apple history
Latest
Bob Mansfield leaves Apple's executive team, will assist Tim Cook
The biography for Bob Mansfield, Apple's senior vice president of technologies, unexpectedly disappeared from Apple's executive web page over the weekend. The removal of Mansfield's biography was first reported by MacRumors, and AllThingsD followed with an official statement from Apple that confirmed Mansfield is no longer part of Apple's executive leadership. Apple refused to comment on the reasons for Mansfield's departure. "Bob is no longer going to be on Apple's executive team, but will remain at Apple working on special projects reporting to [CEO] Tim [Cook]," Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling told AllThingsD. Mansfield announced his resignation from Apple in June 2012 and returned to the company a few months later as its SVP of Technologies. According to AllThingsD, Mansfield was paid handsomely for his return with a package worth more than $2 million a month. Details on Mansfield's reasons for leaving are not known, but his departure from this executive position less than a year later is surprising.
Construction begins at Reno iCloud data center
Running a service as complicated as Apple's iCloud takes massive investments in infrastructure to properly support. This past March Apple broke ground on a new Reno, Nev., iCloud data center, a modern facility which will house massive banks of servers and the other guts that keep iCloud running. It will even use solar power, in keeping with the company's focus on green energy. Now AppleInsider is reporting the company has started to build the first large structures at the site following the building of a tactical structure this past March to house security and support equiment. The US$16 million dollar project includes a massive $4.6 million administration building and two data-processing centers, which have been reported to total 50,570 square feet. Head over to AppleInsider to see their new pictures of the work site. They've been taken from some distance away, sort of like UFO researchers trying to sneak pictures of secret test planes at Groom Lake. Still we rarely get to take a look at the scale of infrastructure required to keep our little magic data boxes pouring information into our hands. You can find the rest of their reporting here.
Judge finds Apple guilty of fixing e-book prices (Updated)
According to Reuters, US District Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple in its big e-book price-fixing trial. The judge found that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books and will now face a trial to determine damages. Update: Both Apple and the Department of Justice have released statements about this decision, according to AllThingsD. Not surprisingly, Apple is disappointed with the ruling and will appeal, while the DOJ is pleased. Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr confirmed the company will appeal and says, "Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations. When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much-needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision." Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer writes, "This result is a victory for millions of consumers who choose to read books electronically ... Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it is in their economic self-interest to do so. This decision by the court is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal actions."
Rare Apple I sold for $387,750 in online Christie's auction
Late last month, Christie's kicked off an auction for a rare Apple I computer with its original manual, schematics and a photo of the two Steves. The online-only auction ended today at a lower-than-expected US$387,750, according to a press release from Christie's. Pre-auction estimates suggested the piece of Apple history could sell for as much as $500,000, as previous auctions for Apple I computers fetched up to $671,400. The Apple I was part of a larger group that included a total of 10 iconic items from Apple's history. Besides the Apple I, the First Bytes collection also included an Apple Lisa, a prototype Apple IIGS and a 20th Anniversary Macintosh limited to 12,000 units. All the auctions ended today, and we will update the prices for these vintage Apple items when they become available. [Via CNBC] Show full PR text APPLE-1 SELLS FOR $387,750 FIRST BYTES: ICONIC TECHNOLOGY FROM THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ONLINE-ONLY AUCTION FEATURING VINTAGE TECH PRODUCTS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL APPLE COMPUTER, APPLE-1 New York/London/Paris/Hong Kong – An original Apple computer, now known as the Apple-1, sold for $387,750 at Christie's auction of vintage tech products, making it the highest priced item to ever be sold through Christie's new online-only platform. The Apple-1, one of the first 25 Apple-1's ever assembled, inscribed with the serial number 01-0025 in black ink was designed and hand-built in 1976 by Steve Wozniak, who later signed his work "Woz." Christie's saw traffic to the First Bytes online-only sale page from 96 countries with 77% of the viewers new to Christie's.
