Harvard Business School - The Evolution of Apple

[Black Belt]

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5729.html

Great article and you can order the Business Case Study from Harvard for a nominal fee. Reading the description it looks like "Apple Computer 2006" will need another update - no mention of the latest iPhone venture.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Well yeah, they're going to be slightly behind because these are usually major resource articles. I know I buy them often for school. I may buy this one or wait for someone to copy it and try to turn it into a professor!

 

[CalBoy]

It was an interesting read, but I note that a common fallacy was committed in the article. It mentions that 6 million iMacs were sold compared to 300 million PCs. It then tries to say that this is a 2% marketshare. I know iMacs that are still being used in high schools to this day. 2% of net sales does not equal 2% of computer market share.

Ok, my rant is over.

 

[twoodcc]

nice little read. wish there was more

 

[Black Belt]

It was an interesting read, but I note that a common fallacy was committed in the article. It mentions that 6 million iMacs were sold compared to 300 million PCs. It then tries to say that this is a 2% marketshare. I know iMacs that are still being used in high schools to this day. 2% of net sales does not equal 2% of computer market share.

Ok, my rant is over.

Marketshare is sales, not computers in use, it is not a fallacy.

Well if you are going to play that game, you can't give such a one-sided silly argument. There are WAY more PC's still in use compared to Macs. 386s & 486s are still being used because they are still useful in many functions in business, home and university. 68020 & 30 Macs do a whole lot of nothing because Apple has repeatedly jumped platforms and chipsets (because they don't have a long-view architecture plan) rendering prior machines pointless. That is why I "Switched" to PCs, I got tired of buying high-priced machines only to have them obsolesced by Apple.

 

[CalBoy]

Marketshare is sales, not computers in use, it is not a fallacy.

Right you are.

Well if you are going to play that game, you can't give such a one-sided silly argument. There are WAY more PC's still in use compared to Macs. 386s & 486s are still being used because they are still useful in many functions in business, home and university. 68020 & 30 Macs do a whole lot of nothing because Apple has repeatedly jumped platforms and chipsets (because they don't have a long-view architecture plan) rendering prior machines pointless. That is why I "Switched" to PCs, I got tired of buying high-priced machines only to have them obsolesced by Apple.

Just how many 386s do you see being used? Go to a school, and you are sure to see the first gen iMacs still in use. Most PCs are replaced at a much more rapid pace than Macs. G3 Macs are still able to use Tiger, which means that Tiger still supports hardware from up to seven years ago. Far more than 2% of the US's computers were Macs at the time of that article.