“Apple Computer’s chief financial officer, Peter Oppenheimer, announced last week that the company’s higher education division just had its best ever back-to-school quarter, and Harvard is part of the trend,” Yifen Chen reports for The Harvard Crimson.
Chen reports, “According to Daniel D. Moriarty, the University’s chief information officer (CIO), personal purchases of Macintosh computers at Harvard are up 30 percent from last year, while sales of IBM Lenovo machines have more or less flat-lined.”
“Moriarty added that Harvard is one of Apple’s largest educational re-sellers. He said that several years ago, Apple sales were lagging, but now campus demand for Macs has almost caught up to demand for non-Mac PCs,” Chen reports.
Chen reports, “Moriarty and Faculty of Arts and Sciences CIO Larry Levine offered multiple explanations for this new trend. ‘Historically, Apple products have been perceived by a lot of consumers as being more expensive than a Wintel machine, and Apple has reduced prices recently,’ Moriarty said. ‘I think that’s helped on the financial side.'”
Chen reports, “Levine said that before, consumers shied away from Macs because of a fear that they would not be compatible with many common applications, but now that perception has faded. ‘The move Apple made to the Intel architecture, which allowed people to run Windows and Mac OS side by side, [allowed Macs] to effectively emulate Windows applications,’ Moriarty said.”
Chen reports, “Both CIOs also mentioned that since Mac OS is based on the Unix operating system, having that functionality is also appealing to people who have a more scientific or technical bent.”
Full article here.
On October 12th, we covered the story that 45-percent of computers purchased at Princeton this year were Apple Macs. We’re still waiting for the Yale results, but expect much the same stellar results.
Related articles:
Analyst: Apple Mac gains market share, the reason why is significant – October 26, 2006
IDC: Apple Mac attained 5.8% of U.S. market share in Q3 06 – October 18, 2006
Gartner: Apple Mac grabbed 6.1% of U.S. market share in Q3 06 – October 18, 2006
Apple Q4 earnings results: $546M net profit on $4.84B revenue, sold 1.61M Macs, 8.729M iPods – October 18, 2006
45-percent of computers purchased at Princeton this year were Apple Macs – October 12, 2006
Gartner: Apple Mac grabbed 4.6% U.S. market share in Q2 06 – July 19, 2006
IDC: Apple Mac attained 4.8% U.S. market share in Q2 06 – July 19, 2006
Dion:
why it took the US that long to “liberate” Britain and France and the rest?
1939
Germany invades Poland and annexes Danzig; Britain and France give Hitler ultimatum (Sept. 1)
1940
Nazis invade Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg (May 10).
1941
Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Guam force U.S. into war; U.S. Pacific fleet crippled (Dec. 7). U.S. and Britain declare war on Japan. Germany and Italy declare war on U.S.; Congress declares war on those countries (Dec. 11).
Charles…I apologize for my sad and ignorant countrymen (& women). I too am worried about the fate of the “Christian Taliban” in our midst. My next read will probably be (your countryman)Richard Dawkin’s new book, The God Delusion. Should be required reading.
Embarrassed American,
thankyou,
but you shouldn’t apologize for your ‘countrymen’ and you shouldn’t be embarrassed.
Historically, the U.S. has one of the ‘cleanest’ records (as far as torture, wars, and suppression goes) and it has every right to be proud of it.
The U.S.A. has, like every other country, gone through good and bad periods; but it’s proven itself to be exceptionally good ( better than most ) at ‘self-renewal’.
The civil rights movement in the sixties is one of many examples.
America is the most powerful country in the world at the moment and I’m thankful that it’s a democratic country with a free press.
In contrast, the most prominent critical journalist in Russia has just been murdered – she was murdered on Putin’s orders, of course.
Charles…I completely agree with your assessment of America as a whole. There is much to be proud of, ideed, especially in comparison to many other countries. My embarrassment stems from the idiot responses you have received from people here on this blog and for the fact that an established FACT such as evolution has to be defended from the religious right including the president. That’s all…
Cheers!