On Apple's 'inability to innovate'
During WWDC 2013, Apple's Senior VP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller presided over a sneak peek of Apple's upcoming Mac Pro and boldly exclaimed, "Can't innovate anymore, my ass!" Schiller's off-the-cuff remark was in response to the increasing number of tech pundits who seem to think that Apple has lost its inability to innovate, now that Steve Jobs is no longer running the show. Of course, anyone who has followed Apple over the years knows that the "Apple can't innovate anymore!" refrain is nothing new. Indeed, every time Apple releases a new product, critics are quick to proclaim that Apple has peaked. "What can follow the iPod?" they asked. "Okay, the iPhone is amazing, but what's next?" they impatiently wondered. "The iPad is a game changer, but Apple is now out of ideas!" they declared. What's funny is that Apple, more so than most any other company, has a proven track record of innovation that stretches back for over a decade. Yet, curiously, Apple has seemingly garnered no credit amongst tech pundits when it comes to its current ability to innovate. At the same time, tech pundits are all too eager to predict Apple's demise and levy the tech crown upon whatever tech company happens to challenging Apple at the moment. Remember when the Palm Pre was going to steal the iPhone's thunder? Highlighting the shockingly absurd and oftentimes foolish sentiments that frequently swirl over Apple, John Kirk over at Techpinions has assembled a goldmine of blurbs that unabashedly paint Apple as a "has-been" company. One such blurb comes courtesy of David Goldman of CNN Money who wrote the following this past June: Apple will hold its first major product event in nine months on Monday, a stunning gap for a company that relies on regularly impressing customers with new innovations. I always find it funny when folks think the Apple ship is sinking simply because there isn't an annual iPhone-level product introduction. A revolutionary device like the iPhone doesn't come along every single year, which is why such products are so transformative when they are introduced. Gauging Apple's ability to innovate within the timeframe of a lone year is anything but instructive. The gap between the iPod and iPhone introductions, for example, was more than five years. The gap between the iPhone and iPad introductions was three years. And now people are going nuts because nine months go by without a brand-new shiny device? Addressing this very point, Kirk references an old and on-point Jobs quote about catching the waves of technology. Things happen fairly slowly, you know. They do. Those waves of technology, you can see them way before they happen, and you just have to choose wisely which ones you're going to surf. If you choose unwisely, then you can waste a lot of energy, but if you choose wisely, it actually unfolds fairly slowly. It takes years. Instant movies. Instant shopping. TV on demand. So much is immediately accessible these days. What's more, many great tech companies are working furiously to give consumers even faster access to the goods and services they crave. Amazon's ongoing efforts to establish same-day shipping comes to mind. This "I want it now" attitude, or perhaps expectation, has clearly seeped into the psyche of tech pundits when it comes to Apple. The reality, though, is that true innovation doesn't happen in an instant. As intimated by Jobs, it takes time for all of the pieces of the innovation puzzle to coalesce. And the funny thing is, even when Apple does come out with a game-changing device like the iPod or the iPhone, the very same critics that are quick to declare that Apple can't innovate are just as quick to predict that said products are nothing special and will flop in the marketplace. Sometimes it seems that Apple is quick to be painted with the "can't innovate anymore" brush simply because they don't come out and say what products they're working on months in advance. I'll close with this. Here's a quick look at some of the products Apple released within the last 12 months. An iPhone 5 An iPad mini A fourth-gen iPad New MacBook Airs with almost double the battery life A revamped iMac Not bad for a company, which if you believe the headlines, is plummeting into mediocrity.
Now Apple files for iWatch trademark in Mexico, Taiwan, and Turkey
Just yesterday word spread through the technology sphere that Apple had filed for an iWatch trademark in Japan. The news seemed to give some limited credence to earlier rumors that Apple had filed for the same iWatch trademark in Russia. Now, less than 24 hours after that Japan trademark surfaced, trademark registrations for iWatch have appeared in Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey, according to MacRumors. As I wrote yesterday, a trademark registration does not mean the imminent arrival of Apple's fabled smartwatch. However, the fact that Apple is registering iWatch in countries across the globe does now seem to strongly suggest that work on the device is well underway and we may see it early next year. But only time will tell.
