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 Q4 2004 Financial Results: Revenue Up 37 Percent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mchoii said:
Your guess is as good as anyones, but as for seeing a physical $60 AAPL I would say no, as I think the stock would split before that happened. Regardless, I dont see many bad things happening to Apples stock in the near term, thats for sure...
They've shipped about 6 million total iPods. Considering the iPod has been around for several years now and this last quarter alone accounts for 1/3 of all iPods ever sold, that's absolutely staggering. Jobs said today even Apple was surprised by what happened. With Christmas coming up next quarter, 2005 could be a banner year for Apple, even discounting Tiger, PowerBook G5s, and whatever other goodies they come up with.jiggie2g said:
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!
I think Apple should apply Microsoft's technique of "embrace, extend, extinguish" to Microsoft itself!
If Apple made Windows laptops that shipped with all of the iLife apps and a bunch of other shell utilities that made Windows feel more like a Mac, a lot more people would buy them. These people would get a Windows machine (embrace), with a lot of Apple extras that make the computing experience so much better (extend)... and then when those people go to buy their next computer (at the Apple store), you ask them if they'd like to get rid of the "Windows flakiness" of their computer, and buy an OS X laptop instead -- after all, at that point, the customer is probably doing everything through their iLife apps and X-like utilities that the switch to OS X would seem like a total win (same apps run on a better/stable platform). So, over time, you wean people off of these Windows machines (extinguish!). Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!
Charko said:
I think Apple should apply Microsoft's technique of "embrace, extend, extinguish" to Microsoft itself!
If Apple made Windows laptops that shipped with all of the iLife apps and a bunch of other shell utilities that made Windows feel more like a Mac, a lot more people would buy them. These people would get a Windows machine (embrace), with a lot of Apple extras that make the computing experience so much better (extend)... and then when those people go to buy their next computer (at the Apple store), you ask them if they'd like to get rid of the "Windows flakiness" of their computer, and buy an OS X laptop instead -- after all, at that point, the customer is probably doing everything through their iLife apps and X-like utilities that the switch to OS X would seem like a total win (same apps run on a better/stable platform). So, over time, you wean people off of these Windows machines (extinguish!). Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!
iPost said:
I disagree. Although I'd love for Apple to increase its market share, selling Windows on their machines is NOT the way to do it. Why would you try to sell the public a Ferrari with a rusted out 4 cylinder engine in it? One of the main reasons I use Macs is because of OS X, and removing that from the Mac experience would be foolish - the public would not get a proper appreciation of Macs if Windows was running on the box.
Plus, Macs have never had any viruses before - why would you want to introduce one to it such as Windows?
As rdowns already said, Power Mac and iMac sales were down from the 3rd quarter due to constrained supplies after the introduction of new models. Apple only shipped iMacs in 2 of the 13 weeks of the quarter, so I was actually surprised that computer sales were as high as this report showed - I had expected a 40% drop in iMac/eMac sales (due to a lack of iMac sales). Even now, I have yet to see a G5 iMac on display at a Canadian Apple reseller.myapplseedshurt said:if you look at apple as a computer company. they have lost cpu sales from 3rd quarter. Analysts look at Apple foremost as a computer company. If Apple didn't have the ipod, they would be in the red.
I know some people out there are going to say the ipod represents a new apple, but the ipod does not provide for sustained growth over the next 10 years! with competition coming from all sides, they're market share has nowhere to go but down!
It is good that year to year growth has gained, but that was ALL from notebooks. I haven't seen anything indicating a new ibook or powerbook anytime soon, have you? Apple is in trouble.
MacinDoc said:
You're not alone - I've been waiting anxiously to see one in person as well! I would have thought London Drugs would have had them by now...
elgruga said:
This is exactly the snobby attitude I *HATE* from a lot of Mac users.
Get over it, it's getting really old.
Why would it "weaken the brand" if MORE people started using a Mac? What deranged kind of world are you living in?
And are you telling me that only rich people should be able to get a good computer with a stable operating system? Geeze, get down here with the real people. In your case, "think different" should be replaced with "change your attitude".
Craiger77 said:
Okay, long post here (and lots of points to be made, so hang on and read the complete thing before going nuts).
-------------
They'll never really increase their marketshare/base of users if they don't enter this market. Hook people up with a "cheap" Mac (current eMac without CRT, mouse or keyboard, much lower price), then when they upgrade then maybe they'll get a higher-class Mac (since selling the old Mac will still give them some money back, unlike a PC which retains no value at all).
