[NewsPoster]

Apple is reporting $54.5 billion in revenue and $13.1 billion in net profit for its fiscal first quarter, which ended in December. The company pulled in $13.81 in earnings per share, and sold 47.8 million iPhones, plus 22.9 million iPads, 4.1 million Macs, and 12.7 million iPods. Gross margin was valued at 38.6 percent. Looking ahead to the second quarter, Apple is guiding revenue expectations to between $41 billion and $43 billion, and gross margin to between 37.5 and 38.5 percent.

The figures have already met with mixed reactions from investors, owing to declines in some figures. EPS is down from $13.87 in Q1 2012, although net profit has remained the same. Similarly, gross margin has shrunk from 44.7 percent, and both Mac and iPod sales are down, sliding from 5.2 million and 15.4 million respectively. At the same time, however, iPhones are up from 37 million, and iPad sales have grown from 15.4 million. The company moreover notes that weekly revenue has risen from $3.3 billion to $4.2, and that it generated $23 billion in cash flow. International sales (outside the US) represented 61 percent of revenue. Apple is reminding investors that a $2.65-per-share cash dividend is coming on February 14th to people who are registered shareholders by the end of the February 11th business day.

[James Katt]

So disappointing.

I predicted Apple would have $120 BILLION IN REVENUE for its first quarter. But they only did a puny RECORD $54.5 BILLION in revenue. What is up with that? So what if it is a record?

Apple only had $13.1 BILLION IN PROFIT. Google had $2.9 BILLION in profit in the same quarter. Apple only earned 4.5 times the profit of Google. I expected more.

Apple's $13.1 BILLION IN PROFIT also is less than all of Microsoft's $16 BILLION IN REVENUE. I expected more. Apple's profit is only 2.9 times Microsoft's $4.5 BILLION IN PROFIT. I expected more.

Watch Apple's Stock sink. Apple's gonna die. Apple's gonna die. I expected more more more more more. Wahhhh. Wahhhh.

[Spheric Harlot]

The Apple Death Knell Counter

[iphonerulez]

Apple shares are down... live with it. This company might be making all the money in the world, but it's worth next to nothing for investors and shareholders. One of the most important things in investing in a company is that it returns value to shareholders. Apple is failing at doing this. Amazon's share price will probably be higher than Apple's by the end of the year. Apple is sitting on $137 billion in cash, but so what. It's untouchable by anyone except Tim Cook and executive friends. What amount of that $137 billion are shareholders seeing? Nada. Do you really expect Wall Street to put up with that kind of stinginess? They're not.

I'm not saying Apple is being run poorly but at this rate, Apple's share price is going to be worth less now than it was two years ago by the end of the year. Apple has enough cash reserve to practically trash Google and Amazon, but instead it's getting trashed by both of them. The company was not aggressive enough to strike while they had a full head of steam. Apple's shareholder value days are over.

[Charles Martin]

Originally Posted by iphonerulez 

What amount of that $137 billion are shareholders seeing? Nada.

You are incorrect -- to the tune of about $6 billion. Per QUARTER.

Oh boo hoo, my AAPL was up ONLY 30 percent this year! Might as well stick my money in a savings account!

The truth is that the company has solid profits and operations, and that analysts are inventing a "competition" that, as far as profits go, simply isn't there. Great time to buy, if you ask me.

[blahblahbber]

ohhhh, look at that stock price.... reality. I win.


Maybe crApple is saving its pennies to try and buy samsung. Too bad that type of cash hoarding will be useless down the road unless they buy a broke butt government/country somewhere.

No matter what Apple does, shareholders and analysts will be upset. Just look at iphonerulez - he resorts to just making up facts to express his dissatisfaction when he knows damn well that Apple started giving dividends last year. But they still aren't happy because shareholders have absolutely no vision and think Apple should just give away their cash reserve.

Only one thing to do now: let the price go down, and then go private. Then they can concentrate on making good products now and in the future without having to cow-tow to idiot investors who can't see into next week let alone a few years into the future.

