Apple Reports Record $3.38 Billion Profit for Q1 2010 on Highest Revenue in History

G4er? said:
I would have loved to add to Apple's record sales but there still isn't a Mac mini tower! :mad:
Money burning a hole in my pocket and still no product I want to spend it on.
I recently wrote Apple a letter and got a canned response back. "We listen to our customers when developing new products." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Although everyone always thinks everyone else shares their wants and desires, most no one cares about a mid-sized apple tower other than the same 30 or 40 people who constantly whine about it on this forum. If there was sufficient demand, Apple would make it.
 
LagunaSol said:
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone threw the "Apple slave labor" card. Newsflash: almost everything you buy these days is made in China. Apple hardly has a monopoly on Chinese manufacturing. Take a look at your Zune, your Dell laptop, your Xbox 360. China. China. China. You think Stevie Ballmer is paying Chinese workers $15/hr with full dental? :rolleyes:

Try to refrain from making Chinese manufacturing another anti-Apple call to arms. Weak.
Click to expand...

Anti-Apple call to arms? huh? All I was saying is that cheap labor costs help add to the bottom line. Your right all of those other companies also make products in China it's just that Apple can get by with charging higher prices. The only difference between an Apple computer and a Dell is the OS, the styling and the logo. The guts of the machine are exactly the same. It's all generic PC parts on the inside.

G4er? said:
I would have loved to add to Apple's record sales but there still isn't a Mac mini tower! :mad:
Money burning a hole in my pocket and still no product I want to spend it on.
I recently wrote Apple a letter and got a canned response back. "We listen to our customers when developing new products." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There never will be a Mac mini or mid-level tower. There is no demand for it and it is not part of Apple's new strategy. In fact I think Apple would love to get rid of the Mac Pro, but there are a few professionals out there that would raise quite a fuss. The Mac Pro looks exactly like the PowerMac G5 that was introduced in 2003! They just are not interested in this market anymore. The iMac is the only desktop that fits in with their new strategy and the only one they are interested in selling. The Mac Pro is at best a niche business so I doubt they will be introducing any new towers.
 
Abercrombieboy said:
The only difference between an Apple computer and a Dell is the OS, the styling and the logo. The guts of the machine are exactly the same. It's all generic PC parts on the inside.
Click to expand...
The important difference is that the Apple computer is licensed to run Mac OS X and the Dell runs Windows (or possibly some obscure Linux variant).
 
John.B said:
The important difference is that the Apple computer is licensed to run Mac OS X and the Dell runs Windows (or possibly some obscure Linux variant).
Click to expand...

Your right, but what software is licensed to run on it does not change the fact it is the same inside as the Dell PC, yet commands a higher price. Going to a generic Intel x86 architecture was a great move for profitability. My guess is that Apple's engineering and production cost is lower today then it was back in the PowerPC days, however they have not had to lower prices.

I like my iMac and other Apple products, but I know I am paying an "Apple tax" for the brand. I guess as long as they can get people to pay it I don't blame them. Apple is popular enough right now they could probably raise prices to increase profitability and it would probably have little impact on their growth rate.
 
John.B said:
AT&T is paying Apple around US$600 for each iPhone, the customer is only paying US$200; the difference is made up (and then some) with monthly fees over the duration of the two-year contract.
Click to expand...

Yes, and everyone already knows that. Why do you think you're saying something original?

Even if there were competing wireless vendor options (there aren't), the customer cost wouldn't be US$200 any more. Not a perfect system, but the one that probably sells the most phones and two-year contracts. OBTW, most smartphones in the US are sold this way, it's not iPhone-specific.
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't cost $200 any more - it would cost $200 only for those wanting post paid mobile phones where as those who want prepaid mobile can purchase the phone out right as what Vodafone and Apple NZ offers to its kiwi customers and let the customer decide which carrier to go with.

Is it a revelation the idea of contract phones and the same phone being also offered to be bought outright off the carrier or through the local department store?
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Yes, and everyone already knows that. Why do you think you're saying something original?



Of course it wouldn't' cost $200 any more - it would cost $200 only for those wanting post paid mobile phones where as those who want prepaid mobile can purchase the phone out right as what Vodafone and Apple NZ offers to its kiwi customers and let the customer decide which carrier to go with.