When people buy a 600$CAN windows kit (yes, that DOES include a CRT monitor and even a scanner/printer), they don't really expect to be able to sell it back later. They may expect to re-use their mouse, keyboard, monitor and scanner/printer (and other accessories, which are all USB/USB2/Firewire these days), but they do expect to pay 600$ again for their next upgrade. PCs don't keep any value (only parts get re-used).
When people see a 1049$CAN sticker price for the ComboDrive eMac, all they see is a near-200% price tag. They're not used to having a computer that keeps a lot of its value over time (and believe me, the prices of Apple computers on eBay are insane. I've seen G3/500 iBooks sell for more than half the price of a brand new one). So they think that if they switch to Mac, they'll pay 200% every time.
You *need* that sub-800$US computer for switchers. Once they sell it to upgrade to a better one they'll most probably upgrade to a higher model (since they're used to pay a fixed amount for the PC, this adds up with the money they get for selling their sub-800$ Mac, something they're not used to have).
And even if they upgrade to the new revision of the sub-800$ Mac, at the very least, they won't go back to Windows and stay with Apple and the marketshare still goes up anyway (since selling their old Mac to someone else makes a new switcher who can't even afford a brand new sub-800$ Mac).
This is *exactly* what Apple should be doing to (massively) increase its marketshare.
Sometimes, it's not always about profits...
------
(Crazy theory/idea here, skip if you're the snob type).
I even think Apple should have a switcher eMac without CRT, keyboard, mouse, RAM and HD (people already have a CRT/LCD with VGA/DVI connector, a USB keyboard/mouse, DDR RAM, Hard disk and CD drive). Of course, this switcher Mac would of course not be for everybody, but almost everyone who uses a computer know somebody who could swap their computer parts for them.
Let's see the result:
eMac: 800$US
17" CRT: -100$US (just a guess)
256MB DDR333: -75$US
40GB: -50$US
Apple keyboard: -49$US
Apple mouse: -49$US
Combodrive: -49$US (just a guess)
"Naked" switcher eMac: 425$US
Of course, the prices listed above are from the Apple store, so they have a % of profits in them, so let's put that naked switcher eMac back to 499$US.
In the end Apple would still make a profit on each unit and switchers would now have a computer that's a lot less expensive.
Okay.
So I know this switcher eMac idea is an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel idea and that Apple won't even consider such a thing (too sloppy), but I'm only saying it's possible to (somehow) compete with 500$US systems and still get the same hardware in the end (and so, the same great "Apple experience").
---------
In reality, Apple could simply add the following in the BTO options (and still make a CRT-less eMac in a flat case):
- ability to remove ALL RAM (that is, if not soldered on-board)
- ability to order a system without keyboard and/or mouse
- ability to order a system without a hard disk
- ability to order a system without a combo/superdrive (only if OS X can handle any IDE drive as well as the ones Apple puts into their computers. Or maybe simply make a list of OS X-certified CD/DVD drives)
Now, make the eMacs as easy to access as the iMac/PowerMac (for RAM, HD, CD/DVD drive), and these options wouldn't seem so far-fetched and would fit in the "switcher eMac" pattern.
In case you aren't just trying to pick a fight, allow me to comment. Are you disputing elgruga's claim that Macs are best? If they are, the difference should be worth something to consumers so it's reasonable for Apple to charge for it, and it's understandable if those with Macs are proud to have the best. If Macs aren't best, it's surprising Apple sells anything at all.Yvan256 said:
I don't know if the "weaken the brand" claim is true, but I understand it. Why does it puzzle you? Some brands do well by purposely staying elite. When people pay way too much for jeans or tennis shoes with a certain brand name on them, that's why.
It is truly a shame that cheap plentiful low-end Windows computers can't promise you that, but that doesn't make it untrue. Since not all operating systems are stable, the ones that are can be sold for more (all the more reason Linux is a great deal).
That's one market strategy. So is the one Apple's been using. Personally, I think Apple should work harder to get back its leading position in the education market rather than push into the low-end consumer market where it has less experience and profits are razor thin. We can debate these choices, but none of us can claim to know that one market push is provably better than another.Yvan256 said:
Apple is a business. It IS about profits. It's worth discussing the tradeoffs among ways to increase short-term profits (e.g., advertising) vs. ways to increase long-term profits (R&D, acquisitions, brand name development, and selling a cheaper entry-level system, which you seem to consider the only sensible choice).
