Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Reports Q1 Loss 142

Posted by pudge from the and-yet-the-stock-price-went-up dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Reports Q1 Loss More

Apple Reports Q1 Loss

Comments Filter:

  • Damn, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2003 @08:59AM (#5101293)
    If only I had enough money to buy a PowerMac. Then Apple would only be down $7,997,000!

    Stupid College, no money...

    • Re:Damn, (Score:2, Informative)

      by nob ( 244898 )
      Very funny... except this was comment was posted, word for word [macslash.org], on MacSlash 2 days ago.

      But if you're just a karma whore, why are you posting anonymously?
      • Dude is just cross posting. Maybe he can't be bothered with having a slashdot account. Maybe he does. Who cares?

        Really. Or does Karma give men bigger a bigger penis, women, nicer breasts and make your boss like you?
    • Funny, I get the irony, but I need to state the obvious:

      Apple doesn't profit $3000 just because the computer costs that much. There are component and other costs involved you know. So, if you calculate with Apple's 30% margin on hardware (which is the largest in the whole industry) I'd give:

      3000/1,3=2307?$2300

      That means Apple profits $300 from this sale, making the loss $7,999,700. The revenue would increase $3000 of course, but not profits :p

    • Luxuries during economic downturn. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @02:45PM (#5103775)
      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. This is not to say apple products are expensive for what you get, actually they are a screaming deal for what you get. It's even arguable that apple's have lower long term costs. But faced with budgetary limits, people will seek short term economies and cheap PC's or NO pc at all is it.

      On the otherhand this is leading to a lot of defered purchases. When the economic confidence resumes or companies reach a point where they have to upgrade they will make those purchases. So I think it's important to look not just at apple's sales relative to PC sales, but rather to apple's installed base. Those people are the ones that are defering purchases and will likely be purchasing apples in the future.

      I've read apple has a fair amount of cash in the bank and they have a relatively adaptive production line. Thus they are in a good position to do research and develop strategic products (keynote, iPhoto, OSX, G5 architectures, Xraid) during the economic downturn. If they restructure a bit to minimize cash burn and keep innovating they will win when the market inproves. Some evidence can be seen at the consumer elctronics show where the most innovative ideas were a nerd watch and an ovrsized ipod that cant play DVDs. The collective PC idustry is not spending money on research there are no venture capital to launch new things. Mean while apple chugs out all sort of new stuff single handedly.

      it's anyone's guess when this economic downturn will end. By the end of it there's going to be a lot of consolidationa and carnage inthe PC industry. what will emegre will be fewer companies with either the leanest production or the most innovative products. Apple will benefit on both ends. their production costs will go down due to the lower costs of production of electronics and they will have the most uniquely differentiated products. So it's really a question of staying solvent not making money at this point in the game.

      • You're absolutely right, and I can back that statement up with a case in point.

        My mother's been using "hand-me-up" Macs for years now; that is, every time I bought a new Mac, I gave her the one it was replacing. This had been working quite well, because as a fairly modest user, she never needed the latest and greatest. She does a bit of word processing, web surfing, and email... A Mac from three or four years ago is more than sufficient.

        In recent months, the monitor on her Mac started borking. After about 10 minutes the picture would begin to fade, getting gradually worse until it was impossible to read anything. I suggested a new monitor, but she decided that if she was going to spend the money on a new monitor, she might as well spring for a new computer as well. After several months of putting it off for financial reasons, she did.

        This week she went down to the Apple store and bought a brand new iMac with a flat-screen monitor (and a 40 gig HD that she'll never come close to using, sigh!). Point being, she was doing just fine with what she had until extenuating circumstances - the monitor going out - made her upgrade. If it hadn't been for the fact that money's a bit tight, she would have bought the new Mac months ago. On the other hand, if it hadn't been for the bad monitor, she'd have waited until there was a bit more juice in the bank before upgrading.

