net" All the consumer would need is a credit card.

This discussion is ridiculous. The "kid" is right. Compared to sale
price, the cost of manufacturing a DVD package is downright ridiculous.
Now ay around it.

In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> This discussion is ridiculous. The "kid" is right. Compared to sale 
> price, the cost of manufacturing a DVD package is downright 
> ridiculous.

So is your sock puppet, NewGuy.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-24B5A3.14470629052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Now we *might* argue that the web site has invented the numbers, 
> > but we might not, too. Really depends on how credible this unseen 
> > site is.
> 
> I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find 
> it!  Grrrr.

And you totally misrepresented what the number means.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-F91682.14412829052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Once again, you prove that you don't know what you're talking 
> > about.  You can't isolate that to prove your point; doing so is 
> > meaningless.
> 
> Actually by isolating things it allows you to analyze.  Its by 
> lumping things together that we lose perspective.  But its good 
> marketing!  Apple is pretty slick.  :)

By isolating you (and I mean you, The NewGuy) ignore everything else and 
paint a false picture.

> > > Couldn't possibly be more than a buck.  Probably around a 
> > > quarter. 
> > 
> > You have absolutely no idea what the costs are, so you're making it 
> > all up.
> 
> Enlighten me.  I see graphics printed on stuff selling for a quarter. 
>  So it can't be expensive when printing millions.  

Enlighten yourself; you're making the claim, so it is up to you to 
support it with verifiable data, not wild-ass guesses.

> > You are debating with people who are or were in the industry, who 
> > speak from experience and knowledge.  And even though you don't 
> > know squat about it, you insist that you know more than we do.
> 
> It would be nice if they would debate with a number or two since 
> that's the crux of this discussion!  

OK.  Pi.  That's a number, and it bears as much relevance to this 
discussion as any number you have mentioned or implied.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-2CFA2A.14362929052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> A couple of days ago I posted some links but they are long deleted.

They are not deleted; nothing is ever deleted in usenet.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-981754.14342229052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > But the point is there was a cost to getting 10.5.0 to the 
> > > > > market.  That will be much more than the cost of getting the 
> > > > > 10.5.1 update to market.
> > > > 
> > > > But there is no income from the 10.5.1 update.
> > > 
> > > That's ok.  There is lots of income from 10.5.1 DVD's that are 
> > > being sold every minute of every hour of every day.
> > 
> > The same income that would have been from selling 10.5 DVDs and 
> > downloading a free 10.5.1 update.  Apple didn't make any money from 
> > 10.5.1, nor 10.5.2, nor from 10.5.3 that they wouldn't have made 
> > from 10.5 with free downloadable upgrades.
> 
> Yes but they do make money from selling 10.5.1/2/3 DVD's.  There is a 
> constant income from whatever OS is the most current.

The point, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that the costs 
of producing those upgrades do not add to the bottom line of sales of 
the software.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <1ihphkf.1udrqkgi76eilN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Second, you're _GROSSLY_ underestimating that additional development. 
> Forget Leopard, let's talk about Tiger. That, as I'm sure you know, 
> is up to version 10.4.11.  That's _ELEVEN_ incremental updates right 
> there, and that's in addition to a whole slew of security updates and 
> other separate releases. And, as I'm sure you also know, Apple has 
> continued developing Tiger updates long after they started selling 
> Leopard. Heck, I notice through VersionTracker that there was a Tiger 
> security update out just yesterday.

Furthermore, all employees and equipment devoted to those upgrades could 
have been available to the development of Leopard, or maybe Leopard's 
successor, had it not been for those upgrades.  That means that Apple 
needed to buy more equipment and hire more employees to handle the load.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote :
> 
> > In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> > Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
> >>>> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> >>> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> >>> these days?
> >> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> >> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> >> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> >> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> > 
> > Plus holograms
> 
> Unit cost is determined by hologram type, size, and quantity. Small
> embossed hologram cost just pennies per unit, in volume
> 
> http://www.holographicdesign.com/faq.html
> 
> Let's go halfway: $0.50.

Sorry, but I'm not taking a number you pull out of thin air.  It's more 
likely Apple contracted the same company that provides their print 
services to do the actual printing to do the holograms. The numbers may 
be significantly different, depending on a lot of factors. Or do you 
actually think Apple uses holographicdesign.com? 

