If the iPhone gets satellite radio, its just a GPS feature away from being the ultimate road trip accessory. That would be nice (although they still need to open it up to other networks, as rogers sucks)
Now, as you did not give an OS company, I will give the same numbers for Novell and Red Hat
(I just took 2, maybe these are the bad ones, I did not check):
Novell and Red Hat are the two primary enterprise linux vendors with RH being the more relevant of the two. I guess you can add Oracle with their enterprise grade linux.
I might look at Sun as a another OS vendor to profile. Really the last of the Unix ones...HP pushes Linux as much as HPUX these days. Same with IBM over AIX.
Hmm, my bad. I must have missed that part. I guess my first question is what would justify the expense and complications involved in opening the Windows API to XCode?
hahaha as we said it was completed a couple of years ago.
apple already has their xcode checkbox for delivering itunes, safari, quicktime for windows. all they have to do is allow other developers to have that checkbox in xcode.
the rewritten quicktime x could serve as that core library on the windows side we've been waiting for...
since you are in the know, how about an update? if you still cant hint at what the big announcement will be could you at least give us an idea of the timing? is it likely this will be announced in the next few weeks or will it be months from now?
since you are in the know, how about an update? if you still cant hint at what the big announcement will be could you at least give us an idea of the timing? is it likely this will be announced in the next few weeks or will it be months from now?
I'd rather Apple have a business model like Microsoft (software) than a business model like Dell (hardware). Why? Because Microsoft makes more money on a typical Dell sale, than Dell does.
Desktop computer sales are flatlining. Computer hardware manufacture is largely a commodity business with nosediving profits.
It is if you sell to a market saturated with essentially undifferentiated hardware priced as cheaply as possible. Dell does. Apple doesn't.
The whole genius of Apple's approach, especially now, is that they have the profitable segments to themselves. Apple's laptop market share is impressive, but their share within their price bracket actually shocked me. In fact, part of the problem the commodity manufacturers are having is that they can't just put nicer parts in the same cheap boxes anymore. Apple has defined the premium market to exclude commodity offerings, and only companies that are willing to sit down and do some serious engineering (Lenovo/IBM, Panasonic, Sony) even have a credible presence in that space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
That low market share does not harm their hardware business. But it does undermine the viability of the OS X software platform. And its attractiveness to developers.
Extending OS X to commodity hardware would undermine OS X. The ability to assemble a computer out of random parts--especially if they're cheap parts--might appeal to end users, but it's an absolute nightmare for system vendors (and for application vendors, for that matter).
Look at what Apple did instead: They released an OS X platform that costs a couple of hundred dollars, and which has developers of all kinds flocking to build applications for it: iPhone/iPod touch. All those developers are using Apple's tools and Objective-C and Cocoa to build those applications. They're making money. They're selling into a large and burgeoning market. And Apple still controls the hardware.
The hardest thing for people who admire the PC/Windows model to accept is that Apple is able to punch above its weight precisely because it refuses to consider software outside of the hardware it runs on or hardware outside of the software it runs. That's what allows it to remain small and lean while competing against much larger corporations. that's what allows it to define and own the most profitable product categories in the market.
I sort of like the idea of picking up Win32 as Microsoft abandons it, except that there are systemic flaws built into the API that make it the security nightmare that it famously is. Microsoft is not entirely cynical in trying to move people to their new operating systems. They're fundamentally better architected and more secure. Apple would have to do some really clever sandboxing not to simply inherit all the problems that finally caused Microsoft to drop its beloved backward compatibility and jettison Win32.
My point is that Apple will soon totally own the premium hardware niche entirely. In laptops this has probably already happened. It leaves Apple with very little opportunity for growth in that sector.
So either it has to do something new and risky and cool (OS X without the Mac)
Or it sits-still in the computer market, enjoys the steady profits and looks for growth elsewhere (iPhone). Which is the option you are suggesting.
This is fine, but a 10%-15% market share remains a problem for the platform. Whole classes of development will never go to the Mac because of that basic problem. Games for instance.
