The fact remains that there is more outside info backing the comments made in the last few weeks by Steve and Fred than ever before. And the need is there more than ever for something big like the 970 to finally arrive. Sure everything has a outside motive beyond what is obvious, but what is said cannot exceed the truth by to wide a margin when in comes to business. I'm not talking about the Quarterly results only but also the CNBC interview and Macworld. Most of what happens in this world has no outside meaning on its own, but when multiple sources point to the same thing the "info" must be recognized.
I thought you all agreed already that this would be a big year. I am only saying that it seems to show in Steve's quotes. My original thoughts where on the contradiction between Steve's quote and Fred's quote and not so much on what they mean anyway.
um, how is that so much better than the 15.2" model released, uh, 60 days ago? i'm not trying to be difficult, i just don't see why an extra .2" of screen would really help... if you're talking adding airport extreme, backlit keyboard, bluetooth and DDR RAM, okay... but i don't think that warrants removing a perfectly awesome 15" powerbook from the shelves right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one in their right mind will touch current 15.2" Powerbook for the simple fact that they know there's an updated one on the way with probably better features at a lower price.
The sooner Apple brings them out (perhaps a few weeks after the 17" have shipped), the more Powerbooks they'll actually sell. Better that than having a warehouse of old stock that simply will not sell.
<strong>No one in their right mind will touch current 15.2" Powerbook for the simple fact that they know there's an updated one on the way with probably better features at a lower price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. There are many people (in their right mind - Steve Wozniak is one example) who would want a PowerBook still capable of running Mac OS 9 when needed.
I have a relative who bought ahead of 2003 largely because he wanted a machine that still gave him the option of 9.
The current Ti-book also has a proven track record, whereas the first generation newer models are yet to prove themselves.
There are also people who want a model now, to work with (and earn money) now, not at some unspecified future point just so they can have the latest & coolest toy.
Personally, I would wait, but it would unfair to generalise my needs onto the rest of the Mac buying community and say they're not in their right mind for choosing as they do.
whether or not you believe that apple that people are buying the current PowerBooks has very little to do with whether they will be updated. The fact remains that the current 15" is behind the other PowerBooks in features and do not match the lineup. They will be updated soon.
<strong>whether or not you believe that apple that people are buying the current PowerBooks has very little to do with whether they will be updated. The fact remains that the current 15" is behind the other PowerBooks in features and do not match the lineup. They will be updated soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, they are behind... by 60 days. whoop-de-do. and that is ONLY to the 12.1" powerbook. do i have to remind you that the 17" one isn't even shipping yet? you are beating your chest about the 15" not matching up to a computer only seen in quicktime movies and web sites. if the past few years have taught you ANYthing, it's "don't believe it until two weeks after it's on the shelves."
and no, they will NOT be updated any sooner than another 60-90 days (probably the latter, which is arounf WWDC). if i'm wrong, i'll admit it. but i won't be, so it's a safe bet.
i bought my powerbook 15inch 2 days before christmas day just so I could run OS 9 really pretty much. Though i wish I would have waited so I could have saved some money. Though the 17inch with firewire 2 is awesome I had no idea such cool stuff was in the works. But still this powerbook is sooo cool. I just wish OS X was snappy as OS 9 though it is way more beautiful. I wish there was a way to get 200 credit at the applestore since I got screwed, or that even possible?
Oh and all that was Steve blowing hot air up u're @$$ though he did say it with a big smile You'd get used to it if you hear everyday like me. The only time you know a CEO is honest is when he pulls the product out of his pocket, oven, closet and goes 'stuff like this.'
Take a glance at the thread dealing with the 15.4" powerbook as announced in DigiTimes -- it's not Apple's move -- it's their LCD supplier (Samsung). Their moving the 15.2" standard to 15.4" WXGA, so it will be at the same resolution as the 17" PowerBook. It's just a supplier issue, not that two tenths of a inch are a big design change for Apple. Fabricating the two models at the same plant will be wise, too - same bulk Aluminum, just need two different dies, two different screens (from the same supplier) -- it could be that they release them very shortly after the 17" models ship in fact.
<strong>There are also people who want a model now, to work with (and earn money) now, not at some unspecified future point just so they can have the latest & coolest toy.