        When the economy gets rolling again, there will be a lot of people in similar situations who buy again when they see their bank balances level out. I'll be one of them. Having to setup and configure OS X to my mom's liking on the new Mac has got me hooked... As soon as I can afford it (yes, I'm literally too broke to spend $129) I'll be buying myself a copy of OS X for my G4. And yes, one day I'll buy another Mac or three.

        Apple's far from dead. They're just suffering along with the rest of us until 2004.

  • Marketshare is down (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:04AM (#5101310)
    Their worldwide marketshare is now 1.93%. According to IDC, 38.4 million PCs were shipped last quarter, up 4% from the year ago period. Apple shipped 743,000 Macs which is down 2% from the year ago period. This follows a steady trend in declining marketshare over the past 5 years.

    • Re:Marketshare is down (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mgaiman ( 151782 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:11AM (#5101658) Homepage
      I don't know. It really seems like IDC has a bone to pick with apple. Read this cnet article [com.com] 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.
      • 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? ;-)
        • It gets worse when you load up the systems.

          I'm a big subnote geek, so until recently, I didn't really care much for the Mac platform. There simply wasn't a decent subnote that didn't feel like a compromise to me (I'm sorry, but a G3 laptop to a nerd like me might as well be a hand-me-down.)

          So, I started loading up 12" AlBook configs, and compared them to other laptops of similar size and battery life.

          I still haven't found anything as cost effective as the AlBook. Most PC laptops with decent battery life are Crusoe-based, and I've used a Crusoe laptop. It's painful. It's not bad for your average user, but it's bad for me.

          When I spec out the mini AlBook to the hilt, it's maybe $200 more for a system with double the RAM and disk space of the nearest x86 competitor, and that ain't bad.

          Now, how are subnotes a "declining category" to this bozo? Who in their right mind wants to lug an 8 pound system that's much larger than a typical (paper) notebook? I'll happily give up a few features for a smaller laptop which I can always take with me than the massive powerhouse which tends to stay at home.

          Then again, this is IDC. It'll be a cold day in hell before they say anything positive about Apple.

    • Re:Marketshare is down (Score:5, Informative)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:32AM (#5101808)
      Their worldwide marketshare is now 1.93%

      This statistic, like most computer-use statistics, is erroneous and misleading.

      IDG does not factor in sales from direct retail (i.e. Apple Store), or the online AppleStore incarnation. A better way to read that is: Apple has 1.93% of the PC market.

      If you really want to see what percentage of the computer-using public is on Mac, check Google's stats. (can't find it now, but I know its there somewhere.)

      There is a downward trend in marketshare, but this is indicative of the entire PC industry in general.

      Sorry for the pickiness - I just hate seeing that bad IDG stat quoted over and over again.

      • Re:Marketshare is down (Score:5, Informative)

        by neverkevin ( 601884 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:53AM (#5101981) Homepage
        Do you mean Google Zeitgeist [google.com]? I don't know If I could consider that the authority on Apple market share, but it's better then IDG. If you are going to believe Google then Apple market share has stayed steady at 4%.
        • I don't know If I could consider that the authority on Apple market share, but it's better then IDG. If you are going to believe Google then Apple market share has stayed steady at 4%.

          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.

      • Apple's Market Share (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SeanAhern ( 25764 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @02:23PM (#5103614) Journal
        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 [alliedcomputing.com].

        That's more than 10 times the market share that Linux has.
        • > Website: http://www.spymac.com
          > Source: SpyMac
          > Author: JACK CAMPBELL

          Erm, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that SpyMac is one of the least reputable Mac rumor sites there is. It's right down there with MacOSRumors. (iWalk anyone?) What's more, he doesn't cite his sources. While I don't doubt that that Apple's share is significantly more than 1.9%, it's unlikely to be anywhere near Jack's 11.6%.

    • Re:Marketshare is down (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:37AM (#5101854) Homepage Journal
      Their worldwide marketshare is now 1.93%.
      According to whom?

      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." [com.com]

      Lies, damn lies, and statistics, I suppose.

    • Re:Marketshare is down (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2003 @11:07AM (#5102072)
      Well I've been buying Macs "regularly" since they came out. I bought one in 1984. I bought another one in 1991 or so. Bought one in 1998. Bought one in 2001. I *might* get one this year.

