PDA

View Full Version : Apple posts $63 Million Profit


MacRumors
Jan 14, 2004, 04:22 PM
Apple announced (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/14results.html) at $63 Million Profit for its First Quarter ending December 27, 2003.

Apple shipped 829 thousand Macintosh® units during the quarter, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter, as well as 733 thousand iPod units, up 235 percent from the year-ago quarter.

“It was an outstanding quarter for Apple, with double-digit unit and revenue growth and over 730,000 iPods sold,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. "We’re kicking off 2004 with strong momentum, especially for Mac OS X, which is now used by almost 40 percent of our installed base, iPod and the iTunes Music Store, which has a 70 percent share of the legal music download market.”


Apple's Q1 Results Conference Call is presently ongoing (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq104/)

obeygiant
Jan 14, 2004, 04:25 PM
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

slowtreme
Jan 14, 2004, 04:29 PM
Good news. :D

Le Big Mac
Jan 14, 2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

I've been wondering about that statistic as well. I guess it says Mac has a great installed base of users of older computers. But it also says those users aren't upgrading their machines (or keep them running in the corner as email only or something.

QCassidy352
Jan 14, 2004, 04:30 PM
man! makes me wish I were a stock holder... fantastic numbers!

Billicus
Jan 14, 2004, 04:30 PM
It's always good when Apple turns a profit. You have to remember that while new Macs are Mac OS X, there are a lot of people using Macintosh computers that can not run OS X.

iChan
Jan 14, 2004, 04:30 PM
i wonder that is going to affect my Apple stock tomorrow... may even see a new 52-week high :)

iChan
Jan 14, 2004, 04:31 PM
how many stocks does everyone have?

I only have 100 personally but % gains on them are quite impressive nonetheless.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 14, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that. ones still on os9 are missing out and enjoying those crashes.:D

Steamboatwillie
Jan 14, 2004, 04:33 PM
40% OS X users? I find that shocking but I started using Macs on OS X. After the fact I used a few Macs on OS 9 and scratched my head thinking "What is this?" I realize that there are alot of OS 9 users and I am sure that the OS is great/stable/fast etc but, on the surface anyways, OS X seems light years ahead! Maybe coming in late in the game my perspective is skewed...

Elektronkind
Jan 14, 2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Le Big Mac
I've been wondering about that statistic as well. I guess it says Mac has a great installed base of users of older computers. But it also says those users aren't upgrading their machines (or keep them running in the corner as email only or something.

Further, I wonder if that 40% number is 40% of "all Mac users" - a fairly nebulous number to calculate

or

"40% of all machines able to run OSX (Panther, Jaguar included?) are indeed running OSX"

hmm... numbers numbers.
/ek

Stelliform
Jan 14, 2004, 04:35 PM
Does anybody know if Apple was projected to make $63 million? You know if they were projected to make $63.1 million and they only made $63.099 million their stock would drop by 50%. :rolleyes:

ITR 81
Jan 14, 2004, 04:35 PM
I wish I had 100 of Pixar and Apple stock right now.

sw1tcher
Jan 14, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by iChan
i wonder that is going to affect my Apple stock tomorrow... may even see a new 52-week high :)

Well, Apple's stock is now down $1.216 (~5%). This is after hours trading.

DavisBAnimal
Jan 14, 2004, 04:36 PM
In my house I have a Performa 575 running OS 7 (I think) my mom still fires up to word-process, a Bondi-Blue iMac with OS 8 for my grandma, and my Powerbook with OS 10.3 - making the installed user base of my house only 33.33% OS X. That 40% doesn't surprise me at all - if anything it's higher than I would have thought.

Davis

tny
Jan 14, 2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
40% OS X users? I find that shocking but I started using Macs on OS X. After the fact I used a few Macs on OS 9 and scratched my head thinking "What is this?" I realize that there are alot of OS 9 users and I am sure that the OS is great/stable/fast etc but, on the surface anyways, OS X seems light years ahead! Maybe coming in late in the game my perspective is skewed...

Honestly, no. System 7 was not known for rock-hard stability, for instance. My own feeling is that SJ got it right the second time around with NeXT, and reshaping Apple's products into a combination of the best of NeXT and Mac was exactly what needed to happen to make Apple competitive.

Vroem
Jan 14, 2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that. Remeber that many old macs are kept operational because they just work, or because they are cute. While in the PC world, new windozes often cause old hardware to be trashed.
The 60% of mac's without Mac OS X would not be operational any more if they where PC's.

lind0834
Jan 14, 2004, 04:40 PM
I don't think 40% installation of X is bad considering the number of people I know who still are running older equipment.

My Dad still enjoys his Performa 575 w/ 7.6 for the small amount of DTP he does.

Fact of the matter is, that older macs still get the job done for a lot of people.

Fender2112
Jan 14, 2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

You have to keep in mind that there are still a lot of older macs that work just fine. And people don't want to let go of them.

I think alot of folks are in the same situation that I was in. A move to OS X was more than just an OS upgrade. I had to buy all new everything. New computer, new monitor, new printer, new speakers, new software of all sorts. Because of the expense involved, I had to do this in small steps. Whenever I updated something I made sure it was OS X compatible. I held out upgrading my computer until the G5 was announced. When it arrived I had all the pieces in place and the transition was painless.

It's differnt when you have a realitively new computer and all you have to do is upgrade the OS and maybe a few drivers.

pimentoLoaf
Jan 14, 2004, 04:43 PM
Well, I have one Mac in the house with 7.5.3 running -- when I'm using that system. It's on the way out along with an old 386 pc: good for parts and not much more.

beerguy
Jan 14, 2004, 04:44 PM
I expect to be getting a thank you card from Steve.....

:)

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 04:44 PM
Apple was projected to earn 15c per share this quarter. The actual profit was 17c per share.

Projections for the next quarter was 7c per share. During the conference call, Apple CFO indicated that they expect to earn 8c to 10c per share next quarter.

The after-hour selling regardless of good results is pretty normal. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock goes back up to high 23s or low 24s tomorrow.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
ones still on os9 are missing out and enjoying those crashes.:D

Not the case, Think OSX is solid, well OS9 is rock solid, many video editors and large networks have remained on OS9, I assume they'll change in time.

What you got to remember is OSX has only been out a couple of years, the upgrade cycle for the average mac user is longer than this (about 5 years I believe)

iChan
Jan 14, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by sw1tcher
Well, Apple's stock is now down $1.216 (~5%). This is after hours trading.

where do you get figures for after hours trading?

ThomasJefferson
Jan 14, 2004, 04:47 PM
A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

And
Still have a Motorola clone running 7.5.3.

Remus
Jan 14, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by iChan
how many stocks does everyone have?

I only have 100 personally but % gains on them are quite impressive nonetheless.

only 25

rjstanford
Jan 14, 2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Vroem
Remeber that many old macs are kept operational because they just work, or because they are cute. While in the PC world, new windozes often cause old hardware to be trashed.
The 60% of mac's without Mac OS X would not be operational any more if they where PC's. Er, so macs that can't run OSX are somehow superior to PCs that can't run "new windozes"? While there may be some truth to that, as stated, I'd guess that most people with old PCs simply toss them and buy new $299 ones that, while they may not be as capable as a new Mac, are still more capable than the many-years-old machines, whether macs or PCs. There's really not much reason to keep working on an old PC if you have any money at all, whereas macs are still pretty expensive in comparison.

In other words, if low-end intel based PCs cost as much as a new low-end Mac, I bet that people would keep them around longer as well :-)

-Richard

iChan
Jan 14, 2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Vroem
Remeber that many old macs are kept operational because they just work, or because they are cute. While in the PC world, new windozes often cause old hardware to be trashed.
The 60% of mac's without Mac OS X would not be operational any more if they where PC's.


this is an extremely all-encompassing biased comment...

kwtneo
Jan 14, 2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by iChan
where do you get figures for after hours trading?


you can get it at http://finance.yahoo.com
select real time quotes

neutrino23
Jan 14, 2004, 04:51 PM
As to the price of the stock, the price of any stock usually runs up before an announcement and falls after the announcement unless there is some very surprising news. There is an adage "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news."

As to the number of OS X users, there are millions of old Macs out there that either cannot run OS X or they are used with specific software for OS 9 (such as older versions of Quark Express or some education software). Probably most users who have the option of upgrading have.

itsbetteronamac
Jan 14, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Le Big Mac
I've been wondering about that statistic as well. I guess it says Mac has a great installed base of users of older computers. But it also says those users aren't upgrading their machines (or keep them running in the corner as email only or something.

My guess is that most of the people who really use macs for most of their stuff use OS X. But, also you have to remeber all of the computer that were sold before like 1997, those can only run OS 9 and will continue to. Also I know of a lot of schools that have iMac G3's that only use OS 9 because that what they either came with or the school didn't want to make the switch.

jcdenton
Jan 14, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

You'd be surprised what people are running in large environments where upgrades are few and far between -- such as cash-strapped school districts. I just did some contract work at a high school that was running three labs of old iMac 400s with OS 9 and no plans to upgrade them to the OS X, at least for some time.

While most users are probably running OS X on newer computers, these days, having schools (or other environments) with approximately 100 OS 9 computers each does start to add up (I know that other schools in my city have similar configurations).

My work involved helping to set up a new OS X lab of recently ordered eMacs, but I was told that there were no plans to bring the other labs up to OS X at that time due to money shortages (this extended to using a Debian server rather than OS X Server on the grounds that it was "free," but that's another story...)

sw1tcher
Jan 14, 2004, 04:52 PM
are still running OS 9

My friend does graphic design work and pre-press, and they all run Mac's with OS9 because, for one, they still work and because some of the hardware and software they use either haven't been port over to OS X or it'd be too expensive to upgrade everything at once.

However, they are planning to upgrade to G5's soon. The older machines (G4's, G3's, PowerPCs, etc.) will probably get moved out to handle other tasks, such as replacing an old PowerMac 7300 (I think) which is still running OS 8.5.

hulugu
Jan 14, 2004, 04:54 PM
Really? That many people still have OS 7 through 9? I loved OS 8 and 9 but the minute I started to figure out OSX I switched over and now I'm running OSX.3 on all three of my machines. But, maybe that number is accurate, at my wife's museum they have a bunch of macs running OS 8 and only two or three Macs even capable of running OSX.
Maybe this tells us how many legacy machines are out there, which means the installed user base is much larger than assumed.


Steve owes me a beer.

Stike
Jan 14, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Does anybody know if Apple was projected to make $63 million? You know if they were projected to make $63.1 million and they only made $63.099 million their stock would drop by 50%. :rolleyes:

I heard analysts expected Apple to announce a profit of 14 cent per share. They topped the expectations, and now their stock is going down a bit, of course.

Heh, right now a guy asked about the video iPod :D The answer was, in short: "No comment!" ;)

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 04:56 PM
So 1 person out of every 400 in the UK bought an iPod over the last 3 months. This includes babies etc, and other types who would never buy a music player, and to add to this there was not 1 iPod left in the UK several weeks before christmas - just imagine these figures if everyone who wanted one could have got one.

iChan
Jan 14, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by kwtneo
you can get it at http://finance.yahoo.com
select real time quotes

wow, real-time shares are quite impressive, but not something i feel good about paying for as my broker does all that...

any free site to view real-time quotes?

Stelliform
Jan 14, 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by macshark
Apple was projected to earn 15c per share this quarter. The actual profit was 17c per share.

Projections for the next quarter was 7c per share. During the conference call, Apple CFO indicated that they expect to earn 8c to 10c per share next quarter.

The after-hour selling regardless of good results is pretty normal. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock goes back up to high 23s or low 24s tomorrow.

Cool! Thanks MacShark! I stopped following stocks a year back. It just pissed me off how Apple always got a raw deal. :rolleyes: :D

eazyway
Jan 14, 2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
My guess is that most of the people who really use macs for most of their stuff use OS X. But, also you have to remeber all of the computer that were sold before like 1997, those can only run OS 9 and will continue to. Also I know of a lot of schools that have iMac G3's that only use OS 9 because that what they either came with or the school didn't want to make the switch.

