Cars That Go Boom: Detroit's Big Three & Me

[Pugwash]

Riled up yet? Here's another:

Remember that 3% market share for Apple computers and how ridiculous it sounded when I said that nobody buys Apple computers?

If you're going to use examples, get your figures right. The 3% figure is completely outdated, and if you want to talk "big three", Apple is the third-largest computer company in the US. It's also third-largest US music retailer and the third-largest mobile phone supplier in the world.

Apple is one of the Big Three in every industry it is in.

Your lack of research, Mister Apples and Automobiles, means I'll not only ignore your opinion, but I'll feel entitled to ridicule your premise and openly laugh at you.

[Posh]

If you're going to use examples, get your figures right. The 3% figure is completely outdated, and if you want to talk "big three", Apple is the third-largest computer company in the US. It's also third-largest US music retailer and the third-largest mobile phone supplier in the world.

Apple is one of the Big Three in every industry it is in.

Your lack of research, Mister Apples and Automobiles, means I'll not only ignore your opinion, but I'll feel entitled to ridicule your premise and openly laugh at you.

Pug, did you read the whole article, not just the excerpt? I took a paragraph from it that shakes up your mind a little but it is not what the whole thing is about. It is to make some think of the terms under which some judge the automobile industry of America. He has no vendetta against Apple or any of its sycophants. But his ties to automobile industry in Detroit are strong and he manages to maintain a lot of objectivity in lieu of that. And he mentioned Apple because some tech blogger stated that cars should be manufactured like electronics which is the dumbest thing I've have heard thus far in the domestic automotive debate.

Either way, I believe he's got the sentiment correct. In the 1980s, Apple did have a great deal of market share in computers and now have very little in comparison with their heyday. With domestic automakers, the slide in market share is not nearly as bad and yet people are "writing them off like bad check," which he states in his article. After emailing a friend who is a media analyst with Capgemini to double check, the music selling and cell phone businesses are NOT Apple's core product lines, although they are a chunk of revenue similar in a way that Playstation sales, while not being a core product, provide almost a quarter of revenue for Sony. Apple's main business, selling computers, is what is being compared to the main business of the auto companies, which is selling cars. "Ancillary" (and I use this term very loosely) businesses that provide positive cash flow and large amounts of revenue, e.g. their captive finance companies, don't negate the fact that their main business is not as robust as it once was.

He's simply saying that measuring other companies using similar guidelines used on American automakers would make other companies look far less like the golden child and more like a red-headed step child.

[Pugwash]

After emailing a friend who is a media analyst with Capgemini to double check, the music selling and cell phone businesses are NOT Apple's core product lines, although they are a chunk of revenue similar in a way that Playstation sales, while not being a core product, provide almost a quarter of revenue for Sony. Apple's main business, selling computers, is what is being compared to the main business of the auto companies, which is selling cars.

Q4 2008, the latest figures we have. 55% of Apple's Revenue was iPhones and iPods. A mere 31% of Apple's revenue was computers. This is why they changed their name from "Apple Computer Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007.

Your friend at CapGemini is about a year out of date.

[Posh]

Q4 2008, the latest figures we have. 55% of Apple's Revenue was iPhones and iPods. A mere 31% of Apple's revenue was computers. This is why they changed their name from "Apple Computer Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007.

Your friend at CapGemini is about a year out of date.

Not exactly. Sarah Kaplan, a management professor at the Wharton School, suggested that Apple's name change doesn't have any direct impact on the business itself, but it does accomplish the following psychological effects: It signals to employees the company's long-term strategy, it clarifies the marketing message and it prods investors to compare Apple to consumer electronics firms rather than just computer makers.

Wharton's market professor, Peter Fader, said that Apple's name change is the equivalent of waving a white flag in the PC market. He states, "How many Apple computers has the iPod sold?," alluding to the so-called "halo effect" where people who buy iPods tend to migrate to Apple's computers, which hasn't happened in any significant way at all.

The domestic automaker's core business, selling cars, makes them money worldwide and it is in U.S. where things have been hardest because of legacy costs. I am actually curious as to whether the domestics are using this crisis to off load the pensions systems to the federal government, which they have wanted to do for some time. A bankruptcy would almost guarantee they would be able to, I think. It's all very tricky. LOL

[Pugwash]

Not exactly. [...]

Huh? You said "not exactly" and then agreed with me. That's funny.

[Posh]

Huh? You said "not exactly" and then agreed with me. That's funny.

Not exactly.