Apple's 10-K Filing

Well... nothing we didn't see coming. The 970 will change all this. Regardless of mhz, a 64-bit vs. 32-bit campaign is very easy to kick off. The Itanium won't run any old software and is targeted at the server market I believe, so it looks like IBM vs AMD to me in the 64-bit arena. If IBM and AMD both promote 64-bit for the home, Intel is going to look a little silly, eh?

Or perhaps I'm wrong.

Well it's good to see that they at least recognize the problem! I think they put a mention of the G3 in there just to take the weight off the G4, when I'd be willing to bet it's solely Moto who's keeping them back. Haven't there been confirmations of 1GHz Sahara G3's for awhile now? It seems like the only reason they can't put them in the iBooks now is because the clock speed would compete with the TiBooks! C'mon PPC 970!! Countdown a year till we're back in the saddle again...

I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

Originally posted by dricci
I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

Click to expand...

While it's not a tower, the eMac is in the sub-1000 range and it's sales aren't humongous. The truth is that it is hard to sell computers to people who can barely tell the difference from RAM or hard drive memory (you will be suprised how many people I know who say they have 20 gigs of ram) when they look at a PC at similar prices with 1.5 ghz. Now, I don't want to start a debate on the speed issues, but consumers really don't know the difference.

In other news,

Water == wet;
Sky == blue

Good to see that there's some confirmation that Apple is as p!ssed off at Motorola's chip-making plants as the rest of us are.

On to the 970!

Originally posted by hesdeadjim


While it's not a tower, the eMac is in the sub-1000 range and it's sales aren't humongous. The truth is that it is hard to sell computers to people who can barely tell the difference from RAM or hard drive memory (you will be suprised how many people I know who say they have 20 gigs of ram) when they look at a PC at similar prices with 1.5 ghz. Now, I don't want to start a debate on the speed issues, but consumers really don't know the difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the fact remains that many current PC users are more comfortable with a tower, and they don't want to pay $1600+ (or want to, but just can't afford it)

The eMac is a nice machine (I have one), but many people I've talked to want to be able to expand cards and displays, and don't want to have to shell out hundreds after their warranty is up if an internal component like the display (which has been known to have many problems in the eMac) goes bad. Speed is never really an issue that's brought up. As long as the machine can do most tasks at a reasonable speed (which the G4 700/800 in the iMacs and eMacs can do, along with Jaguar and plenty of ram is perfect for), they wouldn't mind.

I think Apple, a company that not only created Personal Computing as we know it and brought USB, Firewire, Unix, and the PDA to the regular consumer, can figure out a way to make profit off of a sub-$1,000, expandable tower, while still retaining Apple's history of ease of use and the "complete package" feeling.

Hey don't get me wrong I think the dual 867 is the best deal apple has had in a long time, but when you compare to a pc..well I guess people, pros decided to wait or went with a pc.
I bought another new Mac but next year, I don't know.
When you consider that many pro apps still do not use altivec or dual processors and that a $700 pc will kick ass on a $3200 Mac, which are you going to get for your business?
I love macs but why are they so much and why do they milk us every step of the way?
I will pay twice as much for a Mac that is equal to a pc speedwise but not 5 times!
If you use protools or other apps you know what I mean.
Next year had better be apples year or it will be dell, sonys etc
Daniel

it is not about apple being peed-off at anyone, it is about being upfront in their reports and filings to the SEC and to shareholders, post Enron, Worldcom, Xerox, etc fiascos. You can be sure Apple has already communicated its frustration to its suppliers.

PPC 970 is not going to do the job, vis a vis the perception problem. there will always be a perception problem as long as MacOS does not run on Intel/AMD processors.

I think the comments in the filing are hints and forewarnings at a radical change in the direction of Apple, away from being a Hardware company to being a OS/technology co. like M$.

Didn't Steve say that 2003 would be the turning point for Apple?

Originally posted by dricci


Yes, but the fact remains that many current PC users are more comfortable with a tower, and they don't want to pay $1600+ (or want to, but just can't afford it)

The eMac is a nice machine (I have one), but many people I've talked to want to be able to expand cards and displays, and don't want to have to shell out hundreds after their warranty is up if an internal component like the display (which has been known to have many problems in the eMac) goes bad. Speed is never really an issue that's brought up. As long as the machine can do most tasks at a reasonable speed (which the G4 700/800 in the iMacs and eMacs can do, along with Jaguar and plenty of ram is perfect for), they wouldn't mind.

