Comments on Paul Thurrott’s summary of PC US market share.

I disagreed with Paul Friday regarding his look at PC market share, primarily focusing on his blowing off Apple’s US performance. In the following day and a half I’ve learned a few things.

In the comments of my article Paul says his article “was a post, not an analysis.” I’m not sure what that means, but it seems to imply that criticism can be deflected because a “post” doesn’t count as much as an “analysis.” Personally, I don’t care what it’s called; I have a problem with it for reasons stated in my article, which I stand by.

Paul updated his original post, in which he had this to say:

“It’s not an attempt to paint the Mac in a bad light. If you’re seeing it that way, relax.”

I was certainly relaxed. Did he think I wrote my post with clenched teeth? He should stop trying to write off Apple supporters in such a simplistic way, but I’ll get to that presently…

As for painting the Mac in a bad light, it’s difficult to read Paul’s post and not be certain it avoided giving Apple any due. It’s equally difficult to read the post and not be certain he knew this. I guess we have different definitions of “bad light.”

Meanwhile, on Saturday Paul published a new post that looks at (surprise!) Apple figures in the US. In it, Paul states:

“This is a summary, not an “analysis.””

So let’s review: An Internet Nexus article (can I call it that?) can be a “post” or a “summary,” though the distinction is not clear. I don’t know if it can be an “analysis.” You can probably already tell that in my view this is just so much semantic nonsense.

The closing paragraph of the post includes a shot at the Apple community:

“You’d think that the highly technical people who love the Mac would appreciate numbers. But when it comes to the Mac, or Apple more generally, people tend toward the emotional side a bit too often.”

You know what, Paul? The days of writing off Apple supporters simply by claiming they’re ’emotional’ (or should ‘relax,’ are ‘drinking the Kool Aid,’ are ‘in the RDF’ or are, in a derogatory term you used when debasing certain journalists, ‘Apple sycophants’) are over. At least, they are on this blog. That stuff won’t wash here.

You’re welcome to comment here anytime, but please bring something better than a thesaurus and 20-year old Apple vs. Microsoft “arguments” if you do.

2 thoughts on “Comments on Paul Thurrott’s summary of PC US market share.

  1. Every writer in the blogosphere knows what is going to happen when they don’t call a spade a spade in regards to Apple or the Mac platform. So when Paul starts rambling, and takes little pot shots at Apple, what does he expect? He acts like he is some innocent bystander, when in fact he has written article upon article about Apple and knows that he is going to get flamed when he doesn’t have any real basis for his opinions, or skews data or doesn’t give people the full picture.

    He needs to face the facts that he is biased towards MSFT, and against Apple. It is crystal clear in anything he writes about when mentioning Apple. Yet he doesn’t see it. Maybe he needs a proof reader, or someone to bounce it off of. He’s married. Maybe he needs to read these out loud to his wife before he commits them to his blog, or whatever he calls it.

    Frankly, I don’t think he gets it.

  2. Obviously, when Paul updates his blog, well, you know that you just got him hopping mad.

    I like him as a person, he’s a good writer, but really, what I don’t like about his writing is how fast he is in pointing out every tiny negative, and how slow he is pointing out any thing positive with Apple! That is, if he posts anything good at all!

    If the world’s major press is all praising Apple, well, you can bet your last Tootsie Roll that Paul will be doing the opposite! It never fails, its like death and taxes… you can’t escape it!

    As smart as Paul is, you really outsmarted him this time.

    Good work, factual and entertaining at the same time. What more can you ask in a blog?

    For one: keep it coming!


Comments are closed.