      In the old days you could use a Mac for a LONG time before needing a new one. (These days Mac technology is moving faster it seems).

      I buy new x86 Linux boxes at least once every two years. They are cheap, and lose their value so fast it makes more sense to ditch them regularly (I always try and sell my boxes before getting new ones, I'm not interested in "collecting" boxes).

      *shrug*

      These numbers don't tell you how many people are using Macs, just how many are being purchased in certain channels.

      Not that it matters how much market share apple has..?

  • More details.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bifurcation ( 152542 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:04AM (#5101311)
    fyi, here's the Original Press release [apple.com] from apple and the Quicktime broadcast [apple.com] of the conference call in which the statements are announced.

    one should note also that the only reason apple posted a loss was that it had to pay a one-time restructuring fee. without that, it would have actually posted an $11M profit, which would be a drop (from $38M last Q1), but a far less dramatic one than the loss they indicated.

    • Re:More details.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JohnFluxx ( 413620 )
      It costs $20m to restructure? Jeez -I can't even imagine that kind of money. Where does that kind of money go when you restructure? And try to keep replies as cynical-less as possible :)

      • Re:More details.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TotallyUseless ( 157895 ) <totNO@SPAMmac.com> on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:51AM (#5101965) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • Why didn't they just lead them to a secluded area and shoot them ? I thought these high-paid executives were there just to serve as scapegoats for when the going got tough.. :)

          It's not like most of them can even USE their own brains, much less a Mac.

      • Re:More details.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @11:06AM (#5102070) Journal
        There are two main expenses in restructuring, a corporate euphamism for layoffs, severance and lease termination fees. Usually the bulk is severance, but it does depend on the lease structure. Occasionally there are non cash restructuring expenses usually writing down of assests. $20 million is pretty small, I think Nortel had a cash restructuring charge in the billions. They also had writedowns in the $10s of billions, but that isn't a cash expense. A write-down is just the company recognising that something they bought wasn't worth what they paid for it.
      • Sigh, I was modded as a troll - and for asking what I see as a fairly reasonable question..
      • It costs $20m to restructure? Jeez -I can't even imagine that kind of money.

        It's all a matter of scale - $20m seems like a lot to me (a relatively underemployed individual) but it i doesn't seem so much to a company with revenues of 1.7 billion in the same quarter. $2m of that $29m was from some change in accounting methods. It wouldn't take a very large number of lay-offs (in percentage of their total work force) to add up to $17m in severence packages etc.
        • A company thinking 20,000,000 is not a lot of money is a company that will keep losing money. No matter how you slice it, 20,000,000 is a lot of money.
          • A company thinking 20,000,000 is not a lot of money is a company that will keep losing money. No matter how you slice it, 20,000,000 is a lot of money.

            Not a lot of money for what? What is so difficult about the concept of scale? You sound like my 9 year old talking about $20.00. Sure $20 is a lot of money to a child, or to spend at a greasy spoon for breakfast, but it's not very much when you are buying a car. $20 Million is a lot to you and me, it's a lot to a company with $100 million in revenues. It's not very much at all to a company with $1.7 Billion in quarterly revenues and $4 Billion in cash to take as a *one time* restructuring charge, especially if the restructuring saves them (significantly more $$$) in the coming years. Even assuming they keep losing that much every year (rather than a during an industry wide slowdown) at that "burn rate" they have 50 years to figure out a way to turn things around.
            • No. Companies that worry about 20,000,000 are being very smart. Just ask Warren Buffett, don't you think the companies that he ownes worry about 20,000,000? Damn right they do if the managers of the company still want to have their jobs next month.
              • Companies that worry about 20,000,000 are being very smart.

                *sigh* I'm sure they thought about the $20m. I'm sure they worried about it in the sense that before they decided to restructure PowerSchool they weighed the costs and benefits of spending $20m to do so. I'm sure the management of PowerSchool worried *a lot* about that $20m. Still to Apple spending $20m to restructure a troubled subsidiary is NOT something that should worry anyone about the health of the company or the wisdom of the management. On the other hand FAILING to spend that $20m and just letting a problem fester & continue to drain $$$ because they're worried about showing a single quarter loss WOULD be something to worry about.

