They are "Net sales" numbers. They do not take into account "cost of sales"
Apple's Net Sales last quarter was $51.501 billion, with a $30.953 billion cost of sales (cost of goods/cost of sales). This leaves a gross margin of $20.548 billion. Operating expenses for the quarter ate up $5.925 billion of that gross profit.
The breakdown for the $52.502 billion in gross sales was
iPhone - $32.209 billion
Mac $6.882 billion
iPad - $4.276 billion
Services - $5.086 billion
other - $3.048 billion
While Apple does not publish profit margin per product, third parties do make some informed estimates. While these estimates may not be accurate, they certainly suggest which products are more profitable, and which are less.
This would put profits from the Mac at about $1.308 billion
If these margins are anywhere close, then even with lower sales, the iPad line generates more profit than the Mac line.
Hmm.. I am not sure you (and the person who added to your reputation, @JackANSI ) know the difference between (or the definition of) net sales and gross sales. All sales numbers reported by companies in their 10Qs and 10Ks that reflect their so-called "top line" reflect net sales: i.e., gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
That aside, if you want to believe utterly bogus analyst/ReCode/Slate estimates about component costs (and you might also want to look up the difference between component costs -- which, in any case, only Apple knows about -- and cost of goods sold), knock yourself out.
Or you can bother to look up the meanings of these terms.
Given all the previous "never" comments from Apple (Steve Jobs re: stylus or 'phablet'), you can be assured that Apple is truly working on the 'MacPad'. If it ran OS X and was the size and weight of the iPad Pro, they would have a winner. But, unfortunately, it would also cannibalize from the MacBook and the Air.
What you would do with a hybrid device is be able to use the more familiar and useful hierarchical filing system to file the way you prefer and not be forced into the slightly weird filing system used by IOS. You would also be able to use the keyboard to operate in the REAL versions of PAGES, KEYNOTE, etc. When searching files you would not have the screen filled by icons. And when either reading a book, or giving a presentation, you would have the advantage of not having to have to cluster around the laptop screen which only opens partially.
All it would take is making the screen touch sensitive for scrolling and changing the hinge so you could lay the screen out flat.
Sure would help me to have this flexibility, only one device to carry. Don't know if it would work for everyone, but I think it's worth considering.
Get a MacBook. You are misrepresenting the pitch. Apple is trying to communicate that you can let an iPad handle a certain amount of needs. If your needs aren't met then get a MacBook. iPad Pro is Pro, but not in the way you think of it.
Two of my friends bought an iPad Pro. Both draw. One is a designer and the other is an architect. They said it's the best device to sketch, brainstorm, freehand, draft and present + awesome for entertainment. It's not a replacement for a laptop. It's more of an iPad.
Since Apple has watchOS and tvOS perhaps they also need iPadOS or at least more things that are iPad/iPad Pro specific? I know a 27" iMac runs the same software as a 12" MacBook but I still think iPad needs UI and apps unique to it. Things like split view are a start in the right direction. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of taking advantage of the screen real estate and power of the device not turning it into a laptop.
I think the term macintosh will remain adhered to the desktop.
And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it.
Really.
Key tenets:
1) personal computer. My guess iOS will evolve to 'personal' and 'guest/family' accounts. Thats is.
2) 100% touch interface. attachable keyboards not withstanding, no other pointing metaphor will come to bear. Mice, external drawing tablets, etc. will never be allowed
3) Spotlight vs finder.
4) Strong Typing. (more like 3a). Apps own their data. The most object of object oriented computing is the data object, which in iOS is wrapped by the App. The latest iOS is about calling other apps to display data objects, not allowing 20 different applications to muck around with the underlying data structure without using the class messages that the app has defined for it.
5) 100% local or hybrid cloud, or 100% cloud. Every device is a caching view of a cloud storage system.
There are more, but those are the key items that underscore iOS vs MacOSX ideological differences
"And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it"
Agreed. Which kind of makes the Macbook waste of engineering resources.
