“Prudential Equity Group said the availability of chips for Apple Computer could be ‘worse than anticipated’ due to manufacturing delays from IBM. ‘Following a series of recent checks on Apple, we believe that availability of the company’s 1.8 GHz and 2.0 GHz G5 processors may be worse than initially anticipated,’ it said. ‘Apple had previously stated that it expected to have shortages of its 1.8 GHz and 2.0 GHz processors through July, with supply catching up in August. We now believe that IBM may be having difficulty meeting its revised supply commitments.'” Forbes reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Great. If Apple could ever manage to secure a competent CPU supplier, the sky would be the limit – instead of 2.5GHz. Yeah, yeah, we know – patience, patience… sigh.
Preemptive initial feedback
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“Great. If Apple could ever manage to secure a competent CPU supplier, the sky would be the limit”
Maybe Apple shouldn’t keep telling customers one thing, when supply is not in their control.
There are probably alot of schools and businesses right now who are being told “If you could ever manage to secure a competent computer supplier, the sky would be the limit”. So keep blaming IBM for the promises Apple makes. Whether it’s IBM, Motorola or whoever that is dropping the ball, Apple needs to learn that they can’t take orders for units when they can’t be sure when they will even hit the assembly line.
Dude, look at the source of the information: Prudential. They have been the only analyst to not back off the negative rhetoric. This report is pure conjecture and couched in speculation. No facts. Now look at the Apple Store: Apple reduced the wait time for a 2.5 G5 from 5-6 weeks to 2-3 weeks. and the others are shipping right away. Those are the facts.
Prudential has been caught short, there is no other reason for this crappy report.
I don’t remember anyone at Apple saying the chips would be in plentiful supply in August. They said chips would still be constrained through the end of the year. Indeed IBM is having problems…. but Prudential is making an assumption based on something that was never said. Check out the last Quicktime conference call. However, it surely will be a problem with the new G5 iMac. Don’t expect enough units to sell through the end of the year. Apple makes its profits nowadays on the laptop and iPod lines. Everything else is “gravy”.
I agree with pkradd. This doesn’t hurt Apple’s bottom line too badly because they sell plenty enough PowerBooks, iBooks and iPods to keep the revenue flowing in. I just hope that this IBM supply problem doesn’t become chronic however as it’s already extended longer than was initially anticipated. I still have more faith in IBM than I ever did in Moto though.
My brand new G5 is presently being repaired for…faulty CPU. See you in a month lil G5..*sniffle*
As a mac user I’m used to the notion that anything Apple announces these days is unavailable for several months. Who cares wether the lack of available products is Apples fault or their suppliers – either way it’s piss poor.
Sad!
There is an abundant supply of x86 processors out there. 🙁
Not trolling or anything, but I wonder how fast OSX would run on a nicely set up Windows-spec’d box. It almost seems a given that it could run faster than Windows itself.
—-
Apple is paying the price for having a sole proc supplier. Sure every CPU maker is going through a bit of growing pains, but AMD and Intel are delivering much higher numbers than IBM is putting out in the G5 line.
In such a competitive industry, you’re extremely lucky to make a huge blunder, then say “we’ll get em next time”… AND still be in business in a year.
Here’s a what if:
What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod? How viable a company would it be with all the G5 snafus?
Sad!
There is an abundant supply of x86 processors out there. 🙁
Not trolling or anything, but I wonder how fast OSX would run on a nicely set up Windows-spec’d box. It almost seems a given that it could run faster than Windows itself.
—-
Apple is paying the price for having a sole proc supplier. Sure every CPU maker is going through a bit of growing pains, but AMD and Intel are delivering much higher numbers than IBM is putting out in the G5 line.
In such a competitive industry, you’re extremely lucky to make a huge blunder, then say “we’ll get em next time”… AND still be in business in a year.
Here’s a what if:
What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod? How viable a company would it be with all the G5 snafus?
hmm.. AMD and Intel – TWO companies.
hmm… Apple gets their processors from Motorola and IBM – TWO companies. Yet, they only have 5% market share.
Considering how many more pentium compatible chips are being made, isn’t it more remarkable that on the PC side there are only TWO chip makers.
