patrick.net

The guys at GE won't all replace their XP boxes but the new hires at GE can choose Apple if they want to according to WSJ article.
I'd take a macbook air 15".

Looks like Apple is going to shove iPads into education/textbooks. Since textbooks today cost $100 and students would rather rent them, I predict this will be an awesome sales development for Apple.
Do slacker students really want to pay $100+ for that textbook for "Underwater Basketweaving"?

I bet tomorrow the corporate Mac and Google fanboys, will be singing a different tune.

Google just tanked 10% on missed earnings.

"tanked" and 10% are not compatible.
Who cares what Apple does tomorrow? The premise here is AAPl goes to $500. Wait and see.

Bellingham Bill says

kt1652 says

HP and Canon with the laserjet started a whole new industry.

The LaserJet was a glorified LPR until the late 1980s, without actual outline font support and networking, or enough RAM to actually render an entire page.

Apple ate HP's lunch, once PageMaker came out in 1985 (and 1986's Mac Plus made the Mac minimally performant to run PageMaker).

Canon, Adobe, and Aldus were the true drivers of innovation, with Apple being in the right place at the right time with the superior implementation that made development and adoption actually possible.

HP was a joke until their postscript offerings came out in the 1990s. Those were great; wish I still had my 4MP. Made boocoo bank with that little guy in Japan.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Bb, you cannot just use technical specs as measure of product superiority. You are talking Ferrari and I Toyota. One may be able to argue the Apple Laserwriter Laserjet prints faster and more capable then the HP Laserjet.
But look at the cost in 1984: HP $3495 vs. Apple $6995
Within a year Hp reduced the price to 2995.
This is 1984 dollars! HP Laserjet was a runaway success and a franchise was born, scaling up all the way to business printing and the rest is history.
there were over 70 Laserjet product "series" according to wiki, including color.
There were 100 million laserjets sold between 1984 - 2006- according to an this source. (Edited)
http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/The-HP-LaserJet-blog-by-Vince/Remembering-100-Million-LaserJets/ba-p/33346
So that averages to 4.7 million a year.
I couldn't find any Applewriter sales data. But I am sure it is puny. Lexmark was more of a threat than Apple to the HP printer business.
Every continent, HP printers are dominant over Apple. It is rare that anyone or business buying an Apple printer to use on their non-Apple computer product.
For HP they sold many many more printers for non-HP environment than just HP customers.
From a business perspective, only success in the market matter.
Besides, the point was collaboration success, not technical success.

kt1652 says

Within a year Hp reduced the price to 2995.

because it was a total piece of crap. No LAN capability. No fonts. Couldn't even render an entire page. No software support.

It was indeed just a glorified LPR and did not drive innovation in the industry.

That was Adobe & Apple's job, along with Aldus.

Besides, the point was collaboration success, not technical success.

You really don't know WTF you're talking about. For one, Apple's LaserWriter had a 12Mhz 68000 with 1.5MB of RAM for handling the Postscript. This allowed Macs (and, later, PCs) to send their jobs to the printer in compact command streams instead of having to do any of the rasterization work.

LaserJet only got competitive when they copied Apple's innovations here.

Their original printer featured ROM cartridges for fonts, FFS. Totally retarded.

OTOH, here's InfoWorld from 1986:

"Apple's LaserWriter started the desktop publishing craze in 1985 by offering the first populary-priced printer capable of full-page, 300-DPI graphics . . ."

http://books.google.com/books?id=XC8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=infoworld+laserwriter+review+1985&source=bl&ots=uG55mGCWbg&sig=wOTaSyE7l_eeH0Bb3NbN7QcAn-s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OeYYT-j5C8XTiAKo2_C5CA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is rare that anyone or business buying an Apple printer

Indeed. They would need to invent a time machine first since Apple stopped making them in the 1990s.

So how many did they sell?
For 200% the price I'd think it should have more performance.
Apple stopped making them in 1990s.
You just made my point.

LOL.

You're waaay to stupid to begin to understand this stuff.

Bellingham Bill says

LOL.

You're waaay to stupid to begin to understand this stuff.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Insults aside. For whatever reason, you could not come up with any sales/revenue data to support your assertion other than Hp's first gen Laserjet was "retarded".
So what, the market spoke and it chose HP.
I did not say people can buy the Applewriter today, no one can buy an HP 2686A today neither.
There is a ton of HP Laserjet product you can buy today.
You are still tunnel vision on technical merit.

kt1652 says

"...supply chain collaboration..."
lolrotf wetting my self.
No offense to TW. Your view is not reality.
Here is reality of hpq-intl-msft, from exp.

That was the B2B revolution which happened back in 1997-2005. Pretty much every companyin various industries from small start ups to billion $$ global mfg have a supply chain and product life management software program.