Steve Job's vision was for the computer to be an appliance. You shouldn't have to know what's going on under the hood. You shouldn't need to know about filesystems on your Mac and more than you need to know about the filesystems in the computer that runs your car.
Sure, some people like rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty, but the vast majority don't want to know how their computer (or car) actually works. High end drivers want a manual transmission. Most drivers prefer an automatic transmission. Apple is clearly moving the Mac to be more like an "automatic transmission" than a manual.
some credit where it's due... Jef Raskin wrote the Macintosh bible, and a precursor document where he described the goal as being an appliance type computing device that the Person In The Street (PITS) could understand and use.
What you would do with a hybrid device is be able to use the more familiar and useful hierarchical filing system to file the way you prefer and not be forced into the slightly weird filing system used by IOS.
I'd like to see them take advantage of tags and other metadata in iOS instead. They could offer up files in a "file manager" but it'd be a listing based on tags you provided, where location of file is one of the tags (e.g. OnDevice/CloudReplicated/CloudBackedUp - or something like that). The hierarchical file system is legacy based on the physical disks and file layout of old, and we all know how most people do with organising their files ("I know I saved it here somewhere"<grin>). iOS could easily allow file access through a new paradigm that wasn't so much about *where* a file was located. Folder names are physical locations with attached metadata, but are still basically just locations.
Quote:
You would also be able to use the keyboard to operate in the REAL versions of PAGES, KEYNOTE, etc.
Love it when people claim *their* version is real (i.e. superior) and the same anyone else uses is inferior. Might as well call an iDevice an iToy.
Quote:
All it would take is making the screen touch sensitive for scrolling
If only it were that easy.
What I think is that the easier thing to fix is: users. I'm not saying Apple doesn't need to address some items in iOS, but I'm sure they have those in the works and are planning just that. You (and me and others who've lived through c:\ text based OSes) are the ones that need to fully embrace this new way of interacting with devices. The primary means of input isn't the mouse, cursor and command prompt any longer, it's touch. That's what the kids are used to using, that what Apple is building out, that's the future.
What I think the more likely scenario than a hybrid system is a MacBook based on iOS that isn't touch (on the screen). It will sport an A-series chip, it will run a non-touch version of iOS and use a Touchpad and keyboard for input, and it will run iOS apps. I think you'll see that sooner than a touch-based OS X. It'll be thin, fast and have great battery life, and if the screen detaches, it'll revert to normal iOS for its interface, looking no different, only accepting input differently. That's much more likely than OS X with touch.
Hmm.. I am not sure you (and the person who added to your reputation, @JackANSI ) know the difference between (or the definition of) net sales and gross sales. All sales numbers reported by companies in their 10Qs and 10Ks that reflect their so-called "top line" reflect net sales: i.e., gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
That aside, if you want to believe utterly bogus analyst/ReCode/Slate estimates about component costs (and you might also want to look up the difference between component costs -- which, in any case, only Apple knows about -- and cost of goods sold), knock yourself out.
Or you can bother to look up the meanings of these terms.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I agree that Net Sales are gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
However, I think gross profit (net sales less cost-of-goods-sold) is what affects the bottom line. Gross-Profit/Net-Sales gives us our gross profit margin.
I think it is fair to assume that the gross profit margin for the Mac might be different than the gross profit margin for the iPad. If the difference was large enough, then the iPad might add more to Apple's bottom line than the Mac, even though Mac sales were higher.
In other words, I would rather have 50% of $3, then 20% of $4.
The only actual question is what are the gross profit margins for the various product lines?
Fortunately, we don't need to know the actual numbers, merely how they relate to one another. If we know that the iPad profit margin is 2.5 times the Mac profit margin, then we can compare the relative profitability without knowing the actual profitability.
For instance, when we compare prices on components, we know what typical companies would pay, but we don't know how much of a discount Apple gets. We don't need to know. As long as Apple's discount for Mac components is similar to their discount for iPad components, we should be in the ballpark. And being in the ballpark is all we need.
