Login:
Password:

Apple Reports Higher Mac, iPod Sales

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

April 19, 2006, 5:05 PM

Apple continues to post solid numbers as it reported another strong quarter on Wednesday. For the quarter ending March 31, the Cupertino company posted revenues of $4.36 billion, which includes $410 million in profit.

These numbers were up from $3.24 billion in revenue and $290 million in profit from the year ago quarter. Additionally, the company reported its share of the U.S. audio player business increased to 78 percent from 71 percent in December, and its share of the legal music downloads increased to 87 percent thanks to the iTunes Music Store.

The iTunes Music Store now contains some 2.9 million songs, 9,000 music videos, and some 70 television shows, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer told financial analysts in a conference call Wednesday.

"We've generated over $10 billion in revenue and almost $1 billion in earnings in the first half of fiscal 2006," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs in prepared remarks. "Our transition to Intel processors is going very well, and our music business just experienced another quarter of outstanding growth."

iPod sales, while not as impressive as the holiday quarter's 14 million units, still came in at 8.53 million, a 32 percent jump over the last non-holiday quarter, and a 61 percent year-over-year increase.

Oppenheimer also said a new target for the company would be to focus on areas where the device has traditionally done poorly, such as Asia. "We view [the issues] as a market opportunity," he said.

1,112,000 Macintoshes were sold during the period, a 4 percent increase from a year ago. The company has made great strides in bringing its line of computers to the Intel platform, with only the iBook and PowerMac left to make the transition. Those models are expected to make the switch by this fall.

Some of the sluggish growth in the computer sector could be explained by consumers waiting until Apple completes its move to Intel. Apple's "budget" system, the Mac mini, made the transition late in the quarter and analysts had warned that some may choose to wait to upgrade their machines until the migration is complete.

For the upcoming quarter, Apple says it expects revenue of about $4.2 to 4.4 billion on earnings per share of $.39 to $.43. Oppenheimer said their conservative guidance had a lot to do with consumers delaying their purchases due to the Intel transition.

Add a Comment (84 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:55 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:18 AM

IPods should NOT BE INCLUDED in computers sales. Macs maybe getting a climb and I will not knock that, but IPods are for people that have no idea what they are doing and have to much money on their hands and are willing to sue for stupid reasons. I am thinking about switching to MAC, but I won't give up my Windows and will never give up Linux.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Apr 23, 2006 - 11:47 AM

You poor bitter soul. Quit whining, buy some stock , and make some money.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:56 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 3:58 PM

Your whole post was utterly stupid. If you really need a flaw in the IPod, the largest was the battery life and Apple had to be sued to replace them and then they still only gave people a discount on a new one.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Apr 23, 2006 - 11:46 AM

His post was stupid??? Your post was BEYOND stupid, somewhere in the completely lacking a single live brain cell category! You call someone stupid after you say that a certain product should not be counted in a profit report? Your head must be so far up your a$$, I can't imagine how you could see without a glass belly-button

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 5:00 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 11:40 PM

"But it is funny that you cite a failure of IPod because they are for people who "have no idea what they are doing", but you later credit Windows for pandering to the "70-100 IQ range"!

Let's see... its a shortcoming of Apple to have addressed the mass market with the IPod, but their computers are a failure for NOT addressing that same mass market for which MS Should be credited! "

Damn you are stupid. You even forget what you posted yourself.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:56 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 1:47 PM

*lowers head and shakes slowly*

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 7:10 AM

but IPods are for people that have no idea what they are doing?
So is windows.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:56 AM

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 8:17 PM

You can't knock Apple for making a good profit. They are highly innovative and responsive. No other company is doing what they are acomplishing.

Besides, Apple has always been the underdog...

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:50 PM

Careful! You're not allowed to say that! ;-)

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 7:28 PM

The news come just in time to shut up some rodents talking about market share bla bla. Apple is a healty company and that's great news. I hope they continue that way.
About DRM, that's plain cr*p, I hope we can get rid of it ASAP. A point to correct for Apple, but time to time.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 5:30 PM

Imagine...profit from a company who, because they basically own the market for downloaded music and the player ya'll play it on, can charge absurd markups on nearly everything they sell.

Not Apple's fault at all, I actually blame RIAA for making the downloadable music market so litigious most companies are scared white about getting into it that they lock it down with so much DRM the users won't use it, or with such a high price the market cannot sustain it.