Embarrassed American, evolution is not “an established fact” any more than most other scientific theories are. That’s why it’s called the “theory of evolution.” I now understand your embarrassment. It is clearly a result of being the product of the substandard American public education system, especially in science. Your indefensible position appears to be a knee-“jerk” reaction to the other side insisting on Creationism. I have heard less than quality defenses of both positions. Yours would be the basis for just such a defense.
Hg Wells:
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
please don’t tell me that you believe that humans are only 6000 years old!!
if so, I’ll be disappointed in a Mac user
HG Wells, carbon dating is still a scientific theory?
Charles, nice post about the age of the planet, gave me a great laugh. I have even heard that dinosaur bones are just tests of beliefs. Oh well so much for evidence.
I must say however that for one to consider the United Hates as a democratic country these days is a far stretch of the imagination. Demoncratic, but democratic, nope they lost that path a while ago.
Hey Mondale,
Weren’t you elected Zampolit of Minnesota after Reagan kicked your ass?
The topic at hand on this site is the Mac. Kindly shove your political agenda back up your Zune.
-jcr (A Libertarian who’s bloody tired of both sides of the Ruling Party these days.)
HG,
There is a “theory of evolution”, just like there is a “theory of gravity”. Evolution is a fact, and the “theory”, in the scientific sense of that term, is the model of the causes and effects of evolution. In other words, HOW and WHY species evolve, not WHETHER they evolve.
-jcr
HG Wells…
Actually I am a product of 14 years of private education and 2 years at a highly respected public university. And my major had a heavy emphasis on the scientific method and the “theory” of evolution so your insults just make me giggle a little.
Charles wrote ‘Historically, the U.S. has one of the ‘cleanest’ records (as far as torture, wars, and suppression goes) and it has every right to be proud of it.’
… Guantonamo Bay…
(spelling?)
… Fox …
also, choice is an illusion.
<Insert annoying American accent> “Of COURSE I have freedom of choice, honey. I can choose to have McDonalds OR KFC. That’s choice baby. Yeh USA all the way.”
Dont make me get my 60…
Entanglement, no, I don’t believe in any specific 6,000 year history.
John C. Randolph, the context of Embarrassed American is comparing evolution to the position of the “religious right.” In that context, the distinction you suggest is not applicable. Even religious righters would accept some form of changes over time. Such may or may not be of an “evolutionary” nature. But they do not accept that humans got here that way. Evolution, as defined in one form or another, exists as a concept and is observable in certain things. Certainly, technology and certain life forms, viruses being obvious observable ones, change over time. That may certainly be appropriately labeled as evolutionary. But, when debating on the religious end of this, evolution remains in a theoretical context. Indeed, a theory remains a scientific statement which is not fully proven. Since few things reach that level, evolution remains a working theory. Even commonly used mathematical processes are still placed within the realm of theory: “theorem.” Certain of the religious right have brought up legitimate questions not yet fully answered surrounding evolution. That does not mean evolution is of no worth. Nor is it, nor should it be, fully fact. It remains theoretical.
As a God-believer myself, I nonetheless cautiously stand away from the position of the religious right in this. It seems to me that the RR tells God how he created the universe. Were they there? It seems to me that God could have created the universe, and man, in any manner he wanted and he doesn’t need the RR telling Him how he did it. Nor, in the long run, should it matter. Going “poof” may have actually been simpler than the complexity of establishing an evolutionary model. The RR quote the Bible to position themselves as “God said it, I believe it.” In reality, the section they quote has another one giving an alternative creation story. Which do they choose to take literally? Even if this is answered, few RR actually accept other parts of the Bible with which they choose to disagree. That is inconsistent. Martin Luther, during the Protestant Reformation, himself tried to make significant changes to eliminate certain verses which did not support his saved by “faith alone” and other teachings. He was not permitted to do that but, even today, most RRers disregard those sections or explain the away poorly. I do think there is no other logical explanation for the existence of the universe except God. The only other one from non-God believers always ends something like, “We don’t know where the material/energy as part of the Big Bang came from, but it wasn’t God.” Not very acceptable to me.