When knowledgeable people look at the products, they estimate that Apple's gross profit margin for the iPad is 2.5 times their gross profit margin for the Mac. I doesn't matter whether that's %50 and 20%, or 25% and 10%. Of course, these are estimates, Perhaps the profit margin of the iPad is only twice that of the Mac. However, even at only double the profit margin, the iPad line generates more profit than the Mac line.
We do know that Apple's overall gross profit margin for the quarter was about 40% This tells us that the estimated gross profit margins for the various product lines appear to be in the ballpark.
The evidence seems to strongly suggest that while Apple brings in more gross revenue from the Mac line, it makes more net profit from the iPad line.
Lets call this what it is - a business strategy, not a product strategy. The iPad pro is a perfect example of a hobbled device - it's dying to be what everyone needs but they won't let it. If they simply put some kind of representitve gesturing control into iOS (mouse, crackpot support), then they would change the paradigm of what computing today is. It's the same thing they did when they went from the apple ii series to mac... it was a painful transition - but it was the right one.
Microsoft surface is a fantastic device... and anyone who wants to throw barbs at it is a shortsighted fool. Microsoft got their ass handed to them and they came out swinging. Who cares if if makes money - they've got the most versatile device there is, and the tide is going to start turning - want to see the future of computing - stop being a tool and look at Surface. BUT APPLE still has the edge - because - all Tim Cook would have to do is allow a mouse into the iOS input universe. That's it. Select, Cut, Copy, Paste without having to point and go through that contorted touch screen process - which feels like the stone age. Don't converge, do converge - that's PR lingo bull. A mouse on the iPad Pro - that's a game changing move that takes how people work now and elevates to a new level... and it's SOOOO simple to accomplish.
Want the killer iPad Pro app? - it's a MOUSE (or trackpad on the bluetooth keyboard) then I could get some real work done on a plane. Until that happens it's a toy. Sure some people have found ways to do productive things with it... but the NOT hard core work of spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing etc. LET THE iPad Pro out of it's cage!
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
The Surface is just an half baked, poorly designed, highly overpriced solution to a non existent problem....
Well, Cook talked similarly about bigger iPhones... ...now we have them.
Also there are two ways to do hybrid devices: one's the M$ way, with a hybrid GUI; the other would be with two distinct GUI modes. OS X already has window and full screen modes, they could easily add a touch UI mode. The underlying OS is the same anyway. App developers would simply have to write universal apps that are capable of switching to the third display mode when the device is used without keyboard/pointing device. Given the iPad Pro's power, a dockable keyboard with USB ports, SD card slot and track pad could make an iPad Pro like device switchable between laptop and tablet modes, with corresponding switch in UI; no compromise necessary.
I dunno. I've always dreamed of a Star Trek-y future of just one device that you can use for anything. But coming from a business perspective this makes perfect sense. The iPad is a very popular tablet and the MacBook is a popular laptop. It makes more sense to stick with 2 huge money-making devices than to risk your entire company on something completely new. A bird in the hand and all that
Well, Cook talked similarly about bigger iPhones...
...now we have them.
i recall Jobs talking about what he considered the ideal phone size, but not Cook. Jobs' opinion was surely weighted by the display resolution at the time, and the newness of the devices as a computing platform.
in any event, Ive said he was working on them since the iphone 4, but they were still too fat.
Well, Cook talked similarly about bigger iPhones...
...now we have them.
Also there are two ways to do hybrid devices: one's the M$ way, with a hybrid GUI; the other would be with two distinct GUI modes.
OS X already has window and full screen modes, they could easily add a touch UI mode. The underlying OS is the same anyway. App developers would simply have to write universal apps that are capable of switching to the third display mode when the device is used without keyboard/pointing device.
Given the iPad Pro's power, a dockable keyboard with USB ports, SD card slot and track pad could make an iPad Pro like device switchable between laptop and tablet modes, with corresponding switch in UI; no compromise necessary.
Using different modes is a bad idea demonstrated by MS. It's the best way to confuse users and developers at the same time.
A tablet is the endpoint of PC evolution with current display technology (that is non foldable or extremely bendable displays).