Personally, I would wait, but it would unfair to generalise my needs onto the rest of the Mac buying community and say they're not in their right mind for choosing as they do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously if you "need" a Powerbook now to earn money...yes, by all means do it. But if you simply "want" one, then I suggest you wait. Anyone in their right mind should approach it this way.
i dont think the mid pbook will be updated for a while. they knew what they were doing when they released it ahead of the others. i think the 15" will remain static untli the next full-line pbook rev (probly a few months). apple doesn't make quick updates (quick being defined as less than 9 months). the rest of their products (imac, pmac, emac, ibook, ipod, ..) are in more need of attention than the mid pbook.
Interestingly, the speculation is just beginning about an Apple merger (again). One of the Saudi Princes who owns a 5 % stake thinks Apple might be forced to do this.
OTOH, if Apple's share price should fall appreciably it might even become a hostile takeover candidate by one or the other of the two basic takeover specialists. The first type takes over and breaks up the company selling off all or part of it for its component value, a bit like stripping a car for parts. Apple supposedly has $11 to $12 cash per share (pull a Michael Dell and give the money back to the share holders) and sell off the patents and other assets. It would not take much of a share price fall to make this an interesting proposition for someone. The other group figures that they can run the company better than the existing management team. Is there anyone out there who thinks management at Apple could not be improved? The problem with this approach is that most people who would do so probably figure that Apple is not worth bothering with.
If Apple were broken up and the patents sold off there could be an interesting market where licensed production of logic boards and so on offered interesting choices. Then again, Apple could become the next Be, technically superior, but no one cares.
Anyone who would take over Apple thinking they can run it better would be foolish - but I think this could only happen over Steve Job's dead body. He's worth what, 1 billion, right? And friends with Larry Ellison? I don't think this could actually happen.
Now, buying Apple and selling it piece for piece - to whom? Will any x86 notebook manufacturer buy a PowerPC notebook tech? At best the PowerMac/iMac enclosure designs might get sold, along with the iPod. OSX? Who wants to be another Be?
They kicked Jobs once and look what happened. No, I don't think Apple has much value without Jobs and even less value to someone not wanting to be Apple 105%. Apple is Apple, selling out would only have a very negative effect.
<strong>Interestingly, the speculation is just beginning about an Apple merger (again). One of the Saudi Princes who owns a 5 % stake thinks Apple might be forced to do this.
OTOH, if Apple's share price should fall appreciably it might even become a hostile takeover candidate by one or the other of the two basic takeover specialists. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has authorization from the shareholders to _double_ the number of shares in circulation. So nominally buying a controlling interest should cost something like $3B... but if someone started a hostile takeover they'd having to pay more like $6B (as the stock price keeps going up with a strong buyer). So it is a lot less appetizing than it seems on first blush.
"We don't have any compelling new products planned for at least 5 financial quarters. G4 performance will lag even further behind x86 performance, but we have a new marketing strategy to deflect attention from this lethal shortcoming. iMacs will go over 18 months without an update because they aren't selling as well as we thought and we don't have any good CPUs to put in them anyways. Going forward, we expect profit losses into the forseeable future."
In reality, I suspect that the standard mantras that the Jobs/Anderson axis state at every quarterly earning concall are simultaneously meaningful and meaningless in equal measure.
The former is exemplified by the usage of the word 'pipeline': Of course (!) there's a strong pipeline and it's as long or as short as your personal cynicism/optimism can cope with; less cryptically, Jobs can talk about a "strong product development pipeline" and all that it means is that AAPL as a board believes that they have viable product & service plans for the future.
The statement is "true" at all times simply because there's always something goin' on in the labs like the development of the iPod or the Lapzilla or Safari or Jaguar or Panther, however the pipeline for each development is infinitely variable which means that some of the stuff we see this year started development last week, and some of it started last summer and the really big stuff started in Summer 2001.
As a result of the statement always being "true", the statement is also meaningless - the investment equivalent of "the boy who cried wolf", and - as such - is simply a liturgy, in effect AAPL's verbal shorthand saying to all listeners "We are still alive, and we still have product in development and none of it coule be intepreted as a major architectural or strategic change that will have a material detrimental effect on earnings or revenue."