However, in the context as discussed here, and since an alternative explanation is advanced, whether accepted or not, evolution remains theoretical, not proven fact. There are still unanswered questions. I am not saying yes or no to the broader question here. But I do recognize the question exists and, therefore, evolution remains theoretical.
Embarrassed American, I am aware that many professors treat as fact those things that are not and university students unquestionally regurgitate things. I am also aware that some “misunderstand” what they hear. Worse, I am keenly aware of historical revisionism found in books and universities – and errors in other disciplines and associated texts. I had hoped that our private institutions still upheld the banner of real education and truth. Disappointing!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
JCR,
Other than my teasing about Mark Foley which was actually a counterpoint to Bill’s stereotype about British plump office gossips (like Monica Lewinsky was a Size 0), I’m confused about which bit of my post deserved such ire.
Surely my point was aimed at those who would seek to confuse religious belief with scientific learning. There are many in the Religious Right who appear to be perfectly happy to cherry-pick certain parts of the Bible (Old or New Testament appears to make no difference) and “ring-fence” those elements from scientific analysis i.e. they’re true because they’re in the Bible so no analysis or further learning is required.
However, “science” continually tries to discover more refined models which explain the development of the universe in which we live. Science has no problems if that means tearing down theories that were developed in the past, whereas Religion, when challenged, will start blathering on about heresy, blasphemy and other defense mechanisms designed to maintain control of a brainwashed congregation.
Now if you think that Religion should be the basis for American scientific education whilst acting as a restraint on state-funded research, you’re entitled to your view. However, don’t be surprised when the “godless” Chinese become the world’s economic superpower by the end of the century.
HG Wells,
OK then I presume that you believe everythng had to be created. Nothing in this universe could just “Be”?
No explanation required so to speak.
Well if that’s the case then who created God?
You’ll probaby say “God just is”
Well that’s not very acceptable to me. How can God Just be?
If God just existing is acceptable to you then why can’t you believe that he universe just exists. It’s just as credible.
Anyway. What’s the point in dwelling in the past?
Surely it’s the future of the planet for our kids and future generations that counts is’t it?
Can we get back to the Mac please. This theology stuff is a load of bollocks anyway.
Right. Anyone know what the uptake for the Mac in British Universities is this year?
If it’s crap then what can we do to increase awareness and stimulate the growth?
Nearly every non Mac person I know still thinks you can’t run Windoze on a Mac or that Macs are comparitively expensive.
Also. I am very disappointed in the lack of Marketing for the Mac on british TV. There have been no “get a mac” ads at all. Is it Apple UK’s fault?
I’m a Brit and I apologise for my countrymen as embodied in Charles, with their appalling anti-American sentiments. I despair of the UK, it is itself becoming a dustbin of hypocrisy and double standards.
America is THE greatest nation the world has every seen (which is why it has the longest line of migrants at its doors of course).
When UK people denigrate the US they always forget that the US is itself the family of nations, a melting pot of other nationalites, religions, colours and so on.
The anti-war lobby puts the US as the aggressor. Does anyone in their right mind not think that the allied forces (and governments) that are in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t have preferred to have built power plants, hospitals and schools and got the fuck out after 2 years? The fucked up aggressors are the religous bigots who are taught to fight the “invading infidel”. Any one guess how much could have been created in those two countries with $200bn?
USA stands for what is decent and good for all humankind. It stands for freedom for themsleves and freedom for others that are in slavery – whether by Saddam, the Taliban or Kim Jong Il.
OK, so it didn’t always get it right, Microsoft is agood example. But as I discovered Apple many years ago I know it creates the best too.