> > and embossing. 
> 
> I have a tube of Colgate Pro-Health. It is embossed and is worth $2.19.
> Let's say $0.05
> 
> > Oh, and how many inks were used,
> 
> Heavy Duty Jewel Case Mailer: $0.28

Nope. Try again.  Apple makes its own DVD cases and boxes. And they are 
made with different materials and are much more complex in construction. 
They are also printed on all sides.  And do you really think Apple gets 
its prices off the web like average consumers do?

> http://www.mailersco.com/cdmailersandsleeves.htm
> 
> Usually 4 color printing does a pretty good job. You may use 4 different
> solid colors if you wish: $0.35 (Including jacket)
> 
> http://www.gnscd.com/services.htm

Nope.  Apple uses more than just 4-color process printing. Add embossing 
*and* foil stamping to the mix. And take a look at the registration and 
LPI some time - the printing is very high quality in comparison to the 
cheapo consumer duplication shops you find on the web.

> The DVD: $0.35
> 
> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bl
> ank+dvd&x=0&y=0>

Nope.  Apple doesn't buy recordable CD/DVD media, and they don't buy 
from online retailers either. They job duplication out to a B2B 
duplication house. Prices are not the same as consumer prices for 
recordable media.

> Booklet, 16 page, full color:
> 
> 5000 	$2075
> 
> http://www.digitalbrothers.com/drygoods.html
> 
> In quantities of 100,000 $0.50 is a fair estimation. 80 pages, $2.50

You're assuming this company turns out quality that is acceptable to 
Apple. I don't know that to be the case. At any rate, the chances that 
Apple does business with this particular company are slim.
 
> Altogether: .50 + .5 + .28 + .35 + 2.07 = $3.25 . For hundred thousands
> quantities, with an invitation to bid, let's say $2.50, max.

Most of those figures are not based in reality.

> Compared to the sale price "the hilarious kid" suggests ($100), it's
> really not much.

You don't know that to be true. It;s your opinion - and you know what 
they say about those...

> > This kid's hilarious!
> 
> ???
> 
> If you find $2.50 is still too expensive, it could be available for
> download on the net" All the consumer would need is a credit card.

You're suggesting physical material cost is the only cost.  That's not 
the case.

> This discussion is ridiculous. The "kid" is right. Compared to sale
> price, the cost of manufacturing a DVD package is downright ridiculous.
> Now ay around it.

Nope. Again, those of us who actually work in the software business know 
better.  What are your qualifications?

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger a �crit :
> In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dave Balderstone wrote :
>>
>>> In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
>>> Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
>>>>>> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
>>>>> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
>>>>> these days?
>>>> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
>>>> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
>>>> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
>>>> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
>>> Plus holograms
>> Unit cost is determined by hologram type, size, and quantity. Small
>> embossed hologram cost just pennies per unit, in volume
>>
>> http://www.holographicdesign.com/faq.html
>>
>> Let's go halfway: $0.50.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not taking a number you pull out of thin air.  It's more 
> likely Apple contracted the same company that provides their print 
> services to do the actual printing to do the holograms. The numbers may 
> be significantly different, depending on a lot of factors. Or do you 
> actually think Apple uses holographicdesign.com?

You really want me to find out who Apple is contracting out? If you know 
that Apple makes a call for bids and ends up paying twice the price for 
millions of copies than I get for a thousand copies only by checking the 
first link at Google, by all means, tell us about this mystery!

>>> and embossing. 
>> I have a tube of Colgate Pro-Health. It is embossed and is worth $2.19.
>> Let's say $0.05
>>
>>> Oh, and how many inks were used,
>> Heavy Duty Jewel Case Mailer: $0.28
> 
> Nope. Try again.  Apple makes its own DVD cases and boxes. And they are 
> made with different materials

They're made of nanotubes, maybe?

> and are much more complex in construction. 
> They are also printed on all sides.  And do you really think Apple gets 
> its prices off the web like average consumers do?

If Apple needs millions of copies of a jewel case, make sure they not 
only may have it printed with all frills at the same price, they surely 
still can get a lower price. Are you from Mars, or what?

>> The DVD: $0.35
>>
>> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bl
>> ank+dvd&x=0&y=0>
> 
> Nope.  Apple doesn't buy recordable CD/DVD media, and they don't buy 
> from online retailers either. They job duplication out to a B2B 
> duplication house. Prices are not the same as consumer prices for 
> recordable media.

No. They deal with a replication, not a duplication. Even though this 
process requires a glass master, on more than 1000 copies, it comes cheaper.