And for the final time. Apple can offer OS X to OEMs without replicating Microsoft's worst mistakes.
My point is that Apple will soon totally own the premium hardware niche entirely. In laptops this has probably already happened. It leaves Apple with very little opportunity for growth in that sector.
I honestly hope they don't. Somebody needs to keep a fire lit under them. Fortunately, there is an ample profit incentive for anyone who succeeds, so there should be no shortage of efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
So either it has to do something new and risky and cool (OS X without the Mac)
Or it sits-still in the computer market, enjoys the steady profits and looks for growth elsewhere (iPhone). Which is the option you are suggesting.
Here is a thought: Divorce Apple's future from the Mac in your mind completely. Not so that they'd kill the Mac, but so that they no longer believe that they depend on it but they'll build it while customers come. Now what does Apple's future look like to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
This is fine, but a 10%-15% market share remains a problem for the platform. Whole classes of development will never go to the Mac because of that basic problem. Games for instance.
The iPhone is the beginning of the end of x86. Mark my words. Even Intel wants to get rid of that old cruft, but while the market was driven by conventional personal computers it was impossible. But the platforms coming up are ARM (which Intel also has a big stake in--they're not stupid) and other "small mammals" to the x86 dinosaur. As this shift happens, slowly but inexorably (perhaps over a decade or more?), the legacy problems of the Mac go away. In their place you have the systems heralded by the iPhone, which, to everyone's surprise, is a hit gaming console. The basic building blocks remain in place: OS X, Cocoa, etc., but Apple will have a chance to build a whole new GUI, start with a bang and a lot of developers, and get a few years to build its game while Microsoft focuses on trying to move the personal computer forward.
I'm not trying to argue that this is all going to be rosy. Apple has demonstrated an astonishing ability to shoot itself in the foot, sabotage itself, and lose focus. But this is where I believe they're looking. We're all turning Japanese, as the old song went, and the future is smaller, more agile, and pervasively networked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
And for the final time. Apple can offer OS X to OEMs without replicating Microsoft's worst mistakes.
Apple does not only have to worry about making Microsoft's mistakes. They have to worry more about making Apple's mistakes. The problem with depending on profits from the premium market is that that's where the profit is, so everyone wants a piece. That's what happened the first time Apple handed out licenses: Every licensee went right for the big money. No company with competent management is going to be content building $400 ATX desktops that can run OS X. The margins are razor thin and the desktop market is shrinking. They'll want a piece of Apple's laptop action.
I'm tellin' ya, it's going to be an Apple television, built in Front Row with iTunes and iPhonesque OSX so it can game (iPhone "nano" remote, "premium games" section in iTunes).
I'm tellin' ya, it's going to be an Apple television, built in Front Row with iTunes and iPhonesque OSX so it can game (iPhone "nano" remote, "premium games" section in iTunes).
I say Pippin 2.0. An apple game console. Of course, I also say that's a pipe dream and not likely to happen.
Closer than you think. The next AppleTV will almost certainly tie into the App Store and play iPhone games.
Just makes sense. It's largely the same operating system, development tools and internet infrastructure.
There are some potential downsides...like appearing to be going against Nintendo and the Wii and losing badly.
If the iPhone was directly compared against the DS, the sales numbers might seem...anemic...so it is good that it is not so compared.
Apple would have to buy Sega and some other dev houses to compete...and even if they did that, they'd get trashed by the Wii and DS. At least the iPhone is a PHONE. An AppleTV has a lot less cover in terms of being perceived as a wannabe console vs a media extender that happens to play games.
Apple would have to buy Sega and some other dev houses to compete...and even if they did that, they'd get trashed by the Wii and DS. At least the iPhone is a PHONE. An AppleTV has a lot less cover in terms of being perceived as a wannabe console vs a media extender that happens to play games.
It's a little different if the "console" is built into an actual 42" plus television, an Apple television.
Comments
Interesting numbers, but what company is this?
It could be a local small software company with a yearly revenue of 1 dollar, of which 89.87% is kept.
This way these numbers tell nothing.
Pieter.
