"Market Share" "Installed Base" and Consumer Electronics 264
redrum writes "Analysts and reporters like to talk about market share statistics, but the conclusions they draw are often misleading, RDM reports. Market Share Myth 2007: iPod vs Zune and Mac vs PC takes a look at how numbers are used to paint grossly inaccurate portrayals of the market share of the Zune among iPods, and alternatively the Mac among PCs. A follow up article, Market Share vs Installed Base: iPod vs Zune, Mac vs PC demonstrates how the conventional wisdom of market share reporting can be turned upside down by simply comparing what vendors actually sell. An eye opening, in depth look at the real numbers behind PCs, music players, and console games."
Ahhh, roughly drafted (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry guys, the "Pro-Microsoft Press" is as much a straw-man shibboleth as "Main Stream Media's Liberal Bias". Give me a break!
How many analysts out there saw the Zunes Microsoft unveiled last fall and actually predicted a success? I'm sorry, I call BS, along with the claim that the iPod created the market for HD-based players. HD-players existed long before the iPod, and anyone who remembers the lawsuits involving the Diamond Rio knows that the path to iPod's success was oiled with the blood of its competition.
I'm not saying the iPod didn't create a huge demand, and grab a large part of the exploding market, but let's not exaggerate things here.
Put another way, do we really need a pro-mac blog to provide a multi-part essay on why the Zune is not a success? I mean, this thing is as much a dog as the Apple ROKR!
Re:Ahhh, roughly drafted (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ahhh, roughly drafted (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The blog entry didn't say that iPod created the hard drive market, it claimed that iPod expanded the market.
Expanded isn't really the right word. When the first iPod came along, hard-drive players were using 3.5" laptop hard-drives. Apple found a manufacturer that was about to launch 2.5" drives, and bought 6 months of their entire production, blocking competitors from being able to match their smaller players for the first six months of the iPods life.
Re:Ahhh, roughly drafted (Score:5, Informative)
It was actually other manufacturers using 2.5" drives when Toshiba introduced the 1.8" drive with which Apple used with the iPods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This didn't matter much, because the first iPod sucked (small capacity, Mac-only, no AAC support, mechanical scroll wheel prone to failure, etc.)
I had a 1st generation iPod and loved it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Put another way, do we really need a pro-mac blog to provide a multi-part essay on why the Zune is not a success? I mean, this thing is as much a dog as the Apple ROKR!
Actually, that's the Motorola ROKR; it wasn't an Apple product, but merely licensed Apple software. If you had said "Apple Newton" or "Apple Lisa," you'd have made a better point (but not "Apple Pippin," as the Pippin was also intended to be a licensed technology platform and not an Apple product.
Re: (Score:2)
While many critics panned the Zune, there were some that did warn that MS might eventually succeed but not in the first i
Ahhh, atribution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry guys, the "Pro-Microsoft Press" is as much a straw-man shibboleth as "Main Stream Media's Liberal Bias". Give me a break! How many analysts out there saw the Zunes Microsoft unveiled last fall and actually predicted a success?
Shibboleth [wikipedia.org], I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Straw man, I understand but did not see one in the article. They were careful to attribute the source of pro-Zune/M$ buzz to several very misleading stories by NPD and Steve Ballmer. They then flay those stories to show how they are misleading.
do we really need a pro-mac blog to provide a multi-part essay on why the Zune is not a success?
Sure, Zune tanked but that's in part because of bloggers tweezing reality from BS. Microsoft made a second rate device and tried to push it as "the best ever" and likely to succeed because of M$'s usual market might. When it did not sell because everyone knew it was a turd, they made up numbers to say it was selling. Because of the net, Zune has the reputation and sales it deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article? He acknowledges that the iPod didn't invent the HD-based music player market.