Next real milestone for Apple:

Conquer the TV business. That's the goal.

chanakya4773 says

Its a fact that APPLE had a significant advantage for a long time with their IOS versus the rudimentary OS that phone companies had.

Apple has a great OS for PCs Frankly it may well be the best for the consumer on their handsets as well.. Its nice and very slick!

But lets not get ahead of ourself here and inflate Apple ability to deliver what Telcom companies need as mission critial OS across their massive and complex networks.... They have been using UNIX with their own platform for several decades... Teradata comes to mind as one vendor many years ago. What OS (MS or Apple) you use ( or salivate) over on your handset isnt really a concern for the Telecom companies. At the end of the day, their back office OS still runs and delivers to the custmer their pix and music.. Its just not something Apple can compete in..

tw - that didn't make any sense.
Apple is not trying to conquer Telecom industry.

thomas.wong1986 says

chanakya4773 says

Its a fact that APPLE had a significant advantage for a long time with their IOS versus the rudimentary OS that phone companies had.

Apple has a great OS for PCs Frankly it may well be the best for the consumer on their handsets as well.. Its nice and very slick!

But lets not get ahead of ourself here and inflate Apple ability to deliver what Telcom companies need as mission critial OS across their massive and complex networks.... They have been using UNIX with their own platform for several decades... Teradata comes to mind as one vendor many years ago. What OS (MS or Apple) you use ( or salivate) over on your handset isnt really a concern for the Telecom companies. At the end of the day, their back office OS still runs and delivers to the custmer their pix and music.. Its just not something Apple can compete in..

Here what's not in steve's house. Lighten up.
thomas.wong1986 says

That was the B2B revolution which happened back in 1997-2005. Pretty much every companyin various industries from small start ups to billion $$ global mfg have a supply chain and product life management software program.

I think Apple is going to do fine in the short to medium term, but I'm firmly in the camp that says that they owe virtually all of their success to Steve Jobs. Without him, I don't think they'll be the leaders of whatever comes next.

It could be that without Jobs Apple will devolve into simply being like Microsoft, making a gazillion bucks but not doing anything really creative or interesting. Time will tell. Either way, AAPL will be good to own because now it's a juggernaut.

The GOP says

You do realize Apple is only doing Marginally better than Chipotle Mexican Grill?

If a fucking hoitey toitey burrito company can be worth 300 plus clams, then damn it, Apple should be like $1200.

Sounds like you are not factoring in shares outstanding into your 'analysis'. Apple's market cap is 398.41B, Chipotle's is 11.28B. Apple is worth $387.13B more than Chipotle - this is more than marginally better. That is Google (189.64B) plus HP (56.90B) plus Groupon (13.24B) plus ... better

clambo says

AAPL will be good to own because now it's a juggernaut

Juggernauts are not dependent on their vendors who provide the chips, storage and other components.

Whoah, I really didn't expect this. I mean I thought it would be good, but this may be so good that next quarter will look like a disaster when it only meets expectations.

The Apple juggernaut barrels onward.
Wait until Chinamobile finally gets an iPhone (300 million subscribers).

Vicente says

Whoah, I really didn't expect this. I mean I thought it would be good, but this may be so good that next quarter will look like a disaster when it only meets expectations

The apple stores I see are always packed with consumers. Will know better when their SEC filings are filed.

Anyway, there is i heard a backlog of some of their products.. which may indicate further higher shipments down the road. Check the press release may have some comments on this.

The server market is much smaller. Graph of Intel revenues

Apple epitomizes the disruptive business model.
In the Wintel ecosystem, Intel and Msft eat the lion’s share of the system integrators’ (HP, Dell) profit. The downstream participants must fight for the left over scraps. This business model is a duopoly. There were no real second sources in cpu and os. Intel and Msft do whatever is best for themselves, not for the integrators. One may even question the value added by the integrators other than marketing and distribution.
Job’s genius was not challenging this model from a position of weakness in the earlier days. Instead he attacked from the mobile gadgets where bloated os and power hungry cpu are handicaps. The rest is history. I am sure Ballmer wished he can go back in time and crush Apple like a gnat when he had the opportunity.

Correct me if I'm wrong - isn't Linux/Unix the dominant OS when it comes to Servers?

Are you asking, as measured by revenue, licenses? For current sales or installed base?
My guess, IBM and some form of proprietary unix dominate the top end. Msft dominate the low end where they are growing.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223561/Microsoft_Q2_revenue_up_5_net_income_slightly_down

Business and server sectors combined is bigger than windows, that is a surprise for me.

kt1652 says

Apple epitomizes the disruptive business model.

