How Apple sliced its pie in 2009

The Mac and iPod slices shrank between '08 and '09. iTunes grew a bit. iPhone grew a lot.

[Originally posted Oct. 28 at Fortune.com.]

Steve Jobs likes to describe Apple's (AAPL) business model as a stool built on three-legs: the Mac, the iPod and the iPhone.

But a quick glance at the 2009 Form 10-K, which Apple filed on Tuesday, shows that it is now more like a four-leg chair, with a couple of wedge-shaped pillows on the side.

The Mac and iPod still bring in the biggest part of Apple's total sales revenue -- 37.7% and 22.1%, respectively -- but their shares of the pie are shrinking.

The iPhone, meanwhile, is rapidly catching up, thanks to unit sales that grew 78% and GAAP revenue (swelled by deferred revenue dating back to 2007) that grew 266%. The iPhone now accounts for 18.5% of Apple's sales, just behind the iPod.

The fourth leg of the chair is the line item Apple calls "other music related products and services" but which is mostly iTunes Store sales -- music, video and apps. It continues to grow at a steady pace and now represents about 11% of Apple's net sales.

Spreadsheets summarizing Apple's revenue streams are pasted below the fold. Apple's 2009 Form 10-K is available as a pdf file here.

[Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter @philiped]

Microsoft's grinning robots

[Originally posted Sept. 28, 2009 at Fortune.com]

One of the disadvantages of reading American newspapers is that you don't get Charlie Brooker delivered to your doorstep.

Brooker is a British comedian and, as everyone who reads The Guardian knows, the author of the Screen Burn column that appears in G2 every Monday.

He's also Britain's funniest and most enthusiastic Apple (AAPL) basher -- an honorific he secured with a Feb. 5, 2007 column that included this classic paragraph:

"I hate Macs. I have always hated Macs. I hate people who use Macs. I even hate people who don't use Macs but sometimes wish they did. Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui." (link)

Now, in Monday's Guardian, he offers a sort of bookend to that 2007 column -- a companion piece in which he reveals his true feelings about Microsoft (MSFT) Windows. He still hates Macs and Mac users, but it's not as if thinks Windows is so great. In fact, he writes:

Why are there no Mac viruses?

[Originally posted Sept. 2, 2009 on Fortune.com]

There are, as far as we know, no Mac OS X viruses in the wild.

To prove that assertion wrong, you only have to name one.

Academic proofs of concept and theoretical vulnerabilities don't count. Neither do computer worms, Trojan horses, spyware, adware, spam or any of the other nasty species in the zoology of malware.

That eliminates Inqtana-A, iBotNet, MacSweeper and a handful of other examples of Mac malware usually trotted out at this point by PC apologists. Nor can you count the 10-second Zero Day Pwn2Own Safari exploit that got so much press attention last March. None of these, strictly speaking, were viruses.

The issue comes up anew because Apple's (AAPL) latest Get a Mac ads are once again hammering Microsoft (MSFT) for those "thousands of viruses" to which its operating systems and application suites are heir. And that, in turn, has led to a resurgence of comments in this space to the effect that a) Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows machines and b) the only thing that protects them is their miniscule market share.

Those ideas, while widely promulgated on the Web, are wrong. The fact that Mac OS X represents less than 4% of the worldwide installed base of computers might explain why there are fewer Mac viruses. But it wouldn't explain why there are none.

So what's the answer?

First, let's define some terms.