“The historical record will show that the era of Apple computers bearing microprocessors from Intel began at 10:16 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on January 10, 2006,” Arik Hesseldahl writes for BusinessWeek. “That was the moment that the Associated Press issued the following one-sentence NewsAlert:”
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs unveils an iMac computer based on Intel Corp.’s chips, just six months after the historic partnership was announced between the two once-unlikely Silicon Valley bedfellows.
“It’s the first time in my memory that a product announcement by Steve Jobs has caused the AP to send an alert — especially since this development was fully expected. And it says a lot about the intensity of media attention Apple generates. When is the last time a NewsAlert went out based on the words of Michael Dell or Bill Gates? Clearly, the AP’s editors determined this news was important enough to warrant such action,” Hesseldahl writes. “Half the fun in covering Apple is covering the coverage of Apple. The argument has been made that we in the press are a little nuts about Apple. It’s a fact. The highs and lows of Jobs & Co. are so dramatic that the erudite prose practically writes itself. And I can’t help but think something is wrong with that.”
Hesseldahl writes, “Take the way Apple was treated in 1997, when it was beset by sagging sales, a profound lack of product direction, and the onslaught of Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows. That summer Wired did a cover depicting the bleeding Apple logo surrounded by a crown of thorns with the headline “PRAY.” Brilliant in its honest execution and frank assessment of the situation, it was for Mac-lovers a low-water mark.”
“As great a company as Apple computer is — I’m often as guilty as anyone of falling for the hyperbole — the pointed, skeptical, analytical, dispassionate, and yes, uncomfortable questions about this unusually influential outfit and its unique, legendary, brilliant, and complicated chief don’t get asked often enough. And they should be, more often than they are now. Great companies deserve nothing less,” Hesseldahl writes.
Hesseldahl’s full article includes the question, “why only 1.25 million Mac sales for the quarter?”
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Fortune: ‘tiny’ Apple has big influence on personal computer and consumer electronics industries – January 11, 2006
IDC researcher: iMac, MacBook Pro ‘nice,’ but Apple will have to innovate more or they’ll disappear – January 11, 2006
Apple posts Steve Jobs’ Macworld keynote via QuickTime – January 10, 2006
Apple posts new Intel Mac ad online – January 10, 2006
Apple introduces MacBook Pro; up to four times faster than PowerBook – January 10, 2006
Apple unveils new iMac with Intel Core Duo processor; twice as fast as iMac G5 – January 10, 2006
Apple announces the iPod Radio Remote with FM radio capabilities – January 10, 2006
Apple announces iWork ’06 with 3-D charts, advanced image editing tools & spreadsheet-like tables – January 10, 2006
Apple announces iLife ’06 with new versions of iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, GarageBand and new iWeb – January 10, 2006
MacDailyNews presents live coverage of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ Macworld Expo Keynote – January 09, 2006
could triple their computer sales and still have “terrible” numbers relative to Dell. However, if Apple tripled their computer sales, would it really be terrible. Of course, they won’t triple them in this year or even double them, but my point is that for analysts thinking of the computer industry as a whole, Apple does poor sales. However, they can remain a strong company without ever getting above 12% market share (not referring to installed base).
Apple doesn’t need to be Dell or Microsoft to be a successful company. I do believe in the argument that the innovation in those companies is stifled by their size and goal of dominating market share. One could argue that Apple, by it’s approach, could avoid such a problem, but it’s a difficult road.
While I’d love to see Apple grow, I don’t really care what size they are as long as they are economically healthy and remain innovative.
Yep. It was 1.25 million. It was the 4th quarter of 2005 (calendar). So it will be be in the 1st quarter (fiscal) figures.
I also a thought it seemed a little low but it’s still ’bout 20% up on the year before. And it was the best quarter of the year (calendar)!
I mention that because I have gone over the last 5 year’s quaterly figures, and even though it’s the “holiday” quarter, it isn’t always the highest for Mac sales.
