Jump to content

OS X on Intel Still Not Complete

Swad

By Swad,
in Front Page News and Rumors

 Share
143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

G5rocks
G5rocks
Posted
Posted

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jul/13results.html

 

2005: Apple posted a net quarterly profit of $320 million,..... Apple shipped 1,182,000 Macintosh® units and 6,155,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 35 percent growth in Macs and 616 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/14results.html

 

2004: For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million,... Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

 

 

 

The easiest way to find out that iPod is important but not that important as most think is this (stupid) calculation:

let's say they made all of the money with the iPod:

 

$320.000.000 / 6.155.000 iPods = $51,99

$61.000.000 / 876.000 iPods = $70,93

 

While iPod sales raising 616% the earnings per Unit decreases 26,48% ???

 

 

so we see we really have to look deeper at the facts:

 

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q305data_sum.pdf

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q305fin_statements.pdf

 

 

net sales raised by 74,77% (Q3/2004: 2.014.000.000 - Q3/2005: 3.520.000.000)

the cost of sales are raised by 70,17% (Q3/2004: $1.455.000.000 - Q3/2005: $2.476.000.000)

gross margin raised by 86,76% (Q3/2004: $1.044.000.000 - Q3/2005: $559.000.000)

operating expenses raised by 26,69% (Q3/2004: $617.000.000 - Q3/2005: $487.000.000)

 

 

let's look at mixed calculation (apple does not split to exact numbers for each product):

 

iPod

Q3/2004: $249.000.000 / 860.000 iPods = $289,53 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $1.014.000.000 / 5.311.000 iPods = $190,92 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $1.103.000.000 / 6.155.000 iPods = $179,20 rev. / Unit

 

Mac

Q3/2004: $1.263.000.000 / 876.000 macs = $1441,78 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $1.494.000.000 / 1.070.000 macs = $1396,26 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $1.565.000.000 / 1.182.000 macs = $1324,02 rev. / Unit

 

so we see revenue per iPod decreased by 48,11% within 12 months

while revenue per Mac just decreased by 8,17% within 12 months

 

 

Let's talk about the "halo effect" and it's switcher product the mac mini:

 

Portable (iBook, PowerBook)

Q3/2004: $696.000.000 / 460.000 macs = 1513,04 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $691.000.000 / 462.000 macs = 1495,67 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $720.000.000 / 495.000 macs = 1454,54 rev. / Unit

 

Revenue per Portable Mac decreased by 5,76% within 12 months

 

Desktop (PowerMac, iMac, eMac mac mini)

Q3/2004: $567.000.000 / 416.000 desktop macs = 1362,98 rev. / Unit (the quarter before iMac G5 came out)

Q2/2005: $803.000.000 / 608.000 desktop macs = 1320,72 rev. / Unit (the first mac mini quarter)

Q3/2005: $845.000.000 / 687.000 macs = 1229,98 rev. / Unit

 

Apple sold 65% more Desktop Macs within 1 year and the Revenue per Desktop just dropped by 9,76%

 

The mac mini cost between $500,- and $600,- and there is $133,- difference between the 2004 and 2005 Desktop Mac.

There is no halo effect cause by iPod AND mac mini. The iMac G5 seems to be the best seller.

 

 

The iTunes Music Store & other music products, iPod accessoires:

Q3/2004: $73.000.000

Q3/2005:$216.000.000 +195%

(and Apple just sees 3 cent of every dollar made by iTMS - BTW i bought more than 30 titles there and i don't own an iPod)

 

Software:

Q3/2004: $210.000.000

Q3/2005: $239.000.000 +9,52% (looks like software does not increase at same speed with hardware sales - forget OS X for every PC)

 

Periphals and Other Hardware:

Q3/2004: $219.000.000

Q3/2005: $280.000.000 +9,13%

 

 

 

Let's face it:

THE MAC IS STILL APPLES MAJOR PART IN SALES:

 

 

Mac: $1.494.000.000/quarter (46,06% of Apples sales)

 

iPod: $1.014.000.000/quarter (31,26% of Apples sales)

 

 

When you add the additional business Software/Hardware on the Mac side

and Music/iPod Accessoires on the other side you'll see again the mac is more important:

 

Mac: $1.494.000.000

+ Software: $239.000.000

+ Periphals and other Hardware: $280.000.000

TOTAL MAC MARKET: $2.013.000.000/quarter (62,07% of Apples sales)

 

iPod: $1.014.000.000

+iTMS: $216.000.000

TOTAL iPOD / MUSIC MARKET: $1.230.000.000/quarter (37,93% of Apples sales)

 

 

You can also learn from this numbers that selling iPods is VERY expensive compared to selling the mac.

It will be a hard job for Apple to keep the iPod success alive. Anybody knows that saturation

of consumption in the iPod market is near - and you can see it on the numers above

(fallen from $289,53 rev. / Unit to $179,20 rev. / Unit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeknowz
joeknowz
Posted
Posted

Nice analysis, of course it doesn't show how the mac sales could possibly drive such a huge increase in net income.

 

Why would you think the "halo effect" would only pertain to the mac mini? The "halo effect" is about building up the brand. About bringing people into the apple stores. About inspiring confidence in all apple products across the board.

 

So, rev./unit fell. Don't you think the ipod minis and flash based ipods had something to do with that.

Apple did go from having 0% of the flash based market jan 1, to 46.3% by the end of june.

