Reply to Forbes.
Editors;
>Apple Computer is dying and Jobs' return, like a crucial, but toxic, dose of chemotherapy, has only delayed the inevitable.<
Inflammatory comments like that coupled with a willful disregard of factors credited with AAPL's stock rise this year is outrageous.
Conspicuously absent is a *substantive* analysis of AAPL's current and announced product line hardware (desk/laptops); software (OSX/Rhapsody/QuickTime); balance sheet (1.8 billion in cash) and the aggressive marketing campaign.
>With a rambunctious 233MHz PowerPC microprocessor and a standard 32
megabytes of memory, the iMac compares well technically with any of the current crop of sub-$1,000 PCs on the market.<
No, it *creams* top of the line Pentium 400mhz machines.
>Considering the lack of Apple software on the market, looking at it is all you are
likely to do with your iMac.<
There are 9000 Mac software titles out there (vs. 25,000 for Windows/DOS). How many titles does the average low-end user need? How many thousands of software title does the author use to justify that statement?
If iMac is such a loser why did CompUSA announce *70,000* orders for a computer that wont ship till August? Also why do AAPL CPUs now account for 15% of their revenues?
How much market share has SUNW or SGI? What percentage of the car market has Mercedes? Yet Daimler is buying Chrysler.
I also find it hard to believe, given the author's assertions, that he continues (if he ever has) to own AAPL stock?! For heaven's sake why?
This article is poorly researched, biased shlock and does more to damage Forbes credibility than AAPL's.
--------------------------------------------------
Man, this stuff pisses me off.
I'm starting to wonder if this isn't fallout of sorts from the DOJ's spate with MSFT (and possibly INTC.) I'm read a pretty blathering critque of DOJ in a Calgary paper.
It compared Gates/MSFT to Rockefeller/Styandard Oil. Except it praised Rockefeller for lowering the price of oil of Americans.
soup |