This means that it has to be able to do all a computer can do, because the definition of a computer is that it is a universal device.
If Apple doesn't do it others will, and even if MS keeps failing (I expect they will) Google will eventually get it right (but 5 or 10 years later).
... The X-Serve has been discontinued, and they no longer make an easily rack-mounted product. Yes, you can throw some Mac Mini's on some shelves, but these are not high end machines. Apple has even discontinued the quad-core version of the Mac-Mini, leaving only dual-core versions.
Well, there are rack-mount solutions for the Mac Pro (e.g. this, and this), but they are aftermarket products and they are not really the same as a hypoethetical modern XServe.
These expansion chasses are too expensive for a typical user who just wants to keep his desk uncluttered - they're clearly aimed at people who want to set them up in a machine room, but they do exist for those that require the capability and can afford the cost.
As for "easily", I'm going to ignore that part. Easy is a personal opinion. You and I probably disagree about how easy it is to install a Mac Pro into one of these chasses.
Well, there are rack-mount solutions for the Mac Pro (e.g. this, and this), but they are aftermarket products and they are not really the same as a hypoethetical modern XServe.
These expansion chasses are too expensive for a typical user who just wants to keep his desk uncluttered - they're clearly aimed at people who want to set them up in a machine room, but they do exist for those that require the capability and can afford the cost.
As for "easily", I'm going to ignore that part. Easy is a personal opinion. You and I probably disagree about how easy it is to install a Mac Pro into one of these chasses.
We don't have to decide whether or not it is easy. I think we can both agree that Apple used to sell a Mac that was intended to be installed in a rack mounted environment. Apple not longer has a product this is intended to be installed in a rack.
The X-Server was available in configurations that were designed specifically for the server environment. Each machine was one rack unit tall. Each machine was designed to be serviceable without disrupting the operation of adjacent machines. The X-Serve has room for multiple internal Hard Drives. Support for internal RAID controllers. Optional redundant internal power supplies. There was even a serial port for remote console management.
The third party Mac Pro rack mounting solution is 4 units high. It can be configured to hold one Mac Pro as some disk drives, or two Mac Pros and no disk drives. Essentially, the Mac Pro takes 4 times the rack space as the old X-Serve.
So yes, you can use a third party solution to put Mac Pros into your rack, but it is not as good a solution as the old X-Serve, or current Dell one-unit high servers.
So yes, people who need a rack mounted solution, can use a Mac. But it is not a configuration that Apple supports, and Apple no longer provides the hardware/software features one typically wants for rack mounted servers.
I think it's fair to say that Apple is no longer in the rack mounted server market.
Using different modes is a bad idea demonstrated by MS. It's the best way to confuse users and developers at the same time.
A tablet is the endpoint of PC evolution with current display technology (that is non foldable or extremely bendable displays).
This means that it has to be able to do all a computer can do, because the definition of a computer is that it is a universal device.
If Apple doesn't do it others will, and even if MS keeps failing (I expect they will) Google will eventually get it right (but 5 or 10 years later).
As I said in a previous entry.
Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
"Apple will not 'converge' iPad and MacBook lines, says Tim Cook".
Great. Then, please release a Mac tablet to boost sales. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker for our University.
I'm curious as to what the business case is, and why it isn't better served by MacBooks (whether adjectiveless, Airs, or Pros).
Quote:
Originally Posted by makeintosh
Astoessel! Have you ever used a Mac? What can you do on a Mac that you cannot on an iPad? Well let's see, here's 4 to start...
1. Have several Applications open - as windows, not full screen. As you would...for real business.
2. Store documents locally and access them from a real file system (Finder comes to mind).
3. Run a virtual machine like VMWare
4. Full featured apps, unlike the often crippled IOS versions.
5. Connect a second display.
Do you think the fact that most Mac Apps are not touch friendly might be because...oh...the Mac isn't??!! Duh. Have you considered they might become touch friendly if the Mac was??
