Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 406728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Is it a surprise since there are more x86 machines now?
by bousozoku on Sat 30th Jan 2010 02:18
in reply to "RE: Is it a surprise since there are more x86 machines now?"
Hmmm I would have agreed in 2002 but now that Apple has 12% share in the US I'd call it a duopoly. It's still an open market, IBM could spend a billion and clone OS X but like other tech giants they don't care about the desktop.
That would be inaccurate. IBM care plenty about the desktop, but management there don't understand it at all, especially when there isn't any IBM hardware involved.
RE[3]: Is it a surprise since there are more x86 machines now?
by nt_jerkface on Sat 30th Jan 2010 04:25
in reply to "RE[2]: Is it a surprise since there are more x86 machines now?"
That would be inaccurate. IBM care plenty about the desktop, but management there don't understand it at all, especially when there isn't any IBM hardware involved.
What exactly is inaccurate? I pointed out what they *could* do, not what they are likely to do.
Yes I know that IBM is managed by pussyfoot bean counters. That's part of the problem.




Member since:
2009-08-26
Upgrading a virtual monopoly provides huge results. That's not exactly a surprise.
Hmmm I would have agreed in 2002 but now that Apple has 12% share in the US I'd call it a duopoly. It's still an open market, IBM could spend a billion and clone OSX but like other tech giants they don't care about the desktop.