![iMac iMac](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapimac.gif)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Apple Apple](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/apple_64.png)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
Apple Confirms G5 Based iMac to Ship in September 638
evn writes "Apple Insider and Yahoo News are carrying stories about Apple's 3rd quarter report including confirmation of a G5 iMac during Apple's webcast conference call to discuss the filing: 'IBM's manufacturing problems have also impacted our next generation iMac. We normally don't talk about unannounced products but we feel you need to know about the current situation. The new iMac is based on the G5 processor. We could not secure the necessary supply of G5 processors to launch our new iMac on schedule: and as we indicated a few weeks ago, we now plan to announce and ship it in september.' Apple made $61 million dollars profit on $2.01 billion dollars in Q3/04 and had the highest CPU shipments in three and a half years."
Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:3, Interesting)
I had to read the head line several times. Clearly something has happened to Steve Jobs to make him so...considerate.
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, what did they pre-announce? I think we all guessed that the iMac would be back and it would have a G5 in it. It's not an announcment, really, until we can see how they've changed the DVD Lamp's looks to match its new guts. I mean, this is Apple after all. No product is announced until there's a Quicktime 3D walkaround for it.
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Informative)
http://oldcomputers.net/osborne.html [oldcomputers.net]
For a bit more on "Osborne"
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you'll notice when Company X announces a new product, their stock price rises. When Apple announces a new product, their stock promptly falls. This is because Apple is actually an anti-company.
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about some customer relations engine then? Like giving a good discount to people who are stranded without a computer they want and are willing to preorder and wait?
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not willing to *pay* $125 to be tied to a desk, are you? Maybe a few people would be willing to pay the extra for the larger, but same resolution, LCD. Personally I think the portability and $125 are worth the 3" though.
I think this probably had quite bit of influence on Apple's decision to discontinue the G4 iMacs so long before their replacements are available - the iBooks undercutting the iMacs like that couldn't have been good for sales.
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:3, Funny)
I have to think it all started when Bing Crosby did a duet with David Bowie all those years ago.
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:3, Funny)
Doom 3 release imminent; Eurasia ruled by antichrist [slashdot.org]
My memory of revelations is weak; which is supposed to come next: The Twelve Riders of The Apocalopse or Duke Nukem 3?
Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? (Score:5, Funny)
Apple made $61 million dollars profit on $2.01 billion dollars in Q3/04
Public service announcement follows: If you put the dollar sign in front of a number, eg: $2, this is pronounced as "two dollars". If you then place the word dollars after it, eg: $2 dollars, this is pronounced as "two dollars dollars". Either have the dollar sign or have the word dollars, but don't have both.
This public service announcement brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Good for Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better for us... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better for us... (Score:5, Informative)
The G3 All-In-One [lowendmac.com] basically became the iMac.
The 20th Anniversary Macintosh [lowendmac.com] could also be thought of as a relative of the modern LCD-equipped iMac.
Others to look at would be the Performa/Power Mac 5000 series.
Apple's been making all-in-ones since long before the iMac. The first Macintosh systems were AiO models.
Off just a bit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has the Macintosh and Centris / Performa lines throughout the 68k era. Macintoshes with the Power PC chip were called Power Macintoshes. They still came in at least four flavors- slim desktop, desktop, all in one, minitower.
Powermacs were always expandable. Performas were always limited- but most of 'em had slots of some kind. It's only with the advent of
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
remarkable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Definitely get what you pay for (Score:5, Interesting)
"Its amazing how shallow their profit margins are, even with the common perception that "Apple is price-gouging" and whatnot."
I wonder if it's more a situation where Apple took a lot of one-time charges against a good fiscal period. Minimize taxes while simultaneously "expensing while the expensing's good".
Re: the common perception of "price gouging" (not yours of course), today yet again my Gateway wintel box crapped out. 4th time in 3.5 years. Hardware failure. The Dell next to it crapped out a few months earlier. 3rd time in 1.5 years. Meanwhile my 1999 PowerMac G4 and 1995 PowerMac 7600 have chugged along without a hitch to this day.
Those rock-bottom priced consumer PCs are no bargain at all. Good components cost $$$, and on average you get what you pay for.