If someone could enter the US market with lossless audio at decent prices and an intuitive interface for converting that lossless audio to whatever your player supports, they'd literally blow Apple away.

Just try to argue with that. I dare ya. ;)

Score: 0

By 113David

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:07 AM

So prices are too high for music? Do you not have .99 cents? Kinda non-issues unless your living on the street begging for money. Come on just say it you hate Apple and you love windoze and craprosoft's slopy work. ;) Just kidding bro.

PC_TOOL said:
"If someone could enter the US market with lossless audio at decent prices and an intuitive interface for converting that lossless audio to whatever your player supports, they'd literally blow Apple away."

MANY HAVE TRIED ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:46 AM

lmao.

"So prices are too high for music? "

Yep. :)

"Do you not have .99 cents?"

Much more than that, actually. Probably because Idon't waste it on lossy rip-off copies.

"Kinda non-issues unless your living on the street begging for money."

Unless you actually want value for your money...

"Come on just say it you hate Apple and you love windoze and craprosoft's slopy work."

Apple's just dandy. But then againn, so is MS. :)

"MANY HAVE TRIED ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!"

Name one. Just one. Must be: US Based, Offering Lossless, DRM-free, and current/popular music.

So....wanna try again?

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:25 AM

.99 is way to much for a s***ty song that you MIGHT listen too a few times. I think music is way over rated and everyone of the retarded people (not really the word I wanted to use) needs to grow the heck up (again not my pick of words)and get past the teen years. Music was cool as kids, but you aren't a kid anymore. It's NICE to have once in a while, but grow up, it's freaking music! Not food, water, or shelter!

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 2:37 AM

Check out "www.allofmp3.com". You can get music for about $0.10 per song in any format you choose whether it's mp3 or Windows Media Lossless.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:50 AM

The only major caveat is that you can pretty much guarantee you're still screwing the artists, but...

When presented with few legal alternatives, and since it is still legal to import music purchased outside the US, this is as good as it gets.

...sure beats P2P.

They offer the music up in pretty much any format you'd like, and also offer lossless encodes for many tracks(FLAC/WAV).

Score: 0

By M1M2Z1

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Lossless files are too big!
Hence MP3s, where have you been?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:51 AM

Yeah, cuz a 300GB drive is sooo expensive nowadays.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:56 AM

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:52 AM

Got a problem with folks (other than yourself, of course) posting their opinions, pal?

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:57 AM

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 8:38 AM

So you missed the part where I said it wasn't Apple's fault?

...and you mis-took a suggested solution as whining.

Apparently anyone suggesting that Apple *isn't* the be-all and end-all is considered whining by you?

Ah....the fan boy. Always entertaining. Who needs logic, when you have fanatic devotion, right?

Did you even notice that my post said nothing bad about Apple at all, but instead decried the RIAA's methods of stomping out iPod and iTunes competition?

And "free market"? You don't really believe that sh1t, do you? If so, you're even more deluded than I thought.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:57 AM

Score: 0

By nate

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 5:37 PM

Even lossless audio would have DRM, which means no conversion. It'd be great if companies just sold non-DRM music, but gotta be realistic :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:54 AM

Nope. I don't. I can choose to be realistic, idealistic, or flat out crazy. :)

I usually reside somewhere in the middle.

They *do* sell non-DRM music. It's called a CD. *grin*

...unless it's from Sony/BMG. ;P

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:30 AM

t"but gotta be realistic "

That people are to damn greedy for their own good and are killing the whole freaking world with their greed? No, it's time people all grow up and get past the stupid s***, and back to what is important. You all are worried about a freaking MP3 player that costs more than it would to feed your family for a month, and you see no problem with that. You All need to grow up, the world is starving, No better yet we are starving here in the US with high cost gas and utilities, but you are worried about a freaking MP3 player. Sad!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 7:28 PM

Huh? An Ipod is only $299.

I spend more than that on groceries every week LOL.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 11:44 PM

You waist a LOT. I spend about $300 a month on food and I grill steaks two or three times a week. I am also feeding four people.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Apr 21, 2006 - 6:02 AM

I don't waste much, I buy lots of quality stuff. :-)

I feed 5, but we are pretty serious carnivores.

;-)

Believe me, none of it gets "wasted" haha!