You're sure you're an expert? Excuse me for deleting the rest of your 
expert advice.

>> If you find $2.50 is still too expensive, it could be available for
>> download on the net" All the consumer would need is a credit card.
> 
> You're suggesting physical material cost is the only cost.  That's not 
> the case.

No. The NewGuy clearly explained that beyond the development costs, the 
production costs are the same per unit, and very cheap.

This said, I agree with you that selling software wouldn't be a good 
business model for Apple because duplicating software is very easy: good 
old dd does a pretty good job and even Microsoft has trouble working out 
  an activation scheme that won't compromise security of most users 
because of pirates.

OTOH, copying a Mac is an endeavor of little interest for most Mac 
users. Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
cow.

That's a very valid point. Why don't you stick to it?

In article <1ihpni2.28j25pb0r8k6N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I posted the URL ($19,000,000) a few days ago but now I can't find it!
> > > Grrrr.
> > 
> > True. You did post that URL
> 
> He did? I owe him an apology then.

Nope. I misread the attribution. Someone else posted that. He just 
followed up an abused the data.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <noemailhere-320031.14524229052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <uce-821BCA.12581629052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-1242D4.11213329052008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-C4A488.11135629052008@individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-9065D4.10564029052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <1ihp1px.gnw3cwtg9fj8N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> > > > >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You make the assertion that Apple makes $100 profit on each 
> > > > > > > > copy 
> > > > > > > > of 
> > > > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > > > OS X retail sold without a shred of data to back it up. Where'd 
> > > > > > > > you 
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > that number? You'll need to back each of those numbers up with 
> > > > > > > > real 
> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What do you think the paper costs that they package it with?  A 
> > > > > > > penny?
> > > > > > > And a blank DVD.  Could that be a dime?  A quarter?  If total R & 
> > > > > > > D 
> > > > > > > is 
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > sliver of gross sales, production costs must be a sliver of a 
> > > > > > > sliver.
> > > > > > > Add another sliver for advertising.  Its probably way more than 
> > > > > > > $100 
> > > > > > > each. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is precisely what I was talking about the other day. You pull
> > > > > > numbers out of thin air, someone asks you to cite evidence 
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > your numbers, you respond by pulling more numbers out of thin air. 
> > > > > > Do
> > > > > > some actual research, get some actual numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale 
> > > > > DVD 
> > > > > replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> > > > 
> > > > And I can tell you that doesn't cover fancy printing / labelling of the 
> > > > media.
> > > 
> > > Wow - add 5 cents.  Or a quarter.  Maybe we're hitting $1.35 now.
> > 
> > Actually, that seems to get you to a baseline of about $2. Or more, but 
> > I'll assume Apple's size allows them some negotiating power. So your 
> > most pessimistic estimate was off by a factor of 8 on the media. I 
> > suspect you were making the mistake of thinking that the pressed DVDs in 
> > the box were comparable in cost to spindles of recordable media. Nope.
> 
> So we're looking at $127 profit instead of $128?

Sure. $127 *minus* all the other per-unit production and distribution 
costs you're ignoring, *minus* the (complete) amortized development 
costs including facilities, salaries and benefits, direct R&D costs and 
(taking a page from your book) etc, *minus* non-technical research 
(trademark searches, for example), *minus* direct post-sales support, 
*minus* marketing, *minus* bandwidth costs for people downloading the 
latest updaters, *minus* the distributed load of the cost centers, ....

> Does it really make 
> any difference?  How about looking at the big picture?

Yes. How about you do that.

> The big picture is that is far more lucrative selling software than
> hardware.

Hahahahahaha.

I consider it quite possible that on Apple's books OS development itself 
is categorized as a cost center.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> OK.  Pi.  That's a number...

Don't be irrational!  ;-)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <uce-4D6AA8.08375030052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> I consider it quite possible that on Apple's books OS development itself 
> is categorized as a cost center.

It's more than possible - it's *probable*, *expected* even.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <1ihqxk2.kap5nq19ur1qcN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > OK.  Pi.  That's a number...
> 
> Don't be irrational!  ;-)

May I be transcendental?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1ihqxk2.kap5nq19ur1qcN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > > OK.  Pi.  That's a number...
> > 
> > Don't be irrational!  ;-)
> 
> May I be transcendental?

I'll meditate on that and get back to you.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:

> > May I be transcendental?
> 
> I'll meditate on that and get back to you.

