Alright, I removed "EDIT: And the downvotes are because...?" as per your request. It was there because I felt like there was nothing wrong with my comment (and still do) and so if someone could bring something to the discussion rather than just downvote me, I would appreciate it. So far, at least two of you have downvoted me for nothing involving what I actually said. More than that still have yet to produce actual criticism.
This all still doesn't explain how "Macs rule" is a valid and unbiased explanation of how MacBooks would come to account for over one-in-two laptops sold.[1] Doesn't that sound absurd if you say it out loud? "Every second person in the country owns a MacBook." That is quite the jump for a company whose cheapest (new, not used) laptop offering appears to start at $999 [2] and who only holds 5% to at best 20% of the market share.
[1] This is slightly simplified to a world where all laptops are either produced by Apple or they are Windows machines produced by the four companies he mentioned.
> better yet, make a more thoughtful case
I would say the same to you: why should I know who I am "name-calling?" You haven't told me any reason that his opinion shouldn't be taken at face value.
At face value, Yegge's comment lacks substance and the opinion is not well-supported, that's about the only valid criticism. Speculate about the author's motives at your own risk.
I think people downvote rather than comment to avoid uninteresting nit-picky arguments like this. I would love a way to attach an anonymous private message to a downvote but that's probably a non-trivial feature to implement.
This all still doesn't explain how "Macs rule" is a valid and unbiased explanation of how MacBooks would come to account for over one-in-two laptops sold.
Why on Earth do you want someone to defend "Macs rule" as unbiased? Who is claiming it is unbiased?
I would say the same to you: why should I know who I am "name-calling?
Because then you'd realise why you are being downvoted. It's like you are downvoting Mr Burns for being biased in favour of nuclear power, or something. Yegge's style is humorous and pushy, not graphs and references. Lots of stuff he writes sounds a bit silly.
This all still doesn't explain how "Macs rule" is a valid and unbiased explanation of how MacBooks would come to account for over one-in-two laptops sold.[1] Doesn't that sound absurd if you say it out loud? "Every second person in the country owns a MacBook." That is quite the jump for a company whose cheapest (new, not used) laptop offering appears to start at $999 [2] and who only holds 5% to at best 20% of the market share.
[1] This is slightly simplified to a world where all laptops are either produced by Apple or they are Windows machines produced by the four companies he mentioned.
> better yet, make a more thoughtful case
I would say the same to you: why should I know who I am "name-calling?" You haven't told me any reason that his opinion shouldn't be taken at face value.
[2] http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac?mco=OTY2ODQxN...