[blahblahbber]

the future will bring open-source to the forefront... just wait and see.

[Spheric Harlot]

2009 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.

[blahblahbber]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

2009 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.

Tell that to Russia, and others

[Spheric Harlot]

Link please, thank you.

[blahblahbber]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Link please, thank you.

There you go

open...: Putin Orders Russian Move to GNU/Linux

Your Welcome

[Spheric Harlot]

Thanks.

a) notice the year I've mentioned. People have been claiming this for over a decade.

b) notice that this presidential decree had to be signed because they'd tried to move, but had completely failed to do so for years. Numbers in Russia are close to zero.

c) a push by the government to convert government agencies does not mean a huge increase among desktop users.

d) "others"? (Though I do recall that China was working on their own branch of Linux at some point.) do you have numbers for China or others?

[blahblahbber]

Do you need me to do more leg work for you?

[Spheric Harlot]

No, that's fine. You have no statistics, but your point has legs. In ten years' time, things might actually have changed, maybe.

Don't act surprised, though, that people ask YOU to do the legwork to support your claims. I was curious because I'd read about it a while ago, but never seen a follow-up.

[Steve Wilkinson]

@ iphonerulez -

On the bright side.... if the stock drops enough, Apple could use that cash to buy themselves out of the idiotic public market. Now THAT would be the best way they could ever possibly spend that cash.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

2009 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.

Why do you mock such a premise? Is is very likely that Linux will eventually play big role on the desktop, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Not really.

Unless you count the shrinking of the desktop market to the point that Linux achieves significant share without increased absolute numbers.

Also, every year for the past ten years was going to be the Year of Linux On the Desktop.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Not really.

Unless you count the shrinking of the desktop market to the point that Linux achieves significant share without increased absolute numbers.

Also, every year for the past ten years was going to be the Year of Linux On the Desktop.

The difference this time is Android.

Android mobile + desktop workflows will dominate business shortly once an Android desktop OS has been created, unless Windows Mobile really picks up its pace.

[Spheric Harlot]

"Once an Android desktop OS has been created."

Shortly.

Get back to me when it happens, and we'll look at the numbers, okay?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"Once an Android desktop OS has been created."

Shortly.

Get back to me when it happens, and we'll look at the numbers, okay?

You don't see that writing on the wall? Why wouldn't one be created at an opportune time?

[Spheric Harlot]

The writing on the wall is mobile computing. In fact, that's the screaming outside your window. It's not a subtle trend. Tablet sales are predicted by some to eclipse laptop sales this year, and laptop sales have been killing desktop sales for years now.

As I said, "unless you count the shrinking of the desktop market to the point that Linux achieves significant share without increased absolute numbers."

And of course, it's a trivial thing to just create a viable desktop Linux "at an opportune time". After all, they've been doing it for twenty years, to great success.

In other words, my prediction is that Linux on the Desktop may be dominant, but not before the Desktop has slipped largely into market irrelevance (it will always be important, and continue to exist indefinitely, but not in numbers).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The writing on the wall is mobile computing. In fact, that's the screaming outside your window. It's not a subtle trend. Tablet sales are predicted by some to eclipse laptop sales this year, and laptop sales have been killing desktop sales for years now.

As I said, "unless you count the shrinking of the desktop market to the point that Linux achieves significant share without increased absolute numbers."

And of course, it's a trivial thing to just create a viable desktop Linux "at an opportune time". After all, they've been doing it for twenty years, to great success.

In other words, my prediction is that Linux on the Desktop may be dominant, but not before the Desktop has slipped largely into market irrelevance (it will always be important, and continue to exist indefinitely, but not in numbers).

I think you lack imagination.

First of all, mobile and desktop OSes will continue to converge. When I talk about Android on the desktop, I'm basically talking about a single OS or a virtually single OS that works on all devices. The application quantity and quality will always follow the market leader where there exists the greatest profit potential, and because of the mobile catalyst Google/Android is poised to be this leader. I say "virtually single OS" because I don't know if Google will go for complete consolidation so that what runs on desktops and mobile devices is a single OS, or two OSes that have binary compatibility between each other with similar user experiences, but I'm pretty confident one or the other will happen.