Oh, and PLEASE note that I said _meditate_, not _medicate_. ;-)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <1ihr1wo.49be0b13z3m2cN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > May I be transcendental?
> > 
> > I'll meditate on that and get back to you.
> 
> Oh, and PLEASE note that I said _meditate_, not _medicate_. ;-)

If you get into trouble about that, I'll mediate, but not immediately.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Jolly Roger wrote :
> In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dave Balderstone wrote :
>>
>>> In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
>>> Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale DVD
>>>>>> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
>>>>> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
>>>>> these days?
>>>> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
>>>> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
>>>> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
>>>> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
>>> Plus holograms
>> Unit cost is determined by hologram type, size, and quantity. Small
>> embossed hologram cost just pennies per unit, in volume
>>
>> http://www.holographicdesign.com/faq.html
>>
>> Let's go halfway: $0.50.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not taking a number you pull out of thin air.  It's more 
> likely Apple contracted the same company that provides their print 
> services to do the actual printing to do the holograms. The numbers may 
> be significantly different, depending on a lot of factors. Or do you 
> actually think Apple uses holographicdesign.com?

You really want me to find who Apple is contracting out? If you know
that Apple makes a call for bids and ends up paying twice the price for
millions of copies, than I get for a thousand copies only by checking 
the first link at Google, by all means, tell us about this mystery!

>>> and embossing. 
>> I have a tube of Colgate Pro-Health. It is embossed and is worth $2.19.
>> Let's say $0.05
>>
>>> Oh, and how many inks were used,
>> Heavy Duty Jewel Case Mailer: $0.28
> 
> Nope. Try again.  Apple makes its own DVD cases and boxes. And they are 
> made with different materials

They're made of nanotubes, maybe?

> and are much more complex in construction. 
> They are also printed on all sides.  And do you really think Apple gets 
> its prices off the web like average consumers do?

If Apple needs millions of copies of a jewel case, rest assured they not
only may have it printed with all frills at the same price, they surely
still can get a lower price. Are you from Mars, or what?

>> The DVD: $0.35
>>
>> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bl
>> ank+dvd&x=0&y=0>
> 
> Nope.  Apple doesn't buy recordable CD/DVD media, and they don't buy 
> from online retailers either. They job duplication out to a B2B 
> duplication house. Prices are not the same as consumer prices for 
> recordable media.

No. They deal with a replication, not a duplication. Even though this
process requires a glass master, on more than 1000 copies, it comes cheaper.

You're sure you're an expert? Excuse me for deleting the rest of your
expert advice.

>> If you find $2.50 is still too expensive, it could be available for
>> download on the net" All the consumer would need is a credit card.
> 
> You're suggesting physical material cost is the only cost.  That's not 
> the case.

No. The NewGuy clearly explained that beyond the development costs, the
production costs are the same per unit, and very cheap.

This said, I agree with you that selling software wouldn't be a good
business model for Apple because duplicating software is very easy: good
old dd does a pretty good job and even Microsoft has trouble working out
an activation scheme that won't compromise security of most users
because of pirates.

OTOH, copying a Mac is an endeavor of little interest for most Mac
users. Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers
that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash
cow.

That's a very valid point. Why don't you stick to it?

In article <g1p9r7$4ni$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote :
> > In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> Dave Balderstone wrote :
> >>
> >>> In article <1ihpm0r.ll8d8gr8w0ykN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike
> >>> Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I'll "help" him. A quick survey of vendors suggests that large-scale 
> >>>>>> DVD
> >>>>>> replication has a mean price of about $1.25 per unit.
> >>>>> That's a start. And if that's true, how much is cardboard and paper 
> >>>>> these days?
> >>>> Well, tell us. How much _is_ it these days? By the way, have you
> >>>> actually examined a retail Leopard package at all?  Do you know exactly
> >>>> what it consists of so you have an idea of just how much and what types
> >>>> of paper and cardboard you're talking about?
> >>> Plus holograms
> >> Unit cost is determined by hologram type, size, and quantity. Small
> >> embossed hologram cost just pennies per unit, in volume
> >>
> >> http://www.holographicdesign.com/faq.html
> >>
> >> Let's go halfway: $0.50.
> > 
> > Sorry, but I'm not taking a number you pull out of thin air.  It's more 
> > likely Apple contracted the same company that provides their print 
> > services to do the actual printing to do the holograms. The numbers may 
> > be significantly different, depending on a lot of factors. Or do you 
> > actually think Apple uses holographicdesign.com?
> 
> You really want me to find who Apple is contracting out? 

