Apple Reports $1.61 Billion Profit for Q1 2009

[VoR]

What can we assume about the people who are wishing Apple would become less profitable?

I'd like them to make less profit on their pcs, getting more for my money is nice. Maybe they'd become more profitable in the long run with a larger share, maybe they'd become less profitable by selling more and losing the niche appeal - I don't really care either way


To the car analogy crew, please stop

edit:

I'm glad that Apple can pull it off, and that's why BMW and Porsche are so profitable as well, but marketing and perception are much bigger forces than the actual products these days, especially in cars

- Tick

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Interesting...

Q: How many of your 500 million App Store downloads were paid and how many were free?
A: That's not something we're prepared to disclose.

Q: Will you eventually separate out App Store sales results from iTunes Store sales?
A: The App Store is part of iTunes, and we have no plans to separate them.

I wonder how App Store sales are going... I personally have yet to actually purchase an app from the App Store. Interesting that it appears to be a sensitive subject...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'd like them to make less profit on their pcs, getting more for my money is nice. Maybe they'd become more profitable in the long run with a larger share, maybe they'd become less and lose it's niche appeal - I don't really care either way

Don't pray for snow unless you like to ski.

Fancy way of saying you don't get more because Apple gets less, and Apple doesn't necessarily get more by increasing their market share.

To the car analogy crew, please stop

Yes. Please.

 

[jaw04005]

Q: What about Apple TV?
A: Still a hobby for us, but movie rentals are increasing popularity. We will continue to invest in it, because we believe there is something there.

Best news I've heard all day! I love my Apple TV.

 

[daneoni]

So are they going after Palm for the Pre...it sounded like what they meant and i hear they weren't too thrilled with Rubinstein joing Palm in the first place

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I'd like them to make less profit on their pcs, getting more for my money is nice. Maybe they'd become more profitable in the long run with a larger share, maybe they'd become less profitable by selling more and losing the niche appeal - I don't really care either way

Sounds like a 'trickle down' believer...

Like the outrageous lie that cutting taxes would boost revenues... Yeah...

They need to come out with a version of OS X that will run on standard PC's. Make it so that Windows will run under it with something like Fusion...

 

[VoR]

Fancy way of saying you don't get more because Apple gets less, and Apple doesn't necessarily get more by increasing their market share.

Of course
But looking at it very simply as an end user buying today, I would be more happy if this is the direction they took.


I'm not really sure what you meant in response to my (jokey) comment PinkyMac but since when does taxing the rich and large corps result in more revenue?! (that's what you mean with yours?)

 

[srf4real]

I watched the stock tank on news of Steve Job's health issues, and after dreaming of owning AAPL for years I am financially able to buy in at this time. Was watching shares go down below 80 yesterday and I had to put my foot down. Apple is a great company with the best computer products and gadgets, good at making money and making happy customers.

I now proudly announce that am the new owner of Apple shares, in at $78.47. Old school investor here, they can use my money for a long long time. I see a n even greater future for myself having a piece of the action in my retirement! Thanks, Steve Jobs... thanks Apple. Glad the whacked out market brought you back to my level if even for a brief moment in time.

 

[elppa]

Let me clarify:

I don't mind if Snow Leopard is behind schedule (whatever that schedule may be).

I'd much rather Apple get things right that get things out early.

Big, ambitious software projects tend to get delayed anyway. It's just the nature of them. I'm not complaining, it's just a side-effect of Apple getting big and having to scale — they can't be as nimble.

If Tim had good news he would have said something about being “on track with internal targets”, “right on track” or “shaping up great”. But he didn't. I came across to me (I only got one listen) that he was being careful with his wording. So read into that what you will. There was not a whisper at MacWorld expo either.

I read into it that they (Apple) is little behind, no doubt in part due to trying to get iPhone OS 3.0 ready at the moment as well.

Apple still is stretching their software engineering resources to the limit. Look at the push activation, delayed indefinitely with no word. Another example is the clunky log in/log out to switch between integrated and dedicated graphics on the MacBook Pro. That's not an Apple solution, that's quite a clunky solution.

Hopefully when we do hear about Snow Leopard there will be some pleasant surprises.

 

[Ramashalanka]

What can we assume about the people who are wishing Apple would become less profitable?

They've got put options

 

[quinney]

Go Apple!!!!

:cramer voice: buy buy buy :/cramer voice:

Actually one of Cramer's lackeys is recommending people
sell apple now

http://www.thestreet.com/video/10459111/apple-beats-time-to-sell.html

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I purchased 1,200 shares yesterday at $80 a share. I made the investment with a 1 to 2 year horizon. Personally, I think AAPL will soar once the economy recovers. Now that these figures have been released, I feel even more confident in my decision!

Bryan

 

[Eric S.]

No, the chips for the Mac Pro AREN'T out already.

If Apple would just make a decent desktop system between the Mac Pro and the laptop-based iMac, we could be buying a killer Core i7 machine running OS X.

 

[displaced]

It's because there is nothing to upgrade to.

Kind of. Nehalem and all that is out already, but Apple is always a half generation behind in the hardware category. Look at GPUs

No, the chips for the Mac Pro AREN'T out already.

