Apple drops to 381 on Forbes 500

[medea]

Apple has placed at number 381 on this year's Forbes 500 list, a report card on how large corporations performed in 2002 according to the popular magazine. Apple dropped 92 places from 289 last year. The company ranked 248 for sales, 443 for assets, and 301 in overall market value.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/03/26/500sland.html

[mac15]

Apples still doing ok, most tech companies suffered last year, hopefull it will turn around this year

[MacFan25]

Yeah, hopefully it will turn around. At least Jobs' approval rating is high.

[jefhatfield]

ranking on this list does not matter, neither does market share

the game for dominance is over and the pc side has won

the best we can do is to keep profitable so we can have quality macs under our fingertips for this year and many years to come

like the car analogies have mentioned, think of us as bmw as opposed to general motors...smaller, yes...but better in every way

if apple's lowest market share i have seen so far recently, at 1.5 percent falls to under one percent...i want to be that one percent who uses macs as my primary machine

my pc is my secondary machine and i use it only for pc classes in programming or computer hardware classes

[PC Clone]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
like the car analogies have mentioned, think of us as bmw as opposed to general motors...smaller, yes...but better in every way

:rolleyes: Riiight... I'd like to think of Apple as the company who produces clown cars for circuses :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by PC Clone
:rolleyes: Riiight... I'd like to think of Apple as the company who produces clown cars for circuses :D

ok, then...i take it you are referring to the few years of apple using cute candy colors

well, then think of them as clown cars which are "easy" to drive and require "far less maintenance" than any other car and last a long, long time

our "clown cars" may not be fast, but since they are easy to use and have a much better uptime, productivity levels stay high

and you pc guys have all those games to keep your productivity low;)

[PC Clone]

Had nothin to do with the colors... they're just silly computers...

Maybe if BMW's were slower than all the other cars on the street, were less compatible with parts, and were pretty much ignored by all the other drivers... THEN Apple would be like it =)

[WannabeSQ]

Maybe BMW isn't the best example. Maybe Rolls Royce. They aren't the fastest things around, are very incompatible, some are hand made. They are very nice to have, status symbols, cost more, but just as functional as cars that cost less and are faster.

[PC Clone]

Originally posted by WannabeSQ
Maybe BMW isn't the best example. Maybe Rolls Royce. They....cost more, but just as functional as cars that cost less and are faster.
http://www.soundcircuit.com/cboard/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

[WannabeSQ]

I might add, that while they cost more, you get more use out of it, and have more fun driving it.

[PC Clone]

Well I'm sure every PC enthusiast would disagree with you there, but to each his own I suppose...

[claytonbench]

Anybody who uses windows xp shouldnt be posting anything negative about apple.

[QCassidy352]

"Maybe if BMW's were slower than all the other cars on the street"
A ford can do maybe 130 MPH, a BMW a lot faster. But who needs to go even 130? Very few people. Same thing with computers. People are always complaining about how slow macs are, but except for some professional users, who really cares? I personally don't need the speed that either a dual 1.42 Ghz PM or a 3 Ghz P4 provides. 3 Ghz, 7Ghz, 10Ghz, what do I care? I don't need it. You may have a BMW that can do 210, but how often does the average user need to use even half of it's full speed?

"were less compatible with parts"
wow, haven't heard this tired old song in a while. Exactly what can't a Mac run?

"and were pretty much ignored by all the other drivers..."
If other drivers want to drive their generic, clumsy, breakable pieces of junk while I drive a car that is a pleasure just to be in and has *never once* broken down, why would I care what the other drivers think?

and in conclusion, why would a PC user come on here just to bash macs? What's the point of hanging around a forum for users of "silly computers"?

[jefhatfield]

i invite all skeptical pc users to hang out here and on other mac related sites for a long time...we will get some switchers that way

i am a pc tech and i used to belong to a pc site and it's amazing how many of the posts were about problems with windows

i don't see pcs as the problem, but the operating system called windows ;)

the real beauty of the mac mostly lies in its great heritage of easy to use and stable operating systems

[topicolo]

The beauty of pcs on the other hand, is their extreme cheapness (in more ways than one). Seriously though, PCs are significantly less expensive than macs. Right now, I'm upgrading my Duron 700Mhz to an Athlon XP 1800+ thoroughbred B with the 1.5V cores that allow you to easily overclock the processor to an XP 2600 or higher without any problems for about $100. That'll go well with my 512Mb of 333Mhz DDR Ram and KT3 333 motherboard which cost about $100 by themselves.