Brian Hogan, the man who sold the iPhone 4 to Gizmodo, speaks up
Back in April 2010, the tech world was all aflutter when Gizmodo managed to get its hands on and post photos of what would later be called the iPhone 4. For a company that prides itself on secrecy, the pre-release photos of Apple's iPhone 4 were a major embarrassment. If you recall, an Apple engineer mistakenly left an iPhone 4 device he was testing at a bar whereupon it came into the possession of a 21-year-old named Brian Hogan who attempted to hock the device to any tech blog that was willing to pay for it. Gizmodo turned out to be the "lucky" winner, paying Hogan $5,000 for the device. Yesterday, Hogan started an Ask Me Anything (AMA) thread on Reddit where he answered user-submitted questions about a wide range of topics. Some quick points of interest from the AMA include: Hogan spent more than $5,000 in legal fees. Crime really doesn't pay. Gizmodo promised to pay Hogan an additional $3,000 after the story aired, but didn't. Again, crime doesn't pay! Hogan was charged with a misdemeanor misappropriation of lost property and had to pay a $125 fine. Hogan says he didn't turn over the phone to the bar owners because he was 21, drunk and "didn't think about that at the time." The AMA is still ongoing, so hop on over to Reddit if you have a burning question you want to ask the man who helped create quite the Apple scandal a few years back.
Rare Apple I to be auctioned off by Christie's
Once again, a rare Apple I will be up on the auction block. According to a report from the AP, a 1976 Apple I will be up for grabs at Christie's auction house where the bidding will begin at US$300,000. It's estimated that the iconic computer may end up going for $500,000 by the time bidding closes. "This is a piece of history that made a difference in the world, it's where the computer revolution started," said Ted Perry, a retired school psychologist who owns the old Apple and has kept it stashed away in a cardboard box at his home outside Sacramento, Calif. It's estimated that only 200 or so Apple I units were ever produced, with the number of units still in existence believed to be in the 30-50 range. Recently, Apple I machines have been fetching exorbitant amounts at auctions worldwide. This past May, for example, a working Apple 1 sold for $671,400 at a German auction house. Before that, an Apple I yielded $640,000 at a Sotheby's auction. The Christie's auction, which will be held online, will begin on Monday, June 24 and will run through July 9.
The designer Steve Jobs might have hired
Famed German designer Richard Sapper has revealed in an interview with Dezeen that Steve Jobs once wanted to hire him to design Apple's computers: Jobs once wanted to hire me to do the design of Apple [computers] but the circumstances weren't right because I didn't want to move to California and I had very interesting work here that I didn't want to abandon. Also, at that time Apple was not a great company, it was just a small computer company. They were doing interesting things so I was very interested, of course, but I had an exclusivity contract with IBM. When asked if he regretted his decision not to work with the company, he replied: Sure I regret it – the man who then did it makes $30 million a year! [Laughs] so how can you not regret it? It's not clear from the interview when Jobs exactly asked Sapper to do industrial designs for the company. Sapper said Apple was "just a small computer company" when Jobs approached him, which would suggest it was the early 1980s. However, Sapper is clearly referring to Jonathan Ive when he says "the man who then did it," which would put Steve's unsuccessful recruitment attempt in the late 1990s, shortly after he returned to the company. Besides Sapper's work for IBM, the 81-year-old industrial designer has created myriad products over his 60-year career including bicycles, lamps and kettles.