I think Apple, a company that not only created Personal Computing as we know it and brought USB, Firewire, Unix, and the PDA to the regular consumer, can figure out a way to make profit off of a sub-$1,000, expandable tower, while still retaining Apple's history of ease of use and the "complete package" feeling.

Click to expand...

I agree that most PC users are more comfortable with the expandablity option and that is a big deal with the all in one's (I had a 400 MHz iMac for the last 2 years), but I know a lot of consumers (consumers being the keyword) rather not deal with the insides of their computers. They rather that the computer work and maybe be able to add more RAM or something along those lines. There is the question of the display issues, but the eMac and iMacs were designed for people who don't know anything about computers. This doesn't mean that people that know everything about computers can't enjoy them and use them as well, but the bottom line it was designed for people who will never upgrade your computer like most consumers.

Now on the prosumer issue, those people that want the ability to upgrade, I see a sub-1000 maching being in their sights, but I think that the dual 867's are really quite good at the price they are. These really fill in the gap for people who are willing to spend the extra amount for great options and those people who rather not ever see the inside of their computers. Now, I know I'm making huge generalizations about people and I know that some people may be offended by this. Also, people can not be categorized this easily. On second thought, maybe the sub-1000 tower might fill the gap for the consumer who would like to put in a larger hard drive or a faster burner. I don't know, maybe a test run with it will help like you said in your earlier post. Well these are just my opinions.

the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz. unless ibm can get the speed of the 970 fast enough to take on the top 970 (conclusively) perception will remain.

apples have always been the fastest available pcs. the loss of the speed advantage that occurred around the turn of the millenium has seriously damaged apple's image, but it has only been a recent occurence. if apple/ibm are able to regain the high footing sometime soon i think the damage will be minimal.

i still recall when i could run vpc on my laptop and have its benchmarks faster than all but the top desktop pcs. i still recall when one of the biggest arguments in the macs favor was speed. for all of you recent switchers it might seem like apple has always been behind, but apple did hit 500mhz first (and this was with superior pipelining). this has all been recent. furthermore, intel has publically stated that they do not believe they can keep up the pace of Hz increases. apple/ibm can catach up, lets just hope it happens before public perception has been too negatively effected.

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz. unless ibm can get the speed of the 970 fast enough to take on the top 970 (conclusively) perception will remain.

apples have always been the fastest available pcs. the loss of the speed advantage that occurred around the turn of the millenium has seriously damaged apple's image, but it has only been a recent occurence. if apple/ibm are able to regain the high footing sometime soon i think the damage will be minimal.

i still recall when i could run vpc on my laptop and have its benchmarks faster than all but the top desktop pcs. i still recall when one of the biggest arguments in the macs favor was speed. for all of you recent switchers it might seem like apple has always been behind, but apple did hit 500mhz first (and this was with superior pipelining). this has all been recent. furthermore, intel has publically stated that they do not believe they can keep up the pace of Hz increases. apple/ibm can catach up, lets just hope it happens before public perception has been too negatively effected.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree, Apple is going through a rough time right now, but they are still doing well all things considered. Luckily, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I don't think that MHz is everything even though I may have made it seem that way in earlier posts, I just feel that most other people feel like MHz is everything. This affects Apple sales which in turn effects my platform of choice in the long run.

In a mild mannered voice ...

Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS.

#1 A vast majority of the population could give a rats ass about computers. They don't own them and they don't plan to. A lot of it is because of demographics (older adults) or because the minimum need they have for a computer is satisfied by the computer at work.

#2 Those who are interested have a very low budget threshold for them which is in the $800 ballpark.

#3 The vast majority of people simply buy what they are familiar with, which is Windows. The very few that even know that Mac exists and is an option are afraid of trying 'something new'.

That's it people. Those are Apple's problems in a nutshell.

#4 Even the much vaunted 'graphics pros' that support Apple actually know very little about Macs - I speak from experience. The only reason they don't switch is because they're terrified of the notion that A) it might risk their employment B) see reason #3 only it's Mac not Windows.

