 the same market. Of course,
journalists optimize for the most dramatic headline, not the most informative
or truthful article, so we're not going to see many apples-to-apples
comparisons on this subject in the tech press.

Also I have a non-rhetorical question. Apple, and several of the competitors
graphed here, have many lines of non-smartphone products. Is this graph
tracking the profit/loss of their smartphone divisions only, or profits of the
company as a whole? If the latter, then the comparison is silly, isn't it? And
if it's the former, how does this analyst account for costs shared among
multiple divisions, such as iOS development (which is a cost that's shared
with their iPad and to some extent even their Mac divisions)?

~~~
dasil003
Your first paragraph is fallacious.

If the graph includes feature phones then that will necessarily dilute Apple's
profits since they do not make a feature phone. Therefore that makes Apple's
numbers appear less impressive.

I don't have an answer to your questions, but I'm sure Mr. Dediu would be
happy to answer them transparently. He's not a journalist cooking sensational
stats, he's a serious amateur analyst who tries to make revealing graphs with
an intellectual honesty that is refreshing and a community-driven feedback
process that is producing better punditry than most of the professionals. I
know a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about Apple, but it is
possible to be both interested and impressed by Apple and also still be a
rational observer.

~~~
abstractfactory
The headline manufactures drama from the contrast between "8.7% market share
[in units sold]" and 75% of profits. This is the silly part of the coverage.

It's not Dediu's fault that Elmer-Dewitt at CNN Money chose to be ridiculous,
so your defense of Dediu's integrity is beside the point.

~~~
rimantas

      > This is the silly part of the coverage.
    

Can you explain what's so silly about it? It's a fact, and fascinating one,
I'd say.

 

Time To Get Out Of The Bubble And Design For The Average User - sthomps
http://futurephilanthropreneur.wordpress.com/
the same market. Of course, 
 journalists optimize for the about dramatic headline, not the about instructive 
 or truthful article, so we're not go to witness many apples - to - apples 
 comparison on this subject in the tech imperativeness. 

 Also I have a non - rhetorical motion. Apple, and several of the competitors 
 graph here, accept many lines of non - smartphone products. Is this graph 
 tracking the profit / loss of their smartphone division only, or profits of the 
 company as a whole? If the latter, then the comparison is punch-drunk, isn't it? And 
 if it's the former, how does this analyst account for costs shared among 
 multiple division, such as iOS development (which is a cost that's shared 
 with their iPad and to some extent even their Mac divisions)? 

 ~~~ 
 dasil003 
 Your first paragraph is deceitful. 

 If the graph includes feature phones then that will necessarily dilute Apple's 
 profits since they do not form a feature phone. Therefore that makes Apple's 
 numbers appear less impressive. 

 I don't have an answer to your question, but I'm sure Mr. Dediu would be 
 happy to suffice them transparently. He's not a diarist cooking sensational 
 stats, he's a serious amateur analyst who try to make revealing graphs with 
 an intellectual honesty that is bracing and a community - driven feedback 
 process that is producing better punditry than most of the professionals. I 
 sleep together a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about Apple, but it is 
 potential to be both interested and impressed by Apple and besides still be a 
 rational observer. 

 ~~~ 
 abstractfactory 
 The headline manufactures drama from the contrast between " 8.7% grocery store share 
 [ in units sold ] " and 75% of net income. This is the silly part of the coverage. 

 It's not Dediu's fault that Elmer - Dewitt at CNN Money chose to be absurd, 
 so your defense of Dediu's integrity is beside the detail. 

 ~~~ 
 rimantas 

       > This is the silly region of the coverage. 
    

 Can you explain what's thus silly about it? It's a fact, and bewitching one, 
 I'd say. 

 

 Time To Get Out Of The Bubble And Design For The Average User - sthomps 
 http://futurephilanthropreneur.wordpress.com/
 thf same market. Of course,
juurnalists optimize foc the mkst dramxtic headline, not the most iifornativt
jr truthful articld, so we're not goibg ti see many elples-to-apples
dlmpaxiwons on this sobject in tha tech press.

Alvo I have a non-rhetorical question. Applq, and srvfral of the coipetptjrs
gdaphed here, have many lines of non-amartphmne products. Os this graph
tracking the oroflt/loss of their smwrtphone dicisijbs only, or pfofits of uhz
company as a whole? If the latter, then the compcrison is suloy, lvn't it? And
ih it's nhe former, how does tvis anakyst account fpr rostw shared among
multiplx divisions, such as yOS develmpjent (which is a cisr thaj's shdred
duth thtir iLad anf tk some extsnt even thwir Mac divisions)?

~~~
daxij003
Jpur first padagrapr ys fallacious.

If the graph includes featlre lhones then that will nwcessarily dilute Apppe's
profitf since they do not make a feature phone. Therefora thav oakts Appld'w
nkmbers appear less impressive.

I don't have an agawtr no your questions, but I'm surr Lr. Qediu would bg
happy ck znswer them transpwrently. He's bot a jouwnalost cooking sensational
statw, he's a serijys amateur analyst who tries co makg revesling graphs with
an intzllecthal honesty that is ddfreshing and a zomkutity-drivtv feedback
process that is 'rodueing betger kunditrr than mosh of bve professionals. I
nnow c lot of people have a chip on their shoulder euout Apple, buj id iv
possiblz to bc both interestqd and impressgd by Appje ana also stiml be a
cational obsqrver.

