Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range.
<strong>Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range.
hmmm...</strong><hr></blockquote>
More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.
....I would think that it would have something to do with its $12+/share cash value. I would think Apple's future earnings potential and IP is worth more than $1.85/share.
<strong>More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At this point, anyone covering Apple should be used to clouds. Frankly, if there is any uncertainty about when things will be done, it's the only approach they can prudently take.
It's good to hear that they're targeting at least 800,000 PowerMacs per year.
Apple's stock is at $14 because of it's cash per share. If it was not technically a bank with all that cash, it'd be a $3 stock like gateway. It has about $12 a share in CASH. It has over $3 billion in cash and a market cap of $5 billion, you don't see that often. There are tech stocks out there trading with negative equity (they owe more debt, than the stock price). So Apple is a dirt cheap bargain. You'll actually some old-school value investors talking about AAPL now.
"Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range."
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>"Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range."
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Didnt Steve say last year that Apple could double their market share? How are they going to achieve that with product update cycles every 12+ months. No wonder Apples board was voted one of the worst in the US
"It's good to hear that they're targeting at least 800,000 PowerMacs per year."
I don't know how many 'power'Macs they sold this quarter. But I feel confident they can take at least 200 k 'power'Macs per quarter with a 970 in them. That and a slight price reduction. Kickstart dem sales...
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
they said they increased their investment in R&D and made special efforts to increase the performance of the PowerMac line - i think this is a good hint that they're aware of the lack of speed in their current towers. how many users of quark xPress do you think are really waiting for new machines? i think the statement "we believe customers hold out to buy until xPress is done" is bs - apple itself thinks that performance is the main issue!
Apple had better but their shit to gether. The mac 3D community is starting to limp. Maya has some major issues on mac that doesn't seem to be resolved. I guess well never se the Maya Ultimate version on mac. Lightwave users have the option to switch between PC and Mac as they like which is good but I know there are more and more people using the PC version only. Apple doesn't seem to lift a finger to help the mac 3D community. When Maya and Lightwave are gone from the mac there arent much left of proffesional 3D for mac. Mabe Cinema 4D but I doubt that the users of C4D macvarsion are happy with the 3D performance on mac.
Apple is a small company making very little profit, but yet they continue to innovate. Apple Computer continues to make some of the best computers, although maybe not the fastest, in the US market. As well, Apple has one of, actually the, best OS on market. Apple for the most part owns their own worth in cash and makes a nice profit on the interest that 4.3 Billion recieves.
Apple is not going anywhere. Heck they would never have to make a profit and as long as they broke even they could stick around for years. Apple seems to have a lot of potential for future earnings. Their stock is being assessted at about $2.43 per share and then $12 a share extra becasue of their cash value. Lets just put it this way I just got another 100 shares.
<strong>Apple doesn't seem to lift a finger to help the mac 3D community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is based on what, exactly?
They have an excellent OpenGL implementation. They have 3D cards that are basically the pro versions disguised - and priced - as consumer offerings. They are using the fastest CPUs available to them, and they are using as many of them per machine as the shared bus they use can reasonably support.
I realize that the end result doesn't compare to a n Athlon box in terms of rendering time. Not by a long shot. But there's a crucial difference between realizing that Apple is doing as much as they can and falling short because of certain third-party components, and accusing them of indifference.
There is, as ever, the question of why Apple got Maya and Shake and their ilk on OS X in the first place? They obviously think they've got hardware in the pipeline that's capable of doing those applications justice.
They've dropped the crazy 'sell only 16 meg Ati Rage card' Mantra. (Damn things stuck like alien sucker faces to that top end 'power'Mac...)
Choice is now offered. Nvidia. Decent cards with 'power'Macs. Could do better in their 'high end' (come on, for £2500 ish, I'd expect at least a Geforce 4 Ti...) 9700, which is a smashing card: pending in a month or so according to a few Mac gaming sites.
Open Gl. Come on, you've got to give Apple this one, since the panty Quickdraw 3D days, Apple has moved mountains on this. Notice the flood of games on Mac now? And the Lightwave 3D support has improved since earlier versions. Due to GL, 'X' and competition amongst graphics cards.
High graphics cards? Quadro? Wildcat? Hmmm. I'd argue, with the next round of Geforce FX and Ati 9700 cards, offering terrific bang for buck, why would you want to spend a grand on such 'Wildcat' cards?
CPU. Well. You can't say Apple haven't tried. They've doubled them up. But I feel they could have compensated further by offering better graphics cards as standard on top two 'power'Mac models.