Is it a revelation the idea of contract phones and the same phone being also offered to be bought outright off the carrier or through the local department store?
Click to expand...

Its cheaper getting phones at Telecom or 2degrees. Vodafone's "branding" can add a good $100+ onto the price tag.
 
MorphingDragon said:
Its cheaper getting phones at Telecom or 2degrees. Vodafone's "branding" can add a good $100+ onto the price tag.
Click to expand...

Or just buy it off a parallel importer - all you have to do is check the frequencies supported :) For me I never got the expensive mobile phones - I've got the el-cheapo Telecom R6 (rebranded ZTE mobile phone) which works for me - hence I've never been able to understand the attraction to the iPhone given its price tag and limited storage when one considers that I have 165GB worth of music.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Or just buy it off a parallel importer - all you have to do is check the frequencies supported :) For me I never got the expensive mobile phones - I've got the el-cheapo Telecom R6 (rebranded ZTE mobile phone) which works for me - hence I've never been able to understand the attraction to the iPhone given its price tag and limited storage when one considers that I have 165GB worth of music.
Click to expand...

Apps Apps Apps and more Apps.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Yes, and everyone already knows that. Why do you think you're saying something original?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that paying US$600 for a smartphone, plus the cost of a full tilt contract, is advantageous. I was under the impression that NZ had some of the highest smartphone data rates. Is that what your choice of carriers amounts to? You also realize the only other national 3G GSM carrier in the US (T-Mobile) operates on a band that's incompatible with the radio hardware in the 3G/3GS iPhone? And that means you only get EDGE data speeds? You can't just wish away technical limitations like that...
 
John.B said:
Why do you think that paying US$600 for a smartphone, plus the cost of a full tilt contract, is advantageous.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about that - if you want a subsidised phone, you can sign up for it - the $200 phone won't magically disappear if they allowed people to purchase it outright and move it to another carrier. Have you even looked at the Vodafone pricing? For a 32GB 3GS:

http://www.vodafone.co.nz/iphone/32gb-iphone-3gs.jsp

Want to purchase the handset no strings attached? NZ$1379.00

Want it cheaper and on a contract?

24 Month contract, $130 per month, NZ$399.00

So you do have choice - do you want to buy it out or put it on a contract. I don't do contract, I do prepaid - there are a large number of people in New Zealand who have prepaid as well and don't want to miss out on the latest and greatest gadget by carriers who deem it 'only for contract customers'.

I was under the impression that NZ had some of the highest smartphone data rates.
Click to expand...

Contract:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobilebroadband/plansandpricing/monthly

Prepaid:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobilebroadband/plansandpricing/prepaid

It was never designed to replace fixed line - oh, and the so-called 'flat rate' plans in the US by mobile phone carriers is a load of bullcrap - how can you claim 'flat rate' then tag on the end '2GB'? Obviously if you're selling it in GB blocks it isn't flat rate!

Is that what your choice of carriers amounts to? You also realize the only other national 3G GSM carrier in the US (T-Mobile) operates on a band that's incompatible with the radio hardware in the 3G/3GS iPhone? And that means you only get EDGE data speeds? You can't just wish away technical limitations like that...
Click to expand...

In New Zealand there is: Telecom NZ, 2 Degrees, Vodafone and Telstra. For a population of 4 million - thats no half bad and better coverage than the horrid network that exists in the US right now - oh, and the carriers in NZ don't anal rape the the sender and receiver of phone calls and text messaging as they do in the US; in New Zealand only the sender pays for the calls - as it bloody well should be.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Who said anything about that - if you want a subsidised phone, you can sign up for it - the $200 phone won't magically disappear if they allowed people to purchase it outright and move it to another carrier. Have you even looked at the Vodafone pricing? For a 32GB 3GS:

http://www.vodafone.co.nz/iphone/32gb-iphone-3gs.jsp

Want to purchase the handset no strings attached? NZ$1379.00

Want it cheaper and on a contract?

24 Month contract, $130 per month, NZ$399.00

So you do have choice - do you want to buy it out or put it on a contract. I don't do contract, I do prepaid - there are a large number of people in New Zealand who have prepaid as well and don't want to miss out on the latest and greatest gadget by carriers who deem it 'only for contract customers'.