Also, by desktops, I simply mean devices with larger screens, and obviously with these sorts of devices a touch interface may merely accompany a more ergonomic point and click type interface. I realize that creating a touch-based interface and a point and click interface are separate challenges now, but I think this will eventually be figured out where either we'll have a single OS and single apps with different modes, or different variants of the OS/apps with binary compatibility.

Either way, I think one would be drinking too much Apple kool aid if they really expect the iPad to remain the marketshare leader forever. There will ultimately be a myriad of Android tablets as there are phones and PCs today, all available at different price points. The vendors interested and willing to undercut Apple will ultimately prevail. Cheap almost always has the upper hand.

[Spheric Harlot]

Mobile and Desktop OSen are not converging.
The only ones who think they are are Microsoft...and you. Even Microsoft's customers appear to disagree.

The point is that the user experiences are NOT similar.

Google seems to agree – they have Android for mobile, and Chrome OS.

I don't necessarily disagree with your last paragraph, which is obviously not directed at me, as I have argued nothing of the sort in this thread. Though I do believe that Apple's iOS does not risk being relegated to market irrelevance the way that Macintosh was for a long lime.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Mobile and Desktop OSen are not converging.
The only ones who think they are are Microsoft...and you. Even Microsoft's customers appear to disagree.

And Apple. Mountain Lion openly has taked ideas from iOS and consolidated some aspects to the experience. This is convergence. Maybe where we disagree is just on semantics on what convergence entails?

I don't necessarily disagree with your last paragraph, which is obviously not directed at me, as I have argued nothing of the sort in this thread. Though I do believe that Apple's iOS does not risk being relegated to market irrelevance the way that Macintosh was for a long lime.

It wasn't directed at you. I agree that the iPad will not become irrelevant like the Mac, the price differences will be far less dramatic than the early days and the painted perception of the gap between a Mac and PC.

[besson3c]

That comment about the iPad not leading forever was directed at the people that sort of scoff at the sorts of stories that come out about Android picking up the pace over Apple.

There will always be a place in technology for a company like Apple that invests the heaviest in R&D providing that it can sustain itself, and we all benefit from companies like Apple existing. I see Apple as sort of like the Toyota Prius. Let's say hypothetically that hybrid technology is where things are going in the auto industry. Eventually, in x years all cars will be built using that technology so that even a super cheap economy class car will carry on what was started by companies like Apple, and when this happens that Apple-like company will be threatened until they build the next great thing. I think this is cyclical, and right now Apple is sort of suffering by their competitors catching up to them while they are in a temporary innovative lull.

I'm not going to dump my Apple stock, but it is foolish to think that while Apple is committed to this strategy that we won't have these sorts of cycles.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And Apple. Mountain Lion openly has taked ideas from iOS and consolidated some aspects to the experience. This is convergence. Maybe where we disagree is just on semantics on what convergence entails?

We do.

Two-wheeled vehicles and four-wheeled vehicles didn't converge just because both got a combustion engine. They are vastly different experiences, suitable for completely different usage scenarios (though certain things became possible for motorized two-wheeled vehicles that were previously reserved for the four-wheeled ones).

iOS and OS X gaining similar features does not mean that they are converging as I understand it. Convergence as I use it in this context implies eventual unification into a single system. That is NOT happening anywhere outside of Ballmer's head (which is no doubt an interesting place).

What IS happening in Apple's universe is a "convergence" analogous to convergent evolution, where completely different approaches result in a similar feature set. Is that what you mean? If so, we're in agreement.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

We do.