Go ahead, keep IOS separate from OSX if that's what Apple wants. Don't converge. That's ok, but don't deny the market for a Mac tablet. There are those like us who really do want to replace our MacBooks with an tablet. The MacBook proves it is technically possible. Read Walt Mossberg's review. The iPad Pro is a nice iPad, but it does NOT replace a MacBook.
The iPad Pro is indeed a nice...iPad. I would buy it if I needed another iPad. But I do more than email and surf and need the freedom of OSX. Sure would love to see a Mac tablet.
But you haven't really made an argument for why there should be a Mac Tablet, just why a Mac is better suited to some purposes than an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
There are some that need these:
But even if you need one of those, you don't use it to drive to the shops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm
"It's more of an iPad."
Actually, it is an iPad. A very big one.
The clue, as always, is in the name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryJW
As I said in a previous entry.
Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
How did that design work for Lenovo? You know, their Linux notebook that ran Android if you took the keyboard off? The one they announced to great fanfare at CES 2010, and then seemed to disappear?
My chief problem with this whole debate is that no-one seems able to come up with a reason for Apple to merge the Mac and iPad hardware lines, or even for a Mac OSX tablet, other than "It would be cool". Never mind the compromises needed, or the inherent problems in producing such a device, people want it so they must make it. I think in reality the number of people who want it is much smaller than the number of people who just don't care.
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
what on earth are you talking about? going back on their word? if youre referring to Jobs, er, no. his statement was that if a tablet requires a stylus to operate, they blew it. that had nothing to do w/ drawing accessories like the Pencil.
Comments
They are "Net sales" numbers. They do not take into account "cost of sales"
Apple's Net Sales last quarter was $51.501 billion, with a $30.953 billion cost of sales (cost of goods/cost of sales). This leaves a gross margin of $20.548 billion. Operating expenses for the quarter ate up $5.925 billion of that gross profit.
The breakdown for the $52.502 billion in gross sales was
iPhone - $32.209 billion
Mac $6.882 billion
iPad - $4.276 billion
Services - $5.086 billion
other - $3.048 billion
While Apple does not publish profit margin per product, third parties do make some informed estimates. While these estimates may not be accurate, they certainly suggest which products are more profitable, and which are less.
Estimates of the iPad Air 2 are a gross profit of 45 to 57 percent. (http://recode.net/2014/10/28/apples-latest-ipad-costs-about-the-same-as-the-first-but-with-slightly-lower-profits/)
If we call that 50%, we would estimate the net profit from iPad sales at about $2.138 billion
Estimates are about 19% profit margin for Macs (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/16/mac_profits_are_high_too_high.html)
This would put profits from the Mac at about $1.308 billion
If these margins are anywhere close, then even with lower sales, the iPad line generates more profit than the Mac line.
Hmm.. I am not sure you (and the person who added to your reputation, @JackANSI ) know the difference between (or the definition of) net sales and gross sales. All sales numbers reported by companies in their 10Qs and 10Ks that reflect their so-called "top line" reflect net sales: i.e., gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
That aside, if you want to believe utterly bogus analyst/ReCode/Slate estimates about component costs (and you might also want to look up the difference between component costs -- which, in any case, only Apple knows about -- and cost of goods sold), knock yourself out.
Or you can bother to look up the meanings of these terms.
What you would do with a hybrid device is be able to use the more familiar and useful hierarchical filing system to file the way you prefer and not be forced into the slightly weird filing system used by IOS. You would also be able to use the keyboard to operate in the REAL versions of PAGES, KEYNOTE, etc. When searching files you would not have the screen filled by icons. And when either reading a book, or giving a presentation, you would have the advantage of not having to have to cluster around the laptop screen which only opens partially.
All it would take is making the screen touch sensitive for scrolling and changing the hinge so you could lay the screen out flat.
Sure would help me to have this flexibility, only one device to carry. Don't know if it would work for everyone, but I think it's worth considering.
Get a MacBook.
Get a MacBook.
Get a MacBook. You are misrepresenting the pitch. Apple is trying to communicate that you can let an iPad handle a certain amount of needs. If your needs aren't met then get a MacBook. iPad Pro is Pro, but not in the way you think of it.