And yet for decades they gave up on corporate customers unable to compete with everyone else.. HP, Compaq, Dell, IBM and many others. No matter if they had innovative products, and slick marketing. No one was buying. You call that disruptive... How long till the IT managers puts a Sexy Mac Laptop on my desk at work... Will it plug into my Oracle ERP system ??

Apple underestimated the “staggering” demand for the iPhone 4S when it started sales in China this month...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/apple-didn-t-bet-high-enough-on-chinese-demand-for-iphone-4s-cook-says.html
thomas.wong1986 says

kt1652 says

Apple epitomizes the disruptive business model.

And yet for decades they gave up on corporate customers unable to compete with everyone else.. HP, Compaq, Dell, IBM and many others. No matter if they had innovative products, and slick marketing. No one was buying. You call that disruptive... How long till the IT managers puts a Sexy Mac Laptop on my desk at work... Will it plug into my Oracle ERP system ??

I give up. Compaq died 10 years ago!
Carly killed Alpha and PA-Risc, double-downed on PC.

Apple had a blowout qtr, a decade of straight up mkt cap grwth.
They have almost enough cash to buy Intel. I tried to show you they are killing everyone else because their margin is much much higher than PC integrators.
High margin and forking unbelievable volume.
Intel pricing of Xeons is 2-3x that of X86s. But the server revenue is only 1/3 the pc products.
Apple does not need to jump into the server market - yet.
After they conquered the telecom industry :)
They do have servers. They are in danger of growing too fast too quickly - the mother of understatement.

Go read in one aspect of Apple innovation, not necessarily of technical kind. Cites lightning fast response from suppliers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

(Edit) Here is a summary, no subscrptn reqd:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/21/nytimes-why-apple-builds-its-products-in-china/

There is so much room for growth--servers, yes. But even on the desktops, laptops, various sized touch screen devices (from iPad size to John King size!--I can really picture them become ubiquitous in board rooms. Here in SF, they are using iPads for checkout counters and all kinds of random functions).

And the fabled iTv.

The Server thing is a pipe dream.

Apple will have it's work cut out if it tries to replace Linux:

Apple would be trying to replace a free or low cost Linux ecosystem with what, if Apple stays true to form, will be an expensive, high premium, system. I don't think the beancounters at most businesses are going to like that.

Apple would have to replace the incredibly broad range of component, consulting, and software providers for Linux-based systems with themselves as a single source provider. That will make many managers uncomfortable. Basically, their entire business will be at the mercy of a single source for both hardware and software.

Apples would have to make a compelling case to replace a Linux based system that is not only high customizable, but can be customized without paying licensing fees, without engaging in legal struggles over what can be changed where and how, etc. Linux has countless versions and can be customized at whim; Apple will certainly not be so open to customization.

Finally, Linux Admins are ubiquitous. Apple Admins are not. That means sourcing Labor for Apple Servers will be more expensive and difficult.

It's one thing to convince members of marketing segments to buy Apple products.

It's another thing to make a compelling business case to replace Linux servers.

kt1652 says

Are you asking, as measured by revenue, licenses? For current sales or installed base?

My guess, IBM and some form of proprietary unix dominate the top end. Msft dominate the low end where they are growing.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223561/Microsoft_Q2_revenue_up_5_net_income_slightly_down

Business and server sectors combined is bigger than windows, that is a surprise for me.

The vast majority of modern servers run linux. Nothing else is even close, despite what Microsoft might want people to believe.

You can't compare revenue though. Most people aren't paying a penny for linux. Anyone who tries to make revenue comparison the basis for a market share comparison in that market is just pushing an agenda.

Apple isn't going to waste their time on any serious effort on server hardware. The margins are shit and it does not play to their traditional strengths.

My question is very close to an affirmative answer now.

I was predicting $500 by the end of the year, LOL

Kevin says

The vast majority of modern servers run linux. Nothing else is even close, despite what Microsoft might want people to believe.

Sorry, modern day ERP software (Oracle, SAP, etc ) that run the backbone of business like Apple, GE, HP, Adobe, IBM or any other small, middle, larger size companies dont run on LINUX.

uomo_senza_nome says

looks waay over extended.

Thing is, there is some uncertainty where Apple gets off this train.

Their market share in PCs is well under 10%. Like phones, Apple is perfectly happy letting the crap offerings duke it out for the bottom 80% of the market.

A doubling of Mac's market share will just bring more strength to the Apple ecosphere.

Windows appears to be going in a rather odd direction at the moment, too.