Contract:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobilebroadband/plansandpricing/monthly

Prepaid:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobilebroadband/plansandpricing/prepaid

It was never designed to replace fixed line - oh, and the so-called 'flat rate' plans in the US by mobile phone carriers is a load of bullcrap - how can you claim 'flat rate' then tag on the end '2GB'? Obviously if you're selling it in GB blocks it isn't flat rate!



In New Zealand there is: Telecom NZ, 2 Degrees, Vodafone and Telstra. For a population of 4 million - thats no half bad and better coverage than the horrid network that exists in the US right now - oh, and the carriers in NZ don't anal rape the the sender and receiver of phone calls and text messaging as they do in the US; in New Zealand only the sender pays for the calls - as it bloody well should be.
Click to expand...

2degrees data is even cheaper.

No its skull !@#$ in technology terms, get it right mate. :rolleyes:

MTR problems is a small bump in the road compared to America lol.
Yes I've been to America.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
It was never designed to replace fixed line
Click to expand...
Why not? Why would I want to pay for a land line I'm rarely there to use?

macintoshtoffy said:
- oh, and the so-called 'flat rate' plans in the US by mobile phone carriers is a load of bullcrap - how can you claim 'flat rate' then tag on the end '2GB'? Obviously if you're selling it in GB blocks it isn't flat rate!
Click to expand...
The "soft cap" is 5GB/month; I have yet to get to 1GB in a month. YMMV.

macintoshtoffy said:
In New Zealand there is: Telecom NZ, 2 Degrees, Vodafone and Telstra. For a population of 4 million - thats no half bad and better coverage than the horrid network that exists in the US right now
Click to expand...
Because rolling out a 3G network on a small (albeit, beautiful) island nation is the same as doing the same for the third largest country in the world? IIRC, the difference in land area is 35 times, with 300 million more potential customers...

And yet, from what I can tell from the Vodafone NZ coverage map it doesn't seem like there is a ton of iPhone 3G coverage on either island.
 
John.B said:
Why not? Why would I want to pay for a land line I'm rarely there to use?
Click to expand...

I believe a german company has the answer you're looking for.





John.B said:
Because rolling out a 3G network on a small (albeit, beautiful) island nation is the same as doing the same for the third largest country in the world? IIRC, the difference in land area is 35 times, with 300 million more potential customers...
Click to expand...

We only get 3G in the Major Cities. Plus isn't ATT and Verizon already 35 times bigger than Vodafone NZ ever will?
 
ericinboston said:
2)OSX, my friend, is a software application. More accurately, OSX is an Operating System (a subset of "software application").
Click to expand...
Sorry, but OS is OS, not application. In the PC industry, we have countless application software house, but only a handful of OS house.

Does Sony has the portfolio of OS X, OS X server and other applications like Apple has?

Does Sony sell something like Xserv to the IT department of enterprises?

Does Sony provide its customers mail, calender client/server software and the MobileMe cloud service?

3)IT stands for Information Technology.
Click to expand...
You never read anything about Apple in all those IT publications?
 
MorphingDragon said:
2degrees data is even cheaper.
Click to expand...

Nope it isn't:

http://www.2degreesmobile.co.nz/pricing

50cents per megabyte or with Telecom NZ I can pay $1 for 10MB, or $29.95 for 500MB.

No its skull !@#$ in technology terms, get it right mate. :rolleyes:

MTR problems is a small bump in the road compared to America lol.
Yes I've been to America.
Click to expand...

Yeap, unfortunately when you consider the ridiculous laws in place that prohibit gradual role outs because of this fictional excuse of, "we don't want technology ghettos", so what do the telecom carriers do? milk the infrastructure for all its worth until its almost collapsed under its own weight and then it makes the decision to upgrade - when they really, really, really have to.

John.B said:
Why not? Why would I want to pay for a land line I'm rarely there to use?
Click to expand...

Then you're the exception rather than the rule. If you want 2GB plan with Telecom NZ then you'd use the NZ$49.95, US$33 per month (I've taken off the GST) - I would hardly call that excessive (On a 24 month contract).

The "soft cap" is 5GB/month; I have yet to get to 1GB in a month. YMMV.
Click to expand...

But there is still a limit placed on it - it isn't as though you can go out and buy the 5GB plan and download, like I did last month, 139GB without a strongly worded email from the company.