[Grimace]

Market value is one thing, but consumer preference is another. Apple hit the education market hard in the past 10 years. Students at a variety of age levels learned on macs. Once you've learned on a mac, going to PC is stupid. Learning on a PC, going to a mac takes a lot of guts to stand apart from the rest.

The overall impact on the computing market will grow as the children of the late 80s and 90s come to purchase a computer of choice.

[RandomDeadHead]

hmmmm, its that troll again.:eek:

[PC Clone]

Anybody who uses windows xp shouldnt be posting anything negative about apple.
What's that?? I can't hear you! The sound of my right-click button being pressed over and over again is too loud and I can't make out what you said!? :p Small joke, small joke...
A ford can do maybe 130 MPH, a BMW a lot faster. But who needs to go even 130? Very few people.
Good point... however aside from the fact that many people can and do need that extra speed, I think it's silly that Apple charges an arm and a leg for a computer you could get for alot less and better...
wow, haven't heard this tired old song in a while. Exactly what can't a Mac run?
I wouldn't know as I fortunately haven't had to experience that... but you should ask the hundreds of other people on this site who still use PC's on the side...
If other drivers want to drive their generic, clumsy, breakable pieces of junk while I drive a car that is a pleasure just to be in and has *never once* broken down, why would I care what the other drivers think?
Well I dunno about you but I've never had to spend $150 on "Applecare" and I've never had to send my computer to some shop to get fixed either...
i am a pc tech and i used to belong to a pc site and it's amazing how many of the posts were about problems with windows
Which is to be expected when your OS caters to 95% of the computer world and deals with hundreds and hundreds of programs, not to mention all the geeks who love to tweak and mod their systems, putting its limits to the test...

[jefhatfield]

pc clone,

be glad you have windows xp w/kerberos, ntfs, and built-in C2lvldodsec, and built-in, but admitedly hard to find multi function customizing firewalls

win 95/98 were full of problems and lacked security

and windows 3.1...we won't even go there

and windows ME...yuck

windows 2000...not the multimedia choice with a slim hcl list and long time to launch and getting third party software developers on board


windows xp, build 2600, nt 5.1, is the pc world's os x in a sense and is really a pretty good operating system

but i still prefer os x

:p

[PC Clone]

XP is a great operating system... I had Windows ME on this machine when I first bought it so I know what a bad OS is like... aside from Wiindows 2000, neither Mac nor PC's have had a really great OS until XP and OSX...

[Grimace]

I've used every Windows system since 3.1 and XP is definitely the best for its respective time frame in Windows history. That said, I've hated almost every Mac OS that I've seen until X, which is so radically different, that I still swoon over it.

It's hard to say if there is one "better" OS, it depends on what you need, and what you already know. PC die-hards will rarely switch and Mac lovers would be too ashamed. {duck and cover}

Besides, if there was a *necessary* Win program, the VPC would suffice.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by PC Clone
XP is a great operating system... I had Windows ME on this machine when I first bought it so I know what a bad OS is like... aside from Wiindows 2000, neither Mac nor PC's have had a really great OS until XP and OSX...

i think mac os has always been great...from my experiences since 1993, at least

windows 2000 was good after other companies, especially gaming companies and lan/wan related companies, got on the nt 5.0 bandwagon

but xp is good, and i know some mac only people will kill me for that statement :p

[topicolo]

I agree. I grew up on a Mac, starting from system 7.0 on to OS X but I have also used windows 3.11 - XP and I find that windows has improved a lot over the years. 98SE was the first decent Windows iteration and XP is the best. XP never gives you blue screens and it really is rock stable but the OS X still feels better to me somehow. I guess it also brings out some nostalgic feelings... :)

[besson3c]

My god these arguments are so OLD OLD OLD and TIRED TIRED TIRED. I have heard these arguments 1000 times! If you are going to waste your time coming in here and provoking responses from Mac fans, you might as well come up with some better arguments, no?

If these are honestly the best arguments you can come up with:

- you can get a two button (or more) mouse from Walmart and plug it in to your Mac. Both buttons will work. You're out $20 or whatever for the cost of the mouse. So glad we've covered this.

- 2 ghz overclocked Athlon blah blah blah means NOTHING to the average consumer, nor should it. We are at the point in computing where the faster computer doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the average user's workflow like it did several years ago. HD, RAM, Mhz specs are all pretty much superflous stats these days for most people.

For the people who *need* powerful computers like these, they will research the computer best for them and purchase one which will best justify their expense. For a business this is simply trading one asset for another. Computers are tools, Macs will be bought if they make sense to the consumer/business.

