Apple’s attitude is clear: we’ll take a couple of quarters of weak sales now, and make it up for next year when the new systems ship. With growing iPod revenue, it’s entirely possible that Mac sales could take a complete nosedive for the remainder of 2005 and Apple could remain profitable. (It’s also possible that we will see some outstanding price cuts on existing product lines in the coming months.)
Oz(zy) comments (Score:1)
Paul (still eyeing off a 20" imac for home; aah, the small joy of having a consulting fund that has to be emptied by the end of the year...)
Re:Oz(zy) comments (Score:2)
Switch isn't changing my purchases (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. I just wrote an entry about that and a lot more besides because I was getting tired of writing the same stuff over and over. Take a lot: On high hopes, misconceptions, and Apple on x86 [plasmasturm.org]
So far I’ve not seen any speculation that wasn’t obviously bunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I especially like the Going with Intel, because it has DRM Features On-Chip. Riiiiight. Apple decided to go with pretty much the only CPU that offers a CPU ID to make the iTunes store suck. And that was the consensus opinion of their brightest minds and their bestest hardware designers...
I hate to get all obvious-in-hindsight, but Steve explained everything in perfectly clear terms in his keynote: no 3GHz G5s, no