Slashdot Mirror
Apple Reports Q1 Loss
Amsterdam Vallon writes "Apple recently reported an $8 million loss, its second straight loss, compared with a $38 million profit a year ago. It seems that upbeat laptop sales weren't enough to get this company out of the Wall Street basement. Hopefully, with increasing Mac OS X and wireless-related sales, we'll see a nice increase come next quarter and after that, perhaps a jaunt toward profitability!" The back was apparently tipped into the red with one-time restructuring losses, else there would have been a modest profit; Apple expects stagnant revenues for the near future.
Fair enough, they've spent a lot of money to get where they are. But from here on in, they should be able to save a fair bit. While having BSD as the core of MacOSX won't give them billion-dollar profits, it surely helps reduce OS-related software development costs.
And with these savings, they can spend time developing better, easier-to-use-for-the-whole-family apps. For example, their Powerpoint killer (whose name I have momentarily forgotten - argh!) and their iLife range (I think that was the name - I'm not a Mac user (can you tell?)).
Hopefully they can improve even further on the quality of their programs, because that's what the "Apple Experience" is all about.
Hell, I'd buy one except that in Australia, it costs me at least $2,500 to get the Mac-equivalent of my $1,200 home-built rig. Not to mention all of the PC games and stuff. But I digress.
Also, if Apple can work on the X-Windows side of things, perhaps they'll be used by big IT spenders to replace aging *NIX systems - another boon of the BSD lineage. Go MacOSX and go Apple!
This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
Who's got the whiteout?
Why aren't more people buying Macs (especially the slashdot crowd)?
Well, they are. Buying more Macs, that is. However, what you are essentially looking at is a split in the Slashdot crowd. Apple has created a rift in the *nix community - not a bad thing, IMHO, as rifts are encouraged in this kind of social dynamic.
This is a bit simplistic (and I'm sure some will let me know just how simplistic...) but here's how I see it:
Slashdot Reader #0 has been using UNIX for a while. Apple releases OS X. Reader #0 likes:
- *nix-like distro with BSD personality
- groovy interface
- the Support Fairy (i.e. having some)
- Mainstream apps (Photoshop, Office, a few big-name games, etc.)
- Apple's Open Source initiatives
- hi-quality integrated hardware that works seamlessly with OS
Slashdot Reader #1 has been using *nix or Windows for awhile. Apple releases OS X. Reader #1 hates:
- proprietary software (OSS be damned; if its 0wn3d by anyone, its bad. This is an arguable position)
- pseudo-proprietary hardware that is behind the bleeding edge of what you can build
- goofy interface
- premium pricing
- lack of games (because that's what they really want a 3.0Ghz PC for. Oh, you have a legitimate use? good for you. You are rare.)
- Apple, in general (possibly for past transgressions against them, possibly 'just 'cause)
(Of course, then there's me, Slashdot Reader #2: always used Macs, still use Macs, have a technical bent despite being a graphic designer, yet hangs out on Slashdot...)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
As a very longtime Mac user and technician, I'd have to agree. Apple was very late in finding alternative speed for their boxes when Motorola's problems appeared, and now they're paying for their dawdling.
Take a look at the new desktops. These systems have everything going for them in terms of speed EXCEPT the processors. A two-processor system should go like a bat out of hell, but the current crop matches, not excels, in speed tests with single-processor Macs of a comparable speed. The processors are bottlenecked. These new desktops were designed with faster or more efficient processors in mind, and they didn't come.
Apple is also experiencing the same problem that has plagued PC makers: Customers realize they DON'T have to upgrade to a whole new system. There's not a big reason to move to a new computer unless your Mac is beige. Also, unlike previous Macs, all Macs produced since the Blue & White have stronger upgrade options, so you could toss in a cheaper processor upgrade rather than buy a new box.
