Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
theBB said:
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.

You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.

Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.

They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.

The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.

Apple has been the sleeping giant. They have made their mistakes, taken their lumps and paid their dues. After 20 years, I finally bought a Mac. That was mainly because my boss gave me ~ $15K to buy any personal technology I wanted (bonus type of deal). I was learning video production/editing and using the cheap PC stuff. To make a long story short, I can now boast the purchase of:

5 PM
16 iMac
28 Mini
2 PB

Those purchases are mainly within the past 18 months. Per our company's upgrade/expansion plan, I will not buy another Dell, but will add 28-32 Apples this year.

Switching is happening, even with the negative, false, disinformation posts on this site. The numbers will bear this our in the upcoming quarters. Apple at $54, Google @ $455, hmmm I wonder what I should invest in???
 
FearFactor47 said:
This is excellent. iPod sales are slowing down however this is to be expected. Nice to see the Mac sales well above the million mark.

iPod sales GROWTH is slowing, but iPod sales are still speeding up.

30% more than same quarter last year...
 
Demoman said:
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.

Vista will sell more copies in its first two weeks than Leopard in its first year. As several hundred thousand years of humanity have demonstrated, rhyme and reason matters little.

Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.

....and they still are. The anti-Apple and anti-Linux advertising games are defense, not offense.

They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.

No doubt, but I don't see businesses exactly fleeing in droves.

The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.

Sun's ailments are a lot more complicated than that, as are SGI's. Most of their problem is that their workstation prices make Apple's seem like bargain-bin deals.

Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).

Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
 
LastLine said:
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*

Interesting...

I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
 
kalisphoenix said:
Vista will sell more copies in its first two weeks than Leopard in its first year. As several hundred thousand years of humanity have demonstrated, rhyme and reason matters little.

I have doubts about this statement.

Leopard will be able to run on all macs from the past several years. Vista requires a relatively new machine.

Vista likely will cost much more than Leopard.

Most copies of Vista will be sold with new computers.

Steve has been saving the good stuff for Leopard. He's known for a long time that he needs to steal M$'s thunder with this release.
 
kalisphoenix said:
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).

Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.

This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)

I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
 
swingerofbirch said:
I believe Nokia and Microsoft have some sort of alliance.

Not quite. Yes, Nokia did announce a while ago that they will support MS's mobile-email-thingy. But that's it. Other than that, the two are more or less mortal enemies.
 
yac_moda said:
But he had previously NEVER appeared in public, too GODLY, he appeared in public so they saw that he was HUMAN !!!

Take it easy with the ALL CAPS and exclamation points!!!!!! And BTW: he had appeared in public before.

And more to the point: Why are we discussing the emperor of Japan?
 
Phobophobia said:
I have doubts about this statement.

Leopard will be able to run on all macs from the past several years. Vista requires a relatively new machine.

I doubt it. I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.
 
Demoman said:
Switching is happening, even with the negative, false, disinformation posts on this site. The numbers will bear this our in the upcoming quarters. Apple at $54, Google @ $455, hmmm I wonder what I should invest in???

You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.

And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
 
kalisphoenix said:
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy.

You do realize that you are full of crap? There is acautlly quite a bit work being done in order to unify various areas of Linux.

It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other)

Again: you do realize that you are full of crap? There are handful of distributions that matter, rest are more or lesss niche. The ones that matter are (IMO): Fedora/Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian and Gentoo. Of those, Ubuntu and Debian are quite compatible with each other.

9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).

Maybe they realized that "one size does NOT fit all"? Why should there be just WM, just one editor, just one browser, just one email-client etc. etc.?

Yes, Linux has several options to choose from. And is that a bad thing? Is it a good thing to cram some specific thing down users throatts without gicing them the option to choose? It has two primary GUI's (with several smaller ones floating around as well): GNOME and KDE. And while they are both GUI's, they are both sufficiently different that they do not overlap as much. They have different architecture behind them, different design-goals, different ideology... And they cater to different types of users. I have used both, and I can appreciate the strengths of either of them.
 
Lollypop said:
People dont want to download the source and compile it

What makes you think that you have to do that?

even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect.

have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?

The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)

What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
 
macnews said:
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
I think it'll be very awkward for Steve to announce the Mac Pros without a UB version of Photoshop being available, however I can't see CS3 being finished. However we know that Indesign is progressing well, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Chizen came on stage and announced the availability of time limited betas; assuming Adobe are willing to help Apple.

Now what should we spend that 9.5 billion on? ;)
 
itcheroni said:
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.

Stock-price is irrelevant, what matter is the market-capitalization. Quite often I see people comparing two companies and saying stuff like "Company A has a shareprice of $50, whereas Company B has a shareprice of $60. Therefore Company B is better".

I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
 
Evangelion said:
And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE.

I think this is the key - once Vista comes out what OEM will be able to continue selling PCs with XP installed? Even if Vista's hardware requirements were a Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, they'd build every PC with a minimum of a Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, because they can't afford not to be on the Vista bandwagon.
 
Evangelion said:
I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.