Two of my friends bought an iPad Pro. Both draw. One is a designer and the other is an architect. They said it's the best device to sketch, brainstorm, freehand, draft and present + awesome for entertainment. It's not a replacement for a laptop. It's more of an iPad.
"It's more of an iPad."
Actually, it is an iPad. A very big one.
Since Apple has watchOS and tvOS perhaps they also need iPadOS or at least more things that are iPad/iPad Pro specific? I know a 27" iMac runs the same software as a 12" MacBook but I still think iPad needs UI and apps unique to it. Things like split view are a start in the right direction. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of taking advantage of the screen real estate and power of the device not turning it into a laptop.
Agreed. This article explains it pretty well
http://markdmill.com/2015/10/12/ipad-pro-and-the-toaster-fridge/
I think the term macintosh will remain adhered to the desktop.
And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it.
Really.
Key tenets:
1) personal computer. My guess iOS will evolve to 'personal' and 'guest/family' accounts. Thats is.
2) 100% touch interface. attachable keyboards not withstanding, no other pointing metaphor will come to bear. Mice, external drawing tablets, etc. will never be allowed
3) Spotlight vs finder.
4) Strong Typing. (more like 3a). Apps own their data. The most object of object oriented computing is the data object, which in iOS is wrapped by the App. The latest iOS is about calling other apps to display data objects, not allowing 20 different applications to muck around with the underlying data structure without using the class messages that the app has defined for it.
5) 100% local or hybrid cloud, or 100% cloud. Every device is a caching view of a cloud storage system.
There are more, but those are the key items that underscore iOS vs MacOSX ideological differences
"And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it"
Agreed. Which kind of makes the Macbook waste of engineering resources.
some credit where it's due... Jef Raskin wrote the Macintosh bible, and a precursor document where he described the goal as being an appliance type computing device that the Person In The Street (PITS) could understand and use.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&showcomments=1
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/primary/docs/bom/anthrophilic.html
What you would do with a hybrid device is be able to use the more familiar and useful hierarchical filing system to file the way you prefer and not be forced into the slightly weird filing system used by IOS.
I'd like to see them take advantage of tags and other metadata in iOS instead. They could offer up files in a "file manager" but it'd be a listing based on tags you provided, where location of file is one of the tags (e.g. OnDevice/CloudReplicated/CloudBackedUp - or something like that). The hierarchical file system is legacy based on the physical disks and file layout of old, and we all know how most people do with organising their files ("I know I saved it here somewhere"<grin>). iOS could easily allow file access through a new paradigm that wasn't so much about *where* a file was located. Folder names are physical locations with attached metadata, but are still basically just locations.
Quote:
Love it when people claim *their* version is real (i.e. superior) and the same anyone else uses is inferior. Might as well call an iDevice an iToy.
All it would take is making the screen touch sensitive for scrolling
If only it were that easy.
What I think is that the easier thing to fix is: users. I'm not saying Apple doesn't need to address some items in iOS, but I'm sure they have those in the works and are planning just that. You (and me and others who've lived through c:\ text based OSes) are the ones that need to fully embrace this new way of interacting with devices. The primary means of input isn't the mouse, cursor and command prompt any longer, it's touch. That's what the kids are used to using, that what Apple is building out, that's the future.
What I think the more likely scenario than a hybrid system is a MacBook based on iOS that isn't touch (on the screen). It will sport an A-series chip, it will run a non-touch version of iOS and use a Touchpad and keyboard for input, and it will run iOS apps. I think you'll see that sooner than a touch-based OS X. It'll be thin, fast and have great battery life, and if the screen detaches, it'll revert to normal iOS for its interface, looking no different, only accepting input differently. That's much more likely than OS X with touch.