Apple is backed in a corner again. This time, its the economy and customer buying trends. Remember when Apple backed itself in a corner with mismanagement in the 1990s? I wouldn't count Apple out, especially since now a new processor with much stronger specfications may arrive later this year that will bring the Power Mac line back to comparable performance terms to its PC counterparts.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I don't know. It really seems like IDC has a bone to pick with apple. Read this cnet article and see. I'm not trusting IDC numbers when they seem that biased in interviews.
Also, that same IDC guy is predicting tablets to replace ultraportables in general, which will not happen.
Also according to IDC: "Apple Computer, the fifth-largest manufacturer in the United States, saw its U.S. market share rise from 2.9 percent to 3 percent in the fourth quarter."
Lies, damn lies, and statistics, I suppose.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Yes, that is a lot. where the money goes probably depends on where the restructuring is. I know they laid off close to 50% of the PowerSchool division, many of them executives. All of these people are getting 2 months severance pay. It wouldn't surprise me if a large chunk of that $20mil came just from the PowerSchool layoffs.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
They've got 4.4 BILLION (that's Billion, with a B) in the bank.
Somehow, I fail to be able to dredge up anything resembling panic for Apple's future.
Apple could probably support IBM's RS/6000 line as well as they have the same CPU. There it would only need added drivers.
But then again Apple might see this as eating into their hardware sales (or maybe not). Personally I think Sun and IBM are both perfect candidates to become Apple compatible vendors. It fits into their high-end chic image in a way that is much more corporate and would fit both sides.
That is cool.
The store near me (Palisades Mall, 45min outside of NYC) doesn't eeem to be doing so well.
That, plus the employees don't seem to "care" about the product much... as far as new releases etc (I was there the day the iBook 800 came out, and nobody knew what it was, or when they would be getting them).
Weird indeed.
When it comes to spending $1,500, people (at least me) don't enter the decision lightly -- I had to be sure that I knew what I was getting, and retail outlets are a good way for a non-dominant product to get its name out/make people feel more comfortable with the entire idea.
Frankly, I thought the iMacs (lamp-looking macs) looked pretty damn stupid online, but when I actually saw one, I was quite impressed.
Also, although I don't live in the states, the switch ads had a positive impact on my decision, as well -- reading the stories online encouraged me to give it a shot. (I program Solaris/Linux for a living).
Lastly, I'm pretty impressed with the system so far -- I haven't spent much time under the hood, but that's because I haven't really had to.
there is no thing
what else could you want?
I think all of these numbers may be wrong.
Recently, I read an interesting article about Apple's market share. A reporter kept seeing different numbers, so decided to do the calculations for himself.
Turns out it's more like 11.6%.
Don't believe me? You can read his analysis here.
That's more than 10 times the market share that Linux has.
Close, except that HD isn't losing US market share. Not in any significant way. An issue or two ago, Motorcycle Consumer News did their annual market share report. Don't have it on hand, but, like for years, they've been running neck and neck with Honda. Remove dirtbikes, and Harley is still the volume leader in the US.
Now, if you go back to ~1983, it was a much different situation. The management had just purchased HD back from AMF, and were in pretty deep. The Japanese were doing some incredible things to bikes, and Harley was in no way going to catch up. So, they got that free trade President, R. Reagan, to institute a tariff on all foreign motorcycles over... I think it was 700 CC's. Can't remember how long this lasted, but it was long enough for Harley to take exorbitant profits and do much R&D and retooling. Yup, they finally got five speed trannies and disk brakes all around. Luckily for the consumer, the over 700cc market wasn't totally HD. Honda was making Gold Wings in the US (Marysville, OH. Hmm. Seems I'm wearing my Honda Homecoming shirt today.) so they could avoid the tariffs. And subsequently released the GL-1500, the best touring bike for 15 years. If it cost $2000 more due to being produced overseas, perhaps it would have been left to obscurity, and all tourers would be riding FL's. Thankfully, the GL-1500 existed, to show the American consumer that there's more to touring than plunking down the Interstate at 55.
