Apple doesnt appear to be in trouble, but iMac sales were 60k units. A pretty sad number.
People need to step back and look at the big picture.
Who is supposed to buy an iMac???
Not business ( emac, powerbook ).
Not professionals ( powermac, powerbook ).
Not education ( emac, ibook ).
That pretty much leaves consumers. Why would a consumer drop 1500 on an iMac? What is their motivation as a buyer, and how could that motivation be satisfied with another machine.
People who want a Mac arent going to get a PC instead, so they are going to look at Apple's line up and see what else is on offer. In that price they can get an ibook or a powerbook, both very attractive machines. Or they can save some bucks and get an iMac. At the moment I think most buyers are looking at a laptop and an iMac side by side and getting a laptop.
People who arent Mac converts face the same choice, but they place less value on the Mac in and of itself. So when they compare the iMac with other machines it fails to win.
Ask yourself, what about the iMac makes you want it over an emac, ibook, or powerbook. It only has one thing going for it, the monitor. And guess what, if you buy a powerbook you get dual monitor support. People can, and do, justify getting a powerbook over an imac because it can work like a desktop if they get a monitor for ( which is a future purchase, and doesnt enter into cost comparisons ).
When I look at the product quadrant I see this:
powermac | powerbook
-----------------------------
emac | ibook
Where does the imac go. It has no compelling reason for purchase ( it is cool, but that isnt enough, just look at its sales numbers, very cube like ). Cost stops it being in the consumer half, and power stops it being in the pro half.
Im sure Apple have considered this, and if the iMac is going to be a successful product it needs to find its place.
It could be an AIO alternative pro machine ( at that price point it had better be ). But in that case it better have some pro features.
It could be the consumer desktop, but not at the projected price point.
TS' projected features and price put the iMac squarely in no mans land, and I think everyone here agrees that if Apple do that to the iMac again it once again will fail to make significant sales.
For all those who say that a consumer machine doesnt need a fast GPU, get a laptop, or save some bucks and get an eMac. Those machines fill that role. The role of the original iMac was as an AIO version of the powermac. It was just as fast, and had good graphics. Apple have lost that vision over time. The original iMac showed the following point very strongly:
When consumers are given the choice of a tower or an AIO they will choose the AIO, as long as it is as powerful as the tower. Presentation can win, but not in the absence of content.
Apple can do it again. A beautiful machine that people feel attached to, which competes toe to toe with the powermacs.
Here's what I've been thinking. If I'm factually wrong at some point, please forgive me. This is just a personal opinion.
The personal computer industry has been growing as a whole every year. Apple has been growing too but not quite keeping up with the rest of the industry. Software complexity and hence software development costs are rising even faster than the growth of the whole industry.
Therefore, software developers need increasingly more sales to make up for R&D costs. The PC marketshare is growing fast enough to make up for the increased software R&D. Is the Mac marketshare growing fast enough?
Many people say that marketshare is not important and that mac unit sales are the most crucial. But are those people considering the increased development costs of modern software? Digital hub software and video games will keep getting more sophisticated and keep requiring more money to develop. Apple is the only remaining major developer that makes digital hub software for the Mac. That's because everyone else was doing a half-ass job. Why? The Mac is not a big money maker for them. The marketshare is too small.
Sure Apple is currently still making a profit. That's a good thing if you only look at business in the short term. People who talk about marketshare are looking at the long-term. What exactly is Apple's plans?
I want to stress that gaming is a big market. Non-gamers may think that games are not important to Macs. I remember hearing in the news that the videogame industry is now larger than the motion picture industry. Crippling the iMac as a game machine is a larger crime than removing all DVD drives from the iMacs.
There are many reasons why the G4 iMac wasn't selling very well. Apparently, Apple didn't realize that the graphics capabilities was one of them.
