AT&T's iPhone Store Locator has been posted.

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
> >>
> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
> >
> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
> >
>
> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears reference- market
> share made her rich, not the quality of the music.

No. *Profits* made her rich.

> Now move along, unless you have something of merit to contribute.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

---

› See More: AT&T's iPhone Store Locator has been posted.

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
>> >
>> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
>> >
>>
>> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears reference-
>> market share made her rich, not the quality of the music.
>
> No. *Profits* made her rich.
>

And what created the profits- the quality of the product or the market
share it garnered.

Quality is not a guarantee of profit. Large market share is almost always
a guarantee of profit. Don't believe it- see Microsoft for the ultimate
example.

>

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
> >> >
> >> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears
> >> reference- market share made her rich, not the quality of the
> >> music.
> >
> > No. *Profits* made her rich.
> >
>
> And what created the profits- the quality of the product or the
> market share it garnered.

The difference between revenues and expenses.

> Quality is not a guarantee of profit.

Neither is market share.

> Large market share is almost always a guarantee of profit. Don't
> believe it- see Microsoft for the ultimate example.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:



>
> You have to earn profits, period.
>
>

And yet you conveninetly left off my Microsoft analogy. Interesting.

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in news:znu-9F5025.23293230062007
@individual.net:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
>> >> >
>> >> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears
>> >> reference- market share made her rich, not the quality of the
>> >> music.
>> >
>> > No. *Profits* made her rich.
>> >
>>
>> And what created the profits- the quality of the product or the
>> market share it garnered.
>
> The difference between revenues and expenses.

So quality had nothing to do with it, but large volume of sales did. That
would be market share. Thanks for playing.

>
>> Quality is not a guarantee of profit.
>
> Neither is market share.

And I didn't say that it was a pure guarantee- if you hadn't clipped the
statement, you could reference it.

>
>> Large market share is almost always a guarantee of profit. Don't
>> believe it- see Microsoft for the ultimate example.
>

Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> Large market share is almost always a guarantee of profit.
>>
>
> Large market share might tend to track closely with profit, but it's
> far from a guarantee.
>
>> Don't believe it- see Microsoft for the ultimate example.
>>
>
> Really? Ever hear of an Xbox? You know, the one that loses money, or
> at least did for a long time, with every one sold?
>
>

The unit sold ata loss, the profit was made on games. That was the plan
all along, Skippy- it's called a loss leader. If you had taken Economics,
you would know about the concept.

Let me be more specific, seeing as you are having a tough time with the
subject- see Microsoft Windows as an example of all market share with no
quality.

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in news:znu-9F5025.23293230062007
> @individual.net:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >> news:[email protected]:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears
> >> >> reference- market share made her rich, not the quality of the
> >> >> music.
> >> >
> >> > No. *Profits* made her rich.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And what created the profits- the quality of the product or the
> >> market share it garnered.
> >
> > The difference between revenues and expenses.
>
> So quality had nothing to do with it, but large volume of sales did. That
> would be market share. Thanks for playing.

Nope. It's quite possible to sell a lot of something and not make a lot
of money.

You do realize that the "Well, we lose a bit on each one, but we'll make
up for it in volume!" quote you see around the Internet is, in fact, a
joke, right?

> >> Quality is not a guarantee of profit.
> >
> > Neither is market share.
>
> And I didn't say that it was a pure guarantee- if you hadn't clipped the
> statement, you could reference it.

Market share is one of many factors which determine profitability. Apple
and Gateway have about the same market share, but the two companies are
worlds apart using practically any other metric you'd care to name.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in news:znu-9F5025.23293230062007
>> @individual.net:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You didn't do so well in Economy 101, did you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did quite well, actually. See previous Britney Spears
>> >> >> reference- market share made her rich, not the quality of the
>> >> >> music.
>> >> >
>> >> > No. *Profits* made her rich.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And what created the profits- the quality of the product or the
>> >> market share it garnered.
>> >
>> > The difference between revenues and expenses.
>>
>> So quality had nothing to do with it, but large volume of sales did.
>> That would be market share. Thanks for playing.
>
> Nope. It's quite possible to sell a lot of something and not make a
> lot of money.
>
> You do realize that the "Well, we lose a bit on each one, but we'll
> make up for it in volume!" quote you see around the Internet is, in
> fact, a joke, right?

And you do realize that many companies purposely sell items at a loss in
hopes of getting the higher profit sale of compatible items, right?

>
>> >> Quality is not a guarantee of profit.
>> >
>> > Neither is market share.
>>
>> And I didn't say that it was a pure guarantee- if you hadn't clipped
>> the statement, you could reference it.
>
> Market share is one of many factors which determine profitability.

My point exactly- I notice that you make no similar claim for quality.

