Most of us don't care about "market share" or bullshit categories like "desktop market share". We just want what we use - phones, servers, routers, micro devices, planes, medical equipment, and even that small category of devices where Linux isn't the overwhelming OS of choice called "desktops" to work the way we want.
Most people have a phone, use the internet, watch television and use their pad devices far more than "Desktops" (even "Windows" fans who use Linux far more than Windows but are too dumb to realise it). We tend to leave the fan boi "brand loyalty" crap to face painters and other superstitious folk.

Just because thousand dollar handbags are pretty popular with reality TV stars doesn't mean most people want or use handbags - and if they do, they don't tend to give a fuck about the brand (it's just a tool, fool). Just as most people don't pay much attention to political, geographic, or racial boundaries - it just sounds that way because those that do, have time to make noise about it (except for dem commies - they're all de same - especially the 400lb Ruskie bedsitting "hackers").

Or flight control system - they may exist, I just want to know which ones I should avoid flying on.

Linux - it's not for grunts (which is a bad thing?).

I don't know whether you're desperate or simply retarded. No where in the "analogy" does it imply that the failed attempts at light bulbs were even considered for sale - because they weren't!.

Deuterium, knowledge - the latter is worth more than anything else. Likely lots of other valuable resources, mostly precious metals unavailable on a cooler Earth, mined out, and bio resources.

It's a strawman question (intentional?) that ignores viable access to the asteroids of the Main Belt, and precludes knowledge about the environment that we won't know until surface probes return results (we won't go to Madagascar/Orkney because legend has it there be dragons there).
Re-read the history of world trade and colonization - it's not about the end-points, it's the points in-between - many of them inhospitable places. All of it driven by trade (the rest are generally referred to as lost civilisations).

I don't appeal to any explorers or colonists - they went where they were told they could.

What's now North America was originally considered of greatest value as a trading post for the West Indies - not as a (mythical) sanctuary for the religiously ostrasized. Colonization by non-government initiative had been happening for many centuries before on a trial and failure basis.

Australia has fuck all arable land by European standards - and almost all that "arable" soil is shallow has very little nutrients in it (it's in the landscape). European soil is deep and nutrient rich - the result of glacial activity. Except for two very small areas "arable" land in Australia is not of glacial origin (or the Chinese and Portugese would have settled centuries earlier). That's why Australian land is grossly overvalued and the first European settlers had such enormously high failure rates (the First Fleet starved). Australia has very little water, had lots of easily accessible gold, copper and other high demand metals - and is conveniently located near Java. Access to spices made it worthwhile establishing as a trade base, everything else was just a bonus (that the French would discovered as well if they'd been just a little quicker).

tl:dr? In the case of Australia colonisation was originally intended as a means of supporting and claiming a trading base - not as somewhere that had resources worth exploiting for exportation. The "we don't know where to put the convicts" story is a myth. "but - sheep!" didn't happen until George organised the theft of the Merino from Spain - much later, and "gold!" didn't happen until after the Californian strikes.

And if America had been a minimum of 140 times farther away than the Arctic, that might have been a bit harder decision...

No. It's time, not distance - something to do with logistics, and whether you die from exposure and starvation at the destination - it's complicated (in your case).

Maybe if you asked Tim Severin he'd explain why Eric the Red or St Brendan sailed/paddled past the easier winds and currents to the Arctic instead of taking a direct flight on an Airbus like a fucking crow you might understand (something to do with why they managed to come back). Though I doubt there's much you do understand that doesn't involve Cheetos and an old sock.

No, and neither is Elon's company you moron.

You're doing it wrong. I got a tip from someone that works there:-

1. Buy three
2. Place two in parallel slightly less than the length of one apart
3. Place the third across the other two

Här har du! An Ikea bookshelf with no Woody key (adopted daughter not included) or plans required. You don't even have to open the boxes - it works better that way.

Yes. And I suspect it's pretty cramped in the wheel well of an airliner where the trip is short but the in-flight service really sucks - but it doesn't stop people from trying it (even with a very low survival rate). For what - a chance to sell dodgy watches on the sidewalk with fuck all profit, to a population that doesn't want to buy watches.

Many of whom spent more than 80 days in tighter, less salubrious quarters than will be available on Elon's theoretical Fleet - just so they could hotbed and live in cramped spaces while working long hours every day in shitty jobs. Put jobs, schools, running water that's drinkable, rooms with light switches, and food that's not toxic on Mars and huge numbers of people trying to flee war zones will queue up to move there.
Most will leave those shitty jobs as soon as they can scratch enough coin together to start a micro business. It's human nature to take enormous risks for opportunities like this.

Given the choice between 30 days in a container with a bucket, a few bottles of water, and barely enough room to scratch, before a high risk and gruelling hike across a border (that already has a freaking wall) - and an 80 day ride in a spaceship, I'd bet there would be literally a million people that would sign away the next 20 years income for the opportunity. Probably not on the first fleet, but definitely on the first fleet after messages return from those that arrived with the first fleet and are doing well. By the time the third fleet arrives the people that arrived on the first two fleets will be complaining about too many immigrants (and we need to make them pay for a wall).

If I were younger I'd go (I did plenty of risky things in my youth) - and I'm definitely not in danger of being blown up/imprisoned/robbed, or living precariously.

APK. He doesn't have a life. But he has invested a lot of time on Visual Basic and Windows XP - he's kind of proud of that.

No. That's like saying - instead of the Pilgrims going to the USA they should have moved to the Arctic ('cause it's a bit closer).

So it's about what it costs for the US War on Drugs? Sounds like a useful diversion of funds, though I'm sure that many "police" departments, uninformed people, and private prisons will disagree.

You're not a fan of history are you? Or basic research? Hint: much of this planet is populated by people who either moved there - or their ancestors did (some of whom were sailors who didn't want to go home - that's why they got on the ship). And if you had been able to read original source you'd know that: return trips should be possible; no one said it was going to be a prison colony (trade?).

I suspect there may be some trade elements to the plan. No one says there won't be other traffic to Mars (and beyond).

Having just finished reading about the early years of European voyages to Australia I can see similarities - except that the Europeans were more naive about the risks and less concerned about the worst case scenarios. Come to think of it - all the early "explorers", whalers, seal hunters etc endured harsh conditions and high loss rates - but their enterprises were not for naught. Mars and beyond has the possibility of greater rewards - go West (or any direction towards the Edge). Unless you're one of the many uninformed, semi-literate, untravelled, moronic, anonymous posters who can do crap failure math to support their low self esteem - but whose lifetime experience allows for no optimism or change. Which is in itself a good reason to leave them to their future of Idiocracy.

Sign me up on the third fleet.

If he's half the genius you are, with even a tenth of the success rate - it's possible he's thought of that. He may even, what's that word? Planned it.

Real life - it'll get you every time. I guess that's why it's an anathema to you, that and ever checking your facts.

As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."