I think Gene needs to sharpen his pencil along with the rest of the Street. If Apple sold 2.603M in 2009 and I get 39% growth then I sell 3.618M not 3.1 to 3.2M The US sales from NPD point to a much better number then Gene will admit because the overseas sales have been better then the US. As far as iPod cannibalization Apple said in the CC they expect -7% YOY and again the world-wide sales are probably better then US but well have to wait and see.
I think Gene is taking into account the refresh in April; that extra boost will start to wear off in May and June.
In any case, I think he's underestimating. Analysts usually underestimate because the "credibility penalty" for underestimating is less than for overestimating.
I find it mildly annoying that articles about sales continue to use terms such as "June quarter", which is in common use mostly in Europe and Australia. I think many of us here would be scratching our heads, thinking does this mean begins in June or ends in June?
Here in the US, it is always first quarter, second quarter, etc.
I guess Gene must work in the London office?
I think Gene uses June quarter because Apple's 3rd quarter is the June quarter, but it's the 2nd quarter by calendar year.
I know Palm was gonna sink, but I figured there was time to turn a nice profit before the Pre was launched. Oddly, I forgot to actually invest. Ç'est la vie.
I think HP is well managed so if anyone can pull WebOS into a viable tablet device I think they can.
Some new evidence into the bidding war cropped up with weekend.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
HP will succeed only if Microsoft fails to act.
I think you're right. Apple will clearly do well having kick-started the tablet market, but M$ will sadly come in with a crappy product that they sell cheap and force PC vendors to use and they will gain a lot of market share.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
HP will succeed only if Microsoft fails to act.
MS has little if any software for a true multi-touch interface like Apple and I am assuming an HP tablet based on Palm OS would have. How can MS leverage what they don't have and Win 7 mobile won't cut it {I'll bet.
MS has little if any software for a true multi-touch interface like Apple and I am assuming an HP tablet based on Palm OS would have. How can MS leverage what they don't have and Win 7 mobile won't cut it {I'll bet.
Unfortunately, Win 2, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win Me, Win XP didn't cut it either, but still sold in bucketloads.
I hope I'm wrong, but M$'s track record of pedalling crap is impressive, and they may do the same with tablets.
Interested to see a Palm OS tablet though. The Palm phones I've seen have some pretty neat features.
Unfortunately, Win 2, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win Me, Win XP didn't cut it either, but still sold in bucketloads.
I hope I'm wrong, but M$'s track record of pedalling crap is impressive, and they may do the same with tablets.
Interested to see a Palm OS tablet though. The Palm phones I've seen have some pretty neat features.
The situation is different with tablets.
First, Windows computers have historically sold well because they're cheaper than the alternatives. That doesn't appear to be the case with tablets (at least, based on proposed selling prices).
Second, Windows computers sold well because of network effects - 'EVERYONE' had Windows, so that's what new buyers purchased. They've lost that advantage, as well.
The best chance for Windows is if they convince customers that it's just another PC and needs to work the way the PC they already have works. However, that negates the advantages of tablets and condemns users to a 'full windows on a touch screen' hell. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it will be a very difficult sell for Microsoft to dominate tablets like they do PCs.
HP/Palm might have a better chance - but only if they do a lot of things right -- and very quickly. Neither HP nor Palm has a history of moving quickly, so they'd better make some cultural changes fast.
First, Windows computers have historically sold well because they're cheaper than the alternatives. That doesn't appear to be the case with tablets (at least, based on proposed selling prices).
Second, Windows computers sold well because of network effects - 'EVERYONE' had Windows, so that's what new buyers purchased. They've lost that advantage, as well.
The best chance for Windows is if they convince customers that it's just another PC and needs to work the way the PC they already have works. However, that negates the advantages of tablets and condemns users to a 'full windows on a touch screen' hell. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it will be a very difficult sell for Microsoft to dominate tablets like they do PCs.
HP/Palm might have a better chance - but only if they do a lot of things right -- and very quickly. Neither HP nor Palm has a history of moving quickly, so they'd better make some cultural changes fast.
Ture enough.
I wonder what effect Microsoft Office might have on this. If a decent version of Office becomes available on a Windows tablet (whatever that may be), that could have enormous clout, especially in the corporate market.
I wonder what effect Microsoft Office might have on this. If a decent version of Office becomes available on a Windows tablet (whatever that may be), that could have enormous clout, especially in the corporate market.