In article <[email protected]>, Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > You do realize that the "Well, we lose a bit on each one, but we'll
> > make up for it in volume!" quote you see around the Internet is, in
> > fact, a joke, right?
>
> And you do realize that many companies purposely sell items at a loss in
> hopes of getting the higher profit sale of compatible items, right?
>
> >
> >> >> Quality is not a guarantee of profit.
> >> >
> >> > Neither is market share.
> >>
> >> And I didn't say that it was a pure guarantee- if you hadn't clipped
> >> the statement, you could reference it.
> >
> > Market share is one of many factors which determine profitability.
>
> My point exactly- I notice that you make no similar claim for quality.
>
Then I will.
The characteristics you are both referring to are INDIRECT CONTRIBUTORS
to profitability (or reward).
But you are both trying to build a direct comparison, and it's just not
logically a part of that. It's invalid to say that market share creates
profits, always. It's invalid to say quality creates profits.
It's even invalid to say quality AND market share create profits.

It's invalid to say that market share, quality products, popular
demand, a government mandate, worldwide need, and a social more to have
the item would create profits -- it simply isn't true.

Neither was any part of the argument about selling related items, which
I presume you knew was a false lead.

Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2007, Scott wrote:
>>>> Large market share is almost always a guarantee of profit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Large market share might tend to track closely with profit, but it's
>>> far from a guarantee.
>>>
>>>> Don't believe it- see Microsoft for the ultimate example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Ever hear of an Xbox? You know, the one that loses money, or
>>> at least did for a long time, with every one sold?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The unit sold ata loss, the profit was made on games. That was the
>> plan all along, Skippy- it's called a loss leader. If you had taken
>> Economics, you would know about the concept.
>>
>> Let me be more specific, seeing as you are having a tough time with
>> the subject- see Microsoft Windows as an example of all market share
>> with no quality.
>
> Yes, we all know about loss leaders. I agree with the statement "all
> market share with no quality".
>
> What you don't realize -- either that, or you've tried to sneak it in
> under the tent -- is that you've changed your tune. Originally you
> said, "But quality doesn't pay the bills- market share does." That
> was outright crap. Now you're backsliding into the more reasonable
> position that it certainly helps, and this last post didn't mention
> paying bills at all.
>
>

Funny- I don't see that in any of my posts. Projecting?

Not exactly. You're new here?





Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>OOPS... That darn pay-to-beta problem again!
>
>
> Jealous that you didn't get one?

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well Oxford, that's all very trite but you still haven't answered my
> questions. How is using a PC with or without Windows (which I never said
> I used - ever hear of Linux? I use both) related to a problem with a
> battery? And for the record, it wouldn't hold a charge after plugging
> the thing in to my friend's Apple laptop either. You can hem and haw
> all you want but the fact is that the battery was defective and it took
> Apple 4 returns and escalation to corporate to even run a proper test
> and admit that it was defective and replace the unit.
> I can understand and forgive a defective item but not the horrible
> service I got from Apple which I'm sure that even you will have to admit
> had nothing to do with having a PC or the OS used. In fact, for the 3
> weeks the thing worked, I had no trouble using iTunes. It was just a
> bad battery, poor design in not being able to replace it myself and
> awful service from the manufacturer.

when you sell 17,000+ of anything at day (even a loaf of bread) there
can be 5-10 problems. Obviously a battery issue didn't take 4 tries to
fix, so you are completely lying there. But Apple does screw up and
that's human.

Apple just is the best by about 30% compared to any other PC Vendor for
quality support. They truly care about what they make, it's not just a
"product" for them.

They didn't escalate it to "corporate" for a "proper" test, that
completely is a lie (2nd one in your comments)

So just be honest and 99% of the time Apple fixes things on the very
first try.

In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just a "few" bugs, eh?
>
> So why don't you hold your breath and I'll tell you "soon enough" when
> I've decided to beta the product.
>
> You can start.... now.
>
> I'll be back to you when I've decided to beta.
>
> So hold your breath until then....

no bugs so far!

just some ATT activation problems which is ATT, not Apple, the iPhone
works wonderfully, best, most complex consumer product humans have ever
built.

(oh, and don't put your posts at the top, it kinda makes you look like a
newbie)

Bzzzt. Since Apple only sells bundled with AT&T, it's Apple's problem.



none wrote:

> just some ATT activation problems which is ATT, not Apple...

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Murray <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The characteristics you are both referring to are INDIRECT CONTRIBUTORS
> > to profitability (or reward).
> >
>
> I'm glad you added reward. You make a quality product, gain a decent market
> share, and hopefully you are rewarded for it. But those are no guarantees --
> precursors, many times, but not guarantees.

And therefore not a direct relationship that can be used in arguing a
point, demonstrating a principle, or planning a strategy.