And yes, I realize there are quality Intel/AMD boxes out there. They also cost a good bit more than your average Dell consumer bargain box.
Re:Definitely get what you pay for (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Definitely get what you pay for (Score:3, Funny)
Some months are more than 28 days...
Cooling (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cooling (Score:5, Informative)
Question from Steve Malinivich: "To continue on the PPC issue, there's been some suggestion on the web that you have a heating issue with iMac as well, are you saying that's not at all the problem and that its purely the availability of microprocessors?"
Answer: "Steve: The processor is the most critical factor."
They don't say that heat is not an issue at all, but they clearly state that processor supply is, as you say, at the heart. Once can easily see that heating, while perhaps a concern, is not what's causing the delay.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Candid (Score:5, Interesting)
What's causing this newfound openness?
Re:Candid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Candid (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically their planning didn't work out and they had to do something, this was probably their best option.
So, in a way, their hand was forced (IMHO).
Hopefully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been said many, MANY times before: Apple does not drop prices. Apple likes the price points they set. Rather than sell "last year's" model, they just add more to the current line. This keeps things simple, inventories low, and margins high.
Bottome Line: If you want an iBook/iMac/PowerBook/PowerMac/Xserve, then save your money for the corresponding price point or look on eBay.
Bad luck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad luck. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:or just.... (Score:4, Interesting)
But more importantly it takes the expertise to come up with a cutting edge process.
It's not like Apple could have a fab built and just start running chips off.. like they were silk screening t-shirts or something.
Re:or just.... (Score:5, Informative)
Motorola and IBM own the PowerPC architechture. It was jointly developed. Apple did have some say in the design, but nothing significant.
Apple will never get into the chip design and manufactureing bussiness. It is well beyond their expertise. In much the same way that building a spaceship is beyond Apple's expertise.
Part of Apple's problems with the PowerPC and Motorola was because Apple was not a big enough customer. When the PowerPC workstation market failed to take off Motorola became more interested in the embedded processor PowerPC lines then workstation processors. Over a decade ago the theory was that IBM, Apple, and other companies would want to make workstations and servers with the PowerPC chip that Motorola would make. It was hoped that there would be enough smaller manufacturers and demand for the PowerPC to keep prices down. Of the three companies only Apple relied on the PowerPC. IBM was making workstations with both Intel, and PowerPC. Motorola had many other bussiness lines. When the other computer makers did not show up there wasn't enough demand for faster PowerPCs to keep Motorola interested. IBM made a number of machines based on the PowerPC but eventually lost interest when it was clear that WinNT 4.0 on Intel was going to win on the workstation.
It is easy to look back now and say that Apple made a mistake. But at the time the situation wasn't clear. Intel was having a hard time with what would become the Pentium. There was alot of doom and gloom that the i386 architecture could not scale. MS wasn't not yet entrenched on the desktop. MS had also said that their workstation/server OS, WinNT, would be ported to PowerPC, along with Alpha, MIPS, and Intel[1]. PowerPC really did look like the way of the future. It is a shame PowerPC didn't catch on. It is a great architechture.
[1] The Windows NT kernel is actually quite nice, and was designed with portability in mind. Windows NT 4.0 supported Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS and Intel. Alpha support survived to ServicePack 6. PowerPC and MIPS support was dropped earlier.
neXtBox chips? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe it's some machevellian plot whereby MS is paying IBM big $$ to stockpile chips for them, hence reducing Apple's supply?
Or am I totally off track and neXtBox chips are fabbed at a different plant?
*NB: There's no way I'm calling it XBox2, because MS are never going to have an *2 competing with a *3 (e.g. PS3).
Re:neXtBox chips? (Score:5, Interesting)
All this means that there are many G5s being made and sold. This means volume which means two things. First it means that any early bugs get worked out faster (and probably almost completely by the time the next XBox comes out). Second (and more importantly) it means bigger volume discounts, faster. If only MS is ordering the chips, then only 100,000 get made per year (for example). If MS and Apple are ordering the chips, then 1,100,000 are made per year (again, example). Way more volume discount.
It also means that production would be higher. If only MS bought chips and the supply was short, MS would be short on XBoxes. With Apple also buying the same chip (assume they do), then if the supply drops MS can outbid Apple to buy the chips and keep XBoxes on the shelf (even if they take a profit hit temporarily, that's better than no profit).
