i ended up in apple and the mutual fund. and, i won't worry about those funds any more (unless i catch wind of steve jobs leaving. steve is apple). <br><br>i did see this regarding apple:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Some analysts suggest that Apple might have been paying less than $100 for the IBM single-core PowerPC 970 chip that went into the final iMac G5, which would imply an increase in materials cost of more than $200 per unit.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>apparently, the intel chip might be $200 more than the PowerPC chip, which cuts into apple's earnings. and, i always thought the intel chip would make things cheaper. dang.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Sean, take all these analyst reports and put them in one ear and out the next. It's pure speculation on their part. They don't know anymore than you or I what is going on between Intel and Apple. They haven't a clue what sweetheart deal those two have cooked up. I can understand why the rush for new laptops but why rush out the new iMac six months ahead of time and specially after it's undergone a revision in the last couple of months. They'd do this so they can make $200 less? I don't think so.<br><br>BTW, it's usual to AAPL to have a run up then drop after a financial report.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I can understand why the rush for new laptops but why rush out the new iMac six months ahead of time and specially after it's undergone a revision in the last couple of months. They'd do this so they can make $200 less? I don't think so.<p><hr></blockquote><p>apple likes to beat expectations. always. and, i don't doubt that apple negotiated a good deal with intel, but i would also doubt that they have a better deal with intel than they had with IBM. keep in mind that apple was forced to shift to intel because IBM couldn't deliver a chip for the laptops. the speculation is on the price that apple paid; however, the facts are that the dual core processor from intel is typically more expensive than the PowerPC chip and it's not close. apple will make less money per machine, but they didn't have a super large profit margin on the iPod (at least initially) and they banked on selling A LOT . . . that worked. time will tell on the shift to intel. personally, i think apple ends up with AMD if AMD can get their act together on the mobile chip. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
ah apple<br>made in China<br>ironically<br>the last real, reliable tool for many artists out there<br><br>and the closest we'll ever be to paperless society<br>is through the Mac/APPL thingee<br><br>nah mean?<br><br>They complain about lack of trees<br>and still they aint' right in their business actions<br>(think globally don't pollute and waste locally)<br>at least in Miami : P<br><br>Karma police, keep on knocking but techno savvy greedy types don't let it in; just leave it for the next generation.<br><br>lame inc.<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.