A lot of schools run the early iMacs and they will stay with the OS that the system came with as they will run the software that they use. This means a lot that may never upgrade the OS unless the upgrade the systems.

Also the customer that I do the computer work for has 7220 through single processor G4 and all their systems run OS 8.6 through 9,2 and won't upgrade for several reasons.

ITR 81
Jan 14, 2004, 05:04 PM
$24.20 a share
net change of 0.08 up

Daschund
Jan 14, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

You have to remember that a really, really large crowd of Mac users are graphic designers, people from ad agencies and musicians... Until a year ago, musicians didn't have (almost) any software to run on OSX... And for the graphic designers/art directors/ad agency people, a lot of them have a lot on software that needs to be upgraded to newer versions to be able to use OS X efficiently. Think about it, if you have an ad agency with 40 people (don't even have to go to a McCann-Erickson size), that's a lot of money to upgrade all Microsoft Offices, Photoshopes, Quarks and Illustrators of the agency. So it's much easier to just stick with 9.

And then, there's the market on other countries (specially 3rd World ones) where software is so expensive that unless you really NEED to upgrade it you don't...

Daschund

rtdunham
Jan 14, 2004, 05:09 PM
I thought i heard them say 50% of "elegible" users (meaning people with hardware capable of running OSX) had switched to X. That would mean that the number of older machines that can't run X is irrelevant to the 50 (or 40)% stats the company's giving.

Did i hear wrong? Is 40% a %-of-X-users-that-are-on-panther?

somebody clarify the stats...from steve's keynote, where i heard 40, and from the conference call, where i heard 50...

thanks
terry

eric_n_dfw
Jan 14, 2004, 05:11 PM
Dang-it!

I forgot that the call was today. I would have sold my shares this morning and bought back in tomorrow if I had realized it.

gwangung
Jan 14, 2004, 05:15 PM
Er, so macs that can't run OSX are somehow superior to PCs that can't run "new windozes"?

Well, pretty much so....:D

Actually, during the OS9 years, you had all sorts of stories of large organizations reporting much longer operational lives for Macs than for Wintel machines....and this was during a time where the price differential was about $100-200.

Computer_Phreak
Jan 14, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by fatfish
Not the case, Think OSX is solid, well OS9 is rock solid, many video editors and large networks have remained on OS9, I assume they'll change in time.


Umm... I'm not contesting that many video people still use OS 9 but.. its not stable at all. And.. which large networks?

wookitus
Jan 14, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
man! makes me wish I were a stock holder... fantastic numbers!

No you don't. I've owned Apple stock for years and it ranks up there with some of the most disappointing investments ever. I'm still waiting for the day I will break even.

manu chao
Jan 14, 2004, 05:26 PM
According to ThinkSecret and others there are 25 million active Macintoshs, 20 million (or 80%) can run OS X (10.3 or at least 10.2) and 50% of that or 10 million are running OS X.

So only 50% of those who could run OS X, do so.

(My question would be whether these 25 million include my Performa 475, which I have not booted up for a couple of years?)

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
Umm... I'm not contesting that many video people still use OS 9 but.. its not stable at all. And.. which large networks?

Got to disagree, not blindly defending OS9, because if it wasn't for my visioneer scanner it would have gone a long time ago.... BUT, those that use it say it's because it's mega solid.

Of course this depends on your use, if you use it under classic, yeah it's unstable, but booted from OS9, I believe it's another matter. I tend to believe what they say, I imagine most OSX users have very little experience of OS9 and primarily used it to step up to OSX.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
Umm... I'm not contesting that many video people still use OS 9 but.. its not stable at all. And.. which large networks?

(Large that is to my set up), the kind of networks already mentioned, 40-100 macs all using expensive software such as video, graphics and layout, autocad etc.

Ktulu
Jan 14, 2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by obeygiant
Great news for apple.

But its puzzling that only 40% of mac users are using osx. It seems like it would be more than that.

As part of the other 60% not using OSX, I can tell you that it isn't hardware so much-(G3 B/W 450, 512 MB Ram) as it is to upgrade software for OSX versions. I know I can still run them in 'Classic' mode, but if all of my software needs to be in 'Classic' mode than why run it emulated within OSX.

Just one person's reason for not going to OSX, believe me, I would love to, but the financial hit for software upgrade is too much to handle, even if I only did the packages that I use 75%> of the time it would still be 4-5 packages, that's too much money to me right now, I just can't afford it.

OK, I'm done-( I'm also jelous of the other 40% that can utilize OSX to their advantage):p

Ktulu
Jan 14, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by iChan
how many stocks does everyone have?

I only have 100 personally but % gains on them are quite impressive nonetheless.

I only have (1) share. My wife got it for me for Christmas this year. It was the best gift I got, even if it doesn't make money, I still think it is cool that I own a part-(small) of my favorite company.

x86isslow
Jan 14, 2004, 05:38 PM
on the topic of older macs, at our high school, we use os9,1 since it is the highest the performas will go. as for our (gen1) imacs, the tech resource folks have told me that until apple stops updating osX every few months, they wont plop down any $$ to upgrade.

the trc has instead taken to bulk purchasing gateways :mad:

Mr. MacPhisto
Jan 14, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by fatfish
Got to disagree, not blindly defending OS9, because if it wasn't for my visioneer scanner it would have gone a long time ago.... BUT, those that use it say it's because it's mega solid.

Of course this depends on your use, if you use it under classic, yeah it's unstable, but booted from OS9, I believe it's another matter. I tend to believe what they say, I imagine most OSX users have very little experience of OS9 and primarily used it to step up to OSX.

OS9 cannot compare to the stability of OSX. I have used both (OS9 not in Classic, but booted into), and there is no contest. OS9 is hardly rock solid. It's not bad, but I'd rather be running Windows XP, 2000, or 98SE over OS9 if I want stability. It's unpredictable as to when it will crash and it is not very good at multi-tasking. On top of that, I also find its window management to be lackluster and it's icons to be quite ugly. I love my Mac, but I'm one of those switchers who would not have come over if it wasn't for OSX - which is the most brilliant OS ever made when you look at its style, ease of use, and anti-aliased icons.

gwangung
Jan 14, 2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by x86isslow
on the topic of older macs, at our high school, we use os9,1 since it is the highest the performas will go. as for our (gen1) imacs, the tech resource folks have told me that until apple stops updating osX every few months, they wont plop down any $$ to upgrade.

the trc has instead taken to bulk purchasing gateways :mad:

Hm. Gotta wonder about this kind of policy. I can easily see a policy of updating with every other 10.x update. And the 10.x.x updates are no more frequent than the windows updates I get.....

Methinks there's an agenda....

splashman
Jan 14, 2004, 05:44 PM
I'm hearing a lot of surprise about the low percentage of Mac users on OSX (40%).

Doesn't surprise me. As someone else mentioned, I'm actually surprised it's that high.

For the AVERAGE user (i.e., not the design/print/video/audio folks), there hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade. Stability? Sure, OSX is more stable, but the average user isn't going to toss their system just because they have to re-boot now and then. (People who work on their Macs suffer from the instability more than the average user.) Speed? As we all know, the average user (Web, MS Office, Quicken) gets by just fine with a 500mhz processor.

I'm a designer myself (mostly print, some web, some 3D anim). I stayed with OS9 on my trusty 9600 until August 2003, and I have zero regrets about doing so. Actually, I'd wish I waited longer. The transition was painful. Painful, with a capital "P". As well as expensive, with a capital "$". I put about $3,500 into hardware, and about $7,500 into software. And I'm still waiting for some way to keep the font menu organized (this is a big deal!).

Yes, it's nice that my new system hardly ever crashes. The UI is better in some aspects (worse in others, IMHO). And in general, it's much, much faster than the 466 G3 I had in my 9600. But really, if I knew then what I know now, and I were trying to make a business case for the upgrade, there's no way I could do it while keeping a straight face.

I'm no Luddite -- I love having the latest and greatest -- but I try to be honest about the real reasons for upgrading. Yes, I would have had to upgrade at some point, but it certainly didn't have to happen now.

So if I, as a designer who depends on my system to feed my family, can make a case for not upgrading, it comes as no surprise that home users can do the same.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
OS9 cannot compare to the stability of OSX. I have used both (OS9 not in Classic, but booted into), and there is no contest. OS9 is hardly rock solid. It's not bad, but I'd rather be running Windows XP, 2000, or 98SE over OS9 if I want stability. It's unpredictable as to when it will crash and it is not very good at multi-tasking. On top of that, I also find its window management to be lackluster and it's icons to be quite ugly. I love my Mac, but I'm one of those switchers who would not have come over if it wasn't for OSX - which is the most brilliant OS ever made when you look at its style, ease of use, and anti-aliased icons.

Well I'm only saying this because I understand the most popular choice for video work is OS9 on a PMac 9600 and apparantly this is because of stability.

From what you said, I summise you have never used a pure OS9 system, if you switched because of OSX, then youv'e only ever had OS9.2 which was the version which was manipulated to work with the classic emulator.

digitalbiker
Jan 14, 2004, 05:49 PM
I have been on various Apple machines for a long time now (early 80's). OS 9 can not be described as rock-solid especially when compared to OS X 10.3. OS 9 would work well as long as you had your memory management tweaked, you didn't multi-task, and you built custom preferences for applications. But OS X really puts OS 9 to shame in every catagory I can think of today.

Also 40% is not bad. I read somewhere that XP was only at 20% of the total pc using crowd. People who are hard core computer users and keep up-to-date just don't realize the vast number of users who are locked into windows 3.1 / windows 95 and mac system 7 / os 9.

I think that bodes well for the future in that there are a lot of users yet to purchase new hardware/software/OS's.

g5man
Jan 14, 2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by wookitus
No you don't. I've owned Apple stock for years and it ranks up there with some of the most disappointing investments ever. I'm still waiting for the day I will break even.

Don't give up on aapl. Many got burned with the Nasdaq bubble crash. Apple is going to kick some reall ass in the next 3 to 5 years. The economy is picking up and there are millions of users that will have money to upgrade.

In the last year I have bought over 1200 shares. I have owned Apple stock for over 6 years. I have never lost money on it. I see it going up to $60 a share within 3 years.

Apple stock always takes a dive after earnings.

splashman
Jan 14, 2004, 05:56 PM
Seems pretty amazing to me that 1/8 of Apple's revenue came from the iPods ($256M out of $2B). That's nearly 2/3 as much revenue as what they get from the PowerMac line! I wonder how the margins on the iPod line compares to the margins of the PowerMac line.

Maybe it's just me, but it's incredible that a product that didn't exist 2 years ago is now contributing that much to their bottom line.

greenstork
Jan 14, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Billicus
It's always good when Apple turns a profit. You have to remember that while new Macs are Mac OS X, there are a lot of people using Macintosh computers that can not run OS X.

Our nonprofit uses Macs, three of them to be exact. Two of those three are iMac 333's, which won't run OS X very well.

savar
Jan 14, 2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Le Big Mac
I've been wondering about that statistic as well. I guess it says Mac has a great installed base of users of older computers. But it also says those users aren't upgrading their machines (or keep them running in the corner as email only or something.

The statistic I would like to see is what percentage of OS X compatible computers run OS X full time. I would guess this number is very high.

parrothead
Jan 14, 2004, 06:00 PM
The 40% using OSX is not surprising. I have a Tibook with OSX but my family has a Mac Classic with OS 6 and a Color Classic with 7 on it. Both still work fine. The classic is fun to play with sometimes but isnt really useful anymore. Hmm, maybe it is aquarium time....:D

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by splashman
Seems pretty amazing to me that 1/8 of Apple's revenue came from the iPods ($256M out of $2B). That's nearly 2/3 as much revenue as what they get from the PowerMac line! I wonder how the margins on the iPod line compares to the margins of the PowerMac line.

Maybe it's just me, but it's incredible that a product that didn't exist 2 years ago is now contributing that much to their bottom line.