That's my theories on it. If anything, I think Microsoft would love having other people buying the same line of chips.
Re:neXtBox chips? (Score:3, Funny)
XBoX NeXT
Re:Aren't all the console chips from IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I know, MS will be using a near-standard PowerPC chip in the XBox (like the original XBox chip was a standard x86 jobbie). Not sure if it's actually a G5, but it would make sense for it to be.
I imagine MS would ask for (as opposed to actually sell) an order of magnitute more volume from IBM than Apple uses. Question is, if IBM had trouble supplying Apple, how can they supply MS?
Summer of 2004 a big one for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
As for September G5 iMacs, there was some blurb about them being able to hang on the wall. Apple's new 20", 23", and 30" displays [apple.com] can (see "Mounting Kit"). Wonder if this is a mixed up rumor or for real.
It would appear, as Apple's PowerMac line is all Dual G5, that some capacity has increased and it would follow that the iMac line will all be single processor.
Getting Excited (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, what I'm really waiting for (along with half of Slashdot probably) is the G5 PowerBook. My old laptop (a 900mhz PIII) is starting to show it's age and I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. I'd be happy even if the processor was only 1.4 ghz, that would be more than fast enough for me. The other thing I'd like would be an integrated media slot (to take SD cards, maybe memory sticks, or CF) as many notebooks seem to have these days.
So my question to the great and knowledgeable (don't snicker) Slashdot masses is: when do you think we might see a G5 laptop from Apple?
Personally, my expectation is that it will be announced sometime around X-Mas (possibly January).
I think that with lower clockspeeds (and the improvements that may show up by then) it should be possible to put a G5 in a laptop. I would REALLY like one, but I'm not sure I can hold out that long. If not, I'll buy a G4. I'm not sure I can hold out untill this time next year.
So knowledgeable /.ers, what do you think would be the most likely timeframe for a G5 based laptop from Apple?
Re:Getting Excited (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple notebooks come with FireWire/IEEE and USB ports. With those (and a cable) you can connect whatever camera or other 'card' device you are using and transfer your data over. Much better because you don't end up wasting space, design time, or manufacturing dollars on useles slots.
I have a PowerBookG4 400 (ist gen) and am responsible for an Xserve G5 at work. I can tell you that there is no way you are getting the current generation G5 chip in the same slender sub-1"-including-screen notebook formfactor. Of course Apple is working on this but it must be HARD because just the chip/heatsink is thicker than my notebook so they would have to reduce the height by at least 50% if not more.
The current G4 PowerBooks are great. Well worth a trip to an Apple reseller if you haven't seen in person. They use the same screen as the iMac so it is MUCh better than the screen on my Ti PowerBook G4. A word of advice, there aren't even the first rumors of a G5 notebook and even when they are announced, they well may follow previous Apple releases and not actually ship for another 30-60-90 days. I wouldn't expect Santa to be delivering a portable G5 this Christmas.
Re:Getting Excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's why this doesn't matter at all. If you've ever spent any time shopping for a computer, you'll notice that prices on existing models always drop, and new exciting models are always around the corner. It never ends.
Either you can wait for a new computer, or you can't. You'll go crazy trying to dig for rumors and hints as to when model XYZ with the 5 terawooble whosie-whatsis will be released, instead of the 4 terawooble that's available now. Gotta have the 5! I just gotta!
But really, you don't. If you have urgent important money-making work that needs doing now, buy something now. You can sell it later when a newer model comes out that's so much better that it's worth the switch. It's not like you're going to church and declaring your lifelong pledge to use this and only this computer so long as you both shall live.
If you don't need something today, then why are you in such a hurry to buy the latest-greatest? The top end product always carries a price premium, and quite often has availability problems. You're just setting yourself up to pay extra for something you don't need.
Most vendors let you return the computer within a few days if there's a new model announcement right then, or at least they'll price-protect you if you complain enough (i.e. you get the lower price under the new model lineup, so they refund you the difference).
It's not 64 more megahertz. (Score:3, Interesting)
G5 at least 6-12 months + 2 product generations (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the rumor rags, IBM just got a low power version of the G5 going 3-4 weeks ago. So, assuming that Apple can crank out a power book by years end, would you want to get a first generation product?