But you can't say something that explicit in an earnings call or you get sued because the more words you use, the more the listener gets to place a personal or an institutional interpretation on them. So the statement gets reduced to an abstract meaningless form, saying everything and nothing without a frame of reference either technically or chronologically.
The English language is a beautiful thing, but some of you are trying too hard to make some of the sentences into self-fulfilling short-term prophecies.
Apple has authorization from the shareholders to _double_ the number of shares in circulation. So nominally buying a controlling interest should cost something like $3B... but if someone started a hostile takeover they'd having to pay more like $6B (as the stock price keeps going up with a strong buyer). So it is a lot less appetizing than it seems on first blush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite so Nevyn. Their authorization (at the behest of management) is a defensive tactic against a takeover. Apple has been subjected to criticism by the financial community for some time. While most have little interest in the company, viewing it as a niche player of little relevance, a bag full of cash can attract attention. It then becomes a matter of valuation of assets. Some have considered Apple stock to be overvalued, except for the cash, for a very long time. When they have factored in the cash is when things got interesting.
Comments
The fact remains that there is more outside info backing the comments made in the last few weeks by Steve and Fred than ever before. And the need is there more than ever for something big like the 970 to finally arrive. Sure everything has a outside motive beyond what is obvious, but what is said cannot exceed the truth by to wide a margin when in comes to business. I'm not talking about the Quarterly results only but also the CNBC interview and Macworld. Most of what happens in this world has no outside meaning on its own, but when multiple sources point to the same thing the "info" must be recognized.
I thought you all agreed already that this would be a big year. I am only saying that it seems to show in Steve's quotes. My original thoughts where on the contradiction between Steve's quote and Fred's quote and not so much on what they mean anyway.
<strong>
um, how is that so much better than the 15.2" model released, uh, 60 days ago? i'm not trying to be difficult, i just don't see why an extra .2" of screen would really help... if you're talking adding airport extreme, backlit keyboard, bluetooth and DDR RAM, okay... but i don't think that warrants removing a perfectly awesome 15" powerbook from the shelves right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one in their right mind will touch current 15.2" Powerbook for the simple fact that they know there's an updated one on the way with probably better features at a lower price.
The sooner Apple brings them out (perhaps a few weeks after the 17" have shipped), the more Powerbooks they'll actually sell. Better that than having a warehouse of old stock that simply will not sell.
<strong>No one in their right mind will touch current 15.2" Powerbook for the simple fact that they know there's an updated one on the way with probably better features at a lower price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. There are many people (in their right mind - Steve Wozniak is one example) who would want a PowerBook still capable of running Mac OS 9 when needed.
I have a relative who bought ahead of 2003 largely because he wanted a machine that still gave him the option of 9.
The current Ti-book also has a proven track record, whereas the first generation newer models are yet to prove themselves.
There are also people who want a model now, to work with (and earn money) now, not at some unspecified future point just so they can have the latest & coolest toy.
Personally, I would wait, but it would unfair to generalise my needs onto the rest of the Mac buying community and say they're not in their right mind for choosing as they do.
<strong>whether or not you believe that apple that people are buying the current PowerBooks has very little to do with whether they will be updated. The fact remains that the current 15" is behind the other PowerBooks in features and do not match the lineup. They will be updated soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, they are behind... by 60 days. whoop-de-do. and that is ONLY to the 12.1" powerbook. do i have to remind you that the 17" one isn't even shipping yet? you are beating your chest about the 15" not matching up to a computer only seen in quicktime movies and web sites. if the past few years have taught you ANYthing, it's "don't believe it until two weeks after it's on the shelves."
and no, they will NOT be updated any sooner than another 60-90 days (probably the latter, which is arounf WWDC). if i'm wrong, i'll admit it. but i won't be, so it's a safe bet.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: rok ]
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
Oh and all that was Steve blowing hot air up u're @$$ though he did say it with a big smile
<strong>There are also people who want a model now, to work with (and earn money) now, not at some unspecified future point just so they can have the latest & coolest toy.
Personally, I would wait, but it would unfair to generalise my needs onto the rest of the Mac buying community and say they're not in their right mind for choosing as they do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously if you "need" a Powerbook now to earn money...yes, by all means do it. But if you simply "want" one, then I suggest you wait. Anyone in their right mind should approach it this way.