Apple's most significant keynotes
WWDC is right around the corner and the highly anticipated keynote will kick off the event on Monday June 10. This keynote will be a critical one for Apple as the company is expected to unveil a Jonny Ive-led overhaul of iOS. Apple has a long string of game-changing presentations, including these 10 keynotes that were singled out by Macworld. On Macworld's top 10 list are the 2003 introduction of Safari, the iPad special event in 2010 and the unveiling of the iPhone at Macworld 2007. You can browse through the full list on Macworld's website and enjoy this walk down memory lane.
Apple 1 sells for $671,400 at auction
A few weeks ago, we reported on an impending auction involving one of six known working Apple 1 computers. The New York Times is now reporting that the auction has officially closed with the winning bid checking in at an astounding $671,400. The winning bid set a new record for the Apple 1, eclipsing a previous auction where Apple's first computer netted a $640,000 bid. "This really confirms the value of Apple-1's," Uwe Breker, the German auctioneer, said in an interview on Saturday. The buyer, Mr. Breker said, was a wealthy entrepreneur from the Far East, who wishes to remain anonymous. Part of the allure of the earliest Apple machines, Mr. Breker said, is not what they are, but what they represent. "It is a superb symbol of the American dream," he said. "You have two college dropouts from California who pursued an idea and a dream, and that dream becomes one of the most admired, successful and valuable companies in the world." Interestingly enough, the Friday story from the Times said that Apple 1 in question was originally owned by Major League Baseball player Fred Hatfield. His nickname? Scrap Iron. However, reporter Steve Lohr amended that identification this weekend when he was contacted by another Fred Hatfield (not the major leaguer; this Fred is a retired electrical engineer living in New Orleans) who was able to prove, by virtue of some signed correspondence with Steve Jobs, that he was in fact the Apple-1's original owner. Hatfield II got $40,000 for his antique and non-working machine when he sold it to an eager buyer, "a young man from Texas in the software business," who in turn got it functional and auction-ready. Also of note is that the Apple 1 here includes a circuit board signed by Woz, another "upgrade" acquired by the mysterious Texan. Meanwhile, you can pick up an original iMac on eBay for less than $100. I suppose not everything appreciates in value as it gets older.
Judge reportedly leaning towards DoJ in Apple e-book case
In less than two weeks, Apple will head to trial over allegations that it colluded with five publishing houses in an effort to inflate the price of e-books. Indeed, the Justice Department last week released internal Apple emails which it claims supports the allegation that Apple was a "ringleader" in a price-fixing conspiracy. In one such email, Apple executive Eddy Cue explained to Steve Jobs that he was able to secure a deal with Random House by threatening to block an app of theirs from getting into the App Store. With a trial on the matter scheduled to kick off on June 3, Bloomberg reports that US District Judge Denise Cote -- who happens to be overseeing the trial -- expressed confidence that the government will be able to prove its case against Apple. I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that. The judge's comments seem a bit curious because, as Bloomberg notes, this will not be a jury trial. Judge Cote alone will be deciding the case on its merits. Consequently, one wonders why Cote is comfortable expressing such a strong view before hearing any testimony and the full breadth of arguments from both parties. To that end, Judge Cote did qualify that her opinion at this point is tentative. In an emailed statement to Bloomberg, Apple lawyer Orin Snyder remarked: We strongly disagree with the court's preliminary statements about the case. The court made clear that this was not a final ruling and that the evidence at trial will determine the verdict. This is what a trial is for. Apple has previously stated that it was not operating with the intent to artificially increase the price of e-books, but rather wanted to foster innovation in the e-book marketplace and break "Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry."
