Apple's market share of PCs over $1,000 hits 66% - <AUTHOR> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/19/report-apples-market-share-of-pcs-over-1000-hits-66/

<comment><USER2> Even more amazing: Apple now holds a market share of 100% of Apple computers. That other number pales in comparison to that. Clearly 100% are more than 66%.

</comment><comment><USER3> _To some extent, Apple's (AAPL) share of this market is growing by default. Companies like HP (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Lenovo ship enormous quantities of PCs at price points between $500 and $750, whereas the only Macintosh that sells for less than $1,000 is the $599 Mini_

When I first saw the title, this is the first thing that crossed my mind. Apple seems to be in the business of selling expensive computers. I'm not saying this makes their growing market share less valuable, just that it's less of a win then it might seem at face value.

Plus, like others have mentioned, this is only for B&M stores.

<comment><USER3> Hmm...is it just me or does is that comment fairly confusing?

My point was that the overall growing on their market is definitely valuable to Apple, and the fact that they are in the market of selling expensive computers doesn't influence that value. However, it does reduce the value of using the a larger dollar value as a criteria for determining market share. If the overall market for computers greater than $1000 is shrinking, then selling more in that market is not as valuable as it was may have been.

My tendency to use "it" in bad places really gets on my nerves sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The sales channel representation is one thing - what about the over $1000 part? Maybe Mercedes/BMW also have a pretty nifty % of market share for cars over $35K (say) - that doesn't mean much because there are a ton of choices under that amount. You're still going to see more Fords and Hondas on the road.

</comment><comment><USER5> Plus the PC market is fragmented by different vendors/brands, and in Apples market ...there is only Apple.

</comment><comment><USER6> also PC market has plenty of options below 1000, and with Apple that is not the case

</comment><comment><USER7> That's a little (edit: lot) misleading. Apple's market share of PC's sold direct in stores over 1,000 is at 66%.

The 66% would not hold if internet or corporate sales are included. Therefore your title exaggerates apples market share in computers over 1,000 by at least 2x, possibly more (I don't know the exact numbers.)

<comment><USER8> If you are a PC manufacturer, regardless of the fact that this figure does not include all PCs sold, I think that it is still a very important trend that bears attention.

The high end share for Apple is growing rapidly, especially in the consumer market. Considering that the business market is arguably even more price sensitive (no citations, but I believe I've read this various places, citations to the contrary welcome), Apple is siphoning off the most profitable segment of customers, leaving HP, Dell, and the other PC players to fight over the segments with razor thin margins.

I'd rather be holding AAPL, which I am :). Just a few remaining shares, but I'm not going to swap them for Dell or HP anytime soon.

<comment><USER7> What these numbers mean is that apple is the only 21rst century computer company. Dell, HP are 20th century computer companies.

It also means that most people who are desirable customers (spend over 1,000) who buy for themselves and look at a product first pick apple. Thats huge. Which means apple had won the hearts and minds battle and just has to wait for these effects to trickle through the high end market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can argue with the numbers themselves all day but the point in the end is that Apple is making a ton of money focusing on an end of the market that everyone else is afraid of.

Another aspect of that is that most of those sales were through Apple's own retail stores -- which other PC manufacturers have consistently failed to succeed with. Again they're succeeding by not playing their own game.

(I find it strange that so many people devote energy to thinking about what the numbers _don't_ mean rather than thinking about what they _do_ mean.)

<comment><USER3> _(I find it strange that so many people devote energy to thinking about what the numbers don't mean rather than thinking about what they do mean.)_

I think it's just a general aversion to the practice of cherry-picking criteria to post bigger numbers.

<comment><USER9> Well, yeah, but the point is that expression that aversion in lieu of any other comment is a goddamn waste of time.

<comment><USER3> I guess that depends how much you can infer from such a comment. I would infer that the aversion exists because it's confusing and many times not helpful to cherry-pick criteria. Of course, I'm inferring that because it's my opinion on the subject and it may not be what anyone else actually agrees with.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Stop writing meaningful things on Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/c3559e174b24

<comment><USER2> Maintaining a blog is real work, even the "archive of stuff you've said," variety. You have to pick a platform, learn the ins and outs, figure out hosting, domain name, all of that. There's way too much stuff to do and track for that to be a viable solution to this problem.

We need a solution for sharing that isn't centralized and that anyone can use. Unfortunately I don't see the next-gen open source sharing app getting big anytime soon, seeing as how even now the mainstream public will ignore anything open-source (read: hard) in favor of a mediated, closed platform.

Complaining and moralizing isn't going to change this. If it was, we'd be actually listening to Stallman instead of going, "oh yeah, he was right about that," every couple of months.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't agree with you. Setting up and using a tumblr is way easier than using facebook or your email account. Same goes for a wordpress and blogger, not even mentioning medium (where i write right now).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's asking me to sign in with twitter. Is that the joke? Because the same thing happens when I visit Facebook (only, to sign in with Facebook).

