not so negative at all...

Also keep in mind that even President Bush has been forced to admit that the US economy is not in the greatest shape, and that the news from retailers has continued to be dismal for a number of months now - and Apple exceeded the expectations of economic analysts. From a recessionary perspective, flat looks good.

In addition to the iPod Touch that Andrew mentioned, iPod has inspired a wealth of spin-off opportunities. It led to the development of iPhone, a wildly successful product; and the iTunes store recently overtook Wallmart as the #1 US music retailer. Its prosperity continues despite continued grumblings from the music industry. And whenever I'm in an Apple store, I always see people purchasing all sorts of iPod accessories, and I admit to often grabbing an impulse buy myself. And if I remember correctly, the Apple Stores were introduced after iPod had been established as a success.

Perhaps most important, iPod inspired millions of "switchers," and I doubt if the big jolt in Mac sales that was reported would have happed had iPod not been brought to market. The well publicized fact that Macs were easier to use, less resistant to computer cooties and outside attacks, better designed, etc., never seemed to be enough to inspire even a tiny chunk of Windoze users to think about anything Mac related. iPod even brought Wall Street around to thinking different about Apple.

And for all the advertising and promotional $ thrown at Zune, it isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

Marilyn

At 3:24 PM -0700 4/24/08, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
>First, iPod sales did not slow. Rather, at first glance the appear
>only a tiny bit up over the year ago quarter. While that might be
>nearly flat, it is not down.

I didn't say they dropped, just that they were slowing, which is
absolutely true, especially in comparison to the previously
exponential growth rate. I've clarified this further now by
specifying that it's the growth rate that has slowed.

As to whether iPhones should be considered iPods, I tend to agree
with you technically, but since Apple considers them separate for
purposes of financial reporting, so will we.

cheers... -Adam

On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Adam C. Engst wrote:

> As to whether iPhones should be considered iPods, I tend to agree
> with you technically, but since Apple considers them separate for
> purposes of financial reporting, so will we.

An interesting question, and it probably varies a lot by user. My
iPhone's "iPodness" (gee, Dictionary doesn't like that) is little
used. Much more often I use my (old-style) nano. Battery issues.
(Before my early original shuffle died--wouldn't hold charge--I used
it in the car for podcasts, because of no temptation to fiddle while
driving.)

   --John

On or about 5/1/08 8:12 AM, thus spake "Mike Cohen" <mike3kgmail.com>:

> I almost never use my iPod Video since I got my iPhone

Cool! So does that mean you'll be sending it to me...? :)

> The only time I use my iPod
> Video is to watch movies on a long flight, since I have too much other stuff
> to fit even one movie on my iPhone

...Ooops, I guess not! :))) m.