So, even though demand for Apple Macs has been “dropping like a rock” ever since the Intel announcement… 2005 was the best year ever for Mac sales.
Ironic isn’t it Rob (Enderle)?
macaholic
LOL. You’d be surprised how many women have told me they bought an Apple because Carrie Bradshaw had one.
Good enough a reason as any, I suppose.
MW “center”. When will you yanks learn to spell??!!?
Dave H:
Don’t forget the orange iBook that Reese Witherspoon had at Harvard Law in Legally Blonde. Sadly, product placements like that are better than actual Apple TV ads.
“When will you yanks learn to spell??!!?”
That’s easy. When Windows becomes impervious to viruses.
The 1.25M is for 1Q FY06. It’s a 1% increase over 4Q FY05, and a 19-20% increase over 4Q FY04. It’s the highest number of units since 1.38M in 1Q FY00.
The 19-20% increase y-o-y, I believe, is still better than the overall PC industry.
And that growth came despite: waiting for Intel-based Macs, “slow” Powerbooks, “aging” iBooks, education-only eMacs.
Given the above, I’d say it was an excellent quarter for Macs.
Uhh… 51 million PCs were sold in 2004 if the industry as a whole is growing at 16% then in 2005 60 million PCs will be sold.
1.25 million Macs annualize at 5 million Macs and that would be roughly 8% of the PC market.
Obviously not exact figures, but food for thought.
MacDude says:
“Uh, Me thinks Intel has been held back by the Microsoft monolith …”
It’s odd that you would – most see that pairing as being crucial to each company’s massive success. And I can’t think of any period during that time when either was pushing the other as much as they were just co-dependent. Besides, you can’t blame M$ for Netburst, or Intel’s not being able to keep up with AMD on everything from on die memory controllers to cache latency. If it weren’t for M$, Intel would have kept 64bit computing on the Itanium – Gates was the one to force them get on board AMD64 or miss the train.
“Yeah, AMD is pushing the x86 architecture but innovation ain’t gonna come from antiquated ideas. The Apple-Intel alliance will push innovation to a new level … remember, Think Different. I can tell you … Intel employees are really excited about this new partnership. When you have excited people with innnovation in mind, watch out.”
They should be excited – Apple is good for Intel. I just wonder about the reverse! What’s troubling is, Intel’s future plans (now) come from a PIII based architecture. Netburst was such a flop, and PIII based Pentium M superior in so many ways, they eventually scrapped hundreds of millions in dev costs to go back to “antiquated ideas”. Don’t get me wrong – I actually applaud that. But Netburst was developed 1st & foremeost to capitalize on the marketing of clockspeeds, and that calls into question just how good they are at the whole ‘vision thing’.
“This has to be one of the funniest comments I’ve heard here on MDN. Since when do rumors become expected product annoucements? A rumor is a rumor … Sometimes they are true, most times they are not. Why do you have a problem with this concept is a mystery to me. Why you have animosity against Apple based on unrealized rumors is an even bigger mystery.”
Stick around – I got a million of ’em! Actually, I didn’t mention this to say Apple should be following rumors, but that they should be aware of customer desire/expectation, and leading industry trends. I’m sure you wouldn’t deny that multimedia is both of those things. That’s why I found it so disappointing for Apple not to have announced something on that front. In this business, you snooze, you lose.
I’ve seen stories saying it’s b/c there’s a shortage of CoreDuos (so much for supply certainty, eh?), but if that’s true, they should’ve devoted what they had to the multimedia effort. Certainly iMac could’ve waited. On other boards, Apple intoducing x86 iMacs before June is actually pissing people off b/c (right or wrong) many bought product expecting them to stay current more than a month. A Mac DVR, Plasma whatsit, or ??? would’ve at least avoided that problem. More important, it would’ve had a bigger impact, been more in line with where Intel can really take them, & where we all know Apple has to go. I’ve rarely seen so many comments saying “yawn” after a MacWorld Expo – certainly not from the Mac faithful – as now. I think that demonstrates that while Apple may assume it’s immune to market pressure and expectations, it’s not. Get the video out there!