Hopefully Apple can keep moving forward and extracting the riches from new markets, I can remember when Apple relied on it's reputation only and really didn't do very well.

iPegboy
Jan 14, 2004, 06:06 PM
i work at a newspaper where we have about 50 machines, all running os9. this includes some g4's and emacs. just too much money to update to quark, etc. one day we'll make the switch, but i bet it won't be any time soon. i beg them to switch all the time.

i have x.3 and love it.

anyway, yes, as stated above several times, this is great news. i'm happy about the news.

greenstork
Jan 14, 2004, 06:13 PM
What would be most interesting would be to see the difference in that 40% between home and institutional Mac users. I have a feeling that most of the OS X users are home users and that many institutions have not upgraded.

Belly-laughs
Jan 14, 2004, 06:15 PM
I have four macs, all running X 10.3, but as all systems are installed from the same CD (how could I resist?), does this mean it only counts for one registered X computer? And three OS9s?

If so, Apple please add to your numbers.

eazyway
Jan 14, 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Dang-it!

I forgot that the call was today. I would have sold my shares this morning and bought back in tomorrow if I had realized it.

Well I would have sold if I knew that beating the street would bring the stock down. Plus I was a bit surprised with the G5 sales. I thought they would have been higher.

Hedged my options today though but not as high as I would have liked.

Just watched my portfolio drop down by $5000 in the blink of the eye.

rdowns
Jan 14, 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by beerguy
I expect to be getting a thank you card from Steve.....

:)

You sure will. In the form of an email reminding you to buy AppleCare before your first year of ownership is up.

mullmann
Jan 14, 2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by iChan
wow, real-time shares are quite impressive, but not something i feel good about paying for as my broker does all that...

any free site to view real-time quotes?

I doubt it. Pretty much everybody charges for real-time. On the other hand, pretty much everyone (including Yahoo, which you just looked at) gives free 15-minute (or so) delayed. That's fine if you're not actively trading the stock.

areyouwishing
Jan 14, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Daschund
You have to remember that a really, really large crowd of Mac users are graphic designers, people from ad agencies and musicians... Until a year ago, musicians didn't have (almost) any software to run on OSX... And for the graphic designers/art directors/ad agency people, a lot of them have a lot on software that needs to be upgraded to newer versions to be able to use OS X efficiently. Think about it, if you have an ad agency with 40 people (don't even have to go to a McCann-Erickson size), that's a lot of money to upgrade all Microsoft Offices, Photoshopes, Quarks and Illustrators of the agency. So it's much easier to just stick with 9.

And then, there's the market on other countries (specially 3rd World ones) where software is so expensive that unless you really NEED to upgrade it you don't...

Daschund

My work (ad agency) just upgrade all of us to new machines, spent about 6 grand per employee, which gets you...

Adobe Creative Suite Premium
Studio MX 2004
Suitcase X1
Quickeys x2
Flightcheck Pro
UPS Backup System
20" Studio Display
2x2.0 G5 w/ 1.5 GB Ram

It really is a lot when you think about, plus i don't think the G5/CS combo is the most stable thing in the world just yet, my boss has more crashes in 10.3 than in OS 9...but the speed of everything makes up for it.

splashman
Jan 14, 2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
What would be most interesting would be to see the difference in that 40% between home and institutional Mac users. I have a feeling that most of the OS X users are home users and that many institutions have not upgraded.

You could be right. My guess would be opposite, however.

Think about the "institutions" that use Macs. These are mostly "creative industry" companies, right? Given their need for speed and the latest gizmos, it seems to me they'd be first in line to upgrade (except for pure production environments like newspapers and print shops).

Home users with an existing Mac and existing software would have a harder time justifying the expense of both hardware and software upgrades, unless they were gizmo geeks.

Again, this is just my opinion. Would love to hear some actual statistics, but I doubt they exist.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Belly-laughs
I have four macs, all running X 10.3, but as all systems are installed from the same CD (how could I resist?), does this mean it only counts for one registered X computer? And three OS9s?

If so, Apple please add to your numbers.

Yes it means your only counted as one user, but since your quite open about telling everyone I guess you have no idea you should have purchased a family license.

There a probably quite a few more who use a single license on multiple macs, some that know they're wrong some that don't. But hey nowhere as many as in the PC world, there's loads running XP and XP Pro who don't even have a license.

eazyway
Jan 14, 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker
I have been on various Apple machines for a long time now (early 80's). OS 9 can not be described as rock-solid especially when compared to OS X 10.3. OS 9 would work well as long as you had your memory management tweaked, you didn't multi-task, and you built custom preferences for applications. But OS X really puts OS 9 to shame in every catagory I can think of today.

Also 40% is not bad. I read somewhere that XP was only at 20% of the total pc using crowd. People who are hard core computer users and keep up-to-date just don't realize the vast number of users who are locked into windows 3.1 / windows 95 and mac system 7 / os 9.

I think that bodes well for the future in that there are a lot of users yet to purchase new hardware/software/OS's.

Not if you have to add memory to each machine plus increase the size of hard drives and buy new software. OS X runs on iMacs but not well and those 6 GB HD do not have a lot of space. Plus the Apps run slower in classic than in OS 9.2 And printer drivers are still not easy to find or use for some. Panther is really not for the older machines. Jaguar works better because you can then boot up in OS 9 to install the drivers.

So don't expect OS X to filter down but wait for the slow upgrade process to occur. When the entire line runs G5's we should see a lot more trtaction. It will take a long time to overcome the Motorola G4 fiasco.

I expect a new line of some sort to be introduced Jan 24th or Feb 1st ...

Outside of the G5 low numbers the rest of the balance sheet looks great.

doogle
Jan 14, 2004, 06:29 PM
I am currently running (or at least have machines running):
OSX.3.2
System 8.6 (or somtheing around there - PowerPC 7600)
System 6 (Macplus)
Emate (Newton OS 2.1?)
Newton Messagepad (Newton OS 1)

Newton OS is alive too!

rdowns
Jan 14, 2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by splashman
I'm hearing a lot of surprise about the low percentage of Mac users on OSX (40%).

Doesn't surprise me. As someone else mentioned, I'm actually surprised it's that high.



While a great site, you'll find many posters here think they are the mainstream and all users are as into their computers and keeping up to date as they are.

I think 40% is a very nice number at this stage of the game.

The costs to upgrade to OS X are pretty high for the average user. Likely, they will need more RAM and to purchase new/upgraded software. In their estimation, the payback isn't there. Their current systems and software are fast enough and probably are not unstable.

I upgraded to OS X immediately and booted into OS 9 for almost a year before I cut the legacy cord. Couldn't be happier now but then again, I'm not the average user.

Sonofhaig
Jan 14, 2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by iPegboy
i work at a newspaper where we have about 50 machines, all running os9. this includes some g4's and emacs. just too much money to update to quark, etc. one day we'll make the switch, but i bet it won't be any time soon. i beg them to switch all the time.

i have x.3 and love it.

anyway, yes, as stated above several times, this is great news. i'm happy about the news.

I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

rdowns
Jan 14, 2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by g5man
Don't give up on aapl. Many got burned with the Nasdaq bubble crash. Apple is going to kick some reall ass in the next 3 to 5 years. The economy is picking up and there are millions of users that will have money to upgrade.

In the last year I have bought over 1200 shares. I have owned Apple stock for over 6 years. I have never lost money on it. I see it going up to $60 a share within 3 years.

Apple stock always takes a dive after earnings.

I mostly agree here. I've been in and out of Apple for years and made lots of money in the dot com boom and got most of it out in time.

The tide has turned for Apple. Press is very positive (for a time there, it was all doom and gloom relating to Apple), their chip architecture and OS look better than anything out there or on the horizon, the iPod is a huge success and they are partnering with heavyweights of the business/computer world (AOL, HP, Pepsi, rumored McDonald promotion). Geez, a few brokerage houses even have Aplle rated "buy". Can't remember that for quite some time.

I got back into Apple at around $14 and I'm up to about 260 shares. I plan on buying more. I expect a sell off for the rest of the week and a good buying opportunity at that time. I don't think I agree with them being a $60 stock but $40-$50.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by eazyway
So don't expect OS X to filter down but wait for the slow upgrade process to occur. When the entire line runs G5's we should see a lot more trtaction. It will take a long time to overcome the Motorola G4 fiasco.

I expect a new line of some sort to be introduced Jan 24th or Feb 1st ...

Outside of the G5 low numbers the rest of the balance sheet looks great.

Don't particularly see the G5 numbers as a problem. Powerbooks are eroding this market, also I tend to think most have already forgotten the G4 fiasco, the initial rush for G5's was a reaction to that fiasco, now I think people are already used to the idea that there will be a new G5 along anytime.

That and the actual need (or lack of it) for more raw power. In my case I was all ready for the G5 when it first came out, but couldn't get hold of it for a couple of months, now we are expecting new models in the not to distant future, so I just hang on. That coupled with I can still do all I want on my G4 733 and it's still faster than me. So I'm guessing I'll wait for the Dual 3.0Ghz.

(Saying that I could do with some raw power for this maestro app to watch 3D pics from spirit on Mars)

centauratlas
Jan 14, 2004, 06:43 PM
>No plans to move other iLife Apps to PC (beyond iTunes)<

What my understanding was (and I haven't seen a transcript yet) that what Anderson said was that they have "announced no plans to migrate other applications".

I don't want to re-listen to the stream to see if I recall correctly, but it is different if they say "no plans" vs "announced no plans."

I just looked at ThinkSecret to see if they had a transcript, but they also say "announced no plans."

Anyone care to check?

rdowns
Jan 14, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by splashman
You could be right. My guess would be opposite, however.

Think about the "institutions" that use Macs. These are mostly "creative industry" companies, right? Given their need for speed and the latest gizmos, it seems to me they'd be first in line to upgrade (except for pure production environments like newspapers and print shops).

Home users with an existing Mac and existing software would have a harder time justifying the expense of both hardware and software upgrades, unless they were gizmo geeks.

Again, this is just my opinion. Would love to hear some actual statistics, but I doubt they exist.

We're just coming out of a down economic cycle; businesses were not spending-period unless absolutely necessary. One of the reasons why we were in that cycle. As we come out, business spending will begin to rise.

Constant rumors of faster G5s may also account for a slower than anticipated upgrade cycle, not to mention early Panther bug reports. Most businesses are not early adopters but lag behind a bit.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by centauratlas
What my understanding was (and I haven't seen a transcript yet) that what Anderson said was that they have "announced no plans to migrate other applications".

I don't want to re-listen to the stream to see if I recall correctly, but it is different if they say "no plans" vs "announced no plans."

Well they have the potential to be different, of course it could mean that any plans they have are just not being announced.

Personally I think they have announced no plans because there are no plans.

The idea is to give PC users a taste of the mac environment to encourage switching, I can't see the advantage of giving them the whole darn thing so they can run it on a 99cent box (PC)

splashman
Jan 14, 2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

You're making a common mistake -- assuming that "creative" types need the latest/greatest tools to do their best work. Seems to me that some of the folks who rush to buy the newest gizmo (software or hardware) are those who believe that gizmos are an adequate substitute for skill and experience.

Your contend the upgrade process will get more costly as time goes on. Uh, care to back that up? I'm trying to think of an app that's gotten more expensive since OSX was introduced. The hardware certainly hasn't.

It goes without saying that eventually everyone will have to upgrade. That won't convince anyone to upgrade now, however.

I'm not saying the latest doodads can't help; I'm saying that upgrading is not nearly such an obvious choice as you proclaim.

I upgraded from OS9 in August -- new hardware (about $3500) and new software (about $7500). All the latest and greatest, but at huge cost in time, frustration and $. Has my workflow has become more efficient? Sure. Is it fun working with these new toys? Definitely. Has it helped my creative processes -- i.e., am I producing better products now? Maybe a little. Maybe.

simX
Jan 14, 2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by jcdenton
You'd be surprised what people are running in large environments where upgrades are few and far between -- such as cash-strapped school districts. I just did some contract work at a high school that was running three labs of old iMac 400s with OS 9 and no plans to upgrade them to the OS X, at least for some time.