OTOH, if Apple's share price should fall appreciably it might even become a hostile takeover candidate by one or the other of the two basic takeover specialists. The first type takes over and breaks up the company selling off all or part of it for its component value, a bit like stripping a car for parts. Apple supposedly has $11 to $12 cash per share (pull a Michael Dell and give the money back to the share holders) and sell off the patents and other assets. It would not take much of a share price fall to make this an interesting proposition for someone. The other group figures that they can run the company better than the existing management team. Is there anyone out there who thinks management at Apple could not be improved? The problem with this approach is that most people who would do so probably figure that Apple is not worth bothering with.
If Apple were broken up and the patents sold off there could be an interesting market where licensed production of logic boards and so on offered interesting choices. Then again, Apple could become the next Be, technically superior, but no one cares.
Now, buying Apple and selling it piece for piece - to whom? Will any x86 notebook manufacturer buy a PowerPC notebook tech? At best the PowerMac/iMac enclosure designs might get sold, along with the iPod. OSX? Who wants to be another Be?
They kicked Jobs once and look what happened. No, I don't think Apple has much value without Jobs and even less value to someone not wanting to be Apple 105%. Apple is Apple, selling out would only have a very negative effect.
<strong>Interestingly, the speculation is just beginning about an Apple merger (again). One of the Saudi Princes who owns a 5 % stake thinks Apple might be forced to do this.
OTOH, if Apple's share price should fall appreciably it might even become a hostile takeover candidate by one or the other of the two basic takeover specialists. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has authorization from the shareholders to _double_ the number of shares in circulation. So nominally buying a controlling interest should cost something like $3B... but if someone started a hostile takeover they'd having to pay more like $6B (as the stock price keeps going up with a strong buyer). So it is a lot less appetizing than it seems on first blush.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
"We don't have any compelling new products planned for at least 5 financial quarters. G4 performance will lag even further behind x86 performance, but we have a new marketing strategy to deflect attention from this lethal shortcoming. iMacs will go over 18 months without an update because they aren't selling as well as we thought and we don't have any good CPUs to put in them anyways. Going forward, we expect profit losses into the forseeable future."
What the hell?
The former is exemplified by the usage of the word 'pipeline': Of course (!) there's a strong pipeline and it's as long or as short as your personal cynicism/optimism can cope with; less cryptically, Jobs can talk about a "strong product development pipeline" and all that it means is that AAPL as a board believes that they have viable product & service plans for the future.
The statement is "true" at all times simply because there's always something goin' on in the labs like the development of the iPod or the Lapzilla or Safari or Jaguar or Panther, however the pipeline for each development is infinitely variable which means that some of the stuff we see this year started development last week, and some of it started last summer and the really big stuff started in Summer 2001.
As a result of the statement always being "true", the statement is also meaningless - the investment equivalent of "the boy who cried wolf", and - as such - is simply a liturgy, in effect AAPL's verbal shorthand saying to all listeners "We are still alive, and we still have product in development and none of it coule be intepreted as a major architectural or strategic change that will have a material detrimental effect on earnings or revenue."
But you can't say something that explicit in an earnings call or you get sued because the more words you use, the more the listener gets to place a personal or an institutional interpretation on them. So the statement gets reduced to an abstract meaningless form, saying everything and nothing without a frame of reference either technically or chronologically.
The English language is a beautiful thing, but some of you are trying too hard to make some of the sentences into self-fulfilling short-term prophecies.
<strong>
Apple has authorization from the shareholders to _double_ the number of shares in circulation. So nominally buying a controlling interest should cost something like $3B... but if someone started a hostile takeover they'd having to pay more like $6B (as the stock price keeps going up with a strong buyer). So it is a lot less appetizing than it seems on first blush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite so Nevyn. Their authorization (at the behest of management) is a defensive tactic against a takeover. Apple has been subjected to criticism by the financial community for some time. While most have little interest in the company, viewing it as a niche player of little relevance, a bag full of cash can attract attention. It then becomes a matter of valuation of assets. Some have considered Apple stock to be overvalued, except for the cash, for a very long time. When they have factored in the cash is when things got interesting.