A price difference based on specs like Mhz alone in and of itself should not deter you from getting a Mac. If you want one, buy one. You are not some brilliant consumer if you buy a PC over a Mac because it is 300 Mhz faster (or whatever) and $200 (or whatever) less. You are not getting better "value for your money" because they are completely different computers! Am I getting better value for my money when I buy an orange from the grocery store that is priced cheaper than an Apple?.... hmmmm... that orange is so much more valuable than that "silly Apple". I'm brilliant.

There is some software that Macs won't run and some hardware with no drivers available, but don't waste your time parroting what other people have told you unless you want to talk specifics. Otherwise.... *yawn*..... too much work to finish this sentence.

Re: your PC never breaking down. Emperical evidence is a very limited foundation for basing an opinion like this. All computers break down. Apple has a slight advantage due to the vertical intergration between their software and hardware. Applecare is an extended warranty program.

Yes, there is a larger number of breakdowns of PCs because there is a larger number of PCs in the market. Computers break down. Why not look at the *causes* of these problems?

Personally, I'm pretty tired of spyware, viruses, security patches... more security patches, an intrusive paperclip thing telling me to sign up for .Net and win a free Dodge Stratus, the usual sorts of PC problems. Of course, Macs are not without their problems too, I just find the problems Macs are faced with to be less annoying and the company less annoying.

Save us the argument about how there is more spyware and viruses and security problems because there are more PC users. While this is certainly an important factor, most Unix security faults are things like buffer overrun errors and non-severe bugs and stuff which can pretty easily be dealt with from my understanding.

The whole Outlook/virus thing was a fundimental flaw, the whole registry thing is a fundimental flaw (in my opinion), Windows is a fundimental flaw. I'm no security expert, but all of these security exploits just seem like one rerun after another.

What you could use for a good argument though is calling me on how I just wasted my time with this lengthy reply.

[PC Clone]

The arguments are OLD OLD TIRED TIRED because they're TRUE TRUE... the mouse thing was just a tease... I know you can buy whatever mice you want, which is why I think it's silly that Apple still ships out their products with the one button models... and yes I know you don't always need the fastest machine around, but you also shouldn't be paying more for a machine thats slower... your argument is basically that people who buy Macs do so because that's their taste... fine... but when every other thread on this site includes some Mac person bashing PCs so that they can feel superior, I feel the need to say something...

[besson3c]

You would have to understand why Apple created the one button mouse in the first place so you can better understand why it is used today. I'll give you a hint though - try explaining the difference between the right and left click to a new computer user over the phone and what each click is supposed to do at a given time. After several "right or left click?" questions, you'll start to get it.

Why shouldn't I be paying more for a machine that's slower if I want that machine?

It's a different company with a different price structure with a different product. As I said, would you balk at the price of an orange at the fruit stand of your grocery store if it is cheaper than an apple?

If you value a Mac, you can choose to pay the premium. It's really that simple. There is no "should be because the PC is"

There are people bashing PCs on this forum who don't have all their facts straight. There are plenty of PC users bashing Macs who don't have their facts straight (because there are more PC users in total, this number is probably much higher). If it really bothers you, you might not want to hang around a Mac forum where we will be advocating the usage of..... guess what, Macs!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by PC Clone
The arguments are OLD OLD TIRED TIRED because they're TRUE TRUE... the mouse thing was just a tease... I know you can buy whatever mice you want, which is why I think it's silly that Apple still ships out their products with the one button models... and yes I know you don't always need the fastest machine around, but you also shouldn't be paying more for a machine thats slower... your argument is basically that people who buy Macs do so because that's their taste... fine... but when every other thread on this site includes some Mac person bashing PCs so that they can feel superior, I feel the need to say something...

as a mac user and pc tech and yes, i have one pc laptop...there are pros and cons to both sides

but there is no way apple can justify their high prices which are 10-30% percent too high

the only mac i can think of that is justified in its price range is the $999 dollar ibook...the 512k level 2 cache of the new ppc 750fx processor makes it more than enough to run os x...a very stable operating system

so while the ibook at that price only has a cd-rom, it has the ability to run the wonderful os x - jaguar, and is extremely ruggedly built

though with faster pc laptops going for only $749 using a cd-rom optical drive, i think apple could cement their argument if their $999 dollar entry laptop at least had a cd-rw/dvd combo drive in it

that, of course, is next

but all said and done, i think the $999 dollar entry level ibook is apple's best deal dollar for dollar that is in their current lineup right now

the pc companies, due to their massive scale using similar parts, have the ability to buy in gigantic volume so their can naturally get volume discounts on relatively sound hardware...sometimes the same internal compnents macs use from ibm, sony, toshiba, panasonic, intel, etc...

if you are unsure about which platform to use and you have $1500 on you...then get the ibook and a 2 ghz celeron desktop from compaq and use the rebate to help buy you a 17" viewsonic crt monitor

if you are like most users...this dual computer setup will give you the best of both worlds for a decent price

one day, a grand will be enough to get a fully functuional "gaming" laptop in pc and mac format and these stupid arguments will stop

price will continue to go down for many years to come and performance will increase dramatically...and maybe in ten years not to the extent of moore's law...but a 10 ghz and 4 gb of RAM min. will be normal for $499 laptops before this decade is up

[besson3c]

I don't buy these arguments.