Apple is worth more than google+microsoft.
Apple's phone business alone is bigger than microsoft.
There is a momentum from a monstrous successful business that is like a giant snowball rolling down a hill.
Businesses are going to iPads. They are also going to Macs (OS=UNIX), dropping Crackberries for iPhones.
After a couple new products come out, AAPL will probably go up another $50/share.
My crystal ball which is from the same dollar store as some clown at Merrill says that AAPL is $600 by December.

clambo says

Businesses are going to iPads. They are also going to Macs (OS=UNIX),

Sorry, modern day ERP software (Oracle, SAP, etc ) that run the backbone of business like Apple, GE, HP, Adobe, IBM, Banks or any other small, middle, larger size companies dont run on Mac OsX or iTabs or iPhones.

PE looks good.

Yep, Imagine using SAP on a Tablet. Most people who do serious work in SAP and other ERP tools have multiple widescreens, not a single 10" screen. Tablets are consumption, not creation, tools.

Apple is a Smartphone company now. Macs pale in comparison to iPhones in the Apple Revenue Stream. More than 2/3rds of Apple revenue comes from iPhones and Tablets.

Samsung makes the A4/5 Chip. Motorola just won a patent fight. Both manufacture their own Smartphones.

You got patent risk, margin compression risk, and shrinking Market Share right now with no end in sight. Apple's revenue is based on selling a phone made with the same components it's competitors use (and Design and Manufacture!), made in the same facility that makes many of their competitors products, at a very high premium, thanks to fantastic marketing.

They are buying these for business. Whether you believe all and any business model requires Oracle or SAP is your bias.
The marketing by Apple follows the old saw by the guy running Procter and Gamble: "The key to marketing is superior product performance".
The Apple products are moving from consumers to businesses and soon will be everywhere.
Of course people will buy a few of the "other" brands. I have an Andriod phone because my data/text/voice plan is about 1/3 what verizon or att cost.
iPads and similar will also be getting into education bigtime.

clambo says

They are buying these for business. Whether you believe all and any business model requires Oracle or SAP is your bias.

Not every business needs SAP or Oracle - not Daddy Green's Pizzeria - but many medium and even small cap businesses need it, depending on how much logistics they engage in.

And Macs are not just rare for Business in the US, they are like the Loch Ness Monster outside of North America.

clambo says

"The key to marketing is superior product performance".

Evidence?

Many electronics components - a wide array of brands from a variety of manufacturers, of which the iPhone is just one, are made at Foxconn.

The same 80+ hour overworked 14-year old girl that made the generic MP3 players last week was put on the iPad line today.

clambo says

The Apple products are moving from consumers to businesses and soon will be everywhere.

Do you have evidence of this adoption?

clambo says

Of course people will buy a few of the "other" brands. I have an Andriod phone

Yes, you own the market dominant phone.

thomas.wong1986 says

Kevin says

The vast majority of modern servers run linux. Nothing else is even close, despite what Microsoft might want people to believe.

Sorry, modern day ERP software (Oracle, SAP, etc ) that run the backbone of business like Apple, GE, HP, Adobe, IBM or any other small, middle, larger size companies dont run on LINUX.

...and ERP software represents a tiny fraction of servers in use. And the assertion that ERP solutions don't run on LInux is simply false. There's a reason why Oracle and SAP are getting into the linux market so aggressively.

thunderlips11 says

Yep, Imagine using SAP on a Tablet. Most people who do serious work in SAP and other ERP tools have multiple widescreens, not a single 10" screen. Tablets are consumption, not creation, tools.

Screens are not computers, they're screens. I can connect a tablet to a screen, a keyboard, and a mouse. I can do that with a smartphone, too.

Kevin says

Screens are not computers, they're screens. I can connect a tablet to a screen, a keyboard, and a mouse. I can do that with a smartphone, too.

Of course not. But not convenient to schlep two 19" monitors, keyboard, and mouse and all to a coffee shop or anywhere else you go. Tiny devices will never wholly replace the need to have large screens and ergonomic input devices to do substantial amounts of work.

Eventually, tablets might be comparable in speed and power to a desktop, but that day is probably many years away, because of the cooling and battery life issues relative to small size have to be conquered.

Then there are the speed and security problems of running off a public wireless instead of a wired connection at a place of business/home office.

And then human ergonomic issues are still there.

Today I helped my wife sell stuff at an event outside. We used Square and her smartphone to take CC's. It took a damn long time to process cards because of the tiny screen and keyboard, which was fine since most people paid cash, but a bear if they didn't. It would have been alot easier had I taken the netbook or laptop along. But then where could I have plugged it in?

Maybe that's where a tablet shines.

The US Air Force just ordered 18,000 iPads. It seems they want to put those aircraft manuals into something slimmer than a Manhattan phone book.
Superior product performance=runs UNIX, is more stable and less prone to viruses and spyware than Windows.
The iPhone is not plastic, etc. Macbook air is selling like hotcakes, it's a super product. Etc.
Anyway, what difference does anything we say make? The truth is that Apple is going to be $500/share.