I thought about this, and figure it will be at least 12-18 months before there is a chance of a Powerbook that I would want to purchase.
I bit the bullet, and hit the Apple store. Picked up a 15" 1.5GHz powerbook, 5400RPM hard disk, 1GB RAM, 128MB video RAM.
Completely happy with it. Have not turned my PC back on since I copied my data files from it.
Moral to the story: If you want the computer, and have the cash, buy the thing. You will probably purchase a new machine in 18 months anyway.
What would be cool is if Apple made an iMac.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a story here on Slashdot about how some poor areas in Africa were getting 4 headed PCs running some *nix variant. (4 monitors, 4 sets of keyboards and mice, 1 CPU/box)
If Apple could allow people to use their own monitors and produce a headless iMac that allows wireless keyboard and mice to hook up to it (yeah. I know it would need at least 2 video cards and not the onboard, built in type Apple's consumer line always seems to have) then that would be a great product. OSX would have to be able to handle this, if not now, why not?
Think about it, it would reduce the price of the computer for families. Maybe people couldn't play Doom 3 together...or....could they with a g5 and the right hardware? But hey, it would
be cool and even at plus 1000bucks it would be cheap for the end user.
Just a thought..
Re:What would be cool is if Apple made an iMac.... (Score:5, Informative)
No need for Linux to do that, you can already run an X-Windows server under Mac OS X and do the same deal as you would with Linux. I've done remote connections using just this setup and it works perfectly.
Anyone know what it looks like? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apples Profits (Score:5, Interesting)
The second market is art. When it comes to digital photography, the number one computer I hear reccomended is the iMac. Digital Photography is not a huge market but it is a growing one, combine that with Mac's iLife suite, iMovie and final cut pro.
iTunes, the iPod, marketing to education and towards the arts are in my opinion, a solid footing that despite "low earnings" will keep Mac around for some time.
iPod the gateway to future mac users? (Score:4, Interesting)
If by "other products", you mean the iPod mini or iTunes, sure, but otherwise, I'm just not sure about that. The iPod is a digital jukebox that ended up catering to Windows users for the sake of market dominance. Windows users who come to the ipod are not forced to unlearn old habits, or give up a selection of software for the sake of having a superior MP3/AAC player, but that's exactly what you have to do if you convert to Mac. Many of my Mac friends came from a broken Windows home, and migrated because of the simplicity and stability. Generally speaking, "stability" and "simplicity" or anything else like that aren't really big issues with things like MP3 players, since most MP3 players are created equal. Not Mac bashing at all, (very happy with my iMac
In any event, I'll have a new Mac to lust over for the next few months, which is just what I needed. After all, idle hands inadvertently install Windows ME, and you know how much God hates that.
Re:iPod the gateway to future mac users? (Score:5, Interesting)
Switched, due to iPod (Score:3, Interesting)
Got an ipod in February. It's simplicity made sense, and I thought that PC devices should be more like it. In fact, my "pc sense" of "gee, new device, lemme get the new drivers before I use it" messed up my first installation.
I had been mulling over getting a Mac since that purchase, and finally bit the bullet and got it last weekend.
Essentia
Please, Apple, make a no monitor option available (Score:3, Insightful)
Its nice to see them coming out with one for September. I have a P3 based system and, frankly, the new Intel and AMD lines, IMO are nothing to drool over unless you play games. Processors nowadays are so powerful that applications and the OS dictate what *you* want to do with the computer.
Windows doesn't have the versatility I would like in an OS and is too slow to come out with features. Linux -despite being fairly computer literate- is too hard for me to setup for desktop use. I'm really looking forward to see what price range Apple wants to price their iMacs at.
Well, that's one of the things you pay for Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
What you REALLY want is a consumer desktop/small tower. I know many, many Mac users who have been asking for the same thing for a long time. Your choices with Apple are either an consumer level all-in-one, or a workstation level tower. Those are both fine, but I do know many like you that would like a lower end tower (smaller case, less CPU, no PCI-X, etc).
However, choice is one of the things you sacrafice going to Macs. Their philsophy since, well, as long as I can remember has been they design the whole system, hardware and software, and present the package to the consumer. Means a limited number of choices in packages.