Last, how can Apple have more than one or even two chip supplier? Look at their order quantity!! Who would devote so many resources to relatively small production runs? Please think before you post things like that. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If your original order is small, you are already happy that IBM is committing so much to the architecture. And gladder still that it’s part of their Power PC strategy.
“What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod?”
Well, the iPod could just as well have been a disaster, but it was not. Apple did it right, it took a few years, and they also got lucky in time and place. Luck swings both ways, good and bad, and now the G5’s are going through the bad. They did not foresee it just as they did not foresee the good with the iPod.
Twenty-twenty hindsight, people, but please think before you post. If everyone knew the future, there would be no future.
Last, the reason there are abundant supplies of x86 out there is because most of them are old technology! Only very few makers are able to use the latest processors because of the same problem with production. Apple only has two or three processor models and speeds. On the PC side, there’s dozens. How is that any measure of comparison with the G5’s? It’s like complaining that Ford and GM are cranking out so many of these cars every day, they are plentiful and cheap, yet Mercedes makes so few, and Ferrari even fewer.
Think, think, think!
What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod? How viable a company would it be with all the G5 snafus?
~~~~~
Well you’re asking a stupid question.. Apple has focused MUCH of its energy on the iTMS and the iPod these past 18 months.. to say.. what if they didn’t do that.. obviously they would be plugging something else..
all this heresay and conjecture..
what if MS never came out with Office.. hummm good question..
this looks like a perfect time for… ‘moo.’
The chips in question, 1.8 and 2.0 GHz speeds, are both 130nm fabricated. IBM has indicated in their 10Q reports that 130nm fabrication processes are at or above expected yield levels. The 90nm fabrication process that produces the 970FX has been below expected results. Thus, PowerMac shortages are unlikely.
If the new iMac design is based on the 90nm chip, with 3 models competing for the same yields, deliveries may be constrained. When confronted with an uncertainty as such, investment companies, and notably insurance-based investment companies, tend to be conservative. Prudential doesn’t know what IBM’s 90nm yields are, but even if the yields are good, they may not keep up with demand for a new and potentially very popular iMac.
CHECK OUT the REAL ANTI APPLE BLOG!!!
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.org/
This the best though from the bottom of a press release about this new launch
“The company previously issued third quarter 2004 financial guidance estimating a GAAP net loss between ($0.03) and ($0.04) per share. The company estimates the Freedom of Choice campaign may negatively impact projected third quarter net earnings by up to ($0.01) per share. As a result, today the company is issuing a revised estimate for third quarter 2004 GAAP net loss of between ($0.03) and ($0.05) per share. Excluding antitrust expenses, the company estimates a net loss of between ($0.01) and ($0.03) per share for the third quarter of 2004. The company remains committed to achieving quarterly profitability, excluding antitrust litigation expenses, by the end of 2004.”
Bye Bye Real!
“We now believe that IBM may be having difficulty meeting its revised supply commitments”
Gosh, and I thought nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM…
Good one, anastasia!
>Michael said: something about TWO chip companies on the Windows side
Well, there are actually more than two – each of them in direct competition with each other and each pushing the platform to new heights. The top two don’t seem to stumbling along and are able to supply chips in quantity.
The top-end AMD64 and the top-end Intel proc are comparable, and each company has procs targeting more specific price/performance/mobility requirements. Apple has *ONE* chipmaker in IBM making chips for high-end products; they have stumbled from the start. And Motorola for the lower level products – the G4 being old and tired.
For the sake of simplicity, they put all their eggs in one basket. While not entirely a bad thing, is does leave Apple quite vulnerable and it shows.
—
>Mike said: Well you’re asking a stupid question.
Which one didn’t you understand?
Some advice:
1. Try to avoid arguments that amount to “why ask a ‘what if’ question?”
Are you actually saying we should not consider “what if” scenarios? … something all business should do, something we do in our daily lives, something we do when making important decisions.
2. Try to add something rather than be rude and start name-calling. I don’t call you stupid even though you are free to act as you do.
—
Here is my post again:
>What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod? How
>viable a company would it be with all the G5
>snafus?
—
J42: Good post. Thanks.
IBM is a big company with the brains and muscle to do great things. Any idea why Intel and AMD, in particular, seem to be having an easier time moving to smaller, faster chips?