Sure.  Put up or shut up.

> If you know
> that Apple makes a call for bids and ends up paying twice the price for
> millions of copies, than I get for a thousand copies only by checking 
> the first link at Google, by all means, tell us about this mystery!

The ones claiming to know what Apple does is The NewGuy (and you). 
Neither of you know, and that's my point.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <g1p9r7$4ni$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote :
> > In article <g1nv5r$47m$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
> > wrote:
>
> >> The DVD: $0.35
> >>
> >> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords
> >> =blank+dvd&x=0&y=0>
> > 
> > Nope.  Apple doesn't buy recordable CD/DVD media, and they don't buy 
> > from online retailers either. They job duplication out to a B2B 
> > duplication house. Prices are not the same as consumer prices for 
> > recordable media.
> 
> No. They deal with a replication, not a duplication. 

Prove it.

> Even though this
> process requires a glass master, on more than 1000 copies, it comes cheaper.

Now you're playing word games. 

> You're sure you're an expert? Excuse me for deleting the rest of your
> expert advice.

Are you sure *you're* an expert? What do you do for a living?

I've never claimed to be an expert, personally.  I do work in the 
business though.  

> >> If you find $2.50 is still too expensive, it could be available for
> >> download on the net" All the consumer would need is a credit card.
> > 
> > You're suggesting physical material cost is the only cost.  That's not 
> > the case.
> 
> No. The NewGuy clearly explained that beyond the development costs, the
> production costs are the same per unit, and very cheap.

Yes, and it's very convenient for him to exclude one of the highest 
costs involved.  Did he also exclude all the other associated costs?

> This said, I agree with you that selling software wouldn't be a good
> business model for Apple because duplicating software is very easy: good
> old dd does a pretty good job and even Microsoft has trouble working out
> an activation scheme that won't compromise security of most users
> because of pirates.
> 
> OTOH, copying a Mac is an endeavor of little interest for most Mac
> users. Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers
> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash
> cow.
> 
> That's a very valid point. Why don't you stick to it?

I haven't ever strayed from it.  Pay attention.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <g1ob28$4kr$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
wrote:

> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
> cow.

got a source for that?

> > Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
> > that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
> > cow.
> 
> got a source for that?

I don't remember reading that it was *more* profit but most articles 
mention about 30-40% profit on most Apple computer hardware.  Not sure 
if that is similar with the Ipods.  I've heard that 30-40% figure 
bandied around in almost every article written about Apple profits.  
That's probably not including R & D for the software.  It would be 
interesting to see what percentage of OS X 10.4 sales were bundled with 
computers compared to those sold separately.  Remember they are adding 
up what it costs Apple to buy the parts and the labor to assemble them 
and the shipping.  Not sure if advertising would factor into that.  It 
does get complicated.  But the more you categorize and segment things, 
the more accurate your end conclusions are.  You naysayers are so 
hopelessly negative, I'm surprised you have the courage to get out of 
bed in the morning.  I'm not into the stock market, but if I ever run 
across financial info in this area, I'll be sure to post it.  And if 
anybody knows of a place to look (I Googled without luck), please let us 
know.

nospam wrote :

> In article <g1ob28$4kr$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
>> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
>> cow.
> 
> got a source for that?

Yes, Apple:

CUPERTINO, California�April 23, 2008�Apple� today announced financial 
results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The 
Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of 
$1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share. These results compare to 
revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or 
$.87 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 32.9 
percent, down from 35.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html

Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot more 
computers...

You might now wonder where I got the figure for Dell. It seems the 
speciality of people on this group is to brawl and ask for figures. But 
if you can't find figures on Apple's own site, one may wonder what use 
it is discussing with you.

Now, you might say that my estimate was still off by 7%. True. I hadn't 
realized how inefficient Apple is, because, as we know, Apple computers 
cost a lot more than 35% of their PC equivalent. AND YOU DON'T HAVE 
CHOICE. You sometime have to buy overkill.