<comment><USER3> When I revisited it just now it didn't want me to sign in. What am I missing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are multiple tools that allow someone to post to multiple services at once, WordPress, Facebook, Tumblr, and the like.

There's nothing wrong with posting meaningful things on Facebook, G+, or whatever. Just keep track of the things that mean something to you.</comment>


Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone-cannot-explain-the-riddle-of-consciousness <comment><USER2> The article presents no evidence to support this assertion. What aspect of the human brain transcends physical law? The author makes no attempt to say.

The problem with the so-called riddle of consciousness is that you can assert to me that you experience subjectivity, but you cannot demonstrate to me that you do. You cannot establish that any other person experiences subjectivity. Thus you cannot demonstrate even to yourself that you experience subjectivity because it is impossible to have a control, an externally verifiable example of subjective consciousness. If you cannot demonstrate to yourself that you are conscious, then there is no riddle of consciousness. And if you cannot establish a standard for discriminating consciousness, there is no way you can exclude the possibility that its visible expressions can be modeled in purely physical systems.

Arguments by assertion of the specialness of human consciousness keep appearing on HN like clockwork.

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't this confusing the map for the terrain? The mathematical formalism doesn't have an answer to the questions this essay is asking. If you model reality with wave functions and compute then you get certain results. That's pretty much all the mathematics says. Material things are entirely absent in the mathematical formalism.

In math people learn to not ask questions like "what is a set?". The answer is always whatever is consistent with the axioms of set theory. That question is a non-question in the mathematical formalism of set theory. I think it's the same thing in physics. Asking what is an electron when all you have are some axioms about wave functions will lead to equally nonsensical answers.

<comment><AUTHOR> It sounds like you may actually be in accord with the author. His point seems to be a reminder that, as I think you are in part saying, mathematical formalism -- and physics -- don't have answers to many fundamental questions, yet it is tempting and can even appear more "serious" to jump to conclusions, especially when jumping to another field, and act as if they do.

"Classifying consciousness as a material problem is tantamount to saying that consciousness, too, remains fundamentally unexplained."

So it appears that he's reminding us that the map is still largely blank, with only some terrain filled in.

This hits my ears almost like an echo of Plato's Apology, wherein Socrates claims that if the Delphic oracle is correct and he is indeed wiser than others, it is only because he has a better grasp of his own ignorance.</comment></comment>


21 User Retention Tactics You Can't Live Without - <AUTHOR> http://growthhackingpro.com/21-user-retention-tactics-need-know/ Once you've got users on your site and engaged, the next thing to worry about is user retention. 'User retention' refers to the proportion of customers who come back to your site and use your product on a regular basis. The main driver of good retention is good product/market fit but having an awesome product that actually solves people's problems isn't enough to ensure growth. Here are a few tactics you can use to make sure people keep coming back. <comment><USER2> The current title of the actual article is "21 User Retention Tactics You Need To Know," which is still pretty bad but not as linkbaity as "Can't Live Without."

</comment><comment><USER3> As a note to the OP, "Growth Hacking Pro" and Buzzfeed-style headlines typically do not go over well with this crowd. As it is, I can (and will) live without these tactics :)

</comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Offer a good product</comment>


Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/07/human-brain-project-researchers-threaten-boycott <comment><USER2> "The main apparent goal of building the capacity to construct a larger-scale simulation of the human brain is radically premature," Peter Dayan. How could they even got funding for this?

<comment><USER3> There are a number of arguments for funding the thing but from my point of view I like it because it's kind of cool - they've already done some neat stuff. €1.2bn over 724 EU citizens is 1.65/head or a bit less than the typical cup of coffee. For me the stuff they've done already is worth 55% of the 3 euro latte I'm just drinking. See [http://vimeo.com/52664485](http://vimeo.com/52664485) . Compare with EU agricultural policy with costs about 200 euro per person per year. I'd say ditch subsidising the farmers and fund scientific progress instead.

<comment><USER2> Sorry from the movie I cannot see what's the point. Very slick design, nice documentary. Yet, 4 years into the project already and there no implications at all of the research ... There's not breakthrough there's nothing of impact. This is shocking ... he even got project money for the blue brain project (same goal) and did not deliver. Now he got the brain project (and won't deliver as well I guess). Markram is amazing in getting funding!!!

I agree with you on the farmrs part :)

<comment><USER3> Actually I have to admit I hadn't at the time watched Blue Brain part 4. I just did and I can see your point. While I'm still a believer that computer simulation will be a major tool in understanding the brain I think there may be more progress from small teams like the google car guys, Kurzweil's lot at Google and the IBM Watson guys rather than something like the Human Brain Project which seems to be shaping into a big enterprise fixed in one direction rather than small groups trying hacking different approaches. In fact I don't think anyones managed a good simulation of Caenorhabditis elegans which could probably be attempted ok by a PhD student with a laptop. Although people are trying [http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm](http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm)</comment></comment></comment></comment>