Do you think that there's ANY chance Microsoft would release a version of Office slim enough to work on a reasonable tablet? Their idea of 'better' is limited to adding 500 new features.
Just maybe a version of Works that would read and write Office files, but even that is a stretch. If the tablet makers go with something like WebOS rather than Windows, it's even less likely.
LOL Good luck with that. Is the spec even completed? Is there any HW for it on the market? When was the last time Apple was a the first to adopt a technology they didn't create?
Probably USB, you know, that completely-ubiquitous-external-bus-thingie Intel invented.
Dell certainly used USB before Apple, as well DisplayPort. Apple gets the notoriety because tend to go all-in when they adopt a standard.
I'm not so sure about that, although I'm not going to argue the point date-wise. it is possible Dell put a USB port in it's computers before Apple did, but Dell didn't ship it's own peripherals as USB until the early 2000's, at least 4 years after Apple did a never look back move everything off ADB onto USB. Apple killed the floppy as a internal peripheral at the same time. One fell swoop in the original iMac and all the machines that then shipped after that. That's also quite likely because Intel specced the motherboards, and put the USB in there -- not because Dell would have asked for it.
I also remember at the time that Apple was roundly criticized as being loony for pressing for USB across the line in peripherals, hardly the kind of reception a late to the party player would get.
I also remember at the time that Apple was roundly criticized as being loony for pressing for USB across the line in peripherals, hardly the kind of reception a late to the party player would get.
There is a major difference in the way the two companies operate. When Dell adds support they aren't dropping support for the previous tech to do so. When Apple adds something they like to drop the previous tech cold, just like they did with the floppy drive. That is where Apple was seen as being "loony" and why they tend to get credit for these milestones even though they aren't the first to do it. I'm sure if you research it you can find PC companies that were shipping PCs without floppy drives before Apple was.
There is a major difference in the way the two companies operate. When Dell adds support they aren't dropping support for the previous tech to do so. When Apple adds something they like to drop the previous tech cold, just like they did with the floppy drive. That is where Apple was seen as being "loony" and why they tend to get credit for these milestones even though they aren't the first to do it. I'm sure if you research it you can find PC companies that were shipping PCs without floppy drives before Apple was.
I'll call you on that last sentence. I don't believe that's the case at all with the reasonable exception of purpose-built limited I/O models (things like kiosks).
I'll call you on that last sentence. I don't believe that's the case at all with the reasonable exception of purpose-built limited I/O models (things like kiosks).
I wouldn't call any kiosk a personal computer so I'm going to argue the semantics of a "PC" OS being used in other capacities.
I do have the Commodore CDTV as Exhibit A which was a redesign of the Amiga 500. In your defense it was intended more as a "media appliance" than a "personal computer". In my defense, it was very much in line with PC capabilities at the time since it was 7 years before Apple dropped the floppy drive I have to think that some OEM had a PC without a floppy drive for sale. Granted, this is much easier to do with Amiga and Mac OS than it was on Windows, but I still don't think Apple was the first to actually do it, just the first to go all in with the move.
PS: Apparently HP didn't completely drop the floppy drive until last year and Sony is finally stopping production of the floppy disc this year. WTH!
The Amiga didn't drop the floppy drive. You had to buy it as an external. There never was an attempt to make floppies internal in that mostly console-type machine. Trying to call that box a bellweather in dropping the floppy drive is like saying a diesel engine shows that gasoline engines are on the way out. It makes no sense at all.
If I want back just a little farther could we say the good old C64 was a shipping computer with no floppy drive built in? Did that beat Apple by 12 years in showing how we could live without a floppy drive? How about the TRS-80 with no built in drive? And my Coleco Vision didn't have a drive either! Those makes no sense at all in the context of floppy EOL either.
All PC class computers had floppy drives in 1997. It was how you booted them in a pinch. That was even the main argument against Apple. How could they expect us to boot off a CD! We couldn't write any emergency boot info to it! And non-industrial CD burners were still three years off yet so that wasn't even the beginning of an option.
Comments
I think Gene needs to sharpen his pencil along with the rest of the Street. If Apple sold 2.603M in 2009 and I get 39% growth then I sell 3.618M not 3.1 to 3.2M The US sales from NPD point to a much better number then Gene will admit because the overseas sales have been better then the US. As far as iPod cannibalization Apple said in the CC they expect -7% YOY and again the world-wide sales are probably better then US but well have to wait and see.
I think Gene is taking into account the refresh in April; that extra boost will start to wear off in May and June.