Opps, sorry about that. The company is Adobe.
for my greivous error here's
Oracle
Gross Margin (TTM) \t78.37
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t77.36
Operating Margin (TTM) \t35.46
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t34.44
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM) \t34.39
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t34.69
Net Profit Margin (TTM) \t24.45
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t24.42
Effective Tax Rate (TTM) \t28.91
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg. \t29.61
Opps, sorry about that. The company is Adobe.
for my greivous error here's
Oracle
Gross Margin (TTM) \t78.37
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t77.36
Operating Margin (TTM) \t35.46
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t34.44
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM) \t34.39
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t34.69
Net Profit Margin (TTM) \t24.45
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. \t24.42
Effective Tax Rate (TTM) \t28.91
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg. \t29.61
OK, I already thought it was Adobe. I googled 'Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg. 29.02' and found it.
We can also look at it in another way:
On the nasdaq.com site financial info is available about the companies.
So, lets compare the 3 companies a bit more, and removing the cost of the sold hardware:
MSFT Total Revenue: $60,420,000,000
AAPL Total Revenue: $32,479,000,000
ADBE Total Revenue: $3,579,889,000
(Hmm, having half the revenue as MSFT with less than 10% of the PC market?)
MSFT Cost of Revenue: $11,598,000,000
AAPL Cost of Revenue: $21,334,000,000
ADBE Cost of Revenue: $362,630,000
(So indeed, selling hardware is expensive...)
Thus gross profits:
MSFT Gross Profit:$48,822,000,000
AAPL Gross Profit: $11,145,000,000
ADBE Gross Profit: $3,217,259,000
But then, lets see what happens when other costs are removed:
MSFT Net Income: $17,681,000,000
AAPL Net Income: $4,834,000,000
ADBE Net Income: $871,814,000
What is this as a percentage of revenue:
MSFT 29.26%
AAPL 14.83%
ADBE 24.35%
Hmm. Selling hardware seems to have a lower net profit.
OK, but what is this as a percentage of gross profit?
MSFT 36.17%
AAPL 43.37%
ADBE 27.10%
Now that is interesting! Apple is doing the best, with a big margin!
So after removing the cost of the hardware, which is shifted 1 to 1 to the customer,
the remainder is better if doing hardware.
Other figures:
From the Reuters finance site:
MSFT Net Income/Employee: 189,363
AAPL Net Income/Employee: 151,812
ADBE Net Income/Employee: 118,776
No idea what the unit is, I assume $. Also here Apple is not doing too shabby.
Microsoft has an unbelievable income per employee, due to the MS OS tax, not due to 'selling software'...
Now, as you did not give an OS company, I will give the same numbers for Novell and Red Hat
(I just took 2, maybe these are the bad ones, I did not check):
NOVL Total Revenue: $956,513,000
RHT Total Revenue: $523,016,000
NOVL Cost of Revenue: $237,624,000
RHT Cost of Revenue: $80,653,000
Thus gross profits:
NOVL Gross Profit:$718,889,000
RHT Gross Profit: $442,363,000
NOVL Net Income: -$8,745,000
RHT Net Income: $76,667,000
(Oops. Novell is not doing well...)
What is this as a percentage of revenue:
NOVL -0.91%
RHT 14.65%
(Both lower than AAPL, Novell way lower ;-) )
OK, but what is this as a percentage of gross profit?
NOVL -1.22%
RHT 17.33%
(Oops. Novell still not doing well...)
Apple is still doing better, with a big margin again...
Reuter figures:
NOVL Net Income/Employee: -3,085
AAPL Net Income/Employee: 38,518
Again, Apple is not doing bad, even though they are selling hardware.
I still think that only Microsoft can be a company selling a separate OS and be a huge success.
('Success' of course debatable ;-) I really do not like the Windows OS)
Because something like 90% of the PC market is MS, they can have a sort of MS OS tax.
I really think no other company can step into that market. Look at Linux, or OS/2, or BeOS.
None of them are a success. People want a compatible computer so choose Windows,
or maybe, Apple's OS X.
