4/18/01
“We had a lot to accomplish in the March quarter, and we're very pleased that our results exceeded expectations in a very challenging environment,” Apple Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson said on a conference call with analysts…
…David Bailey, an analyst at Gerard Klauer Mattison, said strong sales of Apple's corporate products, particularly the new PowerBook, helped the company to beat predictions.

http://news.com.com/Apple+back+in+black+but+trims+...

I will not kid myself by thinking that every quarter Apple was profitable, but to be honest around this period 1999-01 many hardware companies (and software for the matter) were having trouble. Apple during this period between 1999-2003 was really setting the stage for the strong growth they are now having. This is because they chose to innovate through the down period in the tech sector instead of waiting for the dust to settle and then working on new product.

For anyone to think that Apple could be classified as “failing” in the time period of 1999-2002 is not being objective. Apple COmputer for that time period was in excellent financial health during this period.

1) Rob Enderle is obviously not objective in his analysis.

2) Microsoft has not created a “better” platform. If history is any indicator, they won't do so in the future.

3) In the same vein as #2, Windows did not dominate in the mid-eighties because it was a better product. It was a blatant rip-off made possible by Apple's stupidity at the time. Apple had Microsoft “dead to rights” on stealing their OS. The screwed up the settlement by mandating only that Microsoft could not use Apple technology in Windows 1.0….no comment about future versions.

4) I'll echo the comments about the marketshare difference relative to the mid-eighties versus today (20% v. 80%).

5) Apple now has a more mainstream presence (retail stores) that it did years ago.

There was more, but it's been said.

The “higher,” fancier technology involved is only more desirable to music companies – it actually makes it less desirable to the end-user. Too bad the restrictive DRM users don't seem to want to take notice of that.

5. Two words: iPod nano. This incredible piece of engineering shows why Apple is light years ahead of its competitors. Would Sony or Microsoft have canceled their best selling item at the peak of it's popularity? (the iPod mini.) Right now there is simply NO competition for this MP3 player. In fact, the other companies are furious that Samsung apparently sold Apple the memory chips so cheaply. It will probably be a year before anyone can match the nano's price/size/capacity ratio.
In some ways, Apple's strategy is “closed” but so is Microsoft's. Microsoft is trying to lock you into their software and Apple is trying to lock you into their hardware. You make your choice and live with it.

“4) Apple has never opened up the iPod APIs (the way to program for the iPod so that people can write programs to transfer songs to the iPod)”

And yet there are more independent applications available for the iPod than any other DAP. Hell, plenty of people are running Linux on their iPods.

Also, there are SDKs for iTunes, and QT, for BOTH platforms. As for other devices, has iRiver, RIO, Creative or anyone else released an SDK for altering the way their devices perform?

“4) One day, there may be some serious competition to the iPod, and thats when Apple shoots itself in the foot again.”

That's a fact? No, that's a dream. A sad one at that.

“The iPod runs its on OS, but since Apple doesnt publish the APIs, only Apple, and a very very few selected partners, can write for it.”

This isn't true. App development for the iPod is easy without a well-documented API. There probably will be with time. There is a hardware API for some device connectivity. There are SDKs for iTunes and iTune Visuals. There are SDKs for QuickTime. I do not know of Microsoft having an Open API for devices it doesn't make, do you?

“I got a wrench to throw in all these people defending Apple blindly:
Do you think that you, as a consumer, should come first?
Do you think that you should have choices, or should those choices be made for you?”

Here's your answer: I don't think companies put me first. I think it's up to me to put me first. And I'm perfectly happy with an iPod. And I have tried other devices.

I think I do have choices and have made a choice.

What's so wrench-throwing about that?

“I ask this because the way Apple behaves with the iPod, you only have one choice for the software and secured music files you can put on your iPod”

Strange, I can run Linux on the iPod, I can use about 5 commerical apps to control the iPod: XPlay, ephPod, numerous others, I can downlaod about a hundred other apps to install on the iPod, there are plugins for MusicMatch and other jukeboxes to control the iPod… What are you talking about?

As for the other services, unfrotunately, for them, they are all virtually identical except on price: they only work with Windows, have poor selection, and their pricing is actually higher if you don't choose subs which I don't want.

“You can only use iTunes to transfer music to the iPod, and you can only use iTunes Music Store.”

Somebody needs to do some research.

“Sure, there are some hack jobs our there that allows some other apps to transfer, but as soon as Apple updates the firmware on the iPod, they are broken.”

No, Apple has only thwarted Real once: good business move that I appreciated. They have thwarted JHymn a couple of times (for legal reasons) but it works fine now. MusicMatch, XPod, ephPod and a ton of other apps have never been broken in any way.

“When the labels get pissed at Apple because they refuse to change their pricing model to benefit the user (Allowing cheaper downloads for less popular artists, etc.) then its very possible iTunes Music Store will lose their license to sell popular music.”

Ha, ha, ha!!! All credibility out the window. You actually think the studios are more interested in the consumer than Apple? Ha, ha, ha!!!! No one will believe you now!!! Ha, ha, ha!!!

drum roll……

because you could only run a mac on apple sold hardware.

You couldnt go buy a case, buy a processor, buy any motherboard you wanted and slap together a PC. Instead, you had to spend 2x what a normal PC running Windows costs.

Any business would take a look at the costs of buying 100 new Macs or 100 new PCs and have no problem making the decision on which to buy.

You would then look at the number of software that is out there for each, and again, not a tough decision.

Now a days, Apple hardware is still a bit over priced, and thus the main reason why it doesnt have a higher market share. The OS is finally up to par and actually better than Windows XP.

You can't compare the licensing of the DRM mistake apple is making with the failure in the PC sector way back when.

Right now, its pure opinion if you think Apple is making a mistake on not licensing their DRM, but you can still look at some facts:
1) Windows users still out number mac users
2) There are windows users that use other portable players than an iPod.
3) Those people are locked out of using iTunes Music Store because Apple's DRM is closed to third parties
4) Apple has never opened up the iPod APIs (the way to program for the iPod so that people can write programs to transfer songs to the iPod)
4) One day, there may be some serious competition to the iPod, and thats when Apple shoots itself in the foot again.

This is a serious issue, whether you refuse to see it or not (kinda like a parent refusing to believe their kid is on drugs or something.)

You can now compare Windows (or any OS for that matter) to the i{od in one statement: Open APIs. You can write software for Windows to do anything, because the hooks for the OS are open for anyone to use. The iPod runs its on OS, but since Apple doesnt publish the APIs, only Apple, and a very very few selected partners, can write for it.

I got a wrench to throw in all these people defending Apple blindly:
Do you think that you, as a consumer, should come first?
Do you think that you should have choices, or should those choices be made for you?

I ask this because the way Apple behaves with the iPod, you only have one choice for the software and secured music files you can put on your iPod, which you paid for. You can only use iTunes to transfer music to the iPod, and you can only use iTunes Music Store.

Sure, there are some hack jobs our there that allows some other apps to transfer, but as soon as Apple updates the firmware on the iPod, they are broken.

When the labels get pissed at Apple because they refuse to change their pricing model to benefit the user (Allowing cheaper downloads for less popular artists, etc.) then its very possible iTunes Music Store will lose their license to sell popular music.

What will you do then?

Get OVER it people. You can't get mad and rally anytime someone farts in the direction of Apple.

P.S. the latest Apple OS sucks!