I don't find it likely Apple will change their lineup or their bussiness strategy so no, you probably won't see a no monitor iMac. If the issue is price, not space, you might want to look at buying an old G4 tower, they still sell those. At this point, the enter at about the same pricepoint as the iMac, but with no monitor (better internals though).
Sure thing, coming right up... (reprise) (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely. And something that'll be nice about the version without a monitor is that you'll have some extra expansion options. Looks like a nice machine.
There's a picture right here [apple.com].
shipping more (Score:5, Insightful)
This from a maclover, so please don't kill me or something.
Re:shipping more (Score:3, Insightful)
They are talking about units, as in complete systems, not as in the processors.
Look over this [apple.com] pdf document for more information.
Basically they shipped around 876,000 units which is as they said is the best shipment volume in a few years for a given quarter.
Re:shipping more (Score:3, Funny)
p.s. it's supposed to be funny damnit... not a troll.
Apple confirms... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Apple confirms... (Score:3, Funny)
61m profit on 2bil sales? (Score:3, Interesting)
Beleaguered my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell here (Score:4, Funny)
Here's my guess on the new iMac. (Score:5, Interesting)
It will have bluetooth built in so it will sync with wireless mouse and keyboard, but the monitor will not be wired to the box. Monitor will also have a built in trackpad.
User input will be sent (via airport-like dingus) to the box, and video will be sent back to monitor in the same manner.
You'll be able to take the monitor (via built in handle) to your couch and surf wirelessly.
Monitor sets into the base station (box) to get charged and become a sharp looking desktop machine.
Monitor might be able to travel and connect to other macs wirelessly (eg: log into an wifi-equipped laptop).
Ok, that's my dream. Make it happen.
Re:Here's my guess on the new iMac. (Score:4, Insightful)
20" Monitor does 1680x1050 at 24 bit color. That means that the whole screen estate is at about 5MB in size. Let's be fair, and say that the screen's refresh rate is at only 50Hz. That means that you need to trasfer to the screen about 250MB/s, or, 2GBit per second. Yes, you need a 2GBps wireless link. So, yes, you can continue dreaming. Didn't wanna wake you up there.
iMac G5 is nice, but so is 13000 Xserves (Score:5, Interesting)
A good 40% of those Xserves were destined for clusters too.
Macs Are Expensive (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a $50K Lamborghini expensive? Certainly, it costs more than a KIA
Is a $20 fillet mignon expensive? After all you can get a T-Bone for much less
Is a $200 diamond expensive if you can get cubic zirconia for $100?
Isn't expensiveness relative to what you actually getting? It's shown over an over that Apple hardware can have a good price/performance/feature ratios. One just need to find comparable laptops or desktops to Powerbooks/iBooks or PM G5 to see the value. Okay, so they need to work on the iMac line. But one should not compare Macs to $200 piece of junk since Apple doesn't make low quality computers.
Re:Macs Are Expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is with the initial outlay, and that there are no third-party/cheaper alternatives.
Although I've not really used a Mac (and definitaly not since waaay before MacOS X), they do look a whole lot better than Windows PCs. However even though a mac is probably better value for money, the inital cost is currently outside my (and others') price-range.
I think that's why people do go on about the price. There are probably many of us out here who'd dearly love to give a Mac a try. But the cost of the unit is too much.
(Yes, I know it's possible to buy on credit. But certainly for me I'd rather not buy on credit what I couldn't pay for quickly anyway.)
Although cheaper computers are rarely as good value for money, having a much cheaper entry-level machine can be what gets people interested/hooked. Apple, going more for the luxury market, have opted not to go that route. That's up to them, but it doesn't mean that there won't always be people who wish that a cheaper Mac didn't exist. (Especially as Windows-dissatisfaction slowly rises)
TiggsRe:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally if a company is continually making profits, they can keep things up for oh... just about forever.
What makes you think this is a BAD thing for Apple?
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:3, Informative)
And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Insightful)
What R&D exactly? Did it cost them $70M to make a bunch of cheap parts overseas, throw them in a black case, and slap DELL on it?