While most users are probably running OS X on newer computers, these days, having schools (or other environments) with approximately 100 OS 9 computers each does start to add up (I know that other schools in my city have similar configurations).

My work involved helping to set up a new OS X lab of recently ordered eMacs, but I was told that there were no plans to bring the other labs up to OS X at that time due to money shortages (this extended to using a Debian server rather than OS X Server on the grounds that it was "free," but that's another story...)

For educational school districts, Apple has extended so many initiatives to schools that it's hard to justify NOT upgrading to Mac OS X. My dad's school completely upgraded to Mac OS X this past year for a cost of $0. They did purchase 30 new eMacs, but that really is inconsequential -- they upgraded all of their computers, including lowly 333 MHz iMacs, to Jaguar. My dad and I (and the principal) coordinated a day of Mac OS X training, and that was it. My dad and the principal BOTH say that upgrading has totally simplified everything especially because of the stability of Mac OS X.

My dad did this by telling all of his teachers to apply for the X for Teachers promotion that Apple had offered for Jaguar -- any teacher could get Jaguar (the latest operating system at the time) free of charge. That means that when all of the school's faculty applied for the promotion, the school had enough licenses of Mac OS X to upgrade the whole school at no cost.

While Apple has not yet extended the promotion to Panther (and it has actually ended for Jaguar), any school who passed this up even if they weren't considering upgrading was incredibly foolish. Mac OS X can run well on any Mac OS X-supported Mac (for some benchmarks of Panther on a 233 MHz bondi blue iMac, see my article here (http://apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=705&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)), and so there's no reason to put off upgrading if you can get the operating system for free.

With regards to the situation in other cases, like when schools have REALLY old hardware (Performas, all-in-one PowerMacs, etc.), I can understand not wanting to go through the upgrade because of the costs of new hardware. But I believe that many schools don't have Macs that are older than 5 years, and if they do, then at least a portion of their computers will be newer and able to run Mac OS X. Given the experience at my dad's school, upgrading any Mac to Mac OS X is going to have a big benefit at less support and problems, and so upgrading should be done ASAP.

Remember, applications almost always run just as well in Classic as they do natively in Mac OS X, so upgrading won't have any detrimental effect unless the program is really horribly-written so that it's incompatible with Classic but not with Mac OS 9. Furthermore, in addition to the X for Teachers promotion, Apple has practically given away iLife and Keynote for free to educational institutions before, too (excluding the standard $19.95 shipping and handling fee), and it has upped the educational discounts offered on its hardware. It's clear that Apple has done everything possible to help schools to upgrade.

In my opinion, if a school hasn't upgraded to Mac OS X yet, it's either got a lazy administrator, it's faculty has an indordinate amount of fear of upgrading, it's going to start moving to Windows, or it's a school district that is incredibly strapped for cash. There may be other minor reasons, but I just can't see any significant reason why the majority of educational institutions have not upgraded by now.

amichalo
Jan 14, 2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by iChan
where do you get figures for after hours trading?

Try http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl for after hours trading info. Of course, this is real time, so it has to actually be when the market is closed. (The NYSE is open from 9:00am to 4:30 EST)

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 07:00 PM
Of course $ 61 million dollars is good for Apple, let's hope it gets even better, but Apple are doing better than you think, don't forget Stevie boy takes out several hundred million for himself before we get this bottom line.

(Think I read somewhere it was about $ 450 million)

simX
Jan 14, 2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by fatfish
Of course $ 61 million dollars is good for Apple, let's hope it gets even better, but Apple are doing better than you think, don't forget Stevie boy takes out several hundred million for himself before we get this bottom line.

(Think I read somewhere it was about $ 450 million)

That is a lie that has continually spread among many publications, and it's entirely unfounded. Jobs recently got a 9-year compensation package of $158.6 million, but many newspapers have distorted this fact, and some have even said that Jobs has received $219 million per year for the past three years. Clearly this is out of control.

The actual compensation that Jobs gets is $1/year (actual salary) in addition to all the perks -- which comes to about $17 million per year. That's nowhere near the $450 million you said (and I have no IDEA where you got THAT ridiculous figure), and The Mac Observer has an incredibly detailed article outlining this fact, which you can visit here (http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2003/20030813.shtml) (a followup is available here (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/09/18.11.shtml)).

So before you go around and quote whatever compensation you think Jobs gets (whether intentionally or unintentionally), I suggest you look at the facts first before spreading such a lie.

seffis
Jan 14, 2004, 07:10 PM
It would be interesting to do a study of what percentage of the 60% not using OS X are doing so because they're using an older version of Quark...

I'd bet many are still on Quark 4. I know few people who wanted to pay for the upgrade to 5, let alone pay even more (or again) to go up to 6.

I remember thinking that once Quark for OS X came out, for sure people would finally upgrade, but having seen 6, I wouldn't pay for it; but I also understand that the real world can't just switch to InDesign on principle. Many prepress houses are still ID-incompatible -- and many of those are incompatible with Quark higher than v5.

But, this discussion is a bit off-topic, I guess. Woo hoo profit!!

robotrenegade
Jan 14, 2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
ones still on os9 are missing out and enjoying those crashes.:D

Haha, I agree.

Booga
Jan 14, 2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Belly-laughs
I have four macs, all running X 10.3, but as all systems are installed from the same CD (how could I resist?), does this mean it only counts for one registered X computer? And three OS9s?

If so, Apple please add to your numbers.

No, I'm sure Apple is not including software pirates like you in their total. They have a very reasonabley priced "family pack" that lets you do install from one CD legally, and would count when the machines were registered.

fatfish
Jan 14, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by simX
That is a lie that has continually spread among many publications, and it's entirely unfounded. Jobs recently got a 9-year compensation package of $158.6 million, but many newspapers have distorted this fact, and some have even said that Jobs has received $219 million per year for the past three years. Clearly this is out of control.

The actual compensation that Jobs gets is $1/year (actual salary) in addition to all the perks -- which comes to about $17 million per year. That's nowhere near the $450 million you said (and I have no IDEA where you got THAT ridiculous figure), and The Mac Observer has an incredibly detailed article outlining this fact, which you can visit here (http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2003/20030813.shtml) (a followup is available here (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/09/18.11.shtml)).

So before you go around and quote whatever compensation you think Jobs gets (whether intentionally or unintentionally), I suggest you look at the facts first before spreading such a lie.

That ridiculous figure as you call it was taken from a recent list of America's top ten paid CEO's. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right, maybe your right, maybe it includes return from any shares he has, maybe it includes income from pixar. But the figure I remember was around $ 450 m infact I think it was 439, but have you forgotten we are on a rumour discussion forum, we are supposed to repeat rumours, your LIE comment comes across very defensive indeed.

Anyway I'm not knocking the guy, hell it's his baby and if he did get that sort of money he's entitled to it.

hardon
Jan 14, 2004, 07:19 PM
i bought my first few shares this way... from seeds great oaks grow and all that!

http://oneshare.com

it makes a great present ;)

amichalo
Jan 14, 2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by neutrino23
There is an adage "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news."


That addage should be:"Sell on the Rumor, buy on the News" and coincides with "Buy low, sell high".

Check out this article:
http://www.fool.com/foolu/askfoolu/1999/askfoolu990901.htm

LethalWolfe
Jan 14, 2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D


No offense, but you've obviously never worked in the field you are talking about. First of all, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Slow and rock solid is better than faster and quirky/buggy any day of the week. Secondly, if you are using your Mac in an audio or video field you won't just buy a new Mac and be done with it. You'll have to upgrade all of your software and most, if not all, of your hardware. Plus, all of your previous projects need to work flawlessly w/your new hardware and software. You can't just upgrade willy-nilly. It'll bite you in the @ss. This industry is very competitive and very expensive. If you can't deliver on time every time your clients will quickly find someone who can.

And none of these upgrades come cheap. We just upgraded two of our Avids at work to G5's and that cost, IIRC, over $80,000. That price included trade-in discounts for the Avids we replaced and another machine we no longer used. We also pited two resellers against each to get the best price we could. New tech is also unproven tech. No one wants to 10's, if not 100's, of thousands of dollars and put their business on the line to be a bug hunter on the bloody edge of cutting technology.


Lethal

uberman42
Jan 14, 2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

You'd be surprised. A lot of creative outfits are just too happy with their current workflows and set-ups to upgrade. For years they have been humming along and they cannot afford to undergo a learning curve. Give credit to Apple. They made systems which mean peoples upgrade cycles were longer than the PC folk.

sethypoo
Jan 14, 2004, 07:40 PM
This is great! Maybe I'll get stock soon.....

As to the 60% of Mac users who still use OS 9- I totally believe the number. I started up my old Performa 6360 the other day just for kicks, and immdiatly I found myself "switching" back to my OS 7.5.3 habits. It's a good OS, although it crashed a lot years ago. It was ahead of its time, in my opinion.

TomSmithMacEd
Jan 14, 2004, 07:42 PM
Great news! yeah Apple's stock is probably going to do a lot better then mine has latly :(. Oh well. Go Apple. Even though I like the iPod numbers, and I am one of those 700000+ I really like the look of the 800000+ macs that were sold. Let's get a little more marketshare!! Yeah yeah. Hopefully once my stock goest through the roof. I can sell this eMac and buy a G5 :):):)

Belly-laughs
Jan 14, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Booga
No, I'm sure Apple is not including software pirates like you in their total. They have a very reasonabley priced "family pack" that lets you do install from one CD legally, and would count when the machines were registered.

Yes, I know I´m a thief. The thing is; I have one mac from the beige era, one from the fruitful, one from the cubic and one from the now defunct titanium era. I tend to use only the latter. Part of my point is that there must be thousands of users like myself, that buy a copy for their current workhorse but can´t resist installing the same copy onto their older hardware that they´ve kept for some strange, sentimental reason.

I´m not trying to defend my apparent criminal actions here, I´m just saying that OSX may be on a few more computers than the numbers suggest.

elgruga
Jan 14, 2004, 08:01 PM
I just dont get this 'stability' thing.

OS9 was and is a VERY stable system - lets not hear any more crap that it isnt/wasnt. If you have ever actually used OS 9 in what they call the 'enterprise' world, you would know that I speak the truth.

We ran 12 OS9 servers (G3's and G4's) for over 4 years with ZERO problems.
Cisco router, OC level connection (although we rarely used much more than T1) NetGear switches, one linux sniffer box.
NIMDA came and went, didnt touch us. No hacks, no trouble.
Online live Financial services attached to eB** until the investors gave up and we crashed. I know of what I speak. Yes I am a dot.com failure.....used to be a player.

ONE app per machine, all extensions not used taken out, STRICT ADMIN RULES, etc.
(Filemaker Pro, Filemaker unlimited, Lasso, External RAID boxes, no drives in the machines)
No remote maintenance, no remote admin logins.

Now OSX is stable too, IF you apply strict operating rules.
I suspect that not many Mac users have ever been involved in that kind of setup.

If we were still in business, I would be using OSX by now, but we werent in any hurry to change and there was no real need.

Please, guys, dont knock OS9 - it used to be a big friend of mine......
Thats why only 40% have OSX - and of course, because Apple boxes last longer than anything else.

Only use X now, of course.

elgruga
Jan 14, 2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Belly-laughs
I´m just saying that OSX may be on a few more computers than the numbers suggest.

Very good point.

jcdenton
Jan 14, 2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by simX
For educational school districts, Apple has extended so many initiatives to schools that it's hard to justify NOT upgrading to Mac OS X. ... In my opinion, if a school hasn't upgraded to Mac OS X yet, it's either got a lazy administrator, it's faculty has an indordinate amount of fear of upgrading, it's going to start moving to Windows, or it's a school district that is incredibly strapped for cash. There may be other minor reasons, but I just can't see any significant reason why the majority of educational institutions have not upgraded by now.

How right you are!

In this case, there was no move to get into the Jaguar promotional round, on account that the new techs (two, both part-time) and a handful of teachers managed to start a war over the need for the school to develop a new "upgrade path" involving transition from the Mac OS 9 server to a Linux server and from Macs (at that point, 2 labs of OS 9 iMacs and 1 lab of mixed beige PowerPCs and a half-dozen 68Ks) to PCs.