Ah - then quite possibly the reason for at least the Pro's stagnation isn't entirely down to Apple.

I'm almost tempted to label Apple 'fickle' with some of their products. When there's something interesting they can do, they're all over it. It seems, perhaps, there's nothing compelling out there to make them give the Pro some love. Unfortunately for the purchaser, they don't tend to drop the price on tech as it ages, preferring to discount only after a model has been superseded.

Again, I'm not terribly up-to-date with Intel's plans. However, I get the feeling that high-performance 'consumer' parts tend to develop quicker than their equivalent workstation/server parts (upon which the Pro is based). So, towards the end of the life of the Pro's architecture, the Intel 'consumer' range has almost met or surpassed its performance. This leaves the workstation class machines looking unattractive until the big leap which once again justifies their classification.

Does that make any sense (or, indeed, bear any relationship to reality)?

edit:

A few thoughts on GPUs in the Pro.

As I understand it, many of those who'll be pushing the Pro to its (computational) limits are more interested in sheer bit-crunching ability rather than shader models and pipeline counts. Is it correct that Photoshop, Final Cut, Shake and all that jazz really wants CPU and architectural horsepower? In these situations, a new machine has the ability to save sizeable amounts of time each and every working day. When a pro user's waiting for something to process, they're not creating anything.

I can sympathise to an extent. Coding on a slow machine is a nightmare (especially when your toolkit - Visual Studio, in my case, is on the 'chubby' side). If I'm waiting 5 minutes for a compile instead of 10.... that's significant. If I can run two or more virtual machines simultaneously with great performance -- that's huge.

In these situations, I could have Intel GMA GPU and not care in the slightest.

Of course, Snow Leopard has the potential to turn all this on its head, with co-operation from Adobe and other vendors.

 

[elppa]

Ah - then quite possibly the reason for at least the Pro's stagnation isn't entirely down to Apple.

I'm almost tempted to label Apple 'fickle' with some of their products. When there's something interesting they can do, they're all over it.

This is a very good observation. It happens in the software too.

First coverflow turns up everywhere, now skimming is the current vogue.

 

[displaced]

This is a very good observation. It happens in the software too.

First coverflow turns up everywhere, now skimming is the current vogue.

I bet it keeps things exciting for Apple staff. But it's a balancing trick. You can let your hardware lag a bit if, and only if, what you come out with eventually is so insanely great that it more than makes up for the delay.

(self-conscious use of the phrase 'insanely great' there, but I like it )

[edit:]

Oh, and on Software, I can't really call that 'fickle'...er...-ness.

Software's a creative thing (or at least the human interface is). There's no physics, wafers, factories, electrons deciding how things work. The worst approach to software is to keep doing things how they've been done before... or to settle with what you've just made. It's iterative - design and build something that works and addresses a need. Then go back and see if you can do it better. Lather, rinse, repeat. What seems to freak a lot of people out is that Apple are phenomenal at this. So what if users are 'used' to X. If Y works better, do it. If you're right, the users will agree. If you're wrong (Stacks, anyone?) go back to, or add, what you had before. Software's malleable. If your developers and designers are smart and the company's willing to not just stick to 'the way it's always been', you're doing it right.

 

[gwangung]

I bet it keeps things exciting for Apple staff. But it's a balancing trick. You can let your hardware lag a bit if, and only if, what you come out with eventually is so insanely great that it more than makes up for the delay.

THat's where Steve Jobs' genius is....being able to do the balance of letting stuff lag just long enough to be able to pop off the insanely great stuff....

 

[chewietobbacca]

Ah - then quite possibly the reason for at least the Pro's stagnation isn't entirely down to Apple.

I'm almost tempted to label Apple 'fickle' with some of their products. When there's something interesting they can do, they're all over it. It seems, perhaps, there's nothing compelling out there to make them give the Pro some love. Unfortunately for the purchaser, they don't tend to drop the price on tech as it ages, preferring to discount only after a model has been superseded.

Again, I'm not terribly up-to-date with Intel's plans. However, I get the feeling that high-performance 'consumer' parts tend to develop quicker than their equivalent workstation/server parts (upon which the Pro is based). So, towards the end of the life of the Pro's architecture, the Intel 'consumer' range has almost met or surpassed its performance. This leaves the workstation class machines looking unattractive until the big leap which once again justifies their classification.

Does that make any sense (or, indeed, bear any relationship to reality)?

edit:

A few thoughts on GPUs in the Pro.

As I understand it, many of those who'll be pushing the Pro to its (computational) limits are more interested in sheer bit-crunching ability rather than shader models and pipeline counts. Is it correct that Photoshop, Final Cut, Shake and all that jazz really wants CPU and architectural horsepower? In these situations, a new machine has the ability to save sizeable amounts of time each and every working day. When a pro user's waiting for something to process, they're not creating anything.

I can sympathise to an extent. Coding on a slow machine is a nightmare (especially when your toolkit - Visual Studio, in my case, is on the 'chubby' side). If I'm waiting 5 minutes for a compile instead of 10.... that's significant. If I can run two or more virtual machines simultaneously with great performance -- that's huge.