>Michael said: something about TWO chip companies on the Windows side
Well, there are actually more than two – each of them in direct competition with each other and each pushing the platform to new heights. The top two don’t seem to stumbling along and are able to supply chips in quantity.
The top-end AMD64 and the top-end Intel proc are comparable, and each company has procs targeting more specific price/performance/mobility requirements. Apple has *ONE* chipmaker in IBM making chips for high-end products; they have stumbled from the start. And Motorola for the lower level products – the G4 being old and tired.
For the sake of simplicity, they put all their eggs in one basket. While not entirely a bad thing, is does leave Apple quite vulnerable and it shows.
—
>Mike said: Well you’re asking a stupid question.
Which one didn’t you understand?
Some advice:
1. Try to avoid arguments that amount to “why ask a ‘what if’ question?”
Are you actually saying we should not consider “what if” scenarios? … something all business should do, something we do in our daily lives, something we do when making important decisions.
2. Try to add something rather than be rude and start name-calling. I don’t call you stupid even though you are free to act as you do.
—
Here is my post again:
>What if Apple didn’t come up with the iPod? How
>viable a company would it be with all the G5
>snafus?
—
J42: Good post. Thanks.
IBM is a big company with the brains and muscle to do great things. Any idea why Intel and AMD, in particular, seem to be having an easier time moving to smaller, faster chips?
>Mike said: Well you’re asking a stupid question.
>>Which one didn’t you understand?
?? Okay.. Try to catch up.. your question was foolish in removing the iTMS/iPod Combo from the previous 18 months (Hell 3 years..) of Apple’s Financial Outlook. Jobs said a couple months ago that they made the decision to focus on Music rather than focusing on Mac market-share.
ERGO… were it not for the iPod, Apple would be devoting all of their energy towards the Mac. There are many reasons why they chose the iPOd.. let me know if you can’t figure them out yourself (QT, Little Windows leverage, Easy Song Porting, CE over Business sales yada yada)
>Some advice:
>1. Try to avoid arguments that amount to “why ask a ‘what if’ question?”
Pfft.. can somebody please unscramble this badly worded sentence. WHAT IF is not the point… the point is you purely subtracted the iPod boom from Apple’s picture and said “HEY LOOK AT THAT! IF IT WERENT FOR THE IPOD, APPLE WOULD BE SCREWED!”… What you failed to ACKNOWLEDGE (big whomping error) is that were it not for Apple’s focus on the iPod, they’d be pushing for Mac sales and Mac OS X converts a Loooooong time ago. Actually when they ported iTunes to Windows is when they decided that focusing on the Mac was not in their best interest.
>Are you actually saying we should not consider “what if” >scenarios? … something all business should do, something we >do in our daily lives, something we do when making important >decisions.
Pffft.. semantics and utter garbage. Again.. the opportunity cost of iPod promotion is not promoting the Mac… keep the line moving folks…
>2. Try to add something rather than be rude and start name->calling. I don’t call you stupid even though you are free to act >as you do.
I was waiting for this one… Yeah, thanks for the ‘apple would be sunk w/o the ipod’ counter pal.. I really shouldn’t insult you for your primitive logic.. but come on.. this is exactly the kind of painful nay-saying that I expect from Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott. In fact, I bet he’d loooove to see your post. It’s what all the PC apologists are doing these days: “FINALLY Apple puts out a product that people actually want! See it’s not MS’s fault you’re so small!”
Remember this.. all you guys who say “How come Apple doesn’t show off the OS…”
They’re pushing the iPod/iTunes. They’re creating a new market. The Mac market can wait for 1st rate promotion.
Actually, removing the iPod from the equation and treating it in and of itself can be very helpful. In this case, it helps us to understand Apple’s computer business – where it stands, where its opportunities are, and what its weaknesses are. Doing so can help Apple understand its customers better and may afford Apple even more opportunity to sell us great products.
See… I said that without getting all nasty about it as you have.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Since I think this can still be salvaged into useful discussion (rather than personal attacks), I’ll reword my post:
> Seperating the iPod and all its successes, how
> viable a company would it (Apple) be with all
> the G5 snafus?
— Mac & PC Guy
Not a Mac or Windows basher here, I have 4 PowerMacs and 2 Windows comps at my disposal. If anything, that shows I prefer Macs. My iPod goes with me everywhere, as does my Canon 10D.