NYT Columnist Joe Nocera laughably calls Tim Cook a liar
As we reported previously, Tim Cook and two other Apple executives appeared before Congress earlier this week to discuss Apple's tax practices. The focus of the hearing centered on how Apple manages to keep the bulk of its foreign earned cash overseas and what might be done to incentivize Apple to bring that cash back to the US. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times today, columnist Joe Nocera misconstrues the events which took place at the hearing and proceeds to characterize Tim Cook as a liar who, according to Nocera, learned how to create a "reality distortion field" from Steve Jobs. I'm not sure if Nocera watched the entire hearing, but I did, and many of his characterizations of the events which took place are skewed at best, if not downright false. Let's dive in. Nocera writes: On Tuesday, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that Apple engaged in dubious tax avoidance gimmicks, Cook claimed that Apple never resorted to tax gimmickry. First off, given that the tax experts brought in by Congress testified that Apple's tax strategy doesn't run afoul of International Law, I fail to see how the evidence presented by the Senate Subcommittee overwhelmingly proves that Apple engaged in dubious tax avoidance gimmicks. Call it semantics if you will, but Apple's tax mechanisms are set up in such a way as to minimize the company's overall tax liability, all within the confines of the law. As easily as one can call it tax gimmickry, another could just as quickly and accurately call it tax compliance. Nocera continues: Cook said, "We pay all the taxes we owe -- every single dollar." He added that Apple had never shifted any of its American profits to an offshore tax haven when, in fact, that is basically what it has done, routing tens of billions in pretax profits to a shell corporation in Ireland that exists solely to avoid taxes in the United States. He even said that the low taxes Apple pays overseas is on the profits of its overseas sales. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this was a flat-out lie. On this point, Nocera has his facts completely backwards. In its prepared testimony to Congress, Apple also emphasized that it has never shifted any of its American profits to offshore tax havens. This is true, despite Nocera's curious assertion to the contrary. What Cook is saying here is pretty simple. Every single dollar Apple earns in the United States is taxed. Further, Apple, in no way whatsoever, moves any of its profits earned in the States abroad as to avoid paying US taxes. Regardless of what you think about Apple's tax setup with respect to its foreign earned income, Apple has not routed any of its American profits overseas. While some companies may engage in such behavior, not one iota of evidence presented even hints that Apple does any such thing. That said, Cook's assertion that the low taxes Apple pays overseas is on the profits from its overseas sales is accurate. Nocera calls this a flat-out lie, but conveniently neglects to explain why or how. Instead, he proceeds to talk about how folks in the Senate hearing were eating out of Cook's hand. In other words, Cook spent Tuesday claiming that the sun was setting when it was actually rising, and, predictably, by the time the hearing had ended, most of the senators were agreeing with him. Senator John McCain, the committee's ranking Republican, who had earlier labeled Apple "a tax avoider," was soon swooning over Apple's "incredible legacy." Again, I watched the entire hearing and to say that most of the senators were agreeing with Cook simply isn't true. The notion that McCain came out guns ablazin' against Apple, only to be left swooning over Apple's legacy is misguided. The fact of the matter is that Senators McCain and Carl Levin pulled no punches with Apple. They went after Apple hard, asked extremely tough questions and often times, really put Apple's panel of executives on the hot seat. Comments regarding Apple's aptitude for innovation and its legacy were certainly made, but these were often made in the context of, "Hey listen Apple, we think you're a great company and all, but your tax practices seem shady." In other words, praise for Apple was typically sprinkled in at the end of particularly tough question and answer periods. I encourage you to go back and watch video of Levin grilling Apple executives for an extended period of time. It almost gets uncomfortably and awkwardly intense. Levin was completely unswayed by any of Apple's testimony, it seemed. Nonetheless, Levin, at the end, noted that Apple makes great products, going so far as to say that his granddaughter has an iPhone. Moving along, Nocera continues: Indeed, Apple's fabulous success over the past decade or so - its creation of the iPads and iPhones that the world lusts over - is a large part of the reason it always gets the benefit of the doubt, whether deserved or not. Two years ago, when David Kocieniewski of The Times