His point, which you seemed to miss, was that most of Apple's iPod sales since 2002 have been market expansion, that is
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I used to think (Score:2, Offtopic)
I used to think that until the early 1990s. Windows was still using cooperative multitasking and Linux wasn't mainstream yet, so the only choice for a "real" OS on the PC was OS/2. I'd been following news reports on OS/2 pretty closely. In one issue of a weekly tech magazine, Information Week I think, they had an article titled something like "New version of OS/2 to be delayed."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the reason OS/2 floundered w
Re: (Score:2)
OS/2 was still faster on 1 cpu then NT on 2 cpus so the trade rags conclusion, NT was better because it did SMP easier. Should of really been OS/2 on 1 cpu beats NT on 2 cpus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
--S
My favorite "market share" story: AppleWorks (Score:5, Interesting)
Gradually, it transpired that this simply wasn't true. The best-selling software title was, in fact, AppleWorks, a spreadsheet/word processor/"database" for the Apple II line.
What had happened was very simple. Apple sold AppleWorks directly. The only place you could buy it off the shelf (which at that time was still an important sales channel) was at an Apple dealer. That AppleWorks outsold 1-2-3 should not have been much of a surprise, because it was much cheaper, and because Apple dealers frequently included in it attractively-priced bundles.
But of the published figures were based on sales by Corporate Software, Incorporated. Since AppleWorks was never sold by Corporate Software or any other third party, it was literally off the charts.
Not real sales (Score:4, Interesting)
This qualifies AppleWorks as being one of the most distributed pieces of software, but doesn't really qualify it as being one of the most sold pieces of software. For something to be "sold", it must be "bought"; and for something to be "bought", there must be a deliberate action ("hey, I want that"), not just a grudging acceptance ("in order to get X, which I want, I have to agree to have Y and Z, which are utterly useless garbage").
Re:Not real sales (Score:5, Insightful)
but it still generates revenue, and for most, this is what counts. specially for shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given a choice of paying $150 for plain old Appleworks or $200 for Appleworks bundled with a 1 MB memory card what are you going to buy? Especially since Appleworks really needed the extra memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For Apple it wasn't a failure, because apparently it was the best selling software. The magazine is at fault for publishing figures without using a statistically significant sample. It's Experimental Science 101.
Re: (Score:2)
to transpire: to become known
When the surveillance cameras videoed the crime it is possible that this was the moment it became known. It depends on whether the cameras were live CCTV being played to a guard, or simply taping the incident for later. So it's not clearly wrong.
Make it required tech journalism reading (Score:2, Insightful)
[ The examples were fun, too - Microsoft, Walmart, RIAA and the 70s? I thought "one of these things is not like the others"
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, show me an analyst that predicted the Zune would be a success, and then we'll talk.
Dugg down for being lame...oh wait
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is very true. I remeber reading an interview with the team leader of the Zune, he didn't even predict a success. His words where something close to "the phrase 'ipod killer' is a misnomer, i mean the pmp market is huge, we'll be happy with as little as 5-10% of it." Don't go preaching "A Microsoft Failure" when thier attempt wasnt even to kill the ipod, but simply increase thier revenue on a growing
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Now I dont know about you, but i've never seen a Mac without Symantec installed on it, and I dont know of a single person who has ever used Geek Squad, IMHO if you need Geek Squad you dont deserve to opperate a computer anyways, and that $1400 you blow on them is your own fault.
Wow, I didn't even know Symantec even makes anto-spyware or the mac, especially since it doesn't exist (for now). And as for Geek Squad, the Best Buys in my city give you a Geek-Squad install thing when you buy a new computer, so I'd assume that after they set up a box in people's homes they realize that the service was quite nice and get them in more often.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wasn't aware of any such product either (but then my iBook is mostly a typewriter to me). So I went to Symantec's site and did indeed find a few MacOS products [symantec.com]. Couldn't quite see the point of them though. Other than making money for Symantec that is. Oh. Right. Sorry. I get it now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there. I fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Myth busting" with undocumented assumptions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Myth busting" with undocumented assumptions? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Myth busting" with undocumented assumptions? (Score:4, Funny)
PCs are cheap as dirt, and the components are modular and replaceable. Upgrading is not quite the life decision it is with a Mac.