And that's THE 95% TRUTH. Your welcome ... your welcome too, and you too ... yes, I know I'm brilliant... any time, your welcome...

from an article from 2000,
Gartner says 114 million PCs were sold last year, and another 133 million will be sold this year. And they'll all need a final resting place in a few years.

so since then there has been 300 million PCs sold. IF most people don't own or care about PCs then some people have way more than their share.

If OSX will run on 5 year old PPCs then surely Marklar would run on 3 year old x86 units. That is a lot of potential customers.

Re: In a mild mannered voice ...

...And that's THE 95% TRUTH.
[/B]

Click to expand...

So by this, you want APLE to just fold up?...Sure, its a BLEAK situation but I think APPLE can pull it off (Market Share)...I believe APPLE is trying to reach MANY markets at the same time and with some success....I mean, the OS is awesome (Still needs more work...) and I believe with this OS its ATTRACTING attention from a variety of markets, i.e., Biomedical, Film and Tele, Education, Arts and the regular joe blow...It takes a while, but if you can GRASP the attention of the aforemention markets, excluding the regular "joes", those everyday consumers will switch...

Re: In a mild mannered voice ...

Originally posted by Tue12
Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS.

Click to expand...

Uh, I think 50% of what you said might be true, which means I agree with something like 47.5% of your post.

More than 5% of the people care about computers, and they're not geeks.

(As I've said before...)

*CAUTION*

Speed bumps ahead for the next 8-12 months.

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz. unless ibm can get the speed of the 970 fast enough to take on the top 970 (conclusively) perception will remain.

apples have always been the fastest available pcs. the loss of the speed advantage that occurred around the turn of the millenium has seriously damaged apple's image, but it has only been a recent occurence. if apple/ibm are able to regain the high footing sometime soon i think the damage will be minimal.

i still recall when i could run vpc on my laptop and have its benchmarks faster than all but the top desktop pcs. i still recall when one of the biggest arguments in the macs favor was speed. for all of you recent switchers it might seem like apple has always been behind, but apple did hit 500mhz first (and this was with superior pipelining). this has all been recent. furthermore, intel has publically stated that they do not believe they can keep up the pace of Hz increases. apple/ibm can catach up, lets just hope it happens before public perception has been too negatively effected.

Click to expand...

If IBM can get the 970 up to 6 GHz like they've hinted, then I think they're in pretty good shape. Can the x86 go up to 6 GHz? even if they can, I think the pace of increase will be slower than the past 2 or 3 years. In other workds, I don't expecta 6 GHz P4 in a year, the way they went from a 1.6 GHz to 3GHz in about a year. Sure, when the 1.8 GHz 970 comes out Intel might be up to about 4GHz, but I think the 970 will close that gap quickly (so IBM will be at 4 GHz when Intel is at 5 GHz, and maybe catch up with it at 6GHz). Also, I think IBM's recent R&D in terms of making smaller transistors has been superior to Intel's. I mean, Intel's come up with, what, strained silicon? Which IBM can use in its own chips anyway....

Keep in mind that I think IBM will be more motivated in the future to compete in the CPU arena. During the "boom years" of the late 90's, IBM was more concerned with growing its consulting practice (since that's where all the money was), and convincing the market that mainframes were the ultimate high-availability web server or database server.

Now, with their strong commitment to Linux, their plan is to make a stronger push for the low-end server / high end workstation market, and they've explicitly said that their plan with the 970 is to make a killer port of Linux to it and then start pushing their 970 machines as the best machines for Linux. So I think things look OK for Apple, as long as IBM doesn't back away from that strategy...

The end of Apple...

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
it is not about apple being peed-off at anyone, it is about being upfront in their reports and filings to the SEC and to shareholders, post Enron, Worldcom, Xerox, etc fiascos. You can be sure Apple has already communicated its frustration to its suppliers.

PPC 970 is not going to do the job, vis a vis the perception problem. there will always be a perception problem as long as MacOS does not run on Intel/AMD processors.

I think the comments in the filing are hints and forewarnings at a radical change in the direction of Apple, away from being a Hardware company to being a OS/technology co. like M$.

