macintosh marketshare

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cpqeuq$s2q$1@panix2.panix.com...
> reddred <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Apple is really good at pulling disconnected rabbits out of hats, and
they
> >> have been doing so since they started. Aside from a couple mistakes,
like
> >> the Apple III
> >
> >I don't think they supported that much. Things like the Newton were just
too
> >weird at the time for people to embrace. I kind of like what they're
doing
> >now, coming at it from the entertainment gadget angle.
>
> They didn't support the III at all, as far as I could tell, which is why
> nobody bought it. It could do everything the Apple II could do, for a
> whole lot more money. That's not a good marketing plan.
>

The emulation mode was a dumb idea, too. I think a IIe was basically what
the III should have been.


> Apple does not seem to really do careful investigation of the market
before
> making products; they make products that are neat and some of them find a
> market share and some of them tank.

That's one of the things I like about them. It's more like media companies
used to be, it's very odd for a technology company to be like that once they
are any size at all. It seems to work for them, though.

jb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > > iPod isn't a money maker neither is the iTunes music store.
> > Well, that's the theory, but most of Apple's significant wad of ready cash
> > came from iPods this year, not macs.
> But separating out the iPod earnings is hard to do, and it something
> the company has not done.

Err, they just did it.

Quote :

Of the $8.279 billion in net sales reported for FY04, Apple's Macintosh
line -- Power Macs, PowerBooks, iMacs, eMacs and iBooks -- brought in
$4.923 billion. The iPod brought in another $1.3 billion for the company
in FY04. Its iTunes Music Store and other iPod-related accessories and
services brought in another $278 million. The remainder came from sales
of peripherals, software and services.

End of quote.

From http/www.macworld.com/news/2004/12/03/10k/index.php

Regards,
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http/homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

 

[David]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cppgur$8ks$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> >So what's the next rabbit from the hat?
>
> A follow-on to the Newton.

> --scott


No chance for a Newton like device anytime soon, accord to Jobs on
multiple occasions over the past few years. And when you look at the
marketplace, you gotta tip your hat for the Steve-ing the Newton,
Scully's baby.

One of the things Apple's been doing is keeping the iPod "pure" by not
filling it with a whole bunch of other functions. 3rd parties are
hacking little programs into it but not yet Apple.

Supposedly they are watching to see how the new photo iPod does before
mucking the waters further. I always thought it obvious that they add
an am/fm tuner to the thing.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:
> I don't think they supported that much. Things like the Newton were just too
> weird at the time for people to embrace.

If by "weird" you mean "expensive and falling far short of its promise
of recognizing handwriting", then I agree. ;-)

And yeah, I know they released some update where the handwriting
recognitiong was much-improved, but by that time it already had
a reputation for being an impractical gadget that was desirable
only to hard-core gadget freaks.

- Logan

 

[David]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1goulx8.rrhfgjywycdcN%deromax@hotmail.com>, Eric Desrochers
<deromax@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > iPod isn't a money maker neither is the iTunes music store.
> > > Well, that's the theory, but most of Apple's significant wad of ready cash
> > > came from iPods this year, not macs.
> > But separating out the iPod earnings is hard to do, and it something
> > the company has not done.
>
> Err, they just did it.
>
> Quote :
>
> Of the $8.279 billion in net sales reported for FY04, Apple's Macintosh
> line -- Power Macs, PowerBooks, iMacs, eMacs and iBooks -- brought in
> $4.923 billion. The iPod brought in another $1.3 billion for the company
> in FY04. Its iTunes Music Store and other iPod-related accessories and
> services brought in another $278 million. The remainder came from sales
> of peripherals, software and services.
>
> End of quote.
>
> From http/www.macworld.com/news/2004/12/03/10k/index.php
>
> Regards,
> --
> Eric (Dero) Desrochers
> http/homepage.mac.com/dero72




By earnings, we weren't speaking gross numbers, but actual percent of
Apple's net.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:

> >I know I could probably get by on the interest generated by $5
> > billion ;>

> I sure would have a kickass studio.

While the money lasted...

--
ha