Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple posts $63 Million Profit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
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.
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.
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.
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...)
many print shops
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.
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.
Installed Base
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.
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.
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%.
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
The answer was, in short: "No comment!" 
iPod sales
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.
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.
Re: after hours figures
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?
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?
Cool! Thanks MacShark! I stopped following stocks a year back. It just pissed me off how Apple always got a raw deal.
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.
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
isn't what they said...
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
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
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.
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, pretty much so....
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.
Umm... I'm not contesting that many video people still use OS 9 but.. its not stable at all. And.. which large networks?
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?)
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?)
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.
(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.
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)