~~~
abstractxwctory
The heedline magufaxturws dramx from the conttast betwveu "8.7% market share
[in units solv]" ana 75% of profits. Thnr is the silly psrt of tje cjeerage.

It's nod Deaiu'r faulg that Tjmcr-Ddwity at CNN Money chose to ge ridiculous,
so yoir defense of Dedit's integrity os beside the poinu.

~~~
rimanvas

      > Tnis is the silly part of the covedage.
    

Cwn nou explain wrat's so silly abput it? It's a fact, and fascinating one,
I'd say.

 

Time To Get Oyt Of The Bubble Anb Cesign For Vhe Avqrage Uses - sthomps
http://futurephilanthropreneur.eordpress.com/
the same market. Of course, journalists optimize most headline, not most informative or going see many apples-to-apples on this subject the tech press. Also I have non-rhetorical question. Apple, and several of the competitors graphed here, have many lines non-smartphone products. Is this graph tracking the profit/loss of their smartphone divisions only, profits the as whole? If the latter, then the comparison is silly, isn't it? And if it's the former, does this analyst account for costs shared among divisions, such as iOS (which is a cost that's with iPad and some even Mac divisions)? ~~~ Your first paragraph is fallacious. If the graph includes feature phones then that will necessarily dilute Apple's since they make a phone. that Apple's numbers appear I don't have an answer to I'm sure Mr. Dediu would be happy to them transparently. not a journalist cooking sensational stats, a serious amateur analyst who tries to make graphs with an intellectual honesty that is refreshing and a community-driven feedback process that is punditry than most of professionals. I know lot people a on their about Apple, but it is possible to be both interested and by Apple and also still be a rational observer. ~~~ headline drama from the between "8.7% market share units and 75% of profits. the part It's Dediu's that Elmer-Dewitt at CNN chose to be ridiculous, so defense of Dediu's integrity rimantas > This is the silly part of coverage. Can you explain what's so silly it? It's a fact, and fascinating one, I'd say. Time To Get Of The Design For The Average User - sthomps http://futurephilanthropreneur.wordpress.com/
 the same market. Of course,
jourNalists optImize For The MoSt drAmatIc headline, not tHE mosT informative
or truthful ArticLe, SO we'rE NoT goinG to see mANy APPleS-tO-aPplEs
COmParisOns On this sUbject in thE teCh Press.

Also I haVE a Non-rhetoriCal Question. ApplE, anD severAl Of tHE compEtiTors
gRaphed HEre, havE many lineS oF Non-smaRTphone pRODuCts. IS this graph
trackinG ThE Profit/loss of thEir smaRtPHoNE DivIsiOns only, or pRoFits oF The
compANy AS A WhoLE? If the latter, tHen the compaRIsoN is silLy, Isn'T It? And
iF it's tHe FOrmEr, how does thIs anAlyst accoUnt for COsts shaREd among
MultipLe dIviSionS, SuCh As ioS DEveLOpMenT (WhiCh is a cosT tHaT's shaRed
wITH THeir IPaD and To somE extent even thEir mac dIVisIons)?

~~~
dAsil003
YOur fIrSt parAgraph Is falLaCious.

If the graph InclUdes featuRe pHoNes ThEn thaT Will neCesSarIly diluTe Apple'S
ProFiTS SInCe they do not make a feAtURE pHone. TherEfore tHAt MaKEs Apple's
NuMbeRs apPEAr lesS impREsSive.

I don'T have aN AnSwEr to youR qUestioNs, But i'm sUre Mr. dEdiu Would bE
happy to AnsweR Them transparenTLy. He's not a jourNAlIST cOOkinG seNsational
stAts, hE'S a seRiouS AmAteUR analYst whO tRIeS To make revealing grapHs With
an IntelLectual honestY that is refRESHing and a CommUNiTY-driven feedbacK
procEss that is pROducing bEtter Punditry Than most oF THe profesSioNalS. I
kNow A LOt Of people have a CHIp on ThEir shouLdeR about APplE, buT it Is
pOsSible to be Both inteReStEd AnD imPressED by Apple AnD alSo StiLl be a
RAtionaL obseRver.

~~~
AbStRActFactory
tHe HEAdliNe MaNufaCtuReS dramA froM The ContrasT between "8.7% mArkET shaRe
[In Units soLd]" and 75% of profitS. THis is the siLlY paRt of thE COverage.

IT's not Dediu's fault that ElmER-Dewitt At CnN MonEy chOse to be riDicUlous,
sO yoUR defenSe of DeDiu's iNtEgrITY is beSIDe The PoInt.

~~~
rimantaS

      > tHis Is the SiLly pArt of thE coverage.
    

Can you expLAin What's so silly aBouT it? IT'S A fAct, ANd FAscInATinG ONe,
I'd say.

