No they didn’t introduce new computers last quarter, they just updated certian machines.  Consequently their marketshare went down from last quarter.  Their desktop sales (the ones you said they market with iPods) went down as well even though iPod sales went up again. That shows a lack of correlation between iPod sales and Mac sales (specifically desktops).

Attaching Apple’s increase in sales to the Halo effect is still just Fanboi talk.  It’s like saying that nothing else could be the reason why sales are better this year-- whihc is ridiculous because we all know Apple’s lineup is much better this year irregardless of iPods. 

People act like one percent marketshare gains year over year aren’t common although Acer did it this year too.  Dell has done it in recent years and e-Machines did much more than that a few years ago.  Better products produce better sales, not “halo effects”.  Did anyone see a Playstation/PS2 halo effect for Sony computers? (hint: Playstation/PS2’s sell much better than iPod’s do)

Did anyone see a Playstation/PS2 halo effect for Sony computers?

Of course not, because Sony doesn’t relate them in the way that Apple relates its products.  You don’t get a taste of VAIO by using a PS2.  You do, on the other hand, get a taste of Mac by using iTunes.

I agree, an improved line-up is the biggest reason for Apple’s higher sales.  But I think there must be a halo effect, even if it is small.

It’s all about visibility.  Macs are highly visible in at least two of the biggest iPod channels, Apple’s retail and online stores.  That can’t hurt.  I suspect that there are not as many places where you see PStwos and VAIOs side-by-side.

No they didn’t introduce new computers last quarter, they just updated certian machines.

I didn’t say they did. Talk about misrepresenting what people say.

Of course not, because Sony doesn’t relate them in the way that Apple relates its products.

Well, we can start by pointing out that you don’t connect a PS/2 to a computer like an iPod does. So the iPod isn’t separated from a PC as much as a PS/2. An iPod requires a PC.

Kuaidang is actually arguing that brand loyalty doesn’t exist across products that aren’t the same or are in different categories.

The idea that just because two products have different purposes a person isn’t going to associate their experiences with the products from the same company is just wrong.

Apple has customer surveys and market research and Apple says there is a halo effect. Many, many financial analysts have written articles readily available on the Web about the halo effect. But they are all wrong, as usual. Kuaidang is right because he thinks an iPod has nothing to do with a computer.

Apple has customer surveys and market research and Apple says there is a halo effect. Many, many financial analysts have written articles readily available on the Web about the halo effect. But they are all wrong, as usual. Kuaidang is right because he thinks an iPod has nothing to do with a computer.

Apple is not an unbiased source, period.  They would never point out that there isn’t a Halo effect if they found the evidence leaned that way.

As multiple people around the net have recently wrote about, many of those articles (claiming halo effect) are written by Mac biased journalists.  Secondly, the fact that virtually none of those articles mentions Apple’s superior lineup as even part of the reason for the increase makes those articles suspect, period.

You keep ignoring the facts, iPods have now surged or grown in two quarters in which most Macs have not.  Considering this “halo effect” thing is only about 4 or 5 quarters old, that would seem to be significant.  Desktops, specifically the ones marketed with the iPod (by creators of the ipod) went down this quarter and the machines which I noted in previous quarters were completely unaffected by the “Halo effect” (laptops) went up.  This is in exact contrast to the last thread we had about the halo effect and your statements about the effect.

So what we can see is that the hlao effect and surging iPod sales doesn’t mirror or follow the trend of any of Apple’s individual product lines, their combine product lines (either desktop or laptop), nor the entire Mac line.  And the product lines don’t follow the sales trend of the iPod (because 2 or more out of the 4-5 quarters are direct contrasts with each other).

Apple is not an unbiased source, period.  They would never point out that there isn’t a Halo effect if they found the evidence leaned that way.

And yet they pointed out that there is. Are you saying Apple is lying? If so, where’s your evidence they are lying?

As multiple people around the net have recently wrote about, many of those articles (claiming halo effect) are written by Mac biased journalists.

And those are written by anti-Mac biased journalists. Gee, that’s so easy to do—just say your source is biased.

Secondly, the fact that virtually none of those articles mentions Apple’s superior lineup as even part of the reason for the increase makes those articles suspect, period.

Because they are articles about a halo effect, not the reasons for increased sales.

You keep ignoring the facts, iPods have now surged or grown in two quarters in which most Macs have not. 

Last quarter—iPod units up 5%, Mac units up 5%. Humpf.

Desktops, specifically the ones marketed with the iPod (by creators of the ipod) went down this quarter and the machines which I noted in previous quarters were completely unaffected by the “Halo effect� (laptops) went up.

You don’t know whether iMac sales were up or down, but that’s irrelevant. Maybe more iPod customers want a laptop over a desktop. So what? Mac sales are up.

So what we can see is that the hlao effect and surging iPod sales doesn’t mirror or follow the trend of any of Apple’s individual product lines, their combine product lines (either desktop or laptop), nor the entire Mac line. 

How does that disprove the idea that customers of iPods are more likely going to buy a Mac than if they hadn’t owned the iPod?

Gee, Sony’s camcorder sales don’t mirror their digital camera sales, so I guess that means nobody is buying a Sony product because of their experience with other Sony products, huh?