Market share graphs are interesting and surely show how a particular product -- in this case PCs vs. Macs do in a specific quarter. However this is only part of the equation. Cumulative stats would have Macs at a higher percentage of actual computers in use at any particular time then the market share shown for that period. Apple computers last longer and are held on to longer then Peecees. If market share were the only criteria for determining the success of a company and its products there would be a lot of bad corporations out there. In the automotive arena Mercedes, BMW and Subaru would be considered, in market share terms, dismal failures. They remain profitable and viable companies and produce superior (generally agreed on by many) products. Apple cannot and will never be the leader in market share. Yes, the iPod is at the moment, but this will pass as other companies join in on the parade. When Apple loses it's high market share in portable music players the company will be considered a failure by some. Yet, as the death bell continues to be wrung by some people, Apple is still here, making a profit and inovating in their industry. It would be nice to have it all, but that is very dificult. Because companies such as Apple lead in their industry in innovation and design and quality of user experience (just as the aforementioned automobile companies do) they will be appreciated by those who understand that numbers and percentages can be deceiving.
One other thing. Long term profitabilty can be obtained even if market share is low. If this was not possible, Mercedes and BMW in the automobile industry and dozens of other companies would be long gone.
Mercedes lost money and was propped up by increased sales/profitability of its Chrysler unit.
Just thought you'd want to know before you go using Mercedes as a model. Of course, if you did want to use Mercedes as a model, you could call Apple's CPU business Mercedes and the interest from their 4+Billion in the bank Chrysler unit profits.
I'm sorry that I have gotten into this discussion late but I have been a longtime lurker of AppleInsider since before purchasing my first iMac in 1998. I am very interested in this discussion because I am in the market for the G5 iMac but I can't help but recognize some glaring inconsistencies between the TS speculation and what Apple currently offers through the Apple Store.
First, I don't believe that there will be four models advertised to the public. I don't believe that the EDU model will be advertised to the public. Also, this would be inconsistent with the current iMac lineup of three models.
Second, why would Apple only offer the 1.8 G5 in the 20" model? Are the yeilds for that processor so low that they couldn't offer it in the 17" model?
Third, why would Apple only offer the Superdrive with the 20" model when they have previously offered it across the product line, excluding the very low-end iMac?
Lastly, why would there be a completely separate model for the 20" with upgraded hard drive when upgrading hard drive space has always been a BTO option at the Apple Store?
I do think that some of the specs are consistent with what Apple has been doing with the iMac product line. I believe they are going to offer three models again (excluding the EDU model):
17" Widescreen LCD
1.6 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
32MB DDR video memory
256MB RAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive
$1299.00
17" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$1699.00
20" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$2099.00
I believe that the larger screen and addition of the G5 on the low-end increases perceived value. I also believe that they will drop the price on the upper-end in order to increase perceived value there, as you are basically getting the iMac G4 in a great new form factor with the G5 for cheaper.
I also hope (greatly hope because this will determine my purchase) that they offer BTO options similar to those offered for the PowerBook/low-end PowerMac:
Video Memory up to 128 MB on 1.8 G5
Memory up to 2 GB
Hard Drive up to 160 GB
Is this viable? Wouldn't this decrease many of the complaints that have been given about the proposed specs? Wouldn't this allow Apple to continue making a fairly large profit on the iMac, while also increasing sales? Don't these specs sepearate it enough from the PowerMac?
If this were to happen, I can tell you that I would be purchasing one with BTO options as soon as they were released.
I agree that only 3 models will be listed on the website. It's also possible that the 20" will also be available in a build to order configuration.... better video card, more memory, larger hard drive, etc. 2 weeks and we'll know!
It seems that we are tending to forget that Apple is about to announce the first all 64 bit computer line for consumers. That, plus a new Ive design should be sufficient to get a lot of people looking and buying the G5 iMac.
Reality is that G5's are in short supply and development costs for the new iMac are not cheap. Apple will put together products and prices that result in them achieving their "normal" gross margin percent per unit. That is how they stay in business and bring us insanely great products.
Apple ain't Dull. They have a different pricing structure because they have a different cost structure. Apple spends a fortune on development of both hardware and software. Because they control "the whole widget" they can provide a fantastic experience, but that comes with some fantastic costs as well. It's the price that has to be paid (by both Apple and customers) to achieve that experience.
As someone who has used Dulls in the past I'm more than happy with what Apple is doing and will never go back as long as there is a Mac option available.
Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.
Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share
For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.
Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.
More revenue equals more potential for profit
The quarter?s results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Company?s net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.
Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.
Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.
?It was an outstanding quarter?our highest third quarter revenue in eight years,?
This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.
Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.
this is completely unnnecessary
1. net profit. what was their operating profit without interest from their stock pile of 4 billion dollars?
2. for a company with the largest margins in the industry why is their profit so small when their revenue was quite high?
3. the higher revenue is not attributed to mac sales. it's because of the insane increase in iPod sales.
4. 67 million is not about 70 million....only the math challenge think 3 million is nothing
5. 876,000 macs....apple has broken 1,000,000 in the past but has never stayed above 900,000. they are showed no sustained growth in unit sales since Jobs returned. they should be selling 1,000,000+ a quarter
5. 19% increase in unit sales..... can you please go back and look at the situation last year during this past quarter? I think you'll see why there is an increase in unit sales. Improvement over sucky quarters is good but hardly something to write home about
6. iMac sales were 60,000....that includes eMacs which I'm sure had a larger share of that number than imac. that is embarrassing and financially a disaster. the iMac should be their top seller by far. Yet it was selling worse than the cube ever did. That's probably why Apple decided to just kill it for the summer. They probably lost money making the things.
There sure is a lot of noise about the GPU in these machines. For those of you who think Apple should be putting a 9800 in the iMac... that must be pretty good crack you're smokin', where can I get some? C'mon, look at the price, power, and heat of those things ... all for fairly marginal gains in overall system performance for most users. We're not talking about the gaming elite here (they buy PCs), nor the 3D modeling or other Pro crowds (they buy towers). We're talking about the typical iMac buyer, most of whom are not in these forums at all.
And for the record the 5200FX Ultra does a fine job at an excellent price point, and most important it is not castrated in terms of developer functionality. Primarily this means that it has pixel and vertex shaders, so at least that software runs! This is a huge improvement over the 4MX, for example, where it was just missing huge pieces of modern functionality. The 5200FX is slower than the high end cards, but if you look at how this affects system performance in non-gaming situations it actually holds up pretty well. It will run CoreImage, it will do a decent job of it, and doing so will run significantly faster than just using the CPU (note that part of the advantage of the GPU is that it runs in parallel). For games the 5200FX is slower, although for most of the existing games it does okay because they were aimed at the former top-of-the-line geForce4... which the 5200FX matches or exceeds in speed! I think expectations have gotten rather out of line with reality on this one for Apple's AIO style-king machine.
The processor speeds look reasonable as well, and they will probably be using the same chipset (or a minor revision of it) that the 1.6 / 1.8 GHz single processor PowerMacs used. This will have plenty of bandwidth and the iLife applications should do very well on them (as should games). This combined with the FPUs and VPU of the 970 will mean that these machines do better than their clock rate suggests on applications where most people care about performance... The MHz Myth lives on, but now AMD and Intel admit it too.
The smaller memory configurations are really a dealer opportunity. These machines should really come with 512MB or more, but do you really want to pay Apple's memory prices? Apple has to hedge in their memory contracts so they will almost never beat the street price, and they know it. Let your dealer sell you more memory, its cheaper.
I think the real problem here is not with the iMac, it is with the lack of a low cost headless mini-tower. In fact this has been the most bitched about problem with Apple's lineup since the days of the PPC6100 passed. To appease this vocal group of techies looking for a customizable low cost machine Apple really needs to bring back this form factor (or its equivalent). This can be a dangerous market, however, because you guys are increadibly fickle! If they fall two months behind in the available technology, or somebody comes out with something better for $200 less then sales dry up. And because you want the latest stuff in a cheap box, the margins are razor thin. If they go with 10% margins (still healthy on machines like this) and only sell 90% of the machines, then they are flirting with losing money on this line of hardware. If they want to try this I think they should make the BTO only, and use the same components as are in their other products so that they don't carry extra inventory. Strip off all the frills and sell a bare bones set of machines that you pay for then they build and ship to you, and that carries a minimal margin. Otherwise they are going to lose their shirt trying it. This ought to wait until they have PCIe, and probably until they have the 970MP at their disposal -- this would allow the low-cost chipset to ship with a single or dual core on the same motherboard, with the same power supply, with any one of a few GPUs, in a generic looking case. But this is not the iMac.