reported on General Electric's tax-avoidance prowess, a storm of protest resulted. Last year, however, when Kocieniewski and Charles Duhigg wrote about Apple's tax avoidance schemes as part of a series about the company that won a Pulitzer Prize, it was greeted mainly with yawns. Nobody really wants to hear anything bad about Apple. At this point, I have to wonder if Nocera is simply trying to troll us. If anything, Apple's success with the iPod, iPhone and iPad is precisely why the company rarely gets the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, Apple's unprecedented success, coupled with its billions in the bank, seems to have created an environment where Apple is often held to an entirely different standard than other companies. Furthermore, the notion that the New York Times' series of articles was greeted with yawns is laughable. It did win a Pulitzer Prize, right? On that note, Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune wrote the following this past April: The fact is, the New York Times knows how to win Pulitzers -- better than any other journalistic operation. It has now won a record 112. It employs editors who specialize in identifying Pulitzer-winning topics and assigning reporters who will bring them home. And that's what it set out to do -- with Apple as its conspicuous subject -- in seven major stories capped with a self-serving kicker that suggested that it was Times' reporting that led to substantive changes in the working conditions in China's electronics factories. As for the claim that no one wants to hear anything bad about Apple? That's even more laughable. If anything, it stands to reason that the NYT specifically targeted Apple because it knows that people love to read articles which badmouth Apple. It's a sure-fire way to generate an abundance of pageviews and attention, no matter how factual the assertions may be. Heck, some columnists have even made careers out of exploiting this dynamic (I'm looking at you Rob Enderle). Almost comically, Nocera later in his piece admits that Congress has in fact singled out Apple, just mere paragraphs after claiming that Apple is somehow always afforded the benefit of the doubt. In short, people love to hear anything bad about Apple. Who doesn't enjoy, after all, watching a giant fall? Nocera goes on to explain Apple's tax setup abroad. Subsidiaries, holding companies, Ireland -- it's all there. But here's the thing -- this isn't an Apple issue. A vast number of multinational corporations implement the same tax minimization schemes as Apple. Many companies, from Google to Pfizer to Coca-Cola all hold billions of dollars in offshore cash that they are under no legal obligation to repatriate back to the US. And with the United States' extremely high 35 percent corporate income tax rate, can you blame them? So sure, Apple has about $100 billion in profits overseas, but when you tally up the money all US-based corporations hold overseas, we start talking about trillions of dollars. Again, this isn't an Apple issue; it's a tax code issue. Howard Gleckman highlighted this very fact on the Tax Policy Center Blog: The remarkable thing about the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee's report on Apple Inc.'s corporate tax avoidance is how unremarkable it is. Because Apple is so profitable, the dollars involved will certainly attract attention (this is a Senate committee after all, so that is the point). The report alleges Apple reduced its U.S. corporate income tax by an average of $10 billion-a-year for the past four years. Since the corporate levy generated only about $240 billion in 2012, $10 billion foregone from one company is a very big number indeed. But while it added a few interesting twists, Apple cut its taxes with the same tools multinationals have been using for years to minimize their worldwide tax liability. And if there is a scandal, I suppose it is the very ordinariness of these transactions. Apple's tax avoidance shop, it seems, is a lot less innovative than its phone designers. It's also worth pointing out comments made by Senator Rob Portman during this week's hearing: If we don't reform the tax code, we're competing with one hand tied behind our back. Almost all of our industrial competitors have shifted to a territorial system including the UK, France, Germany, Japan. I think that's the right way to go. They don't tax active business income earned beyond their borders and their businesses are more competitive as a result. $1.5-$2 trillion is locked up overseas. That money is being deployed to put factories and R&D overseas. We've got to move quickly. No other nation erects such a high barrier to bringing earnings back to the US. Every one of our global competitors have reformed their tax systems since we last reformed ours. Not just the rate, but the code. If we don't reform, we'll continue to lose opportunities. Nocera, with his seeming focus on Cook's reality distortion field doesn't seem to grasp that the real issue is much larger than Apple.
