He has a bit more than hearsay going for him; Apple's success in various markets lately has been huge. Linux's success in getting people to spend anything like that kind of money in any consumer context? Basically nil.
Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.
Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'.
I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning.
And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false:
I'm repeating it because it's fun and useful shorthand for saying that Apple has become incomprehensibly huge lately, not out of some innate desire to mislead you personally. :) And come on; it's clearly not a linchpin of my "argument", which does not fall flat just because PetroChina and whoever else might also be really big. Nor am I delivering some cruel insult to Linux. I loves me some Linux. I was just pointing out the facts.
As an aside, it would appear that Linux now has an exciting new path to earning money: winning Jeopardy!
Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.