I hear all this bitching and moaning about specs and prices. I bet most of you use your macs mostly for reading email and surfing the web. Do you really need PS to be 3 seconds faster? Specs aren't important anymore, things are fast enough.
I love Apple, but if this information is true, its going to hurt apple, what about new users that compare a bottom-line iMac vs a PC Desktop
Dont get me wrong, Id love to see Apple claim a much bigger market share, but for people who know nothing about computers and compare a new iMac and these cheap PCs, and see the HUGE price gap might not care that much how a computer looks.
I might get flamed, but I still think Apple should bring in another line of computers, between the iMac and the PowerMac lines.
These specs are dangerously behind the curve, and seem highly dubious. And I hope Apple does not go with the vertical 'Pizza box' style....they may pull it off, but IMHO, it would have about 10% the style of the 'sunflower' iMac....
There sure is a lot of noise about the GPU in these machines.
I wonder why...
Powerful smack somebody is smokin' if they're defending an Nvidia 52mx (heh) in the high end or mid-iMac specs. I suppose you'll be buying one of these, Programmer?
I'm almost okay with that in the entry level machine. That would be competitve with what's around in PC World here in the UK. Most sub-£1K machines have agp or naff graphics cards. But knowing that Apple will price iMacs upto £1600 or more?
But in the mid and high end iMac? Pathetic. And the outcry shows how many more people feel about this.
512 megs of ram. £44.
Dual Sided Read/Write Superdrive. £50 ish.
200 gig Hard drive £72.
Radeon 9600xt 256 megs £110.
Add 'em up and you get £270. Apple probably gets better rates than that.
PC Shuttles and many Wintel laptops/Mac laptops have good graphics in tight spaces.
Stick anyone of the above items in to beef up the specs.
512 megs in the base model.
Superdrive in the base model.
9600 in the mid model.
200 gig in the high end model.
Radeon 9700 in the high end model.
Yeesh. The Powerbook has a 9700 in it.
For very little price difference, Apple has a much perkier iMac 3.
For about an extra £50-75...the entry level looks okay.
For an extra £100 the mid-model looks okay.
For an extra £200 the top end is more deserving of the name.
It's the scrimping nature of Apple.
Decking out iMacs and PowerMacs with 256 megs of ram is obscene considering the price premium.
Crap graphics cards in a PowerMac top of the line. £2,100 and no monitor. A budget graphics card.
It's clearly Apple sticking it to their 'fans' in the ass because they know they can. Apple wouldn't survive two minutes in the PC market. They had their ass handed to them when they tried cloning their Mac.
I'm a consumer Programmer and I expect better from Apple who are clearly smokin' their own brand of crack. BMW comparisons by Apple? Then why no use quality components?
If they're going to charge crack-pipe prices then it's okay for consumers to expect crack-pipe specks.
We'll see if the 'new' iMacs sell any better than the old ones after the 1st two quarters before certain people blame slack sales on laptops...
Comments
You've convinced me!
People need to step back and look at the big picture.
Who is supposed to buy an iMac???
Not business ( emac, powerbook ).
Not professionals ( powermac, powerbook ).
Not education ( emac, ibook ).
That pretty much leaves consumers. Why would a consumer drop 1500 on an iMac? What is their motivation as a buyer, and how could that motivation be satisfied with another machine.
People who want a Mac arent going to get a PC instead, so they are going to look at Apple's line up and see what else is on offer. In that price they can get an ibook or a powerbook, both very attractive machines. Or they can save some bucks and get an iMac. At the moment I think most buyers are looking at a laptop and an iMac side by side and getting a laptop.
People who arent Mac converts face the same choice, but they place less value on the Mac in and of itself. So when they compare the iMac with other machines it fails to win.
Ask yourself, what about the iMac makes you want it over an emac, ibook, or powerbook. It only has one thing going for it, the monitor. And guess what, if you buy a powerbook you get dual monitor support. People can, and do, justify getting a powerbook over an imac because it can work like a desktop if they get a monitor for ( which is a future purchase, and doesnt enter into cost comparisons ).
