You know, with the press constantly yammering on about Apple's minuscule and shrinking 2- or 3-ish percent market share of the personal computer market, it's easy to lose sight of one significant fact: the company still pulls in billions of dollars a year. Not just millions, but billions. C'mon, kick it with us Sagan-style: Billllllyuns.

Apple most recently reported that its annual revenue for fiscal 2003 was $6.21 billion, which, granted, isn't as much as Apple used to make back in the day, but it's still a scary-huge wad of bills. Convert all the money that customers spent on Apple products and services last year into hundred-dollar bills and we're talking about a stack of Bennies that weighs over 126,000 pounds-- roughly the same as 51 Toyota Celicas, 39 Dodge Stratuses, or 7.3 of the world's largest single-winder twine ball. That's one big freakin' pile of lettuce. And since at least some people think the lettuce pile is only going to get bigger, back up the tanker full of Hidden Valley Ranch and pass the big crouton!

According to a Dow Jones Newswires article sent to us by faithful viewer mrmgraphics, Steven Milunovich, an analyst at Merrill Lynch, figures that revenue from iPod sales will be in the neighborhood of a cool billion this year-- and that's a pretty ritzy neighborhood, we don't mind saying. (Swimmin' pools... movie stars.) But if you figure that the average selling price of an iPod is maybe $350 (taking into account the popularity of the $249 miniPod balancing sales of the $499 Big Giant Disk™ edition), that breaks down to over 2.8 million iPod sales this year. Considering that at the beginning of the year Apple announced that it had sold 2 million iPods ever, Milunovich's estimate might be a smidge over the line into Insane Optimism territory.

Then again, maybe not; 730,000 of those iPods (roughly 37% of the total) had been sold to frenzied holiday shoppers in the fourth calendar quarter of 2003 alone, and Apple would have sold more if it hadn't simply run out. With that kind of momentum, maybe 2.8 million iPods by New Year's isn't such a wacky scenario after all. And Milunovich goes farther still, predicting that iPods may account for as much as two billion smackers in fiscal 2006.

How will Apple deal with all the additional moolah? No worries, folks; faithful viewer bo dug up a Macworld UK article which includes all sorts of nifty tidbits about Apple's finances and strategies, courtesy of CFO Fred Anderson. (Is it just us, or is ol' Fred scoring a lot more airtime these days now that he's on the fast track to retirement?) In addition to some provocative comments about future HP-style iPod deals, increased R&D spending, and Apple's "three key drivers" for growth in 2004 ("portable-- mobility and wireless communications; the digital lifestyle and music, iPod, iPod mini and iTunes Music Store"-- hey, kids, can you spot the "three key drivers" in that hodgepodge?), Fred confirmed that Apple "would like to become a $10 billion company again" and "already has control systems in place to enable it to handle more revenues than it takes today."

So there you have it, folks: Apple has already built a bigger piggy bank, one capable of holding 11.7 enormous balls of twine. Now all it needs are the sales to fill it.

[Note: this scene's first paragraph (well, the first one after this one, anyway) was sponsored in part by the Society for the Eradication of Counterdramatic Punctuation, which seeks to eliminate any and all use of the period, also known in some English-speaking parts of the world as the "full stop." Please do no be alarmed. Normal punctuation resumes in Paragraph 2. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.]

Hey! The wiener dog made out of a banana on our wall says it's March! So where the heck are those speed-bumped Power Macs the rumor mill's been expecting in varying degrees ever since the beginning of the year? Is it possible that Apple really doesn't plan to ship them before the company's Australian Power Mac trade-up promo ends on the 26th? And more to the point, where are those G5-flavored Xserves which Apple promised would be available in February? There's no excuse for this sort of slackitude! GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET!!

Well, here's the thing about the Power Macs: since Apple has never formally announced any sort of update to the product line (except for an increase to 3 GHz sometime this summer), it's actually sort of tough to get all indignant with Apple for being "late," but hey, that never stopped us from trying. Besides, at this rate, by the time Apple finally ships a 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5, everyone'll just wait six weeks and buy the imminent 3 GHz model instead. (So you see, we whine out of love.) If you're looking for answers, we haven't got any, but AppleInsider figures that new Power Macs now won't surface until the "end of March, at the earliest," due possibly to problems getting hold of enough Radeon 9x00XT graphics cards from ATI. Mac Rumors, on the other hand, cites an "unverified source" claiming that the delay is actually related to "difficulties with cooling in the faster machines." Take your pick.