So if you can calm down, maybe we can proceed. 😀
Actually, removing the iPod from the equation and treating it in and of itself can be very helpful. In this case, it helps us to understand Apple’s computer business – where it stands, where its opportunities are, and what its weaknesses are. Doing so can help Apple understand its customers better and may afford Apple even more opportunity to sell us great products.
See… I said that without getting all nasty about it as you have.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Since I think this can still be salvaged into useful discussion (rather than personal attacks), I’ll reword my post:
> Seperating the iPod and all its successes, how
> viable a company would it (Apple) be with all
> the G5 snafus?
— Mac & PC Guy
Not a Mac or Windows basher here, I have 4 PowerMacs and 2 Windows comps at my disposal. If anything, that shows I prefer Macs. My iPod goes with me everywhere, as does my Canon 10D.
So if you can calm down, maybe we can proceed. 😀
Mac & PC Guy: I give for granted you understand your question has no intelligent answer. You cannot simply take iPod out of the Apple equation and still having a solvable one.
iPod has been a factor AS WELL in selling CPU units as it helped in getting Apple more visible to the masses.
Anyway, to provide a meaningless answer – for the reasons above, just taking iPod out of the financial reports is simplistic to the point of being silly – just get the numbers from the financial reports.
In the Q3 2004 Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh� units and 860 thousand iPods, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter. Mac-based revenue grew a healthy 19 percent. Music-based revenue grew an incredible 162 percent.
How much of that 19% increase is due to the iPod+iTMS 162% increase. No one in the world can tell.
You want actual numbers? Go to:
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/040714datasum.pdf
Revenues from selling computers: 1263 M$
Revenues from iPod + iTMS : 322 M$
so lets say very roughly 20% less revenue of the 30% more revenue it had it Q3.
Extrapolate to no iPod ever in Apple equation? C’mon. As was said previously: how large would be M$ market share if they’d never produced Office series? These are specious speculation, but if you imply that Apple would have collapsed without the iPod I remember you pundits are predicting Apple collapse since 20 years and still do not get it.
In a previous post was said that if it was not the iPod it would have been something else. No one can deny the iPod helps selling Macs, no one can tell to what extent really.
Using an iPod without a computer is rather impossible, hence I really do not understand much pundits who claim the iPod is a sign of Apple moving away from being a computer maker.
If ever, the iPod is a trojan horse to sell more Macs or making the Mac even more palatable.
Concerning the G5: it revenues are roughly the same as the other products (4: iMac, iBook, PowerMac, Powerbook) with Powerbooks bringing in more cash than others.
One factor people forget is that Apple has 100% of its market share. You cannot run OS X or Apple sw on other computer brands than Apple’s own. When it happens you buy a Mac you become almost without exception part of the Apple established base, another factor pundits do not get in that it is social and personal.
With other manufacturers you may get a Dell this year and your next PC might be a <whatever> in 2 years.
The number of people getting a Mac and then switching back to Windows and PC after 2~3 years is so abysmally small to be irrelevant to any business forecast.
This is what makes Apple different from other computer makers: its problem is not how to keep its consumer base, it is only how to convince more people becoming part of the consumer base. That part done the job its over: Apple knows extremely well how to make aficionados. Other manufacturers have no idea nor have the means.
To close this rumbling of mine: any issue Apple could have with G5, new models, whatever is not going to affect in any sensible way the established customer base. It only affects first comers or very special sectors (and even those to a much lower extent).
Once you had made your mind to buy a Mac (G5 or other) you are not balk away because Dull, Dell and Doh brands came out with a new model before the new G5: you wait for the new G5.
The reasons that made you decide for going Apple are never going to be satisfied by another computer maker. It does not matter if for the same price the other gives you 1GHz more faster CPU: you want a Mac, period.
You have moved from the “I want to buy a new computer” mind state to “I want to buy a new Mac” state. The others – pretty much – disappear off your radar screen.
So, the conclusion: what for Apple if the iPod has not been there? It would still had sold its computers to its established customers and would have had less switchers. Still, as it always happens, it would have been among the 2 or 3 only profitable computer makers against any pundit forecast and impossible to understand for analysts.