                $20m is a lot in the sense that any company would think a great deal about spending that amount - it is NOT very much in the sense of representing anything very significant about a company that size. While I hope that Steve Jobs thought about that $20m and i'd imagine it was a big enough number that it needed his consideration. I would be dissapointed however if he spent a lot of time *worried* about it - he has much bigger issues to worry about and he's not paid that $1 salary (and the occasion bonus that exceeds this particular amount) to obsess over such an insignificant percentage of the companies resources.
                • I didn't mean to imply that it was a sign of the end of apple. I was just saying that any company that doesn't WORRY about it is doomed to failure.

                  Just look at razorfish :->

  • Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Znonymous Coward ( 615009 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:13AM (#5101348) Journal
    Why aren't more people buying Macs (especially the slashdot crowd)? I was a Linux head until I discovered Mac OS X [apple.com]. Mac OS X is simply fantastic. You can get an eMac for $1099. Or an iBook for $999. That's cheap in IMHO.

    And now it's easier to run Linux software on Macs thanks to Apple's release of X11 for Mac OS X [apple.com].

    • We're not buying them because there's nothing compelling. An eMac is nice, but it's an all-in-one. This may work well for a school, but everybody around here realizes that monitors almost always out-live just about every other component. The iBook is a great laptop (and the 12" PowerBook is an excellent option for those that want a G4), but not everybody wants a laptop.

      The type of people who read slashdot have different requirements than most computer users. I'd be willing to bet that what most people here want is an eMac at a similar cost-effective price-point without the monitor, or a G4 with a decent processor. I've personally decided to get a G4 upgrade for my B&W G3 because there's simply nothing worthwhile coming out of Apple that isn't a laptop.

      Need some numbers? How about these:
      (Stolen from Nevyn in this thread at Ars [infopop.net]).

      PowerMac (tower) Sales:
      Q1 2003: 158,000 units
      Q4 2002: 176,000 units
      Q3 2002: 169,000 units
      Q1 2002: 212,000 units

      That's a staggering downward trend that proves what we all know -- when it comes to anything besides laptops, Apple can't deliver.

      - j

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Spencerian ( 465343 )
        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 [com.com] may arrive later this year that will bring the Power Mac line back to comparable performance terms to its PC counterparts.
        • 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.

          Well, I think the dual-processor bottleneck is more of an issue with the poor system controllers and DDR implementation on the current PowerMacs. The processor is definitely the biggest problem, but, speaking as somebody who used to work at a semiconductor company that made system controllers and 'northbridge' chips, I can tell you that Apple's system controllers leave something to be desired. It's not all Motorolla's fault.

          There have been a slew of comments about the topic of new Motorola processors and Apple's DDR/controller implementation at Ars Technica [infopop.net] if you're interested.

          - j
          • Hmmm, I was under the impression that the reason for the poor DDR implementation was because of the G4.

            But I do agree this blaming Motorola game has gone far enough. Sure, Motorola sucks and blah blah blah but Apple hasn't really done anything to improve their situation since 1999. 4 years is a long time to sit on your ass and twidle your thumbs.
            • This is correct. There is a new version of the G4 coming out that does support DDR properly. But by the time it comes out the 970 will be here and its value will be questionable. It may end up in the low end Macs, depending upon cost.

        • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WatertonMan ( 550706 )
          To say that Apple has done nothing to solve their problem is a bit much. Other than going the x86 route, what could they do but put pressure on the PPC producers? That appears to be coming to fruition with the IBM 970 chips. Those seem quite exciting, although they will be slower than equivalent Opterons out around the same time. However they are about equivalent in speed to current top end P4 chips. (Although those will increase in performance by the time the new PowerMacs are out) The big advantage to the 970 are the way they allow multiprocessing systems. Whether Apple will utilize this initially for a high end graphics oriented Mac is up in the air. I think they should but there will undoubtedly be a shortage of chips initially.