When I look at the product quadrant I see this:
powermac | powerbook
-----------------------------
emac | ibook
Where does the imac go. It has no compelling reason for purchase ( it is cool, but that isnt enough, just look at its sales numbers, very cube like ). Cost stops it being in the consumer half, and power stops it being in the pro half.
Im sure Apple have considered this, and if the iMac is going to be a successful product it needs to find its place.
It could be an AIO alternative pro machine ( at that price point it had better be ). But in that case it better have some pro features.
It could be the consumer desktop, but not at the projected price point.
TS' projected features and price put the iMac squarely in no mans land, and I think everyone here agrees that if Apple do that to the iMac again it once again will fail to make significant sales.
For all those who say that a consumer machine doesnt need a fast GPU, get a laptop, or save some bucks and get an eMac. Those machines fill that role. The role of the original iMac was as an AIO version of the powermac. It was just as fast, and had good graphics. Apple have lost that vision over time. The original iMac showed the following point very strongly:
When consumers are given the choice of a tower or an AIO they will choose the AIO, as long as it is as powerful as the tower. Presentation can win, but not in the absence of content.
Apple can do it again. A beautiful machine that people feel attached to, which competes toe to toe with the powermacs.
1. The video specs are wrong - period. It would be disastrous to release that.
Uh oh, this guarantees that they'll end up being correct!
Originally posted by PowerPC
... You HAVE to have that 2.0GHz G5 there. That is part of the "Wow" factor. A 1.6GHz G5 in a 1,300.00 machine is just sad really.
i think a 1.6Ghz imac with superdrive for $1,300.00 should be a very good deal.
This way you're only buying one CPU speed...which could save money and help margins...(economy of scales).
2.0Ghz G5 in a $1,300.00 iMac is bullshit from any economical perspective.
it's the fastest way for apple to get out of business.
The personal computer industry has been growing as a whole every year. Apple has been growing too but not quite keeping up with the rest of the industry. Software complexity and hence software development costs are rising even faster than the growth of the whole industry.
Therefore, software developers need increasingly more sales to make up for R&D costs. The PC marketshare is growing fast enough to make up for the increased software R&D. Is the Mac marketshare growing fast enough?
Many people say that marketshare is not important and that mac unit sales are the most crucial. But are those people considering the increased development costs of modern software? Digital hub software and video games will keep getting more sophisticated and keep requiring more money to develop. Apple is the only remaining major developer that makes digital hub software for the Mac. That's because everyone else was doing a half-ass job. Why? The Mac is not a big money maker for them. The marketshare is too small.
Sure Apple is currently still making a profit. That's a good thing if you only look at business in the short term. People who talk about marketshare are looking at the long-term. What exactly is Apple's plans?
I want to stress that gaming is a big market. Non-gamers may think that games are not important to Macs. I remember hearing in the news that the videogame industry is now larger than the motion picture industry. Crippling the iMac as a game machine is a larger crime than removing all DVD drives from the iMacs.
There are many reasons why the G4 iMac wasn't selling very well. Apparently, Apple didn't realize that the graphics capabilities was one of them.
Just thought you'd want to know before you go using Mercedes as a model. Of course, if you did want to use Mercedes as a model, you could call Apple's CPU business Mercedes and the interest from their 4+Billion in the bank Chrysler unit profits.
First, I don't believe that there will be four models advertised to the public. I don't believe that the EDU model will be advertised to the public. Also, this would be inconsistent with the current iMac lineup of three models.
Second, why would Apple only offer the 1.8 G5 in the 20" model? Are the yeilds for that processor so low that they couldn't offer it in the 17" model?
Third, why would Apple only offer the Superdrive with the 20" model when they have previously offered it across the product line, excluding the very low-end iMac?
Lastly, why would there be a completely separate model for the 20" with upgraded hard drive when upgrading hard drive space has always been a BTO option at the Apple Store?