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:57 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 1:54 PM

Seeing how you were trying to correct me and you were wrong, I am not the one that needs to look it up, but you are. http://www.tfd.com/allot
http://www.tfd.com/lot
However, if you could read then you would know that a lot is a unit and can be waisted. Thanks for your time as you are here waisting everyone else's.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 11:11 AM

perhaps he should have added, 'pun intended'?

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Apr 23, 2006 - 11:52 AM

Yeah, that might work. Otherwise it just sounds like he's been grillin' mad cow.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 8:56 AM

Go preach elsewhere, buddy. This is a tech-news site....

One might assume, in such a setting, we should be allowed to discuss the latest tech.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 9:42 AM

It's not the latest, it old over priced crap. It's not "preaching" it's pointing out a fact.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 11:13 AM

The Nano is old and overpriced? The MacBook is old and overpriced?

Hate to break it to ya, but it's only fact if it's true, pal.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 1:38 PM

As we were talking about the IPod, not any of the others products.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:57 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 11:43 PM

No a fact is not an opinion. Dude get out of your parents' garage and grow the heck up.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 2:13 AM

Gee, almost 80% of the market think your opinion is nonsense.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 21, 2006 - 1:55 PM

I bet you voted for Bush too. Both times. OH, I am sure you are proud of that too.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

posted Apr 24, 2006 - 10:07 AM

Oh, that explains it! So you LOST 2 times! Deal with it!

Score: 0

By jshurst

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 11:12 AM

Maybe you should donate your computer to a charity.

Score: 0

By lil2short2see

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 5:26 PM

Go Apple! Many though, just a thought to bring the prices down a little. Apple's great, just a bit expensive. :-/

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 19, 2006 - 5:30 PM

Hence the enormous profit, perhaps?

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Apr 23, 2006 - 11:55 AM

Basic tenet of business: charge what the market will bear. If the price were too high, the profits would go down.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Apr 19, 2006 - 5:35 PM

Actually, if you price out an equivalent Dual Core Intel machine from Dell or any other manufacturer, Apple's prices really are only marginally higher. Considering the quality of the product you are getting, as well as the operating system and applications that come for free, it's a pretty great deal.

When Apple's prices were $1,000+ more than Intel offerings, things were different. Now you're talking about $100 to $200. That's not a huge barrier.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 9:02 AM

Ah...

Yes, the Intel offerings from Apple are rather decently priced.

One might question how a 4% increase in Mac sales translates to $290mil in profit though...I'd think most of that actually came from iPod and iTunes sales.

Sorry I didn't specify where I figured most of the profits were coming from.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 12:32 AM

Yeah, the MACs are only a little higher, but do 100% less than any PC out to date. Now explain with facts why anyone would want to spend the extra money for a slower and 100% less compatible unit.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:57 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 11:45 PM

You have YET to have a point about anything! You have only proven that you don't know how to read.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Apr 23, 2006 - 11:57 AM

Actually, he made an excellent point in direct response to your rant. I think we're all starting to to think you need to take a pill and lay down for a while.

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 7:14 AM

MAcs imcompatible? With what? PC's are incompatible! Incompatible with the only OS that really matters: OSX.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 9:47 AM

OSX is the only OS that really matters huh...yea tell that to all the companies I've consulted for...over 50k pc's and 5k servers and I'm yet to run into a mac...yea OSX is the only OS that really matters...:)

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:58 AM

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:59 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:34 AM

You, really need to stop and read some intel! Sorry that people like you come out of school and will never make it in life with distortions such as yours. I feel for you!

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:58 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 9:52 AM

You must be new here. I know you are. No, far from it. I live hundreds of miles away from my mom, and own a company with my Beautiful wife and two perfect children.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:58 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 3:38 PM

LMAO You are so freaking retarded! LMAO Where do you come up with this crap? Damn distortions.

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 2:48 AM

So you think backwards compatibility is unimportant? Maybe Wintel computers should have switched to the Intel Itanium processor instead of going with AMD64 processors. Apple's choice to use EFI, on a 32-bit platform no less, is just plain stupid. EFI is probably not going to see widespread acceptance until 32-bit versions of Windows are discontinued. As for the ExpressCard slot, Apple should be including a standard Cardbus slot as well since there are very few ExpressCard add-ons available.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:58 AM

Score: 0

By klingon379

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 2:41 PM

I don't mind computer companies using the latest technology. I'm just saying that computers also need to support the previous generation of hardware along with the newer hardware.