For instance, my brother recently asked what kind of computer he should 
buy for a video editing MM center. Here's what Apple basically offers:

Mac Pro
Start building your Mac Pro with our suggested configuration:
Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon �Harpertown� processors
2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
16x double-layer SuperDrive
Ships: Within 24hrs
Free Shipping
$2,799.00

I went to HP, and found out I could get a (1) QuadCore processor (2 
would be overkill), a better video-*TV* card, 4 GB RAM, a SATA 750 GB 
HD, 1033 MHz bus, AND a *Blue-Ray* writer -- that's no dumb 16x 
double-layer SuperRidiculousDrive... for $2,199.

The Mac equivalent would cost at least $1,200 more... with 2 processors. 
That's why I agree with you people when you say that Apple better not 
cease it's hardware selling business. As long as they find people ready 
to buy this kind of hardware for their kind of price, they're going to 
do great.

I didn't suggest my brother to buy a Mac, but that's another matter. 
Thanks to Steve Jobs shows, Apple's business is just outstanding.

In article <g1q0gl$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
wrote:

> >> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
> >> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
> >> cow.
> > 
> > got a source for that?
> 
> Yes, Apple:
> 
> CUPERTINO, California�April 23, 2008�Apple� today announced financial 
> results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The 
> Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of 
> $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share. These results compare to 
> revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or 
> $.87 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 32.9 
> percent, down from 35.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
> 
> Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
> profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot more 
> computers...
> 
> You might now wonder where I got the figure for Dell. 

indeed, i do wonder where. 

> It seems the 
> speciality of people on this group is to brawl and ask for figures. But 
> if you can't find figures on Apple's own site, one may wonder what use 
> it is discussing with you.

it seems the specialty is to pull numbers out of thin air.  dell's
gross margins are about 18%:
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
ofitMargins&Symbol=DELL>

and apple's are about 34%, only slightly higher than the industry as a
whole:
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
ofitMargins&Symbol=AAPL>

and an older financial report from dell:
<http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/sec/q4fy06fs.pdf>

so the difference between the two companies is really only about 15% or
so.  it's also important to note that dell does very little r&d while
apple does a *lot*. 

now go compare those numbers with some of the other computer
manufacturers, such as sony.  the vaios are a more fair comparison than
a budget priced dell.  

> Now, you might say that my estimate was still off by 7%. 

actually, i wouldn't say that.  what i would say is that it was off by
a substantial amount.  you said dell's gross margin was 5% when it was
18%, over three times higher.  the phrase 'not even close' comes to
mind.

In article <g1q0gl$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
> profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot 
> more computers...

No, Dell's gross margin is about 19%; its profit margin is about 5%.
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pro
fitMargins&Symbol=DELL>

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

nospam wrote :

> In article <g1q0gl$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
>>>> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
>>>> cow.
>>> got a source for that?
>> Yes, Apple:
>>
>> CUPERTINO, California�April 23, 2008�Apple� today announced financial 
>> results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The 
>> Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of 
>> $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share. These results compare to 
>> revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or 
>> $.87 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 32.9 
>> percent, down from 35.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
>>
>> Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
>> profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot more 
>> computers...
>>
>> You might now wonder where I got the figure for Dell. 
> 
> indeed, i do wonder where. 
> 
>> It seems the 
>> speciality of people on this group is to brawl and ask for figures. But 
>> if you can't find figures on Apple's own site, one may wonder what use 
>> it is discussing with you.
> 
> it seems the specialty is to pull numbers out of thin air.  dell's
> gross margins are about 18%:
> <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
> ofitMargins&Symbol=DELL>

Indusdry is 18%. Dell is 6.2%, not very far from my figure.

What a bunch of dummies you people are! You can't even read the pages 
you suggest to support your POV!

In article <g1q54a$fr8$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> > it seems the specialty is to pull numbers out of thin air.  dell's 
> > gross margins are about 18%: 
> > <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Pag
> > e=Pr ofitMargins&Symbol=DELL>
> 
> Indusdry is 18%. Dell is 6.2%, not very far from my figure.
> 
> What a bunch of dummies you people are! You can't even read the pages 
> you suggest to support your POV!

Actually, we can, Priam; you can't.

Here are the figures for you to review:

Profit Margins % Company Industry S&P 500
Gross Margin      18.9    31.1     34.9
Pre-Tax Margin     6.2    18.3     15.9
Net Profit Margin  4.8    12.9     11.1

There, as you can plainly see, the gross margin for Dell is 18.9%, not 
the 6.2% you claim.