If I had $1500, I wouldn't just buy any old computer that I could acquire for that sum of money - i.e. the fastest and most speced out computer regardless of brand name and platform.

If I went into a car dealership and had in my mind beforehand that I really wanted an SUV, I wouldn't "settle on" a minivan because it is cheaper. If I was unsure as to what I wanted, the price difference would persuade me somewhat, but it would be one of many factors I'd have to consider.

I don't understand people who buy "any-old-computer" for $1500... I don't have that type of dough to spend on an any-old-anything!

If I had it in my mind that I wanted a loaf of bread from the store, I wouldn't buy a bag of jellybeans because they were cheaper. It's a question of perceived value, and making the customer know what he/she wants.

Apple needs to get it in people's minds that they *want* a Mac, rather than just any old computer. Of course, if they doubled their prices overnight I would still *want* a Mac, but many (including me) would not be able to afford it and would possibly (likely) be forced to settle on something else. However, I think there are Macs available within an acceptable price range. The iMac/eMac and iBooks are priced acceptably.

Apple can not and should not compete with vendors who are able to nickel and dime each other and provide "any old computer" cheaper than the next guy.

If people ended up buying Macs because they were just any old computer, they would probably be confused that some cute game they bought for Windows didn't run on their Mac and feel very bad about their purchase. There would be no distinction - Macs would just be an "any old computer".

The answer is, make people see the value in Macs. Make it difficult for them to justify settling for anything but.

This is idealistic on my part, I'm sure. It's astonishing that people will shell out serious dough for any-old-car, and likewise for computers. However, Apple should focus on people like me who carefully research how their money is spent and buy a Mac because they want a Mac.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
"Maybe if BMW's were slower than all the other cars on the street"
A ford can do maybe 130 MPH, a BMW a lot faster. But who needs to go even 130? Very few people. Same thing with computers. People are always complaining about how slow macs are, but except for some professional users, who really cares? I personally don't need the speed that either a dual 1.42 Ghz PM or a 3 Ghz P4 provides. 3 Ghz, 7Ghz, 10Ghz, what do I care? I don't need it. You may have a BMW that can do 210, but how often does the average user need to use even half of it's full speed?

"were less compatible with parts"
wow, haven't heard this tired old song in a while. Exactly what can't a Mac run?

"and were pretty much ignored by all the other drivers..."
If other drivers want to drive their generic, clumsy, breakable pieces of junk while I drive a car that is a pleasure just to be in and has *never once* broken down, why would I care what the other drivers think?

and in conclusion, why would a PC user come on here just to bash macs? What's the point of hanging around a forum for users of "silly computers"?
As an avid motorcyclist and avid SETI@home participant... I want more. Every week I ride my sport bike I get her over 150mph on the speedo, occasionally enough road to get around 160mph. And my computer is sitting at home right now cranking away at over 98% CPU usage on SETI.

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/fcgi-bin/fcgi?email=chris@punchit.net&cmd=user_stats_new

Sadly... I have not had the chance to have computers as fast (comapritively speaking wrt available market) as the bikes. :(

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by besson3c


This is idealistic on my part, I'm sure.

you can say that again:p

[PC Clone]

Originally posted by besson3c
This is idealistic on my part, I'm sure. It's astonishing that people will shell out serious dough for any-old-car, and likewise for computers. However, Apple should focus on people like me who carefully research how their money is spent and buy a Mac because they want a Mac.
You can cut the "any old computer" crap cuz my 2+ year old HP has served me quite well and there's nothing you can do on a similarly aged Mac that I can't do faster and for half the price... sucker ;)

[besson3c]

translation:

There is nothing that I want to hear about...

[pseudobrit]

Don't feed the trolls...

ignore it and it will go away.

[PC Clone]

Yes run and hide...

[topicolo]

Originally posted by PC Clone
You can cut the "any old computer" crap cuz my 2+ year old HP has served me quite well and there's nothing you can do on a similarly aged Mac that I can't do faster and for half the price... sucker ;)

Man, just SDRAM and a 5400rpm HD on a 2 year old computer? weak! jk :D