I have a computer that uses an Asus SK8N motherboard with an AMD Opteron Model 240 CPU (socket 940). I'm also using a AGP 8x nVidia GeForce 6800GT graphics card that cost me $300. Now that AMD is beginning to switch to newer DDR2 memory this means my entire computer has become obsolete almost overnight.

Basically to run Windows Vista's Aero Glass interface I have to upgrade my graphics card just because Microsoft says so even though an AGP 8x nVidia GeForce 6800GT could easily run Aero Glass. Since a newer equivalent graphics card probably only uses PCI Express this means I have to get a new motherboard, CPU, and possibly new DDR2 memory in addition to a $300 or more graphics card. You can see why backwards compatibility might be important at least in the short term.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Apr 23, 2006 - 12:03 PM

What makes you think you have to upgrade anything. My computer has a very similar configuration to yours and I plan on running Vista on it. I haven't seen anything that says it won't work. If you have, please point me to it. Thanks.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:58 AM

Score: 0

By lorenpedro

edited Apr 19, 2006 - 5:42 PM

Apple seems to be all over the news. I think its great. I would love to get an apple PDA/Ipod/Phone some day... that would be so cool.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 12:41 AM

I would love to see Apple/Mac to make anything that is cost effective and that is even 50% as compatible as even Linux is to date. Every game that makes a MAC version, is held up by months for the MAC version and it is still behind the PC* version, If one is ever made. I am not saying Windows is better, just easier. Easier will always win with 96% of the population with 100-70 IQ. You understand that 70 is the border line for metal retardation. Mac will need to come a long way, before it is even 20% of the computers out there.

* PC meaning Windows based computer.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:59 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 21, 2006 - 2:05 PM

Lets see; MACs hold a smaller percentage the market, than either Windows or Linux, yet Linux take more work to do even the simplest task. Now Windows holds the top slot, being a point and click system, where as MAC and Linux aren't. Macs have little to no compatibility to anything, even the larger companies are more inclined to include Linux than they are MACs. Most of us had MACs in school, but 90% of us now use Windows and Linux, now tell why that is, if MACs are so great. Companies support Windows and Linux, because a of a "lot" of reasons, that I can't answer, but they do for two that I can. One, MACs are over priced for what you get (slowly changing). Two, they aren't any better despite the hype.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 3:43 PM

Can you even read? Now I have asked many times for a fan boy like yourself to answer me this one question; What can a MAC do better than a good AMD that is still cheaper than almost all of the MACs out there? Not one person has ever been able to prove anything at all. Every time I ask this question it goes unanswered.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 22, 2006 - 4:21 AM

Still after at least 50+ posts asking the same question, still no answer. Are there any people out there that aren't fag fan boys that can truly post a response as to how MACs are better?

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:59 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 11:57 PM

"Now, YOU tell me why Microsoft uses Macs for ALL of their internal graphics development? YOU tell me why Apple owns the digital audio workstation workstation market? "
OMG do you truely believe this bulls***? LMAO You are the stupidest person I have ever see post on BN, yet.

Try looking at some meta tags once in a while. Or do you even know what that is?

BTW, you have yet to say anything that a MAC can do better. No one has yet.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:59 AM

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 1:41 PM

You have made some really off the wall crap posts, but the blatant lies about the use of MACs to produce Microsofts graphics was the worst, yet.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:59 AM

Score: 0

By jla0

edited Apr 20, 2006 - 8:44 AM

I guess you never played World of Warcraft? I know it's only 1 game but it came out at the same time for both Windows and MacOS X (PowerPC at the time).. it only took them a month (if even) to get a Universal Binary version out for Intel Macs and when they release a patch it comes out for both Windows and MacOS at the same time. (and if i'm not mistaken they've done this for ALL the games they've ever released!)

Every gaming company should look at Blizzard and take a hint from them. They know how to make good games and they know how to make them for both platforms!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Apr 20, 2006 - 9:47 AM

They are so much better than that crappy EA company. I have loved most everything Blizzard has made. I could never say that I even liked 99.99% of EA's crap. They are to worried about graphics where as Blizzard if for the game play.

Score: 0