Macaday,
i don’t think you’re a Brit. b/c if so, you wouldn’t have said:
“America is THE greatest nation the world has ever(y) seen”
what happened to “Great Britain”?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
British Mac Head, I didn’t start the tangent here…just chimed in on it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Something had to “just be.” A definition of God generally includes that he always existed. Explaining God is, by way of philosophers and theologists over the centuries, is not considered something that is fully comprehensible. (That’s why God is God.) Even the Greeks & Romans didn’t fully explain their own gods origins. Creation-wise SOMETHING had to exist with being created. Science is pretty clear that something cannot proceed from nothing. Further, a first something cannot simply choose to mutate on its own absent some cause. The most solid explanation is that something HAD to always exist. (Something cannot come from nothing.) That something is called God. That explanation is particularly helpful because, being an intelligent existence, God can also be the “first cause.” An inanimate thing can’t cause itself to Bang, for example. Something has to cause that. An intelligent God can cause that to occur. It may to be satisfying to have to hear that anything “just is.” But that is the only logical expanation to the existence of everything else – other than saying, “We don’t know – but it’s not God.” We don’t know doesn’t work, God fully does. Believing the entire universe “just existed” is not adequate and doesn’t make sense on its own. Science is certainly able to trace beginnings back a long way. And both science and philosophy (and much theology) intersect if all goes back far enough. Ignore the past if you will. But, if there really is a God – and logic to an early enough point would indicate there is – that may have significant ramifications for the present. None of this is new. It was pretty solidly laid out in the 12th century, if I recall, by Thomas Aquinas. His reasoning was used for centuries and still works pretty well today. How’re those bullocks for you?
On the Mac side, I do find it what is going on in British education, vis-a-vis the Mac, interesting and wonder why more Brits don’t let the Mac community in the U.S. know what’s going on more often. Is there a different site in the UK where that discussion takes place? If Apple monitors any of these sites, aren’t they more likely to clandestinely monitor a U.S. site rather than a UK site for comments and concerns? I’m interested in other spots in the world too.
I was the only Mac user in my Quant class at the H Business School, in 1991! Had to lug my Mac SE in to take the final! Everyone else had a Thinkpad purchased thru the school.
HG Wells…I appreciate your concern for the state of private (and presumable public) education in this country and I am particularly impressed that you think my professors at both the fine Jesuit university and public university I attended were “misguided” and that I was brainwashed by “historical revisionism” and that perhaps you are more learned and better informed than they. Between you and I…I’ll stick with them, thank you! I have read Thomas Aquinas; I have read & studied the Bible. Do me a favor & read Richard Dawkin’s new book, The God Delusion…If you dare.
Thanks Macaday for some levelheaded support for common sense.
Liberal democracies are inherently just, a system of efficiencies to determine the best direction for it’s citizens. Liberal democracies (open candidates, free press, judicial system) have never fought against one another and are unable to, since both are efficient.
Dictatorships are inherently unjust, inefficient power leaders that are the source of the major political violent problems in the world.
Hey entanglement, I am British. Just not a Brit with my head up my arse.
And as for the Great in Great Britain, I would love it to become great again.
Sadly though it has allowed itself to become a domain run by what I describe as the ‘little minded shits’. Just look at our road planning, and myriads of decisions by bureaucrats who represent themselves and their cronies. Integrity, honour, justice, hard work, all the things that PUT the ‘Great’ there is falling by the wayside as we encourage taking sickies, faking invalidity, fraud and theft and we pay homage to appearance more than substance.
Not a society or country to call ‘Great’ in my opinion.
And I don’t say America is free of all these problems either, but it does still have the courage to do what is right for decent people. Too many in Britain say because it’s America and big, it’s wrong, it’s unjust, it’s aggressive and it’s greedy.
Alright let’s set the record straight.
The Book doesn’t say that the earth is 6,000 years old. It says the “recreation” was done 6,000 years ago. There’s a whole lot that happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Now back to macs…….
God said, “Let there be Leopard” and the Leopard appeared. God looked at the Leopard and saw that it was good.
…and the Devil was given Vista and a Zune.