Hmm.. I am not sure you (and the person who added to your reputation, @JackANSI ) know the difference between (or the definition of) net sales and gross sales. All sales numbers reported by companies in their 10Qs and 10Ks that reflect their so-called "top line" reflect net sales: i.e., gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
That aside, if you want to believe utterly bogus analyst/ReCode/Slate estimates about component costs (and you might also want to look up the difference between component costs -- which, in any case, only Apple knows about -- and cost of goods sold), knock yourself out.
Or you can bother to look up the meanings of these terms.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I agree that Net Sales are gross sales net of allowances/discounts/returns.
However, I think gross profit (net sales less cost-of-goods-sold) is what affects the bottom line. Gross-Profit/Net-Sales gives us our gross profit margin.
I think it is fair to assume that the gross profit margin for the Mac might be different than the gross profit margin for the iPad. If the difference was large enough, then the iPad might add more to Apple's bottom line than the Mac, even though Mac sales were higher.
In other words, I would rather have 50% of $3, then 20% of $4.
The only actual question is what are the gross profit margins for the various product lines?
Fortunately, we don't need to know the actual numbers, merely how they relate to one another. If we know that the iPad profit margin is 2.5 times the Mac profit margin, then we can compare the relative profitability without knowing the actual profitability.
For instance, when we compare prices on components, we know what typical companies would pay, but we don't know how much of a discount Apple gets. We don't need to know. As long as Apple's discount for Mac components is similar to their discount for iPad components, we should be in the ballpark. And being in the ballpark is all we need.
When knowledgeable people look at the products, they estimate that Apple's gross profit margin for the iPad is 2.5 times their gross profit margin for the Mac. I doesn't matter whether that's %50 and 20%, or 25% and 10%. Of course, these are estimates, Perhaps the profit margin of the iPad is only twice that of the Mac. However, even at only double the profit margin, the iPad line generates more profit than the Mac line.
We do know that Apple's overall gross profit margin for the quarter was about 40% This tells us that the estimated gross profit margins for the various product lines appear to be in the ballpark.
The evidence seems to strongly suggest that while Apple brings in more gross revenue from the Mac line, it makes more net profit from the iPad line.
...now we have them.
Also there are two ways to do hybrid devices: one's the M$ way, with a hybrid GUI; the other would be with two distinct GUI modes.
OS X already has window and full screen modes, they could easily add a touch UI mode. The underlying OS is the same anyway. App developers would simply have to write universal apps that are capable of switching to the third display mode when the device is used without keyboard/pointing device.
Given the iPad Pro's power, a dockable keyboard with USB ports, SD card slot and track pad could make an iPad Pro like device switchable between laptop and tablet modes, with corresponding switch in UI; no compromise necessary.
Exactly.
i recall Jobs talking about what he considered the ideal phone size, but not Cook. Jobs' opinion was surely weighted by the display resolution at the time, and the newness of the devices as a computing platform.
in any event, Ive said he was working on them since the iphone 4, but they were still too fat.
Using different modes is a bad idea demonstrated by MS. It's the best way to confuse users and developers at the same time.
A tablet is the endpoint of PC evolution with current display technology (that is non foldable or extremely bendable displays).
This means that it has to be able to do all a computer can do, because the definition of a computer is that it is a universal device.
If Apple doesn't do it others will, and even if MS keeps failing (I expect they will) Google will eventually get it right (but 5 or 10 years later).
Originally Posted by mfryd
... The X-Serve has been discontinued, and they no longer make an easily rack-mounted product. Yes, you can throw some Mac Mini's on some shelves, but these are not high end machines. Apple has even discontinued the quad-core version of the Mac-Mini, leaving only dual-core versions.
Well, there are rack-mount solutions for the Mac Pro (e.g. this, and this), but they are aftermarket products and they are not really the same as a hypoethetical modern XServe.
These expansion chasses are too expensive for a typical user who just wants to keep his desk uncluttered - they're clearly aimed at people who want to set them up in a machine room, but they do exist for those that require the capability and can afford the cost.
As for "easily", I'm going to ignore that part. Easy is a personal opinion. You and I probably disagree about how easy it is to install a Mac Pro into one of these chasses.