          Beyond what they have done, I'm not sure what people expect them to do. Everyone cried to move to the x86, especially AMD systems. However the fact of the matter is that emulation is slow at the best of times (look at Virtual PC for OSX). Further the nature of x86 design and the limits on true general registers makes emulating PPC code that uses a lot of registers quite difficult. However even here it is widely known that Apple *has* ported most of OSX to the x86 platform, even if only as an intellectual endeavor. So clearly this was an option, even if only a last ditch one.

          Yeah this year sucks in terms of performance for OSX. Most of the improvements are in terms of software. (With 10.2.3 and iLife, OSX is really starting to sing) Come summer or fall I think we'll see Apple being much more competitive in terms of price/performance. At that point switching will make a lot more rational sense.

      • > This may work well for a school, but everybody
        > around here realizes that monitors almost always
        > out-live just about every other component. The iBook

        Actually, I wouldn't buy an (i|e)Mac because I fear that the monitor would die leaving me with an unusable system!!

        In my experience, monitors die before anything else. I went through 4 monitors in 2002... and 2 monitors so-far in 2003 (noting that it is still January!).. granted, 2/6 of those monitors were quite old (9 years)..

        I've been finding that newer CRTs are less reliable than the older models. Is it sane that I have an 8month old monitor die within the same week as a 9 year old monitor? Something is obviously wrong with the manufacturing of that 8 month old monitor! Not to mention that the 8 month old monitor was a *replacement* for a monitor that was bought one year before it's death.

        btw, environmental issues have been ruled out as the cause of death for these monitors.

        • ebay (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jbolden ( 176878 )
          Well then an easy solution is to buy old computers on ebay. I often see computers going for much less than the monitor is worth.
        • An earlier article [slashdot.org] on slashdot reports that capiciters of recent vintage haven't been up to snuff. Possibly, blown capacitors could be to blame.

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:41AM (#5101501)
      I'll field this one.

      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...)

      • Reader #1 is conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)

        by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:32AM (#5101811) Homepage Journal
        Of course, reader #1 has a fundamentally conflicted position... he hates proprietary software, yet he buys a bleeding-edge machine and runs the latest Windoze games on it, thereby supporting proprietary software and the Microsoft monopoly.

        If you're going to spend money on proprietary software, you might at least support UNIX, open source, and non-monopoly manufacturers by buying a Mac. There *are* adequate numbers of Mac games, after all.

        (Don't try to convince me all those PC gamers are buying 2GHz machines so they can play Nethack really fast... or even GLQuake.)

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)

        by cuyler ( 444961 )
        Slashdot Reader #0
        Slashdot Reader #1

        I love that. A sure sign this is a technical website. The first reader is reader number zero.

        Thanks for the chuckle.
    • I've considered buying Apple hardware a couple of times. I am a 99% Linux user. Most of what I do with my comp is browsing and writing/tweaking software (mucking with squid, iptables etc etc). I realized that even if I bought Apple hardware (say an ibook for compactness), I would then end up recreating the Linux/x86 environment.

      I would end up spending more than on an equivalent x86 solution for the same results.
      • Only you'd have a box that could run MS-Office reliably if that was what you needed as well as many other software titles unavailable on Linux, you'd also get this very good thing called Cocoa (Objective-C) which gives you system services like OS level spell checking (hey, I added a word to the dictionary in one program and it no longer gets flagged anywhere in the system) pretty much for free.

        You'd also a system which would work straight out of the box for most uses so unless you do that tweaking for entertainment, you'd be doing less of it.
      • If you are happy with Linux as a M$ alternative then great, stay with x86 and Linux. I'm using a Mac as the M$ alternative becuase Mac OS X is what im looking for in a OS. Maybe one day Linux will be more like Mac OS X (from a UI standpoint) and I can go back.