Apple retail stores: 12 years later
On May 19, 2001, the first two Apple retail store opened up for business. One was located in McLean, Va., while the other was situated in Glendale, Calif. At the time, there were no shortage of critics who expressed serious doubt as to Apple's effort to get into the retail business. Now, 12 years later, Apple's line of retail stores play an instrumental role in Apple's overall sales, and more importantly, give consumers a chance to actually use Apple products in a fun and inviting environment. It may sound absurd to anyone born after 1986, but I distinctly remember a time when the only place I could test out and potentially purchase a Mac was at a local OfficeMax -- unless, of course, I wanted to mosey on down to a shady corner electronics store that somehow managed to become an authorized Apple reseller. In short, Apple's retail stores enabled the company to put its products out in front of consumers on its own terms. Today, Apple stores, given their ubiquitous nature, seem like a given. I mean, why wouldn't Apple roll out a line of retail stores? But back in the dark days of the '90's, back when Apple's marketshare continued to plummet as the company bled money, Macs were looked upon disparagingly and their presentation in the few stores that carried them reflected that perception. There are no shortage of stories surrounding Apple's foray into the retail business and the factors which led to them becoming the most profitable retail stores on the planet on a per-square-foot basis. That said, with Apple's first retail stores turning 12 this past Sunday, I thought it'd be interesting to present a few impressive factoids about the current state of Apple's retail operation. Looking back, it's hard to imagine that even the most ardent Apple enthusiast could have predicted the juggernaut Apple retail would go onto become. There are now 402 Apple retail stores worldwide. 251 of those are in the United States, 151 are located abroad. By the end of 2013, Apple will have 432 retail stores around the world. In 2013, Apple will be revamping or remodeling 20 retail locations whose success has made accommodating visitors a problem. Apple in 2012 spent nearly $1 billion on retail related capital expenditures. Apple retail stores in 2012 hosted 372 million visitors. Together, Apple retail stores comprise 4.1 million square feet. There are Apple retail stores in 13 countries. There are 5 states which have no Apple retail presence; Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia. Here are a few factoids from Apple's most recent quarter: Retail revenue checked in at $5.2 billion. Revenue per store came in at $13.1 million. Apple retail stores hosted 91 million visitors. Apple retail stores earned $57.6 per visitor. Lastly, and in the spirit of nostalgia, here's a video of Steve Jobs giving a tour of the first Apple store in McLean, Va. In typical fashion, Jobs' enthusiasm is infectious, and more importantly, authentic. Also, watch closely and see if you can spot boxes of Mac OS 9 on the shelf, you know, from an era back when Apple actually shipped packaged software.
Some comic relief from Apple's congressional appearance
Apple sent three top executives to Washington, D.C. yesterday to testify in front a congressional hearing on Apple's tax practices. Making the journey from Cupertino were CEO Tim Cook, CFO Peter Oppenheimer and Phillip Bullock -- Apple's head of Tax Operations. The hearing went on for a few hours, and as one might expect from such a controversial issue, the lively debate became intense at times. Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., took an especially tough stance on Apple, calling its tax practices "unacceptable." Nevertheless, there were moments of levity we can extract from the hearing. For starters, Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., following his pointed questions for Apple's panel about taxation, thought it high time to ask Cook about updating apps on his iPhone. "What I really wanted to ask," said McCain, "is why the hell do I have to keep updating apps on my iPhone all the time?" I can't really blame him though. I mean, McCain had to either ask Cook while he had the chance or otherwise fork over $610,000 for the opportunity to have coffee with the Apple CEO. All in all, it was some very shrewd financial planning from McCain. All kidding aside, here's McCain and Cook sharing a lighthearted moment. Second, let's have a bit of fun with Apple's tax math. In an effort to demonstrate the sheer volume in taxes Apple already pays domestically, Cook noted during his opening remarks that, in 2012, Apple paid the US Treasury "nearly $6 billion, or $16 million per day." Curious, I decided to see how much $16 million per day translates into on an hourly basis. Dividing by 24 yielded an interesting figure -- $666,666.667 per hour to be exact. Yep, the devil's number. Something tells me Levin isn't surprised. Also of note is that $666.66 was how much the Apple I originally retailed for. Saving the best for last, we have the always hilarious folks from The Onion who solicited the following "opinions" from average Joes as part of their sarcastically brilliant "American Voices" feature.