In any case, I think he's underestimating. Analysts usually underestimate because the "credibility penalty" for underestimating is less than for overestimating.
I find it mildly annoying that articles about sales continue to use terms such as "June quarter", which is in common use mostly in Europe and Australia. I think many of us here would be scratching our heads, thinking does this mean begins in June or ends in June?
Here in the US, it is always first quarter, second quarter, etc.
I guess Gene must work in the London office?
I think Gene uses June quarter because Apple's 3rd quarter is the June quarter, but it's the 2nd quarter by calendar year.
I know Palm was gonna sink, but I figured there was time to turn a nice profit before the Pre was launched. Oddly, I forgot to actually invest. Ç'est la vie.
I think HP is well managed so if anyone can pull WebOS into a viable tablet device I think they can.
Some new evidence into the bidding war cropped up with weekend.
The 800lb gorilla hasn't left the room.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
HP will succeed only if Microsoft fails to act.
The 800lb gorilla hasn't left the room.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
HP will succeed only if Microsoft fails to act.
I think you're right. Apple will clearly do well having kick-started the tablet market, but M$ will sadly come in with a crappy product that they sell cheap and force PC vendors to use and they will gain a lot of market share.
The 800lb gorilla hasn't left the room.
If I was Microsoft I would leverage my huge existing third party software base and 90% market share to work with a Win 7 tablet UI, thereby eventually shutting HP out and forcing them to adopt if they want to sell hardware.
Two's a company, three's a crowd. Developers have their fill of Apple's idiosyncrasies enough as it is without dealing with the likes of Google, Canonical and HP with theirs, for what? A mere tiny percentage of market share?
At least Apple delivers the high end on a platter so the return is worthy of the investment.
HP will succeed only if Microsoft fails to act.
MS has little if any software for a true multi-touch interface like Apple and I am assuming an HP tablet based on Palm OS would have. How can MS leverage what they don't have and Win 7 mobile won't cut it {I'll bet.
MS has little if any software for a true multi-touch interface like Apple and I am assuming an HP tablet based on Palm OS would have. How can MS leverage what they don't have and Win 7 mobile won't cut it {I'll bet.
Unfortunately, Win 2, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win Me, Win XP didn't cut it either, but still sold in bucketloads.
I hope I'm wrong, but M$'s track record of pedalling crap is impressive, and they may do the same with tablets.
Interested to see a Palm OS tablet though. The Palm phones I've seen have some pretty neat features.
Unfortunately, Win 2, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win Me, Win XP didn't cut it either, but still sold in bucketloads.
I hope I'm wrong, but M$'s track record of pedalling crap is impressive, and they may do the same with tablets.
Interested to see a Palm OS tablet though. The Palm phones I've seen have some pretty neat features.
The situation is different with tablets.
First, Windows computers have historically sold well because they're cheaper than the alternatives. That doesn't appear to be the case with tablets (at least, based on proposed selling prices).
Second, Windows computers sold well because of network effects - 'EVERYONE' had Windows, so that's what new buyers purchased. They've lost that advantage, as well.
The best chance for Windows is if they convince customers that it's just another PC and needs to work the way the PC they already have works. However, that negates the advantages of tablets and condemns users to a 'full windows on a touch screen' hell. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it will be a very difficult sell for Microsoft to dominate tablets like they do PCs.
HP/Palm might have a better chance - but only if they do a lot of things right -- and very quickly. Neither HP nor Palm has a history of moving quickly, so they'd better make some cultural changes fast.
I bought Ford at $2 a share instead, hee hee.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:F
i got mac at split price 7.55$
gm looks sick at under $10 a share
>>>>>
oddly since macs last so long record sales may not be so easy
still i see a 6 mill qt coming for apple
and if you add up all the devices that apple sells per qter
pods touchs pads phones and macs .. it must be over 7 mill a 1/4
or even more
boogles the mind
The situation is different with tablets.
First, Windows computers have historically sold well because they're cheaper than the alternatives. That doesn't appear to be the case with tablets (at least, based on proposed selling prices).
Second, Windows computers sold well because of network effects - 'EVERYONE' had Windows, so that's what new buyers purchased. They've lost that advantage, as well.
The best chance for Windows is if they convince customers that it's just another PC and needs to work the way the PC they already have works. However, that negates the advantages of tablets and condemns users to a 'full windows on a touch screen' hell. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it will be a very difficult sell for Microsoft to dominate tablets like they do PCs.