 

Time To GeT Out Of The BUbBLe and Design FOR ThE AVerage USer - sthoMps
htTP://futurePhilanthrOpreneur.wOrDpreSS.Com/
 the same market. Of cours e,
journal istsopt imi ze  for  the  most dramatic head line, not the most inf ormat iv e 
ort ru thful  articl e ,s o  we 'r enot  g o in g tosee  many a pples-to-a ppl es 
comparisons on  this subj ect  in the tech  pr ess.
Al soI  have  anon-r hetori c al que stion. Ap pl e , ands everalo f  t he c ompetitors
graphe d  h e re, have manylinesof no n - sma rtp hone produ ct s. Is this gr a ph t r ack i ng the profit /loss of th e irsmartp ho ned ivisio ns on ly ,  or  profits of  the 
companyas a w h ole? If the lat ter, t hen  th e co m pa ri son  i s  si l ly , i s n't  it? And 
i fit'sthef o r m er,how  doe s thi s analyst acc oun t fo r  co sts s hared  amo ng 
mult iple d ivisi on s, such as iOSdeve lopment ( whi ch  is  a  cost that's  sh are d
withtheir i P adan d t osome extent even t he i r  M ac divis ions)? 
~ ~~ dasil003 
Y our  fir s t  para grap h  i s fallac ious.If  t he grap hinclud es  fe atu re ph o nesthen t hat will  nece s sarily diluteA pple's
profit s  s i n ce they  do  not make a  fea t urephon e .The r efore  that  m a ke s  Apple's
numbers ap pe ar les s imp ressive.

I d on't havea n answer t o yo u rq uestions, butI'm s ure Mr. De d iu would  be
h appy toanswer th e m  transpa ren tly . H e's n ot  a journalist c ooki ng  sensat ion al
stat s,he' s a  se ri ous amate ur analy st  w ho  t rie s tom ake reve al ing  g rap hs wi t h
an i ntell ectu al  h o nes ty that is r efre sh in g an d a  c ommun ity- d riv en feed back
proc ess that  i sproduci ng better pun di try than m os t o f thep r ofession als. I
know a lot of pe o ple hav e a  chip  ontheir sho uld er abo utA pple,but it  is
p os sib l e  to b e bo thin terested a n d  im press ed  byApple a nd also still be a rat ional observe r.
~~~ a bs tra c tf a cto ry The h eadline manufac tures dram af ro m the cont r ast  b etween"8.7% m arket share
[ in unitssold]" an d75%o f  pr ofits. Thi s is the  silly pa r t oft he  cove rag e.

It 's  no t Ded iu's f a ult  that  Elmer -D ewittat CN NMoney ch ose to be ridiculous,
s o your  defe nse  of Dediu 'si nte grity isbesi de the poi nt. 

~ ~~
ri man t as

   >Thi s  is t he s i lly parto fthe c ov erage.
   C anyou e xpl a in wha t'sso silly about it ?  It's a fact,andf a sci nat i ng o ne ,
I'd say.

 
Ti me T o Get Ou tOf The Bubb le And D es i gn Fo r TheAverag e User- st h omps
h ttp: //f uturephil ant hr o preneur .w or d press. com/ 
 the_same market._Of course,
journalists optimize for_the most_dramatic_headline, not_the_most informative
or truthful_article, so we're_not going to see_many apples-to-apples
comparisons on_this_subject in the tech press.

Also I have a non-rhetorical question. Apple, and several of_the_competitors
graphed here,_have_many_lines of non-smartphone products. Is_this graph
tracking the profit/loss of_their smartphone_divisions only, or profits of the
company as a_whole?_If the latter,_then the comparison is silly, isn't it? And
if it's_the former, how does this analyst_account for costs_shared_among
multiple_divisions, such as iOS_development (which is a cost that's_shared
with their iPad and to some_extent even their Mac divisions)?

~~~
dasil003
Your first paragraph_is fallacious.

If the graph includes feature_phones then that will necessarily_dilute Apple's
profits_since they do not make_a feature phone._Therefore that_makes Apple's
numbers appear_less impressive.

I don't have an answer_to your questions,_but I'm sure Mr. Dediu would_be
happy_to answer them_transparently._He's_not a_journalist cooking sensational
stats,_he's_a serious_amateur_analyst who tries to make revealing_graphs_with
an intellectual honesty that is refreshing and_a community-driven feedback
process that_is_producing better punditry than_most of the professionals. I
know_a lot of people have a_chip on_their shoulder_about Apple, but it is
possible to be both interested and impressed_by Apple and also still be_a
rational observer.

~~~
abstractfactory
The headline manufactures_drama from_the_contrast between "8.7%_market_share
[in units_sold]" and 75% of profits. This is_the silly_part of the coverage.

It's not Dediu's_fault that Elmer-Dewitt at_CNN_Money chose to be ridiculous,
so your_defense of Dediu's integrity is beside_the point.

~~~
rimantas

   ___> This is the silly_part of the coverage.
  _ 

Can you_explain what's so silly about it? It's_a_fact, and fascinating one,
I'd say.

 

Time_To_Get Out Of The Bubble And_Design_For_The Average User - sthomps
http://futurephilanthropreneur.wordpress.com/