Livestream of Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer at today's congressional hearing
Catch up on all of Apple's tax controversy here as both CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer gear up to testify in front of Congress to address Apple's billions in foreign-stored cash.
Video Flashback: Steve Jobs explains why Macs don't sport 'Intel Inside' stickers
In a recent interview, outgoing Intel CEO Paul Otellini explained how he passed up on an opportunity to get Intel chips inside the original iPhone. According to Otellini, Apple and Intel couldn't come to terms regarding cost. Further, Otellini explained that he simply had no way of knowing how successful and ubiquitous the iPhone would go on to become. While there's no way to know for sure just how seriously Apple was considering Intel as a partner for the iPhone, I couldn't help but laugh at the notion of an iPhone sporting an "Intel Inside" sticker on the back. Of course, Apple would have never allowed such a thing in a million years, but the thought reminded me of an old video where Steve Jobs is asked why Apple doesn't put "Intel Inside" stickers on its Macs. The video is from August 2007 and is of a Q&A session that followed an Apple special media event where the first aluminum iMac was introduced. The pertinent part of the video begins at about 32 seconds in. Comically, the very premise of the question elicits laughter from both Tim Cook and Phil Schiller. Jobs, always masterful when put on the spot, evokes laughter and applause from the audience when he responds sharply, "What can I say? We like our own stickers better." Jobs, of course, follows that up with praise for Intel. Don't get me wrong. We love working with Intel. We're very proud to ship Intel products in Macs. I mean, they are screamers. And combined with our operating system, we've really tuned them well together, so we're really proud of that. It's just that everyone knows we're using Intel processors, and so I think putting a lot of stickers on the box is just redundant. We'd rather tell them about the product inside the box, and they know it's got an Intel processor. Makes sense to me.
Tim Cook talks about US-made Mac with Politico
Last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that Apple was bringing production of an existing Mac line to the US. Cook shared some additional details on the project in an interview with Politco that was published yesterday. Besides being assembled in the US, many of the components will be produced in the US. Cook confirmed to Politico that this manufacturing and assembly will be spread across many states in the US. Anna Palmer of Politico writes, "We're going very deep in this project," Cook said, noting that not only will the final product be manufactured in the US, but so will many of its components. Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Florida and Kentucky are among the states he mentioned as having parts and assembly located. Apple will invest US$100 million in this domestic manufacturing project. You can read the entire interview on Politico's website. [Via MacRumors]
Apple announces 50 billionth app download, contest winner
Brandon Ashmore from Mentor, Ohio hit the App Store lottery yesterday by downloading the 50 billionth app to be served by Apple's App Store. Namely, it was Say The Same Thing by Space Inch that allowed Brandon to collect his prize, and what a prize it is: an App Store gift card with US$10,000 on it. Have fun spending that, Brandon!
Steve Jobs interview wins a former nay-sayer's respect
Sometimes all it takes is a moment of time and an open mind to change your opinion of someone. In a recent column at Forbes, Drew Hansen, a management expert specializing in hyper-growth startups, writes about Steve Jobs and how The Lost Interview movie changed his view on the Apple co-founder. Hansen says he ignored Jobs' advice on building a company and cautioned entrepreneurs not to model themselves after the Apple founder. This attitude changed after Hansen watched the Lost Interview and realized he and Jobs share many of the same thoughts on building successful teams within a company. Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview is a 70-minute conversation between Jobs and Robert Cringely that was held in 1995. It was recently turned into a movie and hit theaters late last year. In this talk, Jobs highlights several things he did that made Apple successful. Among other things, Jobs talks about the need to hire A-level talent and put them together on teams. These talented individuals may bump into each other along they way, but that is part of the process of building great products. You can read more about this insight and others in the Hansen article on Forbes' website.