HP/Palm might have a better chance - but only if they do a lot of things right -- and very quickly. Neither HP nor Palm has a history of moving quickly, so they'd better make some cultural changes fast.
Ture enough.
I wonder what effect Microsoft Office might have on this. If a decent version of Office becomes available on a Windows tablet (whatever that may be), that could have enormous clout, especially in the corporate market.
Ture enough.
I wonder what effect Microsoft Office might have on this. If a decent version of Office becomes available on a Windows tablet (whatever that may be), that could have enormous clout, especially in the corporate market.
Do you think that there's ANY chance Microsoft would release a version of Office slim enough to work on a reasonable tablet? Their idea of 'better' is limited to adding 500 new features.
Just maybe a version of Works that would read and write Office files, but even that is a stretch. If the tablet makers go with something like WebOS rather than Windows, it's even less likely.
LOL Good luck with that. Is the spec even completed? Is there any HW for it on the market? When was the last time Apple was a the first to adopt a technology they didn't create?
Probably USB, you know, that completely-ubiquitous-external-bus-thingie Intel invented.
Probably USB, you know, that completely-ubiquitous-external-bus-thingie Intel invented.
Dell certainly used USB before Apple, as well DisplayPort. Apple gets the notoriety because tend to go all-in when they adopt a standard.
Dell certainly used USB before Apple, as well DisplayPort. Apple gets the notoriety because tend to go all-in when they adopt a standard.
I'm not so sure about that, although I'm not going to argue the point date-wise. it is possible Dell put a USB port in it's computers before Apple did, but Dell didn't ship it's own peripherals as USB until the early 2000's, at least 4 years after Apple did a never look back move everything off ADB onto USB. Apple killed the floppy as a internal peripheral at the same time. One fell swoop in the original iMac and all the machines that then shipped after that. That's also quite likely because Intel specced the motherboards, and put the USB in there -- not because Dell would have asked for it.
I also remember at the time that Apple was roundly criticized as being loony for pressing for USB across the line in peripherals, hardly the kind of reception a late to the party player would get.
I also remember at the time that Apple was roundly criticized as being loony for pressing for USB across the line in peripherals, hardly the kind of reception a late to the party player would get.
There is a major difference in the way the two companies operate. When Dell adds support they aren't dropping support for the previous tech to do so. When Apple adds something they like to drop the previous tech cold, just like they did with the floppy drive. That is where Apple was seen as being "loony" and why they tend to get credit for these milestones even though they aren't the first to do it. I'm sure if you research it you can find PC companies that were shipping PCs without floppy drives before Apple was.
There is a major difference in the way the two companies operate. When Dell adds support they aren't dropping support for the previous tech to do so. When Apple adds something they like to drop the previous tech cold, just like they did with the floppy drive. That is where Apple was seen as being "loony" and why they tend to get credit for these milestones even though they aren't the first to do it. I'm sure if you research it you can find PC companies that were shipping PCs without floppy drives before Apple was.
I'll call you on that last sentence. I don't believe that's the case at all with the reasonable exception of purpose-built limited I/O models (things like kiosks).
I'll call you on that last sentence. I don't believe that's the case at all with the reasonable exception of purpose-built limited I/O models (things like kiosks).
I wouldn't call any kiosk a personal computer so I'm going to argue the semantics of a "PC" OS being used in other capacities.
I do have the Commodore CDTV as Exhibit A which was a redesign of the Amiga 500. In your defense it was intended more as a "media appliance" than a "personal computer". In my defense, it was very much in line with PC capabilities at the time since it was 7 years before Apple dropped the floppy drive I have to think that some OEM had a PC without a floppy drive for sale. Granted, this is much easier to do with Amiga and Mac OS than it was on Windows, but I still don't think Apple was the first to actually do it, just the first to go all in with the move.
PS: Apparently HP didn't completely drop the floppy drive until last year and Sony is finally stopping production of the floppy disc this year. WTH!
If I want back just a little farther could we say the good old C64 was a shipping computer with no floppy drive built in? Did that beat Apple by 12 years in showing how we could live without a floppy drive? How about the TRS-80 with no built in drive? And my Coleco Vision didn't have a drive either! Those makes no sense at all in the context of floppy EOL either.
All PC class computers had floppy drives in 1997. It was how you booted them in a pinch. That was even the main argument against Apple. How could they expect us to boot off a CD! We couldn't write any emergency boot info to it! And non-industrial CD burners were still three years off yet so that wasn't even the beginning of an option.