Forums | MacLife

HELL YEAH!!!!   

marketshare has dropped every year Steve Jobs has been "the man."  Latest estimates are less than 4%.

marketshare has dropped every year Steve Jobs has been "the man."  Latest estimates are less than 4%.

All Apple has to do is make a profit, and they are doing just that. It's not about market share. Buh bye! 

deadly Kung-Fu of the Mac-advocacy style.

And with that Judo chop, we say goodbye to you, box of empty-headedness.

Apple has been pronounced dead before and always bounced back or survived, that was then and the future is uncertain for anyone.

BUT I found some very interesting Apple facts.. Espically the lawsuits over poor performance, false advertising and Apple stealing others technology. None of it proven, but with a dozen or so lawsuits pending.. it could get ugly if they lose some and jurys give high dollar settlements.

In a regulatory document filed with the SEC, Apple is quoted:

"If future unit sales of Power Macintosh systems fail to partially or fully recover, it will be difficult for the company to improve its overall profitability,"

Net sales decreased $2.6 billion or 33% during 2001 compared to 2000, while Macintosh unit sales fell 32% from 2000

Outside of the U.S. education channel, unit sales of the Company's consumer oriented iMac fell 64% in 2001

Net sales in Europe fell $568 million or 31% during 2001 compared to 2000,

Japan segment's combined unit sales of iMacs and iBooks during 2001 were down 58% from 2000, and professionally oriented systems unit sales fell 30%.

Net interest and other income was $112 million in fiscal 2002, compared to $217 million in fiscal 2001. This $105 million or 48% decrease is primarily the result of declining investment yields on the Company's cash and short-term investments resulting from substantially lower market interest rates.

For much of the past 3 years, demand for the Company's products has been negatively impacted by worsening global economic conditions. Continued uncertainty about future economic conditions continues to make it difficult to forecast future operating results. Should global and regional economic conditions fail to improve or continue to deteriorate, demand for the Company's products could continue to be adversely affected, as could the financial health of its suppliers, distributors, and resellers

The Company's competitors who sell Windows-based personal computers have aggressively cut prices and lowered their product margins in order to gain or maintain market share in response to weakness in demand for personal computing products that began in the second half of calendar 2000. The Company's results of operations and financial condition have been, and in the future may continue to be, adversely affected by these and other industry-wide pricing pressures and downward pressures on gross margins

The Company's ability to produce and market competitive products is also dependent on the ability and desire of IBM and Motorola, the sole suppliers of the PowerPC RISC-based microprocessor for the Company's Macintosh computers, to provide the Company with a sufficient supply of microprocessors with price/performance features that compare favorably to those supplied to the Company's competitors by Intel Corporation and other developers and producers of microprocessors used by personal computers using the Windows operating systems. Further, despite its efforts to educate the marketplace to the contrary, the Company believes that many of its current and potential customers believe that the relatively slower MHz rating or clock speed of the microprocessors it utilizes in its Macintosh systems compares unfavorably to those utilized by Windows-based systems and translates to slower overall system performance. There have been instances in recent years where the inability of the Company's suppliers to provide advanced G4 and G3 microprocessors with higher clock speeds in sufficient quantity has had significant adverse effects on the Company's results of operations

the Company's financial losses in prior years and the minority market share held by the Company in the personal computer market, as well as the Company's decision to end its Mac OS licensing program, have caused software developers to question the Company's prospects in the personal computer market, developers could be less inclined to develop new application software or upgrade existing software for the Company's products and more inclined to devote their resources to developing and upgrading software for the larger Windows market. In addition, past and future development by the Company of its own software applications and solutions may negatively impact the decision of software developers to develop, maintain, and upgrade similar or competitive software for the Company's products. Moreover, there can be no assurance software developers will continue to develop software for Mac OS X, the Company's new operating system, on a timely basis or at all.


Sales to K-12 and university customers fell to 21 percent of its total revenue in fiscal 2002, down from 26 percent of revenue in fiscal 2001,

Macintosh unit sales to the education market dropped 14 percent from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2002.

Apple laid off more than 605 employees in fiscal 2002.

From C-Net (various stories, links here: http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/ … l?tag=ltnc )

"For the fourth quarter of its fiscal 2002, Apple posted an unexpected net loss of $45 million.."

A net loss before taxes related to the Company's non-current debt and equity investments of $42 million was recognized in 2002.

"... sales of Apple's iMac would fall 3 percent, with Power Mac sales down 15 percent"

$77 million will be spent on stores


More SEC filing (sec.gov)

The Company's research and development expenditures, before any charges for purchased in-process research and development, totaled $446 million, $430 million, and $380 million in 2002, 2001, and 2000, respectively


As far as everyone copying Apple, it's alleged they've been copying a few things themselves... like Firewire. Interesting, Apple may have stolen what many think is another great Apple innovation.