Well, there are rack-mount solutions for the Mac Pro (e.g. this, and this), but they are aftermarket products and they are not really the same as a hypoethetical modern XServe.
These expansion chasses are too expensive for a typical user who just wants to keep his desk uncluttered - they're clearly aimed at people who want to set them up in a machine room, but they do exist for those that require the capability and can afford the cost.
As for "easily", I'm going to ignore that part. Easy is a personal opinion. You and I probably disagree about how easy it is to install a Mac Pro into one of these chasses.
We don't have to decide whether or not it is easy. I think we can both agree that Apple used to sell a Mac that was intended to be installed in a rack mounted environment. Apple not longer has a product this is intended to be installed in a rack.
The X-Server was available in configurations that were designed specifically for the server environment. Each machine was one rack unit tall. Each machine was designed to be serviceable without disrupting the operation of adjacent machines. The X-Serve has room for multiple internal Hard Drives. Support for internal RAID controllers. Optional redundant internal power supplies. There was even a serial port for remote console management.
The third party Mac Pro rack mounting solution is 4 units high. It can be configured to hold one Mac Pro as some disk drives, or two Mac Pros and no disk drives. Essentially, the Mac Pro takes 4 times the rack space as the old X-Serve.
So yes, you can use a third party solution to put Mac Pros into your rack, but it is not as good a solution as the old X-Serve, or current Dell one-unit high servers.
So yes, people who need a rack mounted solution, can use a Mac. But it is not a configuration that Apple supports, and Apple no longer provides the hardware/software features one typically wants for rack mounted servers.
I think it's fair to say that Apple is no longer in the rack mounted server market.
As I said in a previous entry.
Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
"Apple will not 'converge' iPad and MacBook lines, says Tim Cook".
Great. Then, please release a Mac tablet to boost sales. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker for our University.
I'm curious as to what the business case is, and why it isn't better served by MacBooks (whether adjectiveless, Airs, or Pros).
Astoessel! Have you ever used a Mac? What can you do on a Mac that you cannot on an iPad? Well let's see, here's 4 to start...
1. Have several Applications open - as windows, not full screen. As you would...for real business.
2. Store documents locally and access them from a real file system (Finder comes to mind).
3. Run a virtual machine like VMWare
4. Full featured apps, unlike the often crippled IOS versions.
5. Connect a second display.
Do you think the fact that most Mac Apps are not touch friendly might be because...oh...the Mac isn't??!! Duh. Have you considered they might become touch friendly if the Mac was??
Go ahead, keep IOS separate from OSX if that's what Apple wants. Don't converge. That's ok, but don't deny the market for a Mac tablet. There are those like us who really do want to replace our MacBooks with an tablet. The MacBook proves it is technically possible. Read Walt Mossberg's review. The iPad Pro is a nice iPad, but it does NOT replace a MacBook.
The iPad Pro is indeed a nice...iPad. I would buy it if I needed another iPad. But I do more than email and surf and need the freedom of OSX. Sure would love to see a Mac tablet.
But you haven't really made an argument for why there should be a Mac Tablet, just why a Mac is better suited to some purposes than an iPad.
There are some that need these:
But even if you need one of those, you don't use it to drive to the shops.
"It's more of an iPad."
Actually, it is an iPad. A very big one.
The clue, as always, is in the name.
As I said in a previous entry.
Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
How did that design work for Lenovo? You know, their Linux notebook that ran Android if you took the keyboard off? The one they announced to great fanfare at CES 2010, and then seemed to disappear?
My chief problem with this whole debate is that no-one seems able to come up with a reason for Apple to merge the Mac and iPad hardware lines, or even for a Mac OSX tablet, other than "It would be cool". Never mind the compromises needed, or the inherent problems in producing such a device, people want it so they must make it. I think in reality the number of people who want it is much smaller than the number of people who just don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
There are some that need these:
Isn't this the new Apple Titan?
what on earth are you talking about? going back on their word? if youre referring to Jobs, er, no. his statement was that if a tablet requires a stylus to operate, they blew it. that had nothing to do w/ drawing accessories like the Pencil.