Now that I've given you the boost your pathetic ego needs, you can go 
straight to hell and into my kill file, asshole.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-2C899E.17190830052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Now that I've given you the boost your pathetic ego needs, you can go 
> straight to hell and into my kill file, asshole.

It's about time.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

nospam a �crit :
> In article <g1q0gl$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
>>>> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
>>>> cow.
>>> got a source for that?
>> Yes, Apple:
>>
>> CUPERTINO, California�April 23, 2008�Apple� today announced financial 
>> results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The 
>> Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of 
>> $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share. These results compare to 
>> revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or 
>> $.87 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 32.9 
>> percent, down from 35.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
>>
>> Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
>> profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot more 
>> computers...
>>
>> You might now wonder where I got the figure for Dell. 
> 
> indeed, i do wonder where. 
> 
>> It seems the 
>> speciality of people on this group is to brawl and ask for figures. But 
>> if you can't find figures on Apple's own site, one may wonder what use 
>> it is discussing with you.
> 
> it seems the specialty is to pull numbers out of thin air.  dell's
> gross margins are about 18%:
> <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
> ofitMargins&Symbol=DELL>
> 
> and apple's are about 34%, only slightly higher than the industry as a
> whole:
> <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
> ofitMargins&Symbol=AAPL>
> 
> and an older financial report from dell:
> <http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/sec/q4fy06fs.pdf>
> 
> so the difference between the two companies is really only about 15% or
> so.  it's also important to note that dell does very little r&d while
> apple does a *lot*. 
> 
> now go compare those numbers with some of the other computer
> manufacturers, such as sony.  the vaios are a more fair comparison than
> a budget priced dell.  
> 
>> Now, you might say that my estimate was still off by 7%. 
> 
> actually, i wouldn't say that.  what i would say is that it was off by
> a substantial amount.  you said dell's gross margin was 5% when it was
> 18%, over three times higher.  the phrase 'not even close' comes to
> mind.

Microsoft as a source? No wonder I couldn't believe my eyes. Steiner was 
lucky to grab this one: I deleted it about 60 seconds after sending it. 
  Good news provider!

Let's go ahead with Yahoo Finance, instead:

Dell:

Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm):	4.82%
Operating Margin (ttm):	5.91%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DELL

Apple:

Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm):	15.13%
Operating Margin (ttm):	19.28%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL

Yahoo doesn't provide gross profit margin percentage, but still, we can 
see that Apple's profit are more than 3 times higher than Dell's.

300% Dell's profit margin! And that's with all the advertisement Mac 
users are paying to feel superior! Do you really find Apple is not 
grabbing enough? How much much more can Job bleed you?

In article <g1q7gh$n37$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com> 
wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> > In article <g1q0gl$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, MSH <msh@here.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >>>> Given that Apple makes about 35% *more* profit on its computers 
> >>>> that standard PC manufacturers, it would be foolish to give up this cash 
> >>>> cow.
> >>> got a source for that?
> >> Yes, Apple:
> >>
> >> CUPERTINO, California�April 23, 2008�Apple� today announced financial 
> >> results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The 
> >> Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of 
> >> $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share. These results compare to 
> >> revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or 
> >> $.87 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 32.9 
> >> percent, down from 35.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.
> >>
> >> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
> >>
> >> Dell's gross margin is about 5%. So, more exactly, this year, Apple's 
> >> profit was "only" 28% more than Dell. Of course, Dell sells a lot more 
> >> computers...
> >>
> >> You might now wonder where I got the figure for Dell. 
> > 
> > indeed, i do wonder where. 
> > 
> >> It seems the 
> >> speciality of people on this group is to brawl and ask for figures. But 
> >> if you can't find figures on Apple's own site, one may wonder what use 
> >> it is discussing with you.
> > 
> > it seems the specialty is to pull numbers out of thin air.  dell's
> > gross margins are about 18%:
> > <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
> > ofitMargins&Symbol=DELL>
> > 
> > and apple's are about 34%, only slightly higher than the industry as a
> > whole:
> > <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=Pr
> > ofitMargins&Symbol=AAPL>
> > 
> > and an older financial report from dell:
> > <http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/sec/q4fy06fs.pdf>
> > 
> > so the difference between the two companies is really only about 15% or
> > so.  it's also important to note that dell does very little r&d while
> > apple does a *lot*. 
> > 
> > now go compare those numbers with some of the other computer
> > manufacturers, such as sony.  the vaios are a more fair comparison than
> > a budget priced dell.  
> > 
> >> Now, you might say that my estimate was still off by 7%. 
> > 
> > actually, i wouldn't say that.  what i would say is that it was off by
> > a substantial amount.  you said dell's gross margin was 5% when it was
> > 18%, over three times higher.  the phrase 'not even close' comes to
> > mind.
> 
> Microsoft as a source? No wonder I couldn't believe my eyes. Steiner was 
> lucky to grab this one: I deleted it about 60 seconds after sending it. 
>   Good news provider!
> 
> Let's go ahead with Yahoo Finance, instead:
> 
> Dell:
> 
> Profitability
> Profit Margin (ttm):	4.82%
> Operating Margin (ttm):	5.91%
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DELL
> 
> Apple:
> 
> Profitability
> Profit Margin (ttm):	15.13%
> Operating Margin (ttm):	19.28%
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL
> 
> Yahoo doesn't provide gross profit margin percentage, but still, we can 
> see that Apple's profit are more than 3 times higher than Dell's.
> 
> 300% Dell's profit margin! And that's with all the advertisement Mac 
> users are paying to feel superior! Do you really find Apple is not 
> grabbing enough? How much much more can Job bleed you?

