4 ms·
The claim chowder wasn't just "I'd like Apple to make a netbook." The claim chowder was "If Apple doesn't do this, they are fucked." Apple didn't do it; Apple w
by unalone 17y ago
The claim chowder wasn't just "I'd like Apple to make a netbook." The claim chowder was "If Apple doesn't do this, they are fucked." Apple didn't do it; Apple wasn't fucked.
- imok20 17y agoI'm not disputing that, at all. I'm saying that if Apple HAD done it, they wouldn't be fucked. Gruber suggests that if they had made a netbook, they would have lost money. (Been fucked, in the lingua franca, evidently.)
- jacobolus 17y ago> Gruber suggests ... No, he doesn't.
- imok20 17y agoHe outright typed it, doesn't just suggest. Forgive me... "As Jason Snell put it, imagine how much money Apple could have lost if only it had a netbook."
- jacobolus 17y agoNo, you are mis-reading: the “analysts” said that Apple would lose money if they didn’t make a netbook; instead, they made boatloads of money. Snell is snarkily pointing out that said analysts got things precisely backwards backwards by rhetorically asking how much they’d “lose” with a netbook. There’s no suggestion that they’d actually have lost money, or gained money, from a netbook. It’s pure snark, posed as a counterfactual rhetorical question. No one can really know how things would have gone with an Apple netbook: the point is only to call out those who second-guessed Apple’s strategy and have now been made fools of.
- unalone 17y agoWell, you make less money off a netbook sale than Apple does from a Mac sale. He points to Snell's tweet about that. But beyond that, he just points to the people who said Apple HAD to make a netbook. (Obviously he disagrees with the concept of netbooks, but that doesn't have to do with the claim chowder.)