Apple sells you a piece of hardware with it. You could see it as a sort of 'hardware dongle' ;-)
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ts-sirius.aspx
Satellite radio on the iPod?
If the iPhone gets satellite radio, its just a GPS feature away from being the ultimate road trip accessory. That would be nice (although they still need to open it up to other networks, as rogers sucks)
Now, as you did not give an OS company, I will give the same numbers for Novell and Red Hat
(I just took 2, maybe these are the bad ones, I did not check):
Novell and Red Hat are the two primary enterprise linux vendors with RH being the more relevant of the two. I guess you can add Oracle with their enterprise grade linux.
I might look at Sun as a another OS vendor to profile. Really the last of the Unix ones...HP pushes Linux as much as HPUX these days. Same with IBM over AIX.
Hmm, my bad. I must have missed that part. I guess my first question is what would justify the expense and complications involved in opening the Windows API to XCode?
hahaha as we said it was completed a couple of years ago.
apple already has their xcode checkbox for delivering itunes, safari, quicktime for windows. all they have to do is allow other developers to have that checkbox in xcode.
the rewritten quicktime x could serve as that core library on the windows side we've been waiting for...
since you are in the know, how about an update? if you still cant hint at what the big announcement will be could you at least give us an idea of the timing? is it likely this will be announced in the next few weeks or will it be months from now?
<hey Ireland,
since you are in the know, how about an update? if you still cant hint at what the big announcement will be could you at least give us an idea of the timing? is it likely this will be announced in the next few weeks or will it be months from now?
Ireland knows jack-squat
Ireland knows jack-squat
Whos Jack Squat?
I'd rather Apple have a business model like Microsoft (software) than a business model like Dell (hardware). Why? Because Microsoft makes more money on a typical Dell sale, than Dell does.
Desktop computer sales are flatlining. Computer hardware manufacture is largely a commodity business with nosediving profits.
It is if you sell to a market saturated with essentially undifferentiated hardware priced as cheaply as possible. Dell does. Apple doesn't.
The whole genius of Apple's approach, especially now, is that they have the profitable segments to themselves. Apple's laptop market share is impressive, but their share within their price bracket actually shocked me. In fact, part of the problem the commodity manufacturers are having is that they can't just put nicer parts in the same cheap boxes anymore. Apple has defined the premium market to exclude commodity offerings, and only companies that are willing to sit down and do some serious engineering (Lenovo/IBM, Panasonic, Sony) even have a credible presence in that space.
That low market share does not harm their hardware business. But it does undermine the viability of the OS X software platform. And its attractiveness to developers.
Extending OS X to commodity hardware would undermine OS X. The ability to assemble a computer out of random parts--especially if they're cheap parts--might appeal to end users, but it's an absolute nightmare for system vendors (and for application vendors, for that matter).
Look at what Apple did instead: They released an OS X platform that costs a couple of hundred dollars, and which has developers of all kinds flocking to build applications for it: iPhone/iPod touch. All those developers are using Apple's tools and Objective-C and Cocoa to build those applications. They're making money. They're selling into a large and burgeoning market. And Apple still controls the hardware.
The hardest thing for people who admire the PC/Windows model to accept is that Apple is able to punch above its weight precisely because it refuses to consider software outside of the hardware it runs on or hardware outside of the software it runs. That's what allows it to remain small and lean while competing against much larger corporations. that's what allows it to define and own the most profitable product categories in the market.
I sort of like the idea of picking up Win32 as Microsoft abandons it, except that there are systemic flaws built into the API that make it the security nightmare that it famously is. Microsoft is not entirely cynical in trying to move people to their new operating systems. They're fundamentally better architected and more secure. Apple would have to do some really clever sandboxing not to simply inherit all the problems that finally caused Microsoft to drop its beloved backward compatibility and jettison Win32.
That's a proper well-thought-out post.
My point is that Apple will soon totally own the premium hardware niche entirely. In laptops this has probably already happened. It leaves Apple with very little opportunity for growth in that sector.
So either it has to do something new and risky and cool (OS X without the Mac)
Or it sits-still in the computer market, enjoys the steady profits and looks for growth elsewhere (iPhone). Which is the option you are suggesting.