The Mac side won the war over the course of 6 months, at which point the Jaguar promotion was over. You call it "lazy," "fearful," and so on, and those are all true. As for the cash-strapped part, in this part of Canada public school funding is ridiculously short at the moment. On the bright side, some of the upcoming school closures might free up a couple labs worth of free Macs. I suggested pushing hard for those, since it looks like there may not be any funding for new hardware next year.

So there you have it: some poor decisionmaking, some bad timing, and some empty wallets add up to make an uncomfortable computing environment. On the bright side, I think I've managed to lock in plans for OS X upgrades for the old labs over the next two yers. Then on to the next battle: convincing the salaried techs that OS X Server is a better move than Debian woody. :(

Probably another point I should have mentioned (before this edit): while I did suggest at the time that the X for Teachers program be taken advantage of, there are probably 4-5 computers at the school for every teacher -- one in each classroom, plus 4 labs -- and at least half of those could or should have been upgraded to OS X. Of the other half, there's a phased-out lab of old beige computers and there's the classroom computers which are almost entirely beige PowerPCs. Even so, there are more computers needing OS X than there are staff members able and willing to contribute their (essentially) free OS X license to the school. That's a very longwinded way of saying: there were too many computers and not enough teachers.;)

elgruga
Jan 14, 2004, 08:11 PM
We homeschool in Canada, and the local school board outreach program gave our two kids (8 and 5) an iBook 500 and a printer - free!
The admin of the program is a Mac guy. He told me that he usually gives old PC's to most of the homeschoolers because they dont 'get it' with Macs. Shame.

running X and 9 on the ibook, but mostly the kids stay in X.

Macs have been smashed in education in BC, Canada because of STUPID school techs and the Window blinds they wear.

Why does ugly and stupid win so often?

sethypoo
Jan 14, 2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by jcdenton
How right you are!

In this case, there was no move to get into the Jaguar promotional round, on account that the new techs (two, both part-time) and a handful of teachers managed to start a war over the need for the school to develop a new "upgrade path" involving transition from the Mac OS 9 server to a Linux server and from Macs (at that point, 2 labs of OS 9 iMacs and 1 lab of mixed beige PowerPCs and a half-dozen 68Ks) to PCs.

The Mac side won the war over the course of 6 months, at which point the Jaguar promotion was over. You call it "lazy," "fearful," and so on, and those are all true. As for the cash-strapped part, in this part of Canada public school funding is ridiculously short at the moment. On the bright side, some of the upcoming school closures might free up a couple labs worth of free Macs. I suggested pushing hard for those, since it looks like there may not be any funding for new hardware next year.

So there you have it: some poor decisionmaking, some bad timing, and some empty wallets add up to make an uncomfortable computing environment. On the bright side, I think I've managed to lock in plans for OS X upgrades for the old labs over the next two yers. Then on to the next battle: convincing the salaried techs that OS X Server is a better move than Debian woody. :(

My old school (K-12) district has moved almost entirely to Dell. It's sad, gone are the days of Oregon Trail.

Photorun
Jan 14, 2004, 08:17 PM
In a word... WOOHOO!!!

40% not using OS X? Hmmm, 25% in my household, I have an old PowerComputer PowerTower Pro 225 I use with a AGFA Scanner (that'd be too expensive to replace). I wonder if he they polled to get that number or by units sold vs. computers out there or... or what?!?

Supa_Fly
Jan 14, 2004, 08:30 PM
Just like Rodney Dangerfield always says Apple "can't get no respect"!

rdowns, I agree with your estimate of Apple stock going up to roughly $50 dollars.

But I'm pissed about their stock $$price at the moment down $2+ dollars.

Analysts are missing the BIG picture. first off Apple stated that their most popular music player the iPod sold 730,000 units in a QUARTER, up 230+ % from a year ago!!! Add to that Apple could NOT KEEP UP SHIPMENT of the surprising demand for the unit over the holiday season. Futhermore, the recent deal with HP to rebrand and sell the iPod, although target for revenue on those sales is unknown this should enhance those sales. Moreover the introduction of the mini iPod to ship within one month should increase the eyebrows of analyst to rate Apple stock up to a buy!! Yet noooOOOOooo they still go their heads in the pastures that is on WinXP desktops! Yuch!

With the release of a new sotware packages is still another hint that Apple is on the move UPWARD!

A record of 195,000 PowerBook units were shipped (not sure if all of those stayed out and not returned)!

They expect a lower warranty expense this coming quarter, as well as increase in R&D spending that will NOT increase their expenses from last quarter.

Finally, the increase in market perception of all that Apple offers with regards to the Pepsi deal should sweetly increase prospective sales to fruition!! I just hope that these Pepsi ads for this huge deal involve ads that highlight happy ppl using a mac to quickly download music and synch their iPod and head out the door listening to iPods and drinking a Pepsi (hmmmm, Pepsi Blue love that drink!)

Now their newscast announcement of increase Research & Development may be due to the upcoming PowerMac G5 in late summer; now I'm glad that the new G5 wasn't announced this past week because it would kill current sales of the existing line and increase their expenses for the coming quarter on FOFS (First Out First Sale, my little twist on the reverse side of store inventory of First In First Out).Just think how many ppl bought a 1.8 SIngle G5 and returned it for a Dual 1.8 G5?? Now imagine that happening again with a Dual 2.2 or Dual 2.6 Ghz G5 announced to ship in reality for the coming 3 months!??

What bothers me is the downturn of spending in advertising, this should be the year of upwards spending in advertising, especially since all other companies will be spending less. Sure nuff peeps are snowboarding or skying but common, no major concerts, no major clubbing, no major blockbuster movies happen until at LEAST April of every year. THat means more peeps stay home and watch TV to see more ads for more brainwashing!!!

jnasato
Jan 14, 2004, 08:44 PM
~40% OSX users... I wonder when the day will come, when 40% of Mac users are on G5 systems.

I wonder how many users are on pre-G4 systems now...

gerardrj
Jan 14, 2004, 09:07 PM
Part of the reason at least some of the people still use OS 9 is that Apple dropped support for many of the older technologies in the older systems.

OS X for instance doesn't support internal floppies, LocalTalk, and the newer systems don't even have ADB or serial ports. This means a lot of people running older systems in conjunction with external hardware and systems CAN'T upgrade even if the machines are capable of running OS X until the other vendors update their technology and there's enough budget to upgrate the external devices, and the computer.

In some cases such as with color correction equipment, or printing presses, that external equipment could be quite expensive.

Ktulu
Jan 14, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by jnasato
~40% OSX users... I wonder when the day will come, when 40% of Mac users are on G5 systems.

I wonder how many users are on pre-G4 systems now...

I use a G3 B/W 450, and I bought it new ~4 years ago. It still works great and it doesn't cause me to wait-(most of the time) to get my work done.

steveh
Jan 14, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by wookitus
No you don't. I've owned Apple stock for years and it ranks up there with some of the most disappointing investments ever. I'm still waiting for the day I will break even.

Buying any stock at a high point (which means buying a whole lot of different stocks a couple years ago) is going to be a lot less rewarding than buying low.

Anyone buying at 48 or 72 is going to be a lot less happy than someone who bought at 13. That's just the way the market works.

steveh
Jan 14, 2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by gerardrj
Part of the reason at least some of the people still use OS 9 is that Apple dropped support for many of the older technologies in the older systems.

Which, in practice, is generally not a bad thing, for a number of reasons. USB is pretty much a better ADB than ADB, for example.

OS X for instance doesn't support internal floppies, LocalTalk,

Sort of, regarding LocalTalk. We're still running a LocalTalk printer, with all the Macs here running 10.3.2. (A bridge converts between ethernet and LocalTalk, and shares the printer to everyone.)

and the newer systems don't even have ADB or serial ports.

The last desktop machine with ADB was the B&W G3 (Yosemite) system back in early 1999. Except for the Keyboard II, I do not miss ADB (and for that, a Griffen iMate lets me keep using the keyboard on recent Macs).

We have more choice in peripherals now, with USB, than we ever did with ADB. Wish Kensington would re-issue their Thinking Mouse in USB, though.

MrMacMan
Jan 14, 2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
man! makes me wish I were a stock holder... fantastic numbers!

*cough*
Care to buy my loosing stock?

:rolleyes:

Anyway Apple Stock goes down after good news?

Profit... and above expectations! :eek:

SELL !! SELL!! SELL APPLE !!

Originally posted by fatfish
Of course $ 61 million dollars is good for Apple, let's hope it gets even better, but Apple are doing better than you think, don't forget Stevie boy takes out several hundred million for himself before we get this bottom line.

(Think I read somewhere it was about $ 450 million)
Not true, Steve Jobs gets $1 Dollar a Year (because if you make 0 you aren't working ... there is this tax process)... but he makes the real money on bonuses... so

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 11:16 PM
Actually, if it is true, the fact that only 40% of the Mac owners are using Mac OSX is good news for Apple. People using older gen operating systems are either running very old Macs which is not supported by OSX or waited for this long since they had some applications which were not supported under OSX. Either case, this means that 60% of the Mac users out there are primary candidates for either upgrading their Macs to one of the newer systems over the next few years or upgrading their OS to a version of OSX.

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 11:16 PM
Does anybody have a breakdown of the numbers of PowerMacs, iBooks and iMacs Apple sold during the past quarter?

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 11:19 PM
Steve made most of his money on his Apple stock options - not salary or bonus. Executives can only make money on options if the stock price of the company goes up. Just over the last 9 months, Apple's market value almost doubled, so most investors shouldn't have a reason to complain about Steve's compensation, unlike some executives at other companies who paid themselves fat cash bonuses while their company was losing money and the stock of their company was going down.

SiliconAddict
Jan 14, 2004, 11:30 PM
Apple posts $63 Million Profit

GREAT! Now take 10 million of that and get me my dang 17" G5 PowerBook!!!

dashiel
Jan 14, 2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by wookitus
No you don't. I've owned Apple stock for years and it ranks up there with some of the most disappointing investments ever. I'm still waiting for the day I will break even.

well if you owned it for enough years, you'd be very, very happy...

i remember as a poor starving college student telling people to buy apple stock in december of 1997 (it reached a low of $13), if i'd had more than 2 brass pennies to rub together i would have spent it all on apple. i had just seen jobs give a speach at seybold, and he broadly hinted at a number of initiatives.

2 years later the stock split when it reached $120+ dollars a share.

as a long time follower of apple, i think we are on the verge of another major uptick in their stock. ipods, ipod minis, itms, are going to be a bigger hit than the original imac. barring anything like a terrorist attack, or recession, i see apple's share prices doubling this year and if they manage to marginalize WMA and the other music stores, look for a doubling again in 2005... how do i know this, because i just quit my job and went back to freelance and once again can't afford to invest :)

rog
Jan 15, 2004, 12:19 AM
The question of PM sales is the most critical. This is the first full quarter with the G5. One would hope they shipped 2-3X as many as they did PM G4s a year ago, given that people were literally waiting for years for something significantly faster to upgrade to. My suspicion is sales are up slightly at best because they are still too expensive and the SP machines were a step back compared to fast DP G4s. Maybe when the DP PPC 980 at 3GHZ can be had for $1500 like they should be, will we see dramatic PM sales gains.

winmacguy
Jan 15, 2004, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by seffis
It would be interesting to do a study of what percentage of the 60% not using OS X are doing so because they're using an older version of Quark...

I'd bet many are still on Quark 4. I know few people who wanted to pay for the upgrade to 5, let alone pay even more (or again) to go up to 6.

I remember thinking that once Quark for OS X came out, for sure people would finally upgrade, but having seen 6, I wouldn't pay for it; but I also understand that the real world can't just switch to InDesign on principle. Many prepress houses are still ID-incompatible -- and many of those are incompatible with Quark higher than v5.

But, this discussion is a bit off-topic, I guess. Woo hoo profit!!