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Insightful)
> about any other tech company. $61million in profits can
> barely drive R&D for a company like Dell or Gateway.
>
> Any thoughts on how long apple can keep up results this
> mediocre?
Well with nearly $5billion cash on hand, and making profits... that means they'll be down to $zero in...
no, you tell me. you do the math. $5billion plus a positive number, repeatedly, and tell me when you get to zero.
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:3, Funny)
Dell R&D!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dell has a minuscule R&D budget. Dell is pretty much an Intel Distributor and leaves Innovations to Intel
This is a good strategy for them but somewhat of a problem for the Industry as the competitors needs to follow this route to maintain market share.
The result is almost no innovation in the whole PC sector.
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Insightful)
$61 million is what Apple had left AFTER costs, which include all the R&D that they do. Whether it's 6 million or 600 million doesn't tell you how big the R&D budget was.
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:4, Informative)
Operating expenses:
Research and development
3 moths ended 3/27/2004 - $123,000,000
3 moths ended 3/29/2003 - $119,000,000
6 moths ended 3/27/2004 - $242,000,000
6 moths ended 3/29/2003 - $240,200,000
And last quarter's profit was $46 million with revenue for the quarter was $1.909 billion $4.6 billion in cash and no debt
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Informative)
This will probably give you Accounting 101 flash backs but your R&D is an EXPENSE which is subtracted from your Gross Revenues, along with all other expenses, which gets you net profits.
Repeat after me: Profits =/= R&D
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a miniscule amount when you look at the profits of just about any other tech company. $61million in profits can barely drive R&D for a company like Dell or Gateway.
R&D costs are, well, costs. Profit is what you're left with after you've paid your costs. Like R&D.
According to AAPL's SEC filings, it spends about $120 million every 3 months on R&D (or about 480 million dollars per year).
Dell spent LESS than that, at $464 million for R&D, even though their turnover is 6 times Apple's, and their profit is $3 billion. Relative to Dell, Apple spends wild amounts of money on R&D.
Of course, all that pales in comparison with IBM's $5 billion R&D budget, but then, IBM is also in the business of researching things that Apple uses in its products, like the G5 processor for example (hard to miss that one, really..)
Profits is after spending on research (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in research, IBM was spending 6 billion on R&D. But IBM is significantly larger than apple (and had some old apple employees on the payroll).
Dell and Gateway do very very little R&D. They're more business companies that package. There was an interesting article comparing HP / Dell in terms of RD.
Apple does a lot of interesting inovative stuff considering what they spend.
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANACPA, but I'd expect that a corporation would count R&D as an expense, and therefore someething that's deducted from revenue along with all the other expenses like payroll, raw materials, rent, equipment, taxes, beer bashes, corporate jet, marketing, legal expenses, warehouses, etc. Profit is what's left over after you subtract all those things from revenue.
According to it's annual report [corporate-ir.net], Apple spent $471 million on R&D in 2003. I couldn't find any statement of R&D expenses in Dell's 2003 annual report [dell.com], but I did learn that Dell had about $35 billion in revenue for that year. Fool.com tells us [fool.com] that Dell spends about 2% of sales on R&D, and if we agree that most of Dell's revenue comes from sales, we can guess that Dell probably spends around $700 million a year on R&D.
So yes, Apple's $61 million profit for the quarter wouldn't put much of a dent in Dell's R&D budget, but neither would it come even close to covering Apple's R&D.
Any thoughts on how long apple can keep up results this mediocre?
If they want to run the company like a Dell, not very long at all. But given that Apple is not Dell, and that people have been unsuccessfully predicting its demise since the introduction of the IBM PC in 1981, I think they can keep it up for quite a while. And I hope they do, as Apple has been the most important innovator in the personal computer market for the last 28 years.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How relevant are Apple now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have no idea how they are going to get G5 iMa (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty much OS agnostic myself, but when I have a specific task in mind I have a specific OS in mind. If what I do could be done with a PC instead of a Mac, I would do it on a PC. It would certainly be a lot cheaper.
Re:I have no idea how they are going to get G5 iMa (Score:5, Informative)
I just went to www.apple.com/store and clicked through the configurator for the 3 featured G5 configs. No changes, just Select->Continue->Continue from the store main page to get to the shopping cart where there's a ship time estimate.