    • Myself, I have an iMac DV that's just over 3 years old, and while I'd like to replace it, perferrably with a tower so I can change the video card, I'm #1: unemployed, collecting $156/week in benefits, and #2: I have no real need for a new system. A newer Mac would run more games better, but that's it. I've upgraded the memory, hard drive, keyboard, mouse, added the iSub, a gamepad, a joystick, a printer, an iPod, and a DSL connection. I can do everything I need, and most things I want. Well, a Firewire CD burner might be useful to get as well, I just have a slot loading DVD-ROM.

      My father would like to replace his iMac rev B as well, but he'll have to wait until I get a job, as I can't pay my fixed expenses alone. At least I got a call about an interview while reading this thread, my first in months.

    • I have several computers. I have a G4 with OS X. I love OS X, but the G4 is a workstation, nothing more. For serving web pages, databases, games, etc, you get far more bang for the buck with a linux box. The G4 is slow and expensive.

      But wow! What an enviroment. Everything 'just works'. The developer enviroment is slick as hell, and the bundled iApps + fink add up to huge value. Oh yeah, and Safari rocks.

  • You've got this all wrong. (Score:3, Funny)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:18AM (#5101372) Homepage Journal
    You're supposed to be surprised when Apple reports a profit two quarters in a row. Reporting a back-to-back loss is just another line in the standard "they'll be backrupt before Windows 3.0 even ships..." joke.

  • Future Savings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kruetz ( 642175 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:23AM (#5101405) Journal
    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!
    • 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?)).

      PP killer = Keynote. Impressive little package, from what I saw at the keynote. (Cute naming scheme, eh? Stevarino has been using the software to do all his keynote speeches for the last year.)

      And the iLife (yes, you got the name right) packaging is quite interesting. I like the look of the integration between the apps, and some useful feature / interface tweaking (iMovie no longer takes up the whole screen, yay!). Makes me wish I had a proper G4 sitting on my desk at home so I could use the apps :p Alas, mortgage payments and groceries must come before toy expenditures.

    • Re:Future Savings (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )
      I gotta tell you for the last year the X-windows side of things via. stuff like Fink has been fine. Apple has released a beta of their own X which makes X look and act very native and uses quartz for acceleration. Its quite likely that Apple is very close if not already there to having the best X on the desktop market.

    • D00d, why are you using a computer in AUSTRIALIA!? Not to be flaming you or anything, but it's DAMNED expensive to buy even a pretty old computer down there. Hell, I auctioned off my old TiBook to someone down there. Shipping's a bitch, but then again, I made a hefty profit.
    • > 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.

      I'm interested in this point.

      Would you mind listing the specs for the desireable Mac, including bottom-line price, and then listing the part-by-part prices [in AUD] for a totally-new home-built PC equivalent?

      Be sure to include prices for /everything/, including small things like cpu fan, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and monitor, if the comparable Mac includes one. Also include the price of the OS, and maybe an estimate of the cost of your time for putting the whole PC together and testing it for a few hours.

      I'm just wondering if there is a significant price increase for Macs in .au, and I'd like to see hard facts listed.

      [BTW, I'm not poking at you; I own 3 Macs .. and 2 PCs.. and an Alpha.. and so on. ;) ]
      • Okay, looking back at it, the cost of the PC was significantly reduced by keeping my 19" monitor, which makes it $1,900 vs. $2,500. And I suppose the Mac has FireWire and a few other goodies that I don't need or use. (Can I just buy a Mac tower only? - that would reduce the price a fair bit)

        That's really my major "problem" with Macs - I don't really get to choose what I get. Sure, there are several models available, but there's little room for expansion and customisation. I realise that this isn't what Apple is about, but that means I will have to pay a bit extra for the unwanted features (on top of Apple's generally higher prices).

        So yeah, my original post wasn't too accurate, but I still think it makes a valid point. If only Apple allowed third-party vendors (with really tight QA, if necessary). Oh well ... I'll wait till I get out of Uni and into a high-paying job!

        BTW, how'd you get the Alpha and what do you run on it - WinNT or DEC's *NIX? or something else?
        • The Alpha Multia currently runs dust, while sitting in a closet. It might run WinNT, but I don't feel like beating it to make it work.