There is a lot of PC software. To compete, PC software consumes resources in a never ending arms race to impress users.
The upgrade cycle is implied. PC software is written with the expectation that most users will have current hardware.
And BTW, as the Mac cultists were eager to point out in that laptop reliability thread from a few weeks ago, anecdotes are like opinions in that they are like assholes. Everyone thinks their ass is demonstrative of reality, while actually, strippers shave and bleach theirs. Does that clear things up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And last time I checked, OSX has been getting slower over the last couple of years. You probably don't notice it on newer systems, but the added bloat of features like Spotlight and Dashboard have really been putting the crunch on older systems, especiall
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This announcement was brought to you by the board of pendantic criticism.
PS I've had my PC for about 8 years. It's had a couple of new motherboards, a new case, new harddrives, many process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you claim that my anecdotal evidence supports anything it means that you weren't capable of understanding the message that you've replied to. Makes me wonder if you even know what QED means, or if its just something you thought would look cool on the end of a message. Are you a Queen Examining Dicks perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotal Evidence is an oxymoron and should always be treated as such. If I know a single person who has had X happen to them this does not give me any evidence to infer the popularity of X. In short, my comparison of "anecdotal evidence" with a singular datum is entirely correct. You seem to have difficulty with logical reasoning, so perhaps justifying statistics is a little bit too advanced for you.
If I mention that X happened exactly once, then it is tru
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of consumers (like my dad) who buy a new computer maybe every four or five years. There are very few consumers who buy a new computer every six months or year. There is no way the average
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Myth busting" with undocumented assumptions? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but this article lost 100% total credibility by stating that dells can barely be supported for 3 years. If his so called "Dedicated IT Department" is having that many problems with the Dells, then they have some major competency problems. We deploy $4 million in dell client systems a year and around 1/2 million in apples in a managed environment. I can tell you for sure that the apples lifespan is around the same as any other brand. If anything, the apples cost the IT department more in labor per machine because their ASP certification process is more expensive and harder to maintain, and parts are not as available in the warranty realm as they are with Dell, which guarantees (and are the only one in the industry who comes through on it) overnighted parts on every optiplex and latitude sold.
The systems break equally as much at best, and if anything, more when you are dealing with gen1 apple products (gen1 macbook, gen1 macbook pro, gen1 intel iMac, gen1 PPC iMac (after the ilamp). When you are forced to deploy new motherboards to all your newly deployed gen1 macbooks, the labor costs tend to go up. The last time dell systems required major component replacements in a widespread environment was with the GX270 motherboard leaky capacitors (which did not cause substantial problems until most systems were out of the 3 year warranty). This issue is over 4 years old prior to it there were no other major issues. These types of major recalls are a regular occurrence from Apple with every gen1 product they ship. These aren't published recalls, they are ASP recalls. This means that the only people who know about them are the service providers and anyone they tell (like customers). Apple does not admit in the press that they are recalls, and it is against NDA for an ASP to.
If you have "read plenty of articles" stating that apples last longer then more power to you. But articles don't make facts. Real world events are facts. Articles are just articles. Most articles which state that apples last longer are not based on fact, but are based on the same personal experience of the author, who has had no extensive experience dealing with large scale deployments of PC hardware, or even mac hardware for that matter.
Most interesting part (Score:5, Interesting)
====
In the final quarter of 2007, Apple earned $7.1 billion in revenue, compared to Microsoft's $12.5 billion in total revenue. Yes, that's right, Apple brought in more than half as much money as Microsoft, despite Windows owning 98% of the PC market.