Over long renders, the latest Athlons and Pentium 4s stuff the 'top end' G4 with a thick rhubarb. Still, 'we'll' have our day in the sun.
970 willing. In duals. In quads. In octos. In 'X-Serves'...on 10.3.
Then you take my Athlon and drop kick it down the stairs...
Lemon Bon Bon
And as Amorph said, we got Shake and Maya too. (Come on. If I'd have said to you a few years back, 'We'll have Maya and it will cost you less than £2,000 inc Vat!', you'd have had me certified...)
<strong>I don't know how many 'power'Macs they sold this quarter. But I feel confident they can take at least 200 k 'power'Macs per quarter with a 970 in them. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Q1 2003 158,000 powermacs sold. Average price $1800.
First, they are very disciplined. Apple has a strategy and sticks to it. You can't tell what Apple is up to by listening to just one keynote. That only gives you a snapshot. For example, the PowerMacs need upgrading and you know Apple is hard at work on those upgrades but nothing will be said about them until they are ready.
Part of the strategy is to run at just a slight profit. That means that they are investing as much of the profits as possible with an eye to capturing future profits when that R&D generates great products.
Apple's R&D budget is about half a billion dollars. Read that twice.
They are running the stores at about the break even point in order to capture more market share. However, they are not sacrificing anything. Although the sales outlets run at near break even Apple makes a significant profit on the product itself.
One cool tidbit. The last question was whether Apple would make more non-Mac products that can be used on wintel systems (like iPod). There was no denial. Just a curt "No Comment."
steve is sounding way too confident in interviews lately about future powermacs and apple in general for 2003. as for their stock i've been picking up shares in the 14-15 range for awhile now, and am buying more each week (along with palm, i got in pre-reverse split and made a nice bundle) with aapl i look at drops in the stock price like this as buying oppertunities, and trade on the daily up and downs
but if they come out with something truly awesome this thing could skyrocket. but what on earth could steve be hinting at about 2003 being a "turning point" for apple?
<strong>More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, since the shares are only trading on a premium of $2 above their net tangible assets of $12 (they have > $4 billion in the bank), I wouldn't say the market is being overly optimistic about Apple. You know, pricing the whole of Apple's future performance at effectively $2 a share...
(That's the $2 they lose if Michael Dell's prediction is correct and they close their doors and give the money back to the shareholders.)
But as we know, Apple WILL survive. It always has.
Comments
<strong>Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range.
hmmm...</strong><hr></blockquote>
More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.
Obviously some disagree.
<strong>More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At this point, anyone covering Apple should be used to clouds. Frankly, if there is any uncertainty about when things will be done, it's the only approach they can prudently take.
It's good to hear that they're targeting at least 800,000 PowerMacs per year.
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>"Fred says, as of a few moments ago, that Apple has a number of plans for getting its powermac sales up and that management is keenly focused on getting sales back up to the 200,000 range."
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Didnt Steve say last year that Apple could double their market share? How are they going to achieve that with product update cycles every 12+ months. No wonder Apples board was voted one of the worst in the US
I don't know how many 'power'Macs they sold this quarter. But I feel confident they can take at least 200 k 'power'Macs per quarter with a 970 in them. That and a slight price reduction. Kickstart dem sales...
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I bet that none of those plans involves either faster macs (next generation powermacs) nor pricecuts. That "management" team has got them selfs an impossible mission. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
they said they increased their investment in R&D and made special efforts to increase the performance of the PowerMac line - i think this is a good hint that they're aware of the lack of speed in their current towers. how many users of quark xPress do you think are really waiting for new machines? i think the statement "we believe customers hold out to buy until xPress is done" is bs - apple itself thinks that performance is the main issue!
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
Apple is not going anywhere. Heck they would never have to make a profit and as long as they broke even they could stick around for years. Apple seems to have a lot of potential for future earnings. Their stock is being assessted at about $2.43 per share and then $12 a share extra becasue of their cash value. Lets just put it this way I just got another 100 shares.
<strong>Apple doesn't seem to lift a finger to help the mac 3D community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is based on what, exactly?
They have an excellent OpenGL implementation. They have 3D cards that are basically the pro versions disguised - and priced - as consumer offerings. They are using the fastest CPUs available to them, and they are using as many of them per machine as the shared bus they use can reasonably support.