As for the Xserve, well, that's even scarier; despite Apple's original claim that G5-equipped Xserves would be "available in February," the Apple Store currently quotes a lead time of "5-7 weeks" on new Xserve G5 orders-- and is, perhaps tellingly, still selling G4-based models which ship in a mere "3-5 business days." AppleInsider reports that early orders of the G5-based servers were originally slated to ship early last month but recently slid to the end of March, and posits that "insufficient stockpiles of the new 90-nanometer G5 processor" are to blame. (Oh, so Motorola's making them now? Who knew?)

Now, amid all these fine theories, allow us to inject one more, which may be far too obvious to mention, but what the heck-- we aren't paid for subtlety (although we are entertaining bids). Remember when most shipments of the original Power Mac G5 were delayed for weeks and weeks, and it came to light that it was because all of the initial G5s had been hijacked to fill educational orders first? No, it wasn't fair, but it did allow Virginia Tech to build its 1,100-Power Mac cluster in time to qualify as the third-fastest supercomputer in existence. And really, wasn't that worth waiting an extra month?

Well, we're sure you recall that the school recently announced its plan to replace all 1,100 Power Macs with G5-based Xserves, which are far better suited for the task of sitting in a rack somewhere chewing on numbers all day. Granted, this time around Virginia Tech isn't facing any deadlines, but given how much business the school has brought Apple both directly and indirectly, plus the sheer amount of street cred the Mac gained by forming the basis for one of the world's fastest and yet cheapest supercomputers, we wouldn't be surprised if Apple was rolling out the red carpet and redirecting all Xserves down Hokie Way until the school has what it needs. And since new Power Mac models would almost certainly use the same new 90-nanometer chips as the Xserves, well, there's your "insufficient stockpiles" right there.

If this theory turns out to be correct, then the Mac community's love-hate relationship with Virginia Tech will likely sink to dangerous new depths. But just remember, folks: you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?

Health warning! Have you been feeling a little too... comfortable lately? Studies have shown that a state of general emotional contentment is a major contributing factor in the onset of nonspecific spleen failure, and since no one is more concerned about the health of your spleen than we are, here's a quickie that might make your skin crawl a bit and get that blood pumping: the G5 was almost an Intel chip.

AAAAIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHH! Yeah, see? We knew that'd getcha. Here's to your spleen; as for your heart, well, you know what they say about omelettes and eggs. By the way, you're welcome.

Anyway, what raised the whole Intel-G5 issue is an article at The Inquirer, pointed out by faithful viewer agentofchange, which purportedly contains the text of a swiped internal IBM memo trumpeting the company's recent success in snagging the Xbox 2 contract while Intel cried boo-hoo. Not in public, of course; in front of the cameras, Intel's response to Microsoft switching its game console platform from x86 to PowerPC has been little more than a shrug, as if to say, "oooh, we lost the contract to make the chips for a toy; we're sooooo scared." But, of course, it's not really as simple as that; we're far too lazy to do the research (and we really can't risk any more disciplinary action from the Non-Journalists Union), but we're guessing that the console gaming industry is showing at least as much growth as the personal and enterprise computing markets-- probably more. So IBM is right to crow, seeing as it now either makes or will make the chips powering each of the three heavy-hitter consoles in the business.

So what does this have to do with the G5, you ask? Well, it all comes down to a very interesting line in IBM's internal "WE FEEL GREAT" memo: "We've handed Intel another defeat. Earlier this year, we kept them out of the Apple G5 and now we've thrown them out of Xbox." Now, it could just be a matter of clumsy construction, but the phrase "we kept them out of the Apple G5" certainly implies to us that, had IBM not had the PowerPC 970 to offer, rather than leave the fate of its high-end systems in the hands of Motorola, Apple may have jumped tracks and the Power Mac G5 could have wound up being the first Mac with an "Intel Inside" label stuck on the front. Actually, knowing Apple, it would have been laser-engraved into the aluminum, but still, you get the point.

And if the prospect of an Intel-powered Mac isn't really giving you a case of the twitchies, consider this other consequence of an x86 Power Mac G5: Rob Enderle would have been right for once. If that's not enough to get your spleen going, well, you should check your pulse while you're at it, because you're probably dead. Enjoy zombiehood.