          It's cheaper for Apple to have a limited product line with only a few customizeable options. Less options means less parts on hand, and less parts left over after a product line matures.

  • Harley Davidson of the computing industry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OccSub ( 572282 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:02AM (#5101615)
    They're a honest established American company. They're not doing so well because of cheap alternatives flooding the market. They still produce quality products, but because of the high appeal of lower-priced alternatives (though not of the same quality) their market share has dropped significantly. Does this sound like Harley Davidson or what? I think that the US of A could lend them a hand and help them get their production costs down and get Apple back in the running for decades to come.

    • Government help? Not with the Bush II Administration firmly in Microsoft's back pocket.

    • 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.
    • If Apple is the Harley Davidson of the computing industry, just call me a member of the computer world's Hell's Angels.

  • Probably stating the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cinematique ( 167333 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:09AM (#5101649)
    but nobody wants to buy a PowerMac G4 when they feel a G5 is right around the corner. Unfortunately, anyone who watches the Mac scene knows that "G5s" have been around the corner now for two years.

    I predict the largest problem for Apple is that even when the G5 finally ships, it'll be a lets-get-what-we-can-out-the-door-now type system based on the new IBM PowerPC/Altivec chip.

    Personally, I hope Apple waits (...and waits...) until they have a box to really thump the x86 side of things again before they attempt to release anything under the title of a new generation.

    The first G4 motherboards sucked.
    • I agree with you 100%.
      I've been using a G4 400 mac for a few years now and i made a promise to myself not to purchase a new one until the "next generation" processors come out (G5 or whatever they will be call.) I have a feeling i'm going to be waiting for another year.
      In the meantime I might buy a 12" powerbook to keep me satisfied.

      www.shampoopoo.com
      • I refuse to buy a crapped out first edition to the G5. Even with that said, my G4 450x2 never comes across anything it can't handle, CPU wise. The only reason I'd update my hardware would be for new features. I wanna see built-in Bluetooth, WiFi Extreme, Serial ATA (or better yet, internal Firewire), Firewire 800, and AGPx4(+). And at this point in the game, a 300mhz(+) bus is essential.

  • Apple's Q1's are just not important... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0x69 ( 580798 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:31AM (#5101798) Journal
    Apple's Q1 results are pretty much what the stock geeks expected. The whole industry is bad shape from the dot-com bubble burst, with sales & prices *way* down from "the good old days".

    Apple's got over four billion dollars cash in the bank, good (& stable) leadership, an established (& loyal) market base, and an impressive R&D program. They're getting through the "Gigahertz Gap" and moving away from the chip supplier that caused it (Motorola).

    Apple is not a massive-financial-leverage house of cards (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) that needs a high stock price. Apple stockholders are not a fast-buck-happy mob who'll burn the company's future for great numbers for a quarter or few.

    Bottom line: Apple is far too healthy a company and far too sober a stock to need to care much about routine quarterly financials.

  • Sun loses $2.125 billion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:36AM (#5101845)
    To keep things in perspective. After a loss of $431 million last quarter. Revenue was not that much larger than the quarterly loss, at $2.8 billion. Apple loses $8 million after a restructuring charge, adds $125 million to its cash, keeps its r&d spending up and I'm supposed to feel bad?

  • Jobs kept his word. (Score:4, Informative)

    by skia ( 100784 ) <skia&skia,net> on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:42AM (#5101888) Homepage
    This shouldn't be a big surprise, as this is exactly what Apple said they were going to do at MWNY last year. Jobs said that the market was crappy and that Apple's sector and therefore Apple itself would be hit hard. But he said that Apple had a lot in the bank and -- unlike other computer manufacturers -- was prepared to invest and innovate through the downturn, taking a loss at first, then floating by on their technology, and then, when things started picking back up again, hitting the ground running to overtake their competitors.

    Looks like, with the introduction of the new sexxy powerbooks, some great brand-new lines of software, and that big hit listed as "one time re-organization costs", Apple is right on schedule.