In these situations, I could have Intel GMA GPU and not care in the slightest.

Of course, Snow Leopard has the potential to turn all this on its head, with co-operation from Adobe and other vendors.

It's been like this for a while. The reason why competitors are so cheaply priced is largely because Apple keeps the prices on its hardware the same, despite the fact that computer hardware depreciates faster than anything else. 3 months ago, a user could pay $1k for a QX9650.... now that's being crushed by a Core i7 920 for 1/4 the price.

This point isn't as big a deal when new hardware comes out and Apple adopts it, cause usually it's fairly fresh (CPU's at least). However, 3 months down the line when new things come out, it starts getting long in the tooth. 6 months down the line, it's outdated (Intel releases essentially a new microarchitecture every 2-3 years, with a refresh in between) but they're still using the old product with the old prices. An example I remember of this is that when the venerable Core 2 Quad Q6600 came out, it was north of $500. Within a year, it was at $180-220.

As far as the GPU part goes, a lot of programs are being ported to GPU's now. With OpenCL, DX11, and CUDA all promising to give GPGPU calculations to programs that can take advantage of it in the near future (some things are already taking advantage of it, such as folding@home and some encoding/decoding), the GPU will be even more important in the near future. The CPU won't be replaced (much to the chagrin of Nvidia), but with GPU's hitting the 1 Teraflop mark already (soon to be in the 2-3+ range within the year), the potential of GPU's is immense.

I certainly hope that Apple doesn't continue that trend down the line. Consider that PC's now have the GTX 295, GTX 285, 4870X2, and 4870 (1788, 1080, 2400, and 1200 GFlops respectively) while the CPU's are still in the < 100 GFlops range (for calculations that the GPU can do though, since not everything can be done on GPU's and GPU's aren't utilized to 100% always). Compare that to the paltry offerings the Mac Pro can utilize. Now imagine if PC users can utilize their GPU's easily (they already can on some apps, as I've stated). They'll have a huge advantage if Apple always chooses to be behind by 6 months to a year.

 

[MrJingles]

OSX = Only reason to stick around this party

... Also, I wonder what kind of job you have that the current Mini can't handle, really..

What a lot of people forget are the print/web designers (like me) who want access to multiple internal hard drives, access to more than 4GB of ram and better cpu options (quad core) but don't need Server Class/8core/FB DIMM/64GB capacity but that option doesn't exist.

It kills me to know competitors sell quad core/6GB/2x HD/REAL Video card options for 1/2 the price of a MacPro. And please don't get me started on 'consumer' vs 'server' chips I've had plenty of PC's in my past that lasted 5+ years without blowing up.

If OSX didn't talk to me so seductively (curse you beautiful OS!) I probably would have reversed switched already but I honestly don't want any windows action as long as I can help it.

 

[zdobson]

Go stock, go! Buy high, sell low, right?

 

[chewietobbacca]

What a lot of people forget are the print/web designers (like me) who want access to multiple internal hard drives, access to more than 4GB of ram and better cpu options (quad core) but don't need Server Class/8core/FB DIMM/64GB capacity but that option doesn't exist.

It kills me to know competitors sell quad core/6GB/2x HD/REAL Video card options for 1/2 the price of a MacPro. And please don't get me started on 'consumer' vs 'server' chips I've had plenty of PC's in my past that lasted 5+ years without blowing up.

If OSX didn't talk to me so seductively (curse you beautiful OS!) I probably would have reversed switched already but I honestly don't want any windows action as long as I can help it.

Don't forget gamers too, but Apple seems to hate gamers

But I agree with that since a lot of people love OS X, but there is a huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. A Core i7 w/ 6GB DDR3 RAM, big hard drive space, and a respectable video card would go a long way, even if you have to put a so called 'Apple Tax' on it.

 

[inkswamp]

But paradoxically, the greater the success, the greater it's personally meaningless to me if Apple are incapable of actually manufacturing something I want to buy.

I can relate and have said the same here, but I hope you're prepared to be shouted down. Seems a lot of folks don't want to acknowledge the obvious gaps and shortcomings in Apple's computer line. I see it. You see it. A lot of other people on other forums besides MacRumors see it too.

Guess we're just hallucinating or something, huh?

 

[seedster2]

I hate when Mac enthusiasts make these ridiculous car analogies. Apple computers are not the porsche, ferrari or BMW of the computer industry

Apple is doing well but when will they start investing in hardware instead of slick marketing? Desktops are stagnant and their followers willingness to dismiss any technology the undermines iTMS (BR) in notebooks is mystifying.

Funny how they refuse to give any breakdown of the App Store sales. Perhaps it will show half of the apps sold were shazaam and/or urbanspoon

Great numbers though. Imagine if they had subsidized the first phone, it would have sold really well

 

[iMaggot]

Wow, some good numbers

 

[arjen]

"Mix of portables/desktops affected by huge sales in the year-ago quarter due to iMac release; also a general shift in consumer buying habit"

Uhm what about customers declining willingness to purchase desktops which can by now be regarded as near obsolete? Let's face it; Mac Pro and Mini haven't been updated for quite a while!