I would tend to agree with that, I am in the design and print business myself while currently studying graphic design. I know a lot of prepress houses in NZ are still on OS9 and probably will be for the for seeable future. Mainly because a lot of the apps they use run in 9 and havent been written for 10 yet. 9 Is proven and stable and if it aint broke dont fix it.

There is also a very large cost involved usually running into the 10's of thousands of dollars due to the exhange rate NZ $ vs US dollar for Mac Gear when upgrading equipment.

Since much of the Print industry here uses Quark 4.1 here most places will be using OS 9, some design places will have upgraded to Quark 6 and or Indesign 2/3.

Where I am studying design we all use OS 9 since we are learning on the applications that 80% of NZ design/print Industry uses at this stage but have OSX.3 installed

hulugu
Jan 15, 2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by greenstork
Our nonprofit uses Macs, three of them to be exact. Two of those three are iMac 333's, which won't run OS X very well.

Actually, I've had really good luck with my old rev. A 233 iMac on OSX.3. Word, Mail, Safari, etc. are very responsive, the only thing that drags is System Preferences. The most important thing is RAM and I only have 128mb. And I really like OSX, especially Panther, and I think the time has come for OS9 to go into the dust-bin of history.

virividox
Jan 15, 2004, 12:44 AM
yay go apple all the way

simX
Jan 15, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by gerardrj
OS X for instance doesn't support internal floppies

Are you sure about that? I know my EXTERNAL SuperDisk drive needs no drivers under Mac OS X since version 10.1, but it could be different for internal floppies.

Originally posted by fatfish
That ridiculous figure as you call it was taken from a recent list of America's top ten paid CEO's. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right, maybe your right, maybe it includes return from any shares he has, maybe it includes income from pixar. But the figure I remember was around $ 450 m infact I think it was 439, but have you forgotten we are on a rumour discussion forum, we are supposed to repeat rumours, your LIE comment comes across very defensive indeed.

Anyway I'm not knocking the guy, hell it's his baby and if he did get that sort of money he's entitled to it.

Well, at the very least, provide a link, instead of just making some hand-wavy statement and presenting it as fact. Because, like I said, The Mac Observer article includes all bonuses and other forms of compensation, so Jobs clearly does not get $450 million per year.

Selecter
Jan 15, 2004, 01:00 AM
The stock went lower becuase of poeple having sell orders to lock in profits if Apple beat the street ( which they did, by 3 cents a share.) THATS WHY THE FRIGGIN STOCK WENT LOWER. It will slide lower yet by more poeple locking in more profits before it goes back up.

I have ran every version of the System since 6.0 on my SE FDHD, which I still have and it works great. That doesnt mean I should still be using it. I dont know why all the romantisizing about OS 9 - it was a primitive OS compared to Win 2000 and there's no one on the planet that SHOULD be running it still. It is a BAD THING that Apple had to stick with a obsolete OS as long as it did, and it's bad that only 40% of the installed user base migrated to X. Steve has got to be wondering why the hell 60% of his user base is happy using crappy software that freezes a few times every day. I would be.....on the other hand MS just had to extend support for Win98/SE for another 2 years becuase so many peeps are running that POS......so I guess it's the same on the other side too. Blah to both sides.....expand yer mind and expand yer wallet.

I.T. guys in companies will ALWAYS hate the Mac. They have to, their jobs depend on Windows being the OS that it is. If the company they worked for went to Macs half of them would become un employed. Thats the reason you dont find Macs in the enterprise.

DOnt knock OS 9 eh.....please

:rolleyes: any Mac OS prior to X needs to be knocked - the only good thing about it was the GUI. Everything else blew. :rolleyes: stable indeed......:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

splashman
Jan 15, 2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Selecter
:rolleyes: any Mac OS prior to X needs to be knocked - the only good thing about it was the GUI. Everything else blew. :rolleyes: stable indeed......:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You're essentially calling all OS9 users idiots, even though many have posted valid and defensible reasons for continuing to do so. Keep your immature, judgmental outbursts to yourself.

fatfish
Jan 15, 2004, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by simX
Well, at the very least, provide a link, instead of just making some hand-wavy statement and presenting it as fact. Because, like I said, The Mac Observer article includes all bonuses and other forms of compensation, so Jobs clearly does not get $450 million per year.

One does not take note of how to return to the source of an article one has read, and the longer ago it was the less likely one is to remember, however it would have started as a redirect from either macrumours or maybe maccentral.

Your all probably right, it does sound a little exagerated, but like I said isn't this how this forum works, one hears (or sees) something and posts it so that the validity can be discussed.

On the information people have provided, I now realise the figures are way off, but I wouldn't have known if I'd never mentioned it.

groovebuster
Jan 15, 2004, 02:37 AM
It's nice to see Apple having a 2 billion $ quarter again, but maybe the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt...

Just compare yourselves...

1/00 2.340 Mio. 183 Mio.

2/00 1.940 Mio. 233 Mio.

3/00 1.820 Mio. 203 Mio.

4/00 1.870 Mio. 170 Mio.

1/01 1.000 Mio. -195 Mio.

2/01 1.430 Mio. 40 Mio.

3/01 1.480 Mio. 61 Mio.

4/01 1.450 Mio. 66 Mio.

1/02 1.380 Mio. 38 Mio.

2/02 1.500 Mio. 40 Mio.

3/02 1.430 Mio. 32 Mio.

4/02 1.440 Mio. -45 Mio.

1/03 1.470 Mio. -8 Mio.

2/03 1.475 Mio. 14 Mio.

3/03 1.545 Mio. 19 Mio.

4/03 1.715 Mio. 44 Mio.

1/04 2.006 Mio. 63 Mio.

So let's compare... 4/01 they made the same profit with more than 500 mega$ less revenue.

Without the iPod selling like crazy at the moment, numbers would look way less "impressive" and I bet they even would make a loss. The profit they are making is due to the iPod, which means that they are losing money with their core business: MacOS X and their computers. I find that not very encouraging. If they sold 12% more computer units compared to last year it means they sold 740k units in 01/03. Let's pretend they had a marketshare of 4% last year. An increase of 12% in units gives them a market share of 4.5% now. I don't find that impressive at all. And it also means that the new G5s are far from being as succesful as they were expected to be. No new cutsomers, just the usual Mac-Heads replacing their gear.

As a Mac-User (I couldn't care less about the iPod) I am still very concerned about the future of my preferred OS platform. The market-share is still stagnant which doesn't help to make software companies developing stuff for the Mac.

And don't call me a negative person! ;) I just try to read between the lines instead of just swallowing the blabla of a report that of course wants to make you believe that everything is just cool...

groovebuster

ethernet76
Jan 15, 2004, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Le Big Mac
I've been wondering about that statistic as well. I guess it says Mac has a great installed base of users of older computers. But it also says those users aren't upgrading their machines (or keep them running in the corner as email only or something.

A lot of schools can't afford to upgrade because that means rebuying the site licenses.

Also there is a lot of software out there that doesn't exist for OS X.

Lastly if OS 9 works why upgrade? That means IT headaches along with rebuying all your programs with OS X compatible versions.

You could say, well why not just run them in classic mode. Here's the answer. Why would I start up in another OS just so my most used applications, which are OS 9 based, run more slowly?

ethernet76
Jan 15, 2004, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

But when quark is 999 per machine, add in extensis suitcase which is probably another 200. Also count into fact, designers never use any program that ends in .0 for very good reason. This just eliminated quark 6, which blows for stability. It also eliminated any version of photoshop above 6.0.1 which isn't X friendly.

As a professional media person I've had more problems with OS X design software than I've had with OS 9 software. I still use Quark 4.11 even though I have 6.0.

Also designers don't really push the edge of their machines. When was the last time I needed dual 2.0 ghz for photoshop? Never. We run off servers so we are limited by the speed of the network, not the speed of the machines. You'll also note, that even though photoshop filters are great, they aren't used that often soley because they're kiddie play. Good design doesn't look complex, it looks simple and classy.

billyboy
Jan 15, 2004, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
We're just coming out of a down economic cycle; businesses were not spending-period unless absolutely necessary. One of the reasons why we were in that cycle. As we come out, business spending will begin to rise.



To me that just illustrates what a genius and brave bloke SJ is. When other far bigger companies tightened their belts and hung on in there, Apple stuck to their vision and carried on investing hundreds of millions in R and D behind the scenes - iApps, new PowerMacs, iTunesMusic Store didnt just happen, they were being developed in a recession and who knows what else SJ has committed Apple to, product ways.

When it would have been easy to stick to the Apple way of doing things and just be seen as an innovator for the PC world, SJ has also adopted a revised business plan that is sort of alien to Apple of old and does far more than keep the company ticking over very comfortably as a niche player. As the economy comes out of the doldrums, new product and new plan are gelling and Apple are finding themselves being catapaulted into a roll that can take them forward and keep them up to speed for at least the next two years. Even if other stuff bombs,, the iPod and music store are examples of what is possible for innovators with a hard business edge.

And who knows what projects SJ has been giving the green light to in the last couple of years to kick in in 2005/2006. With $4.8 billion in reserve, Apple could re invent the wheel.

simX
Jan 15, 2004, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by fatfish
One does not take note of how to return to the source of an article one has read, and the longer ago it was the less likely one is to remember, however it would have started as a redirect from either macrumours or maybe maccentral.

Your all probably right, it does sound a little exagerated, but like I said isn't this how this forum works, one hears (or sees) something and posts it so that the validity can be discussed.

... and I said that the validity of that article was nonexistent. :rolleyes: You do realize that spreading something false that an article claims as fact is still spreading a lie, whether or not you were the one to originally state that "fact", right? I meant nothing against you personally, just against the infamous "fact" that Jobs is getting hundreds of millions of dollars per year in compensation for his job. That's just outright ridiculous and I wanted to set it right.

splashman
Jan 15, 2004, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
And who knows what projects SJ has been giving the green light to in the last couple of years to kick in in 2005/2006. With $4.8 billion in reserve, Apple could re invent the wheel.

A good post -- thanks.

Just curious: does anyone know why Apple (or any other company their size) would want to keep $4.8B in reserve? Obviously, they need some, but it seems like they've had those billions for quite a while now. Even with acquisitions over the years, the cash never dwindles. I expect they make some interest from it, but they must have better reasons than that. Anybody know what those reasons might be?

avus
Jan 15, 2004, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by ethernet76

Also designers don't really push the edge of their machines. When was the last time I needed dual 2.0 ghz for photoshop? Never....Good design doesn't look complex, it looks simple and classy.

Please avoid any generalization - I do need a dual G5, thanks.

billyboy
Jan 15, 2004, 04:49 AM
I dont suppose the mainstream analysts think it is good business to have that dead money hanging around, but then again they aren't working at Apple.

I think they make more than a "bit of interest" on that. I am useless at maths but even 1% x 4.8 billion sounds loads. That sum is a good addition to figures every quarter

Also, I know from my own experience, if your company has a healthy reserve, it gives you a lot of confidence to try new things. It is amazing how clearly you can think without the nagging worry that if something new goes wrong it could ruin your business.

rdowns
Jan 15, 2004, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by splashman
A good post -- thanks.

Just curious: does anyone know why Apple (or any other company their size) would want to keep $4.8B in reserve? Obviously, they need some, but it seems like they've had those billions for quite a while now. Even with acquisitions over the years, the cash never dwindles. I expect they make some interest from it, but they must have better reasons than that. Anybody know what those reasons might be?

For some time now, Apple has had enormous amounts of cash and earns considerable amounts of its revenue from their reserves. Even when Apple was down, they had lots of cash. I remember the Microsoft deal where MS invested $150 million. Everyone said how much it helped Apple (continued Office development was the key there) but Apple hardly needed that money despite losses. THey still had boat loads of cash.

Back on topic, I don't know why they keep so much in cash reserves.

eazyway
Jan 15, 2004, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
For some time now, Apple has had enormous amounts of cash and earns considerable amounts of its revenue from their reserves. Even when Apple was down, they had lots of cash. I remember the Microsoft deal where MS invested $150 million. Everyone said how much it helped Apple (continued Office development was the key there) but Apple hardly needed that money despite losses. THey still had boat loads of cash.