The Company has from time to time been notified that it may be infringing certain patents or other intellectual property rights of others

Articulate Systems, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Articulate filed this action in March 1996 in the United States District Court in Massachusetts claiming patent infringement relating to voice recognition technology

Bancroft v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Bancroft filed this purported class action on January 30, 2002 in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of a potentially nationwide class of purchasers of certain Power Macintosh G3 computers. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") arising from allegedly poor performance while running the Company's Mac OS X operating system,


BIAX Corporation v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff BIAX filed this action on September 5, 2001 in the United States District Court in Delaware claiming patent infringement relating to dual processor technology


Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Dynacore filed this action on June 6, 2001 in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and thirteen other defendants claiming patent infringement relating to IEEE 1394 technology, also known as FireWire. Plaintiff claims that any computer system or other electronic product that uses or complies with the IEEE 1394 standard violates the patent


FTC Inquiry

long boring crap that we've heard over and over since 1984

Just shut up and go away, ok?  As long as Apple innovates and pulls in a profit, they'll stick around.  From what I saw and heard in just yesterday's keynote they are doing exactly that.

Maybe you don't realize this, but the entire PC industry you worship relies on Apple for R&D.  If it wasn't for Apple's OS and software innovations with the iApps and in OS X Microsoft wouldn't know their asses from a whole in the ground.

If it wasn't for Apple's innovation with the Power Mac (industrial design, easy open, case, etc.), iMac (could this be any more obvious), and the PowerBooks and iBooks constantly and consistently in every way, PC manufacturers would be completely clueless and would still be selling big, bulky, ugly beige and black pieces of crap without a care toward how the computer is going to be used or what needs to be done with it.

And shut up about the processors.  The PPC is a different class of processor than the x86, and as such, the MHz don't mean the exact same thing.  They are measured on a different scale and do different amounts of work with those cycles.  The number gap is large, but the real world performance gap is not nearly as high as the number gap misleads people to be.  Sure, higher numbers would be better for marketing, but oh well.  IBM and Moto do their best with the PPC, and as far as I'm concerned, it's plenty fast.  You don't see too many PCs with applications like Final Cut Pro doing real-time video effects.  I can do most things in real-time with my G4/400 and Final Cut; my friend can't come close to real-time effects in Premier on a 1.4 GHz Athlon, which should surely outlcass my 3 1/2-year old G4/400 in everything, but doesn't.  iDVD 3 does some amazing stuff with uncompressed video in real-time.  iMovie 3 is extraordinarily fast as well, and handles some rather complex effects on virtually any G4.  If there were such a gap in real world performance, it would be the PCs impressing people with world-class software, but that's not the case.  Even the fastest of the fast PC doesn't come close to handling these kinds of apps with the speed and ease a Mac does.

And stop saying Apple is using "last year's technology" too, and other meaningless rhetoric like that.  I don't know about you, but I sure didn't see a 1.25 GHz G4 in late 2001-early 2002.  I also didn't see 802.11g wireless networking, nor FireWire 800 in a single computer released last year.  Heck, most PCs don't have 802.11a capability nor FireWire.

In the end, the proof is not on the paper, but in the apps, and the real world where the user experience, ease of use, and speed with which the computer accomplishes real tasks is done.  PCs don't impress anyone but leet-speaking hacker wankboys who spend thousands of dollars to play games.  That'll keep the PC world in business well enough, and while it does, the rest of us will be using our Macs to do something meaningful and important.

marketshare has dropped every year Steve Jobs has been "the man."  Latest estimates are less than 4%.

I don't know... a local TV station here did some research that brings it to 7% and 11% by the end of 2003.

Trolls have a tendency to find biased "news" sources (Merril Lynch?  Oh please!  What a bunch of crooks!) and make a bunch of irrelevant, retarded posts which offend educated minds.

marketshare has dropped every year Steve Jobs has been "the man."  Latest estimates are less than 4%.

Okay, I'm hoping my math and my logic aren't too messed up here, lest I be embarrassed.

If Helix's numbers are correct, there were 3,039,000. That's 4% (and since we're going off your info which states that it's at 4 percent and declining, we can assume this is true of last year alone as well), so that number divided by 4 would give us one percent of the computer sales last year. That comes out to 759,750 computers. Now if that's one, then a hundred percent would 100 times that, wouldn't it? That's 759,750,000. Seven-Hundred, fifty-nine million, seven-hundred fifty thousand computers sold last year alone.  That's almost 1/6th of the population of the world!

I know the logic doesn't fit completely into the picture, but the market share argument is far too broad to use reasonably.

Less is more.
Cut to the chase.
Cut the crap.
See through the $h

---

All hail Xenu!