I do think that some of the specs are consistent with what Apple has been doing with the iMac product line. I believe they are going to offer three models again (excluding the EDU model):
17" Widescreen LCD
1.6 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
32MB DDR video memory
256MB RAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive
$1299.00
17" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$1699.00
20" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$2099.00
I believe that the larger screen and addition of the G5 on the low-end increases perceived value. I also believe that they will drop the price on the upper-end in order to increase perceived value there, as you are basically getting the iMac G4 in a great new form factor with the G5 for cheaper.
I also hope (greatly hope because this will determine my purchase) that they offer BTO options similar to those offered for the PowerBook/low-end PowerMac:
Video Memory up to 128 MB on 1.8 G5
Memory up to 2 GB
Hard Drive up to 160 GB
Is this viable? Wouldn't this decrease many of the complaints that have been given about the proposed specs? Wouldn't this allow Apple to continue making a fairly large profit on the iMac, while also increasing sales? Don't these specs sepearate it enough from the PowerMac?
If this were to happen, I can tell you that I would be purchasing one with BTO options as soon as they were released.
Reality is that G5's are in short supply and development costs for the new iMac are not cheap. Apple will put together products and prices that result in them achieving their "normal" gross margin percent per unit. That is how they stay in business and bring us insanely great products.
Apple ain't Dull. They have a different pricing structure because they have a different cost structure. Apple spends a fortune on development of both hardware and software. Because they control "the whole widget" they can provide a fantastic experience, but that comes with some fantastic costs as well. It's the price that has to be paid (by both Apple and customers) to achieve that experience.
As someone who has used Dulls in the past I'm more than happy with what Apple is doing and will never go back as long as there is a Mac option available.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple's Q3 results
Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.
Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share
For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.
Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.
More revenue equals more potential for profit
The quarter?s results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Company?s net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.
Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.
Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.
?It was an outstanding quarter?our highest third quarter revenue in eight years,?
This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.
Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.
this is completely unnnecessary
1. net profit. what was their operating profit without interest from their stock pile of 4 billion dollars?
2. for a company with the largest margins in the industry why is their profit so small when their revenue was quite high?
3. the higher revenue is not attributed to mac sales. it's because of the insane increase in iPod sales.
4. 67 million is not about 70 million....only the math challenge think 3 million is nothing
5. 876,000 macs....apple has broken 1,000,000 in the past but has never stayed above 900,000. they are showed no sustained growth in unit sales since Jobs returned. they should be selling 1,000,000+ a quarter
5. 19% increase in unit sales..... can you please go back and look at the situation last year during this past quarter? I think you'll see why there is an increase in unit sales. Improvement over sucky quarters is good but hardly something to write home about
6. iMac sales were 60,000....that includes eMacs which I'm sure had a larger share of that number than imac. that is embarrassing and financially a disaster. the iMac should be their top seller by far. Yet it was selling worse than the cube ever did. That's probably why Apple decided to just kill it for the summer. They probably lost money making the things.
And for the record the 5200FX Ultra does a fine job at an excellent price point, and most important it is not castrated in terms of developer functionality. Primarily this means that it has pixel and vertex shaders, so at least that software runs! This is a huge improvement over the 4MX, for example, where it was just missing huge pieces of modern functionality. The 5200FX is slower than the high end cards, but if you look at how this affects system performance in non-gaming situations it actually holds up pretty well. It will run CoreImage, it will do a decent job of it, and doing so will run significantly faster than just using the CPU (note that part of the advantage of the GPU is that it runs in parallel). For games the 5200FX is slower, although for most of the existing games it does okay because they were aimed at the former top-of-the-line geForce4... which the 5200FX matches or exceeds in speed! I think expectations have gotten rather out of line with reality on this one for Apple's AIO style-king machine.
The processor speeds look reasonable as well, and they will probably be using the same chipset (or a minor revision of it) that the 1.6 / 1.8 GHz single processor PowerMacs used. This will have plenty of bandwidth and the iLife applications should do very well on them (as should games). This combined with the FPUs and VPU of the 970 will mean that these machines do better than their clock rate suggests on applications where most people care about performance... The MHz Myth lives on, but now AMD and Intel admit it too.