Doctor Q said:
Well, in my opinion, if Macs aren't the best (including OS X) then I don't know what is (certainly not Microsoft products nor the x86 architecture).
Doctor Q said:
BWM's still use the same roads, the same fuel as other cars. Regular pants aren't different than "designer" pants (minus style and price tag). A cheap "no-name" DVD player still plays the same movies as high-end models.
Computers, however, are a different story, and it's currently a huge mess. There's many architectures and operating systems. And none can work with the other (software-wise, emulation excluded). If there was a common OS platform that could run software and Apple only had a more stable OS and better GUI then Microsoft and Linux (but all software would still run on all "three platforms"), then I wouldn't complain. A better computer and a better OS if you can afford it would make sense (just as I'm not angry at BWM drivers, etc).
Doctor Q said:
Indeed, we don't know what Apple *should* be doing, but aren't we debatting what they *could* be doing? The low-cost entry headless eMac (and BTO options to remove stuff a potential switcher might be willing to take from his PC to his new Mac) is an easy-to-do possibility, and something I think Apple should do.
The current mess on the "windows side" is bad for the entire industry, linux sure ain't ready for mass-appeal, interface/normalisation-wise (and the way those zealots think, I'd be very surprised if they get their acts together any time soon).
So if Linux can't really take over Microsoft on the desktop/at home, the only other choice is Apple. And what really bugs me is that Apple really isn't trying as hard as they could be doing (they have the hardware, they sure as hell have the software, they only need to have lower cost Macs).
What's stopping Apple from selling lower-cost computers? What if they still sold older models:
- 1GHz G4 was enough for a 12" PowerBook about one year ago. Should be more than fine for the low-end eMac (as a bonus, it creates a place to put those G4's that won't run at 1.25GHz+)
- Most people don't play movies on their computers, let alone burn DVDs. So forget a combo or superdrive and stick with a regular CD-RW drive.
- I really don't think everyone has a use for 40GB of disk space (of course, lowering the size of the hard disk may not yield any real savings but I'd still check it to save a few bucks on that too if it's worth it).
And I still believe Apple should put some more options in the BTO page, such as being able to remove keyboard/mouse from the order, HD, RAM, CD drive. Those options are meant for people who know what they're doing anyway (and you do get the choice to remove the 56k modem for a 29$US saving on a *PowerMac*, I don't think more "remove stuff" options for lower-class Macs are that crazy).
Doctor Q said:
The only real way to increase profits in the long-term is to increase the number of users (note that I didn't say marketshare, because there's so many computer buyers that choose windows, even if Apple doubled it's userbase they could still be losing ground in marketshare).
The only sure way to increase the number of users is to make sure everyone can afford at least one model of your brand. A flash iPod mini is one way to target the low-end of MP3 players, a new low-end model of the eMac would be another. Not everyone want to buy Apple for the design (unlike other stuff), some of us want to buy Apple simply for the OS and its applications.
I'd always take an ugly rectangular beige box with PowerPC hardware and Apple software (OS X, iLife) over an Apple-designed PC case with x86 hardware and Microsoft software, any day.
If I buy an expensive fountain pen, I have to buy the expensive ink cartridges because the cheap Tesco ones don't fit. Likewise, if I buy a Gilette Mach 3 Turbo razor, do you think I could use my cheap unbranded razor blades with them?Yvan256 said:
johnnyjibbs said:If I buy an expensive fountain pen, I have to buy the expensive ink cartridges because the cheap Tesco ones don't fit. Likewise, if I buy a Gilette Mach 3 Turbo razor, do you think I could use my cheap unbranded razor blades with them?
Why would you want an expensive fountain pen? A 5-cent pen from Walmart/Tesco would work just fine. That's one of those commodities I don't understand why people would want to pay more for - just like "gourmet bottled water".
And just use a straight razor, more economical in the long run...
I was just illustrating a point. And I do find that a decent fountain pen does last better~Shard~ said:Why would you want an expensive fountain pen? A 5-cent pen from Walmart/Tesco would work just fine. That's one of those commodities I don't understand why people would want to pay more for - just like "gourmet bottled water".
And just use a straight razor, more economical in the long run...
johnnyjibbs said:I was just illustrating a point. And I do find that a decent fountain pen does last better
And I agree with you, and I know you were just making a point - just having fun.