Back on topic, I don't know why they keep so much in cash reserves.

At the end of 1997 fiscal year Apple had $1.4 B in cash. This cash build up has come in the last 6 years even with the downturn and the acquisitions.

VIREBEL661
Jan 15, 2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
ones still on os9 are missing out and enjoying those crashes.:D

My older systems with 9 are very stable - just a little more work in troubleshooting extensions, etc... Much better than ANY windoze, IMO, but then again - I've used Macs for far longer than X, which I do love so!

jkeithh
Jan 15, 2004, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
40% OS X users? I find that shocking but I started using Macs on OS X. After the fact I used a few Macs on OS 9 and scratched my head thinking "What is this?" I realize that there are alot of OS 9 users and I am sure that the OS is great/stable/fast etc but, on the surface anyways, OS X seems light years ahead! Maybe coming in late in the game my perspective is skewed...

I think I am in the same boat as you. My first Apple was a PowerMac 7200 I purchased on eBay in June of 2001 running OS 9. I decided I loved the Mac (even with OS 9) and bought an iMac 2 months later and OS X totally blew me away. Maybe it is us coming into the game late because I can not understand why more people don't use OS X.

Zech Marquis
Jan 15, 2004, 06:28 AM
That was one awesome Holiday quarter for Apple! Very encouraging news indeed, as I will be buying a 14 iBook G4 shortly. Keep it up guys!

true777
Jan 15, 2004, 07:17 AM
I love it how articles on Apple now are much more omnipresent in "serious" publications such as Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. I've listened to those conference calls for years now and the analysts' questions, too, appear much more informed these days. I believe this points to the fact that Apple's excellent performance in difficult times has put them again in the ranks of tech companies to be taken seriously - similar to Yahoo and the few other major players who're still delivering fairly consistent operating profits. Analysts and business publications alike used to take companies such as Sun and Silicon Graphics seriously while treating Apple as a toy company. Now that Sun is reporting quarterly losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Apple is suddenly looking pretty awesome again, and rightfully so.

SJ has surely shown the industry a thing or two - I just hope he won't turn megalomaniac and assume that anything he thinks is cool and puts his finger on will automatically turn to gold. But without SJ, Apple would be where SGI is today - a formerly great company marginalized, almost broke and barely in existence anymore.

I'm sure the weak Dollar helped quite a bit with the phenomenal European sales, too. Go Apple!

centauratlas
Jan 15, 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by fatfish
of course it could mean that any plans they have are just not being announced.

I can't see the advantage of giving them the whole darn thing so they can run it on a 99cent box (PC)

I just like to watch closely when people say "we have no plans" or "have announced no plans." They are generally said for a reason.

I agree about giving them the whole thing - that would make *no* sense. The only things that might make sense are (1) iTunes (it is there), and (2) iChatAV.

Other than that, I can't see a reason for Apple to do it. Perhaps when/if the iPod goes video they'd do an app similar to iTunes for video.

To me that all that makes sense.

centauratlas
Jan 15, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by splashman
Just curious: does anyone know why Apple (or any other company their size) would want to keep $4.8B in reserve?

The main one is security. Suppose they have a new product launch (such as the G5 last summer), and during the launch IBM found a problem with the chip (e.g. like Intel did with the floating point error or something worse.) If they've stopped producing G4s and can't ship the G5s, they need $ to carrying them along. They don't have to worry as much *if* something goes wrong. Likewise, say they wanted to switch to Intel processors (not likely with IBM doing a good job now), but it gives them the cash to manage the switch if needed. It gives them security and flexibility.

They can also use it for aquisitions if they wish. That was why the rumors of Apple buying a music studio last year were possible - they had the cash for much of the price.

The problem with this is that Apple has $4.8B in cash. There market capitalization (# of shares multiplied by share price) is about $8.90B (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl). What this means is that their enterprise value is about 4.1 billion. Assuming those figures are accurate that is $12-13/share of cash.

Why is this a problem? It makes them potential take-over target. Sure, you have to pay $8.9B to buy the company but you get $4.8B in cash if you want it, meaning you could buy it for 4.1 billion (potentially, it would obviously cost more once people heard you were making an offer).

An interesting possibility is to do a leveraged buyout and potentially go private. One never knows what will happen!

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 09:58 AM
While I am optimistic there is bad news here....

1. margins fell
2. sales in the US were weak
3. iMac/eMac sales were down considerably

The first item is just a bump and hopefully will not be repeated. But the other two items are serious concerns. Apple needs to get its act together on the low end to keep marketshare from slip-sliding-away.

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by splashman

For the AVERAGE user (i.e., not the design/print/video/audio folks), there hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade. Stability?

I would say the opposite. Businesses that use a product to earn money have two things to consider when upgrading:

1. Typically many computers would have to be upgraded so the expense is much bigger overall - and there are profits to consider

2. Businesses have a workflow using specific software on their existing systems and it is critical not to interrupt this

Businesses tend to be much more risk-averse and require a much bigger and provable boost to upgrade than a typical home user.

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Prom1
Analysts are missing the BIG picture.

I can't believe how many people HERE are missing the big picture and would rather argue about whether it's good to upgrade from OS9 to OS X.

Look carefully at the numbers. The music business is obviously very good. But it accounts for a small part of the top line (10% revenue compared to CPU sales).

Macs are selling well over seas. This may be boosted by the weak dollar so it can be written off to *some* degree. But Macs are getting killed here at home.

Here in the USA year over year change was 0% number of units and 25% revenue increase (obviously the higher end units were selling well). But sequentially sales were down 17% in units and 0% in revenue.

Pure and simple: that is not good. It's not cause to be running around yelling "the end is near" but it's still a bad sign. Apple needs momentum. But even with all this great new product in '03 Apple *still* lost market share in the USA.

Apple needs to come out with some products to capture the low end. It will help them regain marketshare which will give them *real* momentum.

That's the big picture.

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman

Not true, Steve Jobs gets $1 Dollar a Year (because if you make 0 you aren't working ... there is this tax process)... but he makes the real money on bonuses... so

I believe Jobs also rents back to Apple the private jet that Apple gave him when he rejoined the company. That doesn't show up as "salary" but it's cash in his hands.

applebum
Jan 15, 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by manu chao
According to ThinkSecret and others there are 25 million active Macintoshs, 20 million (or 80%) can run OS X (10.3 or at least 10.2) and 50% of that or 10 million are running OS X.

So only 50% of those who could run OS X, do so.



Ok - hope no one else has asked this (I went through the first few pages and didn't see it). I have 2 older Macs that shipped originally with OS9. I have since upgraded both to Jaguar, but have not registered the software. In that case, are my 2 machines still considered OS9. If so, how many others have done that, thus skewing these numbers. Anyone know how they actually come up with these numbers?

rog
Jan 15, 2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by manu chao

According to ThinkSecret and others there are 25 million active Macintoshs, 20 million (or 80%) can run OS X (10.3 or at least 10.2) and 50% of that or 10 million are running OS X.

So only 50% of those who could run OS X, do so.

Well about 50% of macs that can run OSX can't run it well. I'd say any G4 without an L3 or 512k L2 doesn't run it well. Nor does any G4 under 800 MHz. The 900 MHz G3 is barely adequate. All 1st gen iMac, iBooks, beige G3s and BW G3s that haven't been upgraded all run OSX horribly slowly.

As for my earlier post about PM sales, they increased 30% year over year. But then a year ago sales were abysmal! So the G5 only accounted for a measly 30% jump. also, MacNN states that unit sales are actually down over 2002! PC sales grew a lot last year and for Mac sales to go down and be under2% worldwide market share is scary.

iPod sales are good news, but it's just not enough to grow the platform and obviously the B&M stores haven't helped either, although maybe help keep sales from sliding futher.

Overall a real mixed bag. Apple needs some serious price cuts and speed bumps across the G4 line to spur sales.

wookitus
Jan 15, 2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by g5man
Don't give up on aapl. Many got burned with the Nasdaq bubble crash. Apple is going to kick some reall ass in the next 3 to 5 years. The economy is picking up and there are millions of users that will have money to upgrade.

In the last year I have bought over 1200 shares. I have owned Apple stock for over 6 years. I have never lost money on it. I see it going up to $60 a share within 3 years.

Apple stock always takes a dive after earnings.

I used to be optimistic. But after 13 years, I haven't been impressed. Yeah, Apple did well along with the other tech companies in the late 90's, but that was simply an inflated value.

Go figure after yesterday's announcement their stock is down $1.20 this morning. Apple makes amazing products, but they run a terrible business.

mrsebastian
Jan 15, 2004, 12:09 PM
how is it, apple puts out good numbers and my stock drops $1.20????

applebum
Jan 15, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by rog
Well about 50% of macs that can run OSX can't run it well. I'd say any G4 without an L3 or 512k L2 doesn't run it well. Nor does any G4 under 800 MHz. The 900 MHz G3 is barely adequate. All 1st gen iMac, iBooks, beige G3s and BW G3s that haven't been upgraded all run OSX horribly slowly.



Perhaps this is in the eye of the user...I have a 400 g3 iMac and a 450 g4 PM. The only thing I have upgraded is the memory on the iMac. Both are running Jaguar and they both run fine. I prefer using either of these to using my 1.7 AMD Windows Laptop. The speed seems to be better on my Macs, and I certainly prefer OSX to Windows. Maybe it depends on what applications you are using as well. Or, maybe as soon as I get my new Mac I will truly see a difference and will then wonder how I ever used my old Macs??

LethalWolfe
Jan 15, 2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
Pure and simple: that is not good. It's not cause to be running around yelling "the end is near" but it's still a bad sign. Apple needs momentum. But even with all this great new product in '03 Apple *still* lost market share in the USA.

Apple needs to come out with some products to capture the low end. It will help them regain marketshare which will give them *real* momentum.



Are you sure? I thought I saw numbers from a few months that had Apples marketshare up slightly.

I'm wondering what kind of numbers people will be happy with? I don't think anyone should expect Apple's marketshare to jump from around 3 or 4 percent up to 10 or 12 percent overnight but that feels like what some people expect. The iPod wasn't an instant success, FCP wasn't an instant success, now that the G5's are out why do people expect Apple's PowerMac sales to suddenly skyrocket and launch them into a marketshare % that they haven't seen for years?


Lethal

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 15, 2004, 01:34 PM
Apple is loosing marketshare, the article stated it went from 3.5% last year to 3.2% this year. Apple continues to screw up. They need to fire whoever is the CFO and start running the corporation like a business instead of a niche market player catering to those few professionals and forgetting its about the consumer. its like they are clueless on how to expand the computer business. its so obvious to me. perhaps Steve should call me.

rtdunham
Jan 15, 2004, 01:48 PM
That drop from 3.5 to 3.2 is an 8 or 9 percent decline. It warrants worry. As a happy mac user, it's easy to be excited by the OS, the other apps, PBs, the G5s, iMacs, etc. But one has to wonder whether the company will be an american sony, a consumer electronics company, five years from now, or whether it will be able to sustain itself as a computer maker. If, with the present product line, market share continues to decline, isn't it reasonable to wonder?

terry

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Are you sure? I thought I saw numbers from a few months that had Apples marketshare up slightly.

I'm wondering what kind of numbers people will be happy with? I don't think anyone should expect Apple's marketshare to jump from around 3 or 4 percent up to 10 or 12 percent overnight but that feels like what some people expect. The iPod wasn't an instant success, FCP wasn't an instant success, now that the G5's are out why do people expect Apple's PowerMac sales to suddenly skyrocket and launch them into a marketshare % that they haven't seen for years?


Lethal

According to this article at maccentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/01/15/idc/) Apple's marketshare is down to 3.2%

In a year where PC shipments grew, Apple's went down.

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Apple is loosing marketshare, the article stated it went from 3.5% last year to 3.2% this year. Apple continues to screw up. They need to fire whoever is the CFO and start running the corporation like a business instead of a niche market player catering to those few professionals and forgetting its about the consumer. its like they are clueless on how to expand the computer business. its so obvious to me. perhaps Steve should call me.

