Re: [NTLK] Geez people, freaking get o.

From: SlashDevNull (slashdevnull_at_mac.com)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:42:24 EDT


Salutations,

> Sales do not equal dollars in the sense you mean, and the two of you are
> talking past each other. In 1996 Apple computer had a net loss of $742mm on
> sales of $9.8B. In 1997, the figures are ($378mm) on $7B. By 1998, they
> made a profit of $283mm on sales of $5.9B. It is possible to lose sales but
> be more profitable at the same time. Apple proves this in the very years
> you are all yelling about.
 
  Well, yes. But I wasn't talking about profits. Of course it is possible
to make profits on less sales. That is by controlling your overhead costs
and cutting out losses.

  By talking about sales, I meant sales of the Newton directly. I wasn't
speaking of all of Apple's sales. I was speaking of the Newton's sales
ability to keep it profitable.

  Here is an example.

  3com released Audrey a couple years ago. It failed badly and 3Com also
was losing money as a business. They dropped it because they couldn't
afford to keep making it.

  Ms released WinCE. It failed badly. However, ms had the money, from
other divisions, to keep the company from going under so they stuck with it.
Now WinCE is in its third generation, and showing some signs of getting
better and gaining market share. Still trash though.

  The bottom line is that the Newton was losing money. It was losing money
for years. However in the early years of the Newton, Apple was making
enough profit to fund the Newton and absorb the losses. The Newton lost
money through Sculley, Spindler, and Amelio.

  Steve finally decided that Apple couldn't afford to keep throwing money in
the Newton moneypit.

  If the Newton was profitable through Sculley, Spindler, and Amelio then
Jobs wouldn't of cut it. Hell, if the Newton was profitable just under
Jobs, he wouldn't of cut it.

  Newton continually losing money killed it. The market not wanting the
Newton killed it. Apple releasing it too early killed it. Sculley thinking
he was a visionary killed it. Apple marketing of lack of killed it.

  You can pick any of the above. But the bottom line is that the market
said 'no'.

Sculley getting rid of Apple's soul (Jobs) almost killed Apple.

>
> From 97 to 98 Apple 'lost' a billion dollars in sales, but became more
> profitable by about half a billion. The issue is not sales or market share.
> The issue is profitability.
>

  Exactly. And Apple wasn't profitable enough to keep money losing projects
afloat.

Cheers,
David

-- 
Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html
Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 06:03:24 EDT