Because rolling out a 3G network on a small (albeit, beautiful) island nation is the same as doing the same for the third largest country in the world? IIRC, the difference in land area is 35 times, with 300 million more potential customers...
Click to expand...

America is also richer by way of higher GDP percapita, with larger companies, more money - if anything New Zealand should be struggling to keep up given the dire economic situation relatively to the OECD.

And yet, from what I can tell from the Vodafone NZ coverage map it doesn't seem like there is a ton of iPhone 3G coverage on either island.
Click to expand...

Vodafone has always been pretty crappy - I prefer Telecom NZ and where I live scooting between Upper Hutt and Wellington I am able to maintain a 3G connection on the train whilst surfing the net on my laptop without any problems. I haven't tested it personally outside of Wellington but my old man has used his mobile up in Kaikohe (at the top of the North Island) and said it was fast and reliable - so even in the wop-wops it works well.

MorphingDragon said:
We only get 3G in the Major Cities. Plus isn't ATT and Verizon already 35 times bigger than Vodafone NZ ever will?
Click to expand...

Yeap, and that is the reason why there shouldn't be any reason for the massive lag with the role out; larger companies, bigger budgets, more money and customers with higher disposable income than in NZ.
 
Abercrombieboy said:
There never will be a Mac mini or mid-level tower. There is no demand for it and it is not part of Apple's new strategy. In fact I think Apple would love to get rid of the Mac Pro, but there are a few professionals out there that would raise quite a fuss. The Mac Pro looks exactly like the PowerMac G5 that was introduced in 2003! They just are not interested in this market anymore. The iMac is the only desktop that fits in with their new strategy and the only one they are interested in selling. The Mac Pro is at best a niche business so I doubt they will be introducing any new towers.
Click to expand...

So I guess Apple no longer cares about its long time repeat buyers. That sounds like a good attitude to have. Sure it has lots of new first time buyers now but what happens in the future? All of those people become long time repeat buyers. Will Apple again not care about what they want? Sounds like a heck of a business plan.
"Apple. Where we only care about you now."
"Apple. Where you only matter once."
"Apple. Repeat buyers need not apply."
 
G4er? said:
Sounds like a heck of a business plan.
"Apple. Where we only care about you now."
"Apple. Where you only matter once."
"Apple. Repeat buyers need not apply."
Click to expand...
Amazing! That's EXACTLY the way this went down in the :apple: boardroom! (In your mind...)
 
John.B said:
Amazing! That's EXACTLY the way this went down in the :apple: boardroom! (In your mind...)
Click to expand...

Apple asks: "Which Mac are you?"
My reply: "The one they won't make."

If Apple can show me the current Mac that meets my needs I'll buy it. In the past I bought Apple computers because of the features they had. Today I'm not buying them because of the features they lack. That sends a pretty strong message to me.
 
Speedy2 said:
Taking the IPO as start date is a decision just as random as picking any other date. So your argument falls flat entirely.

If you compare two stocks, you ALWAYS have to pick SOME DATES, and it's ALWAYS an extremely easy way to make one stock look bad and another one good. In your case, you chose the IPO date to make MSFT look better than AAPL, which is exactly the sort of trickery you accuse others of.

It lies in the eye of the beholder, which start/end dates for a stock comparison you consider more relevant than others. However, it is a consensus that more recent numbers are more significant than numbers that are 20+ years old
Click to expand...

You can't be that retarded can you?

you can do the math yourself.

Since it's IPO in 1980 (to current date) apple's return on shareholder investment has been under 10,000 %

Since it's IPO in 1986 (to current date) microsofts return on shareholder investment has been just under 30,000 %

I wonder what people think is the better investment, the one that returns under 10,000% (apple)or the one that returns 20,000% more.(microsoft)
 
flottenheimer said:
Found this rather interesting user comment on WinSupersite...

daveinla said:
To put things in perspective:

Microsoft has approximately $14 billion revenue per quarter, and $ 5 billion in profit..., 93000 employees.

Apple: $15.7 billion revenue, 35000 employees...
Click to expand...

actually MSFT's revenue are 19 billion, and profit of 6.6 billion,

while apple has a profit of 3.3 Billion, half of microsofts. (and this is after apple has it's best quarter ever)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top