Even stripping Apple of its iPod revenues, which PC pundits love to do, the company still earned $4.4 billion on its Macintosh business, over a third as much Microsoft brought in from its entire Windows, Office, and server operations combined. Apple's 2% of the PC market doesn't seem so small anymore.
Of course, Microsoft actually lost a lot of money on all of its consumer electronics products, so looking at profits, Apple earned $1 billion compared to Microsoft's total $3.4 billion in profit.
====
Now, I don't know why he chose only the fourth quarter, but it's going to make me go back and look at the numbers for 2004-2006, because if that's a trend it's a very interesting one.
Paul
Re: (Score:2)
Want to compare numbers, it should be with Dell, Acer, HP and all PC manofacturers *together*.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not even really apples to oranges...it's apples to rocks.
Re:Most interesting part (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, Microsoft actually lost a lot of money on all of its consumer electronics products, so looking at profits, Apple earned $1 billion compared to Microsoft's total $3.4 billion in profit.
Rouding up, Apple's profits are 30% of Microsoft's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. If that's bad for Apple, then it is absolutely shitty for Dell. Apple did actually substantially beat Dell on profits in the last quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even really apples to oranges...it's apples to rocks.
Nah, it's Apples to Microsofts.
Paul
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to compare numbers. Few people do, it's trivially easy to tell which of two given numbers is larger, as long as the notation isn't deliberately obscure.
I might want to compare the profits of only two companies, in which case, the sales figures of other companies irrelevant. Or, I might want to compare the money generated by in a particular OS's ecosystem, in which case, your numbers are more apt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun with numbers (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft's Balance Sheet [google.com] vs. Apple's Balance Sheet [google.com]
It would appear that over the last five years Microsoft (profit over 5 years: ~$50B) has consistently made quite a bit more money than Apple (~$3.7B) has (and profits at both companies are growing quickly).
I guess his point is that Apple's making money and selling stuff. Which is nice for them, but that's what companies are supposed to do.
Re:Fun with numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
Notice that in 2001, we are talking pre-explosion of the iPod. The net income for Apple was -$37m. Last year's net income for Apple was $1989m. Look at the last couple years of income:
(FY2006) 1,989.00, 1,328.00, 266.00, 69.00, 65.00, (FY2001) -25.00
After the explosion of the iPod (FY2003), we have roughly exponential growth
The net income for Microsoft was $7346m in 2001 and $12599m in 2006. Here's the last couple years of income:
(FY2006) 12,599.00, 12,254.00, 8,168.00, 7,531.00, 5,355.00, (FY2001) 7,346.00
Slow, but steady growth.
If you were an investor, who do you put your money in? The company whose income increased about 20% / yr over the last 5 years, or the company whose income has been more than doubling for the last four years? It's two completely different kinds of investment: stable, mature company or hot, rising star?
(Yes, I have run roughshed over some of the math, but that's the general idea.)
Re: (Score:2)
Whichever one has a better forward P/E.
Re:Most interesting part (Score:5, Informative)
Amusing how RoughlyDrafted sort of misleads with these figures, when he is ranting against other misleading statistics. Based on Wikipedia (disclaimer, but I recall it is basically right from the official reports), Apple had almost half as much revenue as Microsoft in 2006 ($19.3 to $44.2 billion). So yes, as claimed, Apple's revenue is around half that of Microsoft's. But look at net income: $1.73 vs. $12.6 billion - Microsoft makes more than 7 times as much, when measured by net income. So, just as RoughlyDrafted says, partial figures can be misleading.
In this case, the cause of the discrepancy is quite obvious: Microsoft sells a product with zero marginal value - software. This is basically making money from nothing. Apple, on the other hand, makes actual 'real' products, that cost money to make - Macs, iPods.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bits do mean something, if the initial investment truly didn't matter, then I might as well start selling CDs wit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apples vs Oranges (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where MS generally gets 90% margins. These profits only exist in a monopoly market. If the market place was really competitive MS would be making 30% at best because most of their profits would be rolled back into development costs. MS doesn't spend anything like 60% of profit on R&D, especially not on the cash cows (Windows and Office). Yes, they do burn a lot of money trying to buy their way into other markets but t
Reading /. for the comments and context... (Score:2)
roughly drafted (Score:5, Insightful)
They are sometimes interesting but for the most part I would like to ignore them for being outright false and so strongly biased that they smell like rotten apple for miles.