Two-wheeled vehicles and four-wheeled vehicles didn't converge just because both got a combustion engine. They are vastly different experiences, suitable for completely different usage scenarios (though certain things became possible for motorized two-wheeled vehicles that were previously reserved for the four-wheeled ones).

iOS and OS X gaining similar features does not mean that they are converging as I understand it. Convergence as I use it in this context implies eventual unification into a single system. That is NOT happening anywhere outside of Ballmer's head (which is no doubt an interesting place).

What IS happening in Apple's universe is a "convergence" analogous to convergent evolution, where completely different approaches result in a similar feature set. Is that what you mean? If so, we're in agreement.

You seem to define an OS by its GUI and user interaction. There are many more aspects to an OS, as you know, so hopefully we can agree that the non-interactive specific GUI aspects to OS X and iOS will converge so that the codebases are virtually identical, if not exactly identical. As far as the GUI concepts and conventions go, I'm not saying that they'll eventually become identical. According to your conception of what an OS is I can see your point of view though.

My viewpoint is that eventually enough aspects of iOS and OS X outside the GUI will be identical enough that it will be more accurate to call them the same OS with different GUI modes than two divergent OSes. The stuff that we interact with is vitally important, but a relatively small part of the OS. Even in the GUI space, there is no reason why pieces like Quartz and Aqua (or whatever they are called now) couldn't converge so that the code that provides the window drop shadows, the 3D compositing engine (Quartz Extreme I guess), the PDF stuff, etc. couldn't be the same code.

As far as application development goes, there is no reason why the same underlying logic could not be consolidated. When a web developer develops a mobile version of the site the mobile content is not provided by a different database using a different code base on a different server, it is the same stuff just presented differently with some thoughtful supplemental pieces to enhance the experience and honor the significant differences between using the site with touch instead of a mouse.

It could very well be that ultimately there will be something like a 10% difference between iOS and OS X. I just pulled the number out of my ass, but hopefully this helps make my point clear. If this will be the case, I don't know whether these will exist as two separate marketed products, but basically at this point we'll conceive of these two entities as basically the same thing with a small amount of differences, rather than the two separate entities as they are today.

[Spheric Harlot]

Bizarrely, you've got it entirely backwards.

Following your argument, OS X and iOS aren't "converging"; they already stem from a common core and have DIverged from there.

Most of the Core Services frameworks present on iOS are ALREADY shared, and have been from Day One. That was the whole point of basing iPhone on OS X.
http://developer.apple.com/library/i...rameworks.html

There's CoreMIDI, CoreAudio, Core Animation, OpenGL, Quick Look, Core Bluetooth, etc. etc. etc.

The primary difference between iOS and OS X *IS* the GUI and user interaction.

[besson3c]

So then what is stopping Apple from offering binary compatibility between apps that would only have minor GUI differences across both OSes in their ideal form? If you had to wager a guess as to how identical the two OSes were, what percentage would you assign?

[Spheric Harlot]

I have no idea. I'm no developer; I deal with interfaces and software that *uses* the underlying technologies.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So then what is stopping Apple from offering binary compatibility between apps that would only have minor GUI differences across both OSes in their ideal form?

The fact that the GUI differences between a touch-based and a cursor-based interface aren't "minor" but fundamental.

It's been six years since the introduction of iPhone, the Surface is on the market and its failings have been discussed to death by reviewers, the iPad has created a new market that is poised to eclipse traditional computers within the next two years, and you give the impression that you still believe that building a single interface for both modes of interaction isn't the sure-fire way to make it suck on BOTH platforms.

[edit: cut out the personal stuff. Sorry, bess]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have no idea. I'm no developer; I deal with interfaces and software that *uses* the underlying technologies.



The fact that the GUI differences between a touch-based and a cursor-based interface aren't "minor" but fundamental.

It's been six years since the introduction of iPhone, the Surface is on the market and its failings have been discussed to death by reviewers, the iPad has created a new market that is poised to eclipse traditional computers within the next two years, and you give the impression that you still believe that building a single interface for both modes of interaction isn't the sure-fire way to make it suck on BOTH platforms.