I would disagree to one extent. I think they should come out with a new iMac based on the G5. The G4 just isn't cut out for the desktop - even the low end. If they had come out with a new iMac 6 months ago based on the G4 they would now be in a position where they had to do another complete redesign. So, if a G5 iMac truly is in the works I can understand the "just hang on for a bit" strategy they seem to have taken with the current consumer line.

I am really hoping that the rumors from a highly unreliable site (http://www.macosrumors.com) turn out to be true and that next week a real consumer desktop is released.

k2k koos
Jan 15, 2004, 02:27 PM
I am not a financial expert (otherwise i probably would have no debts left...) but I think this profit is a good start of the year, and reminds me of imac introduction days.

Any profit, as small as it may be is good, as the money can be put into research and innovation, and have Apple come up with even more cutting edge products.

So what, the market share is not exactly groing, it'll come in time, I'm sure the iTMS and iLife products are a few good reasons why others should at least be curious to check out Apple's other offerings, and perhaps come potential buyers or switchers....



;)

splashman
Jan 15, 2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by rog
Well about 50% of macs that can run OSX can't run it well. I'd say any G4 without an L3 or 512k L2 doesn't run it well. Nor does any G4 under 800 MHz. The 900 MHz G3 is barely adequate. All 1st gen iMac, iBooks, beige G3s and BW G3s that haven't been upgraded all run OSX horribly slowly.

Sorry, bub, you don't know what you're talking about. Plenty of other posters have claimed their slow G4s run OSX just fine. And I've got a 600mhz 2G iBook running Panther -- it's plenty fast for day-to-day usage. Sure, it's slower than my dualie, but your blanket statement just doesn't hold water.

splashman
Jan 15, 2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
I can't believe how many people HERE are missing the big picture and would rather argue about whether it's good to upgrade from OS9 to OS X.

Apple needs to come out with some products to capture the low end. It will help them regain marketshare which will give them *real* momentum.

That's the big picture.

Good points. Although I now use X, I am one of those who still defends OS9 as eminently usable. Apple has not yet made a compelling case for the other 60% to upgrade -- this should be obvious from the fact that they haven't upgraded. I'm guessing that most of the 60% are in the low end of the market (eMac and iMac). So I agree with you -- Apple needs to bring out a irresistible product on the low end. Think about the $ to be made if a significant number of the 60% were to upgrade in the next six months.

rdowns
Jan 15, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by rog
Well about 50% of macs that can run OSX can't run it well. I'd say any G4 without an L3 or 512k L2 doesn't run it well. Nor does any G4 under 800 MHz. The 900 MHz G3 is barely adequate. All 1st gen iMac, iBooks, beige G3s and BW G3s that haven't been upgraded all run OSX horribly slowly.



I'd disagree here. OS X runs very well on my iMac/600 MHz and iBook G3/900 Mhz. With 512 MB and 640 MB RAM respectively, I have no complaints about performance. Since Panther, I rarely see the beach ball.

hulugu
Jan 15, 2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
According to this article at maccentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/01/15/idc/) Apple's marketshare is down to 3.2%

In a year where PC shipments grew, Apple's went down.

Uh, n, Apple's market share went down.
Apple reported a 12% increase in Mac sales over the quarter, they also reported earlier in the year that they sold 7% of the laptops and were the number 4 player behind Dell, Gateway, IBM. Furthermore, they constitute 56% of the TV video market. As someone once stated, if you control all of the niches...
Think of it this way, say 100 computers were sold during one year and Apple sold 10 of those. The next year 1000 computers are sold and Apple sells 20. Their market share was 10% and now is 2% and yet they sold twice as many computers. What does this tell us? The market share numbers is a statistic that doesn't necessarily indicate the growth of a company. It is an important number, but not the only statistic of value.
Apple has a moment of great potential, their mindshare is excellent, the iTMS is the market dominator, the iPod is easily a powerhouse, and the G5 shows real value in comparison to x86 equivalents, futhermore the iLife suite rocks (although my teeth still gnash together and thought of having to pay for it now) and Macs show up everywhere from television shows including Friends, the West Wing, etc. to the desktops of the NASA crew in charge of Spirit.
Apple will never be able to capture the market above 10% because that is the total number of computers sold, which includes sales to cublicle farms and your local telemarketers, industries in which Apple has absolutely no chance (nor wants) to grasp.
Apple is doing well and I hope for some products coming out this year that will help them stay relevant in this market.

DGFan
Jan 15, 2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by hulugu
Uh, n, Apple's market share went down.
Apple reported a 12% increase in Mac sales over the quarter

You didn't look at my other post or read the article did you? Overseas sales kept Apple afloat in this quarter. US shipments were down 17% sequentially and flat year over year.

Why don't you look at the full earnings report which breaks down sales by product line and region? Apple is doing well in some areas but horrible in others. They are basically non-existent in the consumer desktop line right now. What should be a strength is a weakness.

svenas1
Jan 15, 2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by splashman
Good points. Although I now use X, I am one of those who still defends OS9 as eminently usable. Apple has not yet made a compelling case for the other 60% to upgrade -- this should be obvious from the fact that they haven't upgraded. I'm guessing that most of the 60% are in the low end of the market (eMac and iMac). So I agree with you -- Apple needs to bring out a irresistible product on the low end. Think about the $ to be made if a significant number of the 60% were to upgrade in the next six months.

Can the eMac boot into OS 9 at all ??

simX
Jan 15, 2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by rog
Well about 50% of macs that can run OSX can't run it well. I'd say any G4 without an L3 or 512k L2 doesn't run it well. Nor does any G4 under 800 MHz. The 900 MHz G3 is barely adequate. All 1st gen iMac, iBooks, beige G3s and BW G3s that haven't been upgraded all run OSX horribly slowly.

Good god you are horribly jaded. I had a G4 cube that ran Mac OS X 10.1 VERY well. That means that Jaguar and Panther can only run better. Furthermore, I've done testing of Panther (http://apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=705&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) on my original bondi blue iMac (233 MHz), and it runs really well. It's not able to run any of the recent games or anything, but it does run Mac OS X like a champ.

A 900 MHz G3 is not "barely adequate". That's a ridiculous statement. A 900 MHz G3 is much more than enough. My mom's iBook has a 600 MHz G3 processor, and it runs Mac OS X fine.

What do you do to your Mac OS X installs... beat them with an I-don't-want-you-to-run-well-so-I-can-complain-about-it stick?

splashman
Jan 15, 2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by simX
What do you do to your Mac OS X installs... beat them with an I-don't-want-you-to-run-well-so-I-can-complain-about-it stick?

Heh heh. Good one!

splashman
Jan 16, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by svenas1
Can the eMac boot into OS 9 at all ??

Older eMacs and iMacs (more than a year old) certainly can boot into OS9, and this is the "other 60%" market I'm talking about -- the ones who haven't upgraded their hardware recently. I'm honestly not sure whether current eMacs and iMacs can boot into OS9. Does anyone else know?

I think it was about a year ago that Apple switched to having OSX be the default boot system on new Macs. Prior to that, OS9 was the default. Does anyone know for sure when that switch occurred?

hulugu
Jan 16, 2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by DGFan
You didn't look at my other post or read the article did you? Overseas sales kept Apple afloat in this quarter. US shipments were down 17% sequentially and flat year over year.

Why don't you look at the full earnings report which breaks down sales by product line and region? Apple is doing well in some areas but horrible in others. They are basically non-existent in the consumer desktop line right now. What should be a strength is a weakness.

First, I did look at the full earnings report, and US sales are important, but UK sales help this company no matter.
Secondly, Powermac sales fluxuated from 158,000 to 221,000 and then down to 206,000. However, this is still a year to yaer increase. Also, Powerbook sales swung wildly from 101,000 to 195,000. The bad news, consumer desktops including the eMac and iMac got hosed, and I did agree with your post, but you made the statement "in a year when PC shipments rose, Apple's went down" which is a simplification of what happened. Did you note also, that IBM and Gateway only account for 5.2 and 3.8 respectively? That really suprised me. So, we're both guilty of making easy assumptions, and Apple needs to upgrade the iMac line—as you suggested—quick, because they're just not capturing people any more. 1.8Ghz G5 w/ 20" around 1,999 would fly out the door, IMHO.

iChan
Jan 16, 2004, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Prom1
Just like Rodney Dangerfield always says Apple "can't get no respect"!

rdowns, I agree with your estimate of Apple stock going up to roughly $50 dollars.


when do you see this happening?

iChan
Jan 16, 2004, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Selecter
The stock went lower becuase of poeple having sell orders to lock in profits if Apple beat the street ( which they did, by 3 cents a share.) THATS WHY THE FRIGGIN STOCK WENT LOWER. It will slide lower yet by more poeple locking in more profits before it goes back up.


what does 'locking in the profits' mean?

does it mean, selling the shares if they have gone up to get the profit, and then buy them back at a lower price or something?

jxyama
Jan 16, 2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by iChan
what does 'locking in the profits' mean?

does it mean, selling the shares if they have gone up to get the profit, and then buy them back at a lower price or something?

in principle, yes. but it's not really true, in general. why would you "lock in the profit" when you may think that the price may have gone even further up? there are many factors involved in the movement of the stock prices and "locking in the profit" is usually not the reason share prices go down. it's usually much broader than that.

if a share price has been going up and suddenly goes down, it's a cliche to describe it as "taking in the profit." but it's usually just a cliche. if a company is healthy, there's no reason to have to do short term transactions like taking in the profit. it's much much more difficult to time the market like that and make money.

if you had microsoft stock in the mid-80s, there was absolutely no reason to let it go until quite recently, despite some small declines M$ stocks experienced in the meantime.

eazyway
Jan 16, 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by splashman
Older eMacs and iMacs (more than a year old) certainly can boot into OS9, and this is the "other 60%" market I'm talking about -- the ones who haven't upgraded their hardware recently. I'm honestly not sure whether current eMacs and iMacs can boot into OS9. Does anyone else know?

I think it was about a year ago that Apple switched to having OSX be the default boot system on new Macs. Prior to that, OS9 was the default. Does anyone know for sure when that switch occurred?

The only macs not able to boot up in OS 9 are the current crop of G5's . Any future G5 system will have the same problem. They will all run classic mode in OS X . (but some businesses will run OX 9 for a while still..adoption is slow)

This will be a problem for Apple for a short period of time and may hurt some sales. But over time the sales will pick up as the IBM G5's roll of the lines at higher and higher speeds. Apple has lost market share over the past 5 yrs or so because of the poor road map of the G4 by Motorola. This is now out of the way and the G5 road will accelerate Apple to new heights over the next few years.

The foundation has been laid and as any business man knows it takes time to all for it all to come to a boil and to get the sales jumping once again. A lot of people were worried about G5 and will it be compatible. I expect Q3 and 4 of this year to be a renewed resurgance of the desk top mac.

splashman
Jan 16, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by eazyway
The only macs not able to boot up in OS 9 are the current crop of G5's . Any future G5 system will have the same problem. They will all run classic mode in OS X . (but some businesses will run OX 9 for a while still..adoption is slow)

This will be a problem for Apple for a short period of time and may hurt some sales. But over time the sales will pick up as the IBM G5's roll of the lines at higher and higher speeds. Apple has lost market share over the past 5 yrs or so because of the poor road map of the G4 by Motorola. This is now out of the way and the G5 road will accelerate Apple to new heights over the next few years.

The foundation has been laid and as any business man knows it takes time to all for it all to come to a boil and to get the sales jumping once again. A lot of people were worried about G5 and will it be compatible. I expect Q3 and 4 of this year to be a renewed resurgance of the desk top mac.

Good analysis! Makes sense to me.

jxyama
Jan 16, 2004, 05:01 PM
G5's aren't the only machines not able to boot OS 9:

- all Al PowerBooks, including a year old rev. A 12 and 17 inchers

- all G4 iBooks

- all G4 iMacs introduced after Jan. last year

- all new eMacs, with 1 GHz G4.

just clarifying.