The smaller memory configurations are really a dealer opportunity. These machines should really come with 512MB or more, but do you really want to pay Apple's memory prices? Apple has to hedge in their memory contracts so they will almost never beat the street price, and they know it. Let your dealer sell you more memory, its cheaper.
I think the real problem here is not with the iMac, it is with the lack of a low cost headless mini-tower. In fact this has been the most bitched about problem with Apple's lineup since the days of the PPC6100 passed. To appease this vocal group of techies looking for a customizable low cost machine Apple really needs to bring back this form factor (or its equivalent). This can be a dangerous market, however, because you guys are increadibly fickle! If they fall two months behind in the available technology, or somebody comes out with something better for $200 less then sales dry up. And because you want the latest stuff in a cheap box, the margins are razor thin. If they go with 10% margins (still healthy on machines like this) and only sell 90% of the machines, then they are flirting with losing money on this line of hardware. If they want to try this I think they should make the BTO only, and use the same components as are in their other products so that they don't carry extra inventory. Strip off all the frills and sell a bare bones set of machines that you pay for then they build and ship to you, and that carries a minimal margin. Otherwise they are going to lose their shirt trying it. This ought to wait until they have PCIe, and probably until they have the 970MP at their disposal -- this would allow the low-cost chipset to ship with a single or dual core on the same motherboard, with the same power supply, with any one of a few GPUs, in a generic looking case. But this is not the iMac.
Dont get me wrong, Id love to see Apple claim a much bigger market share, but for people who know nothing about computers and compare a new iMac and these cheap PCs, and see the HUGE price gap might not care that much how a computer looks.
I might get flamed, but I still think Apple should bring in another line of computers, between the iMac and the PowerMac lines.
Specs aren't important anymore, things are fast enough.
Sure they aren't. That's what helped the iMac 2 to be the roaring success it was(n't).
Lemon Bon Bon
These specs are dangerously behind the curve, and seem highly dubious. And I hope Apple does not go with the vertical 'Pizza box' style....they may pull it off, but IMHO, it would have about 10% the style of the 'sunflower' iMac....
There sure is a lot of noise about the GPU in these machines.
I wonder why...
Powerful smack somebody is smokin' if they're defending an Nvidia 52mx (heh) in the high end or mid-iMac specs. I suppose you'll be buying one of these, Programmer?
I'm almost okay with that in the entry level machine. That would be competitve with what's around in PC World here in the UK. Most sub-£1K machines have agp or naff graphics cards. But knowing that Apple will price iMacs upto £1600 or more?
But in the mid and high end iMac? Pathetic. And the outcry shows how many more people feel about this.
512 megs of ram. £44.
Dual Sided Read/Write Superdrive. £50 ish.
200 gig Hard drive £72.
Radeon 9600xt 256 megs £110.
Add 'em up and you get £270. Apple probably gets better rates than that.
PC Shuttles and many Wintel laptops/Mac laptops have good graphics in tight spaces.
Stick anyone of the above items in to beef up the specs.
512 megs in the base model.
Superdrive in the base model.
9600 in the mid model.
200 gig in the high end model.
Radeon 9700 in the high end model.
Yeesh. The Powerbook has a 9700 in it.
For very little price difference, Apple has a much perkier iMac 3.
For about an extra £50-75...the entry level looks okay.
For an extra £100 the mid-model looks okay.
For an extra £200 the top end is more deserving of the name.
It's the scrimping nature of Apple.
Decking out iMacs and PowerMacs with 256 megs of ram is obscene considering the price premium.
Crap graphics cards in a PowerMac top of the line. £2,100 and no monitor. A budget graphics card.
It's clearly Apple sticking it to their 'fans' in the ass because they know they can. Apple wouldn't survive two minutes in the PC market. They had their ass handed to them when they tried cloning their Mac.
I'm a consumer Programmer and I expect better from Apple who are clearly smokin' their own brand of crack. BMW comparisons by Apple? Then why no use quality components?
If they're going to charge crack-pipe prices then it's okay for consumers to expect crack-pipe specks.
We'll see if the 'new' iMacs sell any better than the old ones after the 1st two quarters before certain people blame slack sales on laptops...
Lemon Bon Bon