“Again, I don’t think you know what Intel has been working on in the background. A friend at Intel tells me they are working on things … that’s all he could tell me. We’ll just have to see. Don’t dismiss the biggest name in IC design and fabrication. It would be a mistake.”
I’m not using a crystal ball, I’m just reading the trail of info all parties have left us. I know what’s out there now & what Intel’s done in the past, as well as the same about their competitors. I’m sure the people who work at Intel think their stuff is great, but the same can be said of AMD, IBM, PA Semi, … even Freescale. The proof is when products are released, and I believe you can tell a great deal about a company’s future trajectory based on where it is ‘in flight’ – especially in relation to other companies. And on that score, Intel hasn’t managed to be number one (for very long) for quite awhile. Many people in the past said the same as you are now; ‘It’s Intel – they’re too big/powerful/profitable to screw up’. Yet they have, often, & are even losing market share to AMD as a result.
Look, you’re right – time will tell. I always say that, when I get into discussions like this. But just because I have to wait doesn’t mean I have to be mooney-eyed while I do. The whole point of the story is people (reporters/investors/fans) have stopped asking the hard questions about Apple, simply because they’ve epically defied the Death Knell. I think they did that BECAUSE they had to answer hard questions. Now that they’re finally experiencing success, the last thing we should do is stop asking, otherwise we might wind up back at 1997 before you know it.
MW = “received”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Never depend on received wisdom. I Think Different, but I think for myself.
Odyssey67 –
“I’ve seen stories saying it’s b/c there’s a shortage of CoreDuos (so much for supply certainty, eh?), but if that’s true, they should’ve devoted what they had to the multimedia effort. Certainly iMac could’ve waited. On other boards, Apple intoducing x86 iMacs before June is actually pissing people off b/c (right or wrong) many bought product expecting them to stay current more than a month. A Mac DVR, Plasma whatsit, or ??? would’ve at least avoided that problem. More important, it would’ve had a bigger impact, been more in line with where Intel can really take them, & where we all know Apple has to go. I’ve rarely seen so many comments saying “yawn” after a MacWorld Expo – certainly not from the Mac faithful – as now. I think that demonstrates that while Apple may assume it’s immune to market pressure and expectations, it’s not. Get the video out there!”
Your comments are always very intelligent, well balanced, and offer more discusson on the topic – kudos.
I purchased an iMac G5 a few months ago, but I am not pissed like some others are about the iMac going Intel so soon. I am SURPRISED that it is among the first, but certainly not pissed about it. The G5 still has PLENTY of life yet to be lived. In fact, I feel getting a G5 while they were still producing them is a “slight” advantage as all current software will run on a G5 with no hiccups – this is ESPECIALLY true of shareware apps (some I can’t live without). Yeah – the Intels are faster by specs, but I doubt they are much faster when having to run a MAJOR app through Rosetta to get it to work. I figure my G5 will give me well over two years worth of time to let all the developers get TOTALLY inline with the Intel transition – PLUS, when I go to upgrade I’m sure the newest Macs with Intels (if Apple is still using Intels then – hey, you never know) will have some seriously blazing clock speeds. I know the new ones are CoreDuos and are faster by spec, but I was not very impressed at the overall clock speeds of the new offers. I know that clock speed isn’t everything, because the INTERNAL architecture of a chip can make a huge difference (like PPC vs. Pentium), but if anyone out there has recently bought a G5 of any kind they have nothing to worry about. I’ll let the early adopters of the new Intel Macs be the guinea pigs (no offense intended by that reference) for a while. With Universal Binaries there “shouldn’t” be a problem, but that small shareware app or that app from a small developer may need to go through Rosetta or (hopefully not) won’t work at all. I think the people who DIDN’T get their G5’s should be pissed, not the ones who are screaming about the iMac going Intel so soon….
8bit