You are correct. Existing PCs will run Vista but without the Aqua-ripoff pretty interface. For the Aqua-ripoff (I refuse to call it anything else), that's where much more RAM and newer video cards come into play by necessity. So, essentially, you get two classes of Vista users (imagine having to write the "requirements" text for Windows software in the near-future; ugh), and a giant opportunity for the memory and video card companies, which are probably buying their magazine and Web banner ad space right now -- not that anybody should alert the media for such info.
 
Evangelion said:
What makes you think that you have to do that?



have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?



What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.

I have used Linux before, admit that I gave up with linux with Suse 9. The point I was trying to make with the package manager is that its not easy to go out and find something, every time you either have to find a package for your specific distribution or have it "built" for your distro. If you look at the way the mac works now I can drag the aduim icon to a remote drive, and from almost any machine that meets the basic specs I can then double click that app, even if its on a network drive, it will run, can you say the same for Linux?

By unification I meant giving a constant user experience with singal points of administration, management ect. Some of my previous sessions with linux the applications did not always fully adhere to guidelines that were set out by KDE, whatever theme i choose, it didnt adapt to it for example. I fully admit im not a linux guru, and that things very likely have changed, but my perception is that every distro comes with a boat load of software on the DVD or via download, if you want to get something thats not listed it becomes a bit more difficult. There is the issue of building your own kernel and then software for it but other than bulding the kernel i have no knowlede of any related issues.

The mac advantage is that its a bit easier to get, install and run applications than windows, and IMO linux as well. Thats a advantage apple should leverage and try and sell more if they are going to sell more machines and increase the market share of the entire platform.

I agree with kalisphoenix to an extent when he says that the linux people dont want a single unified distro, the linux crowd doesnt want a true singular unfied platform, why is there a few big distros out there after years of linux development, why are there so many niche ones, and why do linux users argue with others over their favorite distro? Diversity and flexability is one of the strenghts of Linux, its users know that, and having a single distro that does everything will counter that strength, they also know that.

Im not taking on linux, to the contrary I believe linux has a critical place, I personally believe that its diversity/flexibility is one of the reasons it hasnt concored the desktop market, (peolpe want the plain and simple windows thing, to much options makes it overly complex), diversity/flexibility is the same reason linux has concored the server market.
 
AppleInsider said:
"We're not sitting around doing nothing," Apple said about the prospect that mobile phones may soon emerge as very capable digital music players and challenge the iPod.

This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
 
Southernboy said:
I think it'll be very awkward for Steve to announce the Mac Pros without a UB version of Photoshop being available, however I can't see CS3 being finished. However we know that Indesign is progressing well, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Chizen came on stage and announced the availability of time limited betas; assuming Adobe are willing to help Apple.

I listened to most of the call and evidently missed this statement. I think it means that CS2, or Office, or Indesign will be out in some form. Probably as public Beta as you suggest. But, this is good news!

Market share increase is good news as well. It should happen, there are a lot of things positive about Apple computer now.
 
desktop sales...

If desktops sales are down 23%, is that revenue or units?

If it's revenue, then it's hardly surprising. If the most expensive models are essentially stalled waiting on new chips/new enclosures/new universal binary apps from Quark and Adobemedia, as backed up by reports that apple store staff in the last quarter have actually been advising punters NOT to buy the G5 towers, then actually that's pretty much as expected I'd have thought.

If new Mac Pro models are just around the corner then you'd expect a big leap for the 4th quarter. I, for one, am part of the higher spend pent-up demand sector. And don't forget, bureaux, design studios, architects, 3D motion design/modeller etcs have big budgets and if they pause on buying it is going to skew the Apple market. As everyone says, expect a big leap in the Desktop Pro market over the next two quarters.
 
MacFan782040 said:
IPod_sales_quarterly.png
Thanks MacFan. Interesting curve.
Will probably be leapt upon by iPod-haters as proof of the end of the world but just watch the Holiday sales quarter.... ;)
 
plinden said:
There are more details here - http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060719/sfw089.html?.v=60

At the end of the page is a breakdown in the sales figures.

Desktop sales are down 14% on last quarter, and 23% on a year ago, but laptop sales are up a whopping 60% on last quarter and 61% on a year ago.

Not surprising. They haven't released a replacement for the G5 tower, and people have been waiting for a faster laptop for 3+ years since they never had the G5 laptop.
 
generik said:
Made possible by paying 10c for each Mac constructed with a high quality and proficient workforce.

Works for me. I prefer it over the alternative of making it somewhere else and having prices that are even higher.

wealjays said:
Why dont you get the computer you want now and in 6 months shell out the extra few bucks for Leopard.

$129 ain't cheap, especially if it's not long after you shelled out for a computer. I wish Apple would announce a window of free OS upgrades for people buying computers after a certian date.

BornAgainMac said:
I bet at the Developer's conference that Adobe and Microsoft announce Universal Binaries for September.

Unlikely since Adobe has already announced for next spring. And that release is for both OSX and windows, not going to get pushed up much.

Apple Corps said:
No - they are actually losing market share.

They may be losing a little desktop market share (or maybe not), but they're probably gaining notebook market share, and market share overall.

yac_moda said:
Does anybody think the stock pricing in the last 3 days was insider trading that indicated the coming good results.

I hope not, since that could put them in jail. All publically traded companies have a blackout period before announcements where no employees are allowed to buy or sell.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.