The dual 1.8GHz: 3-5 business days.
The dual 2GHz: 3-5 business days.
The dual 2.5GHz: 4-6 weeks.
Changing the configuration delays things a bit, but not much. I took the dual-2.0GHz G5 and maxed out the RAM, HD, and video card options, and now it says 7-10 business days.
It looks to me like only the dual 2.5GHz G5 is in short supply (not surprising since it's probably the one that IBM is having the hardest time making the CPU for, though that's just my speculation). The other models aren't. Cancel your order for a dual 2.5 and get a 1.8 or 2.0 dual G5 instead, and tweak the config to your heart's content. Or, if you really really need that 2.5, wait. If you're in a tearing hurry, you could probably walk into an Apple retail store and walk out with one the same day.
Alternatively, you could buy your G5 from MacWarehouse or Outpost.com. Some of them will add RAM and stuff for you; others might not. Outpost.com says they can ship the dual 1.8 and dual 2.0 same-day. CDW says they have dual-1.6 G5's also available same day. This is right on their search results page. I didn't even pick up the phone to find this out. I searched for "G5" on Outpost.com, and MacWarehouse had a link to the closeout 1.6GHz model on their home page.
Using C|Net shopper to find the best price on a dual 2.0GHz G5 shows a list of merchants in which every single one claims to have this model in stock now.
This took me about 10 minutes of surfing to find out. Maybe you should spend a few minutes yourself since it's your computer order?
Re:Waiting for the laptop (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Waiting for the laptop (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't OSX based on eunuchs?
Re:This also in! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the Mac market doesn't work like the Wintel side of the fence. Thanks for trolling, though.
Re:This also in! (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize that Jobs has gone on the record as saying that he expects Mac users to be on a 4-5 year refresh cycle, right?
Go play in the street, Timmy, and let the men talk about the big things that make your brain hurt.
Re:CPUs look good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CPUs look good (Score:3, Informative)
CPU = unit = complete system in their finical lingo.
Re:Design for g5 imac (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Design for g5 imac (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to strangle the idiot who came up with the idea that everyone wanted six PCI slots, especially since integration has been getting better and more pervasive for the last decade.
I consider myself a geek, but my box is only using two slots of six right now (AGP and 1 PCI). I was actually looking for a micro-atx (3 PCI slots) board but none were available with the chipset I sought.
It would be nice if Apple came out with an SFF system with standard ports, or an SFF system that could operate withthird-party monitors but also came with a kit to mount on the rear of their own displays.
Does Apple care anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Apple has been a serious alternative to Wintel for... well, longer than there's even been a "Wintel". Just ask the millions of people who have used Macs at homes, schools, and businesses for the last 21 years.
The demise of the Mac and Apple has been predicted pretty much like clockwork over all of those 21 years. No amount of good fiscal or technology news for Apple can seem to dislodge the legions of doomsayers who see Apple's immenent destruction.
Just because Apple does not dominate the personal computer operating system market does not mean that it is going to die. The PC market as a whole has grown, and the Mac is a solid niche platform with a very active developer base (which has been greatly stimulated by OS X and the excellent programming tools given to developers by Apple). The Mac is making a strong comeback in higher education, has extended its reach in professional creative markets, reached into supercomputing, and even made forays into the business world.
I doubt that the Mac is going to "disappear slowly into the night."
Re:Does Apple care anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple currently is a mainstream alternative to Wintel because they enjoy good developer support (although not nearly as good as it was 10-15 years ago). However, that situation is by no means guaranteed forever, especially if Apple is making very little effort to move mainstream machines.
I'm not predicting the "demise" of the Mac, but surely even you will admit there's some marketshare or salesfigure point at which the remaining
Re:Does Apple care anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, I see two major trends.
The first is the rise of small developers creating very polished new apps that leverage OS X. Omni Group, Stone Design, Panic, Freshly Squeezed, Ambrosia, et. al. fit in this catogory. Many of the apps created by these companies have no real qualitative counterpart in the Windows world. These companies are thriving even though the overall size of the Mac software market is obviously far smaller than the Windows market.