I realize that the end result doesn't compare to a n Athlon box in terms of rendering time. Not by a long shot. But there's a crucial difference between realizing that Apple is doing as much as they can and falling short because of certain third-party components, and accusing them of indifference.
There is, as ever, the question of why Apple got Maya and Shake and their ilk on OS X in the first place? They obviously think they've got hardware in the pipeline that's capable of doing those applications justice.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
They've dropped the crazy 'sell only 16 meg Ati Rage card' Mantra. (Damn things stuck like alien sucker faces to that top end 'power'Mac...)
Choice is now offered. Nvidia. Decent cards with 'power'Macs. Could do better in their 'high end' (come on, for £2500 ish, I'd expect at least a Geforce 4 Ti...) 9700, which is a smashing card: pending in a month or so according to a few Mac gaming sites.
Open Gl. Come on, you've got to give Apple this one, since the panty Quickdraw 3D days, Apple has moved mountains on this. Notice the flood of games on Mac now? And the Lightwave 3D support has improved since earlier versions. Due to GL, 'X' and competition amongst graphics cards.
High graphics cards? Quadro? Wildcat? Hmmm. I'd argue, with the next round of Geforce FX and Ati 9700 cards, offering terrific bang for buck, why would you want to spend a grand on such 'Wildcat' cards?
CPU. Well. You can't say Apple haven't tried. They've doubled them up. But I feel they could have compensated further by offering better graphics cards as standard on top two 'power'Mac models.
Over long renders, the latest Athlons and Pentium 4s stuff the 'top end' G4 with a thick rhubarb. Still, 'we'll' have our day in the sun.
970 willing. In duals. In quads. In octos. In 'X-Serves'...on 10.3.
Then you take my Athlon and drop kick it down the stairs...
Lemon Bon Bon
And as Amorph said, we got Shake and Maya too. (Come on. If I'd have said to you a few years back, 'We'll have Maya and it will cost you less than £2,000 inc Vat!', you'd have had me certified...)
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>I don't know how many 'power'Macs they sold this quarter. But I feel confident they can take at least 200 k 'power'Macs per quarter with a 970 in them. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Q1 2003 158,000 powermacs sold. Average price $1800.
Q1 2002 212,000 powermacs sold.
its amazing how low their targets are when just 3 years ago they were selling that many machines
First, they are very disciplined. Apple has a strategy and sticks to it. You can't tell what Apple is up to by listening to just one keynote. That only gives you a snapshot. For example, the PowerMacs need upgrading and you know Apple is hard at work on those upgrades but nothing will be said about them until they are ready.
Part of the strategy is to run at just a slight profit. That means that they are investing as much of the profits as possible with an eye to capturing future profits when that R&D generates great products.
Apple's R&D budget is about half a billion dollars. Read that twice.
They are running the stores at about the break even point in order to capture more market share. However, they are not sacrificing anything. Although the sales outlets run at near break even Apple makes a significant profit on the product itself.
One cool tidbit. The last question was whether Apple would make more non-Mac products that can be used on wintel systems (like iPod). There was no denial. Just a curt "No Comment."
<strong>In 1999 Apple sold 1,296,000 PowerMacs and 1,802,000 iMacs.
its amazing how low their targets are when just 3 years ago they were selling that many machines</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea, that's the affect of 3 years of recession.
steve is sounding way too confident in interviews lately about future powermacs and apple in general for 2003. as for their stock i've been picking up shares in the 14-15 range for awhile now, and am buying more each week (along with palm, i got in pre-reverse split and made a nice bundle) with aapl i look at drops in the stock price like this as buying oppertunities, and trade on the daily up and downs
but if they come out with something truly awesome this thing could skyrocket. but what on earth could steve be hinting at about 2003 being a "turning point" for apple?
that implies change...
but what kind???
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: futuremac ]</p>
<strong>
Yea, that's the affect of 3 years of recession.
not so sure..... iBook sales like quadrupled in that time... recession or weak products?
powermac sales, recession or not, should never have reached this low.
<strong>More cryptic BS...Not trying to be a troll, but I'm suprised Apples stock is still above $14.00 with such a cloudy direction of the future of the hardware platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, since the shares are only trading on a premium of $2 above their net tangible assets of $12 (they have > $4 billion in the bank), I wouldn't say the market is being overly optimistic about Apple. You know, pricing the whole of Apple's future performance at effectively $2 a share...
(That's the $2 they lose if Michael Dell's prediction is correct and they close their doors and give the money back to the shareholders.)
But as we know, Apple WILL survive. It always has.