  • Before you start the 'End of the Apple' threads .. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2003 @10:48AM (#5101944)
    ...

    Have you seen Sun's latest quarterly report [sfgate.com] ?

    --
    Sun Microsystems Inc., saddled with huge acquisition costs, posted a $2.3 billion quarterly loss on Thursday -- its largest ever.

    That translated to a loss of 72 cents per share in the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 29, compared with a $431 million loss (13 cents per share) in the year- ago period.

    Excluding the one-time charges covering the acquisition and other costs, however, the Santa Clara firm actually turned a modest profit. It earned $10 million (0 cents per share) in the past quarter on revenue of $2.9 million, compared with a loss of $99 million (3 cents) on sales of $3.1 billion in the year-ago period.

    --

  • OK, so they lost 8 million dollars, so what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @11:51AM (#5102435)
    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.

  • declining profits (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BigBir3d ( 454486 )
    The declining profits are due to one thing. Apple is spending more money to sell the same number of computers.

    You have the "switch" ads on TV and the not very successful Apple Stores.

    Sadly, Apple tried to do what Gateway did with their stores, and so far has failed.

    Whenever I go to an Apple Store, there is always a lifelong Mac user in there as well as a few younger PC types checking out the hardware. Not very often I have I seen anyone buy anything.

    Gateway stores... lots of PC people, a few looking to buy a new system.

    Being a salesperson, I really see the difference between the people that are "just looking" versus the people that have an intent to purchase something.

    The stores aren't cheap to run, and if they don't have the effect of increased company sales...

    And we all know how cheap TV ads have become...
    • Weird. At the Apple store around here, it's been packed (well not packed, but has as many customers as the average mall store) every time I've been in there. And every time I've bought something (2 or 3 times), I've had to wait in line while someone else was buying a system.

      • Re:declining profits (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BigBir3d ( 454486 )
        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.

    • Re:declining profits (Score:5, Interesting)

      by willis ( 84779 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @02:07PM (#5103441) Homepage
      I'm a recent first-time apple buyer -- and since I don't know that many people who have ibooks, I relied on an apple demonstration at a expensive location (Canary Wharf in London) and a few non Apple Store outlets for testing. I ended up buying the machine online (amazon was giving free palm pilots w/ purchase).

      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.

    • Re:declining profits (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @03:58PM (#5104240)
      Apple stores are a success, not a failure:

      Mr. Anderson noted that the retail stores generated $23 million in manufacturing profit. "[They're] already beginning to pay off," Anderson said, responding to naysayers.

      Source: http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=373 [macnn.com]

    • You have a point about the number of buyers. At the same time, Apple increased revenue from its stores 50% over last quarter. (I don't think there were any new store openings, so it's sales increase.) They cut their loss from $3 million to $1 million, as I remember, so it sounds like they're trending towards profitability, unlike Gateway.
    • That's terribly odd as I've recently made two minor purchases in two separate Apple Stores (Edina, MN -Southdale and Bloomington, MN - Mall of America); each time I stood in line behind people who were making major purchases (new iBook, iMac 17, iPods, &c.) The sales staff and Geniuses at each store were busy talking with customers, ringing sales and retrieving product from the back stock room for purchasing customers.

      Another poster has already directed you to the numbers from Apple's retail presence. Before dismissing Apple in favor Gateway's retail "success", perhaps you need to do a bit of research [google.com].

    • Re:declining profits (Score:2, Insightful)

      by holygoat ( 564732 )
      It doesn't matter how successful revenue-wise the stores are.

      People who have no other way of actually seeing and interacting with Macs can visit a store and 'check out' the hardware. It's exposure, advertising, mind-share - whatever you want to call it. Sales are secondary.

      Not many people would buy a new machine online without checking it out first - the stores allow them to do that.

      I hope to be getting a 12" PowerBook soon - I'll buy it online with a student discount, but I'll check it out at a store first.
  • Say what you like about how great macs are, but its bound to happen that apple loses money considering they cater to a small population of users that aren't consistantly buying new products all the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close