The second is the exposure of many Open Source/*NIX developers to OS X. I've encountered many UNIX geeks who are doing development work on their PowerBooks. The fact that so much of what used to be stand-alone application development has now been replaced by server-side Web apps means that developers can work on OS X, deploy on Linux, and everyone gets to use the resulting Web app. Add to that the portability of *NIX apps to OS X and in many ways OS X now has a much greater stable of code for server and database development than Windows does.
I'm also not really sure how "flat" sales translates into destruction. Flat sales is still sales year after year. As long as application developers can make money on Mac development, they will do so. You don't have to become the next Macromedia in order to thrive as a software development company. If the size of the market were shrinking in absolute terms, I'd agree that Mac software publishers are in trouble.
My point about marketshare figures is that the same "the sky is falling" rationale has been used literally ever since the Mac was first rolled out. In my opinion even though the Mac's marketshare (based on sales, not on machines in use) is at around 3%, now is really about the best time to be a Mac user in the 18 years I've been one. There are a lot of great apps, the hardware is excellent, the company is in great financial health, UNIX geeks are no longer snorting at the Mac, Windows users are starting to realize that the Mac is moving forward while Microsoft continues to have missteps with ongoing Windows development, and the Mac more easily fits in with Windows and UNIX environments than ever before.
I solidly agree with you about the lack of an iMac being a Bad Thing. In fact, I nearly got my virtual ass shot off in a Mac forum a while back for pointing out that Apple had screwed up plain and simple. The G5 problems are the sorts of things that happen in the computer industry, but that doesn't excuse Apple. The iMac is a critical product for them, and the positive response Windows users have had to the iPod means that Apple should have a flexible, well-priced consumer desktop ready for people who are interested in trying a Mac.
I'm definitely with you on not wanting the Mac to turn into a Be/Amiga type of platform. But I stuck with the Mac through the really tough mid to late 1990s, and I really do think that Apple is a much smarter, much more focused, much more capable company than it was then, and the Macintosh platform is in much better shape now.
One last note, then I'll leave you alone. ;-) Apple's comparative cost/performance strength has always been on their high end machines, and I don't think that will change any time soon. For consumer products, people expect to pay a premium for a better overall computing experience. Some customers will pay this premium, while most will not. But competing with Dell on the price of low end boxes is a losing proposition for Apple. They can never win in a commoditized market, particularly against a competitor whose entire business model was built around reducing production and distribution costs, rather than on creating better technology.
Re:Does Apple care anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
This gets close to my great fear: There is only a fixed number of Mac users in the world, and Apple knows it, and has given up trying to change that. So, they price/position their hardware to reap maximum profits from their hardcore pro user base at the expense of the consumer/office users. Because, lets face it, most of the traditional Photoshop/Quark work does not require a top-end workstation any more, and any "mainstream desktop" could severe cut into 'Creative Pro' PowerMac sales.
Meanwhile, Apple has this installed base of really old machines, and that's not a real positive. If Apple can't get those folks into the store to upgrade, eventually they will get sucked into the much larger PC "ecosystem". I've seen it happen to many friends of mine who used Macs in the 90s -- they had this mental image of a low-end Pentium POS running Win98, but a cheap, fast PC running XP suddenly looks Not So Bad when compared with their blueberry iMac running OS9. (Maybe if you are in Higher Ed, it looks like Apple is growing, but where I sit [lower-end creative users], they are slowly shrinking.)
Now, the killer thing is that OS X really has given them all of this techie/developer momentum. However, Omni Group and even Microsoft are assuming that a cool OS will sell more machines which will make their investment more profitble. If Apple can't/won't deliver, they're going to be disappointed and scale back. Fact: Capitalism relies on growth.
So, I'm really hoping that Apple will see the "G5 iMac" as opportunity to break this cycle, as something that will really be a market hit rather than just scoring virtual style points. And that means that Apple is just going to have to give the people What They Want -- something relatively cheap, much faster than the G3/G4 installed base, semi-expandable, and, again cheap.
OTOH, if we get another Cube/iMac expensively constructed design piece, and "YOU WILL USE AN EMAC AND LIKE IT" (see other reply), myself and many others will draw the conclusion that Apple is retreating into their "legacy" niche and letting Wintel win the war.
Re:Power5 Unix (Score:4, Informative)