[edit: cut out the personal stuff. Sorry, bess]

Re: the stuff you edited out, why does this subject matter turn you into an overly emotional insecure troll when it seems like somebody disagrees with you?

We don't even disagree. My pointing out that the necessarily differences between iOS and OS X account for a small percentage of the codebase does not mean that these differences are unimportant or trivial. There is absolutely zero relationship between code quantity and importance. The only relevance here is product management from Apple's vantage point.

I haven't used Surface/Windows 8, but my impressions based on the disk size needed for it and the reviews is that this marriage was a failure. However, it doesn't mean that the concept is a failure. The installer could feasibly install fewer stuff for Surface, and the GUI could provide a separate experience for each device rather than trying to make them identical.

It doesn't really matter if you agree with me though, because Apple clearly does. There is ample evidence that Apple wishes to strive towards a unified experience where it makes sense to unify in Mountain Lion/Lion and iOS. Microsoft clearly went too far with this idea, but my opinion is that the ultimate goal is for Apple to be able to merge their iOS and OS X teams, and to continue with unifying and consolidating stuff.

Please try to control yourself though. It doesn't seem like we disagree, I'm just framing this differently, and thinking about this from a management perspective. My ideas could very well be flawed too, but there is no need to be emotional about this stuff.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Re: the stuff you edited out, why does this subject matter turn you into an overly emotional insecure troll when it seems like somebody disagrees with you?

It seemed like you were arguing from ignorance, and I do tend to take it personally when people do that. It's insulting.

(Thanks for giving me pause and helping me realize that, btw.)

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I haven't used Surface/Windows 8, but my impressions based on the disk size needed for it and the reviews is that this marriage was a failure. However, it doesn't mean that the concept is a failure.

The reviews I'm talking about aren't about the *technical* merits, but about how combining the two interfaces approaches is a complete failure wrt user experience. Surface flip-flops you between two completely disparate interface approaches, and every review of Office I've seen seems to agree that spacing the ribbon controls a little farther apart does not a usable, let alone tolerable, touch interface make.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It doesn't really matter if you agree with me though, because Apple clearly does. There is ample evidence that Apple wishes to strive towards a unified experience where it makes sense to unify in Mountain Lion/Lion and iOS.

No, no, no!

They are NOT unifying the "experience"!

They are unifying the FEATURE SET, and they are unifying, at least in part, the LOOK, which are related, but actually very different things from the user experience (though that is influenced by both).

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Microsoft clearly went too far with this idea, but my opinion is that the ultimate goal is for Apple to be able to merge their iOS and OS X teams, and to continue with unifying and consolidating stuff.

No. Apple has gone explicitly on record numerous times saying that this is precisely what is NOT going to happen, and everything they have done in the past three years makes it clear that they do not intend to.

They are going the EXACT OPPOSITE direction from Microsoft.

This has been well established, and it is rather exasperating to keep running over the same old ground just because somebody hasn't been following along.

The core teams working on Darwin probably ARE the same, or working closely together, but everything that is currently specific to the individual platforms will remain that way. Apple's goal is NOT to unify the platforms beyond what they're already doing.

[besson3c]

I think we are getting hung up on words.

Whether you want to call it the feature set or the experience, the fact is that Apple is striving towards enough similarities between iOS and OS X such that one can pick up one and be automatically familiar with the other. Yes, there will be differences in how these features have been implemented, but not enough to throw off users - they are leveraging familiarity.

Agreed?

[Spheric Harlot]

Agreed.

[besson3c]

So then, it's just a matter of whether the differences between iOS and OS X will be enough to market and/or conceptualize these respective OSes as the same product with some variations, or two completely different products. My assertion is that it will eventually be the former. This could be in the form of a single installer that installs the stuff needed for either platform shipped from a single product, or simply a single development team that internally may consider the project a single project, but it is shipped as two separate projects to avoid customer confusion.

Either way, iOS and OS X will continue to consolidate because from Apple's vantage point it makes sense from a business standpoint to consolidate resources, and there are no serious technical reasons why they couldn't/shouldn't that I can think of.