(Then BMW put the smack down with the K12LT, of which I am a proud owner, saying to Honda "Yeah, this is what refinement and handling are all about." Honda's response? "Yeah, here's the GL1800. This is what an extra 30 horsepower is all about." Where's Harley? Still soldiering along with a bike that wouldn't out compete the 1986 Goldwing, with no signs of replacement any time soon.)
Here's something to add to your comparison: Harley succeeds with style. Almost every other make is cheaper, handles better, stops better, and goes faster. But it has 'the look' that is so important to many people. Yes, others think it looks like crap, and would rather have the performance. Similarly, the iMac lacked speed, expandability, etc, but it had 'the look'. And who cares if it alienated people?
Alternatives to the HD include the Kawasaki Vulcan series, the Warrior line from Yamaha, and I forget what from Honda and Suzuki. All perform comparably (or better) than HD's offerings. All are built better (this based on recall information and online complaints by owners, as well as talking to folks in stores). They are cheaper. No, Harley sells because of 'the look'. You could compare the Polaris, Victory, cruiser to HD's offerings, but it is at least as expensive, doesn't have the look, and is not a significant threat to HD in any way. You could compare Excelsior Henderson, but, oops, they're dead. 'Indian' motorcycles is similar to Polaris, but until this year, didn't even have their own powerplant.
Basically, it's an interesting comparison, but I think you've missed (or just been too brief to demonstrate) the true similarities between the two companies.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Well, the IDC guy's pissy, to be sure, but he could be right. However, compare...
;-)
"Subnotebooks are clearly a declining category," said IDC analyst Roger Kay. "The subnotes may be revived by Tablet PC, but the PowerBook is not a tablet. Also, at $1,800, the price comparison to Windows products is not favorable to this. I don't think Apple will sell a lot of these."
In the WSJ, Walter Mossberg said precisely the opposite yesterday:
Despite Apple's reputation for costliness, this little laptop is aggressively priced. To match its base configuration, plus Wi-Fi, for $1,899, you'd have to pay a whopping $2,399 for a Portege 4010 at Toshiba's online store.
Taste in computers aside (Mossberg loves Apples), it's pretty hard to call oneself an "analyst" and make a $500 goof. Is Roger Kay a stock analyst?
I agree that this is probably a better gauge than IDG (or most groups claiming to know any given market share--as far as I've seen, they all have their flaws.) But bear in mind one important thing. A great deal of time spent surfing the web is done at work where the platform of choice is Wintel. Any Linux or Mac user (like me) who goes to work and might work on a Windows machine has a good deal of their web surfing time counted as a "Windows user." I think using Google's stats gives a more realistic picture, but I think the numbers for anything other than Windows is going to be slightly lower than it should be.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
It has nothing to do with reliability and everything to do with the fact that new models aren't significantly faster than those from 3-4 years ago. Dvorak used to talk about a "4x" rule for PC purchases.
--Posted from a 333Mhz PowerBook that I can't justify upgrading to a ~1Ghz model.
in other words, we had no clue when we started, but now we are close.
here is a hint from someone with years of retail manager experience...
2:1
sell:pay
that should get you ~7% net profit. this inludes rent, employees, insurance, utilities, shipping, warehouse etc etc etc.
"In an ecomonic downturn or uncertainty people defer the puchase of luxury goods. It's also well known that while they economize on the big items, they also splurge on cheap luxuries like cheesburgers or movies.
Apple computers are luxury goods compared to you barebones PC."
Hmmm, no, not exactly.
During economic downturns, people tend to buy luxury items because it is the only way to preserve their money from deflation (the bucks they've got in the bank are less valuable over the years), while that Cartier watch or golden necklace still represent the same value, because their price follows the inflation, and their second-hand real price (including inflation) is equal, if not higher, than the original price (collectioners, auctions, etc?)
Therefore this logic does not apply to computers; in 2, 3, 4 or 5 years your machine, even the top-notch powermac, will be obsolete; so it was a stupid investment if your goal was to preserve your money from inflation.