Remember, both of you, that this is total profit (computers, software, 
portable devices including iPhones, etc) whereas this discussion was 
originally talking about just the profit on software - and only the OS 
of all the software they produce.  It would be great if we could find 
some figures on just the software, specifically the OS.  I wonder if 
Adobe or other large software companies divide up their financial 
numbers?

In article <jollyroger-C836A0.19245230052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Now that I've given you the boost your pathetic ego needs, you can 
> > go straight to hell and into my kill file, asshole.
> 
> It's about time.

Hey, I replied to him only three or four times.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

The NewGuy wrote :

> Remember, both of you, that this is total profit (computers, software, 
> portable devices including iPhones, etc) whereas this discussion was 
> originally talking about just the profit on software - and only the OS 
> of all the software they produce.

Dear NewGuy,

I understand how much you'd like to run OS X on a decently priced PC. 
But there's a problem: Apple pulls 300% the profit Dell makes on their 
PCs. There's no way Apple will kill This Holy Cash Cow. *No way*.

Just forget about it. Software sales will never compensate for the loss 
of THCC: counterfeiting software is too easy. Even a huge corporation 
such as Microsoft has problems dealing with this and they pretty much 
give away their OS to OEMs. With free software users encouraged to copy 
at will, many proprietary software users have a hard time understanding 
why copying is so bad.

Essentially, your suggestion would soon turn Steve Jobs into a Linus 
Torvalds. But Jobs would rather be paid hundred of million dollars a 
year and, then, stockholders also expect a premium on their investment.

In comparison, Steve Balmer earns $1.27 million a year:

"Ballmer's salary was up slightly, to $620,000, from $616,667 the year 
before. Overall, his combined salary and bonus of $1.27 million for 
fiscal 2007 was up 31 percent from fiscal 2006. Ballmer still owns more 
than 4 percent of the company, according to the filing, and he doesn't 
take stock options or stock awards as part of his compensation."

<http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/122296.asp?source=rss>

Somebody has to pay for Job's extravagant stock options. The 
stockholders want to see money pouring in before they give them to Job. 
Whence the insane prices you have to pay when you buy a Mac. It's very 
simple mathematics.

Stop daydreaming. This discussion leads nowhere.

In article <michelle-D5381F.20174330052008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-C836A0.19245230052008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Now that I've given you the boost your pathetic ego needs, you can 
> > > go straight to hell and into my kill file, asshole.
> > 
> > It's about time.
> 
> Hey, I replied to him only three or four times.

As have I.  I just want him to vanish.  :)

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-FC4116.21092330052008@news.mts.net>,
 The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> It would be great if we could find 
> some figures on just the software, specifically the OS.

Personally, I'm bowing out of this discussion because, quite frankly, it 
bores me. Apple's doing better now than ever, and I feel confident that 
trend will continue for the near term, and perhaps for the long haul as 
well.  I'm happy with that.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-C9DAC0.10532631052008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > > Now that I've given you the boost your pathetic ego needs, you 
> > > > can go straight to hell and into my kill file, asshole.
> > > 
> > > It's about time.
> > 
> > Hey, I replied to him only three or four times.
> 
> As have I.  I just want him to vanish.  :)

By the way, I figured out what his initials mean:  More Shit Here.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.