Market Share Vs. Installed Base (Score:3, Informative)
Old article on Slashdot:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/05/0548225.s html?tid=3 [slashdot.org]
Summary: Software Publisher's Association and other groups estimated in 2005 that 16% of all computer users were on Macs.
* * * *
All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
--Jane Wagner
hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
That "however" doesn't just make any sense. In terms of marketshare of computers, Apple is tiny. How does saying that the PC market is a subset of a larger market have any impact on the truthfullness of the previous paragraph? All that means is that the Mac's tiny slice of the market looks even smaller when you incorporate consumer electronics into your definition of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
The specious "however" is a standard journalistic technique for creating a false sense of contradiction. Read the news carefully and you will see this and similar techniques used to cast doubt on the statements of those the reporter dislikes without actually producing a contradicting statement or fact.
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Inertia versus effort (Score:2)
MS are, and have been for a decade or so (as you point out), vastly more profitable than Apple. That's not in dispute. A large part of that profitability comes from their own inertia, however. The fact that they *are* the massively-dominant market leader itself propogates that position, meaning they get "money for nothing" as people migrate to the market lea
Pot calling kettle (Score:2)
The article is intresting enough although you really get the feeling this guy is a major mac fan and a zune hater, but that is alright, doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.
He however then goes on to claim that installed base is everything and that Apple's installed base for computer market is 8%
While a 2% share of the entire worlds PCs wouldnt suggest much of a reason to target Macs for software development, having 8% of the active US installed base certainly does.
He then goes on with this:
Since more
Re: (Score:2)
Biased towards Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possible a PC may cost more than a Mac to maintain, but 5 times more? I work in design, so I've been around both Macs and PCs in a professional environment for quite a few years now. In that period of time our Macs have been replaced far more often than PCs. In the 8 years I worked with this one company Macs were replaced 5 times. They started with old Power PCs, moved on to first generation iMacs, hoping to save some money. Those were replaced in about a year by G3s, then came 2 generations of G4s and most recently Intel-based Macs.
In that same period of time the PCs have been replaced 2 to 3 times. The first upgrade in the same period of time was for IBM machines. Maybe 3 or 4 years later they were replaced by Dells and some of those were replaced by more recent Dell machines. Interestingly there are still a handful of those old Machines around the office being used, not on a regular basis, but they're around. The old Macs are all long gone.
I suppose on a per machine basis a Mac is cheaper. Macs aren't held onto as long and they aren't really upgraded. Many of the PCs in the office saw at least one OS upgrade, at first from Windows NT to 2000, and then to XP.
In the design industry, which is one of the biggest users of Macs, this is quite common. Design companies replace their machines quite often. They often have no choice, and for exactly the problems that article claims afflict PCs.
Apple doesn't extent any support for old systems. It doesn't offer any support for any old products. Once an Apple product has been replaced by a new model you're out of luck. Of course, there's a good support community out there for older Apple devices, but Apple can't take credit for that. Anyone running OSX 10.3 or older wont be getting any updates any time soon.
Older Macs don't run more recent versions of Mac OSX very well. I've experienced this first hand. Even a 3 year old Mac can have difficulty running OSX 10.4 consistently well. A 3 or 4 year old PC can handle XP with no problems at all. Vista is the exception. But then Macs had similar problems when OSX was released.
And then there are the countless times I've been unable to run applications because they were coded for a more recent version of OSX than I was running. And I don't get backwards compatibility people claim Windows lacks and Macs support.
