On May 11, 8:47=A0pm, Mitch <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <a35dce19-a276-4eb5-bdba-2fd9da050...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > That's because you follow the iPod herd. =A0Zune buyers realize
quantity=
> > does not equal quality. =A0 In addition, a correlation can be made
> > between the population of cockroaches and the number of iPod sales.
>
> Well, geez, did anyone realize Edwin was paying attention during all
> those arguments against Windows?
IOW, is Mitch the only one who's been in a coma all this time and
ignored my counter-arguments as a result?
> Or do you think he doesn't know those were the same reasons put against
> him when he kept remarking that Windows had a large market share?
IOW, is anyone else here as stupid as Mitch, to not see I'm throwing
Maccie's own arguments back in their faces?
> Edwin, since no one was talking about quality _or_ quantity, those are
> strange arguments to bring up.
They were no less strange when they were used to defend low Mac market
share.
> They are still right, it's just that you
> haven't established which device has better quality.
Just as Maccies never established better quality for the Mac.
> The arguments mean that the quality device can have any share of the
> market -- they do not mean that the lowest-market share device is
> always the highest quality one.
It takes an Apple logo to make that true, eh? LOL!
> It's absolutely HILARIOUS, though, that you automatically assumed the
> Zune buyers were the ones who recognized quality.
Not as halarious as all the years Maccies made that same assumption on
behalf of Mac buyers.
> Microsoft customers have never been able to distinguish it before, and
> in fact championed that quality was irrelevant in several ways.
That's the view from within the RDF.
|