 

The mp3 player market is expected to keep on growing through 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
luke256
luke256
Posted
Posted

Apple will release OSX86 for a select series of branded pcs (sony, hp, etc). But only after a good few months of having apple user upgrade to the latest shinny intelmacs. I think the reason they let it be hacked is that you guys with your ati drivers, etc are doing all the work for them. Releasing nice open source drivers they can copy for to support more hardware. This idea that apple is sooooo stable because it only runs on apple hardware is a bit dodgy. FreeBSD runs on all sorts of hardware, and is stable as hell. Its just a matter of drivers.. and oh it looks like they are getting that sorted for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G5rocks
G5rocks
Posted
Posted
Releasing nice open source drivers they can copy for to support more hardware.

 

excuse me... what are all that (i think it was 20.000) apple employees should work on then? LOL ROFL... hell there are allready drivers for and from apple for nearly every piece of hardware on this planet... what the hell do you think apple is? still a company who is selling from the garage? that is really funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bonehead
bonehead
Posted
Posted
excuse me... what are all that (i think it was 20.000) apple employees should work on then? LOL ROFL... hell there are allready drivers for and from apple for nearly every piece of hardware on this planet...

 

Generally, most drivers aren’t developed by Apple.

 

NVIDIA, Ati, Intel, Via, etc., all develop and distribute drivers to Apple and/or MacOS users.

 

Edit:

As far as Apple releasing OS X on Sony and HP PCs: nope. That's wild speculation with nothing backing it up. Not gonna happen.

 

Just as Apple licensed HP to sell HP/Apple branded IPods, we may see the same for Macs... But this would be HP reselling Apple >hardware<, not just the OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeathChill
DeathChill
Posted
Posted
nvidia drivers are made by apple

Are you sure? I was under the assumption that all the drivers for any ATi or NVidia graphics cards are written by ATi or NVidia as they use special techniques and yada yada yada. Maybe I'm wrong though as maybe NVidia allows Apple to develop drivers for them xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G5rocks
G5rocks
Posted
Posted
Question: Will there ever be a control panel with 3D/GL/FSAA controls for the NVIDIA cards on the Mac platform? (ATI's retail Radeon cards (and OEM models with the 3rd party patch) have a '3D/GL overrides' feature - which is seen as a big plus by many end users.)

 

 

Answer: Apple provides all the drivers for NVIDIA-based add-in cards. We supply them with the source code and they provide the final driver.

 

Ujesh Desai, Nvidia's General Manager of Desktop GPUs in interview to xlr8yourmac.com

 

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/nvidia...ultraQandA.html

 

Apple allways modifies the nVidia drivers - drivers really get better with allmost every OS X update. Anyway ATI makes it own drivers but there is a difference if you own a Apple OEM ATi cards or build in ATI graphics you can't use ATI firmware updaters or the "ATI Displays" Software - you have to use Apple Firmware Updates. I never heared of Intel or VIA Products for the Mac. I think the intel GMA900 is the first intel driver ever for the Mac. Even when Graphics are faster with every update it's not because Apple does a good job - on the other side OpenGL implementation is way to slow (i own a GeForce6800ultra - you need such cards on the mac to get normal performance - believe me). It's like a lot of other things in OS X which slows down the powerfull G5 Hardware. The old MacOS was MUCH faster on same Hardware in every tasks. OS X performance is a shame in some cases! Look here:

 

What can we conclude from this? First, the above tables demonstrate clearly that the creation of UNIX processes is much slower on MAC OS X, and the G5, the CPU, is not to blame. In the first test, the G5 2.5 GHz running Linux is only slightly slower than a Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz. The third test shows that the G5 is even capable of outperforming the other CPUs, which points towards Mac OS X being the problem here. Even with a faster CPU, the OS X scores are all slower than the Linux scores on the G5.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bonehead
bonehead
Posted
Posted
Answer: Apple provides all the drivers for NVIDIA-based add-in cards. We supply them with the source code and they provide the final driver.

 

As I said, NVIDIA provides the drivers to Apple.

 

In NVIDIA’s case, they provide reference drivers (w/ source) to Apple, that apple pretties up and distributes to its users... NVIDIA has still done the vast majority of core driver development.

 

I never heared of Intel or VIA Products for the Mac.

 

Intel drivers are obviously in OSX for x86.

 

For VIA, just as an example, look at the list of supported OSs here:

http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageI...00&SubCatID=130

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
GooberKing
GooberKing
Posted
Posted
I'm sick of reading people's {censored} opinions about the direction Apple is going with their business by not letting people install OS X on regular PCs. If you had such a brilliant blessed idea then Apple would replace Steve Jobs with you. Leave the business decisions to people who know what they're doing and shut the hell up.

 

Shut the f*** up, there is no reason to start swearing at people you stupid c***. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blahsucks
blahsucks
Posted
Posted
Shut the f*** up, there is no reason to start swearing at people you stupid c***. :)

 

Please don't be a hypocrite. ;)

 

Do you really think that Apple has all those incomplete drivers for no reason? Not to mention the Mac cards... They could do it faster and better than we ever could.

 

jcruzalara: When the security is in the hardware, it's much harder to break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheoCryst
TheoCryst
Posted
Posted

Ah, the beauty of being used to crappy hardware... I'm lucky if I can even play "old games", never mind new ones.

 

As for the driver debate: I vote that Apple put into this build of OS X x86 are just placeholders; sloppy thrown-together drivers that would not be used by the developers anyway. That way, curious devs could dig into the Library and see the drivers to be, but never even need to find out if they work properly or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...