Didn't Steve say that 2003 would be the turning point for Apple?

Click to expand...

A little history lesson:
1. NeXT Computers started with hardware and software. Dumped the hardware and focused on the software migrating it to x86. Gone and absorbed by Apple.

2. Be Computers run by another Apple executive started with hardware and software. Dumped the hardware and focused on the software. Ported to the x86. Bought by Palm Inc.

Lesson to be learned: If Apple dumps the hardware, focuses on software and ports to x86 then bye bye Apple.

In 10 years, Apple will be a fond memory if they don't start pushing world class machines that are not competitive with PCs but far outdo them.

This is SUCH A no brainer

If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions. This is definitly an issue Apple needs to commit itself too in order to get people to truly switch in any numbers.

Originally posted by dricci
I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

Click to expand...

My thesis is about Apple and i think you have hitten the nail.

The most common answer in why not getting an Apple is the price, everyone thinks that Apple would have bigger sales if the price is drop.

Originally posted by dricci
I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I'm not sure how much Apple is paying Motorola for it's G4's, but if it really wants to step out of the cult following and appeal to everyday people, they have to advertise for the shopper not willing to pay a premium for the "Apple Experience". If they could offer an eMac for the price of the G3 iMac, or a low-end PowerMac for the price of an eMac, and advertise it effectively...sales would have to go up.

Originally posted by lmalave


If IBM can get the 970 up to 6 GHz like they've hinted, then I think they're in pretty good shape. Can the x86 go up to 6 GHz? even if they can, I think the pace of increase will be slower than the past 2 or 3 years. In other workds, I don't expecta 6 GHz P4 in a year, the way they went from a 1.6 GHz to 3GHz in about a year. Sure, when the 1.8 GHz 970 comes out Intel might be up to about 4GHz, but I think the 970 will close that gap quickly (so IBM will be at 4 GHz when Intel is at 5 GHz, and maybe catch up with it at 6GHz

Click to expand...

Where are you getting all this? I'm all for wishful thinking, but you're really stretching the boundaries of what is known and could happen. You have to assume you know what Intel's production/development future will be like as well as IBM's ... assuming that Apple even goes with IBM's chip for that long. I dunno.....

Originally posted by macmax


The most common answer in why not getting an Apple is the price, everyone thinks that Apple would have bigger sales if the price is drop.

Click to expand...

Well, since years ago Jobs announced they average $500 profit on each computer sold (and that was before the G3, imac, etc. and their computers cost around 3 grand) my guess is they now make about $300 dollars profit per tower. Exactly how are they going to make money by selling sub $1000 towers people?

Of course their sales would soar. And their stock would drop, and their profits would vanish. But hey, everybody would just love Apple. For about a year until they folded.

The reason we like macs so much is the superior design and R&D put into the hardware and OS. Much like an expensive car, we're paying for a superior machine. Unfortunately the processor has been an issue in recent years. Using the Motorola/IBM G3/G4 set them ahead at the time. But Motorola at least seems to have dropped the ball and as far as I can tell Apple is doing everything then can about it. Even having as x86 (marklar) backup plan.

Apple can't afford to be superior, better designed, more expensive, AND slower. Even the pros have got their doubts these days. As much as Wintel boxes may drive them nuts, they do have a job to do and need to get it done efficiently.

But what Apple CAN'T afford to do is lose money on sales and drop their R&D. The superiority of the designs and OS is what's KEEPING the current users that are putting up with the lesser speed.

Major catch 22 for apple right now. These things happen and I can wait. No problem. My value is based on my skills, and my skill are based on the mac OS.

market saturation

The problem is market saturation. Most people that would use a computer have one now. Heck, my grandparents have had one for over a year now! How many articles have we all read that state the obvious? You don't need a new computer if the one you have now is only 2 or 3 years old. Most of my friends have been saying that for some time now.

There is no reason a company should go out and buy the newest computer for the new secretary/cube resident. A lot of companies are now leasing stuff, keeping for a few years, then trade it in for something newer, but not new. This goes in PC land as well as the Mac world.

This is why Apple sells iPods and Gateway sells TV's and Dell sells their won PDA. Computers themselves are not where the money is at. It's the add on's that make a company profitable now...