For all the people crying about this 550 percent increase, I think you're not understanding what this statistic means.
Let's suppose last year I was a beggar. I made $1,000. Now this year I "moved up" in the world and got a part-time job at McDonalds. I made $10,000! That's a 1,000 percent increase in pay! According to some of the posts on this thread, this increase means I must be rich. If all I did with that money was buy clothes and food for myself, and maybe "invest" in a better cardboard box to live in, people would say I was a no-good cheapskate. By this logic, the 1,000 percent increase in pay means I should become some kind of philanthropist.
Apple's situation is not much different from this hypothetical example. Their profits in 2002 were practically nonexistant. Last year they made $137 million--yes, it's a 550 percent increase, but for the size of the company, it's still a trivial amount. By comparison, the Bank of New York, with almost identical sales to Apple Computer, made over $900 million last year. Gillette made $1.2 billion.
Microsoft made $9.5 billion: with sales less than 4 times greater than Apple, they made almost 100 times as much profit. But guess what--Microsoft's profits only grew by 56 percent over the past two years. Are we to say that Microsoft is "poor" and Apple is "rich" because their profits grew more slowly than Apple?
Yes, it's good for Apple that their profits went up last year, and it's good that they are now debt free. But they have a long way to go to become a really solid company. These profit figures may seem impressive, but if Apple is to succeed, the truly impressive work is ahead of them.