You're thinking about this from a user experience standpoint, I'm thinking about this in terms of the technical anatomy. To be clear, I've never suggested that the user experiences will merge together ala Windows 8.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So then, it's just a matter of whether the differences between iOS and OS X will be enough to market and/or conceptualize these respective OSes as the same product with some variations, or two completely different products. My assertion is that it will eventually be the former.

Apple's assertion is that it is the latter. You don't call out the Post-PC revolution on a whim.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Either way, iOS and OS X will continue to consolidate because from Apple's vantage point it makes sense from a business standpoint to consolidate resources, and there are no serious technical reasons why they couldn't/shouldn't that I can think of.

Again: They won't "continue to consolidate", because THEY STARTED OUT AS THE SAME THING. Everything that has happened since ca. 2005 is increased DIFFERENTIATION.

You're confused because you see Notes on the iPad, Notes on OS X, To-Dos on iOS, and now To-Dos on OS X, and GarageBand on iOS and on the Mac, but fail to realize that the completely different user interaction model requires a COMPLETE rebuild of the app, minus its underlying technology — IMAP in the case of the former two, CoreAudio and CoreMIDI in the latter — which isn't "increasingly consolidated"; it's never been separate. The graphics and layouts are painstakingly crafted to look as similar as possible to their desktop counterparts (and vice versa), but that completely belies that they are operated entirely differently.

Whatever you think of as a trend in development isn't a trend; IT WAS THE STARTING POINT.

See below.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're thinking about this from a user experience standpoint, I'm thinking about this in terms of the technical anatomy. To be clear, I've never suggested that the user experiences will merge together ala Windows 8.

What are you suggesting, then?
That the underlying technology will grow more similar?

In that case, (again): you've got the technical anatomy backwards, because iOS STARTED OUT as OS X.

I also put forth that it is completely nonsensical NOT to argue from a user experience standpoint, since a) that is the entire point of Apple's products, and b) the only reason iPads even EXIST is a fundamental re-thinking of user experience.

The fact that things *look* increasingly similar does not mean the user experience is growing similar.


It's all running in circles from here on out, so I'll just leave it at that. Perhaps somebody else wants to pick up the thread.

[Steve Wilkinson]

@ besson3c -
I don't think they will converge. They are fairly different things for different purposes with different UI advantages and disadvantages. Will they share data? Absolutely! But, the UI will remain different. First, while tablets and phones will get more powerful, so will desktops. It isn't like one will just sit still while the other matches it. This is a basic physics problem, not a technology one. Second, by definition, mobile will be more limited in UI space and require a different kind of input and interaction. Third, while it isn't impossible to have a do-it-all OS, it's more likely the better approach will remain optimization of each specifically, with optimized interaction between them data-wise. That *seems* to be where Apple is headed, with Microsoft heading the opposite route. (I say *seems* as I'm not quite clear Apple gets this either yet.)

[cgc]

Originally Posted by blahblahbber 

the future will bring open-source to the forefront... just wait and see.

Yeah, because corporations, governments, and home users want to trust their tech support to a bunch of volunteer kids who know little about support. The open source model has been shot down in Europe and it will be shot down globally soon enough (at least for government and business).

[Spheric Harlot]

Where has the open-source model been shot down in Europe?

It would seem FAR preferable to have a solution where your in-house security guys can not only search for flaws, but immediately go about fixing them themselves.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Yeah, because corporations, governments, and home users want to trust their tech support to a bunch of volunteer kids who know little about support. The open source model has been shot down in Europe and it will be shot down globally soon enough (at least for government and business).

No Android in Europe?

[cgc]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No Android in Europe?

Android may be one of the exceptions...look at all the companies and governments that went OpenOffice to save money then realized it cost more money to use it than they saved in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Android may be one of the exceptions...look at all the companies and governments that went OpenOffice to save money then realized it cost more money to use it than they saved in the first place.

I was never that gung ho about switching to OpenOffice, but Android is a *very* big exception.