This is fine, but a 10%-15% market share remains a problem for the platform. Whole classes of development will never go to the Mac because of that basic problem. Games for instance.
And for the final time. Apple can offer OS X to OEMs without replicating Microsoft's worst mistakes.
C.
Amorph,
My point is that Apple will soon totally own the premium hardware niche entirely. In laptops this has probably already happened. It leaves Apple with very little opportunity for growth in that sector.
I honestly hope they don't. Somebody needs to keep a fire lit under them. Fortunately, there is an ample profit incentive for anyone who succeeds, so there should be no shortage of efforts.
So either it has to do something new and risky and cool (OS X without the Mac)
Or it sits-still in the computer market, enjoys the steady profits and looks for growth elsewhere (iPhone). Which is the option you are suggesting.
Here is a thought: Divorce Apple's future from the Mac in your mind completely. Not so that they'd kill the Mac, but so that they no longer believe that they depend on it but they'll build it while customers come. Now what does Apple's future look like to you?
This is fine, but a 10%-15% market share remains a problem for the platform. Whole classes of development will never go to the Mac because of that basic problem. Games for instance.
The iPhone is the beginning of the end of x86. Mark my words. Even Intel wants to get rid of that old cruft, but while the market was driven by conventional personal computers it was impossible. But the platforms coming up are ARM (which Intel also has a big stake in--they're not stupid) and other "small mammals" to the x86 dinosaur. As this shift happens, slowly but inexorably (perhaps over a decade or more?), the legacy problems of the Mac go away. In their place you have the systems heralded by the iPhone, which, to everyone's surprise, is a hit gaming console. The basic building blocks remain in place: OS X, Cocoa, etc., but Apple will have a chance to build a whole new GUI, start with a bang and a lot of developers, and get a few years to build its game while Microsoft focuses on trying to move the personal computer forward.
I'm not trying to argue that this is all going to be rosy. Apple has demonstrated an astonishing ability to shoot itself in the foot, sabotage itself, and lose focus. But this is where I believe they're looking. We're all turning Japanese, as the old song went, and the future is smaller, more agile, and pervasively networked.
And for the final time. Apple can offer OS X to OEMs without replicating Microsoft's worst mistakes.
Apple does not only have to worry about making Microsoft's mistakes. They have to worry more about making Apple's mistakes. The problem with depending on profits from the premium market is that that's where the profit is, so everyone wants a piece. That's what happened the first time Apple handed out licenses: Every licensee went right for the big money. No company with competent management is going to be content building $400 ATX desktops that can run OS X. The margins are razor thin and the desktop market is shrinking. They'll want a piece of Apple's laptop action.
This thread has evolved a little I see.
any comments?
And for the final time.
I sure hope so.
I'm tellin' ya, it's going to be an Apple television, built in Front Row with iTunes and iPhonesque OSX so it can game (iPhone "nano" remote, "premium games" section in iTunes).
I say Pippin 2.0. An apple game console. Of course, I also say that's a pipe dream and not likely to happen.
Just makes sense. It's largely the same operating system, development tools and internet infrastructure.
Closer than you think. The next AppleTV will almost certainly tie into the App Store and play iPhone games.
Just makes sense. It's largely the same operating system, development tools and internet infrastructure.
There are some potential downsides...like appearing to be going against Nintendo and the Wii and losing badly.
If the iPhone was directly compared against the DS, the sales numbers might seem...anemic...so it is good that it is not so compared.
Apple would have to buy Sega and some other dev houses to compete...and even if they did that, they'd get trashed by the Wii and DS. At least the iPhone is a PHONE. An AppleTV has a lot less cover in terms of being perceived as a wannabe console vs a media extender that happens to play games.
Apple would have to buy Sega and some other dev houses to compete...and even if they did that, they'd get trashed by the Wii and DS. At least the iPhone is a PHONE. An AppleTV has a lot less cover in terms of being perceived as a wannabe console vs a media extender that happens to play games.
It's a little different if the "console" is built into an actual 42" plus television, an Apple television.