Even with the OS9 environment in OSX old applications don't necessarily run, and that's assuming that environment is even installed. In Windows I can even run many DOS-era applications.
Old Macs are difficult to maintain without the afore mentioned Apple community. Old PCs are exceedingly easy to maintain and similar support communities exist. And why is resale important? I can't think of anyone who's ever sold an old computer. I've seen a lot more interest in old PCs than old Macs which nobody wants if they're 4 or 5 years old. I believe, however, that PCs have a low resale value. PCs are much cheaper than Macs, why spend the money on an old PC when for not too much money a person can buy a new one.
The article also puts forward a few assumptions they can't really prove. One more absurd one being that most PC users will go out and buy a new PC instead of having the current one services. I'
It depends on the machine and its use. (Score:2)
What instead is the case is this, a quality machine will last longer then a crap one. Shocker no?
But that is what the article is claiming, that a 2000 dollar Mac will outlast a 500 dollar Dell. Well, that is a suprise?
If you compare expensive Mac's with expensive PC's you might see a difference but basically all this says is that quality pays for itself. Well, I be damned.
To be honest he talks about technical lifespan NOT usefullness lifespan, be honest, did your designers REALLY need to upgrade their Ma
In Context? (Score:2)
Slashdot: stuff that doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Final quarter of 2007? (Score:2)
Someone discovered the secret of time travel.
Depends on what you're trying to find out. (Score:2)
If you're getting into the software development business, then you want to know installed base.
If you're getting into marketing or blogging, then you want o know both so you can pick the one that supports your argument.
Ceci n'est pas une News Article. (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's a viral/word-of-mouth marketing standpoint-
There's bee
Microsoft wants to be able to say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Servers usually aren't a luxury either. Spending $2000 to get a desktop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is fair to attribute sales to Windows in markets where Windows is featured in every four-color add, tv spot and web page.
When the Home Shopping Network bundles Vista systems for sale during the Christmas holidays, you can be quite sure that it isn't the Linux Geek who is buying.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're not going to get rid of the pop music & network television are you ?
I don't think you realize how long it took to get that automated babysitter working like it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who are YOU? (Score:5, Insightful)
And ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing you mean hypocritical rather than hypocrite, but I'm not sure because I can't see a conflict between those two statements...
the single largest platform for distributin
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if you really understand "the new Apple" (OS X era):
- the iPod and iTunes support MP3 just fine. You don't have to buy DRM music from the iTunes Store. CDs you rip yourself can be in MP3, AAC, etc. will be DRM-free.
- a Mac saves its screen captures in 2
Mixed Metaphore (Score:4, Informative)
Sugar-water is Apple specific. When Jobs lured John Sculley [wikipedia.org] from Pepsi, Jobs asked Sculley, "Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to change the world?"
Hence the Sugar Water and "Change the World" quotes are Apple quotes, and have nothing to do with the Kool-aid quote you are referring to.
Re:Who is redrum? (Score:5, Informative)
"redrum" would appear to be Daniel Eran, the owner of roughlydrafted.com. The people over on digg.com have accused him of spamming Digg with his articles and then using sockpuppet accounts to 'digg' his stories (and only his stories) to get them on the frontpage (or however it works on Digg). When this was found out, he was banned from Digg and he took this personally. In his deluded mind this is a conspiracy against Apple by pro-Microsoft minions. He even has people email Apple asking them to set up a "pro-Apple" competitor to Digg [wordpress.com]. Daniel Eran is a sycophantic Apple fanboy of the worst kind.
DECS (Daniel Eran) submitted this story as redrum (Score:4, Informative)
Re:OEM Complicity Hurts Consumers and the Environm (Score:2)
The last PC I saw set out for pick-up was a 486 Packard Bell. PCs migrate from den to bedroom to basement...
Windows users upgrade hardware and software together at OEM pricing. Upgrading the OS alone doesn't give you a system that can play Oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)